In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

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.

Same as the Millrite, in both weight and footprint.


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 one
which does not require unclamping and reclamping lots of things to
switch over -- but introduces a little more slop through all the
linkages.

I think I'll be looking, but not immediately.


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.

With the taper attachment?


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.

I got one dog driver and no faceplate.


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.

I looked at portable bridge cranes, such as sold by HF, but my ceiling
is too low. Nor do I have a place to store an engine hoist, so I rent
one from Taylor Rentals when needed, for ~$45 per day. The rental unit
is far heavier than the $170 HF units.


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. :-)

I'll be trying this.


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.

The efficiency seems to be in the range 90% to 95%:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission.

Bridgeport may have used the opportunity to solve an
underpowered-spindle problem. Also, people who buy step-pulley drives
over continuously variable speed drives are probably more cost
sensitive, so the smaller cheaper motor may come with cone pulleys,
while the larger more expensive motor comes with the reeves drive.


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.

I'd be surprised if it were not hardened, at least case hardened.

Joe Gwinn