Harold,

It's better than that. It will teach, or refresh, the fundamentals, which
are all important.

Both, though more teaching than refreshing


You're a damned good thinker, Bill.

Ditto. Thanks!

Bill

--
Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.

From what I see there are far too few highly skilled people out there and
there is a lack of formal training programs to teach those skills.

This is the dark side of advancing technology; more accurately, it's a
consequence of a lack of respect for history. One thing that really
scares me is the speed with which drafting machines/tables disappeared
from our educational system( at least it seems that way). CAD software
is great, but I think it should follow some descriptive geometry on
paper. Making printable lines was silly when was told I would be forced
to do it (we never actually bothered), but the drafting experience was
very useful.

Bill

Don,

If the vise does not have slots for keys, mill slots and drill
and tap the holes for screws to keep the keys in place. (You may want
two sets of slots -- one for the vise at right angles to the T-slots,
and another set for the vise parallel to the T-slots. In that case, I
would suggest putting number stamps in the keys and the slots so the
same keys go back in the same place each time.

It has keys, but they are too small for the slots. Sounds like a good
project.


To get the slots running just right, take a chunk of square
steel stock, clamp it to the table adjusting for parallel, and then
clamp the jaws of the inverted vise to the stock. (This is presuming
that the vise does not have a swivel base, of course.)

It has a swivel base, but it is currently bolted so the pieces hold
their orientation, and I could leave it that way, I suppose, if I blow
for a rotary table. As people have observed, the tooling options are
endless (part of me does not mind that very muchg). I understand what
you are saying about a tight fit. In fact, it explains some things from
my past; Ron must have done that, and a damn good job of it too (no
surprise).




There are lots of ways -- depending on the indicator. Since I
don't know what your indicator looks like, I can't suggest much --
except that I would use collets instead if I had a choice.

I am very much leaning toward the ER32 solution, but want to read a
little more before buying them. Basically, I do not care (much) about
the height of the chuck, but I do care about the relative height between
the business end of a drill bit and an end mill, and about the vertical
space required to make the common changes.

One question about ER32, and put this to the seller I listed, is how
much room does one need to change a collet? It looks a lot more spindle
friendly than changing an R8 collet.




Speaking of the table, most of it is quite clean. There are a couple of
small dings that I assume will be best honed or lapped away. What
should I _not_ do?


What you *should* do is stone or file to remove the *raised*
part of the dings, without cutting into the rest of the surface. Again,
rub with waylube after you have filed, so you don't have bare metal
exposed to rust.

BTW -- if you've got a fuel fed heater in the shop -- beware
that aside from possibly introducing carbon monoxide and poisoning you,
it is also *very* likely to produce water vapor, which will condense on
the cold metal for quite a while until you get the tools warm enough.
Better to use electric heat, or put heat sources (e.g. light bulbs)
inside the machine to keep it warmer than the surrounding air. (And
lots of surface lube again.)

In Florida we tend to struggle with too much heat, so it's not likely to
be a concern. However, this will be my first winter in this house, and
an electric space heater might find its way into the garage/shop. The
house itself has gas heat, and I might also "forget" to close the door
leading to the garage when I'm working.



What is the spindle for your machine? The first hit which I
checked on "Rong Fu 31" in Google shows that the one being sold has an
R8 spindle, so you will use R8 collets. They are relatively
inexpensive, good for light work, and should be tightened by the same
drawbar which holds in you drill chuck (which is a *terrible* way to
hold end mills, though quite reasonable for drill bits.)

So -- the search for "R8" collets should narrow things down
greatly. You won't need a chuck at all for holding them -- your spindle
should do that properly.

It is fascinating to see the varied opinions on this. Most of my
experience was with collet chucks, and I recall enjoying using them. I
will try collet mounting some bits to see what works. Do you have a
recommendation for end mill holders that would compete with the ER32
collet chuck set? I am not so much worried about quick change as I am
in the clearance needed above the work.



Hmm ... something like that could be nice for re-zeroing a DRO
(Digital ReadOut -- a device for numerically displaying the coordinate
positions so you aren't having to spend as much time making sure that
the leadscrew backlash is not fooling you.

As I recall, I was taught to prevent backlash by trusting the dials only
in one direction after a "find". Instructional corrections/additions
are more than welcome. I did very little precision work, and usually
cared about one a couple of dimensions at most, so it wasn't too
difficult to cut/count/cut.

Bill

Harold,

Collets shouldn't be used much beyond a thou or two past nominal for
starters, and many of the tap drill sizes are not fractional----so you'd
find not many of the sizes you'd desire can be so held.

Thanks for the heads up on that one. A crazy idea: turn the shanks so
they fit? I do not have a lathe, but will probably eventually get a
small one.


The other problem,
albeit it a minor one, is that drill shanks are often quite badly badgered
from slipping---which could complicate getting them in a collet.

Unless it happens routinely in/from the collets, I could always buy
replacements for any pose a problem.


I
highly recommend a good hand tightening drill chuck (something like an
Albrecht), half inch capacity. They're fast and precise. If you think
you'd want to change drills on the fly, you could even entertain buying a
Wahlstrom. Big bucks, and sort of dangerous in the half inch size, though.
The 3/8" capacity Wahlstrom is a sweet dream.

I have a 1/2 in Jacobs that seems excellent to me. I'm confident that I
will use it many times, but since it adds roughly 4 inches to the
spindle, it would be nice to be able to avoid it when feasible; again,
the enemies are the difference in bit/mill position, and the clearance
for a change. I do not expect to eliminate head movement and
registration problems, but I am willing to throw a little money at
things that will help make them rare events.

Bill

"Bill Schwab" wrote in message
link.net...
Harold,

Collets shouldn't be used much beyond a thou or two past nominal for
starters, and many of the tap drill sizes are not fractional----so you'd
find not many of the sizes you'd desire can be so held.

Thanks for the heads up on that one. A crazy idea: turn the shanks so
they fit? I do not have a lathe, but will probably eventually get a
small one.

Sure! Why not?

Be aware, though, that drills are (slightly) tapered, with the flutes
(induction) hardened. There's a small portion of the typical shank where it
transitions from heat treated to annealed. It can be ignorant to machine,
so stay back a bit from the flutes, and keep the shanks as large as
possible, for strength.

In spite of the protestations of the crowd that insist you must hold end
mills in end mill holders, collets, in fact, can be a better system,
particularly when you're working under certain circumstances. Both have a
place, really, but you can run a (commercial) shop with manual machines
without special end mill holders with almost no problems. If not, every
place I was employed was having a hell of a lot more trouble than they were
aware. The real push for end mill holders is sort of a CNC event. Even
the old horizontal machines used to have a collet adapter, which was used
for holding anything that was collet diameter when it was required. They
work fine, and are more precise and more positive drive than a drill chuck,
just not quite as fast and convenient to change.



The other problem,
albeit it a minor one, is that drill shanks are often quite badly
badgered
from slipping---which could complicate getting them in a collet.

Unless it happens routinely in/from the collets, I could always buy
replacements for any pose a problem.

Collet use would likely eliminate the problem entirely because of the large
surface driving the drill, and the ability of the collet to drive well as a
result. They rarely slip, although holding a Silver & Demming drill
presents a challenge, depending on how it's applied. . It's all up to
you----and the draw bar.



