The last numbers are in. I took a 1" thick free machinable lead steel
bar 12L14 or some such, aligned it, and made a light cut about 5
inches long, using the four jaw chuck whose alignment I verified
yesterday.

My best attempt at measuring variation of diameter along the axis of
the part, with a micrometer, yielded maximum difference of
approximately 2 thousands of an inch, or approximately 0.05mm.

Given that a part of this variation may be due to my poor lathe
skills, now using tailstock, poor choice of cutters etc, and lack of a
felt wiper on carriage (something I will address ASAP), I think that
at this point I can live with this accuracy for now and declare this
lathe as not needing any refurbishment for my limited needs.

I did not use tailstock because I was concerned that using it will
create more error than it would eliminate. So to compensate for it, I
took a very light cut.

The four jaw chuck is marginally less convenient than three jaw, but
with some practice clamping parts in it will become easier. So unless
I come across some decent three jaw chuck for cheap, of fix my own, I
will just use the lathe with the four jaw chuck.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Ignoramus17663 wrote:
The last numbers are in. I took a 1" thick free machinable lead steel
bar 12L14 or some such, aligned it, and made a light cut about 5
inches long, using the four jaw chuck whose alignment I verified
yesterday.

My best attempt at measuring variation of diameter along the axis of
the part, with a micrometer, yielded maximum difference of
approximately 2 thousands of an inch, or approximately 0.05mm.

If the free end of the bar is .002" larger than the chuck end, then I
suspect you are seeing workpiece deflection. This is why every time
this comes up, I go back to recommending a dial test indicator and a
hardened and ground rod of known straightness and circularity. (These
are not hard to find at all. I've gotten most of mine out of old
printers, copy machines, etc.)
Given that a part of this variation may be due to my poor lathe
skills, now using tailstock, poor choice of cutters etc, and lack of a
felt wiper on carriage (something I will address ASAP), I think that
at this point I can live with this accuracy for now and declare this
lathe as not needing any refurbishment for my limited needs.

Some tweaking of the lathe bed straightness might cut the error down
even further.
I did not use tailstock because I was concerned that using it will
create more error than it would eliminate. So to compensate for it, I
took a very light cut.
For the most accurate work, you want to turn between centters, and you
do test cuts and adjust tailstock setover until the diameters are identical.

Jon

On 2009-01-09, Jon Elson wrote:
Ignoramus17663 wrote:
The last numbers are in. I took a 1" thick free machinable lead steel
bar 12L14 or some such, aligned it, and made a light cut about 5
inches long, using the four jaw chuck whose alignment I verified
yesterday.

My best attempt at measuring variation of diameter along the axis of
the part, with a micrometer, yielded maximum difference of
approximately 2 thousands of an inch, or approximately 0.05mm.

If the free end of the bar is .002" larger than the chuck end, then I

That is the case.

suspect you are seeing workpiece deflection. This is why every time
this comes up, I go back to recommending a dial test indicator and a
hardened and ground rod of known straightness and circularity. (These
are not hard to find at all. I've gotten most of mine out of old
printers, copy machines, etc.)

So, you are recommending to cut such a rod, or what

Given that a part of this variation may be due to my poor lathe
skills, now using tailstock, poor choice of cutters etc, and lack of a
felt wiper on carriage (something I will address ASAP), I think that
at this point I can live with this accuracy for now and declare this
lathe as not needing any refurbishment for my limited needs.

Some tweaking of the lathe bed straightness might cut the error down
even further.

Well, if you refer to levelling, I already made some attempt to level
it with a machinist level and so on.

I did not use tailstock because I was concerned that using it will
create more error than it would eliminate. So to compensate for it, I
took a very light cut.
For the most accurate work, you want to turn between centters, and you
do test cuts and adjust tailstock setover until the diameters are identical.

Unfortunately, I do not have the adaptor for the spindle for doing
this... My spindle needs a "clausing to MT3" adaptor, which is similar
somewhat to MT5 outside but is not MT5. I wish I did...

Anyway, Jon, so outwardly t would seem to you that the lathe is usable
as is, right?

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Ignoramus17663 wrote:
On 2009-01-09, Jon Elson wrote:
Ignoramus17663 wrote:
The last numbers are in. I took a 1" thick free machinable lead steel
bar 12L14 or some such, aligned it, and made a light cut about 5
inches long, using the four jaw chuck whose alignment I verified
yesterday.

My best attempt at measuring variation of diameter along the axis of
the part, with a micrometer, yielded maximum difference of
approximately 2 thousands of an inch, or approximately 0.05mm.

