On 2008-03-11, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-03-10, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

[ ... ]

And solid carbide tools are *expensive*. I've got a 1/2" solid
carbide boring bar with a silver-soldered end which forms the pocket for

[ ... ]

Solid Criterion or Criterion-like bars turn up used around here for a
few dollars, but usually need some cleanup with a grinder.

O.K. I wish that *I* could come up with such steals.

It's a city thing, as we live off the residue of what had been a
technological civilization.

Well ... I'm pretty close to a city -- but not one engaged in
manufacturing of anything other than legislation. :-)

And the Chinese are learning how to make these as well.

But -- are they learning to make them *well*?

Not yet, but they will soon enough. You remember when Made in Japan
meant junk. Now it's the good stuff.

Oh yes -- I remember my set of butter-steel drill bits. :-) This
was around 1961 or so, IIRC. But since I was driving them with a
hand-cranked eggbeater drill, they still served fairly well for my needs
at the time.

[ ... ]

There are smaller bits than 0.125", which is far larger than needed to
cut a 10 tpi acme thread. In round numbers, if the pitch is 0.100",
then the tool width is something like 0.060", which can be made from a
piece of 0.1" drill rod, leaving ample space for a small setscrew.

With round, you have the problem of rotational positioning which is
locked in nicely with square tool bit. Of course, you could grind a
flat on top prior to grinding the Acme profile on the end.

Well, file a flat, before hardening.

Or -- use my surface grinder to grind the flat -- since I used
the surface grinder to grind the Acme profile with custom relief angles
for the particular thread pitch and diameter which I was cutting. The
final pass was grinding back the tip until it fit the Acme thread gauge
for width.

[ ... ]

The center of the rod could be turned down for chip clearance without
badly reducing the stiffness.

As long as you have the diameter small enough to fit into the
pre-threading bore. And since it turns out that the thread is a 3/8",
the bore is noticeably smaller.

Hmm ... since it is also a right-hand thread -- can I find a
3/8-10 standard thread to use as a roughing tap? Hmm ... looks as
though that is a special, too. I guess that we make both the roughing
and finishing tap.

Or throw the towel in, and just buy the damn nut from Clausing.

Yep. That is what I did with the Tee shaped nut for the
cross-slide.

BTW I think that the "slide" term is sufficiently disambiguated by
prefixing either "cross" (closest to the bed on top of the carriage) or
"top" or "compound" for the compound (top-most slideway).

[ ... ]

Also covered above. Jewelers and clockmakers do this kind of stuff all
the time - same idea, but in miniature.

I could picture them doing it for small boring, but not for
internal threading, since jeweler's lathes typically don't have power
feed, let alone threading feeds.

All we want are their bits, not their lathes.

But you were saying "Jewelers and clockmakers do this kind of
stuff all the time" -- suggesting that "this kind of stuff" meant
internal threading -- and I was pointing out that they were unlikely
to be threading -- internal or external -- on their lathes.

Jewelers lathes are set up as for woodworking, but writ small.

I know -- I have one. I also have the WW collet spindles for
both the Unimat SL-1000 and the Taig/Peatol. Those are really nice for
the kind of work that I do there.

The axis perpendicular to the bed ways is also loose, but far less so.

While my compound leadscrew was quite tight (and still is),
while the cross-slide was the one with 0.075" backlash (3/4 of a turn of
the crank).

Wonder why. Demands of production, I sup[pose.

Certainly. Remember that the lathe had a bed turret, so most
cutting was done with the tooling on the turret. The cross-slide was
power feed and used for parting off -- and probably nothing else -- so
it got used a lot, while the crank on the compound was likely used only
for fine tuning of cutter position vs a bed stop. Probably set up
parallel to the ways.

[ ... ]

O.K. Let me define *my* terms so we can be talking about the
same thing:

[ ... ]

It's a logical system for sure. But honored in the breech, as discussed
below. This is why I try to say how far from the T-slot or bed way an
item is.

O.K. Most of the "breech" which I have experienced was in UK
references to lathes -- which would also call a 12" lathe (like my 5418
or your 5914) a 6" lathe -- rating it by the radius from the center of
the spindle to the lathe bed.

