In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-03-06, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-03-05, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[ ... ]

Well, no turret in my batch. But I'm liking Aloris better and better.

You might find a turret on eBay -- I've seen them for sale from
time to time. But it won't be a matching serial number. :-) I believe
that I pointed you to a PDF scan of the manual (very faded
third-generation Xerox copy), and from that you can get several possible
part numbers -- all were interchangeable, apparently.

The implication being that one assembles a full turret from parts
acquired one by one on eBay?

No -- one gets a complete turret -- though one accumulates the
tools to load the turret from separate eBay purchases.

But -- there are several models of turret which could be used.
All fit the 12" swing and the width of bed which is common between my
5418 and your 5914.

OK.


Actually, a taper attachment is higher on my list. I did see a
telescoping taper attachment for a Clausing lathe other than 5900 series
listed on eBay yesterday, but gone today. Taper attachments are
model-specific, so I didn't pay much attention.

O.K. Though the ones for the 5400 series and for the 5900
series may be interchangeable -- depending on how the nut is
implemented.

Details, details.


The boring bar hole in various holders is probably pretty good, as
Aloris makes them on some kind if production line, but they make no
claim of repeatability between holders.

And if you mix manufacturers, the difference may be much
greater.

Yep.

And since some of my tooling is always purchased used, there may
have been changes in Aloris' dimensions over the years, too.

I bet that Aloris keeps them pretty accurate, so their industrial
customers don't yell at them.

But the distance from the dovetails to the center of the bore
on a boring bar holder is not a critical dimension for use as designed.

Nonetheless, I bet it doesn't vary much.


Yes, it would be if you were using it to imitate a turret. :-)

That would be their "Indexable" line.


Given that the Aloris-type toolposts and toolholders are
interchangeable, and acknowledged as such in the Aloris catalog, I bet
that Aloris has shared the critical drawings with their competitors, the
probable intent being to make the pie bigger for all. I would guess
that this happened as the expiration of the key patents loomed.

Toolpost, original: 2,972,272

Toolpost, indexable: 6,230,595

Cut-off tool: 3,455,001

Holder for triangle inserts: 3,280,450

Too late to check those out tonight. I'm due in bed. Been
tearing apart a dead HP LaserJet 5 color so I can get it down the
stairs. That thing is *heavy* when fully assembled. I'll keep typing
until my watch completes its try to contact WWVB to verify its time
setting at 2:00 AM. :-)

Reading patents can substitute for counting sheep.


Most of the problem seems to be in the nut. Maybe I'll make a new nut.
It was pretty simply shaped, and an Acme tap set is probably cheaper
than a new nut from Clausing. It's $48.50.

First thing to be careful about. The thread is 1/2-10 Acme
*LH*, and all of the combination roughing/finishing Acme taps have been
right-hand only. I did get a left-hand Acme tap of the right thread,
but IIRC it cost nearly as much as the nut at that time.

Hmm. Cut on the lathe?

Cut the leadscrew on the lathe -- with a follower rest. I tried
one in aluminum as an experiment, but I made the mistake of cutting it
right-hand thread, so the test failed. But it looks as though I can do
a good job.

It ought to work, although I would have to fabricate a follower rest for
the job as well.


However, I think that trying to do internal threading with a
single-point tool for a 1/2" diameter leadscrew in bronze (nasty stuff
to thread with a flexing tool) might be beyond me.

Use a solid carbide internal threading boring bar?

Or, mount the nut on the slide and a bar between centers with HSS
toolbit in the center of the bar, perpendicular to the bar, the bar
passing through the nut. I've seen this setup used for line boring of
bearings on electric motors.


For that I *might*
rough it with a single-point and then use the tap to complete the job,
since I already have the LH tap. I forget what the minor diameter is
for a 1/2-10 Acme thread, but it is pretty small.

That could work.


What does your nut look like? Mine looks like a plumbing Tee,
with the Acme thread through the two straight sides, and the upright of

[ ... ]

The nut I'm talking about is a cylinder with the threaded hole
crosswise. It is part number DL-471 (Compound Slide Nut) on page 30 of
the Clausing manual.

Hmm ... how does it attach? IIRC, my Clausing manual does not
cover that style. And it is too late to dig it out to be sure.

