drive pin on R8 collets

On 30 Jun 2004 17:51:28 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@w-sherwood.ih.lucent.com (Charles A. Sherwood) wrote:


All the indexing pins, thats what it actually is and serves onbly that purpose and thats to index the tooling........were removed from all the machines in the USArmy machinist tech school, for no other reason other than to eliminate a screwed up spindle or collet if a student crashed the mill. An R-8 collet / spindle setup is self locking by design, and the pin serves no part in driving it or keeping the collet from rotating.
Its a mixed bag if you need to ndex your tooling replace it, other than that its not needed. Visit my website: http://www.frugalmachinist.com Opinions expressed are those of my wifes, I had no input whatsoever. Remove "nospam" from email addy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    [ ... ]

    Well ... where it helps, really, is when loosening or tightening the drawbar. It keeps the collet and drawbar from rotating as a unit, without you having to stretch one hand up high to wrench the drawbar while the other is down at the collet, holding it and the took in the spindle firmly enough to keep it from rotating under the influence of the drawbar.
    But -- aside from that, it is not really necessary.
    I've seen in the MSC flyers from time to time a tool which has three flanges on a handle, to allow you to hold the collet from rotating more easily (without a tool in it), or to allow you to unscrew the collet from the spindle (without an index pin being there). The flanges fit into the three radial slots on the collet's end, to allow you to either rotate it or to stabilize it.
    I think that this tool is intended to be used on CNC machines where the collet is tightened by power assist.
    Of course, none of my milling machines have such an index pin, because one uses 30 taper, one uses 40 taper, and one uses ER double-angle collets, none of which have such key slots.
    The larger lahte (12x24" Clausing) does have such a pin in the (5C) collet adaptor, which is helpful while I'm at the other end of the headstock, screwing the drawbar down to the right point where the lever will lock it. For *that*, I am glad to have the indexing pin.
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip-.

It's been years since I last ran a mill with a 50 taper, but I recall that even they have keys, only in this case they are drive keys. Large mills are capable of turning large cutters, so they can easily overcome the taper drive. The #50's with which I was familiar were used in spindles on Cincinnati, Van Norman and K&T mills. The shoulder at the large end of the taper had opposing slots that accepted hardened drive keys that were a part of the spindle. Do your holders have such slots?
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    Yes -- *drive* keys -- not index pins to keep the collet from spinning while you tighten the drawbar. :-)

    The Bridgeport BOSS-3 (Series I) has the 30-taper Erickson spindle. The holders have the slotted flange, and this is used (in place of a drawbar) to both index (with 180 degree out possible) and to draw the taper up firmly. (A set of rotating ears fit through the slots as well as the keys. When you rotate the locking collar, the rotating ears swing over the flange and tighten against it to draw it in.
    There are times (like with a boring/facing head) when I would feel more comfortable with a drawbar. :-)
    The Nichols mill (40-taper) is a bit different. What it has is a pair of threaded holes for large Allen head cap screws to act as drivers, and the official 1" arbors (and presumably other sizes) are cross-drilled with about a 0.300" drill rod inserted through it, with a set screw at right angles to keep the two ends equidistant from the surface of the arbor. However, the Allen head cap screws will serve as driving lugs for the slotted flanges as well -- and even for CAT-40 end mill holders -- once you heat them to soften the Loctite, unscrew the draw stud, and machine up a replacement neck with internal thread to accept the standard drawbar. (I have done this with a couple of them from eBay auctions in sizes which I could not find with the standard flange.
    Of course -- these *are* drive flanges, while the index pin for an R8 has nowhere near the strength if you manage to overcome the taper's friction drive. It will probably shear off in a hurry.
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

that
taper
the
part
Thanks, DoN. It's been so many years that my memory is a bit foggy, but you've described them exactly as I remember them. I am not familiar with the smaller tapers aside from the quick change that I own. The real popularity of the smaller tapers seems to have hit the market big time when NC's and CNC's became popular, but by then I was well steeped in what I was doing and didn't change. At that time there was no reason to do so. Today I doubt I could get a job if that was my desire.
The quick change that I own is a Bridgeport product that has a Jacobs type keyed head and end mill holders that have a small taper, much in keeping with the large ones, although these are quite small. In looking at the head, one could easily conclude that Jacobs made it for Bridgeport. From your description of The Bridgeport BOSS-3 (Series I), I gather this system is similar, if not identical.
The q/c head extends the length of the spindle considerably and you can feel the difference on a Bridgeport, so I don't use it much. When doing a production job that required a few different end mills, though, it was a real time saver, so long as the demand was light duty.
I guess my entire point about the R8 is that the key is not intended to drive the cutter, although there are times when it probably does. I'm of the opinion it is there to prevent the collet from spinning when the thread on the drawbar and the collet don't fit up well, be it from chips or other reasons. Personally, I enjoy having the key in place and don't find it difficult to install the collets properly. I guess it's all in what one gets used to. I can see how easily a person could make the mistake of installing a collet not lined up with the key when they were used to not working with one. That in and of itself is pretty good reason to have the key in place. Helps prevent learning what I consider to be bad habits when running machines. The mileage of others is likely to vary.
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
    [ ... ]

    And the BOSS-3 was the first of the Bridgeport CNCs. (Apparently the BOSS-1 and BOSS-2 were so bad that they never made it out of the factory. :-) The BOSS is the software (or firmware) name, while the machine hardware is Series-I or Series-II, depending on size.

