I was looking at a Rong-Fu clone today (RF30). Unlike the dovetail column
mills that I am used to this one has a round column. The head can be moved
up and down and swivelled 360 degrees, however one loses the X-Y position
doing it. The spindle (quill, really) has a maximum range of movement of
only 5".

My small mill manages 9" and I need every thou of it on some occasions,
particularly when changing for larger cutters, e.g reamers or simply
changing holders.

Furthermore I thought it was a good practice to mill with the quill
retracted as far as possible to improve rigidity. This would make it rather
difficult to change even shorter bits let alone change, say, a mill-holder
for a drill chuck.

What am I missing? How are these issues dealt with on these machines?

--
Michael Koblic
Campbell River, BC

"Michael Koblic" wrote in
:

I was looking at a Rong-Fu clone today (RF30). Unlike the dovetail
column mills that I am used to this one has a round column. The head
can be moved up and down and swivelled 360 degrees, however one loses
the X-Y position doing it. The spindle (quill, really) has a maximum
range of movement of only 5".
snip
What am I missing? How are these issues dealt with on these machines?


You aren't missing anything. You have to find a way to re-register after
moving the head on the column. Some people modify the mill to have the
head keyed to the column. I read somewhere (HSM probably) Someone drew a
plumb line on the wall opposite the mill. They had a laser pointer mounted
on the mill head with the laser dot pointed to the line. When the head was
moved the alignment was good as long as the dot remained on the plumb line
on the wall (and the mill level). It's suprisingly accurate if you do the
math.

On Dec 18, 12:23*am, "Michael Koblic" wrote:
I was looking at a Rong-Fu clone today (RF30). ...
Michael Koblic

I used one for a while and wasn't highly impressed, 0.5mm accuracy was
about its limit. The quill was tilted, the table grooves had been
milled at an angle and the fine downfeed was almost impossible to
adjust closer than 0.005" because it shifted when locked.

It was a good-enough drill press and accurate enough for the
electronic prototypes and control panels I was making on it. It was
noticeably stiffer than my Clausing, removed metal faster, and had a
larger work envelope. The table travel was enough to reach any point
on a 19" x 5" relay rack panel. The 5" quill travel was enough for
what I was doing, as long as I pre-tested the reach of all the tools
the job would need. The face mill cut steel smoothly with the quill
fully extended and locked.

If your sundials are no more demanding of accuracy than control panels
it might be OK. It was NOT good enough to make close-fitting machine
parts, I took those jobs home to the Clausing.

jsw

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 12:23 am, "Michael Koblic" wrote:
I was looking at a Rong-Fu clone today (RF30). ...
Michael Koblic

I used one for a while and wasn't highly impressed, 0.5mm accuracy was
about its limit. The quill was tilted, the table grooves had been
milled at an angle and the fine downfeed was almost impossible to
adjust closer than 0.005" because it shifted when locked.

That sounds like a Rong-Wae. g

--
Ed Huntress

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
On Dec 18, 12:23 am, "Michael Koblic" wrote:
I was looking at a Rong-Fu clone today (RF30). ...
Michael Koblic

I used one for a while and wasn't highly impressed, 0.5mm accuracy was
about its limit. The quill was tilted, the table grooves had been
milled at an angle and the fine downfeed was almost impossible to
adjust closer than 0.005" because it shifted when locked.

It was a good-enough drill press and accurate enough for the
electronic prototypes and control panels I was making on it. It was
noticeably stiffer than my Clausing, removed metal faster, and had a
larger work envelope. The table travel was enough to reach any point
on a 19" x 5" relay rack panel. The 5" quill travel was enough for
what I was doing, as long as I pre-tested the reach of all the tools
the job would need. The face mill cut steel smoothly with the quill
fully extended and locked.

If your sundials are no more demanding of accuracy than control panels
it might be OK. It was NOT good enough to make close-fitting machine
parts, I took those jobs home to the Clausing.

jsw

I've got one of these and it's very difficult to get any sort of accuracy in
"Z" without a digital scale. Once you've added the scale then plot the
digital readout against the mechanical dial, you get to understand three
problems - backlash, the quill sticking and non-linearity of something...


