To counteract the slow rotation of the toolpost while doing cutoffs, a
machined a 1018 steel plate to go between the 5914 tool post slide (on
the cross slide) and the Dickson toolpost. The plate has a ridge on the
bottom, the ridge being a slip fit into the T-slot on the cross slide,
and two holes. One hole is clearance for the 5/18-18 rod that bolts the
toolpost to the cross slide, the other accepting the anti-rotation index
pin.

This pretty well solved the rotation problem, and revealed another
problem: When cutting off, the whole toolpost assembly tilted to the
left. It turned out that the gibs were not tight, especially the
cross-slide gib. Took the cross slide off the carriage, cleaned
everything, and adjusted the gib.

Then, I could no longer install the cast iron screw cover that protects
the cross-slide nut and screw from swarf. The problem is that with
wear, the gib goes deeper than originally needed, so the rear gib
adjustment screw sticks out and interferes with the cover. So, I milled
a pocket out of the cover sidewall to accommodate the gib screw.

Now, the rocking under cutting loads is mostly gone.

Cutoffs with a Rube Goldberg setup is turning into something of an acid
test, and each fix yields a distinct improvement.

Next up is the tool post slide assembly. I was not able to adjust the
gib screws; don't yet know why. Perhaps something is bottomed.

Also on the list is to make the 1.25" diameter center pivot sleeve that
goes over the 5/8-18 threaded rod and between the ridged plate and the
toolpost, to better locate the toolpost. Right now there is only the
threaded rod, which the toolpost fits loosely. Also needed is to
machine a recess in the ridged plate to accept the pivot.

As I work, I see more and more of how things were supposed to be, versus
how they now are.

Joe Gwinn

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Then, I could no longer install the cast iron screw cover that protects
the cross-slide nut and screw from swarf. The problem is that with
wear, the gib goes deeper than originally needed, so the rear gib
adjustment screw sticks out and interferes with the cover. So, I milled
a pocket out of the cover sidewall to accommodate the gib screw.

Now, the rocking under cutting loads

You might consider supergluing some shim stock on the non-sliding side of
gib. I used that trick on my BP knee gib to get a bit more adjustment.

If you ever want to remove the shim, 250F in your oven and the adhesive will
release. Won't hurt the gib.

Wes

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
To counteract the slow rotation of the toolpost while doing cutoffs, a
machined a 1018 steel plate to go between the 5914 tool post slide (on
the cross slide) and the Dickson toolpost. The plate has a ridge on the
bottom, the ridge being a slip fit into the T-slot on the cross slide,
and two holes. One hole is clearance for the 5/18-18 rod that bolts the
toolpost to the cross slide, the other accepting the anti-rotation index
pin.

This pretty well solved the rotation problem, and revealed another
problem: When cutting off, the whole toolpost assembly tilted to the
left. It turned out that the gibs were not tight, especially the
cross-slide gib. Took the cross slide off the carriage, cleaned
everything, and adjusted the gib.

Then, I could no longer install the cast iron screw cover that protects
the cross-slide nut and screw from swarf. The problem is that with
wear, the gib goes deeper than originally needed, so the rear gib
adjustment screw sticks out and interferes with the cover. So, I milled
a pocket out of the cover sidewall to accommodate the gib screw.

Now, the rocking under cutting loads is mostly gone.

Cutoffs with a Rube Goldberg setup is turning into something of an acid
test, and each fix yields a distinct improvement.

Next up is the tool post slide assembly. I was not able to adjust the
gib screws; don't yet know why. Perhaps something is bottomed.

Also on the list is to make the 1.25" diameter center pivot sleeve that
goes over the 5/8-18 threaded rod and between the ridged plate and the
toolpost, to better locate the toolpost. Right now there is only the
threaded rod, which the toolpost fits loosely. Also needed is to
machine a recess in the ridged plate to accept the pivot.

As I work, I see more and more of how things were supposed to be, versus
how they now are.

Joe Gwinn

Sounds like you're not doing the nut down tight enough to hold the
Dickson toolpost in place or the base is not sitting on the compound but
maybe being held off it by something. I have never had an issue with my
Dickson toolpost moving even when the locating pin was not in use.

In article ,
David Billington wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
To counteract the slow rotation of the toolpost while doing cutoffs, a
machined a 1018 steel plate to go between the 5914 tool post slide (on
the cross slide) and the Dickson toolpost. The plate has a ridge on the
bottom, the ridge being a slip fit into the T-slot on the cross slide,
and two holes. One hole is clearance for the 5/18-18 rod that bolts the
toolpost to the cross slide, the other accepting the anti-rotation index
pin.

[snip]

Also on the list is to make the 1.25" diameter center pivot sleeve that
goes over the 5/8-18 threaded rod and between the ridged plate and the
toolpost, to better locate the toolpost. Right now there is only the
threaded rod, which the toolpost fits loosely. Also needed is to
machine a recess in the ridged plate to accept the pivot.

As I work, I see more and more of how things were supposed to be, versus
how they now are.

Joe Gwinn

Sounds like you're not doing the nut down tight enough to hold the
Dickson toolpost in place or the base is not sitting on the compound but
maybe being held off it by something. I have never had an issue with my
Dickson toolpost moving even when the locating pin was not in use.

I did crank it down pretty hard, using a 15/16" box wrench a foot long.
Under ordinary cuts (with tool close to the axis for the threaded rod),
no problem. With the cutoff blade (with tool an inch farther from the
center), slow rotation. The mating surfaces on toolpost bottom and
cross-slide top are pretty smooth, and properly oily.

I assume that originally the toolpost came with a big cylindrical post
nut with a ball-headed arm, for rapid clamping and release, so one could
rotate any of the three holders into position. Having to really bear
down on the clamp arm would soon wear the operator out, not to mention
wear the threads out.

So I just drilled a hole to accept the pin.

I've never seen what this toolpost is supposed to look like, and to
include, and have been guessing. Can you suggest a URL that leads to a
good photo or two? Thanks.


Joe Gwinn

In article ,
Wes wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

Then, I could no longer install the cast iron screw cover that protects
the cross-slide nut and screw from swarf. The problem is that with
wear, the gib goes deeper than originally needed, so the rear gib
adjustment screw sticks out and interferes with the cover. So, I milled
a pocket out of the cover sidewall to accommodate the gib screw.

Now, the rocking under cutting loads

You might consider supergluing some shim stock on the non-sliding side of
gib. I used that trick on my BP knee gib to get a bit more adjustment.

If you ever want to remove the shim, 250F in your oven and the adhesive will
release. Won't hurt the gib.

Hmm. That's a thought. I may need to do this with the cross-slide gib
as well. Epoxy would also work, and gives more time for positioning.


Joe Gwinn

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
David Billington wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
To counteract the slow rotation of the toolpost while doing cutoffs, a
machined a 1018 steel plate to go between the 5914 tool post slide (on
the cross slide) and the Dickson toolpost. The plate has a ridge on the
bottom, the ridge being a slip fit into the T-slot on the cross slide,
and two holes. One hole is clearance for the 5/18-18 rod that bolts the
toolpost to the cross slide, the other accepting the anti-rotation index
pin.

[snip]
Also on the list is to make the 1.25" diameter center pivot sleeve that
goes over the 5/8-18 threaded rod and between the ridged plate and the
toolpost, to better locate the toolpost. Right now there is only the
threaded rod, which the toolpost fits loosely. Also needed is to
machine a recess in the ridged plate to accept the pivot.

As I work, I see more and more of how things were supposed to be, versus
how they now are.

Joe Gwinn

Sounds like you're not doing the nut down tight enough to hold the
Dickson toolpost in place or the base is not sitting on the compound but
maybe being held off it by something. I have never had an issue with my
Dickson toolpost moving even when the locating pin was not in use.

I did crank it down pretty hard, using a 15/16" box wrench a foot long.
Under ordinary cuts (with tool close to the axis for the threaded rod),
no problem. With the cutoff blade (with tool an inch farther from the
center), slow rotation. The mating surfaces on toolpost bottom and
cross-slide top are pretty smooth, and properly oily.

I assume that originally the toolpost came with a big cylindrical post
nut with a ball-headed arm, for rapid clamping and release, so one could
rotate any of the three holders into position. Having to really bear
down on the clamp arm would soon wear the operator out, not to mention
wear the threads out.

So I just drilled a hole to accept the pin.

I've never seen what this toolpost is supposed to look like, and to
include, and have been guessing. Can you suggest a URL that leads to a
good photo or two? Thanks.


Joe Gwinn

http://www.homeandworkshop.co.uk/w003.jpg was the first link at google
images . This one looks like it has a hex nut on top ...
--
Snag

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
David Billington wrote:


Joseph Gwinn wrote:

To counteract the slow rotation of the toolpost while doing cutoffs, a
machined a 1018 steel plate to go between the 5914 tool post slide (on
the cross slide) and the Dickson toolpost. The plate has a ridge on the
bottom, the ridge being a slip fit into the T-slot on the cross slide,
and two holes. One hole is clearance for the 5/18-18 rod that bolts the
toolpost to the cross slide, the other accepting the anti-rotation index
pin.


[snip]

Also on the list is to make the 1.25" diameter center pivot sleeve that
goes over the 5/8-18 threaded rod and between the ridged plate and the
toolpost, to better locate the toolpost. Right now there is only the
threaded rod, which the toolpost fits loosely. Also needed is to
machine a recess in the ridged plate to accept the pivot.

As I work, I see more and more of how things were supposed to be, versus
how they now are.

Joe Gwinn


Sounds like you're not doing the nut down tight enough to hold the
Dickson toolpost in place or the base is not sitting on the compound but
maybe being held off it by something. I have never had an issue with my
Dickson toolpost moving even when the locating pin was not in use.


I did crank it down pretty hard, using a 15/16" box wrench a foot long.
Under ordinary cuts (with tool close to the axis for the threaded rod),
no problem. With the cutoff blade (with tool an inch farther from the
center), slow rotation. The mating surfaces on toolpost bottom and
cross-slide top are pretty smooth, and properly oily.

I assume that originally the toolpost came with a big cylindrical post
nut with a ball-headed arm, for rapid clamping and release, so one could
rotate any of the three holders into position. Having to really bear
down on the clamp arm would soon wear the operator out, not to mention
wear the threads out.

So I just drilled a hole to accept the pin.

I've never seen what this toolpost is supposed to look like, and to
include, and have been guessing. Can you suggest a URL that leads to a
good photo or two? Thanks.


Joe Gwinn

Some pics here in the Harrison section, maybe the best on this page
http://www.lathes.co.uk/harrison%2Dm/page7.html . My Dickson has a M12
threaded post IIRC and a 19mm hex nut on top which bears on a heavy
collar then onto the toolpost see on this page
http://www.metal-arts.co.uk/jacks/index.html , I think that is standard
for the machine.

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
David Billington wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
To counteract the slow rotation of the toolpost while doing cutoffs, a
machined a 1018 steel plate to go between the 5914 tool post slide (on
the cross slide) and the Dickson toolpost. The plate has a ridge on the
bottom, the ridge being a slip fit into the T-slot on the cross slide,
and two holes. One hole is clearance for the 5/18-18 rod that bolts the
toolpost to the cross slide, the other accepting the anti-rotation index
pin.

[snip]
Also on the list is to make the 1.25" diameter center pivot sleeve that
goes over the 5/8-18 threaded rod and between the ridged plate and the
toolpost, to better locate the toolpost. Right now there is only the
threaded rod, which the toolpost fits loosely. Also needed is to
machine a recess in the ridged plate to accept the pivot.

As I work, I see more and more of how things were supposed to be, versus
how they now are.

Joe Gwinn

Sounds like you're not doing the nut down tight enough to hold the
Dickson toolpost in place or the base is not sitting on the compound but
maybe being held off it by something. I have never had an issue with my
Dickson toolpost moving even when the locating pin was not in use.

I did crank it down pretty hard, using a 15/16" box wrench a foot long.
Under ordinary cuts (with tool close to the axis for the threaded rod),
no problem. With the cutoff blade (with tool an inch farther from the
center), slow rotation. The mating surfaces on toolpost bottom and
cross-slide top are pretty smooth, and properly oily.

I assume that originally the toolpost came with a big cylindrical post
nut with a ball-headed arm, for rapid clamping and release, so one could
rotate any of the three holders into position. Having to really bear
down on the clamp arm would soon wear the operator out, not to mention
wear the threads out.

So I just drilled a hole to accept the pin.

I've never seen what this toolpost is supposed to look like, and to
include, and have been guessing. Can you suggest a URL that leads to a
good photo or two? Thanks.


