On 2008-03-14, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2008-03-13, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:
[ ... ]
Hmm ... I do have the manuals scanned somewhere.
O.K.:
Dimensions: 20x24x22-1/2H
Net Weight: Approx 160 pounds
It has an electro-magnetic chuck, powered from a circuit in the
base (which I had to re-design for more modern parts).
If you want to see the manual, flyers and quote sheets:
http://www.d-and-d.com/misc/MANUALS/...NGS/index.html
or
http://www2.d-and-d.com/misc/MANUALS...NGS/index.html
This I could find a place for. Most surface grinders are far larger.
Of course, you really would like a slightly taller one to do
sharpening of end mills in the typical fixture sold for the purpose. (I
guess that it would work with smaller ones, but not with full sized
ones.)
[ ... ]
Yes. But my underlying point is that Dorian felt compelled to devote a
catalog page to a drawing naming the parts of a lathe.
You have the catalog -- does it list the company URL? I got
something about opera when I did my first guess. :-)
They do indeed have a URL: http://www.doriantool.com/.
I works better with Safari than Firefox, but probably wants IE.
Well ... IE is not a choice for me -- it doesn't run on Sun
worksations, even if I were willing to run it. :-)
But the site does well with Opera on the Sun, after I turned on
cookies, JavaScript, and Flash. :-) I'm still downloading catalog
sections. Downloading "Cut-Off Systems" at the moment. I'll probably
skip the "milling systems" and "indexable drill systems" catalogs.
I do notice that they have cut-style knurling tools which are
particularly nice -- low-force tools for cutting instead of embossing
knurling into a workpiece.
I find the straight-ahead tool holders on page A-91 called:
MTENN TOOLHOLDER
Style E - 30° Side Cutting Edge Angle
for negative triangle TNM_ inserts
though mine are a different brand ISCAR? Valenite? One of those.
[ ... ]
I wonder who handles MultiFix ()and QuickFix) in the US, if anybody.
Google didn't say. I assume that these toolposts are still made. Not
that I will buy one soon, but some iron porn is in order.
Well ... I know that Enco *used* to handle them -- back around
the early 1970s. Since I don't have the current catalog, I don't know
for sure.
Their website is "temporarily unavailable", so I cannot check right now.
That happens.
O.K. Here is one in the USA.
http://www.emachinetool.com/accessories/catalog/large.cfm?OptionCatID=Tool%20Posts%20%26%20Holders %2C%20VDI&OptionFamilyID=296
It looks as though size 'E' (200-400mm swing) or 'C' (300-500mm
swing) will fit our machines. They only list a price for the size 'C'
set:
$799.00 Post, three standard holders and one "Vee" holder. Hmm
... they are shipped from Canada, so US duty will be added to the charge.
Ouch!
Now you see why I don't have one. :-)
but I picked up a couple of sets of a newer style from a
MSC sales flyer:
07080062 (MSC part number)
TNMG-322 C6 TiN
TMNG-322 NN60
Carbide Turning Inserts
on the top label, and
TNMB-322A-NN60
11/04 LB
153721 10
on the end of the box.
These seem to last longer before rotating to a new tip, but it
may mean that the older ones were optimized for a different workpiece
material, and the ones from MSC are better for the general run of what I
cut.
The older ones are 0.1245" thick, and the newer are 0.129"
thick, not enough to make much difference. But the newer ones *are* TiN
coated, which means less wear from abrasive materials.
OK. I'll start with these.
Reasonable.
BTW While I was down there I checked the bearings of the DuMore
toolpost grinder, and find that my relubrication of the bearings
seems to be holding up nicely.
Hmm. Another project for me.
Of course, your bearings are the spindle ones, not the motor
ones. But I worked some Starrett "Tool and Instrument oil" into the
bearings and that smoothed things up nicely -- and they seem to be
staying that way.
The same lube might do for your spindle bearings, too.
[ ... ]
The lesson here is that the added flexibility of the #22 isn't proving
worthwhile to you.