Steve

On Dec 18, 3:11*pm, "Steve" wrote:
...
I've got one of these [RF-30] and it's very difficult to get any sort of accuracy in
"Z" without a digital scale. * Once you've added the scale then plot the
digital readout against the mechanical dial, *you get to understand three
problems - backlash, the quill sticking and non-linearity of something...

Steve

I felt it would be a decent hobby mill for the price with the
inaccuracies fixed. Someone here once described shimming the column
base to square up (tram) the Z axis. I wedged the locating key I made
for the vise tightly into the tee slot and milled shoulders in its top
edge, automatically parallel to the X travel, then slotted the
underside of the vise be to a press fit on it. The table itself
indicated substantially tighter than 0.001" over its full travel.

It wasn't mine so I didn't take it apart. Do you think a cleanup would
fix the quill feed and lock?

jsw

Charles U Farley writes:

I read somewhere (HSM probably) Someone drew a
plumb line on the wall opposite the mill. They had a laser pointer
mounted on the mill head with the laser dot pointed to the line. When
the head was moved the alignment was good as long as the dot remained
on the plumb line on the wall (and the mill level). It's suprisingly
accurate if you do the math.

This laser alignment idea is someone's ill-conceived fantasy. You don't
get any accuracy without projecting the spot a long distance. But laser
pointer spots are big blobs over such a distance (many thousandths), so
there's no accuracy to eyeballing a blob onto a plumb line.

Jim Wilkins wrote:
On Dec 18, 12:23 am, "Michael Koblic" wrote:
I was looking at a Rong-Fu clone today (RF30). ...
Michael Koblic

I used one for a while and wasn't highly impressed, 0.5mm accuracy was
about its limit. The quill was tilted, the table grooves had been
milled at an angle and the fine downfeed was almost impossible to
adjust closer than 0.005" because it shifted when locked.

It was a good-enough drill press and accurate enough for the
electronic prototypes and control panels I was making on it. It was
noticeably stiffer than my Clausing, removed metal faster, and had a
larger work envelope. The table travel was enough to reach any point
on a 19" x 5" relay rack panel. The 5" quill travel was enough for
what I was doing, as long as I pre-tested the reach of all the tools
the job would need. The face mill cut steel smoothly with the quill
fully extended and locked.

If your sundials are no more demanding of accuracy than control panels
it might be OK. It was NOT good enough to make close-fitting machine
parts, I took those jobs home to the Clausing.


My sundials are very accurate provided they are used indoors and even then
only twice a day.

That apart, I am in no special hurry to change at the moment, just looking
around and was puzzled by the concept.
In any case, if I were to change I would probably go with some form of X3,
although they seem to have another quirk: The quill can be moved by coarse
and fine feed, the head can be moved also but *only by fine feed*. Thus to
hoik it up 0.1" per crank is a lot of cranking. I gather some people put a
nut on the z-axis wheel and use their cordless drills...

No such thing as free lunch!

--
Michael Koblic
Campbell River, BC

On 2009-12-18, Richard J Kinch wrote:
Charles U Farley writes:

I read somewhere (HSM probably) Someone drew a
plumb line on the wall opposite the mill. They had a laser pointer
mounted on the mill head with the laser dot pointed to the line. When
the head was moved the alignment was good as long as the dot remained
on the plumb line on the wall (and the mill level). It's suprisingly
accurate if you do the math.

This laser alignment idea is someone's ill-conceived fantasy. You don't
get any accuracy without projecting the spot a long distance. But laser
pointer spots are big blobs over such a distance (many thousandths), so
there's no accuracy to eyeballing a blob onto a plumb line.

A) You can reduce the size of the dot with a tiny hole in a thin
metal plate. (Also the brightness.)

B) Consider that the spindle is perhaps 8" away from the column
(not too unlikely, given the size of the machines which
typically have round columns).

Assuming that the wall is perhaps five feet from the column
(60") then 0.001" at the spindle becomes 0.060" at the wall.
(And five feet to the wall behind the operator is not that
unreasonable, especially if there is another machine tool, such
as a lathe, on the other side of the aisle.