If the free end of the bar is .002" larger than the chuck end, then I

That is the case.

suspect you are seeing workpiece deflection. This is why every time
this comes up, I go back to recommending a dial test indicator and a
hardened and ground rod of known straightness and circularity. (These
are not hard to find at all. I've gotten most of mine out of old
printers, copy machines, etc.)

So, you are recommending to cut such a rod, or what

No, he's recommending you find one.
An old dot-matrix printer usually has a nice one, the print head rides
on it.


Given that a part of this variation may be due to my poor lathe
skills, now using tailstock, poor choice of cutters etc, and lack of a
felt wiper on carriage (something I will address ASAP), I think that
at this point I can live with this accuracy for now and declare this
lathe as not needing any refurbishment for my limited needs.

Some tweaking of the lathe bed straightness might cut the error down
even further.

Well, if you refer to levelling, I already made some attempt to level
it with a machinist level and so on.

try mounting a sensitive level on the carriage, at a right angle to the
bed length, and watch the bubble as you run the carriage back and forth.

I did not use tailstock because I was concerned that using it will
create more error than it would eliminate. So to compensate for it, I
took a very light cut.
For the most accurate work, you want to turn between centters, and you
do test cuts and adjust tailstock setover until the diameters are identical.

Unfortunately, I do not have the adaptor for the spindle for doing
this... My spindle needs a "clausing to MT3" adaptor, which is similar
somewhat to MT5 outside but is not MT5. I wish I did...

You need a MT4.5 to MT3 adapter.
Fairly common. My older Enco uses one.

Ignoramus17663 wrote:


Unfortunately, I do not have the adaptor for the spindle for doing
this... My spindle needs a "clausing to MT3" adaptor, which is similar
somewhat to MT5 outside but is not MT5. I wish I did...

You have a lathe, you can make the adapter if you can lookup the specs.

"Ignoramus17663" wrote in
message news
The last numbers are in. I took a 1" thick free machinable lead
steel
bar 12L14 or some such, aligned it, and made a light cut about 5
inches long, using the four jaw chuck whose alignment I verified
yesterday.

My best attempt at measuring variation of diameter along the axis of
the part, with a micrometer, yielded maximum difference of
approximately 2 thousands of an inch, or approximately 0.05mm.

Given that a part of this variation may be due to my poor lathe
skills, now using tailstock, poor choice of cutters etc, and lack of
a
felt wiper on carriage (something I will address ASAP), I think that
at this point I can live with this accuracy for now and declare this
lathe as not needing any refurbishment for my limited needs.

I did not use tailstock because I was concerned that using it will
create more error than it would eliminate. So to compensate for it,
I
took a very light cut.

The four jaw chuck is marginally less convenient than three jaw, but
with some practice clamping parts in it will become easier. So
unless
I come across some decent three jaw chuck for cheap, of fix my own,
I
will just use the lathe with the four jaw chuck.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their
inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Google "Rollies Dads method" - an established method of assessing
lathe alignment & wear.

AWEM

On 2009-01-09, Pete C. wrote:

Ignoramus17663 wrote:


Unfortunately, I do not have the adaptor for the spindle for doing
this... My spindle needs a "clausing to MT3" adaptor, which is similar
somewhat to MT5 outside but is not MT5. I wish I did...

You have a lathe, you can make the adapter if you can lookup the specs.

I thought that it would need to be more accurate than 0.002"?

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On 2009-01-09, Andrew Mawson wrote:


Google "Rollies Dads method" - an established method of assessing
lathe alignment & wear.


Cool. Just printed it out. Thanks.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On Jan 9, 4:35 pm, Ignoramus17663 ignoramus17...@NOSPAM.
17663.invalid wrote:
...

I chucked a 6" x 1-3/4" steel shaft and put the centering dial
indicator on the tool post. Near the chuck I can deflect it+- 0.001"
with moderate hand pressure. The SB bearing adjustment spec is 0.001"
- 0.002" at the spindle collar, with the lathe off so there is no oil
film in the journal. The far end deflects +-0.002/3".

With due care the lathe can turn well within 0.001"; the shank of an
unfinished saw holder here in front of me measures 0.4993" on one end,
0.4997 in the middle, 0.4996" on the other. Some of the variation may
be from polishing it.

On this lathe the faceplate and collets can both be used at the same
time. Unscrewing the faceplate pops out the collet adapter. I can use
a collet to center the work, such as a steering sector gear blank, and
the faceplate to support and drive it. The collet could hold a live
center which is turned concentric each time it's used.

