<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Dual Contact Tool Holders &#8211; Genius or Gimmick?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.cncreport.com/dual-contact-tool-holders-genius-or-gimmick/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.cncreport.com/dual-contact-tool-holders-genius-or-gimmick/</link>
	<description>The Premier Online Machining Magazine</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 19 May 2016 23:02:03 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Hays</title>
		<link>http://www.cncreport.com/dual-contact-tool-holders-genius-or-gimmick/comment-page-1/#comment-881</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Hays</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:51:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cncreport.com/?p=748#comment-881</guid>
		<description>Jay,glad to see your reports and editorials.
 Keep up the Great work
your number one fan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jay,glad to see your reports and editorials.<br />
 Keep up the Great work<br />
your number one fan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jay Pierson</title>
		<link>http://www.cncreport.com/dual-contact-tool-holders-genius-or-gimmick/comment-page-1/#comment-557</link>
		<dc:creator>Jay Pierson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 May 2011 17:22:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cncreport.com/?p=748#comment-557</guid>
		<description>Charles: Thanks for the response and insight.  Sorry, still no T-shirts!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Charles: Thanks for the response and insight.  Sorry, still no T-shirts!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charles Blair</title>
		<link>http://www.cncreport.com/dual-contact-tool-holders-genius-or-gimmick/comment-page-1/#comment-556</link>
		<dc:creator>Charles Blair</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 May 2011 17:53:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cncreport.com/?p=748#comment-556</guid>
		<description>My impression is that if a tool starts to load enough to pull away from the taper then the pullstud and its clamp are the only force holding the tool in place.  The addition of another contact surface would prevent this force on the pullstud because the tool would be bearing on the spindle face.   

This is the only real way I can personally see that the extra rigidity claim of the dual contact would be of advantage.   Newer tool designs like capto or HSK  with better tool retention systems shouldnt really need the dual contact.

Charles Blair
Lawrenceville GA

Do I get a Tee shirt?  How about a free pallet?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My impression is that if a tool starts to load enough to pull away from the taper then the pullstud and its clamp are the only force holding the tool in place.  The addition of another contact surface would prevent this force on the pullstud because the tool would be bearing on the spindle face.   </p>
<p>This is the only real way I can personally see that the extra rigidity claim of the dual contact would be of advantage.   Newer tool designs like capto or HSK  with better tool retention systems shouldnt really need the dual contact.</p>
<p>Charles Blair<br />
Lawrenceville GA</p>
<p>Do I get a Tee shirt?  How about a free pallet?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