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 ---

Uh no. The accuracy of the spindle is the ratio of the column to
spindle divided by the column to wall. For your example of 8" and 60",
..001" on the spindle would be .0055" at the wall.


B) Consider that the spindle is perhaps 8" away from the column
(not too unlikely, given the size of the machines which
typically have round columns).

Assuming that the wall is perhaps five feet from the column
(60") then 0.001" at the spindle becomes 0.060" at the wall.
(And five feet to the wall behind the operator is not that
unreasonable, especially if there is another machine tool, such
as a lathe, on the other side of the aisle.

Enjoy,
DoN.

That is why you use a Cross + split beam that draws a line up and down.
I have a short level that shoots that out the end. I mount it on the
head once I have it trammed - My professional vice is set - I set a marker.

The real trick is looking 30' for a line. I figure spotting scope or binoculars.

Martin

Richard J Kinch wrote:
Charles U Farley writes:

I read somewhere (HSM probably) Someone drew a
plumb line on the wall opposite the mill. They had a laser pointer
mounted on the mill head with the laser dot pointed to the line. When
the head was moved the alignment was good as long as the dot remained
on the plumb line on the wall (and the mill level). It's suprisingly
accurate if you do the math.

This laser alignment idea is someone's ill-conceived fantasy. You don't
get any accuracy without projecting the spot a long distance. But laser
pointer spots are big blobs over such a distance (many thousandths), so
there's no accuracy to eyeballing a blob onto a plumb line.

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:49:11 -0600, "Martin H. Eastburn"
wrote:

That is why you use a Cross + split beam that draws a line up and down.
I have a short level that shoots that out the end. I mount it on the
head once I have it trammed - My professional vice is set - I set a marker.

The real trick is looking 30' for a line. I figure spotting scope or binoculars.

Martin


Mirror on a stable stand or wall (the surface table would do in my shed). Then
you can look at the wall close to the mill :-)


Mark Rand
RTFM

On Dec 18, 5:23*am, "Michael Koblic" wrote:

What am I missing? How are these issues dealt with on these machines?

--
Michael Koblic
Campbell River, BC

Drill / Mills are an economical solution for many hobbiests. They are
stiff compared to minimills. And will handle large pieces.

As far as the round column..........Almost all of the time it is no
problem. You do not have to raise or lower the head very often. When
you do have to raise or lower the head, a lot of the time losing the x-
y position makes no difference. And the few times you need to keep
the x-y position, well you just swing the head so it is back in the
same x-y position. If you get the y position anywhere close, the x
position is right on. You only have to get the y position correct.

Dan

On Dec 19, 7:33*am, Mark Rand wrote:
...

Mirror on a stable stand or wall (the surface table would do in my shed). Then
you can look at the wall close to the mill :-)

Mark Rand
RTFM

A mirror that reflects the beam back to a target attached to the laser
should work, with doubled sensitivity, and be visible up close while
you are tapping and tightening the head. You could confirm the
flatness of the mirror by double checking with a square and test
indicator as you move the head down the column.

I just tried it over a 10' path using a 50ths ruler as the target and
equalizing the spot width on both sides of a 1" line, which is easier
than estimating the center. I have to hold the button on this laser
pointer so it wasn't as steady as possible, but I could align it
within 0.050 easily, translating to about 0.005" at the quill. I think
with a clamped instead of hand-held laser I could center the beam
repeatably to 0.020", 0.002" at the quill.

I should have written that the RF-31's Z axis clamping shift was
0.1mm, not 0.5.

jsw

On Dec 19, 9:23*am, " wrote:
...
As far as the round column..........Almost all of the time it is no
problem. *
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Dan

I just remembered that when I had to move the head I centered a small
hole under it first and then afterwards located the head on that hole
with a center finder. The center finder shank fits in a collet when
the head is down and a drill chuck when it's up, effectively adding
the height of the chuck to the accurate Z axis range of the machine.

jsw

On Dec 17, 11:23*pm, "Michael Koblic" wrote:
I was looking at a Rong-Fu clone today (RF30). Unlike the dovetail column
mills that I am used to this one has a round column. The head can be moved
up and down and swivelled 360 degrees, however one loses the X-Y position
doing it. The spindle (quill, really) has a maximum range of movement of
only 5".

