Is the Dual-Action Polisher Safe?

[gmitch23]

Re: Is the Dual-Action Polisher Safe?

I'm not condoning making sure information is accurate, i just think there's a more polite way to point out a mistake. You dont want someone to correct you in middle of a class you are teaching where everyone can hear how your wrong. Private Message someone to correct/educate them and then let them clarify thier message. Even though no one meant it in a rude way it came across that way to some readers and probably junkman though he probably doesnt care enough to bring it up.

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Is the Dual-Action Polisher Safe?

Honestly, we don't think anyone here owe's anyone else an apology - but we do want to make sure things stay civil here.

Obviously there is no clutch, per se, but just how, specifically, the darn thing allows the pad to stop rotating has been the subject of debate for a very long time. It seems that using the term "clutch like" to describe a "disengagement" of the head has been the "easy out" when lacking an exact description of the process. But this comment of Todd's It has a bearing that allows the pad to spin freely. This makes it safer to use then a rotary because a rotary forces the pad to spin really does more accurately describe what's going on inside the tool. But more than that, it also conveys the major difference between the D/A and the rotary, and that is what most new users want to know.

Sure, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter how it does this, just that it does do it so that new users can polish paint with a high safety factor. And, yes, perhaps the free-floating spindle bearing assembly can give the outward appearance of there being a clutch like action taking place - after all, at one point the pad is oscillating and rotating and then suddenly it's just oscillating. It sure seems like something could have disengaged. After all, when you depress the clutch pedal in your car things disengage as well, right? But it seems most of us, even when using the terms "clutch" or "clutch like" in the past, have know all along that there's no true clutch at play here. But we didn't really know how else to convey the action in a simple way.

It has a bearing that allows the pad to spin freely. This makes it safer to use then a rotary because a rotary forces the pad to spin That seems pretty darn simple. And certainly much more accurate.

But let's not get overly involved in this. We all use analogies to describe things, to convey an idea or concept. Again, how the D/A accomplishes the task is less important than the simple fact that it does. And how anyone chooses to describe how it does it is also less important than that a new user understands the basic concept.

[Kevin Brown]

Re: Is the Dual-Action Polisher Safe?

So... I guess I shouldn't post the opinion I've been putting together?

Oh well... so much for the solid argument against categorizing all random orbital machines as using a "Free Floating Spindle Assembly".

I'll go back to work instead...

p.s. -Yeah, I just about fell outta my chair when an "apology" was requested from one guy to another guy... for another guy! Heat. Kitchen. You know the deal.

[Kevin Brown]

Re: Is the Dual-Action Polisher Safe?

FWIW... I LOVE IT when people get technical!

Bummer to see all this hoopla from three or four of the top “online teachers” in our industry. Is is intriguing, however.

I am glad we have guys out there that break things down for the beginner. Sometimes when we have been involved in a field or career for an extended period of time and we're discussing products and procedures, we skip over the basics and move right into the advanced, often forgetting that the guy we're talking to doesn't really know the "lingo". This is why a beginner with an ability or strong desire to "teach" other beginners “connects” so well.

But remember- we all are beginners at some point.

If, through diligent research, training, and practice we advance our knowledge beyond that of a beginner AND we can remember how it felt to "want to know how things are done" or "how they work", we can certainly teach other beginners. Right?

I hope I have maintained the ability teach beginners a thing or two about this industry.

There is, however, a class of other guys. These are the fellas that want to know why things work the way they do. You know them- they're the knuckle-bustin' mechanic types! Guys that will paint their own car... wash their own dog... change their own oil... you know, hands-on types.

I hope I have the ability teach these guys a thing or two about this industry, too.

Funny thing is... sometimes we hook a sucker, errr- beginner, and he becomes obsessed with this wonderful world of polishing. These dudes tend to stay up late perusing the forums, researching threads & posts, and scouring the various detailing websites. They are on the hunt for the perfect polish, wax, machine, or method. They e-mail other guys, send PM's, and watch videos to “get the edge”.

