Factory selling ASTM A563 Grade C Heavy Hex Nuts to Turin Factories

Single-point threading, also colloquially called single-pointing (or just thread cutting when the context is implicit), is an operation that uses a single-point tool to produce a thread form on a cylinder or cone. The tool moves linearly while the precise rotation of the workpiece determines the lead of the thread. The process can be done to create external or internal threads (male or female). In external thread cutting, the piece can either be held in a chuck or mounted between two centers. With internal thread cutting, the piece is held in a chuck. The tool moves across the piece linearly, taking chips off the workpiece with each pass. Usually 5 to 7 light cuts create the correct depth of the thread.
The coordination of various machine elements including leadscrew, slide rest, and change gears was the technological advance that allowed the invention of the screw-cutting lathe, which was the origin of single-point threading as we know it today.
Today engine lathes and CNC lathes are the commonly used machines for single-point threading. On CNC machines, the process is quick and easy (relative to manual control) due to the machine’s ability to constantly track the relationship of the tool position and spindle position (called “spindle synchronization”). CNC software includes “canned cycles”, that is, preprogrammed subroutines, that obviate the manual programming of a single-point threading cycle. Parameters are entered (e.g., thread size, tool offset, length of thread), and the machine does the rest.
All threading could feasibly be done using a single-point tool, but because of the high speed and thus low unit cost of other methods (e.g., tapping, die threading, and thread rolling and forming), single-point threading is usually only used when other factors of the manufacturing process happen to favor it (e.g., if only a few threads need to be made,[6] if an unusual or unique thread is required, or if there is a need for very high concentricity with other part features machined during the same setup).

My advice is this: Settle! That’s right. Don’t worry about passion or intense connection. Don’t nix a guy based on his annoying habit of yelling “Bravo!” in movie theaters. Overlook his halitosis or abysmal sense of aesthetics. Because if you want to have the infrastructure in place to have a family, settling is the way to go. Based on my observations, in fact, settling will probably make you happier in the long run, since many of those who marry with great expectations become more disillusioned with each passing year. (It’s hard to maintain that level of zing when the conversation morphs into discussions about who’s changing the diapers or balancing the checkbook.)

Obviously, I wasn’t always an advocate of settling. In fact, it took not settling to make me realize that settling is the better option, and even though settling is a rampant phenomenon, talking about it in a positive light makes people profoundly uncomfortable. Whenever I make the case for settling, people look at me with creased brows of disapproval or frowns of disappointment, the way a child might look at an older sibling who just informed her that Jerry’s Kids aren’t going to walk, even if you send them money. It’s not only politically incorrect to get behind settling, it’s downright un-American. Our culture tells us to keep our eyes on the prize (while our mothers, who know better, tell us not to be so picky), and the theme of holding out for true love (whatever that is—look at the divorce rate) permeates our collective mentality.

Even situation comedies, starting in the 1970s with The Mary Tyler Moore Show and going all the way to Friends, feature endearing single women in the dating trenches, and there’s supposed to be something romantic and even heroic about their search for true love. Of course, the crucial difference is that, whereas the earlier series begins after Mary has been jilted by her fiancé, the more modern-day Friends opens as Rachel Green leaves her nice-guy orthodontist fiancé at the altar simply because she isn’t feeling it. But either way, in episode after episode, as both women continue to be unlucky in love, settling starts to look pretty darn appealing. Mary is supposed to be contentedly independent and fulfilled by her newsroom family, but in fact her life seems lonely. Are we to assume that at the end of the series, Mary, by then in her late 30s, found her soul mate after the lights in the newsroom went out and her work family was disbanded? If her experience was anything like mine or that of my single friends, it’s unlikely.

And while Rachel and her supposed soul mate, Ross, finally get together (for the umpteenth time) in the finale of Friends, do we feel confident that she’ll be happier with Ross than she would have been had she settled down with Barry, the orthodontist, 10 years earlier? She and Ross have passion but have never had long-term stability, and the fireworks she experiences with him but not with Barry might actually turn out to be a liability, given how many times their relationship has already gone up in flames. It’s equally questionable whether Sex and the City’s Carrie Bradshaw, who cheated on her kindhearted and generous boyfriend, Aidan, only to end up with the more exciting but self-absorbed Mr. Big, will be better off in the framework of marriage and family. (Some time after the breakup, when Carrie ran into Aidan on the street, he was carrying his infant in a Baby Björn. Can anyone imagine Mr. Big walking around with a Björn?)