In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-03-22, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-03-20, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

[ ... Opera experience ... ]

Hmm ... how long ago was it? The current one has the ability to
work through a proxy -- even on a site-by-site basis, just as you can
turn on JavaScript and the like on a site-by-site basis.

A few years. But it takes many years for me to try something again,
when it was originally vastly oversold. Usually the perp dies first.

Well ... Opera has been the best browser for my use (on a Sun
UltraSPARC Workstation running Solaris 10) with only one site regularly
crashing it on the first visit each time the page is changed. That is a
web-based comic called Ctl-Alt-Del.

OK. Maybe they have solved the many problems I found.

I think so. At least on the Sun Solaris workstations, which is
the only place that I've tried it so far.

Perhaps I'll re-evaluate Opera. Nor do they seem likely to die now.
IOt has to have been at least 5 years.


There are pages which don't *work* unless I move to Mozilla or
FireFox -- but those are pages which are *designed* to only work on
Internet Explorer -- which I can't run anyway. :-)

Well, partly.

And someone who insists on publishing a web comic entirely in
Flash -- which I could not read for a while until the Flash plugin
version for Solaris finally caught up with his requirements.

Before, he had been running one which would work fine except
for not having a singing-dancing logo. Then he went to requiring the
latest Flash for the whole thing -- and thus lost me for several months.

If he does something like that again, he will lose me
permanently. :-)

Flash is a problem to be sure. On my Mac, with Firefox, flash windows
are simply absent, while Safari works OK with Flash. I would guess from
your comments that Flash will work OK on Opera as well.


No -- meaning the spindle on your toolpost grinder, which I seem
to remember had bearing problems in the spindle, not the motor as I was
experiencing.

I wouldn't be surprised if DTF24 worked for DuMore spindles as well.

Quite possible -- but I use a thinner oil on the spindle of the
Sanford surface grinder than on the Clausing -- probably closer to the
oil for air-powered tools.

Now there is a thought. Also, I wonder if DTF comes thinner.

I would have to go downstairs and do some digging to find out
which version I'm currently using on the Sanford surface grinder
spindle.

DTF24 is the lowest viscosity member, at ISO 32.

MSC lists two spindle oils, Mobil Velocite and Tru-Edge. Both are
thinner than DTF24, being no thicker than ISO 22, so it's probably a
good idea to get some real spindle oil.


Given that the ripple pattern is radial, it should locate in both angle
and location well enough.

As long as you manage to get the chips out whenever you reset
it, which is what I was talking about as an opportunity to lose parts. :-)

OK. Well, the take-away message is that the 16/16N is sufficient.

For most things, yes. Especially if you have at least one of
the straight-ahead insert holder in a standard tool holster.

OK.


Well, it would become a permanent part of the setup. The BXA toolpost
has a 3/8" (by eye) blind hole in the bottom, clearly intended for an
anti-rotation pin. So such a spacer plate would have a ridge below and
a 3/8 hole to accept a short 3/8 dowel rod.

Hmm ... something for me to check whether is present in the
Phase-II Series 200 (BXA size). If so, then perhaps I should make a
plate with a pin for the standard 29.5 degree setting for threading
(which is where I normally leave the compound setting). But I seem to
remember the holders nearly bottoming when I use full 5/8" high tools,
which would mean that they would have to fall *below* the baseplate for
anything which is near the same height. And the plate would be made
starting a little too thick, and milled on the horizontal mill to leave
a ridge to fit the T-slot so it would not rotate.

I was thinking of milling a plate down so the thickness away from the
ridge is about 0.125". That's plenty for the pin to engage. The
alternative is to drill a hole in the compound.

O.K. I'm not sure whether 1/8" is thin enough. I would have to
check again. I think that I come out near 1/10" instead.

A 0.1" spacer is also thick enough for the index pin to be reliable.
The spacer is mostly in pure compression, and so need not be thick.


And drilling the compound makes it a bit tricky getting it in
just the right place for a given angle.

And one may not be able to drill all the needed holes, if the compound
was not designed to be drilled there.


The longitudinal accuracy would be dependent on bed stops for
the carriage, not the indexable toolpost. The best bed stop which I
have found (and which I have) has four turret positions, not enough for
my typical project. (But, I have the real bed turret so I don't *need*
that. Two positions is plenty -- one for parting off, and one for the
groove at the shoulder to allow things to thread on fully even though
the Geometric die head always produces incomplete threads (like pretty
much any die) near the shoulder.

There is the key difference: the carriage doesn't index along the bed
ways.

While the bed turret has a carriage which clamps down firmly to
the bed at each end (two Allen head cap screws at each end) after which
you set the individual stop screws for each tool.

Yes.


All [turret stuff] is certainly way more complex that one would try with
an indexable toolpost system. That said, there are plenty of applications
where an indexable toolpost will more than pay for itself.

The indexable toolpost is designed for swapping tooling in a
particular order -- with the tooling all being normal turning/threading
tooling, not things like Geometric die heads or Roller box tools or the
like. You could not even use it with the BXA sized knurling tool which
I prefer, because it hangs down far enough so that it would hit the back
of the compound as you tried to rotate it. It is only good for when you
lift off one tool holder and drop another on in the two normal dovetails
on stationary BXA toolposts. (You probably could use it with the cut
style knurler with a standard shank instead of the turret-mounted one
which looks like a 3-jaw chuck which I have. :-)

OK. I haven't been tempted to get an indexable toolpost. First, I'll
use the non-indexed stuff, for the experience.

Generally, it is more flexible than the turret toolpost, with the
turret toolpost only winning when you are doing production runs.

Makes sense.


[ ... center drill sets ... ]

Yes. I've seen those sets. I'll probably buy new here, as what I've
seen come up used is in bad shape.

I bought new -- twice. One to keep near the Clausing, the other
to keep fairly near the Compact-5/CNC and the drill press.

Matches my experience.

As it should for anyone who actually *does* something in their
shop. :-)

Well, right now my shop is my personal schoolroom. My first debate is
still if the problem of the moment is due to a mistake I'm making, or to
something needing repair or adjustment.

O.K. I spent quite a while learning to use the turret tooling,
for which I had no previous experience, and there was nobody with
experience around to ask.

Yes. Although you had a head start, already knowing lathes.


My latest cycle with chatter while cutting off a steel bar is that
turning the test bar down to eliminate the rough surface did not solve
the chatter when the now trued bar was clamped in the 3-jaw chuck,
although a pry test now shows more or less equal displacement of chuck
and bar, implying that the bar is now firmly clamped in the chuck.

Machining to reduce diameter and/or threading is quiet and uneventful,
although the threads are ratty, with cracks perpendicular to the surface
and to the direction of tool travel. This is true both for the original
test bar (not marked, but appears to be 1018 CRS) and for a 0.75"
diameter 1018 CRS bar bought new.

A 0.75" diameter CRS bar held in a collet was easily cut off, without
chatter or drama. One test I will make is to hold a piece of that same
0.75" diameter CRS rod in the 3-jaw chuck and try to cut it off.

I've also been assiduously cleaning and deburring the mating surfaces of
the L00 taper on headstock spindle (male) and on 3-jaw chuck (female).
I did see a stuck chip come off when I used a very fine file on the
headstock taper. Prior wiping with a shop towel had not dislodged this
chip, which was hard to get to, being up under the big threaded clamping
ring. Perhaps stuck chips were the root cause.


Joe Gwinn