If these guys are brought in “softly” and are taught using only generalizations to “keep it simple”, I don’t see anything worng with that. But!- if, after they become more advanced in their knowledge and then realize that some of the generalizations caused them to completely misunderstand how or why something works... can you fault another guy for “setting him straight”?

I don’t think you can at all.

So, from both sides of the coin...

Trying to make one guy feel foolish because he is “overcomplicating things” for the average guy assumes that ALL guys just want to learn the basics. Not true.

On the other hand, writing a sixty-five page tutorial on how something “probably works” (okay- I am referring to ME, and no it ain’t done yet) and hoping it will be geared for beginners and advanced users might actually BE foolish. But for me to come out and say, “Who wants to have something dumbed down? Nobody I know!”, would certainly be offensive too, wouldn’t it? Darned right it would be!

Meguiar’s offers Beginner and Advanced “how to” classes. Both classes are taught by Mike Pennington and Mike Stoops. Obviously, they simpify things for the beginners, and “put the pedal to the metal” for the advanced guys.

Along the same line... does anyone truly believe that Mike Phillips didn’t notice the lack of a clutch in the random orbital as he used them, repaired them for customers when he was a Meguiar’s Detailer distributor, and changed backing plates through hundreds of classes he taught at Meguiar’s? Not likely.

One thing is clear- generalizing how things work for the newbies has the potential to confuse them down the line. Sometimes what was said is not what was heard. “Clutch” and “clutchlike” wouldn’t be too hard to confuse to a beginner... especially if, at that time, he didn’t even know what a “clutch” looked like, or how one worked!

So yeah, I agree with Todd and Stoops on this one... call a bearing a bearing, for simplicity sake.

And those of you that want to know all about the in-depth, kooky and krazy physics that occur when one of these things does its business... I’m right there with you!!

[Kevin Brown]

Re: Is the Dual-Action Polisher Safe?

Now... about that spinny, whirlaroundy thingy used to make the pad rotate...

While I understand why Porter Cable uses their term, "Free Rotating Spindle Assembly", it does not apply to all random orbital machines because not all random orbital "assemblies" are assembled together as one unit. Besides- this is Porter Cable’s terminology. I suspect that other companies in the business of building machines would reserve the right to use their own terminology, thank you very much.

So for me, that term is useful, but I don’t recognize it as the official authorized name unless we’re discussing a Porter Cable machine. That being said... it is a pretty darned good name!

Before anybody asked Porter Cable how they referred to the assembly that was bolted to their machine (the part that spins around and holds the bearing and backing plate mounting spindle), I referred to a similar part used in the Meguiar’s G100 as the “random orbital mechanism" in some diagrams I had made for a paper about the random orbital. Here they are:









My intent in creating these was to show how the random orbital creates its two seperate motions, and how the oscillations combine with the rotating motion to create the wonderful action most of us have come to appreciate.

I ended up posting these on MOL to illustrate the point that there are no clutches in the random orbital. I did so because I had seen posts alluding the the non-existent ”clutch”. One day, I read this post on a TID thread about backing plates:

http://truthindetailing.com/Forum/showpost.php?p=16509&postcount=13

I responed to his question using the diagrams, and also started this thread here:

http://meguiarsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37597

I felt it was time to address this issue using the picture diagrams. I wasn’t trying to correct any one persons advice, since I didn’t know if the guy was told there was a clutch in the machine, or he just “kinda figured” there was a clutch in the machine.

Upon seeing the diagrams, MOL member ZoranC brought up this point:

“When it comes to using (the) word "mechanism" to describe (the) manner in which something works, it is my opinion that (it) should not be done, period.”

Now, I am not sure exactly what his point of contention was, other than perhaps, “Don’t make up a name for someting if there isn’t one”, or, “Don’t call something a mechanism if there is a more appropriate name for it”.

The rest of his comments regarding this matter are here:

http://meguiarsonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=369275&postcount=53

Perhaps he was essentially saying that a hammer is called a hammer because you can use it to hammer stuff (such as a nail) into something. Or, you can use a saw to saw a chunk of wood in half. So for him, those are sufficiently accurate names. Sure, you can use a hammer to “pound stuff” or to “shape” metal, but his point was clear.

