Talk:Injection moulding
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] artificial flower (image)
sorry, but the given image does not show artiffical flower which has been made with Injection molding. that might be true for the green leaves beneath but the flowers itself are realy not a very good example for an mold making product. Adaso 14:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] On Spelling
As of June 8, 2006, Google.com reports: 1.9 million hits for "Injection Moulding" 5.7 million hits for "Injection Molding"
Just want to make sure we all know how language works - language is what people are using. It has always been this way, and it always will be that way. There is no "right way". The Queen's English is part of a repressive regime which most of the time only serves to accentuate class boundaries. This can stifle progress.
At the end of the day, we use what most people use. That means some things get left behind. Sorry, that's the way the world works. Using the minority spelling here is some kind of grab for respect, which, you know, you probably should get at home or something. :)
Shouldn't this article be in Chinese anyway? Most of the world's injection molding is happening there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mlprater (talk • contribs) 14:51, June 8, 2006.
- It seems to have been created that way, but there have been a couple edits to change mold to mould [1]. The split of how pages link to this subject is mixed, I count 45 through "mold" and variants, and 43 through "mould". Should someone just be bold? --GargoyleMT 20:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- This got me too. I was wondering why the more popular (not to mention American, where Wikipedia originated and is hosted) is not used for this article. JettaMann 19:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
~"The Queen's English is part of a repressive regime which most of the time only serves to accentuate class boundaries."
~Ya got to love this guy's sense of humor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.36.62.140 (talk • contribs) 11:53, February 1, 2007 (UTC)
- Shouldn't that be "humour"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.71.135.43 (talk • contribs) 02:25, March 18, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reverted Change from Quickparts
Quickparts - Injection Molding is a commerical site. It contains no technical or informative resources. It has therefore, been reverted to previous revision. Does anyway see a reason why this link should be kept? BeastRHIT 01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] beryllium copper
Since my last attempt at toning down the beryllium copper addition was reverted, could someone (perhaps the author) try an alternate approach? The addition seems to build up to the mention of a disease associated with machining the material, I'm not sure if it is intentional or not. I think this mold material (and the disease) have a lot more coverage than the other types, given its real world usage. However, my experience is limited, since I see mostly prototype tools made from Aluminum. --GargoyleMT 13:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Aluminum is used in prototype or limited run molds,it does not wear well over long periods, where as beryllium copper is found more commonly in proven production (high part count) molds. I will, however, agree that the passage pertaining to the 'disease' was somewhat tangiential. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.71.135.43 (talk • contribs) 02:27, March 18, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Cavitation?
From the article... The number of "impression" in the mold of that part is refered to as cavitation. I work in the industry, and have never heard this particular term used. Generally we just refer to a mold having multiple cavities. Also, it doesn't seem to be supported by any of the online dictionaries. If someone can say for certain that this is indeed a proper usage of cavitation, I'll leave it alone, but if I don't hear back, I'll change it. NipokNek 18:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've only heard of them being "cavities." If the text is changed, the references to "core and cavity" will be a bit ambiguous; is there a better term to use in place of this one? --GargoyleMT 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I've read it over, mentally removing the line about cavitation, and it's still seems coherent to me. I'm only talking about removing that one sentence, not every instance of "cavity." And as far as I know, there is no group term for multiple mold cavities. NipokNek 11:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- My question was a minor point, of "cavity" meaning both the negative of the part as well as one half of the mold, and whether a better term could be used to reduce confusion. As far as multiple cavity molds having a name, "family molds" are already covered. I've heard of multiple cavity molds of the same part being called "gang molds", but I'm not sure how widespread the use of that term is. --GargoyleMT 13:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
-
I work in the both the area of mold manufacture and injection molding. Here in Ireland and elsewhere in Europe, we commonly use the term "cavitation" as meaning "number of cavities". Your second point does point towards some ambiguity in the sense that "cavity" refers to the number of component impressions and to the female or negative mold section (normally injection side). I would suspect that people in the industry would have no trouble with the meanings in context, however in the interest of general understanding the terms "impression" for number of parts and "cavity" for negative mold section may be clearer. "Family molds" generally produce differing molded components per cycle and I would personally refer to multiple cavity molds of the same component as "multi-cavity" or "multi-impression". I have never heard the term "gang molds" used in Europe. Brianpmurphy 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nomenclature
It would be nice if someone would show an exploded view of an injection mold showing the names of its parts.130.36.62.140 16:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC).
Good suggestion, I have access to some 3D models that I can dumb down for sake of simplicity and create some images with it. I however suspect that creating the correct nomenclature (naming) for parts is likely going to generate a large amount of discussion. (Cavity and core is jut the tip of the Iceberg). When it come to molds naming varies a lot from company to another, from a region of the world to another. If there is suggestion how to handle that part, I'd welcome them. Britiju 03:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Moulding Defect
I am unsure about the terminology Silver Sleaks vs Splay Mark. I always considered them the same things but I am having a second thought about it. At the moment I have seperated them because of my doubt. When it comes to Splay as a stand alone word, again, I always considered it the same as Splay mark, but it might be used as two different things by molders; Any thoughts? Britiju 03:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
"Splay marks" are caused by a release of trapped water vapour in the injection process and are associated with hygroscopic materials which have not been adequately dried. Brianpmurphy 14:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Splay marks can also be caused by too fast an initial injection speed. AKA jetting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.71.135.43 (talk • contribs) 02:27, March 18, 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Needs consistent spelling, better grammar
The article should not flip back and forth between "mould" amd "mold". The grammar needs fixing, as in "machine are". Italics are needed for "use-mention" distinction. Chris the speller 05:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- Britiju has been adding new sections, and I've been copyediting them once his edits have subsided. I cleared up the section you probably had issue with. I also changed "mold" to "mould" everywhere it seemed applicable. Does this address your concerns? --GargoyleMT 15:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to both Chris the speller and --GargoyleMT for help with the clean up of my newly added material. Since English is not my first language, I usually need several editing sessions to get things right gramatically (As close as it can be for me anyway). Keep up with this most appreciated help. Britiju 20:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- If I change the meaning of anything you've put in, let me know (or correct it yourself). Your reorganization and expansion on this article is much appreciated. --GargoyleMT 00:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