Joe Gwinn

http://www.stallard-engineering.co.u...getoolpost.htm
and this one has a cylindrical nut with lever .
--
Snag

On 2008-02-10, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
David Billington wrote:

[ ... ]

Sounds like you're not doing the nut down tight enough to hold the
Dickson toolpost in place or the base is not sitting on the compound but
maybe being held off it by something. I have never had an issue with my
Dickson toolpost moving even when the locating pin was not in use.

I did crank it down pretty hard, using a 15/16" box wrench a foot long.
Under ordinary cuts (with tool close to the axis for the threaded rod),
no problem. With the cutoff blade (with tool an inch farther from the
center), slow rotation. The mating surfaces on toolpost bottom and
cross-slide top are pretty smooth, and properly oily.

The bottom of my Dickson style is ground too smooth.

I assume that originally the toolpost came with a big cylindrical post
nut with a ball-headed arm, for rapid clamping and release, so one could
rotate any of the three holders into position.

Nope! You don't rotate the holder -- you set it up with one
side parallel to the face of the chuck, and the second parallel to the
axis. The third is towards the tailstock end of the lathe, and is used
when you need to work closely to a live center in the tailstock, or to
produce a step facing towards the headstock. I don't have that one, but
I would like to have it as part of the collection.

You select the angle by selecting the tool which you drop onto
the post. I keep (for my 12x24" Clausing) insert tools set for a square
face when turning and facing, plus a pair (one in turning position, the
other in facing position) with triangular inserts which present edges at
a 30 degree angle to the shank of the tool. These I use most often for
chamfering after turning and facing.

But the main reason for keeping the faces of the toolpost
parallel to the axis and face of the chuck is so that insert threading
tooling is presented at the proper angle to cut proper threads instead
of giving you buttress threads when you don't want them.

The only time you should have to unclamp the toolpost and change
its angle is when you loosen the compound and set it to a new angle, at
which point you should reset the toolpost so its faces are parallel to
the references surfaces again.

This is entirely unlike the usual operation with a lantern style
toolpost where you are constantly adjusting the tool angle.

And turret style toolposts often had a spring-loaded index pin
mating with a series of radial grooves on the bottom at 15 degree angles
so you could easily restore them to proper position when rotating to the
selected tool.

What I would suggest is that once you have your pin in service,
set the compound to the various common angles (29-1/2 degrees left and
right for normal threading, 60 degrees left and right for chamfering,
and perhaps 14 degrees left and right for acme threading) and drill
holes for the pin matching each of these, so you can more quickly set
the toolpost to the proper angle when changing the compound setting.

Having to really bear
down on the clamp arm would soon wear the operator out, not to mention
wear the threads out.

So I just drilled a hole to accept the pin.

I've never seen what this toolpost is supposed to look like, and to
include, and have been guessing. Can you suggest a URL that leads to a
good photo or two? Thanks.

Nope.

BTW I took a look at the underside of my EMCO (Dickson style) toolpost
today and find the taper was a lot smaller than I had
remembered. It looks something like this (set font selection to
a fixed-pitch font like Courier to avoid distortion of the
image):

+------------+ +-----------+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| __| |__ |
| / \ |
+--------+ +-------+

and the washer at the top has a step to drop into the bore size and keep
the screw (a big metric Allen screw) fairly centered.

Obviously, I've left out the details like the V-ways and the T-studs
operated by internal cams, as they are not necessary for what I was
showing.

I've got to bring that toolpost and the bevel protractor up here
where it is warm to try measuring the angle of the taper so i can
duplicate it.

Good Luck,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

In article ,
David Billington wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
David Billington wrote:


Joseph Gwinn wrote:

To counteract the slow rotation of the toolpost while doing cutoffs, a
machined a 1018 steel plate to go between the 5914 tool post slide (on
the cross slide) and the Dickson toolpost. The plate has a ridge on the
bottom, the ridge being a slip fit into the T-slot on the cross slide,
and two holes. One hole is clearance for the 5/18-18 rod that bolts the
toolpost to the cross slide, the other accepting the anti-rotation index
pin.

[snip]

I've never seen what this toolpost is supposed to look like, and to
include, and have been guessing. Can you suggest a URL that leads to a
good photo or two? Thanks.


Joe Gwinn

Some pics here in the Harrison section, maybe the best on this page
http://www.lathes.co.uk/harrison%2Dm/page7.html.

This seems to have a big acorn nut atop the threaded clamp rod.


My Dickson has a M12
threaded post IIRC and a 19mm hex nut on top which bears on a heavy
collar then onto the toolpost see on this page
http://www.metal-arts.co.uk/jacks/index.html, I think that is standard
for the machine.

And this one has a collar and big nut, which is what mine came with.

I think that the collar I have actually belongs between toolpost and
ridged plate, and that the top collar is missing. Although they could
be identical. The collar I have is beat up and may be slightly oversize
for the top position, and interferes with the wrench at some some holder
clamp positions. I just made a new bottom collar, the first part made
by me with that lathe. Perhaps the better location afforded by this
collar will resolve the interference problem. If not, I'll make a new
top collar, or a big acorn nut.

Thanks for the URLs.

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
Terry Coombs wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
David Billington wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
To counteract the slow rotation of the toolpost while doing cutoffs, a
machined a 1018 steel plate to go between the 5914 tool post slide (on
the cross slide) and the Dickson toolpost. The plate has a ridge on the
bottom, the ridge being a slip fit into the T-slot on the cross slide,
and two holes. One hole is clearance for the 5/18-18 rod that bolts the
toolpost to the cross slide, the other accepting the anti-rotation index
pin.

[snip]

I assume that originally the toolpost came with a big cylindrical post
nut with a ball-headed arm, for rapid clamping and release, so one could
rotate any of the three holders into position. Having to really bear
down on the clamp arm would soon wear the operator out, not to mention
wear the threads out.

So I just drilled a hole to accept the pin.

I've never seen what this toolpost is supposed to look like, and to
include, and have been guessing. Can you suggest a URL that leads to a
good photo or two? Thanks.


Joe Gwinn

http://www.homeandworkshop.co.uk/w003.jpg was the first link at google
images . This one looks like it has a hex nut on top ...

Yes. And no top collar. I wonder if the points of the hex interfere
with clamping the holders.

Thanks for the URL.

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
Terry Coombs wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
David Billington wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
To counteract the slow rotation of the toolpost while doing cutoffs, a
machined a 1018 steel plate to go between the 5914 tool post slide (on
the cross slide) and the Dickson toolpost. The plate has a ridge on the
bottom, the ridge being a slip fit into the T-slot on the cross slide,
and two holes. One hole is clearance for the 5/18-18 rod that bolts the
toolpost to the cross slide, the other accepting the anti-rotation index
pin.

[snip]

I assume that originally the toolpost came with a big cylindrical post
nut with a ball-headed arm, for rapid clamping and release, so one could
rotate any of the three holders into position. Having to really bear
down on the clamp arm would soon wear the operator out, not to mention
wear the threads out.

So I just drilled a hole to accept the pin.

I've never seen what this toolpost is supposed to look like, and to
include, and have been guessing. Can you suggest a URL that leads to a
good photo or two? Thanks.


Joe Gwinn

http://www.stallard-engineering.co.uk/Engineering/dicksonquickchangetoolpost.htm
and this one has a cylindrical nut with lever.

So I'm not nuts after all? Or, the lever nut is shopmade? It seems
oversized in proportion. I always wondered how one arranged it so that
the lever didn't get in the way, especially over time as things wear and
the angle at which clamping is achieved drifts.

Thanks for the URL.

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-10, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
David Billington wrote:

[ ... ]

Sounds like you're not doing the nut down tight enough to hold the
Dickson toolpost in place or the base is not sitting on the compound but
maybe being held off it by something. I have never had an issue with my
Dickson toolpost moving even when the locating pin was not in use.

I did crank it down pretty hard, using a 15/16" box wrench a foot long.
Under ordinary cuts (with tool close to the axis for the threaded rod),
no problem. With the cutoff blade (with tool an inch farther from the
center), slow rotation. The mating surfaces on toolpost bottom and
cross-slide top are pretty smooth, and properly oily.

The bottom of my Dickson style is ground too smooth.

Sounds the same as mine.


I assume that originally the toolpost came with a big cylindrical post
nut with a ball-headed arm, for rapid clamping and release, so one could
rotate any of the three holders into position.

Nope! You don't rotate the holder -- you set it up with one
side parallel to the face of the chuck, and the second parallel to the
axis. The third is towards the tailstock end of the lathe, and is used
when you need to work closely to a live center in the tailstock, or to
produce a step facing towards the headstock. I don't have that one, but
I would like to have it as part of the collection.

Is this approach universal? A toolpost maker will be trying to
accommdate all customers, even the misguided.


You select the angle by selecting the tool which you drop onto
the post. I keep (for my 12x24" Clausing) insert tools set for a square
face when turning and facing, plus a pair (one in turning position, the
other in facing position) with triangular inserts which present edges at
a 30 degree angle to the shank of the tool. These I use most often for
chamfering after turning and facing.

But the main reason for keeping the faces of the toolpost
parallel to the axis and face of the chuck is so that insert threading
tooling is presented at the proper angle to cut proper threads instead
of giving you buttress threads when you don't want them.

The only time you should have to unclamp the toolpost and change
its angle is when you loosen the compound and set it to a new angle, at
which point you should reset the toolpost so its faces are parallel to
the references surfaces again.

This is entirely unlike the usual operation with a lantern style
toolpost where you are constantly adjusting the tool angle.

And turret style toolposts often had a spring-loaded index pin
mating with a series of radial grooves on the bottom at 15 degree angles
so you could easily restore them to proper position when rotating to the
selected tool.

What I would suggest is that once you have your pin in service,
set the compound to the various common angles (29-1/2 degrees left and
right for normal threading, 60 degrees left and right for chamfering,
and perhaps 14 degrees left and right for acme threading) and drill
holes for the pin matching each of these, so you can more quickly set
the toolpost to the proper angle when changing the compound setting.

Sounds like a good idea, although the angles cannot be too close
together or the pin holes will overlap. The pin center is 1.000" from
the pivot axis, and the pin hole is 0.272" in diameter, which subtends
an angle of 15.22 degrees. So, 29.5 degrees ought to work.



BTW I took a look at the underside of my EMCO (Dickson style) toolpost
today and find the taper was a lot smaller than I had
remembered. It looks something like this (set font selection to
a fixed-pitch font like Courier to avoid distortion of the
image):

+------------+ +-----------+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| __| |__ |
| / \ |
+--------+ +-------+

and the washer at the top has a step to drop into the bore size and keep
the screw (a big metric Allen screw) fairly centered.

Obviously, I've left out the details like the V-ways and the T-studs
operated by internal cams, as they are not necessary for what I was
showing.

I've got to bring that toolpost and the bevel protractor up here
where it is warm to try measuring the angle of the taper so i can
duplicate it.

I'm not visualizing this above. Is the recess all taper, or is there a
cylindrical part?



On my toolpost, there is a similar recess on the bottom, centered on the
hole that accepts the 5/8-18 clamp rod. This recess is tapered, and
then cylindrical, and the cylindrical part accepts a 1.5" diameter
collar. The recess is not ground to precise shape. In any event, the
collar I just made will go between this recess and a similar one to be
machined into the ridged plate.

Joe Gwinn

On 2008-02-11, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[ ... ]

And this one has a collar and big nut, which is what mine came with.

I think that the collar I have actually belongs between toolpost and
ridged plate, and that the top collar is missing. Although they could
be identical. The collar I have is beat up and may be slightly oversize
for the top position, and interferes with the wrench at some some holder
clamp positions.

The shoulder washer for the top of mine has similar effects. I
think that it is intended to prevent the cam for the T-stud from
rotating too far in the open direction.

I just made a new bottom collar, the first part made
by me with that lathe. Perhaps the better location afforded by this
collar will resolve the interference problem. If not, I'll make a new
top collar, or a big acorn nut.

Good Luck,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 2008-02-11, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

[ ... ]

Nope! You don't rotate the holder -- you set it up with one
side parallel to the face of the chuck, and the second parallel to the
axis. The third is towards the tailstock end of the lathe, and is used
when you need to work closely to a live center in the tailstock, or to
produce a step facing towards the headstock. I don't have that one, but
I would like to have it as part of the collection.

Is this approach universal? A toolpost maker will be trying to
accommdate all customers, even the misguided.

It is the way the CNC pretty much must be, since you can't be
changing the toolpost angle in mid program without losing your zero
points. Of course, bevels and chamfers are cut under CNC control, not
by off-setting a (non-existent) compound. Actually, there is a plate
which takes position off the spindle face or some workpiece chucked in
the chuck to guide the orientation of the toolpost.