Right -- but that is, at least in part, because of the presence
of the straight-ahead insert holders which provide some of the angles
which I would otherwise get from the #22. If I did not have those, I
might go for a #22 to add to the collection of holders.
The BXA-22 strikes me as disturbing the indexing of the tool
every time you change its angle, which negates one of the major benefits
of the quick-change toolpost -- that each time you replace the tool, it
in precisely the same position, so when you are making a production run
on something which requires multiple tools you can keep using the same
readings on the dials or on a DRO or dial indicators mounted to display
cross-slide position.
I bet the BXA-22 repeats pretty well, but it cannot be so good as a
block of steel. Nor can it be as rigid.
And in particular if you are loosening the clamp screw and
changing the insert angle frequently.
But the riffled clamping surfaces should cause accurate alignment to the
nearest 15 degrees.
*If* a chip doesn't make it in there as you are changing. :-) I
would rather set this sort of thing up *once* per project instead of
changing angles in mid-project with the likelihood of needing to return
to the same setting.
[ ... ]
Well ... there is a holder specifically for the larger boring
bars. The BXA size has a 1" bore, plus a sleeve to reduce it to the
next size down.
This would be BXA-4, which I have. I just bought the split sleeve that
allows one to clamp 0.75" boring bars, of which I have a few. It works
very well.
And I used the 1" diameter when cutting a large internal Acme
thread IIRC.
I did buy a Dorian #36 (same as Aloris 5C). It does work, holding
round-shank boring bars quite securely. The only worry is that the BXA
#36 (5C) toolholder is quite large, reducing vertical adjustability. I
don't yet know if this is going to be a real problem.
Hmm ... can you position the T-nut so the block hangs past the
edge of the compound T-slot block?
I'm not visualizing this. The pancake nut cannot be brought down far
enough to matter, and so I adjust by hand every time. A little bit
(maybe 0.25") of the holder projects above the BXA toolpost. It doesn't
seem to matter.
Oh -- the block needs to be *higher*, not lower. In cases like
that, I've set the pancake nut on top of a 1/4" lathe bit (which is
nicely ground to 0.250") so I can get a repeatable height with a tool
which requires an unusually high setting. (IIRC, that was with a
threading tool held upside down for threading in reverse off the end of
thin-walled tubing.
I did get a BXA-2, and have used it with a 0.5" round-shank boring bar.
It worked quite well, but does scar the bar shank.
The V -- or the setscrews?
The setscrews mostly, although the V did leave two parallel marks.
Hmm ... rather soft shanks, then. But less likely to slip if
they deform like that.
[ ... ]
I hadn't thought about BXA-13. I'll look into it.
It is worthwhile when you need more reach without sacrificing
rigidity -- such as when threading something near the live center end.
Without it, I've had the toolpost hit the bulge of the live center.
Of course, a right-hand side dovetail would also deal with that
nicely.
Yes, sadly. It looks like one needs a 13L for boring.
I haven't found a need for one for boring -- but perhaps I just
haven't had the right (or wrong) task to perform. :-)
BTW -- I note that the BXA-4 does not specify how far the
centerline of the bore is from the dovetail, so the are not promising
that you could use a set of them as a replacement for a turret. :-)
Right. Aloris' turret replacement is the "Indexable" line.
Well ... that is their replacement for a turret *toolpost*, not
for a bed turret which is what I was talking about. Set the cross-slide
so the bore though the boring bar holder is concentric with the spindle,
and use that to hold the various turret tooling. And if they are truly
the same distance from dovetail to the center of the bore, you could
have multiple tools set up and just change them -- at least until you
need to use the cross-feed to part of the workpiece, after which you
have to re-establish the centering again.
I'm sure that the claim is that this is almost as good as a turret, but
a fraction of the cost.
I'm sure that they would *not* claim that -- as this is using
the tool and holder in a way for which they were not designed.
And it lacks the per-station stop bars so each station stops its
feed in the right position.
Note just above the 5C holder is the #35, which holds a drill
chuck, but in such a way as to have better clearance from the the end of
the workpiece in a short bed leg. (Yes, I am looking through the PDF
file of the catalog.)
