Clausing spindle bearings-help!

I have been following this thread with great interest, since I own the same mill

formatting link
I wonder, if I'll ever get to doing the same thing that you are doing. Your mill is going to be as close to "new" as possible when you are done. You even took the Clausing name plates on the side of the column off. Now that is dedication!

And the added work you did by putting it all online is nothing to scoff at either. What a great job you're doing.

BTW, I noticed in your images of the mill, that it does not have a motor mounted. If you are thinking of getting a new motor for it, I strongly recommend a new Baldor motor.

Get a 3 phase, 3/4HP with RIGID base. Whatever motor you may get, do not get a resilient base motor for this mill. When I got my mill, it had some crappy Sears 1/2HP resilient base motor on it (the one in the picture on my site), and the mill was always dancing around the floor at the higher rpm's. Let me know, and I'll post the model number of my motor.

Clausing still sells the rubber washers that go between the NEMA frame and the motor for mounting. Now, with my new motor properly mounted the machine is as rigid as it should be.

If you are interested, I have a parts list with prices from Clausing of parts that are still available for this mill. The list is from the time that I got my mill, so it is most likely at least be partially outdated. I think that booklet also contained "exploded view" assembly drawings of the mill. At the time I got my mill I bought this list with drawings from Clausing for $10.00 after which I ordered several new parts. Among other things I got two new nuts for the lead screws for the X and Y axes, which brought the backlash down from around .020" to a more manageable .010". Still not great, but then again I am not machining parts for NASA. At the time new lead screws were also available, but they cost more than I paid for the entire mill, so I did not get those.

And finally, I have printouts of the original owner's manual, that someone emailed me when I got this mill. That might have been Mike Henry, but I am not sure about that. I can no longer find the original digital files that were sent to me. But I think, that I still have those printouts somewhere, so if nothing else I can scan those and send them to you.

Abrasha

formatting link

Reply to
Abrasha
Loading thread data ...

It probably wasn't me that sent you the manual as Clausing only charges $10 for it and I feel that all but the most destitute owners should be willing to come with that much cash for a manual.

I may have sent you copies of the test report from my mill, though, or maybe scans from an old brochure showing the few accessories they sold for these mills. If you've lost those, or just want them, email me for a copy.

Mike

Reply to
Mike Henry

Thanks, I'll give him a try. I'm finding quite a variation in price for essentially the same bearings. The SKF bearings were quoted at $265 by Motion in Buffalo (or C$293 from Canadian Bearings here in Toronto) but the Bardens are around $320 or an incredible C$512 here. Must be using our old exchange rate of 60%!

Reply to
Terry Keeley

Reply to
Terry Keeley

I'm actually finding that a 15degree contact angle might be better for a milling machine as it can take higher radial loads with less deflection, 25 degree and up are better for axial loads.

Reply to
Terry Keeley

Thanks for the kind words, I've have two buddies that have this mill and know what it's capable of. When shopping I looked hard at the "china mills", including the RF45 but just couldn't do it, even though I would have paid about the same as for this 1963 Clausing. It's going to be pretty as well as functional soon.

I've got a new Leeson 1/2 HP to go on it, woulda used a 3/4 HP but this one came cheap, not sure what you mean by a RIGID base but it has the standard mounting frame.

Thanks for the offers on the parts lists but I ordered a manual and parts lists as soon as I got the machine. I'm replacing all the bearings, the gears for the knee and the "y" nut, plus a few other odds and ends. The dealer I bought it from (Dick Treimstra in Detroit) even supplied an original inspection report from another machine (might be Mike's) so I can check mine when I'm done.

Reply to
Terry Keeley

Check out this page:

formatting link
Go to page 7 of 16. The photo is of a resilient base motor. AS you can see, the base is a cradle that holds the motor around the shaft. On both ends the motor is mounted in a thick rubber rings, which allows for a certain amount of movement.

This is a rigid base motor:

formatting link
The base is welded to the motor.

Or look here

formatting link
under: "Type of mounts"

Rigid base Is bolted, welded or cast on main frame and allows motor to be rigidly mounted on equipment.

Resilient base Has isolation or resilient rings between motor mounting hubs and base to absorb vibration and noise. A conductor is imbedded in the ring to complete the circuit for grounding purposes.

