Talk:Numerical control

message: Can this be added as a reference? https://cncmachines.com/what-is-a-cnc-machine  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.136.164.212 (talk) 18:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Source 

message: I just went through and depicted all of the refs and correlated them with the correct bibliographic entries, however this ref I couldn't correlate. If someone else knows what it is supposed to be I would appreciate their help. Thanks! Wizard191 (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "New Technology, pg. 47" ref 

message: It was discussed on this talk page a while back (see Talk:Numerical control/Archive 1#Recent cleanup was well-founded (drat!) but article development continues). Recently I was motivated to coalesce some info at the article "automation" that addresses the larger context (automation in general, not just NC/CNC). So I'll find a sensible way to point from this article to that discussion for readers who want more info on the topic. — ¾-10 02:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Returning to the topic of the social impact of automation 

message: "Enter MIT
This was not an impossible problem to solve, but would require some sort of feedback system, like a selsyn, to directly measure how far the controls had actually turned. Faced with the daunting task of building such a system, "
There is no way things like this would be accepted in a acceptable encyclopedia. This article needs a MAJOR rewrite.
--69.123.205.100 (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But why? I guess you mean that WP:NPOV extends so far as not calling a task daunting. If that's basically what you mean, I think you're misinterpreting the NPOV concept. The article isn't "biased against" the task of incorporating a feedback loop (not calling it harder than it really was). It's just acknowledging the reality (the malice of inanimate objects, as M. R. James might have called it). If you removed this way of phrasing, the next problem you would have is that the average reader would have no concept of whether a small problem or a large problem was being faced (being naturally unknowledgeable about the topic). In other words, how else would we succinctly convey that this was a "major surgery" problem as opposed to a "band-aid" problem? — ¾-10 01:20, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the problem is that this article feels too dramatic, which (in my mind at least) lowers the overall credibility of the article.  I don't know exactly how to classify it, but the article feels a little more like an essay, or a school report, then an entry you would see in an encyclopedia.  And perhaps the word 'large' would be a synonymous but less dramatic substitute for 'daunting?'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.140.4 (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know, this view doesn't resonate with me. It's not inappropriate for an encyclopedia to call a task daunting if it is in fact daunting. There are many examples in engineering. The biggest ones, of course, are things like the Mercury and Apollo NASA programs, or the Hoover Dam, or the Manhattan Project; but even the countless smaller and less famous ones were daunting for the people working on them. For example, the program to develop the 747 was a hair-raising gamble for Boeing, and there were a lot of sleepless nights for the engineers and machinists involved. The effort to write the OED was daunting. There are others who share the register aversion, but given that it's artifactual (coming from enculturation rather than inherent in reality), I think it's best to move beyond it and just be completely honest in Wikipedia articles, and call a spade a spade. This register aversion always makes me think of the scene in the Wizard of Oz film where the wizard yells to the visitors to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. He's insecurely trying to hide reality from them because it won't be as impressive as his puffed-up pretense. But the attempt is futile, because it assumes that the visitors are dumb enough to fall for it. Whereas they're actually smart enough to trust their own eyes. I think here in the internet era, where overt cynicism and iconoclasm have now been a part of our culture for a long while, and many readers have plenty of intelligence (if not knowledge of the specific topic they came to read about), most Wikipedia readers would rather just hear the truth via "le mot juste" rather than be condescended to by the wizard trying to put on airs. They actually find it more credible to hear the straight dope than to know that the tone of the phrasing is going to have to be discounted as a stylized convention (which is actually a kind of institutionalized dishonesty in a way—a lack of credibility in its own right). I guess what I'm trying to say (maybe not succeeding too well) is that this register aversion feels to me like Bowdler's attitude toward Shakespeare. Although he didn't know it, the attitude was never as necessary as he thought, because, contrary to his belief, the audience "can handle the truth". And when people read EULAs or website terms-&-conditions, they actually find it refreshing to find "normal people's register" as opposed to fossilized or evasive legalese (which they know darn well is not to be trusted). — ¾-10 02:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The Fairey/Ferranti companies had a computer-controlled milling machine in operation making production parts in 1961 according to here:  - according to here:  they in '1957 create the world’s first computer controlled 3D CNC milling machine in partnership with Ferranti.'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOT Encycolpedic 

message: I recently redirected the numerics into this article, since all of its content was about numerical control and it didn't clarify in its lede how it could be a different subject.  In the stub, though, there was a paragraph that seemed from a cursory glance to be worthy of including here.  I'm just not sure where it would go.
The PCs that are used in industrial automation are usually an industrialized version of the x86 family of computers. The main difference between consumer electronics and industrial electronics is that the industrial electronics can tolerate sub-zero temperatures and is designed to withstand dusty and electromagnetically noisy environment. For example, metallic dust can short-circuit electric circuits, which in turn can literally destroy the electrical circuits. Industrial electronics is designed to keep the dust out of the chassis. The electrical noise, which is mostly generated by  electrical motors, is dealt with by using optical cables instead of electrical ones or the electrical data communication (see:bus (computing)) cabling is well shielded (electromagnetic shielding, Faraday Cage).
It's not cited, though, so we could always just not include any of it. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 18:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Content from merge

message: As was old. The content:
* This article includes a list of references, but its sources remain unclear because it has insufficient inline citations. (January 2015)
* This article needs additional citations for verification. (June 2015) -Inowen (nlfte) 11:34, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed multiple issues box 

message: The article defines CNC as "[...] the automated control of machining tools [...] by means of a computer", but it also lists 3D printers as an example of a CNC machine. Machining refers to subtractive manufacturing, while 3D printers use additive manufacturing. Should the definition of CNC as exclusively referring to subtractive manufacturing be revised, or should 3D printers be excluded? If 3D printers are to be included, what else counts as a CNC machine? Are inkjet printers CNC machines? --AwaweWiki (talk) 16:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are 3D printers CNC machines or not? 

message: I created a section labeled basics in creating G&M codes. I basically made a little section about how you can start out making a G&M code if you're just learning how to do it. I talked about a few G&M codes that preform basic functions and I also added some tips. Shawnbyfield04 (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your effort, but I'm afraid I had to revert it. Per WP:NOTHOWTO, this sort of content is off-mission for Wikipedia. You might be able to find a home for it at Wikiversity if you like writing this kind of thing. MrOllie (talk) 23:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating G&M Codes