I
highly recommend a good hand tightening drill chuck (something like an
Albrecht), half inch capacity. They're fast and precise. If you
think
you'd want to change drills on the fly, you could even entertain buying
a
Wahlstrom. Big bucks, and sort of dangerous in the half inch size,
though.
The 3/8" capacity Wahlstrom is a sweet dream.

I have a 1/2 in Jacobs that seems excellent to me. I'm confident that I
will use it many times, but since it adds roughly 4 inches to the
spindle, it would be nice to be able to avoid it when feasible; again,
the enemies are the difference in bit/mill position, and the clearance
for a change. I do not expect to eliminate head movement and
registration problems, but I am willing to throw a little money at
things that will help make them rare events.

Bill

Yep----that's the reason I find myself using collets for drilling
occasionally, even though I have a knee mill. I'm not interested in
cranking the knee up and down a few inches for one hole, especially at my
age. It's a lot easier to change to a collet. Yet another example of
your good thinking.

Harold

Bill Schwab wrote in
news
From what I see there are far too few highly skilled people out there
and there is a lack of formal training programs to teach those
skills.

This is the dark side of advancing technology; more accurately, it's a
consequence of a lack of respect for history. One thing that really
scares me is the speed with which drafting machines/tables disappeared
from our educational system( at least it seems that way). CAD
software is great, but I think it should follow some descriptive
geometry on paper. Making printable lines was silly when was told I
would be forced to do it (we never actually bothered), but the
drafting experience was very useful.


The math alone is worth it. Then you add in the ability to lay out things
in wood for projects around the house, and you've got skills that serve you
well for a lifetime.


--

Dan

"DE" wrote in message
...


Harold , The machinist school I attended years ago was run by a
gentleman of considerable skill and experience. If you were able
to graduate ( and a lot didn't) a job placement was likely assured.
It was all *old school* as you describe, and fully
comprensive. One of your peers I would say.

He ran a tight ship and had a reputation among several manufactures
for turning out quality job candidates. He also steered us away
from bad employers..

I worked my tail off and only managed a 3.25 average, one of the
highest in the group but was I disappointed. It was not as easy of a
program as I had expected but much more rewarding. The highest
marks usually went to those working in the trade and being sent in by
their employer.

A perfect example of experience, and the opportunity to have "hands on".
It's hard to beat. For them, especially if they had ability at the outset
(not everyone has), they had a leg up. Sans the schooling, that's precisely
how I was trained. Once I got my feet on the ground (not a pretty picture
until that magical day) I was a fast learner, but I "practiced" the new
found skill daily,for 8 hours.


I later became friends with his son and was told that it was a pretty
good score .

I agree! I'd have been damned proud had it been me, and I congratulate you
for your dedication, devotion and obvious success.

Harold

"D Murphy" wrote in message
...
"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in
:

snip-

With all due respect for the skills and talent these folks have, most
of which I envy like you'll never know, they wouldn't last a day in an
old method machine shop, assuming they could get in to begin with.

I disagree. A skilled CNC machinist has every skill and then some that
are required to machine parts on manual equipment.

He lacks experience, which sorts them out instantly. That's what makes
skilled people. Knowing how something is done does not mean you can do it.
That's the part that separates those that can from those that can't. It was
evident in any shop I ever found employment. Ever watched someone work
that is *good*---really good? He has hands like everyone else, but how he
manages the machine and problems at hand is often far different from
others. It's not what he does, but how he does it. That is what makes
skilled people------and always has. How I wish I could say it always
will-----but CNC has changed that.

If you've had any experience in the manufacturing field from the perspective
of the guy on the machine, you know, as well as I do, that there's always
one or more "hot shots" in the shop with a reputation for having the ability
to do it right, every time. If their co-workers don't have ego problems,
they'll gladly tell you how good the other guy is------and openly admit that
they can't duplicate his/her performance. I've seen it time and again.

That being said I'll
be the first to admit that there are a lot of semi-skilled CNC
"machinists" out there. They know how to change tools, set offsets, use
an indicator, etc. They are skilled operators really. They can set up a
CNC machine and operate it, but they don't have the experience required
to process a part. I've seen these guys try to use manual machines and
frankly they scare me.

Not a fair comparison, for I was discussing "machinists", and have already
accommodated skilled CNC operators. I stand by my comments. My years
in the shop prove I'm right----but keep in mind I've been away for about 20
years now. Can't speak for what's happening today.


On the other hand there are the CNC machinists who develop the process,
figure out the work holding, select the tools and write the programs.
They could work in any "old method" shop and survive just fine. If
anything they might bring a little fresh insight with them. They are also
used to having to think about every single detail before they start
cutting a chip, a discipline that many manual machinists lack. Writing a
CNC program forces you to think about every single step on a micro level
ahead of time. If it ain't in the program the machine won't do it. CNC
machines in general move a whole lot faster, have more power, and run at
higher speeds. This forces you to consider work holding a lot more
carefully than you would have to otherwise.

Yep----that was my accommodation for the skilled guys. .

I started in the trade on manual machines at a time when only the biggest
companies had CNC. Eventually I learned CNC and wound up working as an
application engineer teaching CNC programming to people who had never
used one before. The statements I made above are very broad and general.
Certainly CNC allows you to process a part differently than you would on
manual machines.

Which, in part, is one of the reasons that a CNC operator is unlikely to be
successful on manual machines, not having experienced them beforehand. .
Not having that experience, his thoughts are often improper for the
application at hand.

For example if you are machining a part out of a block
of steel, on manual machines you might blue up the block, scribe lines,
and rough it out on a band saw. On a CNC you would hog it out right on
the machine. So a CNC guy might have to learn a few methods, but I'm sure
they would be fine. Having taught CNC, often manual machinists have to
learn trig and other new skills.

The point at hand is people transitioning from one level of technology to
the other. I've always maintained that each of us can be so trained. My
comments suggested no opportunity for that to occur. A CNC operator with
no manual experience is unlikely to land a job in a manual shop, and is even
more unlikely to be able to hold it. Not without some training. Why would
he be expected to be able to any more than a person such as myself (with NO
CNC training) be able to do the same thing in reverse? Makes no sense, and
is rather disrespectful of the skills that experienced people have in each
camp, skills that often have come at a high price.



The ongoing struggle those of us have that have worked in the trade,
especially the "old way" (sans CNC) is with people that can't
differentiate between making chips and making parts. I've witnessed
a tremendous amount of that since I began following machining forums a
few years ago. You could likely teach a monkey to turn on a machine
and start making chips----well proven by the fact that I can do it.
The problems start when you have to leave behind the item you're
striving to extract from the metal you're carving-----and only the
item----to specs.

At first glance, machining doesn't appear to be much of a challenge.
Like welding, folks get the idea that because they've burned some rod
(made some chips) that they understand the process, and the difference
between them and a guy that does it full time is they enjoy it, and
the guy that does it full time doesn't (he's likely half right).
Such people, in my opinion, are *new*, or very uninitiated. It
takes skill and experience to make parts, repetitively, to print, in a
timely fashion. There is no substitute for the skill (CNC
excepted)-----it does not come from a book, it does not come from your
best buddy-----damned few are born with it. It comes from the school
of hard knocks, with long, hard hours of getting your hands dirty, and
with proper guidance, so you use good procedures that insure a minimum
risk of scrap and injury.

Very true, but I take exception that you can't learn from a book.

