In article ,
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:
"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:
[ ... ]
I'll bet. Did it have the flame-hardened ways? Mine does, and
I suspect that is one reason that it shows so little wear. (The bed
turret is a second contributing factor, of course.)
Funny, I recall it did have hardened ways, but only when you asked.
So it was one of the later ones. Probably similar vintage to my
5418 -- which Clausing says left the factory in 1957.
Like you, I have a bed turret for my Graziano, but use it only infrequently.
I believe we've had a similar conversation before and I mentioned that my
turret was screwed up from it's first day, so it doesn't perform well.
You also mentioned a feature (or modification) so you could lock
the ram in a given extension. I have yet to make that modification to
mine.
I
like having it and have used it in small production operations. By making
good setups you can even cock die heads, so many sequences of operation can
be accomplished without ever touching anything but the four arms of the hand
wheel. I intend to cast a new head for the turret and re-machine the
body so the indexing pin is concentric.
Is the existing head cast iron, or steel? I think that mine is
steel, but have never tried it.
That's the problem I have with it
now, so the holes do not line up properly. As the indexing pin has worn,
it has worsened. Had the pin been on location, it wouldn't have worn
unevenly.
Hmm ... can you replace the pin, and bush and re-drill the index
holes? And if the tool shank holes don't line up -- perhaps you could
bore to the next size up in the lathe itself, so you get concentric
holes again? Perhaps bore oversize and bush the tool holes as well as
the index holes.
Can't even remember how
fast the spindle ran, but it had the collet setup
What size collets? Perhaps 3C? (good up to 1/2" or perhaps 5/8"
I guess.) Mine handles the 5C comfortably, and has the lever style
closer.
It had the 5C collet.
That sounds like the 12" swing one, then. There were earlier
12" Clausings which used a smaller collet -- is there a 4C?. About the
period of mine, they stepped the spindle bore up to 1-3/8", and the
collet size to 5C. They also may have made the bed wider at the same
time.
You said that yours was a benchtop lathe, instead of a pedestal
lathe. But the manual for mine covers a benchtop version as well as the
pedestal version. (Different headstock casting, with the motor assembly
mounted behind the lathe on a swinging plate with a turnbuckle to adjust
belt tension.)
If you wish, I could provide you a link to a scan of the manual,
so you could compare it to your memory. (But yours had variable speed,
so it was probably the 5900 series, not my 5400.
I trained and used the 1J collets at Sperry, so
assumed they were the norm. Even the three Hardinge lathes they had used
the 1J. It was interesting to run into the 5C. Didn't take me long to
figure out that the 1J was the anomaly when I started shopping for collets
for my own machine, though. Interestingly, the only place I've ever seen
the 1J was at Sperry, where they also had the Sjogren collet chucks for the
larger machines, only using the 2J series of collets.
It sounds as though Sperry opted to standardize on a given maker
of collets, and two sizes, no matter what the machine (except perhaps
for a watchmaker's lathe. :-)
the EE, but I sure do like the Graziano. In a way, it's a better choice
for a guy with only one lathe.
I'm quite happy with my Clausing most of the time. There are
times when I would like to have the continuously-variable speed (which I
will get when I put the three-phase motor and the VFD into it), and
there are times when I would like a bit more swing,
In a nut shell, that's why I like the Graziano. They are built strangely,
with a natural gap, so the Sag 12 (my machine) can swing 17-1/2". It's a
light machine for such a swing, but when used to it's rated capacity, it's
quite a tough machine. For that odd occasion when you must turn something
large, you slow down and take lighter cuts.
O.K. So it is a permanent gap, not one with a section of ways
which drop in place when not needed as a gap (as the current Chinese and
Taiwanese lathes are set up)? I would consider the gap to be a bit of
loss of rigidity, but if the lathe was designed to run that way, I guess
that they made up the rigidity in other places.
but most of the time
it is quite satisfactory. And I have the little Compact-5/CNC for
things like metric threads, and other repetitive small work, and the
Taig and the Unimat SL-1000 for the very small work. Each has its
benefits.