And when I use the tool turret on the Compact-5/CNC, the QC
toolpost and its plate are removed from the cross-slide, and the
motorized turret bolts in place of the combination.

It is also the way that I use my Phase-II Aloris BXA clone.
Whenever I shift the compound, I re-zero the toolpost to be parallel
with the spindle axis and the chuck face.

However, there is another interesting toolpost which has a
cylindrical OD which has a ground surface which looks like a bunch of
dowel pins merged together, and the tool holder has a mating set of
female cylindrical shapes. A pair of hooks grab the two sides and pull
the holder into firm contact with the post. IIRC, the virtual dowel
pins are such that you get 15 degree increments on position. So
obviously, this lets you set the angle of the tool without disturbing
the setting of the actual toolpost, so you can retain a zero set to be
parallel to the axis and/or the chuck faceplate.

But with the Aloris style toolpost, I like having a collection
of tools to cut the various angles while leaving the toolpost set
parallel.

It obviously cannot be *universal*, as you were preparing to
shift the toolpost to get angles, so many others probably do so as well.

But I like the reliability of getting an indexable insert tool
back to the same position each time, so I don't have to constantly
re-zero the dial on the cross-slide crank.

[ ... ]

The only time you should have to unclamp the toolpost and change
its angle is when you loosen the compound and set it to a new angle, at
which point you should reset the toolpost so its faces are parallel to
the references surfaces again.

This is entirely unlike the usual operation with a lantern style
toolpost where you are constantly adjusting the tool angle.

[ ... ]

What I would suggest is that once you have your pin in service,
set the compound to the various common angles (29-1/2 degrees left and
right for normal threading, 60 degrees left and right for chamfering,
and perhaps 14 degrees left and right for acme threading) and drill
holes for the pin matching each of these, so you can more quickly set
the toolpost to the proper angle when changing the compound setting.

Sounds like a good idea, although the angles cannot be too close
together or the pin holes will overlap. The pin center is 1.000" from
the pivot axis, and the pin hole is 0.272" in diameter, which subtends
an angle of 15.22 degrees. So, 29.5 degrees ought to work.

O.K. 0, +/- 29.5, +/- 60, and if the plate can be lifted a bit
and rotated 180 degrees to provide a new working area, a separate set for
the +/- 14 degrees for Acme threads should work.

No easy place to put such a pin through the Phase-II BXA sized
toolpost -- the coarse threaded drum which moves the wedges up and down
doesn't leave the clearance. But perhaps you could drill the corner
opposite the two dovetails on a piston style post -- I'm not sure how
large the cam cylinder is.

Of course, there could be a shallow hole for the pin in the
bottom of the post, but then the post would have to be lifted enough to
clear the pin when rotating it.

BTW I took a look at the underside of my EMCO (Dickson style) toolpost
today and find the taper was a lot smaller than I had
remembered. It looks something like this (set font selection to
a fixed-pitch font like Courier to avoid distortion of the
image):

+------------+ +-----------+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | -------- | ------ bore for hold-down rod
| | | |
| | | |
| __| |__ |
| / _ \ |
+--------+ |\ +-------+
\
----- ground and polished tapered hole.

and the washer at the top has a step to drop into the bore size and keep
the screw (a big metric Allen screw) fairly centered.

Obviously, I've left out the details like the V-ways and the T-studs
operated by internal cams, as they are not necessary for what I was
showing.

I've got to bring that toolpost and the bevel protractor up here
where it is warm to try measuring the angle of the taper so i can
duplicate it.

I'm not visualizing this above. Is the recess all taper, or is there a
cylindrical part?

O.K. The view is from the middle of the operator's chest. The
tapered hole is at the bottom, and the straight cylinder is going
through most of the rest of it. The V-ways are to the left and away
from your view on the other side.

There is no cylindrical part of the taper itself. There is a
slight bevel at the bottom. Then there is the much reduced bore for the
hold-down rod or screw.

On my toolpost, there is a similar recess on the bottom, centered on the
hole that accepts the 5/8-18 clamp rod. This recess is tapered, and
then cylindrical, and the cylindrical part accepts a 1.5" diameter
collar. The recess is not ground to precise shape. In any event, the
collar I just made will go between this recess and a similar one to be
machined into the ridged plate.

O.K.

BTW -- while I had the toolpost up here and warm enough to
handle, I took apart the cams and T-studs and cleaned and re-lubed them.
In the process, I looked it over thoroughly, and found no signs of any
hole for a pin.

I guess that I could put the thing to my Rockwell hardness
tester to see just how hardened it is, but I expect it to be pretty
hard. I also don't know whether it is a case hardening or full through.
It all depends on the metal, I guess.

FWIW -- the toolpost (for size comparison) is 40 mm (39.97mm)
high, and 57.21mm front to back and side to side. (Note that mine has
only left and boring ways, not the right hand set which you apparently
have.

The main bore is 17mm (16.95mm) diameter. The taper at the
bottom is 9.18mm deep to the step, 19.93mm wide at the full depth, and
20.12mm just a bit below the surface of the bottom (the bevel makes it
hard to get the true diameter at the bottom.

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 2008-02-11, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
Terry Coombs wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[ ... ]

I assume that originally the toolpost came with a big cylindrical post
nut with a ball-headed arm, for rapid clamping and release, so one could
rotate any of the three holders into position. Having to really bear
down on the clamp arm would soon wear the operator out, not to mention
wear the threads out.

So I just drilled a hole to accept the pin.

I've never seen what this toolpost is supposed to look like, and to
include, and have been guessing. Can you suggest a URL that leads to a
good photo or two? Thanks.

[ ... ]

http://www.stallard-engineering.co.uk/Engineering/dicksonquickchangetoolpost.htm
and this one has a cylindrical nut with lever.

So I'm not nuts after all? Or, the lever nut is shopmade? It seems
oversized in proportion. I always wondered how one arranged it so that
the lever didn't get in the way, especially over time as things wear and
the angle at which clamping is achieved drifts.

From the satin-chrome finish, that looks more like the original
clamping nut for a turret toolpost which was kept when the Dickson was
put onto the machine. probably the rod was kept too. Certainly the
finish does not match the rest of the toolpost.

And the orientation of the toolpost does not seem correct,
either. The third set of V-ways (actually the first by my mental image)
is facing 180 degrees away from the centerline of the spindle axis.
Note that if you rotate the compound to be parallel to the cross-slide,
you would have the orientation which I would use with a three-faced
toolpost.

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 ---

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-11, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[ ... ]

And this one has a collar and big nut, which is what mine came with.

I think that the collar I have actually belongs between toolpost and
ridged plate, and that the top collar is missing. Although they could
be identical. The collar I have is beat up and may be slightly oversize
for the top position, and interferes with the wrench at some some holder
clamp positions.

The shoulder washer for the top of mine has similar effects. I
think that it is intended to prevent the cam for the T-stud from
rotating too far in the open direction.

In mine, the T-stud cam hits the raised pedestal upon which the collar
rests. This pedestal is an integral part of the toolpost body.

I may make the top collar a bit smaller, to prevent interference with
wrenches.


I just made a new bottom collar, the first part made
by me with that lathe. Perhaps the better location afforded by this
collar will resolve the interference problem. If not, I'll make a new
top collar, or a big acorn nut.

Good Luck,

Thanks,

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-11, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
Terry Coombs wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[ ... ]

I assume that originally the toolpost came with a big cylindrical post
nut with a ball-headed arm, for rapid clamping and release, so one could
rotate any of the three holders into position. Having to really bear
down on the clamp arm would soon wear the operator out, not to mention
wear the threads out.

So I just drilled a hole to accept the pin.

I've never seen what this toolpost is supposed to look like, and to
include, and have been guessing. Can you suggest a URL that leads to a
good photo or two? Thanks.

[ ... ]

http://www.stallard-engineering.co.uk/Engineering/dicksonquickchangetoolpost.htm
and this one has a cylindrical nut with lever.

So I'm not nuts after all? Or, the lever nut is shopmade? It seems
oversized in proportion. I always wondered how one arranged it so that
the lever didn't get in the way, especially over time as things wear and
the angle at which clamping is achieved drifts.

From the satin-chrome finish, that looks more like the original
clamping nut for a turret toolpost which was kept when the Dickson was
put onto the machine. probably the rod was kept too. Certainly the
finish does not match the rest of the toolpost.

And the orientation of the toolpost does not seem correct,
either. The third set of V-ways (actually the first by my mental image)
is facing 180 degrees away from the centerline of the spindle axis.
Note that if you rotate the compound to be parallel to the cross-slide,
you would have the orientation which I would use with a three-faced
toolpost.

It didn't look quite right to me either. I think I'll stick to the
collar plus nut approach for now.

Joe Gwinn

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-11, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

[ ... ]

Nope! You don't rotate the holder -- you set it up with one
side parallel to the face of the chuck, and the second parallel to the
axis. The third is towards the tailstock end of the lathe, and is used
when you need to work closely to a live center in the tailstock, or to
produce a step facing towards the headstock. I don't have that one, but
I would like to have it as part of the collection.

Is this approach universal? A toolpost maker will be trying to
accommdate all customers, even the misguided.

It is the way the CNC pretty much must be, since you can't be
changing the toolpost angle in mid program without losing your zero
points. Of course, bevels and chamfers are cut under CNC control, not
by off-setting a (non-existent) compound. Actually, there is a plate
which takes position off the spindle face or some workpiece chucked in
the chuck to guide the orientation of the toolpost.

OK.


And when I use the tool turret on the Compact-5/CNC, the QC
toolpost and its plate are removed from the cross-slide, and the
motorized turret bolts in place of the combination.

Not an issue for me just yet, for lack of a turret.


It is also the way that I use my Phase-II Aloris BXA clone.
Whenever I shift the compound, I re-zero the toolpost to be parallel
with the spindle axis and the chuck face.

However, there is another interesting toolpost which has a
cylindrical OD which has a ground surface which looks like a bunch of
dowel pins merged together, and the tool holder has a mating set of
female cylindrical shapes. A pair of hooks grab the two sides and pull
the holder into firm contact with the post. IIRC, the virtual dowel
pins are such that you get 15 degree increments on position. So
obviously, this lets you set the angle of the tool without disturbing
the setting of the actual toolpost, so you can retain a zero set to be
parallel to the axis and/or the chuck faceplate.

Who makes (or made) this?


But with the Aloris style toolpost, I like having a collection
of tools to cut the various angles while leaving the toolpost set
parallel.

It obviously cannot be *universal*, as you were preparing to
shift the toolpost to get angles, so many others probably do so as well.

But I like the reliability of getting an indexable insert tool
back to the same position each time, so I don't have to constantly
re-zero the dial on the cross-slide crank.

[ ... ]

The only time you should have to unclamp the toolpost and change
its angle is when you loosen the compound and set it to a new angle, at
which point you should reset the toolpost so its faces are parallel to
the references surfaces again.

This is entirely unlike the usual operation with a lantern style
toolpost where you are constantly adjusting the tool angle.

I'm tempted to get an aloris 20-series tool holder, which accepts
triangle inserts, and can be adjusted to various angles.


What I would suggest is that once you have your pin in service,
set the compound to the various common angles (29-1/2 degrees left and
right for normal threading, 60 degrees left and right for chamfering,
and perhaps 14 degrees left and right for acme threading) and drill
holes for the pin matching each of these, so you can more quickly set
the toolpost to the proper angle when changing the compound setting.

Sounds like a good idea, although the angles cannot be too close
together or the pin holes will overlap. The pin center is 1.000" from
the pivot axis, and the pin hole is 0.272" in diameter, which subtends
an angle of 15.22 degrees. So, 29.5 degrees ought to work.

O.K. 0, +/- 29.5, +/- 60, and if the plate can be lifted a bit
and rotated 180 degrees to provide a new working area, a separate set for
the +/- 14 degrees for Acme threads should work.

The ridged plate can in fact be lifted and rotated by 180 degrees, so
this could work.


No easy place to put such a pin through the Phase-II BXA sized
toolpost -- the coarse threaded drum which moves the wedges up and down
doesn't leave the clearance. But perhaps you could drill the corner
opposite the two dovetails on a piston style post -- I'm not sure how
large the cam cylinder is.

I assume it's pretty large, and also that the body is hardened.


Of course, there could be a shallow hole for the pin in the
bottom of the post, but then the post would have to be lifted enough to
clear the pin when rotating it.