Then you didn't understand my statement, or you choose to distort that which
I have so clearly stated------which is *experience* does not come from a
book. You can read a book day in and day out and have a firm understanding
of a process, but that it can come out of your hands, or not, is proven only
by doing it----and is further enhanced by doing it again and again
(experience).

I'm a strong supporter of reading technical publications. Fact is, I
learned how to refine precious metals from a book, but reading it gave
direction only----it meant little until I got my hands dirty.

By the way, that venture went on to become a viable business, from which I
retired, selling the business that I founded, quite unintentionally.

Studying from books while getting hands on experience will shorten your
learning curve more than floundering around and trying to figure out
things by trial and error. Taking night classes at a local technical
college is another great way to speed up the learning process. Often
night classes are taught by folks moonlighting from their day job in a
local factory.

If nothing else I know enough to know that I don't know everything.
Reading helps me stay current. Everyone should subscribe to trade mags,
scour libraries, and go to machine tool shows. You can learn a lot just
by reading tooling catalogs. I've attended classes at Kennametal and
Sandvik. It's time well spent. A good machinist should always be looking
to learn.


Nothing serves as a come to Jesus session better than handing an
unskilled person a print, material, no op. sheet, and point them to a
machine, and ask them to produce a given number of parts that will
pass inspection. Sorts them out right now! Like welding, you can't
fake it. You can do it-----------or you can't. Those that know
the difference can see through you with no effort. It's like playing
a piano. Almost no one does that without paying dues.

Well said.


Thanks. Just speaking the truth.

Harold

Bill Schwab wrote:
I am very much leaning toward the ER32 solution, but want to read a
little more before buying them. Basically, I do not care (much) about
the height of the chuck, but I do care about the relative height between
the business end of a drill bit and an end mill, and about the vertical
space required to make the common changes.

One question about ER32, and put this to the seller I listed, is how
much room does one need to change a collet? It looks a lot more spindle
friendly than changing an R8 collet. ER32

Since you don't need to remove the chuck, and the collet closer is not
as deep as the collets, the vertical space needed to change a collet is
just a little more than the hight of a collet, which is 40mm.

The friend who pointed me towards the ER system has a Myford mill with
an R8 spindle. Although he has almost the complete set of R8 collets he
decided to switch to ER and never regretted it. Unlike the R8s, each ER
collet covers a 1mm range, so with ER32, for example, the complete set
of 18 collets allow you to grip any diam. from 2-20mm. Neither of us
have yet experienced the problem of endmills working their way out of
the chuck. It could happen, of course, but we haven't had it happen.

--

Regards, Gary Wooding
(To reply by email, change feet to foot in my address)

"Gary Wooding" wrote in message
...
Bill Schwab wrote:
I am very much leaning toward the ER32 solution, but want to read a
little more before buying them. Basically, I do not care (much) about
the height of the chuck, but I do care about the relative height between
the business end of a drill bit and an end mill, and about the vertical
space required to make the common changes.

One question about ER32, and put this to the seller I listed, is how
much room does one need to change a collet? It looks a lot more spindle
friendly than changing an R8 collet. ER32

Since you don't need to remove the chuck, and the collet closer is not
as deep as the collets, the vertical space needed to change a collet is
just a little more than the hight of a collet, which is 40mm.

The friend who pointed me towards the ER system has a Myford mill with
an R8 spindle. Although he has almost the complete set of R8 collets he
decided to switch to ER and never regretted it. Unlike the R8s, each ER
collet covers a 1mm range, so with ER32, for example, the complete set
of 18 collets allow you to grip any diam. from 2-20mm. Neither of us
have yet experienced the problem of endmills working their way out of
the chuck. It could happen, of course, but we haven't had it happen.


It is generally accepted that end mills should not be run from chucks, due
in part to the hardened shanks, which do not hold well by that method, nor
are they supported properly for the serious forces generated in the cut.
It's far different from a twist drill, which has a soft shank and typically
does all its cutting on the end, so there are no side forces. While you
can, and probably do, achieve a level of success, such a setup is prone to
eccentricity, chatter and hogging, which is reduced by the use of a proper
collet setup. These words I say in the hopes of helping a newbie.
I realize you folks know it. :-)

Harold

Harold, Gary,

"Gary Wooding" wrote in message
...

Bill Schwab wrote:

I am very much leaning toward the ER32 solution, but want to read a
little more before buying them. Basically, I do not care (much) about
the height of the chuck, but I do care about the relative height between
the business end of a drill bit and an end mill, and about the vertical
space required to make the common changes.

One question about ER32, and put this to the seller I listed, is how
much room does one need to change a collet? It looks a lot more spindle
friendly than changing an R8 collet. ER32

Since you don't need to remove the chuck, and the collet closer is not
as deep as the collets, the vertical space needed to change a collet is
just a little more than the hight of a collet, which is 40mm.

That's a lot better than R8.


The friend who pointed me towards the ER system has a Myford mill with
an R8 spindle. Although he has almost the complete set of R8 collets he
decided to switch to ER and never regretted it. Unlike the R8s, each ER
collet covers a 1mm range, so with ER32, for example, the complete set
of 18 collets allow you to grip any diam. from 2-20mm. Neither of us
have yet experienced the problem of endmills working their way out of
the chuck. It could happen, of course, but we haven't had it happen.



It is generally accepted that end mills should not be run from chucks, due
in part to the hardened shanks, which do not hold well by that method, nor
are they supported properly for the serious forces generated in the cut.
It's far different from a twist drill, which has a soft shank and typically
does all its cutting on the end, so there are no side forces. While you
can, and probably do, achieve a level of success, such a setup is prone to
eccentricity, chatter and hogging, which is reduced by the use of a proper
collet setup. These words I say in the hopes of helping a newbie.
I realize you folks know it. :-)

Harold, to clarify, are you saying the ER32 is a poor choice because it
does not adequately grip endmills, or are you simply telling me not to
put endmills in my shiny new Jacobs chuck (which I would not do)?

Elsewhere in the news, my edge center/finder arrived today. It's a
Starrett, which seemed to be the most heartily recommended of such
gizmos. How long is it likely to last?

Bill

"Bill Schwab" wrote in message
...
Harold, Gary,
snip----



It is generally accepted that end mills should not be run from chucks,
due
in part to the hardened shanks, which do not hold well by that method,
nor
are they supported properly for the serious forces generated in the cut.
It's far different from a twist drill, which has a soft shank and
typically
does all its cutting on the end, so there are no side forces. While
you
can, and probably do, achieve a level of success, such a setup is prone
to
eccentricity, chatter and hogging, which is reduced by the use of a
proper
collet setup. These words I say in the hopes of helping a
newbie.
I realize you folks know it. :-)

Harold, to clarify, are you saying the ER32 is a poor choice because it
does not adequately grip endmills, or are you simply telling me not to
put endmills in my shiny new Jacobs chuck (which I would not do)?

Sorry for the confusion. I'm not familiar with the ER32, which may or may
not be a good accessory. My only comment regards any kind of quick change
device is that they often extend the spindle, to accommodate the larger
devices that permit the quick change. That tends to diminish rigidity, but
that can be a good tradeoff, depending on the situation at hand. If the
ER32 doesn't function that way, and holds similarly to the typical collet,
I'd heartily endorse it.

My comments were strictly for the use of end mills in a drill chuck. That
is a real poor choice and should be avoided like the plague. Having said
that, on rare occasion I've used an end mill in a drill chuck, but not for
milling as such. More like a spot face, but even that is not a good idea.


