"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...

[ ... ]

I *do* appreciate the index pin in the 5C collet adaptor in my
Clausing 12x24 lathe.

I read your comments earlier, about installing your collets while you're
at
the opposite end of the headstock tightening the drawbar. I, too, have
run such machines and can't imagine not having the key to keep the collet
from spinning. I not only appreciate the key, I more or less demand it.
Seems it would be quite awkward without one.

Agreed. I guess that you could lock down the collet drawbar and
use one of those three-finned wrenches to spin the collets into it from
the spindle nose end, but it is one extra tool to find someplace to
keep, and the fine adjustment would be a bear since any workpiece would
get in the way of the wrench.

Another idea would be to disturb anyone near you and have them hold the
collet while you turn the drawbar. On the other hand, maybe you could just
use the damned key as it's intended to be used. I'm completely baffled
how some people can go so far out of their way to make things more
difficult, and then justify it as if they've made some great discovery.
:-)

The last job I held before I started my shop back in '67, I ran a small
Clausing, likely a similar machine to yours. It was a 6" machine on
which

6" Are you using the UK spec -- center height above bed, instead
of the US maximum diameter swung above bed? Mine is 6" by the UK
standards, or 12" by the US ones.

No, US specs, but I may be wrong on the size of the lathe, it may have been
an 8" machine, although I remember it as a 6". It was a small machine,
bench mounted, so low that you sat to run it. Considering we worked five
12's and one 6 hour day each week, sitting wasn't all that bad of an idea.
It had been used as a polishing and junk machine until I came along. It had
been poorly cared for, almost never wiped or oiled. I was quite surprised
to have it turn out as well as it did. Once it got wiped and oiled
routinely it had a pretty nice feel. A far cry from the first time I ran
it, when it was stiff as could be.

I had a thing for doing small work, so when they found out I was willing to
do it, they started heaping it on me. I was the one to decide to use the
little Clausing, I could have used a larger machine, but if you've done much
small work, you know how dreadful that is. Speed is essential, and
nothing in the place had the same speed capability. Can't even remember how
fast the spindle ran, but it had the collet setup and also a Buck 6 jaw
chuck, so it was quite nice to use for the small work I did with it.
Interestingly, I had left Sperry (Univac by then) only 18 months earlier,
and it was sub-contract work from them that I was running where I was
employed. As a result, I was very familiar with the type of quality that
they expected. All the work was defense oriented, something I had trained
to do.

I ran a lot of close tolerance work. I liked the variable speed drive
it
had, but it was a bit noisy.

O.K. That is one notch above mine -- even it it is the same
size. Mine has five step pulleys in the pedestal, and back gears to
give a total of ten speeds. (At least until I swap in a three-phase
motor and connect up a VFD for the purpose.)

Still a nice machine, for sure, but variable drive is really the way to go.
I miss it on my Graziano, although I've run it for so many years now that I
don't remember just how nice it is to be able to changes speed while
cutting. The Graziano does that, but by steps, like a gear change. I
like the infinite controls, especially when facing and trying to keep up a
good surface finish. I've not run anything equipped with VFD, but
understand that's what you gain. Super nice way to go, especially if you
don't sacrifice torque at low speed. The EE was famous for not losing
power at low speeds.

The variable speed pulley assembly is noisy compared to the
standard step pulley -- and a Monarch 10EE is even more quiet.

To be honest, I was quite spoiled from
having had an EE at my disposal for years prior to leaving Sperry.

Those can certainly spoil one. :-)

Unless you've run one, I'm not sure you can really understand just how nice
they are. I've always coveted one, but couldn't come to terms with the
cost. Not that they weren't worth the money, for I feel they were. It was
just one hell of a lot of money for a guy that was starting out, secure in
his ability, but insecure as to his ability to secure work enough to pay the
bills. Looking back, I would have done just fine. Should have bought
the EE, but I sure do like the Graziano. In a way, it's a better choice
for a guy with only one lathe.

It was equipped with a KDK tool post, which
has never been a favorite of mine.

Is that the one with the ribbed post and matching ribs on the
tool holders, which can lock up at 15 degree intervals? I've seen them,
but never used one.

No, and I'm not familiar with the one you describe. The KDK was similar to
the typical insert type tool post, only it had a small handle that was
thrown (vertically) to lock or unlock the tool blocks. As I recall it had a
dovetail type lock, and the handle operated the gib, so to speak. At any
rate, when the handle was thrown, the dovetails tightened up. Sorry to be
so vague, but I left that job back in '67. Small wonder I'm a bit
puzzled.

As I recall, the (short) handle was (is) located on the right hand side of
the holder, knob end towards the operator, and had a pivot that was parallel
to the ways. It did not index, but like the other quick change holders, it
was adjustable vertically. For a small lathe it wasn't all that bad, but
the shop had a 42" DSG lathe with a KDK holder. The tool blocks weighed in
at roughly ten pounds each, so changing them wasn't a fun job, especially
when one worked 12 hour shifts, which was the norm. The one advantage was
that when using the lathe to capacity, the cuts were relatively long lived,
so you didn't change often.

I get the idea that the KDK line isn't available any longer. You, of all
people, seem to be very familiar with machine tool accessories, so I'm
somewhat surprised that you aren't familiar with them.

I prefer a square toolpost (OK
Rubber
Welders, specifically), although they tend to be limiting for complex
setups.

I really like the Aloris style quick change for everything that
I do. I picked the BXA size, since the AXA stops at 12", and the BXA
runs from a bit smaller to something like 15", so it is the more rigid
of the two.

The square toolposts (four-way) have to be shimmed for each tool
(unless you grind the tool to a precise height for the cutting edge),
and one for boring or facing eliminates the adjacent slot for turning,
so it is really only three-way under those conditions.

With the Aloris style, you have two dovetail stations, one for
turning tools, and one for boring and facing tools. And as long as you
have enough toolholders, you can set each to put the tool edge on center
height *once* so you don't have to tune the height each time you change
tools. (And working in combination with the bed turret, you don't have
to worry about indexing when you change tools beyond the four stations
of the four-way.

But -- I got a chance to use a good quick-change fairly early
on, after using mostly a lantern style before, so I got hooked. :-) I
only had a couple of weeks of experience with the four-way before the
quick-change appeared.

I guess our first experiences are quite influential. It was on the EE that
I became familiar with the OK Rubber Welders head, and then once again I ran
a machine briefly that was equipped with one when I left Sperry. I got
used to having a small box of shims near, and still do, so it's really easy
to set up a tool when you're familiar with the system. For the most
part, when I was actively machining I could almost guess the right shim
combination to find center. Usually one try, then an adjustment by adding
or removing a thin shim and it was done. That can be a real PITA if you
don't have a supply of shims on hand, though.

The OK Rubber Welders square head is unique in that it indexes by detent
every 15 degrees, but has serrations at 3 degree intervals that allow the
head to lock down precisely on location. You can make setups and mark dials
and trust the head to repeat. Without the serrations, it's no different
from any other square indexing block, though. It does not self index, you
must index manually, but that's actually a good feature for me because I
often used tools in random sequence, occasionally using a tool for more than
one function. That way you could index in either direction when the handle
was unlocked. No big deal.

In a nut shell, I like the advantage of having unlimited tool holders, which
makes a machine much more flexible. I guess the one thing I don't like is
having to handle them. You do get used to it, though, and it would be dead
easy to go from a lantern type toolpost to *any* device that allowed you to
actually make a setup. In all honesty, there's no way in hell you'd catch
me running with a lantern toolpost. I like the flexibility, but they suck
when it comes to any kind of repetition, as you well know.

Harold

In article ,
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...

[ ... ]

Agreed. I guess that you could lock down the collet drawbar and
use one of those three-finned wrenches to spin the collets into it from
the spindle nose end, but it is one extra tool to find someplace to
keep, and the fine adjustment would be a bear since any workpiece would
get in the way of the wrench.

Another idea would be to disturb anyone near you and have them hold the
collet while you turn the drawbar.

Since it is a hobby shop at this point, I would have to go
upstairs, talk my wife into leaving her anti-spam research (or whatever
else she is doing on the computer) and come downstairs to hold it. And
she really does not *like* to come into the shop that much. :-)

On the other hand, maybe you could just
use the damned key as it's intended to be used.

Amen!

I'm completely baffled
how some people can go so far out of their way to make things more
difficult, and then justify it as if they've made some great discovery.
:-)

:-)

The last job I held before I started my shop back in '67, I ran a small
Clausing, likely a similar machine to yours. It was a 6" machine on
which

6" Are you using the UK spec -- center height above bed, instead
of the US maximum diameter swung above bed? Mine is 6" by the UK
standards, or 12" by the US ones.

No, US specs, but I may be wrong on the size of the lathe, it may have been
an 8" machine, although I remember it as a 6". It was a small machine,
bench mounted, so low that you sat to run it.

O.K. A very different machine, then. It may well have been 6",
though I haven't seen one that small.

Considering we worked five
12's and one 6 hour day each week, sitting wasn't all that bad of an idea.
It had been used as a polishing and junk machine until I came along. It had
been poorly cared for, almost never wiped or oiled. I was quite surprised
to have it turn out as well as it did. Once it got wiped and oiled
routinely it had a pretty nice feel. A far cry from the first time I ran
it, when it was stiff as could be.

I'll bet. Did it have the flame-hardened ways? Mine does, and
I suspect that is one reason that it shows so little wear. (The bed
turret is a second contributing factor, of course.)

I had a thing for doing small work, so when they found out I was willing to
do it, they started heaping it on me. I was the one to decide to use the
little Clausing, I could have used a larger machine, but if you've done much
small work, you know how dreadful that is. Speed is essential, and
nothing in the place had the same speed capability.

For certain small work, I use either the old Unimat SL-1000, or
the Taig -- usually with the WW (watchmaker's) spindles and collet sets.
Those both give me plenty of speed, and the ability to hold really small
parts accurately. The "collets" for the standard Taig spindle are far
from what I would prefer, but with the watchmaker's spindle, things
are quite nice.

