"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

snip-----
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.

The head is cast iron, and the cross bolts are steel. If yours came
machine ready, you have likely had no reason to touch yours. Mine came
blank and was drilled and bored on the lathe. Had I known that indexing
pin was eccentric to the indexing ring of the head, I'd have never finish
machined mine. I'd have returned it in a heart beat, secure in the
knowledge that it would worsen with use exactly as it has. When it was
finish machined there were no signs of any problems, but as it was used time
and again it started indexing poorly and not repeating. Only then did I
discover that the indexing pin was not entering the tapered bushings
properly because of the eccentricity. As the pin wore, it forced the head
to stop in a different position.

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.

It's been a long time since I last looked at the head, especially when you
consider the long period of time my shop was unused because of the precious
metal refining business that thankfully kept me away from the machines for
so long. The prolonged break was just what the doctor ordered to get me
over my burnout from all the years on the machines, almost non-stop.

As I recall, though, there's no one simple fix. I seem to recall the
tapered locating center lug is eccentric with the six tapered bushings in
which the pin stops. In order to make it right, the location of the pin
would have to be altered, and the bushings then made oversized and each of
the pockets bored to proper location. The problems of getting everything
on location are greater than the problems of making a new head, which I
could control closely with careful workmanship. A large part of the
problem is that the 1" holes in the head are now not properly located
because of the error in the locating pins and the bushings. The location
is an average of the poor conditions, so with the wearing of the pins and
bushings, the holes no longer index to center. Boring oversized isn't
really an option because the cross bolts are already machined to the
centerline. Any further machining would weaken them to the point where I'd
expect that tightening the nuts could allow enough stretching for the bolt
to fail.

I'll likely eventually get to the project and use it as an excuse to cast
some iron when I get my induction furnace up and running. At this point, I
look at all my projects as entertainment, nothing more. Part of the fun
will be in making the new head, and I'll likely make the pin and bushings
new, too. I have heat treat capabilities, along with grinding and honing
capabilities, so I have everything that is necessary to rebuild the head to
good condition.


That sounds like the 12" swing one, then. There were earlier
12" Clausings which used a smaller collet -- is there a 4C?.

I don't know that there is or isn't. I was pleasantly surprised just a
month ago when I drove to Southern Oregon to assist in the disposal of a
deceased friend's estate to find that there was a 3J collet, larger than the
2J, so nothing would surprise me at this point.

Sadly, the bulk of my years of experience have revolved around my personal
world, especially since running my own shop. Because my work was
restricted to specific areas, I achieved a good level of skill and ability
in the work I did, but my overall exposure has been relatively restricted.
It's safe to say that the best exposure I got was working in the job shop
where I ran the little Clausing. We were not as well equipped there as the
shop at Sperry, but the work was so diverse that it forced all of us to use
a lot of imagination and become quite creative in making setups. I recall
one job where I converted the little Clausing to a tracer machine when I had
to cut a 1" radius runout in the center of 3" long lengths of 1/8"
tungsten,
which was reduced to .100" diameter for a short distance. The pieces were
tensile
specimens and were highly polished and held to quite close tolerance. I
still have a couple of the pieces in my show and tell box.


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.)

I recall that the little Clausing was built much like the Hardinge in that
it had the variable drive in the base of the steel cabinet that was a part
of the machine. Drive power was located directly under the headstock.


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.

If nothing else, that would be fun to peruse. It would surely help me
recall the machine better, so if you'd like, either post the link or send it
directly to me.

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. :-)

That's certainly the way it appears now. It's strange, though, when you
consider that the 5C collet is so widely used. Had I known more about
collets at that time, I'm sure I'd have had some questions. As I said, I
figured the 1J was the norm and was quite unhappy when I bought my first
collet device. I was looking to buy 1J and almost no one knew what I was
talking about, but everyone that sold collets had the 5C on the shelf.
Sigh! Those were the days! I recall paying only $6.75 for new Hardinge 5C
collets. What are they now, over $25? Haven't purchased any in years.
I remember that they kept going up, so I finally started buying Royal
collets, which seemed to be quite good. I still have all of them.


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.

Graziano built the Sag 12 such that the tailstock ways are higher than the
bed ways, and the bed ways are fully covered with formed steel protectors.
The ways stay almost free of chips by the design. All they did is stop
the tailstock ways short of the headstock, so the bed mass is almost no
different at the headstock, although it would not be true to suggest
that it isn't reduced any. The bed at that point is almost a full box, so
it's quite rigid. The Sag 12 is not what I would call a heavy duty machine,
but certainly qualifies for a medium duty industrial machine. It weighs
over a ton, but is about 1,000 pounds lighter than the EE, so that may help
you with how well it's built.

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. :-)

Must say that's quite impressive. I recall that they suggested a 1/4 horse
motor for my little 109, but I purchased a 1/3 horse. If the spindle had
been larger, it's very possible I could have broken the compound on mine,
too, from what you've said. I know it won't sit well with some, but having
machines like either of those two makes no sense to me now. A good example
of one thing that was wrong with the 109 is that it had no dials.
Everything you did you did by guess. Once you're learned proper
machining procedures, you come to realize how it was almost no better than a
wood lathe, but I had a lot of fun with it as a kid and learned enough that
I had begun to understand grinding tool bits. Must say it was a real
intimidating experience at first.

Once I had run serious machines, I could never go back to the little lathe,
so I sold it. Aside from the memories, I've never regretted selling it.