They would also be likely to call a "compound" a "top-slide" --
in part because some common lathes had the compound only as an optional
fitting, not as a standard part of the lathe.

Ahh. Interestingly, the Dorian Tool catalog of toolposts has an
annotated drawing of a lathe naming the various parts of said lathe.

And what names do *they* use? I don't have that catalog.

On the 5914, the slide is flat-topped, not humped.

You mean the compound, not the cross-slide? I wonder why?

In the 5914 manual (page 30), that T-slotted part is flat-topped and is
called the "Tool Post Slide" (704-033), and is dovetailed to the
"Compound Slide" (704-034), which in turn rotates upon the "Cross Slide"
(704-032).

In the 5418 manual (page 19), that same part is humpbacked and is called
simply the "Slide" (C-330), and is dovetailed to the "Lower Compound"
(DL-460), which rotates upon the "Cross Slide" (DL-458).

So, even within Clausing, the nomenclature varies. Thus the confusion.

I think that the "cross slide" is a stable term, and anything
else is presumed to be the compound.

O.K. if you are in doubt as to the correct term -- *ask* so we
can know that there is a possibility of difference.

Yep. Well, describe. What we have learned is that the nomenclature is
not uniform, so it is never enough to use the name; one must also
describe the part.

I still think that "cross slide" is sufficiently unambiguous.

Thus my listing of my own usage of the terms above -- so we can
talk about the same thing.

And the taper attachment only works with the cross-slide
leadscrew, not the compound leadscrew.

Yes. Makes sense, and the drawings support this. Any you have one and
can look at it.

That does help -- but it would have been nice to have the manual
pages too as I was trying to make sense of what was missing.

Someday I'll get a scanner...

Well ... I now have the manuals -- once I knew what to ask
Clausing for. I got a PDF scan of a catalog from the period and then
had model numbers to ask for. (The model number was polished off in
de-rusting what I had, I think -- before I got it.)

[ ... lots of description trimmed ... ]

Remember that the traveling nut is shaped like a narrow but tall
quonset hut, and has a square bar bent into a very long and narrow 'U'
brazed to the bottom. The bar is inset into the base of the hut to
define the width like this (view with Courier again):

/// ///
____/// ///
/ /\/ /// -- part of long 'U' shape. U-turn is at the
/ / \ /// upper right and cut off in the drawing
/__ / \//
/ \ /|
/ () \ // -- this is the nut, and the top is not a meeting
/__ __\// of planes as shown, but rather a smooth curve
|__|__|__|/ which I can't draw with ASCII. Also the hole
shows as way too small.

And the bronze nut is silver brazed to the steel U shape.

Yes.

[ ... more trimmed ... ]

I think I visualize this correctly.


I'm going to Aloris as well.

The better way for almost everything. Unless you get to one of
those really expensive toolposts which let the tool holders lock at 15
degree intervals. :-)

I'm sorely tempted by a #22, the theory being that this replaces a
number of individual toolholders, and I'm more interested in flexibility
than simplicity.

Hmmm ... I would have to dig into the MSC catalog to figure out
a #22.

O.K. I see what it is now. It might be nice for occasional
tasks where a weird angle is needed, but for most purposes, I find the
BXA-16N to handle things nicely, with a pair of holders with straight
ahead mounted tools to cut bevels. The BXA-22 looks like a pain to
re-set in the middle of a task, so having it as the only one is not what
makes sense to me -- kind of like having a 3-in-1 machine where you have
to tear down the milling setup to turn a part needed for completing the
milling. :-)

I'm also sore tempted by a #5C, which accepts 5C collets and allows me
to utilize all those round shank tools.

Hmm ... I've got whatever the holder is which offers a 3MT
socket (matching the tailstock socket) which lets me put in anything
which I can use in the tailstock -- including drill chucks, of course.

I suppose I will outgrow the Clausing someday, but it won't be that soon.

I don't think that I will -- unless someone gives me a Monarch
10EE or a Hardinge toolroom lathe -- and even so, I would probably keep
this for the turret and just keep the turret set up full time, instead
of the tailstock being set up most of the time.

It'll be a few years before the issue becomes salient for me. I'm still
chasing down causes of and cures for chatter.

Interestingly enough, the 5418 does not seem to experience much
chatter.

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 ---