Can't even remember how
fast the spindle ran, but it had the collet setup

What size collets? Perhaps 3C? (good up to 1/2" or perhaps 5/8"
I guess.) Mine handles the 5C comfortably, and has the lever style
closer.

and also a Buck 6 jaw
chuck,

Very nice!

so it was quite nice to use for the small work I did with it.
Interestingly, I had left Sperry (Univac by then) only 18 months earlier,
and it was sub-contract work from them that I was running where I was
employed. As a result, I was very familiar with the type of quality that
they expected. All the work was defense oriented, something I had trained
to do.

:-)

O.K. That is one notch above mine -- even it it is the same
size. Mine has five step pulleys in the pedestal, and back gears to
give a total of ten speeds. (At least until I swap in a three-phase
motor and connect up a VFD for the purpose.)

Still a nice machine, for sure, but variable drive is really the way to go.
I miss it on my Graziano, although I've run it for so many years now that I
don't remember just how nice it is to be able to changes speed while
cutting. The Graziano does that, but by steps, like a gear change. I
like the infinite controls, especially when facing and trying to keep up a
good surface finish. I've not run anything equipped with VFD, but
understand that's what you gain.

It is, indeed. It should even be possible to set up a rack gear
turning a potentiometer to automatically change the spindle speed as you
are facing, for lots of repeat cuts.

Super nice way to go, especially if you
don't sacrifice torque at low speed. The EE was famous for not losing
power at low speeds.

The EE had a very interesting way of doing that, with a DC motor
and separate control of field and armature to maximize both speed at the
high end and torque at the low end. Several different techniques were
used over the years, and now they are selling rebuilds with oversized
induction motors and VFDs to maintain the low-end torque.

The variable speed pulley assembly is noisy compared to the
standard step pulley -- and a Monarch 10EE is even more quiet.

To be honest, I was quite spoiled from
having had an EE at my disposal for years prior to leaving Sperry.

Those can certainly spoil one. :-)

Unless you've run one, I'm not sure you can really understand just how nice
they are.

I have. One of the ones with a motor-generator in the right
pedestal to power the DC motor. I always wondered why I had to turn it
on and hear this big motor spinning up while nothing visible moved. :-)
This one was where I worked, and the only thing wrong with it was that
the spindle tach was dead, so I had to set speeds by feel. :-) If it
were mine, I would have pulled that tach and tried to repair it, but it
belonged to the government, and was on someone else's property list.

I've always coveted one, but couldn't come to terms with the
cost. Not that they weren't worth the money, for I feel they were. It was
just one hell of a lot of money for a guy that was starting out, secure in
his ability, but insecure as to his ability to secure work enough to pay the
bills. Looking back, I would have done just fine. Should have bought
the EE, but I sure do like the Graziano. In a way, it's a better choice
for a guy with only one lathe.

I'm quite happy with my Clausing most of the time. There are
times when I would like to have the continuously-variable speed (which I
will get when I put the three-phase motor and the VFD into it), and
there are times when I would like a bit more swing, but most of the time
it is quite satisfactory. And I have the little Compact-5/CNC for
things like metric threads, and other repetitive small work, and the
Taig and the Unimat SL-1000 for the very small work. Each has its
benefits.

It was equipped with a KDK tool post, which
has never been a favorite of mine.

Is that the one with the ribbed post and matching ribs on the
tool holders, which can lock up at 15 degree intervals? I've seen them,
but never used one.

No, and I'm not familiar with the one you describe. The KDK was similar to
the typical insert type tool post, only it had a small handle that was
thrown (vertically) to lock or unlock the tool blocks. As I recall it had a
dovetail type lock, and the handle operated the gib, so to speak. At any
rate, when the handle was thrown, the dovetails tightened up.

Did it have two dovetails -- one for turning and one for
facing/boring? The location of the lever suggests that it has only the
one dovetail.

The Compact-5 has yet another style of quick-change. There are
two male 'V's on the turning and the facing/boring sides of the post,
and corresponding female 'V's on the tool holders. Between the 'V's on
the post there is a T-head on a cam which engages a T-slot in the tool
holder. When you operate the cam, the tool holder is pulled firmly
against the toolpost, so you get a good rigid setup. Of course, each
holder has its own height adjustment, so you can change tools without
having to worry about center height.

Sorry to be
so vague, but I left that job back in '67. Small wonder I'm a bit
puzzled.

:-)

As I recall, the (short) handle was (is) located on the right hand side of
the holder, knob end towards the operator, and had a pivot that was parallel
to the ways.

This is what makes me think that it used a single dovetail.
I've seen some on eBay (which may be what you are describing) which have
some tool holders in an 'L' shape to wrap around the post to provide a
facing/boring holder.

I've never actually *used* these (or even seen them other than
in the eBay auctions) so the name does not stick.

It did not index, but like the other quick change holders, it
was adjustable vertically. For a small lathe it wasn't all that bad, but
the shop had a 42" DSG lathe with a KDK holder. The tool blocks weighed in
at roughly ten pounds each, so changing them wasn't a fun job, especially
when one worked 12 hour shifts, which was the norm.

That sounds as though a counterbalanced crane for changing
toolholders would have been helpful.

The one advantage was
that when using the lathe to capacity, the cuts were relatively long lived,
so you didn't change often.

There is that. For a given number of horsepower fed to the
spindle, there are only so many cubic inches of steel which can be
removed per hour. :-)

I get the idea that the KDK line isn't available any longer. You, of all
people, seem to be very familiar with machine tool accessories, so I'm
somewhat surprised that you aren't familiar with them.

I haven't had hands-on experience with all of them. I think
that I have seen them in eBay auctions (if the L-shaped tool holder for
facing and boring is right), but I've never used them.

I prefer a square toolpost (OK
Rubber
Welders, specifically), although they tend to be limiting for complex
setups.

And the name does not inspire confidence in their rigidity,
though I suspect that they in reality are very rigid. :-)

I really like the Aloris style quick change for everything that

[ ... ]

But -- I got a chance to use a good quick-change fairly early
on, after using mostly a lantern style before, so I got hooked. :-) I
only had a couple of weeks of experience with the four-way before the
quick-change appeared.

I guess our first experiences are quite influential. It was on the EE that
I became familiar with the OK Rubber Welders head, and then once again I ran
a machine briefly that was equipped with one when I left Sperry. I got
used to having a small box of shims near, and still do, so it's really easy
to set up a tool when you're familiar with the system.

One regular on the newsgroup keeps each tool with the associated
shims in a pill bottle. That makes for fairly quick setup.

For the most
part, when I was actively machining I could almost guess the right shim
combination to find center. Usually one try, then an adjustment by adding
or removing a thin shim and it was done. That can be a real PITA if you
don't have a supply of shims on hand, though.

Agreed -- and when I was using the machine at work with the
4-way toolpost -- the shop was new, and we didn't have shims around, so
I had to cut some out of aluminum and whatever else was near the right
thickness, using the DiAcro metal shear. :-) When the machinist in
charge of the shop ordered and got the Aloris quick-change toolpost, I
fell in love with it. :-)

The OK Rubber Welders square head is unique in that it indexes by detent
every 15 degrees, but has serrations at 3 degree intervals that allow the
head to lock down precisely on location. You can make setups and mark dials
and trust the head to repeat.

O.K. -- with the Aloris style, I normally don't change the
setting of the post (unless I change the compound angle, in which case I
re-square it with the ways and chuck face). For different angles of
cut, I use different tools, pre designed for that angle. I do have one
tool holder with multiple rows of setscrews which would allow mounting a
tool at a strange angle, though what I intend it for is next time I go
into production mode on the microphone adaptors. I should be able to
mount two tools in it -- one to groove the runout groove for the
external threads, and the other to part off the previous workpiece, all
in a single pass.

Without the serrations, it's no different
from any other square indexing block, though. It does not self index, you
must index manually, but that's actually a good feature for me because I
often used tools in random sequence, occasionally using a tool for more than
one function. That way you could index in either direction when the handle
was unlocked. No big deal.

Agreed -- though you are still limited to a maximum of four
tools at a given setup. With the Aloris style post, I can have any
length sequence of tools I need. Let's see:

1) Parting (and grooving)

2) Turning OD to shoulder

3) OD threading

4) beveling edge

5) facing end

6) Boring ID

7) ID threading

I can picture using all of these on a single project -- and
making multiples of a given workpiece. And that is ignoring
project-specific form tools.

But I guess that you could have two bodies for your four-way,
and swap them in mid project, so you could handle up to eight tools at
once. I would probably put all the boring/facing ones on one turret,
and the OD turning/threading and parting ones on another one.

In a nut shell, I like the advantage of having unlimited tool holders, which
makes a machine much more flexible. I guess the one thing I don't like is
having to handle them. You do get used to it, though, and it would be dead
easy to go from a lantern type toolpost to *any* device that allowed you to
actually make a setup. In all honesty, there's no way in hell you'd catch
me running with a lantern toolpost. I like the flexibility, but they suck
when it comes to any kind of repetition, as you well know.

Indeed so. They also have the *dis*advantage of flexibility too.
They are not nearly as rigid as a good block form toolpost. (Though I
guess using a raw HSS tool ground to shape without a holder might offer
a bit more rigidity.

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 ---

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:28:13 -0700, Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:


"Jim Levie" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:15:18 -0700, Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:


Chuckle!

I'd question just how "high end" the shop was when they pull tricks like
that. My opinion? They should have replaced the guy that screwed up,
not
removed the indexing pins from all the machines.

Have you ever used a machine with a power drawbar? On the ones most of
their mills were fitted with when you tripped the handle it took about 0.5
seconds to fully tighten the drawbar. I presume some one was changing the
collet and just tripped the handle a bit sooner than they meant to.

No, I have not, but under that circumstance I can see how it could happen to
anyone. There was no mention of a power draw bar originally. If that be
the case, I stand corrected. Still, with just a *little* care, it could be
avoided!