My small mill manages 9" and I need every thou of it on some occasions,
particularly when changing for larger cutters, e.g reamers or simply
changing holders.

Furthermore I thought it was a good practice to mill with the quill
retracted as far as possible to improve rigidity. This would make it rather
difficult to change even shorter bits let alone change, say, a mill-holder
for a drill chuck.

What am I missing? How are these issues dealt with on these machines?

--
Michael Koblic
Campbell River, BC

Here's a link to some articles written by an RF30 user: http://rick.sparber..org/ma.htm

On Dec 19, 2:38*pm, Jim Wilkins wrote:

I just remembered that when I had to move the head I centered a small
hole under it first and then afterwards located the head on that hole
with a center finder. The center finder shank fits in a collet when
the head is down and a drill chuck when it's up, effectively adding
the height of the chuck to the accurate Z axis range of the machine.

jsw

Simple, no laser required.

Dan

On Dec 18, 3:53*pm, Richard J Kinch wrote:
Charles U Farley writes:
I read somewhere (HSM probably) Someone drew a
plumb line on the wall opposite the mill. *They had a laser pointer
mounted on the mill head with the laser dot pointed to the line.

This laser alignment idea is someone's ill-conceived fantasy. *You don't
get any accuracy without projecting the spot a long distance. But laser
pointer spots are big blobs over such a distance (many thousandths)

Depends on the laser, of course. One can get under .050" spot size,
and with two yards distance to wall (there should be at least one
wall that far away) that angle accuracy is 0.04 degrees.
I'd be tempted to use one of those hologram-symbol pointers, and
get all the lines in a star to match up to the wall engraving; when
it's
spread over a large viewing area, the alignment would be easier to
eyeball.

On 2009-12-19, RoyJ wrote:

B) Consider that the spindle is perhaps 8" away from the column
(not too unlikely, given the size of the machines which
typically have round columns).

Assuming that the wall is perhaps five feet from the column
(60") then 0.001" at the spindle becomes 0.060" at the wall.
(And five feet to the wall behind the operator is not that
unreasonable, especially if there is another machine tool, such
as a lathe, on the other side of the aisle.

[ ... ]

Uh no. The accuracy of the spindle is the ratio of the column to
spindle divided by the column to wall. For your example of 8" and 60",
.001" on the spindle would be .0055" at the wall.

O.K. -- not my 0.060", but not your 0.0055" either. I get
0.0075" when I recalculate it a couple of different ways. So -- add a
mirror on the wall behind the operator, and bounce it to another wall
more distant. Sum the distances.

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 Dec 21, 1:36*am, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2009-12-19, RoyJ wrote:
...So -- add a
mirror on the wall behind the operator, and bounce it to another wall
more distant. *Sum the distances.
* * * * * * * * DoN.

The mirror has to be *very* flat over the height of the column travel.
You might find one that's good enough in a scrapped scanner.

jsw

DoN. Nichols writes:

A) You can reduce the size of the dot with a tiny hole in a thin
metal plate. (Also the brightness.)

Don't be naive. Pinholing a big blob of light doesn't make it any more
pointy. You can't improve coherence outside the device, at best you
preserve what exited the laser device aperture. A pinhole will just
diffract and degrade coherence.

All of the follow-ups to date of my critique ignore the optical
principles that prevent this entire scheme from working. Specifically,
Gaussian beam optics, beam waisting, and beam divergence. Laser beams
are narrow but they still start at millimeters wide and spread out to
inches as they project. Have a friend stand 50 feet away and see what
kind of spot you get on a target from a good-quality laser pointer.

A simple scribed vernier scale with mechanical pointer lever and
magnifier would work better.

Lasers do not create precision out of nothing. They have to be attached
to precision mechanisms, which isn't the case for this axis on a round-
column mill-drill.

You're essentially trying to build a precision transit or goniometer
without a mechanism or scope. You need more than just a laser pointer.

On Dec 21, 4:21*pm, Richard J Kinch wrote:
...
All of the follow-ups to date of my critique ignore the optical
principles that prevent this entire scheme from working. *Specifically,
Gaussian beam optics, beam waisting, and beam divergence. *Laser beams
are narrow but they still start at millimeters wide and spread out to
inches as they project. Have a friend stand 50 feet away and see what
kind of spot you get on a target from a good-quality laser pointer.

