 |
|
| Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work. |
| Reply |
|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
Mills and Drills
Can anyone elaborate on the differences between a Drill and a Mill as
far as the relative size, placement, and materials when it comes to the chuck, spindle, quill, arbor, collet, bearings, gears, ect.? In other words, it's obvious that a mill can move the tooling along more than a single axis, unlike the drill press, but I am attempting to get a handle on the *physical* reasons why so many here say that a drill press shouldn't be adapted to mill use. If these physical reasons can be solved with only small manufacturing changes in drill presses to allow them to become more suited for milling, then does the conventional drill presses unsuitability have to do with the bottom line of the manufacturers or lack of consumer interest responsible for a lack suitable adapers/tooling, or perhaps there are other logistical issues involved? I've heard about the specific forces that the bearings and so forth would have to take as being a reason for a drill presses unsuitability for milling operations, but it seems to me that a suitable gearing adapter would negate much of these "lopsided" forces.(Probably at the expense of a lot of power). Also, I figure that since so many of you have been machining for so many years, is there a possibilty that any bad drill press milling experiences are at least in part a result of a lack of availability of suitable adapters and tooling for this? Anyway, in the meantime I will of course still take the advice of not using a drill press for milling purposes, but only when it comes to metals, because there shouldn't be as much of a problem with plastics like Nylon or Delrin.(But I'll listen to opinions either way). :-) Thanks a lot. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
|
#2
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
|
|
#3
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
wrote in message oups.com... Can anyone elaborate on the differences between a Drill and a Mill as far as the relative size, placement, and materials when it comes to the chuck, spindle, quill, arbor, collet, bearings, gears, ect.? In other words, it's obvious that a mill can move the tooling along more than a single axis, unlike the drill press, but I am attempting to get a handle on the *physical* reasons why so many here say that a drill press shouldn't be adapted to mill use. If these physical reasons can be solved with only small manufacturing changes in drill presses to allow them to become more suited for milling, then does the conventional drill presses unsuitability have to do with the bottom line of the manufacturers or lack of consumer interest responsible for a lack suitable adapers/tooling, or perhaps there are other logistical issues involved? I've heard about the specific forces that the bearings and so forth would have to take as being a reason for a drill presses unsuitability for milling operations, but it seems to me that a suitable gearing adapter would negate much of these "lopsided" forces.(Probably at the expense of a lot of power). Also, I figure that since so many of you have been machining for so many years, is there a possibilty that any bad drill press milling experiences are at least in part a result of a lack of availability of suitable adapters and tooling for this? Anyway, in the meantime I will of course still take the advice of not using a drill press for milling purposes, but only when it comes to metals, because there shouldn't be as much of a problem with plastics like Nylon or Delrin.(But I'll listen to opinions either way). :-) Thanks a lot. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. Drill presses built for side forces are called mill/drills. I don't know what kind of adapter you are imagining that would turn a drill press into a milling machine. |
|
#4
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
According to :
Can anyone elaborate on the differences between a Drill and a Mill as far as the relative size, placement, and materials when it comes to the chuck, spindle, quill, arbor, collet, bearings, gears, ect.? In other words, it's obvious that a mill can move the tooling along more than a single axis, unlike the drill press, but I am attempting to get a handle on the *physical* reasons why so many here say that a drill press shouldn't be adapted to mill use. Start with the lack of rigidity of the drill press's frame. It is designed only to support the workpiece against the axial forces of drilling. A milling machine has a *lot* more metal in the head, a more rigid column (the best ones don't have round columns, and actually move the *table* up and down with a leadscrew. Even those with round columns have a larger column diameter, to minimize the twist under cutting loads. The quill (which moves the spindle up and down for drilling type operations) is larger in diameter, and a more precise fit in the headstock, so it will not move sideways under cutting loads. The mounting of the cutter to the spindle of a milling machine is *not* via a drill chuck. A drill chuck is normally mounted via a taper -- a mount not designed for side loads, as the drill chuck will pop lose and start bouncing around the shop, spinning rapidly, and carrying a sharp cutter with it. And -- a normal drill chuck is not designed to grip the hardened surface of an end mill shank. (An exception is the diamond grit jaws on one of the more expensive Albrecht drill chucks -- designed for use in a milling machine, and made with a standard milling machine taper (e.g. #40 MTMB, or R8 collet format) shank -- *not* a taper such is used for normal drill chucks. The bearings in a drill press are designed to handle only the axial (thrust) loads, not side loads. If these physical reasons can be solved with only small manufacturing changes in drill presses to allow them to become more suited for milling, then does the conventional drill presses unsuitability have to do with the bottom line of the manufacturers or lack of consumer interest responsible for a lack suitable adapers/tooling, or perhaps there are other logistical issues involved? I've heard about the specific forces that the bearings and so forth would have to take as being a reason for a drill presses unsuitability for milling operations, but it seems to me that a suitable gearing adapter would negate much of these "lopsided" forces.(Probably at the expense of a lot of power). Gear drives can increase the torque at the expense of speed. So can belt drives. This is *not* the major weakness of a drill press when used for milling. Milling machines have a *lot* more steel and cast iron which go into their makeup. There are cheap small tabletop drill presses which can be easily lifted with one hand. The weight of a tabletop milling machine of similar size will probably require a two-hand lift. Also, I figure that since so many of you have been machining for so many years, is there a possibilty that any bad drill press milling experiences are at least in part a result of a lack of availability of suitable adapters and tooling for this? A lack of suitable design for the purpose. A *first* requirement for a drill press which is going to be used for milling is a hollow spindle, so a drawbar can lock the end mill holder or collet into the spindle -- to protect against popping the tool holder out from side loads. And *nobody* is going to make a drill press with such a spindle, as it would cost more, and the machine's frame would still be inadequate for the lateral and twisting loads which milling would apply to it. Making a drill press with such a spindle would simply be leaving them open to lawsuits, which all manufacturers would rather avoid at all costs. Note that a radial arm drill press *might* be solid enough in some features so you could get away with it -- but none of these weigh less than a minimal floor-standing milling machine, and there is no way that you could get it up to your apartment. Anyway, in the meantime I will of course still take the advice of not using a drill press for milling purposes, but only when it comes to metals, because there shouldn't be as much of a problem with plastics like Nylon or Delrin.(But I'll listen to opinions either way). :-) Of course there are problems using it for Nylon or Delrin. You have done nothing to deal with the tendency of the chuck to pop off the taper when subjected to side loads. And there is still the tendency for the frame to wind up under cutting loads, causing a deeper cut than you intended, and thus increasing the chance that the chuck will pop off. Yes -- it is *possible* to redesign and manufacture a drill press for use as a milling machine -- and this is exactly what you will get if you purchase a "mill drill". And -- it will be to heavy to get up your stairs. (And -- it will still not have the workpiece size ability of a milling machine so designed from scratch. Good Luck, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
|
#6
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
snip
but I am attempting to get a handle on the *physical* reasons why so many here say that a drill press shouldn't be adapted to mill use. snip 2 major problems: (1) you have side load and interrupted cut on an end mill which a drill press is not designed to take. At best the quill bearings will get beaten out quickly. At worst, the end mill will slip in the chuck, the chuck will come off the arbor, the arbor will com out of the quill, generally at high speed. (2) The lateral location of the drill press head is not rigid. I.e. most drill presses are made so the drill press head and table clamp to the column. Again, not a problem in drilling, and in fact it may even be helpful to allow the drill to seek center. Milling side loads will cause the head/table to shift resulting in part/machine damage and possible operator injury. If you are bound to try this, or have economic constraints, be sure to keep everything as tight as possible, re tighten the chuck frequently, use slow speeds and don't force anything. In my not so humble opinion, it takes *MORE* skill and experience to successfully mill with a drill press than a milling machine. Of course, by the time you have acquired the necessary skill, you wouldn't do it. It still beats a file. Uncle George |