My mistake, I should have mentioned that all of their mills had power
drawbars. I agree that in the absence of same that anyone abusing a
machine by pulling a collet past the index pin should be fired on the spot
for total incompetence.

I'm from the old school where everything that was done on a machine was
done by the operator. Skill level is what sorted out those that could
from those that could not. I can see that CNC has changed all that.

I don't think that CNC can really be blamed on the decline in skill
levels. The blame lies partly with the education system. How many schools
do you know of that still offer any training in "hand arts"?

--
The instructions said to use Windows 98 or better, so I installed RedHat.

"Jim Levie" wrote in message
news
On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 11:28:13 -0700, Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:


"Jim Levie" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 30 Jun 2004 22:15:18 -0700, Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:


Chuckle!

I'd question just how "high end" the shop was when they pull tricks
like
that. My opinion? They should have replaced the guy that screwed
up,
not
removed the indexing pins from all the machines.

Have you ever used a machine with a power drawbar? On the ones most of
their mills were fitted with when you tripped the handle it took about
0.5
seconds to fully tighten the drawbar. I presume some one was changing
the
collet and just tripped the handle a bit sooner than they meant to.

No, I have not, but under that circumstance I can see how it could
happen to
anyone. There was no mention of a power draw bar originally. If that
be
the case, I stand corrected. Still, with just a *little* care, it
could be
avoided!

My mistake, I should have mentioned that all of their mills had power
drawbars. I agree that in the absence of same that anyone abusing a
machine by pulling a collet past the index pin should be fired on the spot
for total incompetence.

That does make a significant difference. Sounds like you have to have all
your ducks in a row when you "push the button". I can see how a guy could
be deep in thought and do so prematurely.

I'm from the old school where everything that was done on a machine was
done by the operator. Skill level is what sorted out those that could
from those that could not. I can see that CNC has changed all that.

I don't think that CNC can really be blamed on the decline in skill
levels. The blame lies partly with the education system. How many schools
do you know of that still offer any training in "hand arts"?

I fully agree with the lack of training, in part because the educational
system (in all its wisdom) has made the decision that we no longer need that
type of training. Before moving from Utah I shared in the good fortune
that came from schools selling out by attending a few auctions, at which I
bought a lot of nice equipment to augment my shop for use in retirement.
For the most part, I would not have been able to otherwise acquire the
stuff.

I contend that guys coming up on CNC machines must know totally different
things than guys do that run manual machines. My age group has a nice mix
of both talents, so it's not as obvious that the manual skills are absent in
general. I'm of the opinion that younger guys coming up generally don't
know how to do the manual work, which is skill intensive, at least for a
predictable outcome. I've always said anyone can make chips, but it takes
considerable talent and experience to make good parts, and do it reliably
and efficiently. That doesn't come without considerable effort.

I don't mean to demean those that run the CNC's, just point out that the
skills involved are not the same. An outstanding CNC operator, one that
can do his own programming, is likely as skilled as many of the old time
guys were that were considered the cream of the crop, but the run of the
mill operator may not have any machining skills at all, yet still do good
work, thanks to the machine and the programming skills of others. Sadly,
the skills that were required to be considered a machinist are getting lost
in the shuffle from manual to CNC. Even tooling departments are using CNC
these days. I guess the only thing to consider is how important is it?
Seems no one is making buggy whips any longer, and we get by nicely without
them. It's just a little hard to consider yourself outdated and useless.
Can't tell you how pleased I am to be retired, where it makes no difference
any longer. I think I'd be hard pressed to hold a job in today's market.

Harold

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 17:56:09 -0700, Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:


I contend that guys coming up on CNC machines must know totally different
things than guys do that run manual machines. My age group has a nice mix
of both talents, so it's not as obvious that the manual skills are absent in
general. I'm of the opinion that younger guys coming up generally don't
know how to do the manual work, which is skill intensive, at least for a
predictable outcome. I've always said anyone can make chips, but it takes
considerable talent and experience to make good parts, and do it reliably
and efficiently. That doesn't come without considerable effort.

I think that's completely accurate. From what I've read what training that
still survives is oriented to CNC processes rather than the manual skills
that used to be taught. While I've never had any formal training, and this
sort of thing is just a hobby, I did have the good fortune to spend a good
bit of time with what was arguably a couple of "master toolmakers" back in
the 70's. I was a physics major working part time in a physics research
facility and had a number of occasions to have to have things built in the
machine shop. I learned a lot about how to design things from those guys
(and how not to design things as well).

The shop had an old beat up mill and lathe that could be used, with
permission from the guy that ran the shop. After he was satisfied that you
weren't going the break the machine or injure yourself or anyone near you
could use the tools. Having had lots of experience, he did require that
one of the machinists inspect your setup before power could be applied.
After I while I had learned quite a bit and, surprisingly, my skills had
progressed to the point that the old tools had become a limiting factor
(although I didn't have the experience to realize it at the time).

One day when I was struggling to cut some fine threads on an adapter ring
for some camera gear (a home project) the head guy walked by, saw what I
was doing and "took my project away". He took into "his area", set the
part up in a EE Monarch and had me finish it there. I remarked on how easy
that was and how well the part came out and he said, halfway jokingly,
that if I could make a true 1" cube from mild steel with nothing but hand
tools he'd let me use the EE or one of the new Bridgeports. I suspect
he figured I try, find out hard it was to do, and give up on it. What he
didn't realize that "having had a taste" I was highly motivated to learn
how to do it just to be able to get my hands on good tools again.

It took over a month and I blew the first one. The angles were correct and
the sides flat to less than a half, but one dimension was 0.998"
instead of 1.000" and another was 0.999". So I made another, correctly
this time having learned how to do it from the first one. I showed him the
finished part, which he duly inspected and declared to be satisfactory.
After that I could use, unsupervised any tool in the shop that wasn't
being used for a shop project. He later told me that he'd been required to
do that years before as a part of his formal machinist schooling.
Apparently it was a "standard test" at that time.

I don't think they teach those sort of "hand arts" skills now. And for the
most part they probably aren't required for a CNC process.

The same can be said for a number of other things. Back in the seventies
the computer courses I took started with assembly programming and worked
up to high-level languages (Fortran & Cobal at the time). We're talking
punch cards and "submit the job today, find out if it worked tomorrow".
One learned a lot about how computers worked and consequently how to right
good code, the first time. Now they plunk these kids down in from of a
windows box and "teach" them programming using Visual C++ in a Gui only
environment. While those kids do learn to program they usually don't have
any idea of what "is under the hood" in that process (Makefiles,
compile steps & options, or linking and libraries) and know next to
nothing about the internal workings of the CPU.

--
The instructions said to use Windows 98 or better, so I installed RedHat.

"Jim Levie" wrote in message
news snip-----

The shop had an old beat up mill and lathe that could be used, with
permission from the guy that ran the shop. After he was satisfied that you
weren't going the break the machine or injure yourself or anyone near you
could use the tools. Having had lots of experience, he did require that
one of the machinists inspect your setup before power could be applied.
After I while I had learned quite a bit and, surprisingly, my skills had
progressed to the point that the old tools had become a limiting factor
(although I didn't have the experience to realize it at the time).

That point is one that is difficult to explain to fans of rusty machines.
I see many defend buying old rusted hulks, especially when they can be
cleaned up and made operational without too much trouble. The "rebuild"
usually includes a wonderful paint job. Unfortunately, paint does nothing
to make a machine tool work well, and the portions that are critical often
get the rust removed and nothing more. That is where experience comes into
play. Unless one knows what can be reasonably expected from a machine
tool, it is most difficult to say with certainty that the tool is working
properly. Many just assume that it is difficult to hold a thou, that it
has nothing to do with any given machine. For those with experience,
though, it takes little to no time to point a finger at the cause for given
difficulties. It's a good step forward when you can finally ascertain
that it is the machine, not you, that has a problem. While it's true
that a good machinist can do reasonably good work on most any machine, it
isn't cost effective, especially when the risk of scrap increases.

snip-----

It took over a month and I blew the first one. The angles were correct and
the sides flat to less than a half, but one dimension was 0.998"
instead of 1.000" and another was 0.999". So I made another, correctly
this time having learned how to do it from the first one. I showed him the
finished part, which he duly inspected and declared to be satisfactory.
After that I could use, unsupervised any tool in the shop that wasn't
being used for a shop project. He later told me that he'd been required to
do that years before as a part of his formal machinist schooling.
Apparently it was a "standard test" at that time.

Talk about dedication! Congratulations of the accomplishment. You paid a
small price to have the use of nice machines. I'd have done the same thing
had I been in a like situation.

I've never had to pass that test (the 1" cube), and was more than fortunate
to have been assigned to an EE that was but one year old, on which I learned
the fine art of thread chasing, along with other lathe operations. I
started in the trade having owned a small lathe and having taken some
machine shop classes in high school. It was interesting to note that in
school I was on top of the class, yet when I was hired it became apparent to
not only me, but my supervisors, that I knew almost nothing about machining.

There were times when I chased threads for an entire week, then on to other
parts. I guess what prompted me to get serious about quality was the fact
that everything we produced received 100% inspection (defense work), even
between operations, so good money wasn't thrown after bad. I was
fortunate to have had a supervisor that took a personal interest in me and
my progress. He patiently talked to me and lead me along, teaching me the
right and wrong ways to do things, and encouraging me to shoot for quality.
I was told that if I learned to do things in an acceptable manner, that
speed would come automatically. It was true.

I don't think they teach those sort of "hand arts" skills now. And for the
most part they probably aren't required for a CNC process.

Yeah, that was my point, too. In a way, I guess it's no loss, but I can't
help but wonder if the day won't come that we have regrets. My training
was job specific, so I didn't have to jump through the hoops the way
apprentices did in the "old days". I managed to run a shop,
subcontracting, for the most part, from the industry from which I came. It
treated me well, and I closed the doors voluntarily. I could have kept busy
endlessly. Still, my skills alone would not have been enough to compete.
Without CNC training, not many can do so today. I guess that, in part,
helps explain why the classes have been dropped. What disturbs me is that
we wouldn't be able to respond as easily in a national emergency as we once
could, not when we depend on foreign nations for the majority of our
manufacturing, and few are learning the skills, be they CNC or manual.