The one I tried was about 0.2" wide at 10 feet. The spot wasn't too
far from circular and its intensity fell off sharply at the edges, so
I was able to align both edges with marks on the scale the same
distance from the 1" line, in this case the lines at 0.920" and
1.080". The alignment only has to be repeatable, not absolutely
accurate.

jsw

On 2009-12-21, Richard J Kinch wrote:
DoN. Nichols writes:

A) You can reduce the size of the dot with a tiny hole in a thin
metal plate. (Also the brightness.)

Don't be naive. Pinholing a big blob of light doesn't make it any more
pointy.

I've done the experiment, and observed a significant shrinkage
of the projected point on the wall. Granted, it is most likely a loss
in brightness so the *visible* part of the Airy disk resulting is
significantly smaller. But it *does* make the visible spot smaller.
After all -- the more distant from the center, the less energy
concentration.

You can't improve coherence outside the device, at best you
preserve what exited the laser device aperture. A pinhole will just
diffract and degrade coherence.

But it will make the visible (to the naked eye) portion smaller.

All of the follow-ups to date of my critique ignore the optical
principles that prevent this entire scheme from working. Specifically,
Gaussian beam optics, beam waisting, and beam divergence. Laser beams
are narrow but they still start at millimeters wide and spread out to
inches as they project. Have a friend stand 50 feet away and see what
kind of spot you get on a target from a good-quality laser pointer.`

Of course. Even with a HeNe laser we get significant beam
spread, actually more than with a solid-state laser level of similar
brilliance.

A simple scribed vernier scale with mechanical pointer lever and
magnifier would work better.

Note that if you mount a mirror on the mill head, and bounce the
laser pointer off that so you get double the angular deflection from a
given motion of the head as well as doubling the distance. Then select
a pinhole based on the tradeoff between perceived spot size and
brightness (you need sufficient brightness so you don't lose the spot. :-)

Add a second mirror as the target of the first but if it has a
cylindrical surface (with the axis properly vertical, of course), you
get more angular magnification for a given beam length. (You find this
sort of setup in the old projection galvanometers.)

Lasers do not create precision out of nothing. They have to be attached
to precision mechanisms, which isn't the case for this axis on a round-
column mill-drill.

You're essentially trying to build a precision transit or goniometer
without a mechanism or scope. You need more than just a laser pointer.

It at least will get you closer than just eyeballing the end
mill itself. Better is a machine which doesn't have a round column, but
rather proper dovetailed ways -- and even better with the table on the
vertical dovetails instead of the head.

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 Dec 21, 3:01*pm, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2009-12-21, Richard J Kinch wrote:

[on alignment recovery using a laser and target]

You're essentially trying to build a precision transit or goniometer
without a mechanism or scope. *You need more than just a laser pointer.

I do the same thing - my small level - 18" - has a laser and either a point
or a cross. I use the cross and have a tape line edge that I can shoot.
Tape is sharp edge vs. a pencil or pen.

Martin

whit3rd wrote:
On Dec 21, 3:01 pm, "DoN. Nichols" wrote:
On 2009-12-21, Richard J Kinch wrote:

[on alignment recovery using a laser and target]

You're essentially trying to build a precision transit or goniometer
without a mechanism or scope. You need more than just a laser pointer.
It at least will get you closer than just eyeballing the end
mill itself. Better is a machine which doesn't have a round column, but
rather proper dovetailed ways -- and even better with the table on the
vertical dovetails

So, has anyone put a good scope-with-reticle onto a suitable mount
point on their mill? Artillery aiming is routinely done this way, you
dial
in a deflection angle and move the big tube until your crosshair is on
the
reference stake. There's some realignment called for, each time
the big tube ... shakes.

DoN. Nichols writes:

Then select
a pinhole based on the tradeoff between perceived spot size and
brightness (you need sufficient brightness so you don't lose the spot.

I don't think you get the point.

Making a pinhole shadow of a big blob doesn't make the blob any more
accurate. The blob moves around and the pinhole stays illuminated.