Agreed. I think if a person had a dozen lathes or mills, there would often
be one machine that had features that made it more desirable to use for
specific functions than the others.
About the only one which I don't use at all these days is my old
6x18" Craftsman/Atlas. Flat ways, rather bunged up near the chuck, worn
sleeve bearings, and the compound top slide broke when a parting tool
jammed (lantern style toolpost), so I had to make a new one. (I've
since found that I probably could still have gotten a replacement from
Sears, of not from Clausing at the time.
Later versions of the same lathe had roller bearings in the
headstock -- but still had the flat ways.
And still -- it was better than the 6" Craftsman which you had,
a 109 from AA products, based on your later description at the bottom of
this article. The spindle was of mine was 3/4", not 1/2" in diameter,
so it could handle a bit more -- and survive breaking the T-slot out of
the compound. :-)
If I had unlimited funds and could
find one, I'd love to own a little Levin lathe. I was shocked when years
ago I inquired and found that they were much like buying an EE. They made
a nice little turret type machine, obviously table top variety, and cost, as
I recall something like $20,000. So much for that idea.
Keep your eyes on eBay -- one may sneak through someday.
It was equipped with a KDK tool post, which
[ ... ]
Did it have two dovetails -- one for turning and one for
facing/boring? The location of the lever suggests that it has only the
one dovetail.
You got my curiosity up, so I did a quick search and found that they are
still in business. Here's a link.
http://www.kdktools.com/
As you suggest, they have only one dovetail. I was never unhappy with the
holder, I just preferred the OK Rubber Welders type.
I can see why it would be awkward with larger machines --
there is a *lot* of steel in each of the tool holders, in part to make
the corner turn from the dovetail (which turns out to be in the
boring-facing position, based on Aloris style toolpost usage.
The Compact-5 has yet another style of quick-change. There are
two male 'V's on the turning and the facing/boring sides of the post,
and corresponding female 'V's on the tool holders. Between the 'V's on
the post there is a T-head on a cam which engages a T-slot in the tool
holder. When you operate the cam, the tool holder is pulled firmly
against the toolpost, so you get a good rigid setup. Of course, each
holder has its own height adjustment, so you can change tools without
having to worry about center height.
That system sounds very much like the one that came with my hydraulic
duplicator for the Graziano.
This one is from Austria, but there is one almost identical sold
by a company called "Dickenson" (I think) in the U.K. And I've found
reports of much larger sizes with the same design. The only
disadvantage to it, in my mind, is the need for keeping track of the
wrench -- a socket on the end of a bar like this:
+-\______
Socket -- | _____ \
+-/ \ \
\ \
\ \
Handle -- \ \
~~~ -- cut here
It, too, was made in Italy, and is called a
Duplomatic. I like the head for the tracer, where you don't do any
changing. I used the tracer for production runs so once the setup was
made it rarely got changed until the run was finished. As long as I don't
have to handle the holders, I'm a happy camper.
:-)
Probably the heaviest one for my Aloris is the one with a pair
of knurling wheels on arms which travel on a vertical set of ways on the
holder. The spacing is adjusted by a screw with left-hand threads on
one end and right-hand threads on the other, an da big knurled knob on
the top. It is adjusted to clamp on top and bottom of the workpiece,
instead of pressing into it from the side. I use a T-bar knurler in the
turret for most things, but there are things which only this can handle.
The next heaviest is the block for 1" boring bars.
By contrast, everything else is quite light -- at least in the
BXA size range. :-)
I prefer a square toolpost (OK Rubber
Welders, specifically), although they tend to be limiting for complex
setups.
And the name does not inspire confidence in their rigidity,
though I suspect that they in reality are very rigid. :-)
Like you, the name always made me come up short. Interestingly, they are a
very nicely built head and very rigid. The body is heat treated well and
the serrations have stayed very sharp. The only complaint I have had with
using them is that it's fairly easy to get fine chips inside, where they can
interfere with indexing precision. Once you know, it's no big deal to make
certain it's clean.