BTW I took a look at the underside of my EMCO (Dickson style) toolpost
today and find the taper was a lot smaller than I had
remembered. It looks something like this (set font selection to
a fixed-pitch font like Courier to avoid distortion of the
image):

+------------+ +-----------+
| | | |
| | | |
| | | -------- | ------ bore for hold-down rod
| | | |
| | | |
| __| |__ |
| / _ \ |
+--------+ |\ +-------+
\
----- ground and polished tapered hole.

and the washer at the top has a step to drop into the bore size and keep
the screw (a big metric Allen screw) fairly centered.

Obviously, I've left out the details like the V-ways and the T-studs
operated by internal cams, as they are not necessary for what I was
showing.

I've got to bring that toolpost and the bevel protractor up here
where it is warm to try measuring the angle of the taper so i can
duplicate it.

I'm not visualizing this above. Is the recess all taper, or is there a
cylindrical part?

O.K. The view is from the middle of the operator's chest. The
tapered hole is at the bottom, and the straight cylinder is going
through most of the rest of it. The V-ways are to the left and away
from your view on the other side.

There is no cylindrical part of the taper itself. There is a
slight bevel at the bottom. Then there is the much reduced bore for the
hold-down rod or screw.

My toolpost looks nothing like this.


On my toolpost, there is a similar recess on the bottom, centered on the
hole that accepts the 5/8-18 clamp rod. This recess is tapered, and
then cylindrical, and the cylindrical part accepts a 1.25" diameter
collar. The recess is not ground to precise shape. In any event, the
collar I just made will go between this recess and a similar one to be
machined into the ridged plate.

O.K.

BTW -- while I had the toolpost up here and warm enough to
handle, I took apart the cams and T-studs and cleaned and re-lubed them.
In the process, I looked it over thoroughly, and found no signs of any
hole for a pin.

I guess that I could put the thing to my Rockwell hardness
tester to see just how hardened it is, but I expect it to be pretty
hard. I also don't know whether it is a case hardening or full through.
It all depends on the metal, I guess.

FWIW -- the toolpost (for size comparison) is 40 mm (39.97mm)
high, and 57.21mm front to back and side to side. (Note that mine has
only left and boring ways, not the right hand set which you apparently
have.

On mine, the height is 44.8mm and the lateral dimensions are 70.16mm by
70.31mm, measured across the crests of the ways upon which the
toolholders rest.


The main bore is 17mm (16.95mm) diameter. The taper at the
bottom is 9.18mm deep to the step, 19.93mm wide at the full depth, and
20.12mm just a bit below the surface of the bottom (the bevel makes it
hard to get the true diameter at the bottom.

The "5/8-18" bore diameter is 18.06mm, and the anti-rotation pin bore
diameter is 7.06mm.

And the recess into which the collar will fit is 32.06 mm in diameter.

Joe Gwinn

On 2008-02-13, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-11, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[ ... ]

And this one has a collar and big nut, which is what mine came with.

I think that the collar I have actually belongs between toolpost and
ridged plate, and that the top collar is missing. Although they could
be identical. The collar I have is beat up and may be slightly oversize
for the top position, and interferes with the wrench at some some holder
clamp positions.

The shoulder washer for the top of mine has similar effects. I
think that it is intended to prevent the cam for the T-stud from
rotating too far in the open direction.

In mine, the T-stud cam hits the raised pedestal upon which the collar
rests. This pedestal is an integral part of the toolpost body.

In which case, it is an intentional interference to prevent
rotating the cam too far and perhaps making it more difficult to slide
the tool holder into place.

I may make the top collar a bit smaller, to prevent interference with
wrenches.

With the wrenches, or with the locking flanges on the cam shaft?

Note that this is one of the advantages to the Aloris style
toolposts. You don't have a detachable (and losable) wrench, but
rather a rotating collar around the raised part which the nut tightens
onto to lock the toolpost into place. (Of course, if you have a hinged
shield to keep the chips out of the operator's eyes, as on the
Compact-5/CNC, the removable wrench means that the shield does not need
to be as large.)

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 2008-02-13, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-11, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

[ ... fixed orientation of quick-change toolpost ... ]

Is this approach universal? A toolpost maker will be trying to
accommdate all customers, even the misguided.

It is the way the CNC pretty much must be, since you can't be
changing the toolpost angle in mid program without losing your zero
points. Of course, bevels and chamfers are cut under CNC control, not
by off-setting a (non-existent) compound. Actually, there is a plate
which takes position off the spindle face or some workpiece chucked in
the chuck to guide the orientation of the toolpost.

OK.


And when I use the tool turret on the Compact-5/CNC, the QC
toolpost and its plate are removed from the cross-slide, and the
motorized turret bolts in place of the combination.

Not an issue for me just yet, for lack of a turret.

You would not find a turret like this anyway. This is a
CNC-controlled one which lives on the cross-slide of the Compact-5/CNC,
not like the bed turret which I have on the Clausing.

The CNC turret rotates around an axis parallel to the spindle
axis, but offset towards the operator. It provides three slots for
radial mounted tools with short shanks of 1/2" or a near metric size,
and three holes for cylindrical shank tools parallel to the axis of the
spindle -- things like center drills, drill bits, boring bars, and
reamers. Tap holders might be an option if the spindle were reversible. :-)
It is too small to accept even the smallest Geometric die head that I
have, however. (The 5/16" die head.)


It is also the way that I use my Phase-II Aloris BXA clone.
Whenever I shift the compound, I re-zero the toolpost to be parallel
with the spindle axis and the chuck face.

However, there is another interesting toolpost which has a
cylindrical OD which has a ground surface which looks like a bunch of
dowel pins merged together, and the tool holder has a mating set of
female cylindrical shapes. A pair of hooks grab the two sides and pull
the holder into firm contact with the post. IIRC, the virtual dowel
pins are such that you get 15 degree increments on position. So
obviously, this lets you set the angle of the tool without disturbing
the setting of the actual toolpost, so you can retain a zero set to be
parallel to the axis and/or the chuck faceplate.

Who makes (or made) this?

If I could remember the name, I would have posted it. It used
to be advertised in the ancient Emco catalogs (1970s or so), but I have
not seen it in a recent catalog, though people in this newsgroup have
posted that they have and love them.

[ ... ]

The only time you should have to unclamp the toolpost and change
its angle is when you loosen the compound and set it to a new angle, at
which point you should reset the toolpost so its faces are parallel to
the references surfaces again.

This is entirely unlike the usual operation with a lantern style
toolpost where you are constantly adjusting the tool angle.

I'm tempted to get an aloris 20-series tool holder, which accepts
triangle inserts, and can be adjusted to various angles.

That might do. I like the BXA-16N which holds two triangular
negative rake inserts on opposite ends. One is for turning, the other
for facing, just by switching to the other dovetail on the toolpost.
But I need to use the standard holders with the shanked tools for the
two angled edges for beveling or chamfering.

[ ... ]

Sounds like a good idea, although the angles cannot be too close
together or the pin holes will overlap. The pin center is 1.000" from
the pivot axis, and the pin hole is 0.272" in diameter, which subtends
an angle of 15.22 degrees. So, 29.5 degrees ought to work.

O.K. 0, +/- 29.5, +/- 60, and if the plate can be lifted a bit
and rotated 180 degrees to provide a new working area, a separate set for
the +/- 14 degrees for Acme threads should work.

The ridged plate can in fact be lifted and rotated by 180 degrees, so
this could work.

Good enough.

No easy place to put such a pin through the Phase-II BXA sized
toolpost -- the coarse threaded drum which moves the wedges up and down
doesn't leave the clearance. But perhaps you could drill the corner
opposite the two dovetails on a piston style post -- I'm not sure how
large the cam cylinder is.

I assume it's pretty large, and also that the body is hardened.

I assume so too.

[ ... ]

I'm not visualizing this above. Is the recess all taper, or is there a
cylindrical part?

O.K. The view is from the middle of the operator's chest. The
tapered hole is at the bottom, and the straight cylinder is going
through most of the rest of it. The V-ways are to the left and away
from your view on the other side.

There is no cylindrical part of the taper itself. There is a
slight bevel at the bottom. Then there is the much reduced bore for the
hold-down rod or screw.

My toolpost looks nothing like this.

O.K.

[ ... ]

BTW -- while I had the toolpost up here and warm enough to
handle, I took apart the cams and T-studs and cleaned and re-lubed them.
In the process, I looked it over thoroughly, and found no signs of any
hole for a pin.

I guess that I could put the thing to my Rockwell hardness
tester to see just how hardened it is, but I expect it to be pretty
hard. I also don't know whether it is a case hardening or full through.
It all depends on the metal, I guess.

FWIW -- the toolpost (for size comparison) is 40 mm (39.97mm)
high, and 57.21mm front to back and side to side. (Note that mine has
only left and boring ways, not the right hand set which you apparently
have.

On mine, the height is 44.8mm and the lateral dimensions are 70.16mm by
70.31mm, measured across the crests of the ways upon which the
toolholders rest.

But yours is expected to be larger, since it is used for a
larger machine -- your lathe is a 12" swing like my Clausing, while the
Dickson style toolpost is on a 5" swing lathe which I could lift with
one hand if it were not for the back panel full of electronics and
transformers. :-)


The main bore is 17mm (16.95mm) diameter. The taper at the
bottom is 9.18mm deep to the step, 19.93mm wide at the full depth, and
20.12mm just a bit below the surface of the bottom (the bevel makes it
hard to get the true diameter at the bottom.

The "5/8-18" bore diameter is 18.06mm, and the anti-rotation pin bore
diameter is 7.06mm.

And the recess into which the collar will fit is 32.06 mm in diameter.

O.K. Hmm ... what would you get if you raised the bottom of the
toolpost and had the bottom contact be at the dend of the recess? It
would probably be harder to keep it from turning under cutting forces.

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 ---

DoN. Nichols wrote:
On 2008-02-11, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

In article ,
Terry Coombs wrote:


Joseph Gwinn wrote:


[ ... ]


I assume that originally the toolpost came with a big cylindrical post
nut with a ball-headed arm, for rapid clamping and release, so one could
rotate any of the three holders into position. Having to really bear
down on the clamp arm would soon wear the operator out, not to mention
wear the threads out.

So I just drilled a hole to accept the pin.

I've never seen what this toolpost is supposed to look like, and to
include, and have been guessing. Can you suggest a URL that leads to a
good photo or two? Thanks.


[ ... ]


http://www.stallard-engineering.co.uk/Engineering/dicksonquickchangetoolpost.htm
and this one has a cylindrical nut with lever.

So I'm not nuts after all? Or, the lever nut is shopmade? It seems
oversized in proportion. I always wondered how one arranged it so that
the lever didn't get in the way, especially over time as things wear and
the angle at which clamping is achieved drifts.


From the satin-chrome finish, that looks more like the original
clamping nut for a turret toolpost which was kept when the Dickson was
put onto the machine. probably the rod was kept too. Certainly the
finish does not match the rest of the toolpost.

And the orientation of the toolpost does not seem correct,
either. The third set of V-ways (actually the first by my mental image)
is facing 180 degrees away from the centerline of the spindle axis.
Note that if you rotate the compound to be parallel to the cross-slide,
you would have the orientation which I would use with a three-faced
toolpost.

Sort of depends what the lathe was being used for. I use my Dickson post
in that orientation sometimes when turning large items and I need to get
the tool out as far as possible. Although the lathe is 13" it has a gap
bed and can swing 18" in the gap.

Enjoy,
DoN.

DoN. Nichols wrote:

If I could remember the name, I would have posted it. It used
to be advertised in the ancient Emco catalogs (1970s or so), but I have
not seen it in a recent catalog, though people in this newsgroup have
posted that they have and love them.

You thinking of the MultiFix tool posts?

$$$$ but Niiiiiccceeee!

Cheers
Trevor Jones

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-13, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-11, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[ ... ]

And this one has a collar and big nut, which is what mine came with.

I think that the collar I have actually belongs between toolpost and
ridged plate, and that the top collar is missing. Although they could
be identical. The collar I have is beat up and may be slightly oversize
for the top position, and interferes with the wrench at some some holder
clamp positions.

The shoulder washer for the top of mine has similar effects. I
think that it is intended to prevent the cam for the T-stud from
rotating too far in the open direction.

In mine, the T-stud cam hits the raised pedestal upon which the collar
rests. This pedestal is an integral part of the toolpost body.

In which case, it is an intentional interference to prevent
rotating the cam too far and perhaps making it more difficult to slide
the tool holder into place.

I don't think the collar is used for this, as the raised pedestal
already prevents over-rotation.


I may make the top collar a bit smaller, to prevent interference with
wrenches.

With the wrenches, or with the locking flanges on the cam shaft?