Jim Wilkins

Ignoramus17663 wrote:

I did not use tailstock because I was concerned that using it will
create more error than it would eliminate. So to compensate for it, I
took a very light cut.

What do the ways look like? Do you see visible wear?

You can mount an indicator to your carrage to reach out and indicate the ways ahead.
Usually lathes have most wear near the head stock.

There isn't a 1:1 correspondance between way wear and variation of diameter.

The four jaw chuck is marginally less convenient than three jaw, but
with some practice clamping parts in it will become easier. So unless
I come across some decent three jaw chuck for cheap, of fix my own, I
will just use the lathe with the four jaw chuck.

I have a 3 and 4 jaw chuck. The 4 is nice and tight so I use it. Come spring, I'll make
my collet draw tube and likely use the 4 jaw for big things and the collets for small
things. If you are making multiples of an item, you open two jaws at 90 to each other to
remove and insert stock. Then torque down jaws, chances are you are centered close enough
for most purposes and close enough to dial it in quickly.


Wes

Ignoramus17663 wrote:

On 2009-01-09, Pete C. wrote:

Ignoramus17663 wrote:


Unfortunately, I do not have the adaptor for the spindle for doing
this... My spindle needs a "clausing to MT3" adaptor, which is similar
somewhat to MT5 outside but is not MT5. I wish I did...

You have a lathe, you can make the adapter if you can lookup the specs.

I thought that it would need to be more accurate than 0.002"?

It's a short part and you'll be cutting it in close to the spindle where
it is most rigid and accurate. Indeed you can cut the "Clausing" side,
finish grind it with a tool post grinder, rough cut the MT3 side,
install the adapter in the spindle and do the finish grind on the MT3
side in the spindle.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 15:35:00 -0600, Ignoramus17663
wrote:

snip

Unfortunately, I do not have the adaptor for the spindle for doing
this... My spindle needs a "clausing to MT3" adaptor, which is similar
somewhat to MT5 outside but is not MT5. I wish I did...

Someone else may have mentioned this but. . . . you _can_ turn between
centers (without your spindle adpter) if you have a center for the
tailstock.
Mount your 4jaw chuck.
chuck in a short piece of steel (say about .75 dia)
rough center this piece (say +/- 1/16")
turn a point on the end of this piece. (say 60deg incl.)
this is now your 'live' (driven) center. True to the centerline of
your lathe as long as it is in the chuck and the chuck remains in the
on the lathe.
mount your center'pop'd work and drive dog between the new 'live'
center and the tailstock center (you may be able to use one of the
4jaw jaws as a driver) and have at it grin

I used this method to turn the adapter for my Logan 922 spindle taper,
on the Logan.

Hope this gives you some ideas!!

Regards, Bob


Anyway, Jon, so outwardly t would seem to you that the lathe is usable
as is, right?
rgentry at oz dot net

Wes wrote:
Ignoramus17663 wrote:

I did not use tailstock because I was concerned that using it will
create more error than it would eliminate. So to compensate for it, I
took a very light cut.

What do the ways look like? Do you see visible wear?

You can mount an indicator to your carrage to reach out and indicate
the ways ahead. Usually lathes have most wear near the head stock.

There isn't a 1:1 correspondance between way wear and variation of
diameter.

The four jaw chuck is marginally less convenient than three jaw, but
with some practice clamping parts in it will become easier. So unless
I come across some decent three jaw chuck for cheap, of fix my own, I
will just use the lathe with the four jaw chuck.

I have a 3 and 4 jaw chuck. The 4 is nice and tight so I use it.
Come spring, I'll make my collet draw tube and likely use the 4 jaw
for big things and the collets for small things. If you are making
multiples of an item, you open two jaws at 90 to each other to remove
and insert stock. Then torque down jaws, chances are you are
centered close enough for most purposes and close enough to dial it
in quickly.


Wes

I use my four jaw a lot , since the three is totally worn out ... when I
need to flip a piece , or R&R it for some reason , I just open jaws 1&2 a
quarter or half turn , then retighten the same amount . Usually lands within
a thou or so of where it was .
I'm anal , I usually dial it back to zero anyway . With a little practice
, you should be able to dial a piece within a couple thou in under 3 minutes
..
--
Snag
every answer
leads to another
question

RB wrote:

try mounting a sensitive level on the carriage, at a right angle to
the bed length, and watch the bubble as you run the carriage back and
forth.

Would this improve accuracy over a bubble based level?