|
#7
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
According to Don Foreman :
On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:21:37 +0000, (DoN. Nichols) wrote: Yes -- it is *possible* to redesign and manufacture a drill press for use as a milling machine -- and this is exactly what you will get if you purchase a "mill drill". And -- it will be to heavy to get up your stairs. (And -- it will still not have the workpiece size ability of a milling machine so designed from scratch. A small mill-drill would be no problem to disassemble and move up a residential staircase. No part of those is as bulky or heavy as, say, a refrigerator. But he has multiple floors of narrow staircases, and he has suggested that an appliance dolly will not be practical on those stairs. But -- he has also said that he has managed to move some pinball games up those stairs, so I don't really know. A really small mill drill, like a Sherline or Taig, could be carried up intact by one person. Sure -- but I would consider those to be miniature milling machines, not small mill drills. Same for the little mills which Harbour Freight (among others) seems to offer. But since he wants to do a lot of work with stainless steels, I'm not at all sure that any of these would prove satisfactory. I really think that he needs a place at ground floor level for his machines -- perhaps one of the garages which can be rented. A small mill would at least let him get some experience, which would enable him to make a somewhat better choice next time around. Perhaps even to choose to find somewhere else to live which would adapt to the machine tools which he really needs. (But then again -- living in New York (Staten Island) is a different kind of life -- and one not well fitted to hobby metalworking. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
|
#8
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
On 14 Jan 2006 14:46:06 -0800, wrote:
Can anyone elaborate on the differences between a Drill and a Mill as About 5,000 pounds Gerry :-)} London, Canada |
|
#9
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
Gerald Miller wrote:
On 14 Jan 2006 14:46:06 -0800, wrote: Can anyone elaborate on the differences between a Drill and a Mill as About 5,000 pounds Gerry :-)} London, Canada Er, how about one of the HF/Sherline/Taig mills (they are real mills, just small) vs. most any radial drill? Pete C. |
|
#11
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
DoN. Nichols wrote: According to : Can anyone elaborate on the differences between a Drill and a Mill as far as the relative size, placement, and materials when it comes to the chuck, spindle, quill, arbor, collet, bearings, gears, ect.? In other words, it's obvious that a mill can move the tooling along more than a single axis, unlike the drill press, but I am attempting to get a handle on the *physical* reasons why so many here say that a drill press shouldn't be adapted to mill use. Start with the lack of rigidity of the drill press's frame. It is designed only to support the workpiece against the axial forces of drilling. A milling machine has a *lot* more metal in the head, a more rigid column (the best ones don't have round columns, and actually move the *table* up and down with a leadscrew. Even those with round columns have a larger column diameter, to minimize the twist under cutting loads. The quill (which moves the spindle up and down for drilling type operations) is larger in diameter, and a more precise fit in the headstock, so it will not move sideways under cutting loads. The mounting of the cutter to the spindle of a milling machine is *not* via a drill chuck. A drill chuck is normally mounted via a taper -- a mount not designed for side loads, as the drill chuck will pop lose and start bouncing around the shop, spinning rapidly, and carrying a sharp cutter with it. And -- a normal drill chuck is not designed to grip the hardened surface of an end mill shank. (An exception is the diamond grit jaws on one of the more expensive Albrecht drill chucks -- designed for use in a milling machine, and made with a standard milling machine taper (e.g. #40 MTMB, or R8 collet format) shank -- *not* a taper such is used for normal drill chucks. The bearings in a drill press are designed to handle only the axial (thrust) loads, not side loads. If these physical reasons can be solved with only small manufacturing changes in drill presses to allow them to become more suited for milling, then does the conventional drill presses unsuitability have to do with the bottom line of the manufacturers or lack of consumer interest responsible for a lack suitable adapers/tooling, or perhaps there are other logistical issues involved? I've heard about the specific forces that the bearings and so forth would have to take as being a reason for a drill presses unsuitability for milling operations, but it seems to me that a suitable gearing adapter would negate much of these "lopsided" forces.(Probably at the expense of a lot of power). Gear drives can increase the torque at the expense of speed. So can belt drives. This is *not* the major weakness of a drill press when used for milling. Milling machines have a *lot* more steel and cast iron which go into their makeup. There are cheap small tabletop drill presses which can be easily lifted with one hand. The weight of a tabletop milling machine of similar size will probably require a two-hand lift. Also, I figure that since so many of you have been machining for so many years, is there a possibilty that any bad drill press milling experiences are at least in part a result of a lack of availability of suitable adapters and tooling for this? A lack of suitable design for the purpose. A *first* requirement for a drill press which is going to be used for milling is a hollow spindle, so a drawbar can lock the end mill holder or collet into the spindle -- to protect against popping the tool holder out from side loads. And *nobody* is going to make a drill press with such a spindle, as it would cost more, and the machine's frame would still be inadequate for the lateral and twisting loads which milling would apply to it. Making a drill press with such a spindle would simply be leaving them open to lawsuits, which all manufacturers would rather avoid at all costs. Note that a radial arm drill press *might* be solid enough in some features so you could get away with it -- but none of these weigh less than a minimal floor-standing milling machine, and there is no way that you could get it up to your apartment. Anyway, in the meantime I will of course still take the advice of not using a drill press for milling purposes, but only when it comes to metals, because there shouldn't be as much of a problem with plastics like Nylon or Delrin.(But I'll listen to opinions either way). :-) Of course there are problems using it for Nylon or Delrin. You have done nothing to deal with the tendency of the chuck to pop off the taper when subjected to side loads. And there is still the tendency for the frame to wind up under cutting loads, causing a deeper cut than you intended, and thus increasing the chance that the chuck will pop off. Yes -- it is *possible* to redesign and manufacture a drill press for use as a milling machine -- and this is exactly what you will get if you purchase a "mill drill". And -- it will be to heavy to get up your stairs. (And -- it will still not have the workpiece size ability of a milling machine so designed from scratch. To clarify what I said about the specific(radial) forces not friendly to the conventional drill press, I was addressing the possibility of a "gearbox" placed *after* the chuck that would negate these negative forces to an extent.(That is why I said that it would result in the loss of a lot of power, by virtue of being inefficient). This gearbox would of course have to be made to "fit" the housing in the chuck area. This would have the effect of distributing out the radial loads that account for all the negative things you mentioned. But of course there is still the ridgidity issue. P.S: I haven't been able to find detailed plans on the internet, so if anyone is aware of any illustrated info concerning the parts and dimensions of these machines, and in particular the work tables(rotary and otherwise), I'd appreciated it. Thanks a lot. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
|
#12
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
DoN. Nichols wrote: According to Don Foreman : On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 00:21:37 +0000, (DoN. Nichols) wrote: Yes -- it is *possible* to redesign and manufacture a drill press for use as a milling machine -- and this is exactly what you will get if you purchase a "mill drill". And -- it will be to heavy to get up your stairs. (And -- it will still not have the workpiece size ability of a milling machine so designed from scratch. A small mill-drill would be no problem to disassemble and move up a residential staircase. No part of those is as bulky or heavy as, say, a refrigerator. But he has multiple floors of narrow staircases, and he has suggested that an appliance dolly will not be practical on those stairs. But -- he has also said that he has managed to move some pinball games up those stairs, so I don't really know. A really small mill drill, like a Sherline or Taig, could be carried up intact by one person. Sure -- but I would consider those to be miniature milling machines, not small mill drills. Same for the little mills which Harbour Freight (among others) seems to offer. But since he wants to do a lot of work with stainless steels, I'm not at all sure that any of these would prove satisfactory. I really think that he needs a place at ground floor level for his machines -- perhaps one of the garages which can be rented. A small mill would at least let him get some experience, which would enable him to make a somewhat better choice next time around. Perhaps even to choose to find somewhere else to live which would adapt to the machine tools which he really needs. (But then again -- living in New York (Staten Island) is a different kind of life -- and one not well fitted to hobby metalworking. I was going to pick up a hand truck, but realized that it would add to the dimensional size of the video games I wanted to get up the stairs and around the corners. These machines are as wide as 25 inches, as deep as 34 inches, and over 6 feet tall and 350lbs.(These are maximum numbers). Ok, so perhaps what I need is a universal base that would perhaps amount to three 100-150lbs sections before being bolted together, and an attachable/detacheable dovetail column which may add another 150lbs. To this would be added the swappable heavy duty "Mill head"(motor housing and all containments). All this would ad up to attain the needed ridgidity.(I can dream, can't I?). I guess you're right about me getting a small mill for now. The most extreme thing that I will have to do that would be beyond the capability of the Rotabroach I just won on eBay is carve out a 4" diameter hole that is 1/16" deep in stainless steel.(Not all the way through). If I can establish that I could get that done with something like a Micro-Mark Mini-Mill, then I'd be set for now.(I'd of course need to also get a machine for straight cutting 1/4" thick S.S.). *** BTW, as far as a drill presses short-comings as a mill, if we apply what was said to a lathe instead of a drill press? Would most of the same issues apply? Thanks a lot. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