The wrench only. The wrench is L-shaped, and has a fully formed hex
socket at one end.


Note that this is one of the advantages to the Aloris style
toolposts. You don't have a detachable (and losable) wrench, but
rather a rotating collar around the raised part which the nut tightens
onto to lock the toolpost into place. (Of course, if you have a hinged
shield to keep the chips out of the operator's eyes, as on the
Compact-5/CNC, the removable wrench means that the shield does not need
to be as large.)

The Clausing does not have such a shield. But I may add one.

Joe Gwinn
DoN.

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-13, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-11, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

[ ... fixed orientation of quick-change toolpost ... ]

Is this approach universal? A toolpost maker will be trying to
accommdate all customers, even the misguided.

It is the way the CNC pretty much must be, since you can't be
changing the toolpost angle in mid program without losing your zero
points. Of course, bevels and chamfers are cut under CNC control, not
by off-setting a (non-existent) compound. Actually, there is a plate
which takes position off the spindle face or some workpiece chucked in
the chuck to guide the orientation of the toolpost.

OK.


And when I use the tool turret on the Compact-5/CNC, the QC
toolpost and its plate are removed from the cross-slide, and the
motorized turret bolts in place of the combination.

Not an issue for me just yet, for lack of a turret.

You would not find a turret like this anyway. This is a
CNC-controlled one which lives on the cross-slide of the Compact-5/CNC,
not like the bed turret which I have on the Clausing.

The CNC turret rotates around an axis parallel to the spindle
axis, but offset towards the operator. It provides three slots for
radial mounted tools with short shanks of 1/2" or a near metric size,
and three holes for cylindrical shank tools parallel to the axis of the
spindle -- things like center drills, drill bits, boring bars, and
reamers. Tap holders might be an option if the spindle were reversible. :-)
It is too small to accept even the smallest Geometric die head that I
have, however. (The 5/16" die head.)

Someday, when I have a bigger basement.


It is also the way that I use my Phase-II Aloris BXA clone.
Whenever I shift the compound, I re-zero the toolpost to be parallel
with the spindle axis and the chuck face.

However, there is another interesting toolpost which has a
cylindrical OD which has a ground surface which looks like a bunch of
dowel pins merged together, and the tool holder has a mating set of
female cylindrical shapes. A pair of hooks grab the two sides and pull
the holder into firm contact with the post. IIRC, the virtual dowel
pins are such that you get 15 degree increments on position. So
obviously, this lets you set the angle of the tool without disturbing
the setting of the actual toolpost, so you can retain a zero set to be
parallel to the axis and/or the chuck faceplate.

Who makes (or made) this?

If I could remember the name, I would have posted it. It used
to be advertised in the ancient Emco catalogs (1970s or so), but I have
not seen it in a recent catalog, though people in this newsgroup have
posted that they have and love them.

MultiFix was suggested by Trevor Jones, and certainly matches your
description.


The only time you should have to unclamp the toolpost and change
its angle is when you loosen the compound and set it to a new angle, at
which point you should reset the toolpost so its faces are parallel to
the references surfaces again.

This is entirely unlike the usual operation with a lantern style
toolpost where you are constantly adjusting the tool angle.

I'm tempted to get an aloris 20-series tool holder, which accepts
triangle inserts, and can be adjusted to various angles.

That might do. I like the BXA-16N which holds two triangular
negative rake inserts on opposite ends. One is for turning, the other
for facing, just by switching to the other dovetail on the toolpost.
But I need to use the standard holders with the shanked tools for the
two angled edges for beveling or chamfering.

Is the Clausing heavy enough for negative rake tools to be worthwhile?



[ ... ]

BTW -- while I had the toolpost up here and warm enough to
handle, I took apart the cams and T-studs and cleaned and re-lubed them.
In the process, I looked it over thoroughly, and found no signs of any
hole for a pin.

I guess that I could put the thing to my Rockwell hardness
tester to see just how hardened it is, but I expect it to be pretty
hard. I also don't know whether it is a case hardening or full through.
It all depends on the metal, I guess.

FWIW -- the toolpost (for size comparison) is 40 mm (39.97mm)
high, and 57.21mm front to back and side to side. (Note that mine has
only left and boring ways, not the right hand set which you apparently
have.

On mine, the height is 44.8mm and the lateral dimensions are 70.16mm by
70.31mm, measured across the crests of the ways upon which the
toolholders rest.

But yours is expected to be larger, since it is used for a
larger machine -- your lathe is a 12" swing like my Clausing, while the
Dickson style toolpost is on a 5" swing lathe which I could lift with
one hand if it were not for the back panel full of electronics and
transformers. :-)

OK.


The main bore is 17mm (16.95mm) diameter. The taper at the
bottom is 9.18mm deep to the step, 19.93mm wide at the full depth, and
20.12mm just a bit below the surface of the bottom (the bevel makes it
hard to get the true diameter at the bottom.

The "5/8-18" bore diameter is 18.06mm, and the anti-rotation pin bore
diameter is 7.06mm.

And the recess into which the collar will fit is 32.06 mm in diameter.

O.K. Hmm ... what would you get if you raised the bottom of the
toolpost and had the bottom contact be at the dend of the recess? It
would probably be harder to keep it from turning under cutting forces.

I would assume so. Nor is the recess ground smooth, unlike the bottom
of the toolpost, so resting the collar on the recess would lead to
angular uncertainty both under cutting forces and whenever the toolpost
was unclamped and reclamped. I think the toolpost bottom needs to be
firmly clamped against a machined metal surface.


Joe Gwinn

On 2008-02-13, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-13, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[ ... ]

In mine, the T-stud cam hits the raised pedestal upon which the collar
rests. This pedestal is an integral part of the toolpost body.

In which case, it is an intentional interference to prevent
rotating the cam too far and perhaps making it more difficult to slide
the tool holder into place.

I don't think the collar is used for this, as the raised pedestal
already prevents over-rotation.

O.K. I was getting confused as to which was which in your
toolpost.

I may make the top collar a bit smaller, to prevent interference with
wrenches.

With the wrenches, or with the locking flanges on the cam shaft?

The wrench only. The wrench is L-shaped, and has a fully formed hex
socket at one end.

With a bend of about 45 degrees so it clears the nut, or does
yours have a full right-angle bend? Mine is about 45 degrees.


Note that this is one of the advantages to the Aloris style
toolposts. You don't have a detachable (and losable) wrench, but
rather a rotating collar around the raised part which the nut tightens
onto to lock the toolpost into place. (Of course, if you have a hinged
shield to keep the chips out of the operator's eyes, as on the
Compact-5/CNC, the removable wrench means that the shield does not need
to be as large.)

The Clausing does not have such a shield. But I may add one.

More common on a CNC machine, where you push a button and stand
back until the job is done. Normally the tool changing is handled by
the electric turret, but you can run programs with the QC toolpost and
have to change tools in mid-program. The spindle can be (and should be)
programmed to stop while you do this.

A manual machine, like our Clausings, needs more frequent
access. Though there are often guards which curve over the chuck --
nice to keep a well-lubed chuck from painting a vertical oil stripe on
your shirt. :-)

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 2008-02-13, Trevor Jones wrote:
DoN. Nichols wrote:

If I could remember the name, I would have posted it. It used
to be advertised in the ancient Emco catalogs (1970s or so), but I have
not seen it in a recent catalog, though people in this newsgroup have
posted that they have and love them.

You thinking of the MultiFix tool posts?

Yes -- that is it. The name allowed me to find an image of it:

http://www.anglo-swiss-tools.co.uk/tool-posts.html

$$$$ but Niiiiiccceeee!

That first part is why I don't have one. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

--
Email: | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---

On 2008-02-13, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-13, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

[ ... ]

And when I use the tool turret on the Compact-5/CNC, the QC
toolpost and its plate are removed from the cross-slide, and the
motorized turret bolts in place of the combination.

Not an issue for me just yet, for lack of a turret.

You would not find a turret like this anyway. This is a
CNC-controlled one which lives on the cross-slide of the Compact-5/CNC,
not like the bed turret which I have on the Clausing.

The CNC turret rotates around an axis parallel to the spindle
axis, but offset towards the operator. It provides three slots for
radial mounted tools with short shanks of 1/2" or a near metric size,
and three holes for cylindrical shank tools parallel to the axis of the
spindle -- things like center drills, drill bits, boring bars, and
reamers. Tap holders might be an option if the spindle were reversible. :-)
It is too small to accept even the smallest Geometric die head that I
have, however. (The 5/16" die head.)

Someday, when I have a bigger basement.

If you want a CNC controlled turret, you also will need a
different lathe, with all handwheels replaced by stepper or servo
motors. :-)

As for the bed turret (it ignores the cross-slide and mounts
directly onto the bed ways), you will want an extra two feet beyond the
tailstock end of the lathe where you can build a table at just the right
height to slide the turret off the ways and onto the table or vice
versa. I have made such a table, with Plexiglass as a top surface to
provide low-friction sliding for the bed turret. while the tailstock is
fairly easy to lift, the bed turret is difficult enough empty, and if
you load all six stations with tooling *I* can't lift it higher than it
already is. Since I usually use it for the same project, I leave it set
up with the tooling and with all stops pre-set.

It would be even nicer if I had another lathe bed section onto
which to slide it -- then I would not have to worry about it being
knocked off and damaged. Just give a couple of inches of gap between
the ends of the real bed and the dummy one, and enough length to support
the whole of the turret.

[ ... ]

Who makes (or made) this?

If I could remember the name, I would have posted it. It used
to be advertised in the ancient Emco catalogs (1970s or so), but I have
not seen it in a recent catalog, though people in this newsgroup have
posted that they have and love them.

MultiFix was suggested by Trevor Jones, and certainly matches your
description.

And a Google search using that name led me to an image which
shows that it was what I was describing. I didn't find any prices on
the sites I visited, but I could not afford it when I first saw it in
the Emco catalog in the early to mid 1970s. :-)

And his joining in has shown that we have not put *everyone*
else in the newsgroup to sleep with our thread. :-)

[ ... ]

I'm tempted to get an aloris 20-series tool holder, which accepts
triangle inserts, and can be adjusted to various angles.

That might do. I like the BXA-16N which holds two triangular
negative rake inserts on opposite ends. One is for turning, the other
for facing, just by switching to the other dovetail on the toolpost.
But I need to use the standard holders with the shanked tools for the
two angled edges for beveling or chamfering.

Is the Clausing heavy enough for negative rake tools to be worthwhile?

I honestly don't know. I always use inserts with the grooves to
make it effectively a positive rake tool, even with the negative rake
holder. (The advantage is that the rake provides relief with inserts
with a 90-degree angle between the surface and the edge, so you can use
double-sided inserts.

Some of these days I'll try it with a true negative rake insert.
I only have a 1-1/2 HP motor, but that should be equivalent to your 2HP
one since I don't have to drive the vari-speed pulley, which eats
horsepower. :-)

[ ... ]

The main bore is 17mm (16.95mm) diameter. The taper at the
bottom is 9.18mm deep to the step, 19.93mm wide at the full depth, and
20.12mm just a bit below the surface of the bottom (the bevel makes it
hard to get the true diameter at the bottom.

The "5/8-18" bore diameter is 18.06mm, and the anti-rotation pin bore
diameter is 7.06mm.

And the recess into which the collar will fit is 32.06 mm in diameter.

O.K. Hmm ... what would you get if you raised the bottom of the
toolpost and had the bottom contact be at the end of the recess? It
would probably be harder to keep it from turning under cutting forces.

I would assume so. Nor is the recess ground smooth, unlike the bottom
of the toolpost, so resting the collar on the recess would lead to
angular uncertainty both under cutting forces and whenever the toolpost
was unclamped and reclamped. I think the toolpost bottom needs to be
firmly clamped against a machined metal surface.

O.K. A turned shoulder would not work in the collar? Is the
shoulder at the end of the recess not smooth enough?

BTW I have some cardboard firmly laminated to the plate on the
cross-slide on the Compact-5/CNC -- clamped down firmly by the
toolpost while soaked with oil. It stayed firmly on the plate
when I removed the toolpost, so I don't even have to replace it.

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 ---

DoN. Nichols wrote:

On 2008-02-13, Trevor Jones wrote:

DoN. Nichols wrote:


If I could remember the name, I would have posted it. It used
to be advertised in the ancient Emco catalogs (1970s or so), but I have
not seen it in a recent catalog, though people in this newsgroup have
posted that they have and love them.

You thinking of the MultiFix tool posts?


Yes -- that is it. The name allowed me to find an image of it:

http://www.anglo-swiss-tools.co.uk/tool-posts.html

$$$$ but Niiiiiccceeee!