The same can be said for a number of other things. Back in the seventies
the computer courses I took started with assembly programming and worked
up to high-level languages (Fortran & Cobal at the time). We're talking
punch cards and "submit the job today, find out if it worked tomorrow".
One learned a lot about how computers worked and consequently how to right
good code, the first time. Now they plunk these kids down in from of a
windows box and "teach" them programming using Visual C++ in a Gui only
environment. While those kids do learn to program they usually don't have
any idea of what "is under the hood" in that process (Makefiles,
compile steps & options, or linking and libraries) and know next to
nothing about the internal workings of the CPU.

That is the part about CNC operators that troubles me. I realize that they
turn out the work, but without the computer, often they can't. They may be
well trained to do what they do, but in many cases they don't really
understand the workings. For example, can they sharpen tools? Of
necessity, CNC operations dictate almost exclusive use of inserts. I don't
have a problem with the fact, but those that train on and operate such
machines are very likely to never have a grip on cutting tool geometry, and
couldn't hand grind a tool if their life depended on it. If a CNC operator
thinks it's a simple step to go from the computer to a manual machine,
they're in for one hell of a shock. Again, anyone can make chips, but
when it comes to stepping off dimensions for drilling, or cutting a window,
it can be a dreadful experience when done for the first time. My hat's
off to guys like you that have taken the bull by the horns and learned the
things that constitute one being worthy of having the title "machinist",
even though to be one doesn't command much respect.

Harold

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

snip-----

O.K. A very different machine, then. It may well have been 6",
though I haven't seen one that small.

Considering we worked five
12's and one 6 hour day each week, sitting wasn't all that bad of an
idea.
It had been used as a polishing and junk machine until I came along. It
had
been poorly cared for, almost never wiped or oiled. I was quite
surprised
to have it turn out as well as it did. Once it got wiped and oiled
routinely it had a pretty nice feel. A far cry from the first time I
ran
it, when it was stiff as could be.

I'll bet. Did it have the flame-hardened ways? Mine does, and
I suspect that is one reason that it shows so little wear. (The bed
turret is a second contributing factor, of course.)

Funny, I recall it did have hardened ways, but only when you asked.

Like you, I have a bed turret for my Graziano, but use it only infrequently.
I believe we've had a similar conversation before and I mentioned that my
turret was screwed up from it's first day, so it doesn't perform well. I
like having it and have used it in small production operations. By making
good setups you can even cock die heads, so many sequences of operation can
be accomplished without ever touching anything but the four arms of the hand
wheel. I intend to cast a new head for the turret and re-machine the
body so the indexing pin is concentric. That's the problem I have with it
now, so the holes do not line up properly. As the indexing pin has worn,
it has worsened. Had the pin been on location, it wouldn't have worn
unevenly.

Can't even remember how
fast the spindle ran, but it had the collet setup

What size collets? Perhaps 3C? (good up to 1/2" or perhaps 5/8"
I guess.) Mine handles the 5C comfortably, and has the lever style
closer.

It had the 5C collet. I trained and used the 1J collets at Sperry, so
assumed they were the norm. Even the three Hardinge lathes they had used
the 1J. It was interesting to run into the 5C. Didn't take me long to
figure out that the 1J was the anomaly when I started shopping for collets
for my own machine, though. Interestingly, the only place I've ever seen
the 1J was at Sperry, where they also had the Sjogren collet chucks for the
larger machines, only using the 2J series of collets.

the EE, but I sure do like the Graziano. In a way, it's a better choice
for a guy with only one lathe.

I'm quite happy with my Clausing most of the time. There are
times when I would like to have the continuously-variable speed (which I
will get when I put the three-phase motor and the VFD into it), and
there are times when I would like a bit more swing,

In a nut shell, that's why I like the Graziano. They are built strangely,
with a natural gap, so the Sag 12 (my machine) can swing 17-1/2". It's a
light machine for such a swing, but when used to it's rated capacity, it's
quite a tough machine. For that odd occasion when you must turn something
large, you slow down and take lighter cuts.

but most of the time
it is quite satisfactory. And I have the little Compact-5/CNC for
things like metric threads, and other repetitive small work, and the
Taig and the Unimat SL-1000 for the very small work. Each has its
benefits.

Agreed. I think if a person had a dozen lathes or mills, there would often
be one machine that had features that made it more desirable to use for
specific functions than the others. If I had unlimited funds and could
find one, I'd love to own a little Levin lathe. I was shocked when years
ago I inquired and found that they were much like buying an EE. They made
a nice little turret type machine, obviously table top variety, and cost, as
I recall something like $20,000. So much for that idea.

It was equipped with a KDK tool post, which
has never been a favorite of mine.

Is that the one with the ribbed post and matching ribs on the
tool holders, which can lock up at 15 degree intervals? I've seen
them,
but never used one.

No, and I'm not familiar with the one you describe. The KDK was similar
to
the typical insert type tool post, only it had a small handle that was
thrown (vertically) to lock or unlock the tool blocks. As I recall it
had a
dovetail type lock, and the handle operated the gib, so to speak. At any
rate, when the handle was thrown, the dovetails tightened up.

Did it have two dovetails -- one for turning and one for
facing/boring? The location of the lever suggests that it has only the
one dovetail.

You got my curiosity up, so I did a quick search and found that they are
still in business. Here's a link.
http://www.kdktools.com/

As you suggest, they have only one dovetail. I was never unhappy with the
holder, I just preferred the OK Rubber Welders type.


The Compact-5 has yet another style of quick-change. There are
two male 'V's on the turning and the facing/boring sides of the post,
and corresponding female 'V's on the tool holders. Between the 'V's on
the post there is a T-head on a cam which engages a T-slot in the tool
holder. When you operate the cam, the tool holder is pulled firmly
against the toolpost, so you get a good rigid setup. Of course, each
holder has its own height adjustment, so you can change tools without
having to worry about center height.

That system sounds very much like the one that came with my hydraulic
duplicator for the Graziano. It, too, was made in Italy, and is called a
Duplomatic. I like the head for the tracer, where you don't do any
changing. I used the tracer for production runs so once the setup was
made it rarely got changed until the run was finished. As long as I don't
have to handle the holders, I'm a happy camper.


I prefer a square toolpost (OK Rubber
Welders, specifically), although they tend to be limiting for complex
setups.

And the name does not inspire confidence in their rigidity,
though I suspect that they in reality are very rigid. :-)


Like you, the name always made me come up short. Interestingly, they are a
very nicely built head and very rigid. The body is heat treated well and
the serrations have stayed very sharp. The only complaint I have had with
using them is that it's fairly easy to get fine chips inside, where they can
interfere with indexing precision. Once you know, it's no big deal to make
certain it's clean.


One regular on the newsgroup keeps each tool with the associated
shims in a pill bottle. That makes for fairly quick setup.

Yeah, I recall reading his post, and have communicated with him often. He's
a remarkable guy with considerable talent. I like his idea of storing the
tools and shims as a unit, but I'd have to have one hell of a large cabinet
if I was actively machining. I found it just as easy to trust to memory for
shim size. I guess it's all in what you get used to.

Agreed -- and when I was using the machine at work with the
4-way toolpost -- the shop was new, and we didn't have shims around, so
I had to cut some out of aluminum and whatever else was near the right
thickness, using the DiAcro metal shear. :-) When the machinist in
charge of the shop ordered and got the Aloris quick-change toolpost, I
fell in love with it. :-)

I can see how the Aloris looked pretty good after chasing shims.

One of the great sources for shims is using metal banding. It comes in
various thicknesses and is already a nice width. I have aluminum shims that
are 1/8" and 1/16", then a generous supply of shim stock or feeler gage
shims, and lots of banding shims. In a pinch I'll even use a layer of
paper if I must, although that's not my preferred shim.

O.K. -- with the Aloris style, I normally don't change the
setting of the post (unless I change the compound angle, in which case I
re-square it with the ways and chuck face). For different angles of
cut, I use different tools, pre designed for that angle.

That's one of the advantages of having tool holders. The way I use my tool
block, I never worry about it being square with the ways, although I don't
like the back side to be closer to the chuck than the front side. It's too
easy to be watching the tool and hit the jaws on the head that way.
Because I change tools instead of replace holders, how they mount is
determined at setup time.

I do have one
tool holder with multiple rows of setscrews which would allow mounting a
tool at a strange angle, though what I intend it for is next time I go
into production mode on the microphone adaptors. I should be able to
mount two tools in it -- one to groove the runout groove for the
external threads, and the other to part off the previous workpiece, all
in a single pass.

When involved in production, little steps like that can yield considerable
time savings. That's not a bad idea. I can see that the first cut would
be the parting, the second the groove depth.



Agreed -- though you are still limited to a maximum of four
tools at a given setup. With the Aloris style post, I can have any
length sequence of tools I need. Let's see:

1) Parting (and grooving)

2) Turning OD to shoulder

3) OD threading

4) beveling edge

5) facing end

6) Boring ID

7) ID threading

I can picture using all of these on a single project -- and
making multiples of a given workpiece. And that is ignoring
project-specific form tools.

With some creativity, you can actually mount more than four tools (in a
square head), although one of them may be nothing more than a chamfering
tool.

To get around the above sequence with fewer tools, what you do is call upon
some tools to perform multiple service. For example, I'd turn, face and
chamfer with the same tool. You can do that with the OK type holder because
it is capable of indexing in 3 degree increments.

Where you lose positions is going from OD to ID work, however. Once you've
mounted tools in both directions, unless you have very short shanks, you
often can't use both ends of the block. They have definite negatives
compared to the replaceable types. I can honestly say that there have been
times when I wished I had a KDK or Aloris for a given job. Now that I'm
retired, I don't really much care because time is no longer very important
to me in that regard.