|
#13
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
According to :
[ ... ] I guess you're right about me getting a small mill for now. The most extreme thing that I will have to do that would be beyond the capability of the Rotabroach I just won on eBay is carve out a 4" diameter hole that is 1/16" deep in stainless steel.(Not all the way through). If I can establish that I could get that done with something like a Micro-Mark Mini-Mill, then I'd be set for now.(I'd of course need to also get a machine for straight cutting 1/4" thick S.S.). Hmm ... the 4" diameter will probably call for slower spindle speeds that the Micro-Mark can provide -- and more torque. Especially so because you insist that stainless is your material of choice. I really suggest that you experiment with something like 12L14 steel, and compare how easy that is to machine to what is needed with stainless. I'd be a *lot* happier if you were not insisting on stainless. And I'm not sure *why* you insist on stainless. If it is inside what you are making, it can be lightly coated with oil, and you will have no problems with rust. If it has to be out where people can handle it, then you might want stainless. The Micro-Mark probably could make a 4" x 4" *square* pocket fairly easily. Though you might have to make two or three passes with Stainless to get 1/16" deep. To make a round one on a small machine, you would be better off with a rotary table -- *if* the overall size of the workpiece is small enough so the corners will clear the column as it is being rotated. *** BTW, as far as a drill presses short-comings as a mill, if we apply what was said to a lathe instead of a drill press? Would most of the same issues apply? A lathe is a *lot* better as a mill than a drill press is. The setup is awkward, and the travel is less than you would probably like, but since the spindle is hollow, you can fit a drawbar to hold the endmill in a collet (or in an endmill holder) in place. The lathe is designed for lateral loads. Mostly, the problems are with the orientation of the milling cutter to the work, and the added stuff needed to give a vertical axis -- which is usually not as good as the rest of the lathe. That said -- model makers, in particular in England, do some amazing milling in a lathe. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
|
#14
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
DoN. Nichols wrote: According to : [ ... ] I guess you're right about me getting a small mill for now. The most extreme thing that I will have to do that would be beyond the capability of the Rotabroach I just won on eBay is carve out a 4" diameter hole that is 1/16" deep in stainless steel.(Not all the way through). If I can establish that I could get that done with something like a Micro-Mark Mini-Mill, then I'd be set for now.(I'd of course need to also get a machine for straight cutting 1/4" thick S.S.). Hmm ... the 4" diameter will probably call for slower spindle speeds that the Micro-Mark can provide -- and more torque. Especially so because you insist that stainless is your material of choice. I really suggest that you experiment with something like 12L14 steel, and compare how easy that is to machine to what is needed with stainless. I'd be a *lot* happier if you were not insisting on stainless. And I'm not sure *why* you insist on stainless. If it is inside what you are making, it can be lightly coated with oil, and you will have no problems with rust. If it has to be out where people can handle it, then you might want stainless. Actually most of the parts in question will be enclosed most of the time but the device will be opened up frequently for adjustments.(I just don't know if S.S. 316L would be over-kill). The Micro-Mark probably could make a 4" x 4" *square* pocket fairly easily. Though you might have to make two or three passes with Stainless to get 1/16" deep. To make a round one on a small machine, you would be better off with a rotary table -- *if* the overall size of the workpiece is small enough so the corners will clear the column as it is being rotated. For this particular operation the work will be 4-1/2" x 4-1/2". *** BTW, as far as a drill presses short-comings as a mill, if we apply what was said to a lathe instead of a drill press? Would most of the same issues apply? A lathe is a *lot* better as a mill than a drill press is. The setup is awkward, and the travel is less than you would probably like, but since the spindle is hollow, you can fit a drawbar to hold the endmill in a collet (or in an endmill holder) in place. The lathe is designed for lateral loads. Mostly, the problems are with the orientation of the milling cutter to the work, and the added stuff needed to give a vertical axis -- which is usually not as good as the rest of the lathe. The lathe as a mill seems to bring with it a different set of problems. One operation will require that I start with a 3/4" rod and *square* one end down a 1/4".(1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2"). This would take some kind of cutter that I'd have to slide the word under.(And that is just one of several "square" parts involved in my first project). That is why a mill-drill is my first choice at this time. It would seem easier to use a mill as a lathe instead. Thanks. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
|
#15
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
According to :
DoN. Nichols wrote: [ ... ] Hmm ... the 4" diameter will probably call for slower spindle speeds that the Micro-Mark can provide -- and more torque. Especially so because you insist that stainless is your material of choice. I really suggest that you experiment with something like 12L14 steel, and compare how easy that is to machine to what is needed with stainless. I'd be a *lot* happier if you were not insisting on stainless. And I'm not sure *why* you insist on stainless. If it is inside what you are making, it can be lightly coated with oil, and you will have no problems with rust. If it has to be out where people can handle it, then you might want stainless. Actually most of the parts in question will be enclosed most of the time but the device will be opened up frequently for adjustments.(I just don't know if S.S. 316L would be over-kill). I think that it is serious over-kill -- and it might not be the best material for other reasons, such as difficulty hardening it by heat treating.. The Micro-Mark probably could make a 4" x 4" *square* pocket fairly easily. Though you might have to make two or three passes with Stainless to get 1/16" deep. To make a round one on a small machine, you would be better off with a rotary table -- *if* the overall size of the workpiece is small enough so the corners will clear the column as it is being rotated. For this particular operation the work will be 4-1/2" x 4-1/2". Hmm ... and the round depression is centered? This could be nicely done by a lathe. Let's see -- 4.5" square means that the diagonal would be 6.36" diagonal, so a 7" lathe could handle it, if it had a 4-jaw chuck which could extend the reversed jaws out far enough. That diagonal applies to the distance from the cutter axis to the column as well, when working with a rotary table. [ ... ] A lathe is a *lot* better as a mill than a drill press is. The setup is awkward, and the travel is less than you would probably like, [ ... ] The lathe as a mill seems to bring with it a different set of problems. One operation will require that I start with a 3/4" rod and *square* one end down a 1/4".(1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2" x 1/2"). This would take some kind of cutter that I'd have to slide the word under. An end mill in the lathe's spindle (in an end-mill holder) and a milling adaptor replacing the compound to allow vertical adjustment of the workpiece. The square could be accomplished with just this, but what would make it easier would be one of those collet sets which holds 5C collets in either a square (for four sides) or a hex (for six, obviously), which could be held in the vise on the milling attachment and be rotated one flat per pass to produce the desired square end. (And that is just one of several "square" parts involved in my first project). That is why a mill-drill is my first choice at this time. It would seem easier to use a mill as a lathe instead. That latter depends on the mill. First off, you will need some kind of workpiece holder (like a chuck) to fit the spindle (and a larger spindle is better here), and a good way to hold a cutting tool. Or -- you could mount the workpiece on a rotary table, and *mill* the workpiece to shape as you rotate the table. It would be a lot easier to explain the limitations of each route if you already had experience in using the basic tools, and you're trying to decide which tools to get, so you don't have that experience yet. Good Luck, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