That first part is why I don't have one. :-)

Enjoy,
DoN.

I was present in a shop when two, much larger than would ever fit on a
lathe I would have at home, the posts themselves being a decent 30 or so
pounds each, were being offered up for the taking. A large box of tool
holders was present and offered as well.

But for that I was travelling by air, I would have made them part of
my luggage... sigh

Some deals are too good to take....

Cheers
Trevor Jones

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:48:19 GMT, Trevor Jones
wrote:



I was present in a shop when two, much larger than would ever fit on a
lathe I would have at home, the posts themselves being a decent 30 or so
pounds each, were being offered up for the taking. A large box of tool
holders was present and offered as well.

But for that I was travelling by air, I would have made them part of
my luggage... sigh

Some deals are too good to take....
On one site visit, I scrounged a 1 x 4 x 12" lump of steel. When I
checked in for the flight home, they wouldn't accept it as cabin
baggage and put it in a rather large (suitcase size) cardboard box.
Upon arrival at my destination, on the off chance that it just might
show up, I went to baggage claim and, sure enough, there was my box,
complete with contents on the carousel.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

Gerald Miller wrote:
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 04:48:19 GMT, Trevor Jones
wrote:



I was present in a shop when two, much larger than would ever fit on a
lathe I would have at home, the posts themselves being a decent 30 or so
pounds each, were being offered up for the taking. A large box of tool
holders was present and offered as well.

But for that I was travelling by air, I would have made them part of
my luggage... sigh

Some deals are too good to take....

On one site visit, I scrounged a 1 x 4 x 12" lump of steel. When I
checked in for the flight home, they wouldn't accept it as cabin
baggage and put it in a rather large (suitcase size) cardboard box.
Upon arrival at my destination, on the off chance that it just might
show up, I went to baggage claim and, sure enough, there was my box,
complete with contents on the carousel.
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada
The good part of stories like this is when you explain that you still
have it, 25 years later, because you never did buy the power
hacksaw/bandsaw/torch set that was needed to cut it into useable bits. :-)

BTDT

I feel old, saying this, but I pass on some deals, because I cannot
see myself getting use of the stuff... shudder That hurts!.

:-)

Cheers
Trevor Jones

Trevor Jones wrote:

The good part of stories like this is when you explain that you still
have it, 25 years later, because you never did buy the power
hacksaw/bandsaw/torch set that was needed to cut it into useable bits. :-)

BTDT

I feel old, saying this, but I pass on some deals, because I cannot
see myself getting use of the stuff... shudder That hurts!.


Like the lathe that's sitting behind a friend's business. Not only is
it three phase, but it's bigger than my shop.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-13, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-13, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

[ ... ]

And when I use the tool turret on the Compact-5/CNC, the QC
toolpost and its plate are removed from the cross-slide, and the
motorized turret bolts in place of the combination.

Not an issue for me just yet, for lack of a turret.

You would not find a turret like this anyway. This is a
CNC-controlled one which lives on the cross-slide of the Compact-5/CNC,
not like the bed turret which I have on the Clausing.

The CNC turret rotates around an axis parallel to the spindle
axis, but offset towards the operator. It provides three slots for
radial mounted tools with short shanks of 1/2" or a near metric size,
and three holes for cylindrical shank tools parallel to the axis of the
spindle -- things like center drills, drill bits, boring bars, and
reamers. Tap holders might be an option if the spindle were reversible.
:-)
It is too small to accept even the smallest Geometric die head that I
have, however. (The 5/16" die head.)

Someday, when I have a bigger basement.

If you want a CNC controlled turret, you also will need a
different lathe, with all handwheels replaced by stepper or servo
motors. :-)

And an even bigger basement. Actually, I could make use of a horizontal
mill. But won't get it. No space.

But there was a turret for the Clausing 5900-series lathes.

But the taper attachment sounds more useful. One thing that did not
come with the 5914 was the headstock spindle sleeve, which allows MT3
dead centers to fit in the MT 4.5 female taper in the headstock spindle.

I'm also missing the slotted faceplate. Got the 3-jaw, 4-jaw, and
dog-driver chucks.


As for the bed turret (it ignores the cross-slide and mounts
directly onto the bed ways), you will want an extra two feet beyond the
tailstock end of the lathe where you can build a table at just the right
height to slide the turret off the ways and onto the table or vice
versa. I have made such a table, with Plexiglass as a top surface to
provide low-friction sliding for the bed turret. while the tailstock is
fairly easy to lift, the bed turret is difficult enough empty, and if
you load all six stations with tooling *I* can't lift it higher than it
already is. Since I usually use it for the same project, I leave it set
up with the tooling and with all stops pre-set.

It would be even nicer if I had another lathe bed section onto
which to slide it -- then I would not have to worry about it being
knocked off and damaged. Just give a couple of inches of gap between
the ends of the real bed and the dummy one, and enough length to support
the whole of the turret.

Wouldn't a bridge crane be more useful?


Who makes (or made) this?

If I could remember the name, I would have posted it. It used
to be advertised in the ancient Emco catalogs (1970s or so), but I have
not seen it in a recent catalog, though people in this newsgroup have
posted that they have and love them.

MultiFix was suggested by Trevor Jones, and certainly matches your
description.

And a Google search using that name led me to an image which
shows that it was what I was describing. I didn't find any prices on
the sites I visited, but I could not afford it when I first saw it in
the Emco catalog in the early to mid 1970s. :-)

And his joining in has shown that we have not put *everyone*
else in the newsgroup to sleep with our thread. :-)

Hmm. Don't forget David Billingham and Nick Mueller. Our fan club?


I'm tempted to get an aloris 20-series tool holder, which accepts
triangle inserts, and can be adjusted to various angles.

That might do. I like the BXA-16N which holds two triangular
negative rake inserts on opposite ends. One is for turning, the other
for facing, just by switching to the other dovetail on the toolpost.
But I need to use the standard holders with the shanked tools for the
two angled edges for beveling or chamfering.

Is the Clausing heavy enough for negative rake tools to be worthwhile?

I honestly don't know. I always use inserts with the grooves to
make it effectively a positive rake tool, even with the negative rake
holder. (The advantage is that the rake provides relief with inserts
with a 90-degree angle between the surface and the edge, so you can use
double-sided inserts.

Some of these days I'll try it with a true negative rake insert.
I only have a 1-1/2 HP motor, but that should be equivalent to your 2HP
one since I don't have to drive the vari-speed pulley, which eats
horsepower. :-)

It's something to try. I'm thinking that I should use inserts for
roughing and HSS for finishing (where needed) and one-off grooving jobs.

Ahh ... well ... I don't think that the Reeves drive is _that_
inefficient.


The main bore is 17mm (16.95mm) diameter. The taper at the
bottom is 9.18mm deep to the step, 19.93mm wide at the full depth, and
20.12mm just a bit below the surface of the bottom (the bevel makes it
hard to get the true diameter at the bottom.

The "5/8-18" bore diameter is 18.06mm, and the anti-rotation pin bore
diameter is 7.06mm.

And the recess into which the collar will fit is 32.06 mm in diameter.

O.K. Hmm ... what would you get if you raised the bottom of the
toolpost and had the bottom contact be at the end of the recess? It
would probably be harder to keep it from turning under cutting forces.

I would assume so. Nor is the recess ground smooth, unlike the bottom
of the toolpost, so resting the collar on the recess would lead to
angular uncertainty both under cutting forces and whenever the toolpost
was unclamped and reclamped. I think the toolpost bottom needs to be
firmly clamped against a machined metal surface.

O.K. A turned shoulder would not work in the collar? Is the
shoulder at the end of the recess not smooth enough?

The problem is not so much with the smoothness of the bottom of the
turned recess as with its small diameter. The toolpost bottom is about
70x70mm, and ground smooth, versus 32mm diameter, and as-machined before
heat treatment. The black oxide has been ground off the bottom, but not
the recess. The clear design intent is that the ground bottom be the
reference surface.


BTW I have some cardboard firmly laminated to the plate on the
cross-slide on the Compact-5/CNC -- clamped down firmly by the
toolpost while soaked with oil. It stayed firmly on the plate
when I removed the toolpost, so I don't even have to replace it.

That would work, but the pin also works.

Joe Gwinn

On 2008-02-21, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-13, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[ ... ]

Someday, when I have a bigger basement.

If you want a CNC controlled turret, you also will need a
different lathe, with all handwheels replaced by stepper or servo
motors. :-)

And an even bigger basement. Actually, I could make use of a horizontal
mill. But won't get it. No space.

Actually -- there are small horizontal mills which you might get
into there -- but they are still heavy. An example is the Nichols
horizontal mill (which I have) which weighs in at about 1100 pounds.
Takes up about as much space as two floor-mount drill presses.

But there was a turret for the Clausing 5900-series lathes.

Yes -- probably the same as for the 5400-series which I have. I
think that I posted a URL for the manual for that -- and it is a
different model number than mine, but still what Clausing sent me for
free saying that it is the same as what I have -- so the alternate part
number may be right for your lathe.

But the taper attachment sounds more useful.

There are two styles. The one I have, and the telescoping one4
which does not require unclamping and reclamping lots of things to
switch over -- but introduces a little more slop through all the
linkages.

One thing that did not
come with the 5914 was the headstock spindle sleeve, which allows MT3
dead centers to fit in the MT 4.5 female taper in the headstock spindle.

I did not get one either -- but I made one.

I'm also missing the slotted faceplate. Got the 3-jaw, 4-jaw, and
dog-driver chucks.

I got the slotted faceplate at a swap-meet/picnic held by the
local metalworking club for a quite reasonable price. I have two of the
dog drivers, one with a chip out of the outer edge, but I am going to
mill that open wider to handle the larger dogs.

[ ... ]

It would be even nicer if I had another lathe bed section onto
which to slide it -- then I would not have to worry about it being
knocked off and damaged. Just give a couple of inches of gap between
the ends of the real bed and the dummy one, and enough length to support
the whole of the turret.

Wouldn't a bridge crane be more useful?

Not without a place to mount it. I have a folding engine hoist,
which lives out in /dev/barn01 when I don't need it, because I don't
have enough floor space in the garage^H^H^H^H^H^Hshop.

[ ... ]

And a Google search using that name led me to an image which
shows that it was what I was describing. I didn't find any prices on
the sites I visited, but I could not afford it when I first saw it in
the Emco catalog in the early to mid 1970s. :-)

And his joining in has shown that we have not put *everyone*
else in the newsgroup to sleep with our thread. :-)

Hmm. Don't forget David Billingham and Nick Mueller. Our fan club?

:-) At least we can't be accused of being off topic here. :-)


I'm tempted to get an aloris 20-series tool holder, which accepts
triangle inserts, and can be adjusted to various angles.

That might do. I like the BXA-16N which holds two triangular
negative rake inserts on opposite ends. One is for turning, the other
for facing, just by switching to the other dovetail on the toolpost.
But I need to use the standard holders with the shanked tools for the
two angled edges for beveling or chamfering.

Is the Clausing heavy enough for negative rake tools to be worthwhile?

[ ... ]

Some of these days I'll try it with a true negative rake insert.
I only have a 1-1/2 HP motor, but that should be equivalent to your 2HP
one since I don't have to drive the vari-speed pulley, which eats
horsepower. :-)

It's something to try. I'm thinking that I should use inserts for
roughing and HSS for finishing (where needed) and one-off grooving jobs.

Well ... I usually use inserts both for roughing and (the ground
and honed ones for the Compact-5/CNC) for finishing. I save grinding
HSS for special form tools, and for things like Acme threading tools
which are just one or two sizes too big for the insert holder which I
have for threading tools. :-)

Ahh ... well ... I don't think that the Reeves drive is _that_
inefficient.

Hmm ... Bridgeport, on the J-head went from 1 HP to 1-1/2 HP,
and then to 2 HP when they went from step pulleys to variable-speed
pulleys which are quite similar to what Clausing uses. And I've been
told that it was to keep the same horsepower into the spindle that they
increased the motor size.

[ ... ]

I would assume so. Nor is the recess ground smooth, unlike the bottom
of the toolpost, so resting the collar on the recess would lead to
angular uncertainty both under cutting forces and whenever the toolpost
was unclamped and reclamped. I think the toolpost bottom needs to be
firmly clamped against a machined metal surface.

O.K. A turned shoulder would not work in the collar? Is the
shoulder at the end of the recess not smooth enough?

The problem is not so much with the smoothness of the bottom of the
turned recess as with its small diameter. The toolpost bottom is about
70x70mm, and ground smooth, versus 32mm diameter, and as-machined before
heat treatment. The black oxide has been ground off the bottom, but not
the recess. The clear design intent is that the ground bottom be the
reference surface.