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...56&cat=1,43513

--
Michael Koblic,
Campbell River, BC

On 2009-01-09, Ignoramus17663 wrote:
On 2009-01-09, Jon Elson wrote:
Ignoramus17663 wrote:

[ ... ]

suspect you are seeing workpiece deflection. This is why every time
this comes up, I go back to recommending a dial test indicator and a
hardened and ground rod of known straightness and circularity. (These
are not hard to find at all. I've gotten most of mine out of old
printers, copy machines, etc.)

So, you are recommending to cut such a rod, or what

Given that a part of this variation may be due to my poor lathe
skills, now using tailstock, poor choice of cutters etc, and lack of a
felt wiper on carriage (something I will address ASAP), I think that
at this point I can live with this accuracy for now and declare this
lathe as not needing any refurbishment for my limited needs.

Some tweaking of the lathe bed straightness might cut the error down
even further.

Well, if you refer to levelling, I already made some attempt to level
it with a machinist level and so on.

I did not use tailstock because I was concerned that using it will
create more error than it would eliminate. So to compensate for it, I
took a very light cut.
For the most accurate work, you want to turn between centters, and you
do test cuts and adjust tailstock setover until the diameters are identical.

Unfortunately, I do not have the adaptor for the spindle for doing
this... My spindle needs a "clausing to MT3" adaptor, which is similar
somewhat to MT5 outside but is not MT5. I wish I did...

Here is a use for your 3-jaw chuck.

1) Clamp a piece of stock in the 3-jaw -- perhaps 1" diameter
would do well.

2) Set the lathe compound to 30 degrees to the axis.

3) Turn the end of the stock until you have a sharp point, with
an included angle of 60 degrees.

4) Put a live center in the tailstock.

5) Mount your already center-drilled workpiece between centers
and set the lathe dog so its tail engages one of the chuck
jaws.

This gives the truest possible headstock center. Its only
inconvenience is that after you remove it from the chuck, you will need
to turn the end slightly next time you go to use it to be sure that the
center is truly where it should be, since the errors in your chuck could
otherwise cause it to be well off center.

Anyway, Jon, so outwardly t would seem to you that the lathe is usable
as is, right?

I would say so -- at least for rough work. Finding out how it
does between centers is needed to tell about fine work.

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 2009-01-10, Michael Koblic wrote:
RB wrote:

try mounting a sensitive level on the carriage, at a right angle to
the bed length, and watch the bubble as you run the carriage back and
forth.

Would this improve accuracy over a bubble based level?

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...56&cat=1,43513

No! At least not over a serious bubble based level like
Starrett's "Master Precision" level, which is accurate to 0.0005" per
foot of length. It claims 10 second accuracy, 0.0028 degrees, which you
should compare to the 0.01 degree minimum readout on that device, and
the 0.1 degree claimed accuracy. Of course it sold for $480.00 back in
1998, but you can get them for a lot less from eBay auctions (as I did
some years ago).

There is also a similarly accurate one imported from Russia for
a lot less -- I just found the Starrett first. :-)

Note that your URL above contains the word "wood". Wood changes
dimensions with humidity variations, so any attempt to work to
metalworking precision is doomed to failure. That is accurate enough
(and probably more so) for woodwork, but forget about metalwork.

But the lathe does not *have* to be level to do good work.
Level is just easy to measure as a good starting point. You may then
need to make additional tweaks to correct for problems induced by
stresses over the years since it was made.

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 2009-01-09, Ignoramus17663 wrote:
On 2009-01-09, Pete C. wrote:

Ignoramus17663 wrote:


Unfortunately, I do not have the adaptor for the spindle for doing
this... My spindle needs a "clausing to MT3" adaptor, which is similar
somewhat to MT5 outside but is not MT5. I wish I did...

You have a lathe, you can make the adapter if you can lookup the specs.

I thought that it would need to be more accurate than 0.002"?

Turn the taper and bore the center in a single setup. Part it
off from what is held in the chuck, then pop it into the spindle and use
a Morse taper reamer to finish it to the right taper. I did that to
make a couple (one MT-2 and one MT-3) for my Clausing. The major trick
was getting the taper turning attachment set accurately enough.

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 2009-01-10, DoN. Nichols wrote:
There is also a similarly accurate one imported from Russia for
a lot less -- I just found the Starrett first. :-)

DoN, can you point me to the one made in Russia?


--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

On 10 Jan 2009 06:23:23 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2009-01-09, Ignoramus17663 wrote:
On 2009-01-09, Jon Elson wrote:
Ignoramus17663 wrote:

[ ... ]

suspect you are seeing workpiece deflection. This is why every time
this comes up, I go back to recommending a dial test indicator and a
hardened and ground rod of known straightness and circularity. (These
are not hard to find at all. I've gotten most of mine out of old
printers, copy machines, etc.)