|
#16
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
According to :
DoN. Nichols wrote: According to : [ ... ] Actually most of the parts in question will be enclosed most of the time but the device will be opened up frequently for adjustments.(I just don't know if S.S. 316L would be over-kill). I think that it is serious over-kill -- and it might not be the best material for other reasons, such as difficulty hardening it by heat treating.. I won't have to worrry about that. But since this is a unque kind of videogame joystick, I'm more concerned with the sweaty hands of a gamer who will have to open up the top to change certain settings. Are these settings necessarily part of the joystick, or could the controls be mounted somewhere else? My original concern was involved the ball bearings that would roll against the S.S. plates, but I redesigned it so that there will be no friction to worry about between the chrome steel bearings and the S.S. Wherever there would have been friction between metal parts, Delrin was substituted, so that now the only contact will be between Chrome steel(bearings) and Delrin, Stainless steel and Delrin, and Delrin and Delrin. So -- just wipe the steel part down with a good thick lube like Vactra No. 2 Waylube (which you'll need for your lathe or mill anyway). [ ... ] For this particular operation the work will be 4-1/2" x 4-1/2". Hmm ... and the round depression is centered? This could be nicely done by a lathe. Let's see -- 4.5" square means that the diagonal would be 6.36" diagonal, so a 7" lathe could handle it, if it had a 4-jaw chuck which could extend the reversed jaws out far enough. Ok. A 4" diameter(1/16" thick) Delrin disk will be placed into that hole. O.K. Any reason why you can't use aluminum for the square plate? Aluminum protects itself by quickly forming an oxide coating which prevents oxygen from the air reaching it to continue the oxidation. Since you no longer need it to be a bearing surface (the Delrin is doing that) you should be fine. And a good aluminum (say 6061-T6) is quite nice to machine. [ ... ] An end mill in the lathe's spindle (in an end-mill holder) and a milling adaptor replacing the compound to allow vertical adjustment of the workpiece. The square could be accomplished with just this, but what would make it easier would be one of those collet sets which holds 5C collets in either a square (for four sides) or a hex (for six, obviously), which could be held in the vise on the milling attachment and be rotated one flat per pass to produce the desired square end. So I guess that one of the 7 x 10 or a 7 x 14 mini-lathes by Micro-Mark, Central Machinery, ect. would work. As long as you can get a milling adaptor for the cross-slide. So it seems that instead of entertaining what the shortcomings are of a drill for conventional mill work, I should have been making comparisons between a Mill and a lathe. Yes -- with the understanding that it will be more convenient to have both eventually. (And that is just one of several "square" parts involved in my first project). That is why a mill-drill is my first choice at this time. It would seem easier to use a mill as a lathe instead. That latter depends on the mill. First off, you will need some kind of workpiece holder (like a chuck) to fit the spindle (and a larger spindle is better here), and a good way to hold a cutting tool. Or -- you could mount the workpiece on a rotary table, and *mill* the workpiece to shape as you rotate the table. It looks like I'll be spending a lot of time on the lathe pages at the website for Harbor Freight and Grizzly. :-) O.K. Not exactly the best of machines, but probably closer to your budget for the moment. And -- make sure that you get a 4-jaw chuck for your square and rectangular workpieces. Remember that my size calculations were based on the assumption that the circular depression (I would not really call it a "hole" at that depth to diameter ratio) was centered. (Pretty much has to be, given the size of the depression relative to the overall size of the workpiece.) It would be a lot easier to explain the limitations of each route if you already had experience in using the basic tools, and you're trying to decide which tools to get, so you don't have that experience yet. True. But You've taught me a lot. :-) I was just getting ready to get a small mill, but now I will look harder at the lathes. O.K. Understand that I have several of both lathes and mills, in different sizes. *** It seems to me that once I account for the 3-dimensional(LxWxH) workspace(maximum size of the work piece),and all tooling, jigs, tables, and adapters for both a mill and a comparable lathe, I should just ask what *can't* be done by one machine that the other one can do.(I'm not really worried about what is "easier"). O.K. Sometimes, the decider of whether it can be done or not on the "wrong" machine is more whether the machine is large enough to be "abused" in that way. Also -- what tooling you may have around to adapt it is important. Good Luck, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
|
#17
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
Uncle George sez:
" It still beats a file." Perhaps someone should have expounded on the method of "milling" whereby one chain drills an outline of the desired part and then does final shaping with files. I'd be a lot safer than trying to mill on a drill press. Supposedly there is a gun factory in one of the "Stans" (packy I think) where they produce modern-type firearms with only files. It must be a real bitch to bore and then cut rifling. Those stanny dudes are very innovative, though. Bob Swinney "F. George McDuffee" wrote in message ... snip but I am attempting to get a handle on the *physical* reasons why so many here say that a drill press shouldn't be adapted to mill use. snip 2 major problems: (1) you have side load and interrupted cut on an end mill which a drill press is not designed to take. At best the quill bearings will get beaten out quickly. At worst, the end mill will slip in the chuck, the chuck will come off the arbor, the arbor will com out of the quill, generally at high speed. (2) The lateral location of the drill press head is not rigid. I.e. most drill presses are made so the drill press head and table clamp to the column. Again, not a problem in drilling, and in fact it may even be helpful to allow the drill to seek center. Milling side loads will cause the head/table to shift resulting in part/machine damage and possible operator injury. If you are bound to try this, or have economic constraints, be sure to keep everything as tight as possible, re tighten the chuck frequently, use slow speeds and don't force anything. In my not so humble opinion, it takes *MORE* skill and experience to successfully mill with a drill press than a milling machine. Of course, by the time you have acquired the necessary skill, you wouldn't do it. Uncle George |
|
#18
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
DoN. Nichols wrote: According to : DoN. Nichols wrote: According to : [ ... ] Actually most of the parts in question will be enclosed most of the time but the device will be opened up frequently for adjustments.(I just don't know if S.S. 316L would be over-kill). I think that it is serious over-kill -- and it might not be the best material for other reasons, such as difficulty hardening it by heat treating.. I won't have to worrry about that. But since this is a unque kind of videogame joystick, I'm more concerned with the sweaty hands of a gamer who will have to open up the top to change certain settings. Are these settings necessarily part of the joystick, or could the controls be mounted somewhere else? The mechanical "restrictor" will be part of the joystick assembly itself. My original concern was involved the ball bearings that would roll against the S.S. plates, but I redesigned it so that there will be no friction to worry about between the chrome steel bearings and the S.S. Wherever there would have been friction between metal parts, Delrin was substituted, so that now the only contact will be between Chrome steel(bearings) and Delrin, Stainless steel and Delrin, and Delrin and Delrin. So -- just wipe the steel part down with a good thick lube like Vactra No. 2 Waylube (which you'll need for your lathe or mill anyway). Because in some of these prototypes there is the possibiltiy of having to include a game printed circuit board which would have to be cooled with a small fan. So that would make any lubricant a no-no. [ ... ] For this particular operation the work will be 4-1/2" x 4-1/2". Hmm ... and the round depression is centered? This could be nicely done by a lathe. Let's see -- 4.5" square means that the diagonal would be 6.36" diagonal, so a 7" lathe could handle it, if it had a 4-jaw chuck which could extend the reversed jaws out far enough. Ok. A 4" diameter(1/16" thick) Delrin disk will be placed into that hole. O.K. Any reason why you can't use aluminum for the square plate? Aluminum protects itself by quickly forming an oxide coating which prevents oxygen from the air reaching it to continue the oxidation. Yes. That and it's light weight is why Aluminum was my first choice. That is until I realized that Aluminum *may not* have the stiffness needed. I can't afford to have the disk warp or flex under pressure because of the tight tolerances and the fact that parts of the 4-1/2" x 4-1/2" may have to be under 1/16" thick. Since you no longer need it to be a bearing surface (the Delrin is doing that) you should be fine. And a good aluminum (say 6061-T6) is quite nice to machine. Actually, in the future I will be working with a lot of this. :-) [ ... ] An end mill in the lathe's spindle (in an end-mill holder) and a milling adaptor replacing the compound to allow vertical adjustment of the workpiece. The square could be accomplished with just this, but what would make it easier would be one of those collet sets which holds 5C collets in either a square (for four sides) or a hex (for six, obviously), which could be held in the vise on the milling attachment and be rotated one flat per pass to produce the desired square end. So I guess