Hi..
I was wondering if anybody had built the Gingery lathe and if they had
used alternative methods for the lathe bed.
Looking at the plans I was wondering if CRS 2"X1/4" square tubing for the
bed would be ok if filled with concrete to absord vibration?
I was thinking just to mount the ways directly to the bed after scraping
with lock nuts inside.
Some have pointed out that if one needs to take apart the ways you
could'nt. But I see no reason to take off the ways if done right and would
probably outlast me..: P
Main thing I am concerned with is would CRS and concrete would absord
vibration and make a good bed?
Thanks in advance..Joe

Given the problems we had casting the bed, alternatives might be a good
idea. It would also eliminate the need for the feet. I think that a 2" x
3" would be required to get the clearance needed for the leadscrew bearings
and cross-slide. Note also that there are several other castings that can be
eliminated in favor of flat stock.

I've been thinking of doing this myself to make a longer lathe (need 32"
c-c or so) for pool cue work.

Dave


"Joe" wrote in message
...
Hi..
I was wondering if anybody had built the Gingery lathe and if they had
used alternative methods for the lathe bed.
Looking at the plans I was wondering if CRS 2"X1/4" square tubing for
the
bed would be ok if filled with concrete to absord vibration?
I was thinking just to mount the ways directly to the bed after
scraping
with lock nuts inside.
Some have pointed out that if one needs to take apart the ways you
could'nt. But I see no reason to take off the ways if done right and would
probably outlast me..: P
Main thing I am concerned with is would CRS and concrete would absord
vibration and make a good bed?
Thanks in advance..Joe

Hi Dave...
Looking at the plans the screws for the ways are placed at 1/2" and 81/2"
from both ends respectively..
I was thinking that by drilling a 1/2" hole on the bottom of the bed, at
these measurements, you could get a small 1/4" rachet with an extention with
deep socket, into the hollow bed, for the 3/8" lock nuts for the screws of
the bed..
The screws can be 3/8" -1/2" inch longer to act as 'rebar' for the
concrete.
On the bottom of the bed, thread 3/8 3/4"-1" screws into the tube to also
act as 'rebar'.
Also use 1/4"X2" tubing for the base and 1/4"X2" flat for the feet..
Do the base as you would the bed..
Weld 'caps to both ends to make a finished look.
Any thoughts or suggestion?
Thanks..Josh

"Dave Keith" wrote in message
news:ANvub.13668$f7.691297@localhost...
Given the problems we had casting the bed, alternatives might be a good
idea. It would also eliminate the need for the feet. I think that a 2" x
3" would be required to get the clearance needed for the leadscrew
bearings
and cross-slide. Note also that there are several other castings that can
be
eliminated in favor of flat stock.

I've been thinking of doing this myself to make a longer lathe (need 32"
c-c or so) for pool cue work.

Dave


"Joe" wrote in message
...
Hi..
I was wondering if anybody had built the Gingery lathe and if they had
used alternative methods for the lathe bed.
Looking at the plans I was wondering if CRS 2"X1/4" square tubing for
the
bed would be ok if filled with concrete to absord vibration?
I was thinking just to mount the ways directly to the bed after
scraping
with lock nuts inside.
Some have pointed out that if one needs to take apart the ways you
could'nt. But I see no reason to take off the ways if done right and
would
probably outlast me..: P
Main thing I am concerned with is would CRS and concrete would absord
vibration and make a good bed?
Thanks in advance..Joe

That's about my plan too, other than skipping the concrete. Again, I think
that you'll need about 3" of vertical clearance to have room for the apron
etc, so a piece of 2" x 3" rectangular tubing would be needed. My plan was
to weld a couple of cross members on the botton at either end to form
'feet', then take this assembly to someone with a mill and have take a pass
or two over the top surface to ensure the ways are set on a flat surface.

