Care and feeding of new mill-drill

I don't have long-term experience, but I picked up a little plastic storage box at Harbor Freight a while back. It comes with a dozen or so little cylindrical plastic boxes inside that happen to fit ER32 collets very nicely. No rattling around.

Pete

Reply to
Pete Bergstrom
Loading thread data ...

A model I really should include in my toolbox. I can't tell you the number of times I could have used one.

Thanks, Jim.

Harold

Reply to
Harold and Susan Vordos

Harold,

I think I follow. It gets to another question, which is whether you work in absolute or relative (rezeroing) the dials? It sounds as though you do not rezero. In that case, a "lap counter" would be handy, but the scale probably does pretty much that.

No argument here; it makes sense. With the ER set, the changes involved would not be all that time consuming, and it beats starting over.

Re the edge finder, I think I get it now, at least for edges. I flipped the belts, and fiddled with a little more speed. I saw definite lateral movement, and then realized that the motion was smaller than I was expecting. Now that I know what to look for, I can see it at the speed I was using before. I have yet to set the dials to check for repeatability, but will try that next.

Bill

Reply to
Bill Schwab

snip--

Once you've set a dial, don't reset it while you're running the part, or series of identical parts. It's too easy to screw up by a few thou. Naturally, when there's no alternative, do so, but be careful you don't introduce backlash while spinning the dial to the new setting. Then remember you've lost your datum point, so the dial will no longer be in sync with it.

Yes, the scale serves as a lap counter in a sense. What you'll find is that when you have to step off inches, you count turns, 5/inch. If your machine has dials calibrated .200"/turn, it's real easy to work in thousandths, which I assume you do. Smaller mills often have dials that are .125"/turn. They make it a little harder because you can't read your dimensions directly as you can with the .200 dials (for example, 7/16" is 2 turns + 37 on the dial, whereas with a .125 dial it's 3 turns + 62 on the dial-----it requires a little more attention). Takes a little getting used to, and it's where you'll make some scrap initially, but once you've mastered the dials, it's no big deal, and you can plot holes easily within a couple thou reliably, assuming your screw is in good condition.

What I do is use a wax pencil and make marks on the saddle/table as reference points, noting the dial mark at that position. It's especially important to mark your "0" points, so you can go back to your reference, or starting points when in doubt. Assuming the screw on your machine is good, by so marking your machine, you can step off holes time and again, stopping at the same location without thinking. That's a nice feature if you're drill ing, tapping, counterboring, or otherwise going back to each location for a specific function that may not lend itself to being done while you're there the first time.

Each edge finder seems to have its own personality, at least those I've used. Yours appears to be no different. I think you're on the right track by trying it at various speeds, even if you see it with each one tried. One of them will be more "clean" than the others. Won't take you long to figure it out. When you find the magic number, you'll notice it's more reliable than the others, tending to be more sensitive.

Sounds like things are coming together for you. Can't tell you how nice it is to share my experience with someone that is willing to learn instead of challenging each and every comment. You've been a pleasure.

Harold

Reply to
Harold and Susan Vordos

What?? Pencil marks on the ways?

Next you will be accepting iron oxide there as well. Tsk.

Ooh. I think I resemble that remark!

:^)

Jim (who's shop has an inch of water on the floor after getting 14 inches of rain this past week)

Reply to
jim rozen

Careful, Jim. You're putting words in my mouth!

Nope, not on the ways. On the casting bodies. Simple wax pencil markings that are wiped off after each setup. That's how we old timers work without a DRO------which, in my honest opinion, makes a guy a cripple because it substitutes for skill. Same as a CNC, but on a more limited basis.

Chuckle! Like that's going to happen. Hell, I don't even like it on raw stock.

Naw, I'm suggesting teaching the young and willing, not an old dog like you that has years of experience. You remember that saying about an old dog, surely! :-)

Wow! Very sorry to hear that, Jim. Hope things dry out and there's no damage done of a serious nature. Be sure to keep us advised as to the outcome.