Just loosen the clamp nut, and run an acid brush in under it
all?
One regular on the newsgroup keeps each tool with the associated
shims in a pill bottle. That makes for fairly quick setup.
Yeah, I recall reading his post, and have communicated with him often. He's
a remarkable guy with considerable talent. I like his idea of storing the
tools and shims as a unit, but I'd have to have one hell of a large cabinet
if I was actively machining.
The same applies in spades to keeping everything in its own BXA
size holder. :-) Bu the most common ones have their own dedicated
holders, and there are a couple of spares for the infrequently used
tools. (I even have one dedicated to the round insert tool which is
nice for putting a radius at the end of a cut -- for appearance, or to
minimize stress risers. :-)
I found it just as easy to trust to memory for
shim size. I guess it's all in what you get used to.
Indeed.
Agreed -- and when I was using the machine at work with the
4-way toolpost -- the shop was new, and we didn't have shims around, so
I had to cut some out of aluminum and whatever else was near the right
thickness, using the DiAcro metal shear. :-) When the machinist in
charge of the shop ordered and got the Aloris quick-change toolpost, I
fell in love with it. :-)
I can see how the Aloris looked pretty good after chasing shims.
Indeed so. And that one only had four holders. I've probably
got 12-15 of them by now -- some new from Phase-II, some used Aloris
from eBay and other used sources, and three special ones from Aloris,
the double-ended negative rake insert holder, the block with multiple
rows of setscrews for weird setups, and one toolblock with extends out
towards the workpiece with an angle on the tailstock side to improve the
support while clearing a live center offering tailstock support to the
workpiece. That one happens to hold the insert holder for OD threading.
One of the great sources for shims is using metal banding. It comes in
various thicknesses and is already a nice width.
It is even hard enough to make passable concertina reeds from,
though good quality band spring stock is better. (I just had to try. :-)
I have aluminum shims that
are 1/8" and 1/16", then a generous supply of shim stock or feeler gage
shims, and lots of banding shims. In a pinch I'll even use a layer of
paper if I must, although that's not my preferred shim.
Have you considered beverage cans? I believe that the aluminum
is now 0.001" thick in most of them -- including the ubiquitous Coke
can. :-)
O.K. -- with the Aloris style, I normally don't change the
setting of the post (unless I change the compound angle, in which case I
re-square it with the ways and chuck face). For different angles of
cut, I use different tools, pre designed for that angle.
That's one of the advantages of having tool holders. The way I use my tool
block, I never worry about it being square with the ways, although I don't
like the back side to be closer to the chuck than the front side. It's too
easy to be watching the tool and hit the jaws on the head that way.
Because I change tools instead of replace holders, how they mount is
determined at setup time.
O.K. For most of the tooling, a bit off won't matter too much,
but when I pop in a threading insert tool (OD or ID), I want it square
to start with, so I don't have to tweak the toolpost's angle and then
lose the dial settings on the tools which I've used earlier in that run.
I do have one
tool holder with multiple rows of setscrews which would allow mounting a
tool at a strange angle, though what I intend it for is next time I go
into production mode on the microphone adaptors. I should be able to
mount two tools in it -- one to groove the runout groove for the
external threads, and the other to part off the previous workpiece, all
in a single pass.
When involved in production, little steps like that can yield considerable
time savings. That's not a bad idea. I can see that the first cut would
be the parting, the second the groove depth.
Exactly! At first, I was looking for a way to part off and
groove the same piece (since I don't really need the runout groove when
*cutting* the thread, because it is done with a Geometric die head. But
when some parts need to thread up to the shoulder, the runout groove
makes sure that nothing will bind where the thread would otherwise taper
up to full diameter.
Then I realized that I could part off the finished piece with
the right-hand tool, and groove the next workpiece with the left-hand
one with no worries.