that one of the 7 x 10 or a 7 x 14 mini-lathes by Micro-Mark, Central Machinery, ect. would work. As long as you can get a milling adaptor for the cross-slide. So it seems that instead of entertaining what the shortcomings are of a drill for conventional mill work, I should have been making comparisons between a Mill and a lathe. Yes -- with the understanding that it will be more convenient to have both eventually. And another thought. Perhaps those who have been using lathes and mills for many years would correct me if I'm wrong, but since the lathe is inherently simpler than a mill, mechanical problems and maintenance cost should be lower. (And that is just one of several "square" parts involved in my first project). That is why a mill-drill is my first choice at this time. It would seem easier to use a mill as a lathe instead. That latter depends on the mill. First off, you will need some kind of workpiece holder (like a chuck) to fit the spindle (and a larger spindle is better here), and a good way to hold a cutting tool. Or -- you could mount the workpiece on a rotary table, and *mill* the workpiece to shape as you rotate the table. It looks like I'll be spending a lot of time on the lathe pages at the website for Harbor Freight and Grizzly. :-) O.K. Not exactly the best of machines, but probably closer to your budget for the moment. My present budget is in the $400-$600 range, but anything that'll cost more would probably be too big for me and my living situation. And -- make sure that you get a 4-jaw chuck for your square and rectangular workpieces. Ok. I'm making a list. :-) I'll definitely be perusing sites and books looking for unconventional lathe uses. Remember that my size calculations were based on the assumption that the circular depression (I would not really call it a "hole" at that depth to diameter ratio) was centered. (Pretty much has to be, given the size of the depression relative to the overall size of the workpiece.) It would be a lot easier to explain the limitations of each route if you already had experience in using the basic tools, and you're trying to decide which tools to get, so you don't have that experience yet. True. But You've taught me a lot. :-) I was just getting ready to get a small mill, but now I will look harder at the lathes. O.K. Understand that I have several of both lathes and mills, in different sizes. *** It seems to me that once I account for the 3-dimensional(LxWxH) workspace(maximum size of the work piece),and all tooling, jigs, tables, and adapters for both a mill and a comparable lathe, I should just ask what *can't* be done by one machine that the other one can do.(I'm not really worried about what is "easier"). O.K. Sometimes, the decider of whether it can be done or not on the "wrong" machine is more whether the machine is large enough to be "abused" in that way. Also -- what tooling you may have around to adapt it is important. *** Well, with the same work envelopes and access to *any* tooling(along with a good imagination) I guess that a lathe can do everything a mill can and vice versa. The only thing at that point that would be different between the two are the length of travel of during specifc operations and the speed at which each can be done, all factors taken into consideration. Thanks. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
|
#19
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
|
|
#20
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
On 19 Jan 2006 19:57:59 -0800,
wrote: Ok. I perused the Taig and Sherline sites and found only micro and miniature lathes, which seem way too small for me. Any other recommendations for a machine for what I need to do would be appreciated. Thanks a lot. Hi Darren, Did you request a free Grizzly catalog yet? http://www.grizzly.com/catalog_requests.aspx It only took about a week to get mine (last week persactly, about an half inch thick). It has a whole lot more than just metal working machines in it. Lots of tooling, gizmos, gadgets, woodworking... The pictures are excellent, much better than HF catalogs. It could be helpful. You could look at pictures of the odds & ends being discussed here. -- Leon Fisk Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b Remove no.spam for email |
|
#21
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
Leon Fisk wrote: On 19 Jan 2006 19:57:59 -0800, wrote: Ok. I perused the Taig and Sherline sites and found only micro and miniature lathes, which seem way too small for me. Any other recommendations for a machine for what I need to do would be appreciated. Thanks a lot. Hi Darren, Did you request a free Grizzly catalog yet? http://www.grizzly.com/catalog_requests.aspx It only took about a week to get mine (last week persactly, about an half inch thick). It has a whole lot more than just metal working machines in it. Lots of tooling, gizmos, gadgets, woodworking... The pictures are excellent, much better than HF catalogs. It could be helpful. You could look at pictures of the odds & ends being discussed here. Actually, I'm trying to stay away from HF and Grizzly because Don hinted that I could do better. I'm concentrating on a lathe because it's one can do more with it than a drill press, and operation is simpler than a mill and therefore it follows that there would be less in the way of maintenance issues to worry about. P.S: I did fill out that form, but didn't yet received that catalog. Thanks. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
|
#23
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
Leon Fisk wrote: On 20 Jan 2006 17:39:04 -0800, wrote: Leon Fisk wrote: On 19 Jan 2006 19:57:59 -0800, wrote: Ok. I perused the Taig and Sherline sites and found only micro and miniature lathes, which seem way too small for me. Any other recommendations for a machine for what I need to do would be appreciated. Thanks a lot. Hi Darren, Did you request a free Grizzly catalog yet? http://www.grizzly.com/catalog_requests.aspx It only took about a week to get mine (last week persactly, about an half inch thick). It has a whole lot more than just metal working machines in it. Lots of tooling, gizmos, gadgets, woodworking... The pictures are excellent, much better than HF catalogs. It could be helpful. You could look at pictures of the odds & ends being discussed here. Actually, I'm trying to stay away from HF and Grizzly because Don hinted that I could do better. I'm concentrating on a lathe because it's one can do more with it than a drill press, and operation is simpler than a mill and therefore it follows that there would be less in the way of maintenance issues to worry about. P.S: I did fill out that form, but didn't yet received that catalog. Thanks. Hi Darren, They are a bit more expensive than what I can afford, provided I can get something similar elsewhere. They do have some unique stuff though and their prices aren't terribly bad. If you do get a catalog (like I said, it took about a week or so, I was surprised it was so quick) it is great for just researching what is available. Nobody said you had to buy the goody/item from them too ;-) I'm looking into the old Craftsman mills and lathes now, since it seems that older may be better for my purposes. The problem I'm running into is that I wouldn't know a good(or bad) deal when I see one on a machine like an old Atlas mill or Atlas lathe. And there seems to be little info on these machines on the internet. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
|
#24
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
|
|
#25
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
Rex B wrote: wrote: I'm looking into the old Craftsman mills and lathes now, since it seems that older may be better for my purposes. The problem I'm running into is that I wouldn't know a good(or bad) deal when I see one on a machine like an old Atlas mill or Atlas lathe. And there seems to be little info on these machines on the internet. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. Au contraire! There is a wealth of information on Atlas lathes. start with the atlas_craftsman Yahoo group. Check the files section and the links. Less info on the mills, because they are fairly scarce. I don't recall your original purpose, but I can tell you from experience and wide research, that an Atlas lathe is very light-duty. The beds are light and flexible, compared to anything else with a similar work envelope. They also tend to be a little pricy compared to some better lathes. I've had 2 Atlas machines, one of which I bought as a basket case. you learn a lot about a machine that way. Once mine was finished, I sold it muy pronto. For the same money as an Atlas you can buy a decent Logan. Logan is well supported by Scott Logan. You can get almost anything for them, even though they were last built in the 1960s. They are a heavier lathe, on a par with Southbend. For example, I have a 36" bed from a 10" Atlas. it weight exactly 50 pounds. My 9" Logan bed the same length is easily double that. You should be able to pick up a nice, tooled, Logan 10" QC model for under $1000. I bought my 9" for $350. I looked at a 10" in Dallas last weekend which sold for for $500. As for mills, all the nice small vertical mills seem to go quickly for silly money, at least in this area (Texas). Right now I'm looking at Pantographs as a lower-cost alternative. (Sigh). Back to the drawing board. It seems that everytime I start to zero in on what machine to get, someone comes up with a reason to look at something else.(So I'll scratch the Atlas stuff). I think that most here just have to do heavier work in larger envelopes than I am thinking about for myself. So perhaps I can get away with a machine that only weighs a couple hundred pounds. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
|
#26
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
On 24 Jan 2006 19:35:20 -0800, wrote:
Rex B wrote: wrote: I'm looking into the old Craftsman mills and lathes now, since it seems that older may be better for my purposes. The problem I'm running into is that I wouldn't know a good(or bad) deal when I see one on a machine like an old Atlas mill or Atlas lathe. And there seems to be little info on these machines on the internet. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. Au contraire! There is a wealth of information on Atlas lathes. start with the atlas_craftsman Yahoo group. Check the files section and the links. Less info on the mills, because they are fairly scarce. I don't recall your original purpose, but I can tell you from experience and wide research, that an Atlas lathe is very light-duty. The beds are light and flexible, compared to anything else with a similar work envelope. They also tend to be a little pricy compared to some better lathes. I've had 2 Atlas machines, one of which I bought as a basket case. you learn a lot about a machine that way. Once mine was finished, I sold it muy pronto. For the same money as an Atlas you can buy a decent Logan. Logan is well supported by Scott Logan. You can get almost anything for them, even though they were last built in the 1960s. They are a heavier lathe, on a par with Southbend. For example, I have a 36" bed from a 10" Atlas. it weight exactly 50 pounds. My 9" Logan bed the same length is easily double that. You should be able to pick up a nice, tooled, Logan 10" QC model for under $1000. I bought my 9" for $350. I looked at a 10" in Dallas last weekend which sold for for $500. As for mills, all the nice small vertical mills seem to go quickly for silly money, at least in this area (Texas). Right now I'm looking at Pantographs as a lower-cost alternative. (Sigh). Back to the drawing board. It seems that everytime I start to zero in on what machine to get, someone comes up with a reason to look at something else.(So I'll scratch the Atlas stuff). I think that most here just have to do heavier work in larger envelopes than I am thinking about for myself. So perhaps I can get away with a machine that only weighs a couple hundred pounds. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. Darren...Im a machine tool repair tech. Find yourself a nice Logan 11" lathe in reasonable condition. Its big enough to do Stuff. It takes 5c collets. They are well supported by Scot Logan. Its rigid enough to hog off metal. Southbend heavy 10 would be my second choice. Shrug. I like the Logans. Simple, easy to run, noisy though..shrug again. Gunners $.03USD opinion "Deep in her heart, every moslem woman yearns to show us her tits" John Griffin |
|
#27
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
wrote: Rex B wrote: wrote: I'm looking into the old Craftsman mills and lathes now, since it seems that older may be better for my purposes. The problem I'm running into is that I wouldn't know a good(or bad) deal when I see one on a machine like an old Atlas mill or Atlas lathe. And there seems to be little info on these machines on the internet. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. Au contraire! There is a wealth of information on Atlas lathes. start with the atlas_craftsman Yahoo group. Check the files section and the links. Less info on the mills, because they are fairly scarce. I don't recall your original purpose, but I can tell you from experience and wide research, that an Atlas lathe is very light-duty. The beds are light and flexible, compared to anything else with a similar work envelope. They also tend to be a little pricy compared to some better lathes. I've had 2 Atlas machines, one of which I bought as a basket case. you learn a lot about a machine that way. Once mine was finished, I sold it muy pronto. For the same money as an Atlas you can buy a decent Logan. Logan is well supported by Scott Logan. You can get almost anything for them, even though they were last built in the 1960s. They are a heavier lathe, on a par with Southbend. For example, I have a 36" bed from a 10" Atlas. it weight exactly 50 pounds. My 9" Logan bed the same length is easily double that. You should be able to pick up a nice, tooled, Logan 10" QC model for under $1000. I bought my 9" for $350. I looked at a 10" in Dallas last weekend which sold for for $500. As for mills, all the nice small vertical mills seem to go quickly for silly money, at least in this area (Texas). Right now I'm looking at Pantographs as a lower-cost alternative. (Sigh). Back to the drawing board. It seems that everytime I start to zero in on what machine to get, someone comes up with a reason to look at something else.(So I'll scratch the Atlas stuff). I think that most here just have to do heavier work in larger envelopes than I am thinking about for myself. So perhaps I can get away with a machine that only weighs a couple hundred pounds. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. Darren, let's temper that a little. If you run across a nice Atlas/Craftsman 10" or 12" at a good deal, buy it. I would, and I do. I just missed a late-model cabinet-mount 12" in the classifieds that was a few miles from me, for $200. I'd have been on that like a duck on a june bug, but someone beat me to it. I'd give $500 for one of the late-model square-headstock, cabinet-mount units with basic tooling. Still a light-duty 12x36, but nothing to dismiss out of hand. Heck, a 10x36 earlier model with a QC is an OK lathe too. One thing I can say about the Atlas is that it's dead easy to check bed wear on the flat ways - just mic 'em. Nominal thickness is .375 or ..500. Compare the working area to a virgin section at either end. My point is, all things being equal - price, condition, tooling, location - go for the Logan and you'll only have to buy once. Actually, my own projects tend to be pretty small - bushings and adapters and such. I could do most anything I've attempted on a 7X asian lathe just as well. But I like good machinery. It just feels good. |
|
#28
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
According to Gunner :
On 24 Jan 2006 19:35:20 -0800, wrote: Rex B wrote: wrote: [ ... ] As for mills, all the nice small vertical mills seem to go quickly for silly money, at least in this area (Texas). Right now I'm looking at Pantographs as a lower-cost alternative. (Sigh). Back to the drawing board. It seems that everytime I start to zero in on what machine to get, someone comes up with a reason to look at something else.(So I'll scratch the Atlas stuff). I think that most here just have to do heavier work in larger envelopes than I am thinking about for myself. So perhaps I can get away with a machine that only weighs a couple hundred pounds. Given your problems with getting the machine upstairs to your apartment, I think that the Atlas benchtop mill may well do as much of what you need as you can manage in anything you can get up those stairs without someone who knows machines to disassemble it at the bottom and reassemble it at the top. I think that the Atlas mill is a better machine than the little Atlas lathes -- but even so, the 6x18" Atlas (or the Atlas/Craftsman) will probably work for you. *Absolutely* avoid the Craftsman lathes whose serial number starts with 109 -- those are the AA brand machines, and are very weakly built. The 6x16" Atlas lathes are weaker than most of the alternatives (I know, I have one, along with more substantial lathes), but a complete one (with full set of change gears) will allow you to cut threads, and otherwise will at least get you started. You *will* eventually discover that you will need a more solid machine, but for that, you will have to find someplace else to use it. Your apartment is just not right for the task. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. Darren...Im a machine tool repair tech. Find yourself a nice Logan 11" lathe in reasonable condition. A nice machine -- but too much for him to get upstairs. Narrow, twisty stairs (based on his description), and no elevator. I'm not sure whether he has a safe place to disassemble a good lathe so he could carry it up the stairs one part at a time. Its big enough to do Stuff. It takes 5c collets. They are well supported by Scot Logan. Its rigid enough to hog off metal. Agreed -- *if* he could get it up his stairs. Southbend heavy 10 would be my second choice. Shrug. I like the Logans. Simple, easy to run, noisy though..shrug again. Hmm ... I'm not sure whether the noise will be another problem. I guess that it depends on whether his downstairs neighbors are deaf. :-) Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
|
#29
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
The problem I'm running into is that I wouldn't know a good(or bad)
deal when I see one on a machine like an old Atlas mill or Atlas lathe. And there seems to be little info on these machines on the internet. I have not been following this thread so forgive me if I repeat something. It appears you are a beginner with limited funds living in an apartment. I think you should look at the import 7x10 or 7x12 mini-lathes. They are small and reasonably cheap and will get you started. There are lots of web sites out there showing how to improve these machines. If your projects are small you can look at sherline too. They are a good way to get started but you can spend a lot of money on them and you might outgrow them quickly. Another good option is the import 7x20 lathes but they cost a lot more than the 7x10 minilathes I have owned several atlas/craftsman lathes and mills. I didn't care much for the atlas horizontal mill and would not recommend it to a beginner. The atlas lathes are ok but not nearly up to the level of the bigger machines like logans, south bends, clausing etc. Bruce, one of Dick Trimstra's friends specializes in restoring atlas lathes and I have seen some beautiful 6 inch atlas lathes for reasonable prices. Even for a 6 inch lathe, you will need to dedicate a fair amount of room for it. You can stuff a mini lathe or sherline into the closet if you chose. My favorite small lathe is the myford super 7, but its probably out of your price range. |
|
#30
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
Chuck Sherwood wrote:
I think you should look at the import 7x10 or 7x12 mini-lathes. They are small and reasonably cheap and will get you started. There are lots of web sites out there showing how to improve these machines. Good suggestion. I had forgotten that Darren had to carry it up stairs. that would eliminate all the Logans except the 9", which are not as common. If your projects are small you can look at sherline too. They are a good way to get started but you can spend a lot of money on them and you might outgrow them quickly. Another good option is the import 7x20 lathes but they cost a lot more than the 7x10 minilathes I think you mean 9x10 (9x19, 9x18). Agreed. They seem to be available for $500 used, pretty regularly. New, take a serious look at the 8X lathes from HF and lathemaster, among others. They are a big step up from the 7X series, having nothing in common with them. They are about twice as heavy or more. The atlas lathes are ok but not nearly up to the level of the bigger machines like logans, south bends, clausing etc. A 10" Atlas breaks down into manageable pieces and can be re-assembled easily. The 54" bed is a handfull for one person, probably weighs close to 100 lbs. But that's the heaviest part and it's shaped well for carrying. My favorite small lathe is the myford super 7, but its probably out of your price range. I think my Logan 9" is pretty close to a Myford in a lot of ways. About $800 well-tooled. |
|
#31
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
DoN. Nichols wrote: According to Gunner : On 24 Jan 2006 19:35:20 -0800, wrote: Rex B wrote: wrote: [ ... ] As for mills, all the nice small vertical mills seem to go quickly for silly money, at least in this area (Texas). Right now I'm looking at Pantographs as a lower-cost alternative. (Sigh). Back to the drawing board. It seems that everytime I start to zero in on what machine to get, someone comes up with a reason to look at something else.(So I'll scratch the Atlas stuff). I think that most here just have to do heavier work in larger envelopes than I am thinking about for myself. So perhaps I can get away with a machine that only weighs a couple hundred pounds. Given your problems with getting the machine upstairs to your apartment, I think that the Atlas benchtop mill may well do as much of what you need as you can manage in anything you can get up those stairs without someone who knows machines to disassemble it at the bottom and reassemble it at the top. I think that the Atlas mill is a better machine than the little Atlas lathes -- but even so, the 6x18" Atlas (or the Atlas/Craftsman) will probably work for you. *Absolutely* avoid the Craftsman lathes whose serial number starts with 109 -- those are the AA brand machines, and are very weakly built. The 6x16" Atlas lathes are weaker than most of the alternatives (I know, I have one, along with more substantial lathes), but a complete one (with full set of change gears) will allow you to cut threads, and otherwise will at least get you started. You *will* eventually discover that you will need a more solid machine, but for that, you will have to find someplace else to use it. Your apartment is just not right for the task. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. Darren...Im a machine tool repair tech. Find yourself a nice Logan 11" lathe in reasonable condition. A nice machine -- but too much for him to get upstairs. Narrow, twisty stairs (based on his description), and no elevator. I'm not sure whether he has a safe place to disassemble a good lathe so he could carry it up the stairs one part at a time. Its big enough to do Stuff. It takes 5c collets. They are well supported by Scot Logan. Its rigid enough to hog off metal. Agreed -- *if* he could get it up his stairs. Southbend heavy 10 would be my second choice. Shrug. I like the Logans. Simple, easy to run, noisy though..shrug again. Hmm ... I'm not sure whether the noise will be another problem. I guess that it depends on whether his downstairs neighbors are deaf. :-) @#$%! Here we go again. I was zeroing in on a 9" Logan before the noise issue came up. Is this a genral problem with Logans more than others? Obviously swapping out the motor is way out of the question.(The Logan I was thinking about doesn't ahve quick change gears either, so perhaps this is for the best). Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
|
#32
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
Rex B wrote: wrote: Rex B wrote: wrote: I'm looking into the old Craftsman mills and lathes now, since it seems that older may be better for my purposes. The problem I'm running into is that I wouldn't know a good(or bad) deal when I see one on a machine like an old Atlas mill or Atlas lathe. And there seems to be little info on these machines on the internet. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. Au contraire! There is a wealth of information on Atlas lathes. start with the atlas_craftsman Yahoo group. Check the files section and the links. Less info on the mills, because they are fairly scarce. I don't recall your original purpose, but I can tell you from experience and wide research, that an Atlas lathe is very light-duty. The beds are light and flexible, compared to anything else with a similar work envelope. They also tend to be a little pricy compared to some better lathes. I've had 2 Atlas machines, one of which I bought as a basket case. you learn a lot about a machine that way. Once mine was finished, I sold it muy pronto. For the same money as an Atlas you can buy a decent Logan. Logan is well supported by Scott Logan. You can get almost anything for them, even though they were last built in the 1960s. They are a heavier lathe, on a par with Southbend. For example, I have a 36" bed from a 10" Atlas. it weight exactly 50 pounds. My 9" Logan bed the same length is easily double that. You should be able to pick up a nice, tooled, Logan 10" QC model for under $1000. I bought my 9" for $350. I looked at a 10" in Dallas last weekend which sold for for $500. As for mills, all the nice small vertical mills seem to go quickly for silly money, at least in this area (Texas). Right now I'm looking at Pantographs as a lower-cost alternative. (Sigh). Back to the drawing board. It seems that everytime I start to zero in on what machine to get, someone comes up with a reason to look at something else.(So I'll scratch the Atlas stuff). I think that most here just have to do heavier work in larger envelopes than I am thinking about for myself. So perhaps I can get away with a machine that only weighs a couple hundred pounds. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. Darren, let's temper that a little. If you run across a nice Atlas/Craftsman 10" or 12" at a good deal, buy it. I would, and I do. I just missed a late-model cabinet-mount 12" in the classifieds that was a few miles from me, for $200. I'd have been on that like a duck on a june bug, but someone beat me to it. I'd give $500 for one of the late-model square-headstock, cabinet-mount units with basic tooling. Still a light-duty 12x36, but nothing to dismiss out of hand. Heck, a 10x36 earlier model with a QC is an OK lathe too. One thing I can say about the Atlas is that it's dead easy to check bed wear on the flat ways - just mic 'em. Nominal thickness is .375 or .500. Compare the working area to a virgin section at either end. My point is, all things being equal - price, condition, tooling, location - go for the Logan and you'll only have to buy once. Actually, my own projects tend to be pretty small - bushings and adapters and such. I could do most anything I've attempted on a 7X asian lathe just as well. But I like good machinery. It just feels good. In the running until a couple of days ago was a brand new Micro-Mark Microlux that a relatively local guy would sell to me for $525(which is $70 + shipping cost less than just getting it form Micro-Mark). But during my research the whole "toy" lathe vs. "real" lathe issue came up, and I'm warned to stay away for the HF, Grizzly, MM, ect. stuff. Hmmm... Just came across a lightly used Sheldon lathe for $560 from out of a high school.(10" swing, 3 jaw, dead center, tool holder, some reamers, dog plate, a few dogs). But the seller tells me it is about 800lbs(Model #EL 46P. (If I had a place to put it I would jump on this in a heartbeat). :-( Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
|
#33
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
According to :
DoN. Nichols wrote: According to Gunner : On 24 Jan 2006 19:35:20 -0800, wrote: [ ... ] Darren...Im a machine tool repair tech. Find yourself a nice Logan 11" lathe in reasonable condition. A nice machine -- but too much for him to get upstairs. Narrow, [ ... ] Southbend heavy 10 would be my second choice. Shrug. I like the Logans. Simple, easy to run, noisy though..shrug again. Hmm ... I'm not sure whether the noise will be another problem. I guess that it depends on whether his downstairs neighbors are deaf. :-) @#$%! Here we go again. I was zeroing in on a 9" Logan before the noise issue came up. Is this a genral problem with Logans more than others? No -- it depends on the work you are doing. But any workpiece out of balance will transfer energy to the floor through the feet -- either of the lathe or the table on which you mount the lathe, depending on whether it comes with a stand or not. If the bit starts to chatter, that will probably produce some interesting sounds downstairs -- with *any* size and brand of lathe. Old belts can take a set, and introduce more vibration than fresh belts would. A gearhead lathe will probably generate a different kind of noise from the meshing of the gears -- but they would be to heavy to get up to your apartment anyway. Rubber pads between the feet and the floor will reduce that somewhat -- but will allow lathe bed warp from not having a rigid mounting. (Of course, your floor is not that rigid anyway -- a concrete floor would be better. But that slight inaccuracy probably won't be a problem with the kind of parts you are making. Obviously swapping out the motor is way out of the question. Huh? The motor simply provides the power, and assuming that it is properly balanced (including the pulley), it will generate less noise than the actual work being done on the lathe. Light cuts at the right speeds will be quiet, wrong speeds or too heavy a cut will lead to chatter, and that will transfer through the floor to downstairs. (The Logan I was thinking about doesn't ahve quick change gears either, so perhaps this is for the best). Quick change is convenient -- but it adds to the weight. The little Atlas (6x18) never came with quick-change. Larger ones had quick-change as an option. Really -- get something small and cheap, and start using it. You *will* need something better, but the only way to learn what you will need is to get experience doing *your* kind of jobs on it. For this, a small, used machine will hold its value better when you discover that you need more machine (and a proper place to *put* that larger machine), so you can re-sell it without a significant loss. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