So, you are recommending to cut such a rod, or what

Given that a part of this variation may be due to my poor lathe
skills, now using tailstock, poor choice of cutters etc, and lack of a
felt wiper on carriage (something I will address ASAP), I think that
at this point I can live with this accuracy for now and declare this
lathe as not needing any refurbishment for my limited needs.

Some tweaking of the lathe bed straightness might cut the error down
even further.

Well, if you refer to levelling, I already made some attempt to level
it with a machinist level and so on.

I did not use tailstock because I was concerned that using it will
create more error than it would eliminate. So to compensate for it, I
took a very light cut.
For the most accurate work, you want to turn between centters, and you
do test cuts and adjust tailstock setover until the diameters are identical.

Unfortunately, I do not have the adaptor for the spindle for doing
this... My spindle needs a "clausing to MT3" adaptor, which is similar
somewhat to MT5 outside but is not MT5. I wish I did...

Here is a use for your 3-jaw chuck.

1) Clamp a piece of stock in the 3-jaw -- perhaps 1" diameter
would do well.

2) Set the lathe compound to 30 degrees to the axis.

3) Turn the end of the stock until you have a sharp point, with
an included angle of 60 degrees.

4) Put a live center in the tailstock.

5) Mount your already center-drilled workpiece between centers
and set the lathe dog so its tail engages one of the chuck
jaws.

This gives the truest possible headstock center. Its only
inconvenience is that after you remove it from the chuck, you will need
to turn the end slightly next time you go to use it to be sure that the
center is truly where it should be, since the errors in your chuck could
otherwise cause it to be well off center.

Anyway, Jon, so outwardly t would seem to you that the lathe is usable
as is, right?

I would say so -- at least for rough work. Finding out how it
does between centers is needed to tell about fine work.

Enjoy,
DoN.


I wonder if Iggy checked the coolant tank in the middle of the lathe?
On every one of these that Ive seen, from the 13'-17", spare tooling was
kept in the swing out drawer, the two shelves, or in the bottom of the
tank.

When I got mine..the tank was home to the wrench, a drive plate, taper
attachment, chuck wrench and L-0 wrench

A handwheel collet closer is quite easy to make for this lathe as well,
the spindle nose already being cut for 5-C collets. I made the draw
tube from a bit of tubing and threaded it on the lathe.

OH! he also needs to make a "cat head" that affixes to the left end of
the spindle and has 3 or 4 set srews to hold long stock centered...or
make an adapter to hold an old worn 3 jaw chuck (which is what I did)

They are all good projects for rainy days.

And an adjustable "kickout" for the feed lever, so it stops when it hits
a tapered hard stop.

And a holder for a long travel dial indicator for threading that bolts
to the left end of the carraige, or attaches to the outside pyramid way,
makes it easy to cut stuff off to lenth, turn to length and so forth.

I made my indicator holder on the shaper so it clamps on the pyramid way
next to the headstock and could be moved easily from place to place, or
simply removed.

This particular lathe is like a Jeep. Rugged, handy, easy to use and
very simple to accessorize.

Oh..and some thin rubber cemented to the top of the compounds varous
flat surfaces make handy places to lay your mics

And pull the top slide, and drill and tap the right side for a 1/4-20
socket head cap screw that locks the slide so it doesnt move,
particularly when making DEEP cuts

And a long travel dial indicator adapter to go on the tailstock, so you
can measure the depth while drilling a hole...and.....



G

Gunner





"First Law of Leftist Debate
The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
homophobe approaches infinity.

This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
the subject." Grey Ghost

Iggy,
I think you are overly concerned with bed wear. Bed wear has virtually no
influence on the accuracy potential of the lathe. As I stated in earlier
threads, assuming the cutting tool is positioned at the center of the circle
being cut, variations in tool position while traversing a worn bed creates
verticle aberations only. This has almost no influence on the cut diameter.
The purpose of using a test bar is to make certain that the spindle line is
parallel to the bed. For those folks that do not believe this, place a high
precision level across the the lathe saddle pependicular to the bed line and
crank the carraige along the full length of the bed of a perfectly set up
new lathe and you will note that the weight of the carraige alone will
measurably twist the lathe bed as the carraige mass crosses the center of
the bed between the bed supports. This twist will not affect the cut
diameter in practise. However, a misaligned headstock will cause all kinds
of problems. Worn bed ways creates other problems, but not meaningful
accuracy issues.
Steve

"

On Jan 10, 1:40*am, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2009-01-10, Michael Koblic wrote:

RB wrote:

try mounting a sensitive level on the carriage, at a right angle to
the bed length, and watch the bubble as you run the carriage back and
forth.