But I guess that you could have two bodies for your four-way,
and swap them in mid project, so you could handle up to eight tools at
once. I would probably put all the boring/facing ones on one turret,
and the OD turning/threading and parting ones on another one.

That would have been the best of all worlds for me, although I'm not sure I
ever considered the idea. It doesn't take very long to change the head,
it's just about four turns of the handle and it's off. I can see that if
one was running a complex part and insisted on using such a head, that would
be a slick way to increase tool positions.


In a nut shell, I like the advantage of having unlimited tool holders,
which
makes a machine much more flexible. I guess the one thing I don't like
is
having to handle them. You do get used to it, though, and it would be
dead
easy to go from a lantern type toolpost to *any* device that allowed you
to
actually make a setup. In all honesty, there's no way in hell you'd
catch
me running with a lantern toolpost. I like the flexibility, but they
suck
when it comes to any kind of repetition, as you well know.

Indeed so. They also have the *dis*advantage of flexibility too.
They are not nearly as rigid as a good block form toolpost. (Though I
guess using a raw HSS tool ground to shape without a holder might offer
a bit more rigidity.

I'd forgotten the lack of rigidity when using the lantern type holders. My
little Craftsman had the lantern type holder, but the tool mounted directly
on top of the rocker, so it was far more rigid than the 1/2-20 spindle,which
I bent trying to part an item. It's pretty easy to see that the evolution
of indexing heads, or multiple heads came only when we were able to use
cutting tools that had longevity. Did it really matter if you couldn't
mark your dials when you were forced to use carbon steel cutting tools? I
dare say that in a production facility, one spent one hell of a lot of time
sharpening tools instead of using them. Where would we be without HSS and
carbide?


Harold

In article ,
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

[ ... ]

I'll bet. Did it have the flame-hardened ways? Mine does, and
I suspect that is one reason that it shows so little wear. (The bed
turret is a second contributing factor, of course.)

Funny, I recall it did have hardened ways, but only when you asked.

So it was one of the later ones. Probably similar vintage to my
5418 -- which Clausing says left the factory in 1957.

Like you, I have a bed turret for my Graziano, but use it only infrequently.
I believe we've had a similar conversation before and I mentioned that my
turret was screwed up from it's first day, so it doesn't perform well.

You also mentioned a feature (or modification) so you could lock
the ram in a given extension. I have yet to make that modification to
mine.

I
like having it and have used it in small production operations. By making
good setups you can even cock die heads, so many sequences of operation can
be accomplished without ever touching anything but the four arms of the hand
wheel. I intend to cast a new head for the turret and re-machine the
body so the indexing pin is concentric.

Is the existing head cast iron, or steel? I think that mine is
steel, but have never tried it.

That's the problem I have with it
now, so the holes do not line up properly. As the indexing pin has worn,
it has worsened. Had the pin been on location, it wouldn't have worn
unevenly.

Hmm ... can you replace the pin, and bush and re-drill the index
holes? And if the tool shank holes don't line up -- perhaps you could
bore to the next size up in the lathe itself, so you get concentric
holes again? Perhaps bore oversize and bush the tool holes as well as
the index holes.

Can't even remember how
fast the spindle ran, but it had the collet setup

What size collets? Perhaps 3C? (good up to 1/2" or perhaps 5/8"
I guess.) Mine handles the 5C comfortably, and has the lever style
closer.

It had the 5C collet.

That sounds like the 12" swing one, then. There were earlier
12" Clausings which used a smaller collet -- is there a 4C?. About the
period of mine, they stepped the spindle bore up to 1-3/8", and the
collet size to 5C. They also may have made the bed wider at the same
time.

You said that yours was a benchtop lathe, instead of a pedestal
lathe. But the manual for mine covers a benchtop version as well as the
pedestal version. (Different headstock casting, with the motor assembly
mounted behind the lathe on a swinging plate with a turnbuckle to adjust
belt tension.)

If you wish, I could provide you a link to a scan of the manual,
so you could compare it to your memory. (But yours had variable speed,
so it was probably the 5900 series, not my 5400.

I trained and used the 1J collets at Sperry, so
assumed they were the norm. Even the three Hardinge lathes they had used
the 1J. It was interesting to run into the 5C. Didn't take me long to
figure out that the 1J was the anomaly when I started shopping for collets
for my own machine, though. Interestingly, the only place I've ever seen
the 1J was at Sperry, where they also had the Sjogren collet chucks for the
larger machines, only using the 2J series of collets.

It sounds as though Sperry opted to standardize on a given maker
of collets, and two sizes, no matter what the machine (except perhaps
for a watchmaker's lathe. :-)

the EE, but I sure do like the Graziano. In a way, it's a better choice
for a guy with only one lathe.

I'm quite happy with my Clausing most of the time. There are
times when I would like to have the continuously-variable speed (which I
will get when I put the three-phase motor and the VFD into it), and
there are times when I would like a bit more swing,

In a nut shell, that's why I like the Graziano. They are built strangely,
with a natural gap, so the Sag 12 (my machine) can swing 17-1/2". It's a
light machine for such a swing, but when used to it's rated capacity, it's
quite a tough machine. For that odd occasion when you must turn something
large, you slow down and take lighter cuts.

O.K. So it is a permanent gap, not one with a section of ways
which drop in place when not needed as a gap (as the current Chinese and
Taiwanese lathes are set up)? I would consider the gap to be a bit of
loss of rigidity, but if the lathe was designed to run that way, I guess
that they made up the rigidity in other places.

but most of the time
it is quite satisfactory. And I have the little Compact-5/CNC for
things like metric threads, and other repetitive small work, and the
Taig and the Unimat SL-1000 for the very small work. Each has its
benefits.

Agreed. I think if a person had a dozen lathes or mills, there would often
be one machine that had features that made it more desirable to use for
specific functions than the others.

About the only one which I don't use at all these days is my old
6x18" Craftsman/Atlas. Flat ways, rather bunged up near the chuck, worn
sleeve bearings, and the compound top slide broke when a parting tool
jammed (lantern style toolpost), so I had to make a new one. (I've
since found that I probably could still have gotten a replacement from
Sears, of not from Clausing at the time.

Later versions of the same lathe had roller bearings in the
headstock -- but still had the flat ways.

And still -- it was better than the 6" Craftsman which you had,
a 109 from AA products, based on your later description at the bottom of
this article. The spindle was of mine was 3/4", not 1/2" in diameter,
so it could handle a bit more -- and survive breaking the T-slot out of
the compound. :-)

If I had unlimited funds and could
find one, I'd love to own a little Levin lathe. I was shocked when years
ago I inquired and found that they were much like buying an EE. They made
a nice little turret type machine, obviously table top variety, and cost, as
I recall something like $20,000. So much for that idea.

Keep your eyes on eBay -- one may sneak through someday.

It was equipped with a KDK tool post, which

[ ... ]

Did it have two dovetails -- one for turning and one for
facing/boring? The location of the lever suggests that it has only the
one dovetail.

You got my curiosity up, so I did a quick search and found that they are
still in business. Here's a link.
http://www.kdktools.com/

As you suggest, they have only one dovetail. I was never unhappy with the
holder, I just preferred the OK Rubber Welders type.

I can see why it would be awkward with larger machines --
there is a *lot* of steel in each of the tool holders, in part to make
the corner turn from the dovetail (which turns out to be in the
boring-facing position, based on Aloris style toolpost usage.

The Compact-5 has yet another style of quick-change. There are
two male 'V's on the turning and the facing/boring sides of the post,
and corresponding female 'V's on the tool holders. Between the 'V's on
the post there is a T-head on a cam which engages a T-slot in the tool
holder. When you operate the cam, the tool holder is pulled firmly
against the toolpost, so you get a good rigid setup. Of course, each
holder has its own height adjustment, so you can change tools without
having to worry about center height.

That system sounds very much like the one that came with my hydraulic
duplicator for the Graziano.

This one is from Austria, but there is one almost identical sold
by a company called "Dickenson" (I think) in the U.K. And I've found
reports of much larger sizes with the same design. The only
disadvantage to it, in my mind, is the need for keeping track of the
wrench -- a socket on the end of a bar like this:

