On Wed, 2010-09-01 at 12:16 -0500, Stuart Stevenson wrote: > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Ted Hyde <laser...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The point is you really couldn't (shouldn't) just implement a "little bit" > > of safety. If you implement a shield just to avoid the current tool with the > > chuck, it doesn't do you any good when a bar in another location slams into > > the firewall. It becomes a human problem, not an automation one, as the > > operator/programmer will begin to "assume" that since there is a shield, it > > will prevent programming or operational errors. > > > > Horrors!!! Don't tell me now!!!! > I was planning to hire a bunch of monkeys to run my CNC equipment. To > learn it is a human problem kills my plans. AAARRRGGGGHHHH I'm runined.
Well is WAS a thought. Often considered when someone goes spacey and does something really dumb. Don't bother to ask how I know. Dave > Stuart > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.net Dev2Dev email is sponsored by: Show off your parallel programming skills. Enter the Intel(R) Threading Challenge 2010. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-thread-sfd _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