The whole approach just defies elementary principles. You can't improve on
the beam divergence angle, and that is many thousandths of an inch at the
spindle distance scale.

On 2009-12-26, Richard J Kinch wrote:
DoN. Nichols writes:

Then select
a pinhole based on the tradeoff between perceived spot size and
brightness (you need sufficient brightness so you don't lose the spot.

I don't think you get the point.

Making a pinhole shadow of a big blob doesn't make the blob any more
accurate. The blob moves around and the pinhole stays illuminated.

It makes the blob (Airy disk) dimmer, and thus makes the part
*visible* to the user smaller. If the disk is full brightness, you see
the peak, and several rings of minor peaks surrounding it. If you make
it dimmer, you limit what you can *see* to the central peak only.

And -- if the pinhole is mounted rigidly to the front of the
laser, you are selecting the same portion of the blob as the laser and
pinhole move as a unit.

the whole approach just defies elementary principles. You can't improve on
the beam divergence angle, and that is many thousandths of an inch at the
spindle distance scale.

The beam, through a pinhole, is producing an Airy disk -- a
central peak surrounded by rings of diminishing brightnesses. Make the
pinhole small enough, and you can see only the central peak.

Have you *tried* the experiment, or are you working purely from
your own understanding of the underlying optics laws? Remember -- those
laws are not taking into account what is visible to a human eye, just
the overall distribution of light.

I tried it with a series of pinholes mounted in a turret
(designed for adjusting the energy content of IR from a black body
source while retaining the same color temperature). Granted, these were
quality pinholes, made in very thin metal, blackened, and with absolute
minimum reflection through the bore (because of the thin construction).
The pinhole was mounted about an inch in front of the laser pointer, and
was projected on a wall about five feet away.

Down to a certain size, the visible dot got smaller, then the
diffraction started making things worse and spreading it out. FWIW,
this was a red laser pointer. A green one would probably behave
somewhat differently.

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 writes:

Have you *tried* the experiment, or are you working purely from
your own understanding of the underlying optics laws?

Both. As an optical engineer, I approach this problem all the time in
many different forms.

Photons travel in straight lines. The childish gee-whiz notion about a
laser is that its photons are also traveling in *parallel* from a nearly
point source, because that is the casual impression when you wave the
spot from a pointer around. The beam divergence is less than the
angular resolution of your eye, so the beam *looks* perfect. That is
the essence of the mistake that a laser is some magic mojo for this
goniometry.

While laser light looks well-collimated compared to ordinary sources,
and indeed looks indistinguishably like a perfect source to the naked
eye, in reality it is not collimated to the kind of angular precision
required for resolving 0.001" spindle travel on a radius of 12 inches on
a mill-drill, or 17 seconds of arc, which is to say 0.08 milliradians.
Compare this precision to a typical far-field beam divergence of about a
milliradian for the best laboratory lasers, and you see why this hasn't
a chance of working.

In fact, using a laser has nothing to do with this purported optical
alignment gimmick. One could just as well use a flashlight with a
pinhole, or just an alignment scope viewing ambient light. The laser is
just a red herring. Which is what makes this laser-solves-all attitude
even sillier.

And -- if the pinhole is mounted rigidly to the front of the
laser, you are selecting the same portion of the blob as the laser and
pinhole move as a unit.

Your pinhole notion is just wrong from the start. Study the basic laser
principles like beam divergence and diffraction limits. Stopping a beam
makes it diverge more, not less.

When you perfect your 0.08 mrad beam, please call me. We'll be rich.

The Stucco site is not a help forum, it's an
*advertising* forum that invades real forums
(like "alt.home.repair", part of "usenet")
parasitically in order to generate free
advertising for itself, which continually
advances its search engine placement, thereby
increasing its own revenue through its click-
through advertising commissions.

So the first thing you should do is write them
an email and tell them to quit spamming.

Then try to find your way here through proper
channels. Please do a google search on "Usenet"
and post the regular way.



--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Light Tool Supply "
wrote in message
oups.com...