Don’t get this wrong here-

In my defense, I used the term “Random Orbital Mechanism” along with the diagrams. Regardless, I took his comments to heart, and every now and then, I try to figure out the best way to describe the parts of the machine that create such unique motions. The problem is, the parts are not always grouped together. So, trying to sum up the pieces using one word, such as “engine”, “transmission”, or “motor”, is hard to do.

Check out the DeWalt DW443 and B/D6121 as an example:





Hole is offset from the driveshaft axis:


Back side of the fan Counterweight is shown):


The backing plate mounts to this part via four screws:

So... I have come up with a phrase that I think might properly define the parts of any random orbital that are responsible for creating the eccentric and free-rotating backing plate motion. These parts include:

• A motor-driven driveshaft that is used to propel the backing plate mounting point around the driveshaft axis
• A backing plate mounting point
• A free-spinning bearing that allows the backing plate mounting point to rotate in either direction
• A backing plate
• A counterbalance (perhaps not “dynamic” nor necessary to create the motion, but necessary for extending machine life, increasing user comfort, and offset balancing the movement of all other moving components )

With a possibility of removing the counterbalance from the equation (or not), do you believe that the term,

Dynamic Components of the Random Orbital

would encompass all the parts listed while accurately identifying these parts as being responsible for the motions created by the machine, regardless of their placement in the machine?

I am not looking to "trademark" the term, or be given "credit" for the term... I just want a term that I can use throughout my paper, with diagrams, and during conversation, that would stand the test of "discriminating" individuals.

Feel free to chime in (you too, Zoran... it’s awfully quiet ‘round here these days without your counterpoints).

I am open to ridicule, harassment, and chide. Discussions are FUN. Debates are FUN.

[BobbyG]

Re: Is the Dual-Action Polisher Safe?

This thread was actually a pretty good read!

[TH0001]

Re: Is the Dual-Action Polisher Safe?

Now... about that spinny, whirlaroundy thingy used to make the pad rotate...

While I understand why Porter Cable uses their term, "Free Rotating Spindle Assembly", it does not apply to all random orbital machines because not all random orbital "assemblies" are assembled together as one unit. Besides- this is Porter Cable’s terminology. I suspect that other companies in the business of building machines would reserve the right to use their own terminology, thank you very much.

So for me, that term is useful, but I don’t recognize it as the official authorized name unless we’re discussing a Porter Cable machine. That being said... it is a pretty darned good name!

Before anybody asked Porter Cable how they referred to the assembly that was bolted to their machine (the part that spins around and holds the bearing and backing plate mounting spindle), I referred to a similar part used in the Meguiar’s G100 as the “random orbital mechanism" in some diagrams I had made for a paper about the random orbital. Here they are:









My intent in creating these was to show how the random orbital creates its two seperate motions, and how the oscillations combine with the rotating motion to create the wonderful action most of us have come to appreciate.

I ended up posting these on MOL to illustrate the point that there are no clutches in the random orbital. I did so because I had seen posts alluding the the non-existent ”clutch”. One day, I read this post on a TID thread about backing plates:

http://truthindetailing.com/Forum/showpost.php?p=16509&postcount=13

I responed to his question using the diagrams, and also started this thread here:

http://meguiarsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37597

I felt it was time to address this issue using the picture diagrams. I wasn’t trying to correct any one persons advice, since I didn’t know if the guy was told there was a clutch in the machine, or he just “kinda figured” there was a clutch in the machine.

Upon seeing the diagrams, MOL member ZoranC brought up this point:

“When it comes to using (the) word "mechanism" to describe (the) manner in which something works, it is my opinion that (it) should not be done, period.”

Now, I am not sure exactly what his point of contention was, other than perhaps, “Don’t make up a name for someting if there isn’t one”, or, “Don’t call something a mechanism if there is a more appropriate name for it”.