As you suggest, they have only one dovetail. I was never unhappy with
the
(KDK) 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.


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


They must all think alike. The Duplomatic comes with its own wrench, too, a
hex socket offset handle that I must track constantly. Works very well,
though. Luckily, the square socket "T" wrench that fits the set screws
on the
tool holders is the same size as the wrench for the OK R Welders head, so I
can use that one when changing tools. I keep it on the headstock in its own
bracket, where it's out of the way and always within reach. I never hunt
for it.

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.

That sounds like a nice tool. I've always done knurling the old fashioned
way and it's not always in your best interest
..

The next heaviest is the block for 1" boring bars.

That's one place where the OK head isn't the best. I have made some shop
aid boring bar holders that mount in the head, but it's a compromise at
best. Works fine, just doesn't look all the great. These were created when
needed, so no time was spent making them look good. Once you have them and
they work, you keep them, or so it seems. Definitely not the type of work
of which I'd be proud, though.

By contrast, everything else is quite light -- at least in the
BXA size range. :-)

Which is likely a good reason to go a route other than KDK. I wonder if
I'll see things differently if I ever get far enough along to be working on
a steam loco, as I have planned. Some of the components will have to be
made in quantity and I'll be thinking of a different post when I can't get
the tools in the OK head. I'll probably touch base with you if that
happens for more input. At this point it seems you are far more in touch
with current technology than I am.



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?

What I've learned to do is keep fine chips (tiny hairs, really) from
accumulating around the base plate. Larger chips pose no problem. Once I
find it's not repeating, I generally remove the head and check the fine
serrations, where I usually find a tiny hair of a chip embedded. It's
usually been well clamped on at that point, it is flattened quite thin, so I
usually use a fine pointed scriber and remove it from both faces. Blow it
out with air, oil and re-assemble. Takes only a minute or two and you're
back in business. It doesn't seem to do any damage, just causes the head to
locate in a different spot, so you can't trust your dial. It's generally
off only a couple thou at most, but for me that's too much.

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. :-)

That's another advantage of having that type of post. Often times I have
to
remove a tool to mount another. Again, it's what I'm used to and it doesn't
take much time, but it's certainly not as convenient as just picking up the
other holder. The real advantage is when threading, parting or groove
cutting, as you stated. You know that the tool is already at the right
attitude, that it doesn't have to be squared with the setup. That part
takes me more time than anything else.

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. :-)

Chuckle! Trust us retired home shop types to try all the dodges.


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. :-)

Nope. Never even given it a thought, but I'll be sure to do so in the
future. When doing very fine small work it's not unusual to find yourself
a thou too low, so having the ability to change slightly is very desirable.
Thanks for the tip. I've used cellophane, but it's really hard to work with
because it's so limber.

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. :-)

Yep, that's the kinds of things you learn to do. It may sound trivial, but
when you're running production, the slightest time savings adds up, as
you've found.

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.

I've ground parting tools with a chamfer at the base of the tool for just
such an occasion. That's a great way to conserve when you don't have enough
positions.


I just like to make the time in the shop as productive as I can,
as I too seldom break away from this keyboard. :-)

That's an excellent point. I find I spend considerable time at the
keyboard, time that might be better spent elsewhere, but for me it's my
social life. We have few neighbors, and little social life outside home.
No family near, either, so I enjoy my time online, especially when talking
shop.

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.

It's more involved than that, too. I recall an old Dutch guy (now deceased)
that worked with us at Sperry that was famous for running tools upside down
and running the machine in reverse for certain operations. It loads the
cross slide/compound totally differently and often solves chatter problems,
along with other problems. He was sold on the idea, although I've not
explored it much. Because my duplicator cuts on the back side, I've
machined quite a bit that way, though. Just not any other way. It still
cuts in the forward direction, with the tool upside down, as you might
imagine.


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. :-)

Fortunately, my cross slide is flat and has holes drilled and tapped at
intervals for its entire length, so mounting additional things to the slide
is no problem. That's how the duplicator mounts. It would be very easy to
mount a back side tool post if one desired, although you might have to
fabricate it. I am not aware of one that was available.


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. :-)

While I'm sure that's true in many situations, it isn't true in all. I was
hired into tool, die and gauge at Tooele Army Depot in Utah in December of
'65. I was absolutely shocked to find a machine shop engaged in rebuilding
war equipment for Viet Nam that was tooled with rocker type tool posts and
the Armstrong type holders. You might recall that they had straight
holders (no rake) for holding brazed carbide tools. That job was, without
a doubt, the worst job I held in all my years. So bad, in fact, that I
quit after only two months. The money was good and the hours long (5 12's
and 2 8's, mandatory. No time off, not even holidays because of the war
effort). The atmosphere was stifling. The shop super was a time keeper
that had bid on the job and got it, but had little shop experience, and ran
the shop with what could be called an iron fist. One thing he didn't allow
was the use of soft jaws. Everything that had to be turned was done between
centers, so it took a lot more time to make parts. Having had
considerable experience in production at that point, I couldn't stand to be
held back, limited by archaic procedures. I can say, honestly, that I
hated the job. Tooele Army Depot is no longer an Army post.

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

That should make a world of difference in rigidity for your shaper. I
recall Pete Somebody had gone to such tools when I last spoke to him.
Haven't heard a word from him in about two years now. Is he well? When I
last heard, he had purchased a home and was moving to it.

Harold