Elsewhere in the news, my edge center/finder arrived today. It's a
Starrett, which seemed to be the most heartily recommended of such
gizmos. How long is it likely to last?

Not long. I bought my first edge finder back in the late 50's and it's
starting to show some wear! g (I ran a commercial shop for 16 of those
years).

Edge finders tend to be speed sensitive. Play with yours and make a
determination where it works best, then run it there. My 1/2" edge finder
(some ******* brand, not Starrett) likes about 2,100 RPM. YMMV.

Harold.

Bill Schwab wrote:


to clarify, are you saying the ER32 is a poor choice because it
does not adequately grip endmills, or are you simply telling me not to
put endmills in my shiny new Jacobs chuck (which I would not do)?


The ER system does not have an endmill locking system such as such as is
found in the Clarkson and Autolock systems, so, in theory it is
susceptible to allowing the cutters to work themselves out when making
heavy cuts. In practise, things seem different - at least for the
members of my model engineering club. One member, a retired toolmaker
of immense experience, uses MT collets in his Centec 2B. Another member,
the one who pointed my towards the ER system, eschewed the Clarkson
system in favour of R8, and then switched to ER. Neither have
experienced a cutter working out - nor have I. This could be because,
being hobbyists, we don't take the heavy cuts that are common in
industry. Of course, your mileage may vary.

As far as overhang is concerned, my ER32 chuck is slightly shorter than
the Clarkson, so from that point of view at least, it is slightly better.
The friend who uses MT collets is better off though; his collets don't
protrude from the spindle so there is no overhang at all. He does,
though, need to release the drawbar (and tap it out) every time he
changes a collet. And being that much longer than ER collets he needs
more space below the spindle.

--

Regards, Gary Wooding
(To reply by email, change feet to foot in my address)

I am very much leaning toward the ER32 solution, but want to read a

I have an ER32 bison collet chuck that I use on my horizontal mill with
a #30 spindle. I used it to hold small endmills (less that 1/2) and
to hold woodruff key cutters. It works wonderful for both. (I also
have end mill holders but carbide endmills dont have flats)

My first big mill was a jet mill drill. Switching from drilling to milling
without moving the head was tough. I bought an Erickson DA180 collet
chuck for it. Double Angle (DA) collets are primary made for drilling
but I have used them to hold small endmill without any problems. They
also make special collets that with an NP postfix intended for holding
endmills. These NP collets have a button that engauges the flat on
the endmill. Read all about them in the J&L catalog.

Beware that both systems are pricy. I paid about 200 for the Bison ER32
collet chuck from Penn Tool. I think the erickson 180 cost me double that
because the collets are expensive. I bought mine on sale from Enco.
Now that I have the collets, I have various chucks to use them in
various ways. R8 collet chuck for the mill, MT collet chuck so I can
use them in the lathe tail stock. Another big plus with the 180 collet
chuck is that it will run about as true as you can get a drill to run.

chuck

chuck

Gary,

The ER system does not have an endmill locking system such as such as is
found in the Clarkson and Autolock systems, so, in theory it is
susceptible to allowing the cutters to work themselves out when making
heavy cuts. In practise, things seem different - at least for the
members of my model engineering club. One member, a retired toolmaker
of immense experience, uses MT collets in his Centec 2B. Another member,
the one who pointed my towards the ER system, eschewed the Clarkson
system in favour of R8, and then switched to ER. Neither have
experienced a cutter working out - nor have I. This could be because,
being hobbyists, we don't take the heavy cuts that are common in
industry. Of course, your mileage may vary.

I am part hobbyist and part gainful prototyper. Neither personality is
worried about taking deep cuts.

I called J&L for some advice and ended up ordering an ER-32 set that has
just arrived. My increased motivation was generated a couple of days
ago. I was removing my chuck (with which I am still on speaking
termsg) and was having trouble releasing it - then I suddenly had no
trouble releasing it. Ouch!!!!! (I always was a master of understatement).

I briefly considered going with a smaller ER chuck to get slightly
smaller collets, but liked the range of the 32 and decided to get it.
Looking at (vs. thinking about) the 3/32 inch collet, I am becoming more
convinced that I made the right decision.

The box also contains a DTI and the cheapest dovetail mount I could find
(for starters).

My edge finder (actually a combined edge/center finder) continues to
mystify me a little. Per Harold's comments, I will try running it a
little faster to see what happens. So far, I don't see quite what the
instructional movies on the net show. Instead of clear side movement, I
get more of a whobble. Is that what the combined finder does, or am I
just running it too slowly?

Bill

"Bill Schwab" wrote in message
...
snip----
My edge finder (actually a combined edge/center finder) continues to
mystify me a little. Per Harold's comments, I will try running it a
little faster to see what happens. So far, I don't see quite what the
instructional movies on the net show. Instead of clear side movement, I
get more of a whobble. Is that what the combined finder does, or am I
just running it too slowly?

Bill

You guessed it! I assume you're speaking of a device that has a head of
given size----such as 1/2" diameter, and is held to the main body with a
spring? If so, they perform poorly at slow speeds, as I said. When it's
running at a good speed, it will stay on center when so placed with a
finger, and ride the edge of a part without moving away until such time that
the edge of the finder no longer has any clearance. At that point, it
smartly snaps to the side. If you run it too fast, it will pull away,
often causing some damage to the finder. When you're running at a good
speed, it will simply stay off center, riding the edge of your part. Set
your dial or DRO to zero at that point, reflecting the radius of the finder,
so the centerline of the spindle is at 0, not the edge of the finder.
Once you've done that, repeat the operation to insure that you are really at
0. It's easy to overshoot the first time, but the second time you have a
clue where 0 should be. If there's any doubt, repeat a third time. You
should be able to locate an edge within a thou repeatedly.

Harold

Harold,

You guessed it! I assume you're speaking of a device that has a head of
given size----such as 1/2" diameter, and is held to the main body with a
spring? If so, they perform poorly at slow speeds, as I said. When it's
running at a good speed, it will stay on center when so placed with a
finger, and ride the edge of a part without moving away until such time that
the edge of the finder no longer has any clearance. At that point, it
smartly snaps to the side.

For my next session, I will run up the speed (after re-reading the max
RPM spec I saw) and give it a try.



If you run it too fast, it will pull away,
often causing some damage to the finder. When you're running at a good
speed, it will simply stay off center, riding the edge of your part. Set
your dial or DRO to zero at that point, reflecting the radius of the finder,
so the centerline of the spindle is at 0, not the edge of the finder.
Once you've done that, repeat the operation to insure that you are really at
0. It's easy to overshoot the first time, but the second time you have a
clue where 0 should be. If there's any doubt, repeat a third time. You
should be able to locate an edge within a thou repeatedly.

Dial backlash question: if I advance to the edge, back away to repeat
and then touch again with the dial locked in place from the first pass,
is it reasonable to expect the resulting two backlashes to cancel each
other? I think you've implied that, and it makes sense, but I want to
make sure that I am not getting the wrong idea. I understand that the
dial readings in the backward motion would not be correct.

Bill

Gary,

As far as overhang is concerned, my ER32 chuck is slightly shorter than
the Clarkson, so from that point of view at least, it is slightly better.
The friend who uses MT collets is better off though; his collets don't
protrude from the spindle so there is no overhang at all. He does,
though, need to release the drawbar (and tap it out) every time he
changes a collet. And being that much longer than ER collets he needs
more space below the spindle.