"Joe" wrote in message
...
Hi Dave...
Looking at the plans the screws for the ways are placed at 1/2" and
81/2"
from both ends respectively..
I was thinking that by drilling a 1/2" hole on the bottom of the bed,
at
these measurements, you could get a small 1/4" rachet with an extention
with
deep socket, into the hollow bed, for the 3/8" lock nuts for the screws
of
the bed..
The screws can be 3/8" -1/2" inch longer to act as 'rebar' for the
concrete.
On the bottom of the bed, thread 3/8 3/4"-1" screws into the tube to
also
act as 'rebar'.
Also use 1/4"X2" tubing for the base and 1/4"X2" flat for the feet..
Do the base as you would the bed..
Weld 'caps to both ends to make a finished look.
Any thoughts or suggestion?
Thanks..Josh

"Dave Keith" wrote in message
news:ANvub.13668$f7.691297@localhost...
Given the problems we had casting the bed, alternatives might be a good
idea. It would also eliminate the need for the feet. I think that a 2"
x
3" would be required to get the clearance needed for the leadscrew
bearings
and cross-slide. Note also that there are several other castings that
can
be
eliminated in favor of flat stock.

I've been thinking of doing this myself to make a longer lathe (need
32"
c-c or so) for pool cue work.

Dave


"Joe" wrote in message
...
Hi..
I was wondering if anybody had built the Gingery lathe and if they
had
used alternative methods for the lathe bed.
Looking at the plans I was wondering if CRS 2"X1/4" square tubing
for
the
bed would be ok if filled with concrete to absord vibration?
I was thinking just to mount the ways directly to the bed after
scraping
with lock nuts inside.
Some have pointed out that if one needs to take apart the ways you
could'nt. But I see no reason to take off the ways if done right and
would
probably outlast me..: P
Main thing I am concerned with is would CRS and concrete would
absord
vibration and make a good bed?
Thanks in advance..Joe

Hi..
I think I'm going to give it a try..
Also I think I'm going to stretch the bed to 30".
Beef up the thickness of the head and tailstock..
If I can get .001 out of her thats good for me..
I'll keep you posted..Thanks for your input..Josh

"Dave Keith" wrote in message
news:FwMub.13912$f7.698837@localhost...
That's about my plan too, other than skipping the concrete. Again, I
think
that you'll need about 3" of vertical clearance to have room for the apron
etc, so a piece of 2" x 3" rectangular tubing would be needed. My plan
was
to weld a couple of cross members on the botton at either end to form
'feet', then take this assembly to someone with a mill and have take a
pass
or two over the top surface to ensure the ways are set on a flat surface.

"Joe" wrote in message
...
Hi Dave...
Looking at the plans the screws for the ways are placed at 1/2" and
81/2"
from both ends respectively..
I was thinking that by drilling a 1/2" hole on the bottom of the
bed,
at
these measurements, you could get a small 1/4" rachet with an extention
with
deep socket, into the hollow bed, for the 3/8" lock nuts for the screws
of
the bed..
The screws can be 3/8" -1/2" inch longer to act as 'rebar' for the
concrete.
On the bottom of the bed, thread 3/8 3/4"-1" screws into the tube to
also
act as 'rebar'.
Also use 1/4"X2" tubing for the base and 1/4"X2" flat for the feet..
Do the base as you would the bed..
Weld 'caps to both ends to make a finished look.
Any thoughts or suggestion?
Thanks..Josh

"Dave Keith" wrote in message
news:ANvub.13668$f7.691297@localhost...
Given the problems we had casting the bed, alternatives might be a
good
idea. It would also eliminate the need for the feet. I think that a
2"
x
3" would be required to get the clearance needed for the leadscrew
bearings
and cross-slide. Note also that there are several other castings that
can
be
eliminated in favor of flat stock.

I've been thinking of doing this myself to make a longer lathe (need
32"
c-c or so) for pool cue work.

Dave


"Joe" wrote in message
...
Hi..
I was wondering if anybody had built the Gingery lathe and if they
had
used alternative methods for the lathe bed.
Looking at the plans I was wondering if CRS 2"X1/4" square tubing
for
the
bed would be ok if filled with concrete to absord vibration?
I was thinking just to mount the ways directly to the bed after
scraping
with lock nuts inside.
Some have pointed out that if one needs to take apart the ways you
could'nt. But I see no reason to take off the ways if done right and
would
probably outlast me..: P
Main thing I am concerned with is would CRS and concrete would
absord
vibration and make a good bed?
Thanks in advance..Joe

Hi Joe,

Yes I have built the Gingery Lathe. I didn't have too much trouble
casting the bed. Second try was virtually perfect.

What I've found though is that the deflection at the center of the bed
is so bad that the lathe is almost unusable for fine work. I have yet
to make my tailstock but I mounted a 4" 3jaw chuck and although I can
face off without much chatter, turning down diameters is impossible.
The virbration and flex are the reason.