+-\______
Socket -- | _____ \
+-/ \ \
\ \
\ \
Handle -- \ \
~~~ -- cut here

It, too, was made in Italy, and is called a
Duplomatic. I like the head for the tracer, where you don't do any
changing. I used the tracer for production runs so once the setup was
made it rarely got changed until the run was finished. As long as I don't
have to handle the holders, I'm a happy camper.

:-)

Probably the heaviest one for my Aloris is the one with a pair
of knurling wheels on arms which travel on a vertical set of ways on the
holder. The spacing is adjusted by a screw with left-hand threads on
one end and right-hand threads on the other, an da big knurled knob on
the top. It is adjusted to clamp on top and bottom of the workpiece,
instead of pressing into it from the side. I use a T-bar knurler in the
turret for most things, but there are things which only this can handle.

The next heaviest is the block for 1" boring bars.

By contrast, everything else is quite light -- at least in the
BXA size range. :-)


I prefer a square toolpost (OK Rubber
Welders, specifically), although they tend to be limiting for complex
setups.

And the name does not inspire confidence in their rigidity,
though I suspect that they in reality are very rigid. :-)


Like you, the name always made me come up short. Interestingly, they are a
very nicely built head and very rigid. The body is heat treated well and
the serrations have stayed very sharp. The only complaint I have had with
using them is that it's fairly easy to get fine chips inside, where they can
interfere with indexing precision. Once you know, it's no big deal to make
certain it's clean.

Just loosen the clamp nut, and run an acid brush in under it
all?

One regular on the newsgroup keeps each tool with the associated
shims in a pill bottle. That makes for fairly quick setup.

Yeah, I recall reading his post, and have communicated with him often. He's
a remarkable guy with considerable talent. I like his idea of storing the
tools and shims as a unit, but I'd have to have one hell of a large cabinet
if I was actively machining.

The same applies in spades to keeping everything in its own BXA
size holder. :-) Bu the most common ones have their own dedicated
holders, and there are a couple of spares for the infrequently used
tools. (I even have one dedicated to the round insert tool which is
nice for putting a radius at the end of a cut -- for appearance, or to
minimize stress risers. :-)

I found it just as easy to trust to memory for
shim size. I guess it's all in what you get used to.

Indeed.

Agreed -- and when I was using the machine at work with the
4-way toolpost -- the shop was new, and we didn't have shims around, so
I had to cut some out of aluminum and whatever else was near the right
thickness, using the DiAcro metal shear. :-) When the machinist in
charge of the shop ordered and got the Aloris quick-change toolpost, I
fell in love with it. :-)

I can see how the Aloris looked pretty good after chasing shims.

Indeed so. And that one only had four holders. I've probably
got 12-15 of them by now -- some new from Phase-II, some used Aloris
from eBay and other used sources, and three special ones from Aloris,
the double-ended negative rake insert holder, the block with multiple
rows of setscrews for weird setups, and one toolblock with extends out
towards the workpiece with an angle on the tailstock side to improve the
support while clearing a live center offering tailstock support to the
workpiece. That one happens to hold the insert holder for OD threading.

One of the great sources for shims is using metal banding. It comes in
various thicknesses and is already a nice width.

It is even hard enough to make passable concertina reeds from,
though good quality band spring stock is better. (I just had to try. :-)

I have aluminum shims that
are 1/8" and 1/16", then a generous supply of shim stock or feeler gage
shims, and lots of banding shims. In a pinch I'll even use a layer of
paper if I must, although that's not my preferred shim.

Have you considered beverage cans? I believe that the aluminum
is now 0.001" thick in most of them -- including the ubiquitous Coke
can. :-)

O.K. -- with the Aloris style, I normally don't change the
setting of the post (unless I change the compound angle, in which case I
re-square it with the ways and chuck face). For different angles of
cut, I use different tools, pre designed for that angle.

That's one of the advantages of having tool holders. The way I use my tool
block, I never worry about it being square with the ways, although I don't
like the back side to be closer to the chuck than the front side. It's too
easy to be watching the tool and hit the jaws on the head that way.
Because I change tools instead of replace holders, how they mount is
determined at setup time.

O.K. For most of the tooling, a bit off won't matter too much,
but when I pop in a threading insert tool (OD or ID), I want it square
to start with, so I don't have to tweak the toolpost's angle and then
lose the dial settings on the tools which I've used earlier in that run.

I do have one
tool holder with multiple rows of setscrews which would allow mounting a
tool at a strange angle, though what I intend it for is next time I go
into production mode on the microphone adaptors. I should be able to
mount two tools in it -- one to groove the runout groove for the
external threads, and the other to part off the previous workpiece, all
in a single pass.

When involved in production, little steps like that can yield considerable
time savings. That's not a bad idea. I can see that the first cut would
be the parting, the second the groove depth.

Exactly! At first, I was looking for a way to part off and
groove the same piece (since I don't really need the runout groove when
*cutting* the thread, because it is done with a Geometric die head. But
when some parts need to thread up to the shoulder, the runout groove
makes sure that nothing will bind where the thread would otherwise taper
up to full diameter.

Then I realized that I could part off the finished piece with
the right-hand tool, and groove the next workpiece with the left-hand
one with no worries.



Agreed -- though you are still limited to a maximum of four
tools at a given setup. With the Aloris style post, I can have any
length sequence of tools I need. Let's see:

[ ... Seven tools ... ]

I can picture using all of these on a single project -- and
making multiples of a given workpiece. And that is ignoring
project-specific form tools.

With some creativity, you can actually mount more than four tools (in a
square head), although one of them may be nothing more than a chamfering
tool.

O.K.

To get around the above sequence with fewer tools, what you do is call upon
some tools to perform multiple service. For example, I'd turn, face and
chamfer with the same tool.

Just as I have made a tool for the turret which is a combination
center drill and stock stop -- because otherwise, I would need seven
tools in a six-station turret. :-)

You can do that with the OK type holder because
it is capable of indexing in 3 degree increments.

You could also grind the tool something like this (top view):
A ____
/ |
B | |
| |
~~~~~
more
shank
below

and use the B portion for facing, and the A portion for the chamfer
without having to disturb the toolpost setting.

Is there a setscrew which holds the T-nut for the toolpost in a
constant location in the T-slot of the compound?

Where you lose positions is going from OD to ID work, however. Once you've
mounted tools in both directions, unless you have very short shanks, you
often can't use both ends of the block. They have definite negatives
compared to the replaceable types. I can honestly say that there have been
times when I wished I had a KDK or Aloris for a given job. Now that I'm
retired, I don't really much care because time is no longer very important
to me in that regard.

:-)

I just like to make the time in the shop as productive as I can,
as I too seldom break away from this keyboard. :-)

But I guess that you could have two bodies for your four-way,
and swap them in mid project, so you could handle up to eight tools at
once. I would probably put all the boring/facing ones on one turret,
and the OD turning/threading and parting ones on another one.

That would have been the best of all worlds for me, although I'm not sure I
ever considered the idea. It doesn't take very long to change the head,
it's just about four turns of the handle and it's off. I can see that if
one was running a complex part and insisted on using such a head, that would
be a slick way to increase tool positions.

Or -- add a rear toolpost (of the same type), with the tools
mounted upside-down, to give you that many more. And I am given to
understand that that location makes parting easier, as the chips fall
clear of the workpiece more easily.

I can't do this -- unless I get an alternate cross-slide. Mine
is made to work with a taper turning attachment, and not to offer a
mounting point for a second toolpost. Though I have done the inverted
tool on a rear-mounted toolpost on the Taig, which has nice T-slots the
full length of the cross-slide. (Though the compound is an add-on
option, not a standard part, and it is a bit awkward to use. :-)

[ ... ]

actually make a setup. In all honesty, there's no way in hell you'd
catch
me running with a lantern toolpost. I like the flexibility, but they
suck
when it comes to any kind of repetition, as you well know.

Indeed so. They also have the *dis*advantage of flexibility too.
They are not nearly as rigid as a good block form toolpost. (Though I
guess using a raw HSS tool ground to shape without a holder might offer
a bit more rigidity.

I'd forgotten the lack of rigidity when using the lantern type holders. My
little Craftsman had the lantern type holder, but the tool mounted directly
on top of the rocker, so it was far more rigid than the 1/2-20 spindle,which
I bent trying to part an item.

So -- we both damaged 6" Craftsman lathes -- though different
models, and differing degrees of damage. :_)

It's pretty easy to see that the evolution
of indexing heads, or multiple heads came only when we were able to use
cutting tools that had longevity. Did it really matter if you couldn't
mark your dials when you were forced to use carbon steel cutting tools? I
dare say that in a production facility, one spent one hell of a lot of time
sharpening tools instead of using them. Where would we be without HSS and
carbide?

Of course -- the old lathe tools were ground from large bars of
carbon steel, and did not have to live with the extension and weakness
of the Armstrong style tool holders, so that is probably another reason
that the lantern style toolpost stayed around as long as it did. :-)

I recently acquired some nice size HSS bars (8" long, and
otherwise the right size for tools in the Rockwell/Delta/AMMCO 7"
shaper. I've got to get around to grinding some proper tools for that
machine

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 ---

On Mon, 05 Jul 2004 01:35:10 -0700, Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:


That point is one that is difficult to explain to fans of rusty machines.
I see many defend buying old rusted hulks, especially when they can be
cleaned up and made operational without too much trouble. The "rebuild"
usually includes a wonderful paint job. Unfortunately, paint does nothing
to make a machine tool work well, and the portions that are critical often
get the rust removed and nothing more. That is where experience comes into
play. Unless one knows what can be reasonably expected from a machine
tool, it is most difficult to say with certainty that the tool is working
properly. Many just assume that it is difficult to hold a thou, that it
has nothing to do with any given machine. For those with experience,
though, it takes little to no time to point a finger at the cause for given
difficulties. It's a good step forward when you can finally ascertain
that it is the machine, not you, that has a problem. While it's true
that a good machinist can do reasonably good work on most any machine, it
isn't cost effective, especially when the risk of scrap increases.

Absolutely correct in all respects. While I've developed the skills (on a
hobby basis for the most part) to be able to resurrect an old machine with
lots wear, it's not something that I'd want to invest the time in again.
When I get the shop space to re-acquire metal working tools I'll get new
unless I can find an awesome deal on a GOOD used machine. And if I do find
a used one I'm going to have to have "hands on time under power" before
I'll plunk down the coin. At least I've had enough experience to know if
the machine is in decent shape and won't require a large investment in
time to restore it to good condition.

Talk about dedication! Congratulations of the accomplishment. You
paid a small price to have the use of nice machines. I'd have done the
same thing had I been in a like situation.

Thanks... In addition to the manual skills one has to learn to do that I
suspect that the most valuable one is learning to work carefully and be
patient. Too many times folks get in too much of a hurry and quality
suffers.

There were times when I chased threads for an entire week, then on to
other parts. I guess what prompted me to get serious about quality
was the fact that everything we produced received 100% inspection
(defense work), even between operations, so good money wasn't thrown
after bad. I was fortunate to have had a supervisor that took a
personal interest in me and my progress. He patiently talked to me and
lead me along, teaching me the right and wrong ways to do things, and
encouraging me to shoot for quality. I was told that if I learned to do
things in an acceptable manner, that speed would come automatically. It
was true.

It's really these old guys that have been doing this sort of work since
tools were steam powered that are some of the best teachers. Just about
anything you can think of they've done. And they've probably found all the
ways not to do it as well as what works.

Yeah, that was my point, too. In a way, I guess it's no loss, but I
can't help but wonder if the day won't come that we have regrets.

I have little doubt that will happen. Consider industries like ship
building. With the fewer yards every year we're loosing the years & years
of experience that's necessary to build ships well. At some point all the
"old guys" may be gone and with them all that knowledge. And that's not
something you can "learn from a book".