The rest of his comments regarding this matter are here:

http://meguiarsonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=369275&postcount=53

Perhaps he was essentially saying that a hammer is called a hammer because you can use it to hammer stuff (such as a nail) into something. Or, you can use a saw to saw a chunk of wood in half. So for him, those are sufficiently accurate names. Sure, you can use a hammer to “pound stuff” or to “shape” metal, but his point was clear.

Don’t get this wrong here-

In my defense, I used the term “Random Orbital Mechanism” along with the diagrams. Regardless, I took his comments to heart, and every now and then, I try to figure out the best way to describe the parts of the machine that create such unique motions. The problem is, the parts are not always grouped together. So, trying to sum up the pieces using one word, such as “engine”, “transmission”, or “motor”, is hard to do.

Check out the DeWalt DW443 and B/D6121 as an example:





Hole is offset from the driveshaft axis:


Back side of the fan Counterweight is shown):


The backing plate mounts to this part via four screws:

So... I have come up with a phrase that I think might properly define the parts of any random orbital that are responsible for creating the eccentric and free-rotating backing plate motion. These parts include:

• A motor-driven driveshaft that is used to propel the backing plate mounting point around the driveshaft axis
• A backing plate mounting point
• A free-spinning bearing that allows the backing plate mounting point to rotate in either direction
• A backing plate
• A counterbalance (perhaps not “dynamic” nor necessary to create the motion, but necessary for extending machine life, increasing user comfort, and offset balancing the movement of all other moving components )

With a possibility of removing the counterbalance from the equation (or not), do you believe that the term,

Dynamic Components of the Random Orbital

would encompass all the parts listed while accurately identifying these parts as being responsible for the motions created by the machine, regardless of their placement in the machine?

I am not looking to "trademark" the term, or be given "credit" for the term... I just want a term that I can use throughout my paper, with diagrams, and during conversation, that would stand the test of "discriminating" individuals.

Feel free to chime in (you too, Zoran... it’s awfully quiet ‘round here these days without your counterpoints).

I am open to ridicule, harassment, and chide. Discussions are FUN. Debates are FUN.

Kevin, thanks once again for sharing your well of knowledge so freely. I know it takes time (not to mention the years of experience and study) to be type such a well thought out reply.

[TH0001]

Re: Is the Dual-Action Polisher Safe?

Dynamic Components of the Random Orbital

would encompass all the parts listed while accurately identifying these parts as being responsible for the motions created by the machine, regardless of their placement in the machine?

I am not looking to "trademark" the term, or be given "credit" for the term... I just want a term that I can use throughout my paper, with diagrams, and during conversation, that would stand the test of "discriminating" individuals

That sounds perfectly thought out and logical to me.

[Kevin Brown]

Re: Is the Dual-Action Polisher Safe?

This thread was actually a pretty good read!

Good debate... good reading!

Kevin, thanks once again for sharing your well of knowledge so freely. I know it takes time (not to mention the years of experience and study) to be type such a well thought out reply.

Happy to add to the pot o' detailing info. Getting hard to keep up with all you younger guys.

That sounds perfectly thought out and logical to me.

That's ONE..!

[Michael Stoops]

Re: Is the Dual-Action Polisher Safe?

That's ONE..!

One more here!

[Kevin Brown]

Re: Is the Dual-Action Polisher Safe?

One more here!

Add another PEPPER to the row...!

[Asphalt Rocket]

Re: Is the Dual-Action Polisher Safe?

Great thread on showing the inner workings of a da. Hopefully the clutch word will now not be used. Now where is the diagram of the Milwaukee da.

[Fly Bye]

Re: Is the Dual-Action Polisher Safe?

Feel free to chime in (you too, Zoran... it’s awfully quiet ‘round here these days without your counterpoints).

[TH0001]

Re: Is the Dual-Action Polisher Safe?

I guess we are never going to get our thanks, huh Kev?

[phaseonedetailing]

Re: Is the Dual-Action Polisher Safe?

Have you tried any of Rupes Products?