But, and here's the big but. I've done a survey with my local metal
working mail group and what I've found is that the Gingery bed and
ways are vastly undersized given the diameter and horsepower
available.

Essentially my research has shown that if the center height of the
lathe is 3.5" then the bed casting should be at least 3.5" square with
suitable re-enforcing to transfer the twisting moment to the sides.
i.e. to prevent twisting as much as possible.

Additionally the ways should project out side of the bed casting by
about 20% of the width of the casting. so the CRS bedway should be 4"
wide, not 3".

This holds true for Lathes up to 8" center height. Those have a
bedcasting in the neighborhood of 8" square.

Next, take a look at Myford or any other 3.5" center height lathe and
you'll see that the ways are around 1/2" thick. Once again that
implies that the CRS should be 1/2"x4".

Now I'm nor quite ready to go the box steel route yet although that is
on my do list. I know the basic lathe is quite solid because a 60
degree center on the end of the spindle is beautiful. My faceplate
cuts really nicely. I've made a number of pulleys including a dual
one for my sailboat engine without effort.

Take a look at other lathes again and you'll find that most have the
foot under the spindle equal in length to the width of the spindle
assembly. Some have it even longer. That in itself would strengthen
the bed (towards the center section) and still fit withing the 6 pound
crucible limitation.

So that's one of my projects. A new LHS foot casting.

Also on the list is to anchor the 1/4"x3" CRS bedway onto the casting
closer to the edge with hex flathead head #10 screws. These will be
counter sunk so that they just clear the pads on the carriage and
hopefully will just go into the thickest part of the bed casting.

The reason for the above modification is that the aluminium flows
around the 3/8" bolts holding down the bedway and the bedway develops
a dip where the bolts are. I discovered this when I used a diamond
lapping stone to flatten a bit of the CRS. It touced the edges and a
2" circle around each 3/8" hold down bolt. In retrospect, I believe
that the bedway (and bed) is also being twisted around the 3/8" center
line bolts. A parallel line of screws will do a lot to reduce that
twist.

Finally another major design flaw on the Gingery Lathe is in the
half-nut assembly. Once again, examine the tried and true products
out there and you'll find that the leadscrew is almost exactly
underneath the front ways. Gingery has it forward of the front ways
and that creates a twisting moment. Makes the carriage jam and harder
to move regardless of how well you've set it up.

For some reason, he also designed the half-nut to be offset from the
center of the carriage and cross slide leadscrew and that creates a
second twisting moment to the carriage. What I did was put the
half-nut shaft under the cross slide and had the lever project out to
the right. It could be to the left too for all it matters.

I have my core plate complete and I just need to cast and machine the
top part of the tailstock. The base is on the bed and scraped and
adjusted. I've also bored a nice MT#1 hole into the spindle for a
removable center. Once the tailstock is done, I'll make a D bit and
drill the spindle for a knockout bar since the MT center fits very
nicely.

John


"Joe" wrote:

Hi..
I was wondering if anybody had built the Gingery lathe and if they had
used alternative methods for the lathe bed.
Looking at the plans I was wondering if CRS 2"X1/4" square tubing for the
bed would be ok if filled with concrete to absord vibration?
I was thinking just to mount the ways directly to the bed after scraping
with lock nuts inside.
Some have pointed out that if one needs to take apart the ways you
could'nt. But I see no reason to take off the ways if done right and would
probably outlast me..: P
Main thing I am concerned with is would CRS and concrete would absord
vibration and make a good bed?
Thanks in advance..Joe

In article , John Dammeyer says...

Finally another major design flaw on the Gingery Lathe is in the
half-nut assembly. Once again, examine the tried and true products
out there and you'll find that the leadscrew is almost exactly
underneath the front ways. Gingery has it forward of the front ways
and that creates a twisting moment. Makes the carriage jam and harder
to move regardless of how well you've set it up.

For some reason, he also designed the half-nut to be offset from the
center of the carriage and cross slide leadscrew and that creates a
second twisting moment to the carriage. What I did was put the
half-nut shaft under the cross slide and had the lever project out to
the right. It could be to the left too for all it matters.

The AA product lathes all show this flaw as well, and the flawed
behavior you attribute to it. I think you are spot on with your
diagnosis.