Would this improve accuracy over a bubble based level?

http://www.leevalley.com/wood/page.a...56&cat=1,43513

* * * * No! *At least not over a serious bubble based level like
Starrett's "Master Precision" level, which is accurate to 0.0005" per
foot of length. *It claims 10 second accuracy, 0.0028 degrees, which you
should compare to the 0.01 degree minimum readout on that device, and
the 0.1 degree claimed accuracy. *Of course it sold for $480.00 back in
1998, but you can get them for a lot less from eBay auctions (as I did
some years ago).

* * * * There is also a similarly accurate one imported from Russia for
a lot less -- I just found the Starrett first. :-)

* * * * Note that your URL above contains the word "wood". *Wood changes
dimensions with humidity variations, so any attempt to work to
metalworking precision is doomed to failure. *That is accurate enough
(and probably more so) for woodwork, but forget about metalwork.

* * * * But the lathe does not *have* to be level to do good work..
Level is just easy to measure as a good starting point. *You may then
need to make additional tweaks to correct for problems induced by
stresses over the years since it was made.

* * * * 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 2009-01-10, Gunner Asch wrote:
On 10 Jan 2009 06:23:23 GMT, "DoN. Nichols"
wrote:

On 2009-01-09, Ignoramus17663 wrote:
On 2009-01-09, Jon Elson wrote:
Ignoramus17663 wrote:

[ ... ]

suspect you are seeing workpiece deflection. This is why every time
this comes up, I go back to recommending a dial test indicator and a
hardened and ground rod of known straightness and circularity. (These
are not hard to find at all. I've gotten most of mine out of old
printers, copy machines, etc.)

So, you are recommending to cut such a rod, or what

Given that a part of this variation may be due to my poor lathe
skills, now using tailstock, poor choice of cutters etc, and lack of a
felt wiper on carriage (something I will address ASAP), I think that
at this point I can live with this accuracy for now and declare this
lathe as not needing any refurbishment for my limited needs.

Some tweaking of the lathe bed straightness might cut the error down
even further.

Well, if you refer to levelling, I already made some attempt to level
it with a machinist level and so on.

I did not use tailstock because I was concerned that using it will
create more error than it would eliminate. So to compensate for it, I
took a very light cut.
For the most accurate work, you want to turn between centters, and you
do test cuts and adjust tailstock setover until the diameters are identical.

Unfortunately, I do not have the adaptor for the spindle for doing
this... My spindle needs a "clausing to MT3" adaptor, which is similar
somewhat to MT5 outside but is not MT5. I wish I did...

Here is a use for your 3-jaw chuck.

1) Clamp a piece of stock in the 3-jaw -- perhaps 1" diameter
would do well.

2) Set the lathe compound to 30 degrees to the axis.

3) Turn the end of the stock until you have a sharp point, with
an included angle of 60 degrees.

4) Put a live center in the tailstock.

5) Mount your already center-drilled workpiece between centers
and set the lathe dog so its tail engages one of the chuck
jaws.

This gives the truest possible headstock center. Its only
inconvenience is that after you remove it from the chuck, you will need
to turn the end slightly next time you go to use it to be sure that the
center is truly where it should be, since the errors in your chuck could
otherwise cause it to be well off center.

Anyway, Jon, so outwardly t would seem to you that the lathe is usable
as is, right?

I would say so -- at least for rough work. Finding out how it
does between centers is needed to tell about fine work.

Enjoy,
DoN.


I wonder if Iggy checked the coolant tank in the middle of the lathe?
On every one of these that Ive seen, from the 13'-17", spare tooling was
kept in the swing out drawer, the two shelves, or in the bottom of the
tank.

I found a lot of great tooling on the bottom of the coolant tank,
covered with rags with grease solidified over that. Really disgusting
looking, prior to cleaning, but acceptable shape live center and some
things I no longer remember.

When I got mine..the tank was home to the wrench, a drive plate, taper
attachment, chuck wrench and L-0 wrench

A handwheel collet closer is quite easy to make for this lathe as well,
the spindle nose already being cut for 5-C collets.

Are you saying that the spindle nose is made for 5c collets? Did not
look this way. I will check.

I made the draw
tube from a bit of tubing and threaded it on the lathe.

