On 2008-02-21, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2008-02-13, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
[ ... ]
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.
Actually -- there are small horizontal mills which you might get
into there -- but they are still heavy. An example is the Nichols
horizontal mill (which I have) which weighs in at about 1100 pounds.
Takes up about as much space as two floor-mount drill presses.
But there was a turret for the Clausing 5900-series lathes.
Yes -- probably the same as for the 5400-series which I have. I
think that I posted a URL for the manual for that -- and it is a
different model number than mine, but still what Clausing sent me for
free saying that it is the same as what I have -- so the alternate part
number may be right for your lathe.
But the taper attachment sounds more useful.
There are two styles. The one I have, and the telescoping one4
which does not require unclamping and reclamping lots of things to
switch over -- but introduces a little more slop through all the
linkages.
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 did not get one either -- but I made one.
I'm also missing the slotted faceplate. Got the 3-jaw, 4-jaw, and
dog-driver chucks.
I got the slotted faceplate at a swap-meet/picnic held by the
local metalworking club for a quite reasonable price. I have two of the
dog drivers, one with a chip out of the outer edge, but I am going to
mill that open wider to handle the larger dogs.
[ ... ]
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?
Not without a place to mount it. I have a folding engine hoist,
which lives out in /dev/barn01 when I don't need it, because I don't
have enough floor space in the garage^H^H^H^H^H^Hshop.
[ ... ]
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?
:-) At least we can't be accused of being off topic here. :-)
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?
[ ... ]
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.
Well ... I usually use inserts both for roughing and (the ground
and honed ones for the Compact-5/CNC) for finishing. I save grinding
HSS for special form tools, and for things like Acme threading tools
which are just one or two sizes too big for the insert holder which I
have for threading tools. :-)
Ahh ... well ... I don't think that the Reeves drive is _that_
inefficient.
Hmm ... Bridgeport, on the J-head went from 1 HP to 1-1/2 HP,
and then to 2 HP when they went from step pulleys to variable-speed
pulleys which are quite similar to what Clausing uses. And I've been
told that it was to keep the same horsepower into the spindle that they
increased the motor size.
[ ... ]
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.
O.K. Mine was very obviously ground to a precision taper when
they made it -- concentric with the smaller bore for the hold-down bolt.
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.
You have the hole for the pin. I don't, and don't want to risk
damaging the toolpost without a spare on hand. That toolpost really
feels hardened -- though I have not yet put it on the Rockwell hardness
tester.
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 ---