Agreed -- though you are still limited to a maximum of four
tools at a given setup. With the Aloris style post, I can have any
length sequence of tools I need. Let's see:
[ ... Seven tools ... ]
I can picture using all of these on a single project -- and
making multiples of a given workpiece. And that is ignoring
project-specific form tools.
With some creativity, you can actually mount more than four tools (in a
square head), although one of them may be nothing more than a chamfering
tool.
O.K.
To get around the above sequence with fewer tools, what you do is call upon
some tools to perform multiple service. For example, I'd turn, face and
chamfer with the same tool.
Just as I have made a tool for the turret which is a combination
center drill and stock stop -- because otherwise, I would need seven
tools in a six-station turret. :-)
You can do that with the OK type holder because
it is capable of indexing in 3 degree increments.
You could also grind the tool something like this (top view):
A ____
/ |
B | |
| |
~~~~~
more
shank
below
and use the B portion for facing, and the A portion for the chamfer
without having to disturb the toolpost setting.
Is there a setscrew which holds the T-nut for the toolpost in a
constant location in the T-slot of the compound?
Where you lose positions is going from OD to ID work, however. Once you've
mounted tools in both directions, unless you have very short shanks, you
often can't use both ends of the block. They have definite negatives
compared to the replaceable types. I can honestly say that there have been
times when I wished I had a KDK or Aloris for a given job. Now that I'm
retired, I don't really much care because time is no longer very important
to me in that regard.
:-)
I just like to make the time in the shop as productive as I can,
as I too seldom break away from this keyboard. :-)
But I guess that you could have two bodies for your four-way,
and swap them in mid project, so you could handle up to eight tools at
once. I would probably put all the boring/facing ones on one turret,
and the OD turning/threading and parting ones on another one.
That would have been the best of all worlds for me, although I'm not sure I
ever considered the idea. It doesn't take very long to change the head,
it's just about four turns of the handle and it's off. I can see that if
one was running a complex part and insisted on using such a head, that would
be a slick way to increase tool positions.
Or -- add a rear toolpost (of the same type), with the tools
mounted upside-down, to give you that many more. And I am given to
understand that that location makes parting easier, as the chips fall
clear of the workpiece more easily.
I can't do this -- unless I get an alternate cross-slide. Mine
is made to work with a taper turning attachment, and not to offer a
mounting point for a second toolpost. Though I have done the inverted
tool on a rear-mounted toolpost on the Taig, which has nice T-slots the
full length of the cross-slide. (Though the compound is an add-on
option, not a standard part, and it is a bit awkward to use. :-)
[ ... ]
actually make a setup. In all honesty, there's no way in hell you'd
catch
me running with a lantern toolpost. I like the flexibility, but they
suck
when it comes to any kind of repetition, as you well know.
Indeed so. They also have the *dis*advantage of flexibility too.
They are not nearly as rigid as a good block form toolpost. (Though I
guess using a raw HSS tool ground to shape without a holder might offer
a bit more rigidity.
I'd forgotten the lack of rigidity when using the lantern type holders. My
little Craftsman had the lantern type holder, but the tool mounted directly
on top of the rocker, so it was far more rigid than the 1/2-20 spindle,which
I bent trying to part an item.
So -- we both damaged 6" Craftsman lathes -- though different
models, and differing degrees of damage. :_)
It's pretty easy to see that the evolution
of indexing heads, or multiple heads came only when we were able to use
cutting tools that had longevity. Did it really matter if you couldn't
mark your dials when you were forced to use carbon steel cutting tools? I
dare say that in a production facility, one spent one hell of a lot of time
sharpening tools instead of using them. Where would we be without HSS and
carbide?
Of course -- the old lathe tools were ground from large bars of
carbon steel, and did not have to live with the extension and weakness
of the Armstrong style tool holders, so that is probably another reason
that the lantern style toolpost stayed around as long as it did. :-)
I recently acquired some nice size HSS bars (8" long, and
otherwise the right size for tools in the Rockwell/Delta/AMMCO 7"
shaper. I've got to get around to grinding some proper tools for that
machine
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. |
http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---