OH! he also needs to make a "cat head" that affixes to the left end of
the spindle and has 3 or 4 set srews to hold long stock centered...or
make an adapter to hold an old worn 3 jaw chuck (which is what I did)

They are all good projects for rainy days.

And an adjustable "kickout" for the feed lever, so it stops when it hits
a tapered hard stop.

I would like to make that.

And a holder for a long travel dial indicator for threading that bolts
to the left end of the carraige, or attaches to the outside pyramid way,
makes it easy to cut stuff off to lenth, turn to length and so forth.

I made my indicator holder on the shaper so it clamps on the pyramid way
next to the headstock and could be moved easily from place to place, or
simply removed.

This particular lathe is like a Jeep. Rugged, handy, easy to use and
very simple to accessorize.

Oh..and some thin rubber cemented to the top of the compounds varous
flat surfaces make handy places to lay your mics

And pull the top slide, and drill and tap the right side for a 1/4-20
socket head cap screw that locks the slide so it doesnt move,
particularly when making DEEP cuts

And a long travel dial indicator adapter to go on the tailstock, so you
can measure the depth while drilling a hole...and.....

Life is fun again for a while.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Ignoramus17663 wrote:

So, you are recommending to cut such a rod, or what

No, NOI, the whole idea is that you use a shaft
that was centerless ground, and is known to be of
consistent diameter far better than anything you
could do in a home shop. Most of that stuff is
accurate to .0001" or better.

The idea, which may or may not be true, is that
such a bar will deflect a lot less under the touch
of a dial test indicator than it will under
cutting forces.

Well, if you refer to levelling, I already made some attempt to level
it with a machinist level and so on.

Yes, but that is not quite as good as a master
precision level. I know that my Atlas/Craftsman
lathe worked a lot better after I got one of those
(in my case .00075"/foot) and releveled it.

Unfortunately, I do not have the adaptor for the spindle for doing
this... My spindle needs a "clausing to MT3" adaptor, which is similar
somewhat to MT5 outside but is not MT5. I wish I did...

You may be able to grind such an adaptor using the
compound swivel. (Of course, a taper attachment
is a lot better and easier to set to the right
angle.) You grind it a bit, then test fit with
spotting dye, adjust swivel and do again, until
the dye shows a lot of contact area between the parts.
Anyway, Jon, so outwardly t would seem to you that the lathe is usable
as is, right?


Yes, for general shop use, it should be fine. If
you need to fit a journal bearing, it might take
some careful work to hold tolerances, but for 90+%
of lathe work you'll have no problem.

Jon

On 2009-01-10, Ignoramus17663 wrote:
On 2009-01-10, DoN. Nichols wrote:
There is also a similarly accurate one imported from Russia for
a lot less -- I just found the Starrett first. :-)

DoN, can you point me to the one made in Russia?

Well ... I found them at Cabin Fever in the past -- but did not
need them.

However, looking at eBay, here are some examples:

390010636345 (0.0005"/foot)

120361229656 (broken vial -- Poland -- 0.0002"/foot)

270328776303 (0.0005"/foot)

140293345311 Starrett 199 master precision level.

290285204844 Starrett #199 Master Precision Machinist's Level

270327396549 (0.0005"/foot)

320329126779 Starrett 15" Master Precision Level No.199 Wood Case NR

360121330452 8" Master Precision Level Graduation 0.0005" New

The eBay search string was:

precision level machinist

The ones below $100.00 are the made in Russia or Poland, I
believe. The shorter ones may need a separate flat bar to span your
lathe's ways.

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 2009-01-11, DoN. Nichols wrote:
On 2009-01-10, Ignoramus17663 wrote:
On 2009-01-10, DoN. Nichols wrote:
There is also a similarly accurate one imported from Russia for
a lot less -- I just found the Starrett first. :-)

DoN, can you point me to the one made in Russia?

OK, great examples, I looked at a few. What are the precision
requirements when levelling a lathe? When I did that, I leveled it
with a regular machinist level, Starrett 98 IIRC.

i


Well ... I found them at Cabin Fever in the past -- but did not
need them.

However, looking at eBay, here are some examples:

390010636345 (0.0005"/foot)

120361229656 (broken vial -- Poland -- 0.0002"/foot)

270328776303 (0.0005"/foot)

140293345311 Starrett 199 master precision level.

290285204844 Starrett #199 Master Precision Machinist's Level

270327396549 (0.0005"/foot)

320329126779 Starrett 15" Master Precision Level No.199 Wood Case NR

360121330452 8" Master Precision Level Graduation 0.0005" New

The eBay search string was:

precision level machinist

The ones below $100.00 are the made in Russia or Poland, I
believe. The shorter ones may need a separate flat bar to span your
lathe's ways.