Harold (who lives high on a ridge)

Reply to
Harold and Susan Vordos

Harold,

When you say a series of parts, it sounds like you are assuming some type of jig or setup block that will get the next piece in place, otherwise the dial setting would be meaningless for the next part. How does that work? Or am I reading too much into it?

Thinking about it, if I am following you and if there is a robust way to place pieces after the dials are set, it would be useful if the part needs to be turned and reclamped.

I am tempted to say they are 0.1 per turn, but I might get home and wish I had deleted this line. The screw seems to be in fine shape. So far, I think there is more variability in my use of a dial caliper than there is trouble with the screws.

That is an excellent argument for leaving the dials set. I have been resetting them to make the immediate readings easier to understand, but with overshooting to remove backlash and a "flight plan" (or your wax pencil marks) with distances from the datum and dial readings to expect, it should be fine.

The good news is that I am probably running too slow for Aluminum anyway, so if I get the belts the other way around, a temporary speed increase would be be a single belt move. With the dials sitting in one place, I should find myself needing to use the edge finder only once per clamping or head movement, which hopefully the ER set will make rather rare.

Likewise, it is a pleasure to get sound advice from someone with experience. Thanks for sharing it. I am certain I will get around to "challenging" you soon enough - it is a poor student who fails to do that from time to time.

Come to think of it, my "flight plan" idea might be my first rebellion :) Some of it will depend on what I do for CAD. In the past few years, the things I have done that required any precision were circuit boards, and I fell back on a very simple homegrown framework that allowed me to ultimately drive a printer to get a 1:1 layout of the traces. I did that only when pre-printed/drilled boards ($3 or so at Radio Shack) would not work, so it was rare. That same setup could perhaps kick out the tedious part of a sequence of waypoints, absolute coordinates, dial readings on my mill, etc.

If anyone cares to recommend an inexpensive but flexible CAD program (2D should be fine), I am willing to consider it. I have some $30 thing I bought a while ago, but it's a real pain to use. The snaps do not work well, and editing objects to change length is a problem because it seems to "think" only in scaling at that point: I have yet to find a way to simply set the lengh of a line after it's been drawn. Getting it right from the start is challenging because of the flaky snaps.

Thanks!!

Bill

Reply to
Bill Schwab
©.x?Z?ã?|çW´Ã3?£Ñ\|? öørâ v1bä±E¶¤ö¦Ø2?ÜåëOU­&)iÏøÄö¶$®î^?ZµªY}òû???Û?­÷'¿±Ü'íðçMÖ'ßø.äa=nÛuhÆOvøö?!¸?CÈÙïB?Sþª?Ç/»Ï>Þ??~õ?C?u?éÑõz]ý%þU~ô}j?Õ_^?N?]þí?:¸s?U?ú°?0i_úvd«bQúÌ ?q?½Ô0E°½3??þwæU3?«´úD¥¬FÅB.úGæã,ÙØ[?cÍþ¡ò՝òY­Lp¨?þL¶öÞÂyÌÜþòª¸??þÁöë]?¨A?¸???w  º?,±ü?o?¡-àiÄ?0æ®?)Ü\E%?>??&JòÖ=uå=vi?­ÇM/²~ýò¥ /hõú$ KgNX?Èæ?â??ÏdÞäéÎHb(Ñçáßo½?$sÀ u:íEVyôk?õ«?_lmÂz?´*µÛ8 -Ö7¢?ÂL¡YÅ7Z??¹^ ?D¼?>é­?e1M?Fþ)^{º½?/_¼úÂv§P¯o¼Ãð¸ÿq?~9?Q'b«ÏS?æ)ãÊó?ÎÏ}ñÏ÷?ÛÍûVØ?©NòâñQ? ?°R÷L~?Ë.~±³>,ãj×OV??v;å®bjMÊMÉ úÒRÖÝ]?Üf?¦¶ù]y ÕîÀì¶ýÈÖf|vºìè~?ͺ?¶?Þa?ÒêÆD^@ïëv|«Ûñ$/¼l¾%§ªÄ9ó:¬©?`¢@R?ã?+9?ÏïW?Îa°?JÊÙ{^*·v¹ ÜÛÞ?Õ;?zH6½?Q×þ[?6xÕýh%5É:úàøÒöÔî­'ª¬­é×^?èùH0bÛßö!èr¬MÓU§?*·¥"?%+?ø³?/ØäÓì§ÓiÒ1ú52»@P?P9.ÄfêÏq»¼~¥7UÊ?cL9\ì¡hAU?Ò=H±½&^UÕÿ?©ê=
Reply to
Harold and Susan Vordos