Abrasha

formatting link

Reply to
Abrasha

Reply to
pentagrid

Oh, now see, don't think I've ever seen a resilient base motor, mines definately a rigid base with the NEMA 56 frame. Thanks for the help!

Reply to
Terry Keeley

That's exactly the case with the 8520 spindle, they use a single bearing near the top with a duplex pair at the bottom. Somewhere in my reading I recall that back to back mounting is a more rigid set-up.

Reply to
Terry Keeley

Reply to
Ned Simmons

Reply to
Gunner Asch

Reply to
Mark Rand

Reply to
Ned Simmons

Can you explain that notation, please? Your post makes sense to me if is face to face and >< is back to back, as illustrated here...

formatting link
I don't recall ever seeing that notation and it seems backwards from the way bearings are usually drawn.

Ned Simmons

Reply to
Ned Simmons

The inner races are clamped together with a locknut, is that the proper condition for back to back mounting?

Reply to
Terry Keeley

For angular contact pairs, whether back to back or face to face, the outer races and inner races *must* be clamped together.

The inners via the spindle nut and whatever spacers stack happens to be there, the outers typically by clamping them in a bored recess with a clamp ring.

In both ff and bb mounting, you will see that locknut. You cannot determine a priori one vs the other because of its presence.

Jim

Reply to
jim rozen

Reply to
John

Like most of you all, I save everything ...

Here are the bearing numbers I received when buying the bearings from Clausing several years ago (I still have the empty boxes).

Two Fafnir 7205W SU bearings. The boxes were taped together and I believe they were the lower spindle bearing.

Two Fafnir 9105KDD bearings. I believe these were for the front pulley.

One Fafnir 204KDD bearing. I believe this was the upper spindle bearing.

One CR Services 13548 Oil Seal. This is for the bottom of the spindle.

As the directions posted by Mike says, the bearings are Back-to-Back. As I think back to when I was doing this, I recall putting them in backwards first. The advantage of the back to back configuration is when pressing the bearings out you are NOT reverse loading them. In the face to face configuration you are loading one of the bearings in the wrong direction when pressing them out. This might be a problem if the press is high, and you want to reuse the bearings.

IAW my Fafnir catalog, the "SU" means the bearings are packaged singly, and can be used DB, DF or DT (Tandem). "DU" in place of "SU" means you will get 2 "SU" bearings in one package. Might be a price brake that way.

There is a difference between the "W" and the "WN" that Mike quoted. I don't see a 7205WN in the catalog, just a 7205W. The "W" has a 20 deg contact angle, and the WN would have a 40 deg. It is only the smaller sizes that are "W", so I am guessing that they are to small to make with a 40 deg angle.

FWIW, after I got the bearings from Clausing, I priced them out from a bearing house and they were about a 1/3 cheaper.

Hope this helps.

Vince

Mike Henry wrote:

Reply to
Vince Iorio

As you will notice..angular contact bearings are essentally cone shaped in their bearing contacts. One side of the bearing has a wide gap around the race, the other side has a much narrower gap.

They are designed to basicly be pushed from the wide..or thrust side, so the bearings are forced deeper in to the cone.

Hence the >< being two cones facing each other with the thrust towards each other being applied by the shaft and lock nut that pulls them deeper into their respective cones.

If you reverse the arraingment in a fashion..the shaft and nut Pulls the inner races away from the cone. Even with a preload cylinder between them..thrust makes the bearing move towards the wide end of the cone..away from full contact. \-----\

----- thrust------> >

/___/

Even if the two cones >< are seperated by a short distance..they are pulled deeper in the races by the lock nut.

I dont know the nomenclature for front and back..but only know them as thrust side and the other side and the thrust side (often plainly marked as such) need to be on the outside of the bearing stack, and pulled together, then the entire bearing group held tightly in the housing. Ball screw thrust bearing (double bearing) packs have a removable "cover" that is held in place by bolts/screws that keep the outer races held rigidly in place.often with a very thin spacer that contacts only the facing faces of the outer race.

Hope that helped, not confused..and that diagram in your link..is >< as you indicated

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire. Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us) off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the shit out of you for torturing the cat." Gunner

Reply to
Gunner Asch

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.