Enjoy,
DoN.


--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/

Ignoramus8841 wrote:

OK, great examples, I looked at a few. What are the precision
requirements when levelling a lathe? When I did that, I leveled it
with a regular machinist level, Starrett 98 IIRC.


How did you level it?

At work if I'm leveling a lathe, I get the bed level, left to right, then I use a level
usually over 123 blocks to clear inverted ways to level front to back. We have two 199's
so I'll set a level up at opposite ends to speed things up.

The whole level thing is so you can get rid of twist or bow in the bed. Most small lathes
it is twist you are dealing with.

Btw, the first step is to make sure your level reads level.

Your 98 is great for getting a rough level. a 0.0005" per level like the 199 takes a
while to settle down.

As far as how close? Well, I center the bubble within a gradation which is 0.0005" and
recheck everything.

Wes

On 2009-01-11, Ignoramus8841 wrote:
On 2009-01-11, DoN. Nichols wrote:
On 2009-01-10, Ignoramus17663 wrote:
On 2009-01-10, DoN. Nichols wrote:
There is also a similarly accurate one imported from Russia for
a lot less -- I just found the Starrett first. :-)

DoN, can you point me to the one made in Russia?

OK, great examples, I looked at a few. What are the precision
requirements when levelling a lathe? When I did that, I leveled it
with a regular machinist level, Starrett 98 IIRC.

That depends.

If leveling it is *all* you are doing to tune it on
installation, you want one of the much more sensitive master precision
levels.

But remember that a lathe can work perfectly well mounted in a
ship (as the Navy has proved many times) -- and there is no way that it
stays level there.

Get close enough with the existing level which you have, and
then use one of several methods for final tuning any twist out of the
bed. Rollie's dad's method works fine. The two collar approach does as
well. (For that, start with a fat enough piece of steel so the
extension is no more than four times the diameter. Turn down the
middle, and a little past say 1/2" or 3/4" of length, then make a light
cut on the remaining two collars, reset and take another very light cut
on the collars with a *sharp* HSS cutter. Compare the two with a good
tenth's reading micrometer, and if there is a difference, adjust the
height of the bed mounts on the tailstock end to bring it closer to the
same diameter.

Or -- you get a reference bar which has a Morse taper to fit
your spindle and which is often hollow to minimize the weight vs the
diameter to minimize droop. (This lets you get away with a bit longer
for the diameter before weight deflection becomes significant. Again,
use an indicator which is tenth's reading.

On a lathe, the only thing which really is sensitive to level or
lack thereof is the flow of coolant. If you're using it dry, you can
mount the feet to the wall, and as long as it offers stiff enough
support, you can tune the bed to remove most twist.

And -- if the lathe has been subject to long storage with a
strange load, the bed might have a double twist -- clockwise for some
distance from the headstock, and then counterclockwise for the rest of
the distance, so the ends are right in line, but the carriage gets off
center in the middle.

So -- until you need true precision from the lathe, just use it.
It sounds good enough to start with, especially given your turning test
was likely deflecting the unsupported end of the test piece.

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 2009-01-11, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus8841 wrote:

OK, great examples, I looked at a few. What are the precision
requirements when levelling a lathe? When I did that, I leveled it
with a regular machinist level, Starrett 98 IIRC.


How did you level it?

With Starrett 98, shims and pallet jack.

Got it to center the bubble in both directions.

At work if I'm leveling a lathe, I get the bed level, left to right, then I use a level
usually over 123 blocks to clear inverted ways to level front to back. We have two 199's
so I'll set a level up at opposite ends to speed things up.

The whole level thing is so you can get rid of twist or bow in the bed. Most small lathes
it is twist you are dealing with.

Btw, the first step is to make sure your level reads level.

Tried that (reversing direction).

Your 98 is great for getting a rough level. a 0.0005" per level like the 199 takes a
while to settle down.

As far as how close? Well, I center the bubble within a gradation which is 0.0005" and
recheck everything.

OK.. One of those days I will get proper machine feet and redo it. Of
course, the worst thing is that I had perfect Wedgmount leveling pads
2 years ago, which I stupidly sold.

Putting finishing touches, I swapped the smashed Allen-Bradley
Bul. 609 switch for the coolant pump that was broken, put in a
identical replacement that I luckily had, and so that part now looks a
lot more proper.

--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/