My first fiddling session with an ER32 went well. The spindle to nut
space is very acceptable, and the collet changing is indeed much more
agreeable than changing R8 collets.

As for ER32 vs. 25 or 16, using a 3/32 bit has put my slight doubts
aside; 32 was the right choice. That bit is pretty small and I like the
range of the 32.

Figuring that drill bits would be the trouble spot, I started drilling
holes in some scrap steel slotted angle. A 1/4 bit slipped on me once,
but some additional tightening took care of that. I got it right on a
later second attempt, probably using a little more care with the start
and break-through and being a little more forceful with the spanner. To
my pleasant surprise, the bit appeared undamaged by the slipping; it is
a little harder to see whether the collet suffered any ill effects, but
I doubt it. I get the sense that it will work at least well enough to
drill starter holes in the correct places, and will probably handle most
of my drilling.

In the (re)indexing discussions I've read, I have not seen mention of
using short/stubby drill bits. It occured to me when I noticed the
length of my 1/2 bits. Of course I would drill a starter hole, so
lining back up would not be a big deal, but it raises the question of
whether one could get a short bit, or just use an appropriate endmill to
drill shallow but wide holes? I recall reading that endmill is not the
correct type of cutter because it does not cut to the center, but my
"endmills" do have flutes that cut from the center line outward. Is
there any problem with drilling with them?

I paid mid-range based on prices people report. The collets seem to be
quite nice, and were the bulk of the cost. I might have been able to
save a few bucks elsewhere, but was getting good technical info and
decided to take the guy's advice since the price was reasonable. The
chuck bothered me a little at first. It felt like it might be trying to
cross-thread, but I think some of that was operator error and some that
the threads were a little sharp. Having run the nut over them a few
times, it's getting easier to use. I am also catching on to how to
release the collets from the nut. It was interesting that I did it
correctly by accident a couple of times, and then started having some
trouble.

How do you recommend storing the collets? They are in a plastic box,
relying on lack of movement to avoid collisions. Can I safely make a
wood rack, or is that asking for rust?

The DTI is definitely a winner for vice alignment; much simpler than the
contraption I rigged up using a plunge indicator. Next will be to
figure out how to get it in position to sweep holes.

Bill

"Bill Schwab" wrote in message
link.net...
snip--

Dial backlash question: if I advance to the edge, back away to repeat
and then touch again with the dial locked in place from the first pass,
is it reasonable to expect the resulting two backlashes to cancel each
other? I think you've implied that, and it makes sense, but I want to
make sure that I am not getting the wrong idea. I understand that the
dial readings in the backward motion would not be correct.

Bill

That's correct. When you back off, to properly deal with backlash, always
back off too far, then turn to your mark in the same direction as you did
originally. That rule is across the board, whether you're using your edge
finder or positioning. I make it a habit to routinely work from the
left side and back side of parts, so the dial reading is always right
handed, or with the dial. Only under rare circumstances do I not. That
means if you're working from the center of a part, you must keep backlash in
mind as you work the far side of center, and the left hand portion of
center. If you use the same sequence routinely, it becomes second nature
and you don't really have to think about it.

A note he Use your (high quality-buy a good one. I recommend a Starrett
C305R) 6" scale for every move. It will tell you if you've turned the
handle a turn too far, or even catch a mistake if you transpose some
numbers. Carefully applied, you can read a scale to .005" without much
difficulty. That will save you tons of trouble. It is especially
important when you're stepping off holes, where you have a multitude of
chances of making scrap. Use the scale until it becomes routine, just
like working with backlash. Touch your spotting drill or center drill to
the piece, and measure the dimension from your reference point. It takes a
moment to do, but far less time than making a new part. You'll improve
your quality immensely if you follow this advice.

Harold

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

A note he Use your (high quality-buy a good one. I recommend a Starrett
C305R) 6" scale for every move.

My favorite is the C604RE. Those are the ones with the 'end reading'
graduations, for fitting into tight spots. Actually really handy!

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

Bill Schwab wrote:

How do you recommend storing the collets? They are in a plastic box,
relying on lack of movement to avoid collisions. Can I safely make a
wood rack, or is that asking for rust?

I don't have long-term experience, but I picked up a little plastic
storage box at Harbor Freight a while back. It comes with a dozen or so
little cylindrical plastic boxes inside that happen to fit ER32 collets
very nicely. No rattling around.

Pete

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

A note he Use your (high quality-buy a good one. I recommend a
Starrett
C305R) 6" scale for every move.

My favorite is the C604RE. Those are the ones with the 'end reading'
graduations, for fitting into tight spots. Actually really handy!

Jim

A model I really should include in my toolbox. I can't tell you the number
of times I could have used one.

Thanks, Jim.

Harold

Harold,

That's correct. When you back off, to properly deal with backlash, always
back off too far, then turn to your mark in the same direction as you did
originally. That rule is across the board, whether you're using your edge
finder or positioning. I make it a habit to routinely work from the
left side and back side of parts, so the dial reading is always right
handed, or with the dial. Only under rare circumstances do I not. That
means if you're working from the center of a part, you must keep backlash in
mind as you work the far side of center, and the left hand portion of
center. If you use the same sequence routinely, it becomes second nature
and you don't really have to think about it.

I think I follow. It gets to another question, which is whether you
work in absolute or relative (rezeroing) the dials? It sounds as though
you do not rezero. In that case, a "lap counter" would be handy, but
the scale probably does pretty much that.


A note he Use your (high quality-buy a good one. I recommend a Starrett
C305R) 6" scale for every move. It will tell you if you've turned the
handle a turn too far, or even catch a mistake if you transpose some
numbers. Carefully applied, you can read a scale to .005" without much
difficulty. That will save you tons of trouble. It is especially
important when you're stepping off holes, where you have a multitude of
chances of making scrap. Use the scale until it becomes routine, just
like working with backlash. Touch your spotting drill or center drill to
the piece, and measure the dimension from your reference point. It takes a
moment to do, but far less time than making a new part. You'll improve
your quality immensely if you follow this advice.

No argument here; it makes sense. With the ER set, the changes involved
would not be all that time consuming, and it beats starting over.

Re the edge finder, I think I get it now, at least for edges. I flipped
the belts, and fiddled with a little more speed. I saw definite lateral
movement, and then realized that the motion was smaller than I was
expecting. Now that I know what to look for, I can see it at the speed
I was using before. I have yet to set the dials to check for
repeatability, but will try that next.

Bill

"Bill Schwab" wrote in message
ink.net...
Harold,
snip--

I think I follow. It gets to another question, which is whether you
work in absolute or relative (rezeroing) the dials? It sounds as though
you do not rezero. In that case, a "lap counter" would be handy, but
the scale probably does pretty much that.

Once you've set a dial, don't reset it while you're running the part, or
series of identical parts. It's too easy to screw up by a few thou.
Naturally, when there's no alternative, do so, but be careful you don't
introduce backlash while spinning the dial to the new setting. Then
remember you've lost your datum point, so the dial will no longer be in sync
with it.