This is why the vises in the shop at work often tend to have the little oblong tab washer hung off the back.

Actually I purchased an inexepensive clamp-on stop that fits B'port vise jaws very securely. It fits onto the edge that protrudes up, and goes on with a setscrew that really ties it down tight.

It has a short dowel pin that sticks out each side to actually locate against, so it can be used right- or left-handed. Can't imagine getting along without something like that for repetitive operations.

Jim

Reply to
jim rozen

From the description, I'd suggest it's a good stop. The idea would lend itself to my vise, which is *not* a Bridgeport. I had one, but finally got rid of it. They simply are not good enough for the kind of work I used to do. One job in particular was a large quantity of read and write heads that were destined for IBM, made from 5/8" square leaded brass. I was roughing the internal configuration, after which I squared them and machined them to length. I had sub-contracted the parts (hundreds of them) from another firm, where they were finished on an NC. This goes back to the late 60's, before CNC was commonly available. The BP vise was out enough that I couldn't hold the part square within the .0005" tolerance, and you can believe me when I tell you I know how to do small, precision work. I ended up intentionally tilting the head of my BP to compensate for the solid jaw of the vise being out. That job was one of the reasons I ended up with a Kurt. Small one------5" jaws. Best vise I've ever used for the kind of work I did.

Harold

Reply to
Harold and Susan Vordos

Hmm. Sounds like a good company...

I've never been terribly impressed by b'port vises. Possibly because the only ones I've seen were pretty old and abused.

And as you say, any time vise matter at the workplace, there seems to be one made by Kurt. Yours comment is another confirmation.

I've also found that the tiny toolmakers vise made by hardinge for its horizontal machines is very nice as well. But someday there may be a Kurt vise in my future...

Jim

Reply to
jim rozen

Mine didn't wait to get seasoned. It started out crappy. One of the things it did that was really annoying was permit the fixed jaw insert to move (slightly) under load. That tells me that something was out of flat by some means, be it the body or the insert. The other ongoing problem was that parts would ride up when the vise was closed. That necessitated tapping each part down properly, which isn't all that reliable when you're trying to hold a half thou. The moveable jaw goes through a bit of lost motion before permitting the part to slip, and it isn't necessarily consistent. Need I tell you I became an artist at loading the parts? Once a routine was developed (including tilting the head, and abandoning the handle, using a small parallel clamp in its stead) I beat the problems, but it gave me all the reasons I needed to buy a decent vise when the money was available. You shouldn't have to abandon all common practices in order to have a tool work as intended.

It's hard to understand when you d "If the cylinders turned out at all good it's due to your help and that new vise. What a great addition. Suddenly things are starting to come out square and on size."

Not having used one, I probably don't understand its fine qualities, but if it's in keeping with the balance of Hardinge equipment, I'd likely agree. Still, the feature built in to Kurt, that minimizes jaw ride-up-----makes them worth the cost.

By the way, the vise my friend bought came from ebay----in fact, I got it for him. It wasn't cheap, but less than half the cost of a new one, and was almost unused. He got an outstanding buy and has no regrets, as you can deduct form his quoted comment.

Harold

Reply to
Harold and Susan Vordos

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.