O.K. Mine was very obviously ground to a precision taper when
they made it -- concentric with the smaller bore for the hold-down bolt.

BTW I have some cardboard firmly laminated to the plate on the
cross-slide on the Compact-5/CNC -- clamped down firmly by the
toolpost while soaked with oil. It stayed firmly on the plate
when I removed the toolpost, so I don't even have to replace it.

That would work, but the pin also works.

You have the hole for the pin. I don't, and don't want to risk
damaging the toolpost without a spare on hand. That toolpost really
feels hardened -- though I have not yet put it on the Rockwell hardness
tester.

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 ---

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-21, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-13, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[ ... ]

Someday, when I have a bigger basement.

If you want a CNC controlled turret, you also will need a
different lathe, with all handwheels replaced by stepper or servo
motors. :-)

And an even bigger basement. Actually, I could make use of a horizontal
mill. But won't get it. No space.

Actually -- there are small horizontal mills which you might get
into there -- but they are still heavy. An example is the Nichols
horizontal mill (which I have) which weighs in at about 1100 pounds.
Takes up about as much space as two floor-mount drill presses.

Same as the Millrite, in both weight and footprint.


But there was a turret for the Clausing 5900-series lathes.

Yes -- probably the same as for the 5400-series which I have. I
think that I posted a URL for the manual for that -- and it is a
different model number than mine, but still what Clausing sent me for
free saying that it is the same as what I have -- so the alternate part
number may be right for your lathe.

But the taper attachment sounds more useful.

There are two styles. The one I have, and the telescoping one
which does not require unclamping and reclamping lots of things to
switch over -- but introduces a little more slop through all the
linkages.

I think I'll be looking, but not immediately.


One thing that did not
come with the 5914 was the headstock spindle sleeve, which allows MT3
dead centers to fit in the MT 4.5 female taper in the headstock spindle.

I did not get one either -- but I made one.

With the taper attachment?


I'm also missing the slotted faceplate. Got the 3-jaw, 4-jaw, and
dog-driver chucks.

I got the slotted faceplate at a swap-meet/picnic held by the
local metalworking club for a quite reasonable price. I have two of the
dog drivers, one with a chip out of the outer edge, but I am going to
mill that open wider to handle the larger dogs.

I got one dog driver and no faceplate.


It would be even nicer if I had another lathe bed section onto
which to slide it -- then I would not have to worry about it being
knocked off and damaged. Just give a couple of inches of gap between
the ends of the real bed and the dummy one, and enough length to support
the whole of the turret.

Wouldn't a bridge crane be more useful?

Not without a place to mount it. I have a folding engine hoist,
which lives out in /dev/barn01 when I don't need it, because I don't
have enough floor space in the garage^H^H^H^H^H^Hshop.

I looked at portable bridge cranes, such as sold by HF, but my ceiling
is too low. Nor do I have a place to store an engine hoist, so I rent
one from Taylor Rentals when needed, for ~$45 per day. The rental unit
is far heavier than the $170 HF units.


I'm tempted to get an aloris 20-series tool holder, which accepts
triangle inserts, and can be adjusted to various angles.

That might do. I like the BXA-16N which holds two triangular
negative rake inserts on opposite ends. One is for turning, the other
for facing, just by switching to the other dovetail on the toolpost.
But I need to use the standard holders with the shanked tools for the
two angled edges for beveling or chamfering.

Is the Clausing heavy enough for negative rake tools to be worthwhile?

[ ... ]

Some of these days I'll try it with a true negative rake insert.
I only have a 1-1/2 HP motor, but that should be equivalent to your 2HP
one since I don't have to drive the vari-speed pulley, which eats
horsepower. :-)

It's something to try. I'm thinking that I should use inserts for
roughing and HSS for finishing (where needed) and one-off grooving jobs.

Well ... I usually use inserts both for roughing and (the ground
and honed ones for the Compact-5/CNC) for finishing. I save grinding
HSS for special form tools, and for things like Acme threading tools
which are just one or two sizes too big for the insert holder which I
have for threading tools. :-)

I'll be trying this.


Ahh ... well ... I don't think that the Reeves drive is _that_
inefficient.

Hmm ... Bridgeport, on the J-head went from 1 HP to 1-1/2 HP,
and then to 2 HP when they went from step pulleys to variable-speed
pulleys which are quite similar to what Clausing uses. And I've been
told that it was to keep the same horsepower into the spindle that they
increased the motor size.

The efficiency seems to be in the range 90% to 95%:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission.

Bridgeport may have used the opportunity to solve an
underpowered-spindle problem. Also, people who buy step-pulley drives
over continuously variable speed drives are probably more cost
sensitive, so the smaller cheaper motor may come with cone pulleys,
while the larger more expensive motor comes with the reeves drive.


BTW I have some cardboard firmly laminated to the plate on the
cross-slide on the Compact-5/CNC -- clamped down firmly by the
toolpost while soaked with oil. It stayed firmly on the plate
when I removed the toolpost, so I don't even have to replace it.

That would work, but the pin also works.

You have the hole for the pin. I don't, and don't want to risk
damaging the toolpost without a spare on hand. That toolpost really
feels hardened -- though I have not yet put it on the Rockwell hardness
tester.

I'd be surprised if it were not hardened, at least case hardened.

Joe Gwinn

On 2008-02-21, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-21, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[ ... ]

And an even bigger basement. Actually, I could make use of a horizontal
mill. But won't get it. No space.

Actually -- there are small horizontal mills which you might get
into there -- but they are still heavy. An example is the Nichols
horizontal mill (which I have) which weighs in at about 1100 pounds.
Takes up about as much space as two floor-mount drill presses.

Same as the Millrite, in both weight and footprint.

O.K. I got the Nichols for only about $200.00 IIRC -- and with
the name match, how could I resist? :-)

[ ... ]

But the taper attachment sounds more useful.

There are two styles. The one I have, and the telescoping one
which does not require unclamping and reclamping lots of things to
switch over -- but introduces a little more slop through all the
linkages.

I think I'll be looking, but not immediately.

O.K.


One thing that did not
come with the 5914 was the headstock spindle sleeve, which allows MT3
dead centers to fit in the MT 4.5 female taper in the headstock spindle.

I did not get one either -- but I made one.

With the taper attachment?

Yes. The travel of the compound was not sufficient for turning
the taper needed -- let alone the difficulty of adjusting it to
sufficient precision. :-)


I'm also missing the slotted faceplate. Got the 3-jaw, 4-jaw, and
dog-driver chucks.

I got the slotted faceplate at a swap-meet/picnic held by the
local metalworking club for a quite reasonable price. I have two of the
dog drivers, one with a chip out of the outer edge, but I am going to
mill that open wider to handle the larger dogs.

I got one dog driver and no faceplate.

All of my faceplates and dog drivers were later acquisitions.
The lathe came to me with:

1 3-jaw chuck with two-piece jaws. (I think that I had to
make a key for it, too. :-)

1 Lever-style collet closer with nose adaptor and
protector for 2-1/4x8 spindle nose.

1 threading dial (in a drawer).

misc spare chuck jaws, which did not fit the chuck I got.

It would be even nicer if I had another lathe bed section onto
which to slide it -- then I would not have to worry about it being
knocked off and damaged. Just give a couple of inches of gap between
the ends of the real bed and the dummy one, and enough length to support
the whole of the turret.

Wouldn't a bridge crane be more useful?

Not without a place to mount it. I have a folding engine hoist,
which lives out in /dev/barn01 when I don't need it, because I don't
have enough floor space in the garage^H^H^H^H^H^Hshop.

I looked at portable bridge cranes, such as sold by HF, but my ceiling
is too low. Nor do I have a place to store an engine hoist, so I rent
one from Taylor Rentals when needed, for ~$45 per day. The rental unit
is far heavier than the $170 HF units.

The height problem is another point. The lathe is under a garage
door which bends in sections and stores above the lathe. :-)

[ ... ]

Is the Clausing heavy enough for negative rake tools to be worthwhile?

[ ... ]

Some of these days I'll try it with a true negative rake insert.
I only have a 1-1/2 HP motor, but that should be equivalent to your 2HP
one since I don't have to drive the vari-speed pulley, which eats
horsepower. :-)

It's something to try. I'm thinking that I should use inserts for
roughing and HSS for finishing (where needed) and one-off grooving jobs.

Well ... I usually use inserts both for roughing and (the ground
and honed ones for the Compact-5/CNC) for finishing. I save grinding
HSS for special form tools, and for things like Acme threading tools
which are just one or two sizes too big for the insert holder which I
have for threading tools. :-)

I'll be trying this.

O.K. It was helpful to have the surface grinder for making the
Acme tools with precisely the proper relief angles for the pitch and
diameter I needed to cut. Also a sine plate and a sine bar contributed
too.


Ahh ... well ... I don't think that the Reeves drive is _that_
inefficient.

Hmm ... Bridgeport, on the J-head went from 1 HP to 1-1/2 HP,
and then to 2 HP when they went from step pulleys to variable-speed
pulleys which are quite similar to what Clausing uses. And I've been
told that it was to keep the same horsepower into the spindle that they
increased the motor size.

The efficiency seems to be in the range 90% to 95%:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuously_variable_transmission.

Bridgeport may have used the opportunity to solve an
underpowered-spindle problem. Also, people who buy step-pulley drives
over continuously variable speed drives are probably more cost
sensitive, so the smaller cheaper motor may come with cone pulleys,
while the larger more expensive motor comes with the reeves drive.

Possible -- but they did offer the 1.5 HP first with the
variable speed, and later the 2 HP, So they must have found 1.5 HP to
be insufficient.

[ ... ]

That would work, but the pin also works.

You have the hole for the pin. I don't, and don't want to risk
damaging the toolpost without a spare on hand. That toolpost really
feels hardened -- though I have not yet put it on the Rockwell hardness
tester.

I'd be surprised if it were not hardened, at least case hardened.

Agreed.

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 ---

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-21, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-21, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

[ ... ]

And an even bigger basement. Actually, I could make use of a horizontal
mill. But won't get it. No space.

Actually -- there are small horizontal mills which you might get
into there -- but they are still heavy. An example is the Nichols
horizontal mill (which I have) which weighs in at about 1100 pounds.
Takes up about as much space as two floor-mount drill presses.

Same as the Millrite, in both weight and footprint.

O.K. I got the Nichols for only about $200.00 IIRC -- and with
the name match, how could I resist? :-)

I've seen Nichols mills go that cheap around here (Boston area) as well.
But $500 is more common.


I'm also missing the slotted faceplate. Got the 3-jaw, 4-jaw, and
dog-driver chucks.

I got the slotted faceplate at a swap-meet/picnic held by the
local metalworking club for a quite reasonable price. I have two of the
dog drivers, one with a chip out of the outer edge, but I am going to
mill that open wider to handle the larger dogs.

I got one dog driver and no faceplate.

All of my faceplates and dog drivers were later acquisitions.
The lathe came to me with:

1 3-jaw chuck with two-piece jaws. (I think that I had to
make a key for it, too. :-)

Mine came with a shop-made key.

The 4-jaw lacked a key, so I bought one for $14.


1 Lever-style collet closer with nose adaptor and
protector for 2-1/4x8 spindle nose.

1 threading dial (in a drawer).

misc spare chuck jaws, which did not fit the chuck I got.

Check. I also got the mismatched single jaw.


It would be even nicer if I had another lathe bed section onto
which to slide it -- then I would not have to worry about it being
knocked off and damaged. Just give a couple of inches of gap between
the ends of the real bed and the dummy one, and enough length to support
the whole of the turret.

Wouldn't a bridge crane be more useful?

Not without a place to mount it. I have a folding engine hoist,
which lives out in /dev/barn01 when I don't need it, because I don't
have enough floor space in the garage^H^H^H^H^H^Hshop.

I looked at portable bridge cranes, such as sold by HF, but my ceiling
is too low. Nor do I have a place to store an engine hoist, so I rent
one from Taylor Rentals when needed, for ~$45 per day. The rental unit
is far heavier than the $170 HF units.

The height problem is another point. The lathe is under a garage
door which bends in sections and stores above the lathe. :-)

Right. My reason to investigate the bridge crane is that the legs on
the typical shop crane can very much get in the way. A bridge crane
doesn't get in its own way nearly as badly.

And can pick things up directly off the floor and raise them to full
height in one operation. The rental shop crane could only lift things
about 3 feet at a time, so one needed to rest the thing on something and
reattach it to the crane with a shorter chain.

And most bridge cranes are big enough that one can use them to move
machines to and from the bed of a flatbed or pickup truck.