Yes, the scale serves as a lap counter in a sense. What you'll find is
that when you have to step off inches, you count turns, 5/inch. If your
machine has dials calibrated .200"/turn, it's real easy to work in
thousandths, which I assume you do. Smaller mills often have dials that
are .125"/turn. They make it a little harder because you can't read your
dimensions directly as you can with the .200 dials (for example, 7/16" is 2
turns + 37 on the dial, whereas with a .125 dial it's 3 turns + 62 on the
dial-----it requires a little more attention). Takes a little getting used
to, and it's where you'll make some scrap initially, but once you've
mastered the dials, it's no big deal, and you can plot holes easily within a
couple thou reliably, assuming your screw is in good condition.

What I do is use a wax pencil and make marks on the saddle/table as
reference points, noting the dial mark at that position. It's especially
important to mark your "0" points, so you can go back to your reference, or
starting points when in doubt. Assuming the screw on your machine is good,
by so marking your machine, you can step off holes time and again, stopping
at the same location without thinking. That's a nice feature if you're drill
ing, tapping, counterboring, or otherwise going back to each location for a
specific function that may not lend itself to being done while you're there
the first time.


A note he Use your (high quality-buy a good one. I recommend a
Starrett
C305R) 6" scale for every move. It will tell you if you've turned the
handle a turn too far, or even catch a mistake if you transpose some
numbers. Carefully applied, you can read a scale to .005" without
much
difficulty. That will save you tons of trouble. It is especially
important when you're stepping off holes, where you have a multitude of
chances of making scrap. Use the scale until it becomes routine,
just
like working with backlash. Touch your spotting drill or center drill
to
the piece, and measure the dimension from your reference point. It
takes a
moment to do, but far less time than making a new part. You'll
improve
your quality immensely if you follow this advice.

No argument here; it makes sense. With the ER set, the changes involved
would not be all that time consuming, and it beats starting over.

Re the edge finder, I think I get it now, at least for edges. I flipped
the belts, and fiddled with a little more speed. I saw definite lateral
movement, and then realized that the motion was smaller than I was
expecting. Now that I know what to look for, I can see it at the speed
I was using before. I have yet to set the dials to check for
repeatability, but will try that next.

Bill

Each edge finder seems to have its own personality, at least those I've
used. Yours appears to be no different. I think you're on the right
track by trying it at various speeds, even if you see it with each one
tried. One of them will be more "clean" than the others. Won't take you
long to figure it out. When you find the magic number, you'll notice it's
more reliable than the others, tending to be more sensitive.

Sounds like things are coming together for you. Can't tell you how nice it
is to share my experience with someone that is willing to learn instead of
challenging each and every comment. You've been a pleasure.

Harold

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

What I do is use a wax pencil and make marks on the saddle/table as
reference points,

What?? Pencil marks on the ways?

Next you will be accepting iron oxide there as well. Tsk.

... Can't tell you how nice it
is to share my experience with someone that is willing to learn instead of
challenging each and every comment. ...

Ooh. I think I resemble that remark!

:^)

Jim (who's shop has an inch of water on the floor after getting 14 inches
of rain this past week)


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

What I do is use a wax pencil and make marks on the saddle/table as
reference points,

What?? Pencil marks on the ways?

Careful, Jim. You're putting words in my mouth! g

Nope, not on the ways. On the casting bodies. Simple wax pencil markings
that are wiped off after each setup. That's how we old timers work without
a DRO------which, in my honest opinion, makes a guy a cripple because it
substitutes for skill. Same as a CNC, but on a more limited basis.

Next you will be accepting iron oxide there as well. Tsk.

Chuckle! Like that's going to happen. Hell, I don't even like it on
raw stock.

... Can't tell you how nice it
is to share my experience with someone that is willing to learn instead
of
challenging each and every comment. ...

Ooh. I think I resemble that remark!

:^)


Naw, I'm suggesting teaching the young and willing, not an old dog like you
that has years of experience. You remember that saying about an old dog,
surely! :-)


Jim (who's shop has an inch of water on the floor after getting 14 inches
of rain this past week)

Wow! Very sorry to hear that, Jim. Hope things dry out and there's no
damage done of a serious nature. Be sure to keep us advised as to the
outcome.

Harold (who lives high on a ridge)

Harold,

Once you've set a dial, don't reset it while you're running the part, or
series of identical parts. It's too easy to screw up by a few thou.
Naturally, when there's no alternative, do so, but be careful you don't
introduce backlash while spinning the dial to the new setting. Then
remember you've lost your datum point, so the dial will no longer be in sync
with it.

When you say a series of parts, it sounds like you are assuming some
type of jig or setup block that will get the next piece in place,
otherwise the dial setting would be meaningless for the next part. How
does that work? Or am I reading too much into it?

Thinking about it, if I am following you and if there is a robust way to
place pieces after the dials are set, it would be useful if the part
needs to be turned and reclamped.


Yes, the scale serves as a lap counter in a sense. What you'll find is
that when you have to step off inches, you count turns, 5/inch. If your
machine has dials calibrated .200"/turn, it's real easy to work in
thousandths, which I assume you do. Smaller mills often have dials that
are .125"/turn. They make it a little harder because you can't read your
dimensions directly as you can with the .200 dials (for example, 7/16" is 2
turns + 37 on the dial, whereas with a .125 dial it's 3 turns + 62 on the
dial-----it requires a little more attention). Takes a little getting used
to, and it's where you'll make some scrap initially, but once you've
mastered the dials, it's no big deal, and you can plot holes easily within a
couple thou reliably, assuming your screw is in good condition.

I am tempted to say they are 0.1 per turn, but I might get home and wish
I had deleted this line. The screw seems to be in fine shape. So far,
I think there is more variability in my use of a dial caliper than there
is trouble with the screws.



What I do is use a wax pencil and make marks on the saddle/table as
reference points, noting the dial mark at that position. It's especially
important to mark your "0" points, so you can go back to your reference, or
starting points when in doubt. Assuming the screw on your machine is good,
by so marking your machine, you can step off holes time and again, stopping
at the same location without thinking. That's a nice feature if you're drill
ing, tapping, counterboring, or otherwise going back to each location for a
specific function that may not lend itself to being done while you're there
the first time.

That is an excellent argument for leaving the dials set. I have been
resetting them to make the immediate readings easier to understand, but
with overshooting to remove backlash and a "flight plan" (or your wax
pencil marks) with distances from the datum and dial readings to expect,
it should be fine.


Each edge finder seems to have its own personality, at least those I've
used. Yours appears to be no different. I think you're on the right
track by trying it at various speeds, even if you see it with each one
tried. One of them will be more "clean" than the others. Won't take you
long to figure it out. When you find the magic number, you'll notice it's
more reliable than the others, tending to be more sensitive.

The good news is that I am probably running too slow for Aluminum
anyway, so if I get the belts the other way around, a temporary speed
increase would be be a single belt move. With the dials sitting in one
place, I should find myself needing to use the edge finder only once per
clamping or head movement, which hopefully the ER set will make rather rare.


Sounds like things are coming together for you. Can't tell you how nice it
is to share my experience with someone that is willing to learn instead of
challenging each and every comment. You've been a pleasure.

Likewise, it is a pleasure to get sound advice from someone with
experience. Thanks for sharing it. I am certain I will get around to
"challenging" you soon enough - it is a poor student who fails to do
that from time to time.

