In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-13, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-13, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

[ ... ]

And when I use the tool turret on the Compact-5/CNC, the QC
toolpost and its plate are removed from the cross-slide, and the
motorized turret bolts in place of the combination.

Not an issue for me just yet, for lack of a turret.

You would not find a turret like this anyway. This is a
CNC-controlled one which lives on the cross-slide of the Compact-5/CNC,
not like the bed turret which I have on the Clausing.

The CNC turret rotates around an axis parallel to the spindle
axis, but offset towards the operator. It provides three slots for
radial mounted tools with short shanks of 1/2" or a near metric size,
and three holes for cylindrical shank tools parallel to the axis of the
spindle -- things like center drills, drill bits, boring bars, and
reamers. Tap holders might be an option if the spindle were reversible.
:-)
It is too small to accept even the smallest Geometric die head that I
have, however. (The 5/16" die head.)

Someday, when I have a bigger basement.

If you want a CNC controlled turret, you also will need a
different lathe, with all handwheels replaced by stepper or servo
motors. :-)

And an even bigger basement. Actually, I could make use of a horizontal
mill. But won't get it. No space.

But there was a turret for the Clausing 5900-series lathes.

But the taper attachment sounds more useful. One thing that did not
come with the 5914 was the headstock spindle sleeve, which allows MT3
dead centers to fit in the MT 4.5 female taper in the headstock spindle.

I'm also missing the slotted faceplate. Got the 3-jaw, 4-jaw, and
dog-driver chucks.


As for the bed turret (it ignores the cross-slide and mounts
directly onto the bed ways), you will want an extra two feet beyond the
tailstock end of the lathe where you can build a table at just the right
height to slide the turret off the ways and onto the table or vice
versa. I have made such a table, with Plexiglass as a top surface to
provide low-friction sliding for the bed turret. while the tailstock is
fairly easy to lift, the bed turret is difficult enough empty, and if
you load all six stations with tooling *I* can't lift it higher than it
already is. Since I usually use it for the same project, I leave it set
up with the tooling and with all stops pre-set.

It would be even nicer if I had another lathe bed section onto
which to slide it -- then I would not have to worry about it being
knocked off and damaged. Just give a couple of inches of gap between
the ends of the real bed and the dummy one, and enough length to support
the whole of the turret.

Wouldn't a bridge crane be more useful?


Who makes (or made) this?

If I could remember the name, I would have posted it. It used
to be advertised in the ancient Emco catalogs (1970s or so), but I have
not seen it in a recent catalog, though people in this newsgroup have
posted that they have and love them.

MultiFix was suggested by Trevor Jones, and certainly matches your
description.

And a Google search using that name led me to an image which
shows that it was what I was describing. I didn't find any prices on
the sites I visited, but I could not afford it when I first saw it in
the Emco catalog in the early to mid 1970s. :-)

And his joining in has shown that we have not put *everyone*
else in the newsgroup to sleep with our thread. :-)

Hmm. Don't forget David Billingham and Nick Mueller. Our fan club?


I'm tempted to get an aloris 20-series tool holder, which accepts
triangle inserts, and can be adjusted to various angles.

That might do. I like the BXA-16N which holds two triangular
negative rake inserts on opposite ends. One is for turning, the other
for facing, just by switching to the other dovetail on the toolpost.
But I need to use the standard holders with the shanked tools for the
two angled edges for beveling or chamfering.

Is the Clausing heavy enough for negative rake tools to be worthwhile?

I honestly don't know. I always use inserts with the grooves to
make it effectively a positive rake tool, even with the negative rake
holder. (The advantage is that the rake provides relief with inserts
with a 90-degree angle between the surface and the edge, so you can use
double-sided inserts.

Some of these days I'll try it with a true negative rake insert.
I only have a 1-1/2 HP motor, but that should be equivalent to your 2HP
one since I don't have to drive the vari-speed pulley, which eats
horsepower. :-)

It's something to try. I'm thinking that I should use inserts for
roughing and HSS for finishing (where needed) and one-off grooving jobs.

Ahh ... well ... I don't think that the Reeves drive is _that_
inefficient.


The main bore is 17mm (16.95mm) diameter. The taper at the
bottom is 9.18mm deep to the step, 19.93mm wide at the full depth, and
20.12mm just a bit below the surface of the bottom (the bevel makes it
hard to get the true diameter at the bottom.

The "5/8-18" bore diameter is 18.06mm, and the anti-rotation pin bore
diameter is 7.06mm.

And the recess into which the collar will fit is 32.06 mm in diameter.

O.K. Hmm ... what would you get if you raised the bottom of the
toolpost and had the bottom contact be at the end of the recess? It
would probably be harder to keep it from turning under cutting forces.

I would assume so. Nor is the recess ground smooth, unlike the bottom
of the toolpost, so resting the collar on the recess would lead to
angular uncertainty both under cutting forces and whenever the toolpost
was unclamped and reclamped. I think the toolpost bottom needs to be
firmly clamped against a machined metal surface.

O.K. A turned shoulder would not work in the collar? Is the
shoulder at the end of the recess not smooth enough?

The problem is not so much with the smoothness of the bottom of the
turned recess as with its small diameter. The toolpost bottom is about
70x70mm, and ground smooth, versus 32mm diameter, and as-machined before
heat treatment. The black oxide has been ground off the bottom, but not
the recess. The clear design intent is that the ground bottom be the
reference surface.


BTW I have some cardboard firmly laminated to the plate on the
cross-slide on the Compact-5/CNC -- clamped down firmly by the
toolpost while soaked with oil. It stayed firmly on the plate
when I removed the toolpost, so I don't even have to replace it.

That would work, but the pin also works.

Joe Gwinn