Talk:Water jet cutter

message: How does the water get "caught" after it has cut? If this device can cut through almost anything, what's to stop the water jet? (Perhaps it lands in a pool of water?) —Ben FrantzDale 14:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A pool of water is correct. There are also vertical sacrificial slats mostly submerged in the pool of water. —Ben FrantzDale 01:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: There are multiple ways to catch the water and hold the material. Some companies use ball bearings, some use metal slats, other use metal slats with additional materials (plastics, foams, etc.) for holding the material in the air. In the case of the pools of water (commonly refered to as a catcher tank), you can actually damage the tank if the jet stays in the same position for a number of hours or longer. They really do cut through anything. Engunneer 23:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I work at a company that cuts cross link foam with water jets.  We do not use abrasives, so a thick aluminum pan 6-12" below the chain the foam sits on works just fine and they only need replaced every few years.  We used to use bricks made out of corrugated plastic and those lasted about a month.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.5.44 (talk) 04:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I can attest to this conversation, we've cut through our tank on two occasions. There was also a ~3/8" plate of steel we were using to prevent this that it also cut through. Though we were using a big orifice, at 82ksi, with a high abrasive feed rate (lots of energy input). A big factor not yet mentioned is stand off distance. Waterjets do not maintain their ability to cut at a substantial distance. 184.0.192.146 (talk) 03:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catching the water 

message: and what is it doing in the article? I couldn't figure it out. 132.68.56.153 14:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: good question. I thought I had deleted it before, but I sure did this time. --Chuck Sirloin 14:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A few years late to the party, but the UMR stonehenge was cut by waterjets. 184.0.192.146 (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the UMR stonehenge?

message: Inches and PSI are not internationally accepted measurements and generally mean little to people outside north america. LennyValentin 04:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added millimetres and megapascals based on an online conversion from the imperial measurements given in the article. If someone has sourced metric figures, please replace mine. It's probably also best to leave the imperial measurements in front, certainly until there are proper metric figures. Leushenko 23:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The pressure units were wrong. 400MPa gives 4000atm, which is impossible to obtain. The correct is 400kPa, approximately 4atm. fuchsroter 10 December 2007  —Preceding comment was added at 19:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is incorrect, and pressures close to atmospheric are what you get out of a Super Soaker. I have reverted it back to MPa.--Ceriel Nosforit (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be SI standardised. 

message: are jet cutters really used in wood working? It seems like they would do more harm than good by exposing the wood to the abrasive medium an well as saturating the part with water.Boatman666 (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Depending on the type of wood, it does not absorb much water. The abrasive material is equivalent to using sandpaper. Letting the wood dry out properly restores it to good condition. Engunneer (talk) 20:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  wood tool 

message: There's a new article titled Waterjet cuttinghead.  It's quite short.  I'd like to suggest that the material, if deemed useful, be merged into the main article here rather than being maintained as a separate article.
: I just changed the page to redirect to this one. That page had zero content in three sentences, so I don't think anything was lost. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 00:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Waterjet cuttinghead]] 

message: The cited sources are from the manufacturers web pages. I would trust that most of the technical details are correct, but assertions such as "waterjet is a green technology" should be supported by a more authoritative source. --Wilhkar (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the subjective reference to "green" technology from the paragraph, because it's difficult to determine how green is green-enough to be "considered green".  I think the more objective statements comprising the rest of the paragraph stand on their own, and make the point well enough.  -- Burnishe (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: sources

message: "... An abrasive water-jet cutter puts the final cuts on a special tool  ... ". A "special tool"?  Please! It's a spanner !!! (wrench?). What was that previous comment about needing a more authoritative source? Looks like we need that here.
Old_Wombat (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the subjective phrase "special tool" to the more objective phrase "metal tool".  -- Burnishe (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight problem with the wording in one of the images. 

message: If the water is at high enough pressures to cut through basically anything, what prevents the jet from eroding the nozzle? 124.149.178.14 (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the pressure (which is isotropic) that cuts, it's the momentum (which has a direction). So the cutting happens "ahead" of the nozzle, where the jet impacts upon the workpiece, not alongside, to the sidewalls of the nozzle. There is some nozzle wear, true, but this is handled by making the nozzles from hard-wearing materials, such as ceramics or even artificial sapphire (which is cheaper than you might think). Nozzles are also easily replaceable as a consumable part. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nozzle 

message: I removed the refimprove tag from Feb 2009 because 24 additional references have been added to the article since that tag was added, and almost every statement in the article now includes a reference. -- Burnishe (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed refimprove tag from Feb 2009 

message: I think a disadvantages sections is needed.  Abrasive Waterjets are self destructive, frequently needing maintenance. It's worthwhile to note that methinks. --64.4.68.234 (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disadvantages  

message: While making other corrections I think I may have removed a few too many double quotes in the references while cleaning up.  The document was littered with opening quotes, double quotes, smart quotes, inverted commas and what not.  The usage in the references was especially erratic so I deleted a bunch.  Perhaps they could all be robot corrected back to the correct type if there is a standard for references.  I noticed the reference I placed got quotes when using the cite web template tool.
Please do not revert the other changes, they were much needed.
Idyllic press (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oops, too many double quotes removed