Come to think of it, my "flight plan" idea might be my first rebellion
Some of it will depend on what I do for CAD. In the past few years,
the things I have done that required any precision were circuit boards,
and I fell back on a very simple homegrown framework that allowed me to
ultimately drive a printer to get a 1:1 layout of the traces. I did
that only when pre-printed/drilled boards ($3 or so at Radio Shack)
would not work, so it was rare. That same setup could perhaps kick out
the tedious part of a sequence of waypoints, absolute coordinates, dial
readings on my mill, etc.

If anyone cares to recommend an inexpensive but flexible CAD program (2D
should be fine), I am willing to consider it. I have some $30 thing I
bought a while ago, but it's a real pain to use. The snaps do not work
well, and editing objects to change length is a problem because it seems
to "think" only in scaling at that point: I have yet to find a way to
simply set the lengh of a line after it's been drawn. Getting it right
from the start is challenging because of the flaky snaps.

Thanks!!

Bill

"Bill Schwab" wrote in message
...
Harold,

Once you've set a dial, don't reset it while you're running the part, or
series of identical parts. It's too easy to screw up by a few thou.
Naturally, when there's no alternative, do so, but be careful you don't
introduce backlash while spinning the dial to the new setting. Then
remember you've lost your datum point, so the dial will no longer be in
sync
with it.

When you say a series of parts, it sounds like you are assuming some
type of jig or setup block that will get the next piece in place,
otherwise the dial setting would be meaningless for the next part. How
does that work? Or am I reading too much into it?

Pretty simple, really. If you have more than one part you'd like to process,
it can be located adequately from a set of stops from the T slot for the
rear, or even a parallel clamped to the table and dialed true, and a single
stop on the left side. The T slot or parallel squares the part with the
machine axis, and the left side provides a reliable location of your part(s)
when installed in the setup so the part shares the same datum points with
the previous part(s). That stop should be a narrow spot, so the part is
always squared by the T slot, not the side stop. That assures the parts
always bank the same way when they're not perfectly square. It works
the same way from a vise with a permanent stop by any means available to you
for the left hand side. I have the back (fixed) jaw of my vise drilled
and tapped 1/4-20 for setting various stops, or even clamping a strange
setup of parallels if so needed. They're really handy, and get used
frequently. You can also set a stop from the table if you're using a
vise. What ever works and won't move when bumped. A piece of pipe or
tubing, faced parallel, works great when clamped to the mill table in the
appropriate place.


Thinking about it, if I am following you and if there is a robust way to
place pieces after the dials are set, it would be useful if the part
needs to be turned and reclamped.

Exactly--------or, as I've stated, drilling or otherwise processing more
than one part that shares similar features. For example, you can drill
and tap one plate, then drill the other for the appropriate screws. Even
when not drilling oversized holes for the screws, you can expect the two
plates to go together with no trouble---even when you've drilled a dozen
holes or more. This method is very precise as long as you don't screw up
with backlash, and you stop on the lines as required. Try that with a
layout and a center pop. Never happen, not even when you bust your butt
trying.



Yes, the scale serves as a lap counter in a sense. What you'll find is
that when you have to step off inches, you count turns, 5/inch. If your
machine has dials calibrated .200"/turn, it's real easy to work in
thousandths, which I assume you do. Smaller mills often have dials
that
are .125"/turn. They make it a little harder because you can't read
your
dimensions directly as you can with the .200 dials (for example, 7/16"
is 2
turns + 37 on the dial, whereas with a .125 dial it's 3 turns + 62 on
the
dial-----it requires a little more attention). Takes a little getting
used
to, and it's where you'll make some scrap initially, but once you've
mastered the dials, it's no big deal, and you can plot holes easily
within a
couple thou reliably, assuming your screw is in good condition.

I am tempted to say they are 0.1 per turn, but I might get home and wish
I had deleted this line. The screw seems to be in fine shape. So far,
I think there is more variability in my use of a dial caliper than there
is trouble with the screws.

Could be, but that's a pretty fine screw. Not likely if it's an Acme
thread, but who knows? What ever it is, you simply work accordingly.

Don't fall into the trap where you think a caliper of any kind is *truly* a
precision instrument. The potential for bad readings is so great that I
don't recommend them for anything closer than .005". While you'll find you
can make readings that are far more reliable than that, you'll also discover
(usually by scrapping a project you cherish) that they have a way of
letting you down when you need them the most. By their very nature,
they are subject to considerable error, particularly when you use them for
both inside and outside measurements. It's not uncommon for the jaws to be
apart in readings by more than double the tolerance you may be required to
hold. Establishing a proper slip or snug fit with them is taxing. Very
taxing, indeed. There are other methods of measuring that are far more
reliable. Small hole gauges, or telescoping gauges, for example, and, of
course, micrometers. The hole gauges require a little experience to become
familiar with them, but you can measure to tenths with care. Never happen
with a caliper. Not reliably.




What I do is use a wax pencil and make marks on the saddle/table as
reference points, noting the dial mark at that position. It's
especially
important to mark your "0" points, so you can go back to your reference,
or
starting points when in doubt. Assuming the screw on your machine is
good,
by so marking your machine, you can step off holes time and again,
stopping
at the same location without thinking. That's a nice feature if you're
drill
ing, tapping, counterboring, or otherwise going back to each location
for a
specific function that may not lend itself to being done while you're
there
the first time.

That is an excellent argument for leaving the dials set. I have been
resetting them to make the immediate readings easier to understand, but
with overshooting to remove backlash and a "flight plan" (or your wax
pencil marks) with distances from the datum and dial readings to expect,
it should be fine.

It really shines when you have more than one piece. Otherwise, with care,
it makes little difference. Needless to say, if I have no reason to
revisit a location, I don't mark the table aside from often marking my datum
points. You never know when you might have to go back to 0 for some reason.
Saves you starting over with the edge finder.

I encourage you to do what ever you end up doing, to do it consistently, so
it becomes routine. Only then will you make parts without making scrap. I
made a ton of bad parts getting on to drilling this way-----parts that were
worth a ton of money----flight stuff for a missile. Virtually all of it
would have been avoided had I practiced what I preach about using a scale
for each move. I was young and had other things on my mind, as you might
imagine. I ended up divorcing her years later. Best move I ever made.
(Next to learning to trust my 6" scale, anyway). :-)



Each edge finder seems to have its own personality, at least those I've
used. Yours appears to be no different. I think you're on the right
track by trying it at various speeds, even if you see it with each one
tried. One of them will be more "clean" than the others. Won't take
you
long to figure it out. When you find the magic number, you'll notice
it's
more reliable than the others, tending to be more sensitive.

The good news is that I am probably running too slow for Aluminum
anyway, so if I get the belts the other way around, a temporary speed
increase would be be a single belt move. With the dials sitting in one
place, I should find myself needing to use the edge finder only once per
clamping or head movement, which hopefully the ER set will make rather
rare.

Along with good planning. That's really key to running a machine like
yours----but it's true across the board, even on machines that are more
forgiving.

If you're machining aluminum with cutters under 1", it's highly unlikely you
have enough spindle speed to be a problem. I often run a 1" end mill @
4,200 in aluminum. If the cut is deep and fast, the problem I encounter
is lack of power(2 HP Bridgeport)------not over speed.



Sounds like things are coming together for you. Can't tell you how
nice it
is to share my experience with someone that is willing to learn instead
of
challenging each and every comment. You've been a pleasure.

Likewise, it is a pleasure to get sound advice from someone with
experience. Thanks for sharing it. I am certain I will get around to
"challenging" you soon enough - it is a poor student who fails to do
that from time to time.