I get a kick out of watching the show about Craig Boddington's (SP?) shop
and the guy that's "older than dirt" that can work magic with metal.
There's fewer & fewer of those guys around every year what with production
moving off-shore and the increasing reliance on CNC. I'd love to have the
opportunity to just be able to stand around and watch that guy work...

My
training was job specific, so I didn't have to jump through the hoops
the way apprentices did in the "old days". I managed to run a shop,
subcontracting, for the most part, from the industry from which I came.
It treated me well, and I closed the doors voluntarily. I could have
kept busy endlessly. Still, my skills alone would not have been enough
to compete. Without CNC training, not many can do so today. I guess
that, in part, helps explain why the classes have been dropped. What
disturbs me is that we wouldn't be able to respond as easily in a
national emergency as we once could, not when we depend on foreign
nations for the majority of our manufacturing, and few are learning the
skills, be they CNC or manual.

Yep...

That is the part about CNC operators that troubles me. I realize that
they turn out the work, but without the computer, often they can't. They
may be well trained to do what they do, but in many cases they don't
really understand the workings. For example, can they sharpen tools? Of
necessity, CNC operations dictate almost exclusive use of inserts. I
don't have a problem with the fact, but those that train on and operate
such machines are very likely to never have a grip on cutting tool
geometry, and couldn't hand grind a tool if their life depended on it.
If a CNC operator thinks it's a simple step to go from the computer to a
manual machine, they're in for one hell of a shock. Again, anyone can
make chips, but when it comes to stepping off dimensions for drilling,
or cutting a window, it can be a dreadful experience when done for the
first time. My hat's off to guys like you that have taken the bull by
the horns and learned the things that constitute one being worthy of
having the title "machinist", even though to be one doesn't command much
respect.

Yeah, that, in a sideways sort of way, was what I was talking about. Those
guy's might be a gee whiz at programming and setting up a CNC machine, but
if you really only needed one part it would cost a fortune compared to a
manual process by a good machinist. And, by and large, I suspect that the
CNC guys couldn't do it if the job had any complexity (needing jigs,
careful planning, etc).

If you have the time learning the old skills can be immensely rewarding.
And this is true of any "hand arts" skill set and isn't confined to
metalworking. And, suprise, suprise, the fastest and best way to learn
those is to hook up with one of the "old geezers" that did it that way for
years. While it is unlikely that one will ever make any money with those
skills the self satisfaction one gets is well worth the investment in time.

--
The instructions said to use Windows 98 or better, so I installed RedHat.

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

snip-----
I intend to cast a new head for the turret and re-machine the
body so the indexing pin is concentric.

Is the existing head cast iron, or steel? I think that mine is
steel, but have never tried it.

The head is cast iron, and the cross bolts are steel. If yours came
machine ready, you have likely had no reason to touch yours. Mine came
blank and was drilled and bored on the lathe. Had I known that indexing
pin was eccentric to the indexing ring of the head, I'd have never finish
machined mine. I'd have returned it in a heart beat, secure in the
knowledge that it would worsen with use exactly as it has. When it was
finish machined there were no signs of any problems, but as it was used time
and again it started indexing poorly and not repeating. Only then did I
discover that the indexing pin was not entering the tapered bushings
properly because of the eccentricity. As the pin wore, it forced the head
to stop in a different position.

Hmm ... can you replace the pin, and bush and re-drill the index
holes? And if the tool shank holes don't line up -- perhaps you could
bore to the next size up in the lathe itself, so you get concentric
holes again? Perhaps bore oversize and bush the tool holes as well as
the index holes.

It's been a long time since I last looked at the head, especially when you
consider the long period of time my shop was unused because of the precious
metal refining business that thankfully kept me away from the machines for
so long. The prolonged break was just what the doctor ordered to get me
over my burnout from all the years on the machines, almost non-stop.

As I recall, though, there's no one simple fix. I seem to recall the
tapered locating center lug is eccentric with the six tapered bushings in
which the pin stops. In order to make it right, the location of the pin
would have to be altered, and the bushings then made oversized and each of
the pockets bored to proper location. The problems of getting everything
on location are greater than the problems of making a new head, which I
could control closely with careful workmanship. A large part of the
problem is that the 1" holes in the head are now not properly located
because of the error in the locating pins and the bushings. The location
is an average of the poor conditions, so with the wearing of the pins and
bushings, the holes no longer index to center. Boring oversized isn't
really an option because the cross bolts are already machined to the
centerline. Any further machining would weaken them to the point where I'd
expect that tightening the nuts could allow enough stretching for the bolt
to fail.

I'll likely eventually get to the project and use it as an excuse to cast
some iron when I get my induction furnace up and running. At this point, I
look at all my projects as entertainment, nothing more. Part of the fun
will be in making the new head, and I'll likely make the pin and bushings
new, too. I have heat treat capabilities, along with grinding and honing
capabilities, so I have everything that is necessary to rebuild the head to
good condition.


That sounds like the 12" swing one, then. There were earlier
12" Clausings which used a smaller collet -- is there a 4C?.

I don't know that there is or isn't. I was pleasantly surprised just a
month ago when I drove to Southern Oregon to assist in the disposal of a
deceased friend's estate to find that there was a 3J collet, larger than the
2J, so nothing would surprise me at this point.

Sadly, the bulk of my years of experience have revolved around my personal
world, especially since running my own shop. Because my work was
restricted to specific areas, I achieved a good level of skill and ability
in the work I did, but my overall exposure has been relatively restricted.
It's safe to say that the best exposure I got was working in the job shop
where I ran the little Clausing. We were not as well equipped there as the
shop at Sperry, but the work was so diverse that it forced all of us to use
a lot of imagination and become quite creative in making setups. I recall
one job where I converted the little Clausing to a tracer machine when I had
to cut a 1" radius runout in the center of 3" long lengths of 1/8"
tungsten,
which was reduced to .100" diameter for a short distance. The pieces were
tensile
specimens and were highly polished and held to quite close tolerance. I
still have a couple of the pieces in my show and tell box.


You said that yours was a benchtop lathe, instead of a pedestal
lathe. But the manual for mine covers a benchtop version as well as the
pedestal version. (Different headstock casting, with the motor assembly
mounted behind the lathe on a swinging plate with a turnbuckle to adjust
belt tension.)

I recall that the little Clausing was built much like the Hardinge in that
it had the variable drive in the base of the steel cabinet that was a part
of the machine. Drive power was located directly under the headstock.


If you wish, I could provide you a link to a scan of the manual,
so you could compare it to your memory. (But yours had variable speed,
so it was probably the 5900 series, not my 5400.

If nothing else, that would be fun to peruse. It would surely help me
recall the machine better, so if you'd like, either post the link or send it
directly to me.

I trained and used the 1J collets at Sperry, so
assumed they were the norm. Even the three Hardinge lathes they had used
the 1J. It was interesting to run into the 5C. Didn't take me long to
figure out that the 1J was the anomaly when I started shopping for
collets
for my own machine, though. Interestingly, the only place I've ever
seen
the 1J was at Sperry, where they also had the Sjogren collet chucks for
the
larger machines, only using the 2J series of collets.

It sounds as though Sperry opted to standardize on a given maker
of collets, and two sizes, no matter what the machine (except perhaps
for a watchmaker's lathe. :-)

That's certainly the way it appears now. It's strange, though, when you
consider that the 5C collet is so widely used. Had I known more about
collets at that time, I'm sure I'd have had some questions. As I said, I
figured the 1J was the norm and was quite unhappy when I bought my first
collet device. I was looking to buy 1J and almost no one knew what I was
talking about, but everyone that sold collets had the 5C on the shelf.
Sigh! Those were the days! I recall paying only $6.75 for new Hardinge 5C
collets. What are they now, over $25? Haven't purchased any in years.
I remember that they kept going up, so I finally started buying Royal
collets, which seemed to be quite good. I still have all of them.


In a nut shell, that's why I like the Graziano. They are built
strangely,
with a natural gap, so the Sag 12 (my machine) can swing 17-1/2". It's
a
light machine for such a swing, but when used to it's rated capacity,
it's
quite a tough machine. For that odd occasion when you must turn
something
large, you slow down and take lighter cuts.

O.K. So it is a permanent gap, not one with a section of ways
which drop in place when not needed as a gap (as the current Chinese and
Taiwanese lathes are set up)? I would consider the gap to be a bit of
loss of rigidity, but if the lathe was designed to run that way, I guess
that they made up the rigidity in other places.

Graziano built the Sag 12 such that the tailstock ways are higher than the
bed ways, and the bed ways are fully covered with formed steel protectors.
The ways stay almost free of chips by the design. All they did is stop
the tailstock ways short of the headstock, so the bed mass is almost no
different at the headstock, although it would not be true to suggest
that it isn't reduced any. The bed at that point is almost a full box, so
it's quite rigid. The Sag 12 is not what I would call a heavy duty machine,
but certainly qualifies for a medium duty industrial machine. It weighs
over a ton, but is about 1,000 pounds lighter than the EE, so that may help
you with how well it's built.

About the only one which I don't use at all these days is my old
6x18" Craftsman/Atlas. Flat ways, rather bunged up near the chuck, worn
sleeve bearings, and the compound top slide broke when a parting tool
jammed (lantern style toolpost), so I had to make a new one. (I've
since found that I probably could still have gotten a replacement from
Sears, of not from Clausing at the time.

Later versions of the same lathe had roller bearings in the
headstock -- but still had the flat ways.