|
#34
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
DoN. Nichols wrote: According to : DoN. Nichols wrote: According to Gunner : On 24 Jan 2006 19:35:20 -0800, wrote: [ ... ] Darren...Im a machine tool repair tech. Find yourself a nice Logan 11" lathe in reasonable condition. A nice machine -- but too much for him to get upstairs. Narrow, [ ... ] Southbend heavy 10 would be my second choice. Shrug. I like the Logans. Simple, easy to run, noisy though..shrug again. Hmm ... I'm not sure whether the noise will be another problem. I guess that it depends on whether his downstairs neighbors are deaf. :-) @#$%! Here we go again. I was zeroing in on a 9" Logan before the noise issue came up. Is this a genral problem with Logans more than others? No -- it depends on the work you are doing. But any workpiece out of balance will transfer energy to the floor through the feet -- either of the lathe or the table on which you mount the lathe, depending on whether it comes with a stand or not. If the bit starts to chatter, that will probably produce some interesting sounds downstairs -- with *any* size and brand of lathe. Old belts can take a set, and introduce more vibration than fresh belts would. A gearhead lathe will probably generate a different kind of noise from the meshing of the gears -- but they would be to heavy to get up to your apartment anyway. Rubber pads between the feet and the floor will reduce that somewhat -- but will allow lathe bed warp from not having a rigid mounting. (Of course, your floor is not that rigid anyway -- a concrete floor would be better. But that slight inaccuracy probably won't be a problem with the kind of parts you are making. Nope. Ok, fromthatprevious post it seemed as though Logans were just generally more noisy lathes. But as long as that's not the case... Obviously swapping out the motor is way out of the question. Huh? The motor simply provides the power, and assuming that it is properly balanced (including the pulley), it will generate less noise than the actual work being done on the lathe. Light cuts at the right speeds will be quiet, wrong speeds or too heavy a cut will lead to chatter, and that will transfer through the floor to downstairs. I wa thinking that the motor and the specific matellurgical properties of the gears made the lathe noiseir than others. But again, wince what you mentioned applies to all lathes, then no problem. (The Logan I was thinking about doesn't ahve quick change gears either, so perhaps this is for the best). Quick change is convenient -- but it adds to the weight. The little Atlas (6x18) never came with quick-change. Larger ones had quick-change as an option. Even though it wasn't spec, perhaps there is a way to add QC gears to the Logan in the future?(It's a Logan model 400). Really -- get something small and cheap, and start using it. You *will* need something better, but the only way to learn what you will need is to get experience doing *your* kind of jobs on it. For this, a small, used machine will hold its value better when you discover that you need more machine (and a proper place to *put* that larger machine), so you can re-sell it without a significant loss. Hmmm... That brings me back to the Microlux from Micro-Mark... Thanks. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
|
#36
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
|
|
#37
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
Rex B wrote:
Chuck Sherwood wrote: I think you should look at the import 7x10 or 7x12 mini-lathes. They are small and reasonably cheap and will get you started. There are lots of web sites out there showing how to improve these machines. Good suggestion. I had forgotten that Darren had to carry it up stairs. that would eliminate all the Logans except the 9", which are not as common. If your projects are small you can look at sherline too. They are a good way to get started but you can spend a lot of money on them and you might outgrow them quickly. Another good option is the import 7x20 lathes but they cost a lot more than the 7x10 minilathes I think you mean 9x10 (9x19, 9x18). Agreed. They seem to be available for $500 used, pretty regularly. New, take a serious look at the 8X lathes from HF and lathemaster, among others. They are a big step up from the 7X series, having nothing in common with them. They are about twice as heavy or more. The atlas lathes are ok but not nearly up to the level of the bigger machines like logans, south bends, clausing etc. A 10" Atlas breaks down into manageable pieces and can be re-assembled easily. The 54" bed is a handfull for one person, probably weighs close to 100 lbs. But that's the heaviest part and it's shaped well for carrying. My favorite small lathe is the myford super 7, but its probably out of your price range. I think my Logan 9" is pretty close to a Myford in a lot of ways. About $800 well-tooled. An atlas 10X36 can be carried by one person on a dolly (THOUGH A SPOTTER IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED) From having done this 2 months ago i would recommend moving it with the slide on the bed and the headstock at the base of the dolly but i will also recommend removing the motor and clutch assembly before doing it as they do break down in to easy to carry peices |
|
#38
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
A 10" Atlas breaks down into manageable pieces and can be re-assembled
I owned two 12 inch craftsman/atlas lathes. They are ok. I now have a rockwell 11 inch and I would never go back. I think my Logan 9" is pretty close to a Myford in a lot of ways. About $800 well-tooled. I have never used a 9 inch logan. I have owned two atlas 12 inch lathes, one atlas 6 inch lathe, and 3 myfords. I sold all the atlas lathes and kept the minty green myford super 7. It cost about as much as the 3 atlas lathes too! I would trade the myford for a hardinge but not a similar size logan, south bend etc. |
|
#39
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
Rex B wrote: wrote: In the running until a couple of days ago was a brand new Micro-Mark Microlux that a relatively local guy would sell to me for $525(which is $70 + shipping cost less than just getting it form Micro-Mark). That MM lathe just went on sale for $499 until Feb 1. If you are considering a 7X, (I would) this is the Cadillac. Are you sure about that? I just noticed an 8" X 12" at Harbor Freight. It seems to be about twice as heavy and with a stronger motor: http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/cta...emnumber=44859 (The metric threads may be a problem though). And are any of these really a better deal than that Logan #400 9 inch lathe we were talking about? Thanks. Darren Harris Staten Island, New York. |
|
#40
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
|
|||
|
|||
|
Mills and Drills
According to :
DoN. Nichols wrote: According to : [ ... ] Hmm ... I'm not sure whether the noise will be another problem. I guess that it depends on whether his downstairs neighbors are deaf. :-) @#$%! Here we go again. I was zeroing in on a 9" Logan before the noise issue came up. Is this a genral problem with Logans more than others? No -- it depends on the work you are doing. But any workpiece out of balance will transfer energy to the floor through the feet -- either of the lathe or the table on which you mount the lathe, depending on whether it comes with a stand or not. [ ... ] Nope. Ok, fromthatprevious post it seemed as though Logans were just generally more noisy lathes. But as long as that's not the case... The noise which matters to you is what is conducted through the feet to the floor -- unless you have it close to a wall shared with another apartment. Obviously swapping out the motor is way out of the question. Huh? The motor simply provides the power, and assuming that it is properly balanced (including the pulley), it will generate less noise than the actual work being done on the lathe. Light cuts at the right speeds will be quiet, wrong speeds or too heavy a cut will lead to chatter, and that will transfer through the floor to downstairs. I wa thinking that the motor and the specific matellurgical properties of the gears made the lathe noiseir than others. But again, wince what you mentioned applies to all lathes, then no problem. The connection from the motor to the rest of the lathe is normally V-belts, or flat belts on a really old lathe. The gears are mostly in the thread drive from the spindle -- at least in anything which you are likely to get up the stairs. (The Logan I was thinking about doesn't ahve quick change gears either, so perhaps this is for the best). Quick change is convenient -- but it adds to the weight. The little Atlas (6x18) never came with quick-change. Larger ones had quick-change as an option. Even though it wasn't spec, perhaps there is a way to add QC gears to the Logan in the future?(It's a Logan model 400). I don't know. Check Logan's web site. See whether a related machine (same size) was available with a quick-change gearbox. If so, expect to have to change the leadscrew, and probably some other gearing in the headstock when you make the change. Or get another machine with the right setup, and sell this one. Enjoy, DoN. -- Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564 (too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html --- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero --- |
| Reply |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Keyless chucks for hand drills | Metalworking | |||
| What is this MT2 item used for? | Metalworking | |||
| What are the size limitations of mini mills? | Metalworking | |||
| Alternatives to an RF30 - help needed | Metalworking | |||
| attachments to convert electric drills into orbital sanders | UK diy | |||
Linear Mode