I have a long enough bed that I can use a Albrech chuck with 0.5"
straight shank I already have with the #36 (5C collets) in place of the
#35.
Yours is probably longer than mine. Mine is 24" between
centers, and I suspect that yours is 36" between centers -- encoded in
the last two digits of the model number.
I think it's 36". It sure is not 24". So I've got an extra foot to
spend.
O.K. There have been times when I would have liked to have that
extra foot. :-)
[ ... ]
Again, I'm wondering if the difference over #16 is sufficient to own
both.
Again -- only if you don't have two of the straight-ahead
insert holders. I've got them, so I don't need it.
The straight-ahead insert holders are for beveling?
That is what *I* normally use them for -- but if I wanted to
turn with an angled step, I would use them for that as well. I've
pointed to an example in the Dorian "Turning_and_Boring_System.pdf"
catalog file, so you can see what I am talking about. Of course, you
need an appropriate BXA sized holder to go with it.
The #7 cut-off tool holder is good with the right blades.
I have a #7. Which blades are right, are wrong?
The ones which I like are the 'T'-profile ones. And in
particular, the Cleveland Mo-Max ones, which seem to no longer be in the
MSC catalog -- but there are some import copies which *might* be good
enough.
OK. MSC still has Cleveland cutoff blades, on page 626 of the 2007/2008
catalog.
O.K. I could not find them in the web page -- it suggested that
they were discontinued -- from Cleveland, or from their stock, they
didn't say. :-(
[ ... ]
It's possible for sure, although the chuck didn't seem that much used.
But it's easy to check.
It's always possible that a chip got between spindle and chuck.
That can cause chatter -- but it also causes loosening of the
pull-in ring.
Hmm.
Yep -- if you get chatter -- the first thing to do is to check
the pull-in ring to make sure that it is still tight. Then you go to
the usual suspects elsewhere on the machine. :-)
[ ... soft jaws ... ]
The jaws of both 3-jaw and 4-jaw chucks are indeed two-piece. I have
not yet figured out which top jaws will fit, and there are many choices.
Pull off a jaw, and measure the dimensions of the interface.
There should be a central ridge to keep them on center, and a raised
projection in the middle of the length to set the radial position
correctly.
MSC has them in catalog pages. Or -- you could machine up your
own on the mill. :-) Some of these days, I'll set up to make a few sets
of aluminum ones for really soft jaw use. I have two sets of steel soft
jaws waiting for the next project which really calls for them. (And the
Taig 3-jaw chuck is two-piece jaws, but without the precision placing of
the jaws. Just before boring the soft jaws, stamp them wit numbers
matching the master jaws which you mount them on, so you can repeat
precisely if you don't need to re-bore for a different workpiece size.
The issue is lack of time and lack of pressing need, so I haven't tried
to figure that blob out.
O.K. I like to keep a set or two of the jaws handy for when I
really need it in a hurry. When I ordered my Bison 3-jaw with two-piece
jaws, I ordered two sets of soft jaws to go with them. This almost
certainly means that the measurements of those are metric.
[ ... ]
Did you try something soft, like mild aluminum or better soft
copper between the jaws and the workpiece?
Not yet. I've been machining steel on the theory that it is the more
severe test, and thus is useful for diagnostics.
I did not mean to machine the aluminum -- just to use it or
copper as shims between the jaws and the workpiece to absorb surface
irregularities.
I haven't tried the
copper sheet approach yet, though I did think of it. First, I want to
try a less irregular steel bar, probably by turning the rough and rusty
outer surface off, and then chucking the newly machined bar in the 3-jaw
chuck. This will tell me if it's the bar, or the chuck.
Agreed. Be sure to use a live center to stabilize the workpiece
while turning it before you turn it over to get the truly cylindrical
part into the chuck jaws. Oh yes -- also check with a micrometer to
make sure that you haven't produced a cone instead of a cylinder.
Right. I do need a large center drill anyway. The lathe came with a
Royal live center.
O.K. I got a set of five of different sizes in a nice screw-top
wooden holder so I've got some from 1/8" to 1/2" major OD. Each has its
uses.
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 ---