And still -- it was better than the 6" Craftsman which you had,
a 109 from AA products, based on your later description at the bottom of
this article. The spindle was of mine was 3/4", not 1/2" in diameter,
so it could handle a bit more -- and survive breaking the T-slot out of
the compound. :-)

Must say that's quite impressive. I recall that they suggested a 1/4 horse
motor for my little 109, but I purchased a 1/3 horse. If the spindle had
been larger, it's very possible I could have broken the compound on mine,
too, from what you've said. I know it won't sit well with some, but having
machines like either of those two makes no sense to me now. A good example
of one thing that was wrong with the 109 is that it had no dials.
Everything you did you did by guess. Once you're learned proper
machining procedures, you come to realize how it was almost no better than a
wood lathe, but I had a lot of fun with it as a kid and learned enough that
I had begun to understand grinding tool bits. Must say it was a real
intimidating experience at first.

Once I had run serious machines, I could never go back to the little lathe,
so I sold it. Aside from the memories, I've never regretted selling it.



As you suggest, they have only one dovetail. I was never unhappy with
the
(KDK) holder, I just preferred the OK Rubber Welders type.

I can see why it would be awkward with larger machines --
there is a *lot* of steel in each of the tool holders, in part to make
the corner turn from the dovetail (which turns out to be in the
boring-facing position, based on Aloris style toolpost usage.


That system sounds very much like the one that came with my hydraulic
duplicator for the Graziano.

This one is from Austria, but there is one almost identical sold
by a company called "Dickenson" (I think) in the U.K. And I've found
reports of much larger sizes with the same design. The only
disadvantage to it, in my mind, is the need for keeping track of the
wrench -- a socket on the end of a bar like this:

+-\______
Socket -- | _____ \
+-/ \ \
\ \
\ \
Handle -- \ \
~~~ -- cut here


They must all think alike. The Duplomatic comes with its own wrench, too, a
hex socket offset handle that I must track constantly. Works very well,
though. Luckily, the square socket "T" wrench that fits the set screws
on the
tool holders is the same size as the wrench for the OK R Welders head, so I
can use that one when changing tools. I keep it on the headstock in its own
bracket, where it's out of the way and always within reach. I never hunt
for it.

Probably the heaviest one for my Aloris is the one with a pair
of knurling wheels on arms which travel on a vertical set of ways on the
holder. The spacing is adjusted by a screw with left-hand threads on
one end and right-hand threads on the other, an da big knurled knob on
the top. It is adjusted to clamp on top and bottom of the workpiece,
instead of pressing into it from the side. I use a T-bar knurler in the
turret for most things, but there are things which only this can handle.

That sounds like a nice tool. I've always done knurling the old fashioned
way and it's not always in your best interest
..

The next heaviest is the block for 1" boring bars.

That's one place where the OK head isn't the best. I have made some shop
aid boring bar holders that mount in the head, but it's a compromise at
best. Works fine, just doesn't look all the great. These were created when
needed, so no time was spent making them look good. Once you have them and
they work, you keep them, or so it seems. Definitely not the type of work
of which I'd be proud, though.

By contrast, everything else is quite light -- at least in the
BXA size range. :-)

Which is likely a good reason to go a route other than KDK. I wonder if
I'll see things differently if I ever get far enough along to be working on
a steam loco, as I have planned. Some of the components will have to be
made in quantity and I'll be thinking of a different post when I can't get
the tools in the OK head. I'll probably touch base with you if that
happens for more input. At this point it seems you are far more in touch
with current technology than I am.



The only complaint I have had with
using them is that it's fairly easy to get fine chips inside, where they
can
interfere with indexing precision. Once you know, it's no big deal to
make
certain it's clean.

Just loosen the clamp nut, and run an acid brush in under it
all?

What I've learned to do is keep fine chips (tiny hairs, really) from
accumulating around the base plate. Larger chips pose no problem. Once I
find it's not repeating, I generally remove the head and check the fine
serrations, where I usually find a tiny hair of a chip embedded. It's
usually been well clamped on at that point, it is flattened quite thin, so I
usually use a fine pointed scriber and remove it from both faces. Blow it
out with air, oil and re-assemble. Takes only a minute or two and you're
back in business. It doesn't seem to do any damage, just causes the head to
locate in a different spot, so you can't trust your dial. It's generally
off only a couple thou at most, but for me that's too much.

Yeah, I recall reading his post, and have communicated with him often.
He's
a remarkable guy with considerable talent. I like his idea of storing
the
tools and shims as a unit, but I'd have to have one hell of a large
cabinet
if I was actively machining.

The same applies in spades to keeping everything in its own BXA
size holder. :-) Bu the most common ones have their own dedicated
holders, and there are a couple of spares for the infrequently used
tools. (I even have one dedicated to the round insert tool which is
nice for putting a radius at the end of a cut -- for appearance, or to
minimize stress risers. :-)

That's another advantage of having that type of post. Often times I have
to
remove a tool to mount another. Again, it's what I'm used to and it doesn't
take much time, but it's certainly not as convenient as just picking up the
other holder. The real advantage is when threading, parting or groove
cutting, as you stated. You know that the tool is already at the right
attitude, that it doesn't have to be squared with the setup. That part
takes me more time than anything else.

One of the great sources for shims is using metal banding. It comes in
various thicknesses and is already a nice width.

It is even hard enough to make passable concertina reeds from,
though good quality band spring stock is better. (I just had to try. :-)

Chuckle! Trust us retired home shop types to try all the dodges.


I have aluminum shims that
are 1/8" and 1/16", then a generous supply of shim stock or feeler gage
shims, and lots of banding shims. In a pinch I'll even use a layer of
paper if I must, although that's not my preferred shim.

Have you considered beverage cans? I believe that the aluminum
is now 0.001" thick in most of them -- including the ubiquitous Coke
can. :-)

Nope. Never even given it a thought, but I'll be sure to do so in the
future. When doing very fine small work it's not unusual to find yourself
a thou too low, so having the ability to change slightly is very desirable.
Thanks for the tip. I've used cellophane, but it's really hard to work with
because it's so limber.

To get around the above sequence with fewer tools, what you do is call
upon
some tools to perform multiple service. For example, I'd turn, face and
chamfer with the same tool.

Just as I have made a tool for the turret which is a combination
center drill and stock stop -- because otherwise, I would need seven
tools in a six-station turret. :-)

Yep, that's the kinds of things you learn to do. It may sound trivial, but
when you're running production, the slightest time savings adds up, as
you've found.

You could also grind the tool something like this (top view):
A ____
/ |
B | |
| |
~~~~~
more
shank
below

and use the B portion for facing, and the A portion for the chamfer
without having to disturb the toolpost setting.

I've ground parting tools with a chamfer at the base of the tool for just
such an occasion. That's a great way to conserve when you don't have enough
positions.


I just like to make the time in the shop as productive as I can,
as I too seldom break away from this keyboard. :-)

That's an excellent point. I find I spend considerable time at the
keyboard, time that might be better spent elsewhere, but for me it's my
social life. We have few neighbors, and little social life outside home.
No family near, either, so I enjoy my time online, especially when talking
shop.

Or -- add a rear toolpost (of the same type), with the tools
mounted upside-down, to give you that many more. And I am given to
understand that that location makes parting easier, as the chips fall
clear of the workpiece more easily.

It's more involved than that, too. I recall an old Dutch guy (now deceased)
that worked with us at Sperry that was famous for running tools upside down
and running the machine in reverse for certain operations. It loads the
cross slide/compound totally differently and often solves chatter problems,
along with other problems. He was sold on the idea, although I've not
explored it much. Because my duplicator cuts on the back side, I've
machined quite a bit that way, though. Just not any other way. It still
cuts in the forward direction, with the tool upside down, as you might
imagine.


I can't do this -- unless I get an alternate cross-slide. Mine
is made to work with a taper turning attachment, and not to offer a
mounting point for a second toolpost. Though I have done the inverted
tool on a rear-mounted toolpost on the Taig, which has nice T-slots the
full length of the cross-slide. (Though the compound is an add-on
option, not a standard part, and it is a bit awkward to use. :-)

Fortunately, my cross slide is flat and has holes drilled and tapped at
intervals for its entire length, so mounting additional things to the slide
is no problem. That's how the duplicator mounts. It would be very easy to
mount a back side tool post if one desired, although you might have to
fabricate it. I am not aware of one that was available.


Of course -- the old lathe tools were ground from large bars of
carbon steel, and did not have to live with the extension and weakness
of the Armstrong style tool holders, so that is probably another reason
that the lantern style toolpost stayed around as long as it did. :-)

While I'm sure that's true in many situations, it isn't true in all. I was
hired into tool, die and gauge at Tooele Army Depot in Utah in December of
'65. I was absolutely shocked to find a machine shop engaged in rebuilding
war equipment for Viet Nam that was tooled with rocker type tool posts and
the Armstrong type holders. You might recall that they had straight
holders (no rake) for holding brazed carbide tools. That job was, without
a doubt, the worst job I held in all my years. So bad, in fact, that I
quit after only two months. The money was good and the hours long (5 12's
and 2 8's, mandatory. No time off, not even holidays because of the war
effort). The atmosphere was stifling. The shop super was a time keeper
that had bid on the job and got it, but had little shop experience, and ran
the shop with what could be called an iron fist. One thing he didn't allow
was the use of soft jaws. Everything that had to be turned was done between
centers, so it took a lot more time to make parts. Having had
considerable experience in production at that point, I couldn't stand to be
held back, limited by archaic procedures. I can say, honestly, that I
hated the job. Tooele Army Depot is no longer an Army post.

I recently acquired some nice size HSS bars (8" long, and
otherwise the right size for tools in the Rockwell/Delta/AMMCO 7"
shaper. I've got to get around to grinding some proper tools for that
machine

That should make a world of difference in rigidity for your shaper. I
recall Pete Somebody had gone to such tools when I last spoke to him.
Haven't heard a word from him in about two years now. Is he well? When I
last heard, he had purchased a home and was moving to it.

Harold

In article ,
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

"DoN. Nichols" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Harold & Susan Vordos wrote:

snip-----
I intend to cast a new head for the turret and re-machine the
body so the indexing pin is concentric.

Is the existing head cast iron, or steel? I think that mine is
steel, but have never tried it.

The head is cast iron, and the cross bolts are steel. If yours came

Reply moved to private e-mail.

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 ---