The lead screw on those small machines is quite far out from the
bed, and the half nuts are at the extreme side of the apron. Which
gives rise to the twising and binding you talk about. Because
the AA machines have such tiny carriages this is a real problem
with them.

Jim

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

Hi Jim,

Yes, Because the Gingery uses the flat CRS bedway, there is no
simple solution without restricting carriage travel. Commercial
Lathes tend to have a second set of ways that hold the headstock and
the tailstock. The carriage can then have extensions on either side
that in effect make it wider which reduces the twisting action to some
extent.

I haven't figured out a method for the Gingery yet that would allow a
wider carriage. At least not a simple one.

John


jim rozen wrote:

In article , John Dammeyer says...

Finally another major design flaw on the Gingery Lathe is in the
half-nut assembly.
snip
The AA product lathes all show this flaw as well, and the flawed
behavior you attribute to it. I think you are spot on with your
diagnosis.

The lead screw on those small machines is quite far out from the
bed, and the half nuts are at the extreme side of the apron. Which
gives rise to the twising and binding you talk about. Because
the AA machines have such tiny carriages this is a real problem
with them.

Jim

In article , John Dammeyer says...

Hi Jim,

Yes, Because the Gingery uses the flat CRS bedway, there is no
simple solution without restricting carriage travel. Commercial
Lathes tend to have a second set of ways that hold the headstock and
the tailstock. The carriage can then have extensions on either side
that in effect make it wider which reduces the twisting action to some
extent.

Oh, that's right. The AA products lathes all have
a single pair of V-ways. The tailstock and carriage
both ride on the same one - which makes the problem
worse, of course.

Funny, I've re-built a number of those AA machines
for kicks, and I've always been a bit dismayed at how
much effort has to be spent getting the carriage to run
freely but without too much slop - and never quite
connected the single set of ways to that problem.

Jim

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

John Dammeyer wrote:

Hi Jim,

Yes, Because the Gingery uses the flat CRS bedway, there is no
simple solution without restricting carriage travel. Commercial
Lathes tend to have a second set of ways that hold the headstock and
the tailstock. The carriage can then have extensions on either side
that in effect make it wider which reduces the twisting action to some
extent.

I haven't figured out a method for the Gingery yet that would allow a
wider carriage. At least not a simple one.


How well would the larger 80-20 sections and sliders work for a
Gingery lathe bed and carriage?

80-20 sections????

Eric Pederson deZ to respond
wrote:

John Dammeyer wrote:

Hi Jim,

Yes, Because the Gingery uses the flat CRS bedway, there is no
simple solution without restricting carriage travel. Commercial
Lathes tend to have a second set of ways that hold the headstock and
the tailstock. The carriage can then have extensions on either side
that in effect make it wider which reduces the twisting action to some
extent.

I haven't figured out a method for the Gingery yet that would allow a
wider carriage. At least not a simple one.


How well would the larger 80-20 sections and sliders work for a
Gingery lathe bed and carriage?

Hi Jim,

I didn't mean that the single set of ways was the reason for the
jamming. Sorry if I sounded like I did. The carriage on the Gingery
Lathe is essentially sitting with a square foot print on the ways.

IMHO if the width was wider than the depth the twist and jamming
effect wouldn't be as noticable. But I might be wrong there.

But it's easy to see how the lead screw position isn't right. Just
push on the carriage (or tailstock) at the point where the leadscrew
is and you can jam it fairly easily. Push in line with the center of
the top front pad and it immediately unsticks and won't jam if
everything is set up well.

John
Funny, I've re-built a number of those AA machines
for kicks, and I've always been a bit dismayed at how
much effort has to be spent getting the carriage to run
freely but without too much slop - and never quite
connected the single set of ways to that problem.

Jim

John Dammeyer wrote:

80-20 sections????

see http://www.8020.net/industrial/tooling.asp for an example.

Eric Pederson deZ to respond
wrote:

John Dammeyer wrote:

Hi Jim,

Yes, Because the Gingery uses the flat CRS bedway, there is no
simple solution without restricting carriage travel. Commercial
Lathes tend to have a second set of ways that hold the headstock and
the tailstock. The carriage can then have extensions on either side
that in effect make it wider which reduces the twisting action to some
extent.

I haven't figured out a method for the Gingery yet that would allow a
wider carriage. At least not a simple one.


How well would the larger 80-20 sections and sliders work for a
Gingery lathe bed and carriage?