The cylinder fits snugly into a hole in the Compound Slide (704-34), and
is held in place by a single setscrew.


The T-shaped nut is part number 5900-37 (Cross Slide Nut Assembly) also
on page 30.

O.K. That one is what I am accustomed to.


Some of these days I'll get a chunk of bronze of adequate size
and use it to make a new nut. Then I'll make a matching leadscrew so I
am ready for the next time it wears out. :-) And -- this will give me
practice in making spare leadscrews and nuts for the taper attachment
too, so if the taper attachment wears fast, I can swap back in a normal
nut and leadscrew. (Actually -- the leadscrew is identical for both
the standard cross slide and my taper attachment -- but not for the
fancier taper attachment with the telescoping leadscrew.

So that's the distinction between telescoping and non-telescoping taper
attachments. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the two
approaches?

The non-telescoping one uses the standard leadscrew and threads
it into a nut which can be clamped either to the back of the cross
slide, or to the follower on the taper attachment.

Ahh. And it's bad karma to engage both clamps at once.


The telescoping style has the crank connected to a spline which
fits into the leadscrew, and the far end of the leadscrew threads into
the the follower and is mounted in a bearing in the cross slide, IIRC.
(I should dig up the manuals on PDF to see which is which, but the watch
has completed its resetting. It and the computer now agree to the
second, instead of being off by a full second. :-)

OK. Comparative benefits?


[ ... radius measuring tool description snipped ... ]

I see. It's the machinist's equivalent to the optician's three-prong
instrument to measure lens surface curvature. The only problem is that
there is no place for the center leg to land unless one makes the whole
assembly small enough to fit on one side of the washer, avoiding the
hole through which the toolpost projects. I'll have to think about this.

If you can swing two of the arms to near the OD and the ID of
one side, and the other arm to near the OD of the other side, you should
be fine. But finding a coin of the right diameter would probably be
easier to do. :-)

There were large iron coins used in antiquity. Like our shops.


I have no way to know if what I have is true Clausing. What I have was
machined, not forged, and lacks Armstrong markings. Although the rocker
could have been forged. Or forged then machined. Not having the
rocker, it's hard to say.

It may be a shop-made replacement.

I think I was unclear. The slotted washer appears to have been made by
Clausing,

Why does it appear to have been made by Clausing?

Style and finish, basically. I cannot see a shopmade item going to all
that trouble, versus buying something from Armstrong.

By the way, I looked at the Armstrong website, and the rocker I bought
was not made by Armstrong, although it looks to be interchangeable with
Armstrong. What I have is marked with a flattened diamond and the
number "10". Any idea who makes or made this?


and was machined from flat stock. I did not receive the
matching rocker, and purchased a replacement that does appear to be from
Armstrong that is in fact forged. This replacement rocker seems to have
the correct radius, but is a cylinder versus a sphere. The speculation
is that Clausing could purchase forged rockers and machine the sphere to
replace the cylinder. But Clausing seems more likely to machine the
rockers from flat stock.

O.K. Perhaps. But the ring sounds more like shop-made unless
you see markings to indicate that it was made by Clausing. Just because
it came with the lathe does not mean that it has always been with the
lathe. :-)

Clausing does not seem to mark the pieces of their lathes, only the
lathe itself. As mentioned above, I doubt that the ring was shopmade.


[ ... 6x18" lathe ... ]

As it is -- the last significant metalwork related to it was
making something *for* it instead of *with* it. A parting tool hung up
and split off half of the T-slot in the compound top slide, so I had to
make a replacement of good tool steel, instead of the original cast
iron. More recently, I spent some time with the surface grinder turning
the milling spirals on the surface into a nicer finish.

Ouch. That Atlas was just a bit too light duty. What was being parted
off that caught the parting tool?

It was a length of square stock -- 4?? stainless steel as it
turns out, about 1-1/4" square which was too long to support the far end
by a tailstock center, and I had no steady rest even if I had the
ability to make a square to cylinder adaptor -- which I did not at that
time. And, I did not have a horizontal bandsaw at the time, either.
Nor did I have the patience to use a hacksaw on it.

I was cutting off about 1" from the 4-jaw chuck jaws. Really
asking too much of such a light duty lathe. :-)

I'll say. Interrupted cut and all.

Joe Gwinn