Not looking to violate rules of site,

On Friday, December 18, 2009 at 12:23:13 AM UTC-5, Michael Koblic wrote:
I was looking at a Rong-Fu clone today (RF30). Unlike the dovetail column
mills that I am used to this one has a round column. The head can be moved
up and down and swivelled 360 degrees, however one loses the X-Y position
doing it. The spindle (quill, really) has a maximum range of movement of
only 5".

My small mill manages 9" and I need every thou of it on some occasions,
particularly when changing for larger cutters, e.g reamers or simply
changing holders.

Furthermore I thought it was a good practice to mill with the quill
retracted as far as possible to improve rigidity. This would make it rather
difficult to change even shorter bits let alone change, say, a mill-holder
for a drill chuck.

What am I missing? How are these issues dealt with on these machines?

--
Michael Koblic
Campbell River, BC

I have just found a RF31 and am searching for an operators manual. Anyone have one they can share. A RF30 manual would be a help.

Mike Mitchell
Parsons, WV

wrote in message
...

On Friday, December 18, 2009 at 12:23:13 AM UTC-5, Michael Koblic wrote:
I was looking at a Rong-Fu clone today (RF30). Unlike the dovetail column
mills that I am used to this one has a round column. The head can be moved
up and down and swivelled 360 degrees, however one loses the X-Y position
doing it. The spindle (quill, really) has a maximum range of movement of
only 5".

My small mill manages 9" and I need every thou of it on some occasions,
particularly when changing for larger cutters, e.g reamers or simply
changing holders.

Furthermore I thought it was a good practice to mill with the quill
retracted as far as possible to improve rigidity. This would make it
rather
difficult to change even shorter bits let alone change, say, a mill-holder
for a drill chuck.

What am I missing? How are these issues dealt with on these machines?

--
Michael Koblic
Campbell River, BC

I have just found a RF31 and am searching for an operators manual. Anyone
have one they can share. A RF30 manual would be a help.

Mike Mitchell
Parsons, WV
================================================== ====================

I know Harbor Freight sold some Rong Fu mill-drills but I don't know the
model number crossovers. Is this the right one:
https://www.harborfreight.com/1-1-2-...ne-33686.html?
Maybe the manual will be at least some help. Oh, also found this page with
links to both the HF manual and the Grizzly version which the author says
has a much better manual: http://cholla.mmto.org/machining/hfmill.html.

--
Regards,
Carl Ijames

wrote in message
...

I have just found a RF31 and am searching for an operators manual.
Anyone have one they can share. A RF30 manual would be a help.

Mike Mitchell
Parsons, WV

http://joebullisproshop.com/Pro%20Sh...n%20Manual.pdf

I suggest you find a pro or hobby machinist to show you milling and
drilling operations in person, to teach you the feel of how fast and
deep you can cut and how securely the work must be clamped. I've
learned things by watching experts that I never saw in print.
-jsw

On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 06:51:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I have just found a RF31 and am searching for an operators manual. Anyone have one they can share. A RF30 manual would be a help.

Mike Mitchell
Parsons, WV

Googled "RF-31 manual" and found this:

http://joebullisproshop.com/Pro%20Sh...n%20Manual.pdf

RF-30 manual he

http://blog.penntoolco.com/munics_fi...-30-manual.pdf
--
Email address is a Spam trap.

On 2018-08-27, Bill wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2018 06:51:18 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I have just found a RF31 and am searching for an operators manual. Anyone have one they can share. A RF30 manual would be a help.

Mike Mitchell
Parsons, WV

Googled "RF-31 manual" and found this:

http://joebullisproshop.com/Pro%20Sh...n%20Manual.pdf

Hmm ... one item in the instructions for wiring -- "make sure the
spindle runs clockwise -- if not -- reverse the wiring" suggests that
this has a three phase motor. Do all RF-31 mill drills have three phase
motors? In the specs page, several motors are listed, and RPM at 50 Hz
vs 60 Hz, but nothing about the number of phases needed. (However,
reversing the wiring for a single phase will not reverse the spindle,
though reversing *part* of the wiring (start cap and winding) can
reverse the spindle.

Anyway -- if the motor is single phase, part of the information
in that manual will not be correct.

Good Luck,
DoN.

--
Remove oil spill source from e-mail
Email: | (KV4PH) 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 ---