I welcome intelligent questions, and don't mind trying to discover why my
advice may have been bad----it's the guy that thinks he knows more than
someone that has dedicated a life time to his trade that troubles me. I
don't claim to know everything, but my years on the machines were a
resounding success. I did sub-contract work for Litton Guidance and Control
for 16 years, mostly tooling, with a little product along the way. Tough
work, all defense oriented, much with tolerances in tenths. 5
rejections in 16 years. Yeah, I'm proud of that. I'd have been even
more proud if I could have had none, but I'm only human! g


Come to think of it, my "flight plan" idea might be my first rebellion
Some of it will depend on what I do for CAD. In the past few years,
the things I have done that required any precision were circuit boards,
and I fell back on a very simple homegrown framework that allowed me to
ultimately drive a printer to get a 1:1 layout of the traces. I did
that only when pre-printed/drilled boards ($3 or so at Radio Shack)
would not work, so it was rare. That same setup could perhaps kick out
the tedious part of a sequence of waypoints, absolute coordinates, dial
readings on my mill, etc.

If anyone cares to recommend an inexpensive but flexible CAD program (2D
should be fine), I am willing to consider it. I have some $30 thing I
bought a while ago, but it's a real pain to use. The snaps do not work
well, and editing objects to change length is a problem because it seems
to "think" only in scaling at that point: I have yet to find a way to
simply set the lengh of a line after it's been drawn. Getting it right
from the start is challenging because of the flaky snaps.

Thanks!!

Bill

I don't know if Intellicad is still offering a free download, but it's a
pretty nice program, especially for free. www.cadopia.com

I'm not wise enough to know if it would serve your purpose, but it's worth a
look.

Harold

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

... I have the back (fixed) jaw of my vise drilled
and tapped 1/4-20 for setting various stops,

This is why the vises in the shop at work often tend to have the
little oblong tab washer hung off the back.

Actually I purchased an inexepensive clamp-on stop that fits
B'port vise jaws very securely. It fits onto the edge that
protrudes up, and goes on with a setscrew that really ties
it down tight.

It has a short dowel pin that sticks out each side to actually
locate against, so it can be used right- or left-handed.
Can't imagine getting along without something like that for
repetitive operations.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

... I have the back (fixed) jaw of my vise drilled
and tapped 1/4-20 for setting various stops,

This is why the vises in the shop at work often tend to have the
little oblong tab washer hung off the back.

Actually I purchased an inexepensive clamp-on stop that fits
B'port vise jaws very securely. It fits onto the edge that
protrudes up, and goes on with a setscrew that really ties
it down tight.

It has a short dowel pin that sticks out each side to actually
locate against, so it can be used right- or left-handed.
Can't imagine getting along without something like that for
repetitive operations.

Jim

From the description, I'd suggest it's a good stop. The idea would lend
itself to my vise, which is *not* a Bridgeport. I had one, but finally got
rid of it. They simply are not good enough for the kind of work I used to
do. One job in particular was a large quantity of read and write heads that
were destined for IBM, made from 5/8" square leaded brass. I was roughing
the internal configuration, after which I squared them and machined them to
length. I had sub-contracted the parts (hundreds of them) from another
firm, where they were finished on an NC. This goes back to the late 60's,
before CNC was commonly available. The BP vise was out enough that
I couldn't hold the part square within the .0005" tolerance, and you can
believe me when I tell you I know how to do small, precision work. I
ended up intentionally tilting the head of my BP to compensate for the solid
jaw of the vise being out. That job was one of the reasons I ended up
with a Kurt. Small one------5" jaws. Best vise I've ever used for the kind
of work I did.

Harold

In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

From the description, I'd suggest it's a good stop. The idea would lend
itself to my vise, which is *not* a Bridgeport. I had one, but finally got
rid of it. They simply are not good enough for the kind of work I used to
do. One job in particular was a large quantity of read and write heads that
were destined for IBM, made from 5/8" square leaded brass.

Hmm. Sounds like a good company...

jaw of the vise being out. That job was one of the reasons I ended up
with a Kurt. Small one------5" jaws. Best vise I've ever used for the kind
of work I did.

I've never been terribly impressed by b'port vises. Possibly because
the only ones I've seen were pretty old and abused.

And as you say, any time vise matter at the workplace, there seems
to be one made by Kurt. Yours comment is another confirmation.

I've also found that the tiny toolmakers vise made by hardinge for
its horizontal machines is very nice as well. But someday there
may be a Kurt vise in my future...

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Harold and Susan Vordos says...

From the description, I'd suggest it's a good stop. The idea would lend
itself to my vise, which is *not* a Bridgeport. I had one, but finally
got
rid of it. They simply are not good enough for the kind of work I used
to
do. One job in particular was a large quantity of read and write heads
that
were destined for IBM, made from 5/8" square leaded brass.

Hmm. Sounds like a good company...

jaw of the vise being out. That job was one of the reasons I ended up
with a Kurt. Small one------5" jaws. Best vise I've ever used for the
kind
of work I did.

I've never been terribly impressed by b'port vises. Possibly because
the only ones I've seen were pretty old and abused.

Mine didn't wait to get seasoned. It started out crappy. One of the
things it did that was really annoying was permit the fixed jaw insert to
move (slightly) under load. That tells me that something was out of flat by
some means, be it the body or the insert. The other ongoing problem was
that parts would ride up when the vise was closed. That necessitated
tapping each part down properly, which isn't all that reliable when you're
trying to hold a half thou. The moveable jaw goes through a bit of lost
motion before permitting the part to slip, and it isn't necessarily
consistent. Need I tell you I became an artist at loading the parts?
Once a routine was developed (including tilting the head, and abandoning the
handle, using a small parallel clamp in its stead) I beat the problems, but
it gave me all the reasons I needed to buy a decent vise when the money was
available. You shouldn't have to abandon all common practices in order
to have a tool work as intended.


And as you say, any time vise matter at the workplace, there seems
to be one made by Kurt. Yours comment is another confirmation.


It's hard to understand when you don't have one, and I'd never used one when
I bought mine. I was assured by the dealership that they were a distinct
improvement----a step up. It took using it to fully understand.

On that subject, years ago, when I was first introduced to RCM, one of the
people I encountered lives about 60 miles from me. He firmly attached
himself to me, hoping to learn something from someone that had worked in
industry. He, to this day, is still in close contact, although he long ago
quit following the news groups. He is a self taught machinist/weldor and
does very pretty work. About six months ago I finally convinced him that
his vise was a great deal of the trouble he has been having with the work
he's been doing. He's now retired and does machining on a limited basis for
the community. Just today he sent me an email, in which he said:

"If the cylinders turned out at all good it's due to your help and that new
vise. What a great addition. Suddenly things are starting to come out
square and on size."


I've also found that the tiny toolmakers vise made by hardinge for
its horizontal machines is very nice as well. But someday there
may be a Kurt vise in my future...

Jim

Not having used one, I probably don't understand its fine qualities, but if
it's in keeping with the balance of Hardinge equipment, I'd likely agree.
Still, the feature built in to Kurt, that minimizes jaw ride-up-----makes
them worth the cost.

By the way, the vise my friend bought came from ebay----in fact, I got it
for him. It wasn't cheap, but less than half the cost of a new one, and
was almost unused. He got an outstanding buy and has no regrets, as you
can deduct form his quoted comment.

Harold