Is the Clausing heavy enough for negative rake tools to be worthwhile?

[ ... ]

Some of these days I'll try it with a true negative rake insert.
I only have a 1-1/2 HP motor, but that should be equivalent to your 2HP
one since I don't have to drive the vari-speed pulley, which eats
horsepower. :-)

It's something to try. I'm thinking that I should use inserts for
roughing and HSS for finishing (where needed) and one-off grooving jobs.

Well ... I usually use inserts both for roughing and (the ground
and honed ones for the Compact-5/CNC) for finishing. I save grinding
HSS for special form tools, and for things like Acme threading tools
which are just one or two sizes too big for the insert holder which I
have for threading tools. :-)

I'll be trying this.

O.K. It was helpful to have the surface grinder for making the
Acme tools with precisely the proper relief angles for the pitch and
diameter I needed to cut. Also a sine plate and a sine bar contributed
too.

That's pretty ambitious. I think I'll just buy Acme thread inserts and
holders if the need arises.


Joe Gwinn

On 2008-02-22, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-21, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-21, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

FWIW, I just measured the thickness of the original T-nut for the DuMore
toolpost grinder, and it was 0.187". I would have simply left
the one which I made for the Clausing on it, except that it does
not fit under the bridge which supports the toolpost mount in
the case. This is not one of the cases with the hinged front
panel, but rather one with a single hinge at the back.

To take the grinder out you have to:

1) Loosen the nut on the mount rod.

2) Tilt the motor towards the toolpost column against the
spring which keeps the drive belt tight.

3) Slide the original T-nut out from under the bridge.

4) Swap the supplied T-nut for the one made for the
Clausing.

5) Tighten the nut to hold the toolpost column down.

6) Loosen the clamp bolt and slide the grinder off the
column.

7) Slide on the height spacer, and replace the grinder
on the toolpost column.

8) Fit a belt.

9-66 or so) fit the stone, dress it, and do the actual work,
including cleaning the ways of whatever snuck past the
protective covering.

[ ... ]

Same as the Millrite, in both weight and footprint.

O.K. I got the Nichols for only about $200.00 IIRC -- and with
the name match, how could I resist? :-)

I've seen Nichols mills go that cheap around here (Boston area) as well.
But $500 is more common.

O.K. Mine was an older one, FWIW -- old enough to still have
"The Whitney" cast into the column/base.

[ ... ]

I got one dog driver and no faceplate.

All of my faceplates and dog drivers were later acquisitions.
The lathe came to me with:

1 3-jaw chuck with two-piece jaws. (I think that I had to
make a key for it, too. :-)

Mine came with a shop-made key.

While I'm not sure about mine. I know that I had to make at
least one key -- but it may have been for a later chuck from an eBay
auction.

The 4-jaw lacked a key, so I bought one for $14.

I couldn't resist making my own. :-)

1 Lever-style collet closer with nose adaptor and
protector for 2-1/4x8 spindle nose.

1 threading dial (in a drawer).

misc spare chuck jaws, which did not fit the chuck I got.

Check. I also got the mismatched single jaw.

This was a full set of jaws -- just wrong for the chuck in
question. :-)

[ ... ]

Wouldn't a bridge crane be more useful?

Not without a place to mount it. I have a folding engine hoist,
which lives out in /dev/barn01 when I don't need it, because I don't
have enough floor space in the garage^H^H^H^H^H^Hshop.

I looked at portable bridge cranes, such as sold by HF, but my ceiling
is too low. Nor do I have a place to store an engine hoist, so I rent
one from Taylor Rentals when needed, for ~$45 per day. The rental unit
is far heavier than the $170 HF units.

The height problem is another point. The lathe is under a garage
door which bends in sections and stores above the lathe. :-)

Right. My reason to investigate the bridge crane is that the legs on
the typical shop crane can very much get in the way. A bridge crane
doesn't get in its own way nearly as badly.

O.K. I can see that -- but there are too many tools, and too
few square inches of bare floor left. :-)

And can pick things up directly off the floor and raise them to full
height in one operation. The rental shop crane could only lift things
about 3 feet at a time, so one needed to rest the thing on something and
reattach it to the crane with a shorter chain.

O.K. If I tried to lift more than three feet, I would have to
make a hole in the ceiling, and my wife would be quite displeased, as it
would also be a hole in the floor of the room which both of use spend
most of our time in. :-)

And most bridge cranes are big enough that one can use them to move
machines to and from the bed of a flatbed or pickup truck.

Again -- not an option in my shop, with so little clear floor
space -- even if I had the height for the bridge crane.

Some of these days, I've got to get a couple of friends and
spend a day rearranging the tools to get the mills closer together, and
move the grinders away from such precision tools. :-)

[ ... ]

O.K. It was helpful to have the surface grinder for making the
Acme tools with precisely the proper relief angles for the pitch and
diameter I needed to cut. Also a sine plate and a sine bar contributed
too.

That's pretty ambitious. I think I'll just buy Acme thread inserts and
holders if the need arises.

That's what I normally do -- but I've got the largest insert
holder available to fit into my Aloris tool holders, and the inserts
which fit stop short of the acme thread which I had to cut to make a
replacement nut for a friend's leadscrew-driven log splitter. He
ordered a good bronze for the nut, and I made both a dummy external
thread to duplicate the one in the spitter, and then the internal thread
in the nut. For that -- it was a choice of grinding freehand, or using
the surface grinder, and the latter gave me more control of the
clearance angles to match them to the thread which I was cutting. The
external thread was cut with a standard 1/4" HSS bit held in the Aloris
holder, while the internal was a 3/16" bit held in an old boring bar
which fit one of the boring bar holders for the Aloris toolpost.

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 ---

In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-22, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-21, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-21, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

FWIW, I just measured the thickness of the original T-nut for the DuMore
toolpost grinder, and it was 0.187". I would have simply left
the one which I made for the Clausing on it, except that it does
not fit under the bridge which supports the toolpost mount in
the case. This is not one of the cases with the hinged front
panel, but rather one with a single hinge at the back.

To take the grinder out you have to:

1) Loosen the nut on the mount rod.

2) Tilt the motor towards the toolpost column against the
spring which keeps the drive belt tight.

3) Slide the original T-nut out from under the bridge.

4) Swap the supplied T-nut for the one made for the
Clausing.

5) Tighten the nut to hold the toolpost column down.

6) Loosen the clamp bolt and slide the grinder off the
column.

7) Slide on the height spacer, and replace the grinder
on the toolpost column.

8) Fit a belt.

9-66 or so) fit the stone, dress it, and do the actual work,
including cleaning the ways of whatever snuck past the
protective covering.

I've already had the grinder partly apart, but have not yet tried to
mount it on the lathe. I have to fix the overheating-spindle problem
first.



Wouldn't a bridge crane be more useful?

Not without a place to mount it. I have a folding engine hoist,
which lives out in /dev/barn01 when I don't need it, because I don't
have enough floor space in the garage^H^H^H^H^H^Hshop.

I looked at portable bridge cranes, such as sold by HF, but my ceiling
is too low. Nor do I have a place to store an engine hoist, so I rent
one from Taylor Rentals when needed, for ~$45 per day. The rental unit
is far heavier than the $170 HF units.

The height problem is another point. The lathe is under a garage
door which bends in sections and stores above the lathe. :-)

Right. My reason to investigate the bridge crane is that the legs on
the typical shop crane can very much get in the way. A bridge crane
doesn't get in its own way nearly as badly.

O.K. I can see that -- but there are too many tools, and too
few square inches of bare floor left. :-)

Ditto.


And can pick things up directly off the floor and raise them to full
height in one operation. The rental shop crane could only lift things
about 3 feet at a time, so one needed to rest the thing on something and
reattach it to the crane with a shorter chain.

O.K. If I tried to lift more than three feet, I would have to
make a hole in the ceiling, and my wife would be quite displeased, as it
would also be a hole in the floor of the room which both of use spend
most of our time in. :-)

And most bridge cranes are big enough that one can use them to move
machines to and from the bed of a flatbed or pickup truck.

Again -- not an option in my shop, with so little clear floor
space -- even if I had the height for the bridge crane.

The other advantage of the engine-hoist style is that one can lift
closer to the ceiling. With bridge cranes, the highest one can lift the
hook is something like 15" or 18" below the top of the crossbeam, while
a hoist can put the hook about 6" below the ceiling. This is a big
difference in a shop with a low ceiling.


Some of these days, I've got to get a couple of friends and
spend a day rearranging the tools to get the mills closer together, and
move the grinders away from such precision tools. :-)

I'm already somewhat separated, with grinders in one room and the lathe
plus mill in the other. This was dictated more by space than by smarts.


O.K. It was helpful to have the surface grinder for making the
Acme tools with precisely the proper relief angles for the pitch and
diameter I needed to cut. Also a sine plate and a sine bar contributed
too.

That's pretty ambitious. I think I'll just buy Acme thread inserts and
holders if the need arises.

That's what I normally do -- but I've got the largest insert
holder available to fit into my Aloris tool holders, and the inserts
which fit stop short of the acme thread which I had to cut to make a
replacement nut for a friend's leadscrew-driven log splitter. He
ordered a good bronze for the nut, and I made both a dummy external
thread to duplicate the one in the spitter, and then the internal thread
in the nut. For that -- it was a choice of grinding freehand, or using
the surface grinder, and the latter gave me more control of the
clearance angles to match them to the thread which I was cutting. The
external thread was cut with a standard 1/4" HSS bit held in the Aloris
holder, while the internal was a 3/16" bit held in an old boring bar
which fit one of the boring bar holders for the Aloris toolpost.

OK. What acme thread were you cutting? Given the delicate nature of
the application, one assumes that this leadscrew is quite dainty.

Shouldn't this been the excuse to buy a larger insert holder and insert?

Joe Gwinn

On 2008-02-23, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-22, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-21, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"DoN. Nichols" wrote:

On 2008-02-21, Joseph Gwinn wrote:

FWIW, I just measured the thickness of the original T-nut for the DuMore
toolpost grinder, and it was 0.187". I would have simply left
the one which I made for the Clausing on it, except that it does
not fit under the bridge which supports the toolpost mount in
the case. This is not one of the cases with the hinged front
panel, but rather one with a single hinge at the back.

To take the grinder out you have to:

[ ... ]

I've already had the grinder partly apart, but have not yet tried to
mount it on the lathe. I have to fix the overheating-spindle problem
first.

O.K. Good luck with that. I think that the time has come to
replace the bearings in the motor of mine.

[ ... ]

And most bridge cranes are big enough that one can use them to move
machines to and from the bed of a flatbed or pickup truck.

Again -- not an option in my shop, with so little clear floor
space -- even if I had the height for the bridge crane.

The other advantage of the engine-hoist style is that one can lift
closer to the ceiling. With bridge cranes, the highest one can lift the
hook is something like 15" or 18" below the top of the crossbeam, while
a hoist can put the hook about 6" below the ceiling. This is a big
difference in a shop with a low ceiling.

And I certainly have a low ceiling. It did start as a garage
with the above floor needing to match the level of an already existing
portion of the house.


Some of these days, I've got to get a couple of friends and
spend a day rearranging the tools to get the mills closer together, and
move the grinders away from such precision tools. :-)

I'm already somewhat separated, with grinders in one room and the lathe
plus mill in the other. This was dictated more by space than by smarts.

Good, anyway.

That's what I normally do -- but I've got the largest insert
holder available to fit into my Aloris tool holders, and the inserts
which fit stop short of the acme thread which I had to cut to make a
replacement nut for a friend's leadscrew-driven log splitter. He
ordered a good bronze for the nut, and I made both a dummy external
thread to duplicate the one in the spitter, and then the internal thread
in the nut. For that -- it was a choice of grinding freehand, or using
the surface grinder, and the latter gave me more control of the
clearance angles to match them to the thread which I was cutting. The
external thread was cut with a standard 1/4" HSS bit held in the Aloris
holder, while the internal was a 3/16" bit held in an old boring bar
which fit one of the boring bar holders for the Aloris toolpost.

OK. What acme thread were you cutting? Given the delicate nature of
the application, one assumes that this leadscrew is quite dainty.

It was something like 1-1/4" diameter IIRC, and perhaps 5 or 6
TPI, I think.

Shouldn't this been the excuse to buy a larger insert holder and insert?

Not an option. The shanks on large enough holders would not fit
in the toolpost holders on my lathe. I'm limited to 5/8" shanks. I
think that the next size up of inserts required 1" shanks, but I'm not
sure, and the MSC catalog is too deeply buried for me to dive into it at
the moment.

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 ---