    I've seen (and used) one for an earlier Bridgeport clone converted to CNC by Anilam. That one had an R8 shank, and the quick-change holder on the end.
    The differences between that and my Bridgeport with the Erickson quick change is:
1a)    Erikson uses a full 30-taper NTMB style. Thinkness of flange,     and distance of the far side from the gauge line are critical to     it properly locking.
1b)    The other quick-change adaptor which I mentioned above was     smaller than 30 taper (close to 20 taper, if such exists), and     instead of having a flange with two opposed notches, it has two     fairly narrow ears -- about the width of the notches in the     30-taper if scaled down to match.
2a)    The Erickson quick-change head must be spun closed with the     hand followed with a special wrench.
2b)    The other system is designed with a spring to spin the head     closed, and a pair of pins to lock it open until the ears     depress them. So you stop the spindle, spin open the collar,     and the old tool in the collet assembly drops out. (You     hopefully catch it, instead of allowing the end mill to bash     into the workpiece, the milling vise, or the bed. :-) You then     slap the new one in place, and the collar spins to a lock     position on its own -- no wrench needed.
3a)    The Erikson will accept any of the various 30-taper NTMB     end mill holders, and various flavors of collet holders.
3b)    The other system has two sizes of collet holders, and two     series of collets to fit them. I've not seen anything else to     fit them -- although it could well exist.

    The BOSS-3/Series-I has a special spindle package with the socket for the quick-change made as part of it, and with a hollow ball screw surrounding the quill, for the CNC to drive the quill directly on-axis.

    That sounds like what I experienced at work, and attempted to describe above. The BOSS-3/Series-I extends perhaps and additional inch beyond where the end of a R8 collet would be in the standard spindle. (Another interesting thing is that the 30-taper and the taper part of an R8 collet are identical -- just that the final drawbar shank on the 30-taper is smaller (more griping taper), and, of course, it has the driving keys.

    Yes. The real place where a quick-change system of any sort wins is in CNC, every time you install a tool, the distance from the gauge line to the cutting end is the same (until you re-sharpen the end mill, or shift it), so you don't have to edit the program to reference the new position.
    There are also fixtures to allow you to adjust the extension of a replacement tool to a constant extension from the gauge line, so you can replace or re-sharpen tools without having to modify the program. (Although most programming systems have provisions for clustering the tool dimension definitions right at the beginning of the program.) The Compact-5/CNC lathe, however, is not so nice. You have to re-enter the tool offsets in the program *each* time you call up a given tool, even if it is in a turret. This makes it rather important to perform as many operations with a given tool before changing it as possible -- especially if you are hand entering the programs, as I normally do. :-)

    And there are probably times when it *attempts* to drive it, and     fails. :-)

    Let me put it this way. If I had gotten a manual Bridgeport with R8 shank, and found that it was missing the key -- or that it was sheared off -- I would by now have made and installed a replacement. As I understand it, the key is simply a dog-point Allen head set screw, backed by another Allen-head setscrew short enough so the socket extends through it, to allow a single Allen wrench to loosen the lock setscrew, and then back both out at the same time.
    I *do* appreciate the index pin in the 5C collet adaptor in my Clausing 12x24 lathe.
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snip---

I just took a look at mine, and it sure looks like it's exactly as you describe. A dog point set screw. On the back side of the quill there's a screw that my money says will allow access to the key (screw) so it can be either changed or adjusted for length. It would require aligning the spindle with the quill to do so, however.
I bought my first Bridgeport in '67 and the second one in '77. I still have the second one, and in all those years I have not destroyed the key, nor have I had any incidences of tightening the collet when it was not aligned properly. The minor amount of time it takes to align the collet doesn't appear to me to be significant, but I get the idea that if you don't do it routinely, it is likely somewhat troublesome. I think I understand those that don't feel the key is necessary, I just don't agree with them. It appears you don't, either.

I read your comments earlier, about installing your collets while you're at the opposite end of the headstock tightening the drawbar. I, too, have run such machines and can't imagine not having the key to keep the collet from spinning. I not only appreciate the key, I more or less demand it. Seems it would be quite awkward without one.
The last job I held before I started my shop back in '67, I ran a small Clausing, likely a similar machine to yours. It was a 6" machine on which I ran a lot of close tolerance work. I liked the variable speed drive it had, but it was a bit noisy. To be honest, I was quite spoiled from having had an EE at my disposal for years prior to leaving Sperry. Still, I was quite impressed with the ability of the little Clausing to perform. I recall a month straight of various low volume production parts with a +/- .001" tolerance. No problem. It was equipped with a KDK tool post, which has never been a favorite of mine. I prefer a square toolpost (OK Rubber Welders, specifically), although they tend to be limiting for complex setups.
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    [ ... ]

    Agreed. I guess that you could lock down the collet drawbar and use one of those three-finned wrenches to spin the collets into it from the spindle nose end, but it is one extra tool to find someplace to keep, and the fine adjustment would be a bear since any workpiece would get in the way of the wrench.

    6" Are you using the UK spec -- center height above bed, instead of the US maximum diameter swung above bed? Mine is 6" by the UK standards, or 12" by the US ones.

    O.K. That is one notch above mine -- even it it is the same size. Mine has five step pulleys in the pedestal, and back gears to give a total of ten speeds. (At least until I swap in a three-phase motor and connect up a VFD for the purpose.)
    The variable speed pulley assembly is noisy compared to the standard step pulley -- and a Monarch 10EE is even more quiet.

    Those can certainly spoil one. :-)

    Is that the one with the ribbed post and matching ribs on the tool holders, which can lock up at 15 degree intervals? I've seen them, but never used one.

    I really like the Aloris style quick change for everything that I do. I picked the BXA size, since the AXA stops at 12", and the BXA runs from a bit smaller to something like 15", so it is the more rigid of the two.
    The square toolposts (four-way) have to be shimmed for each tool (unless you grind the tool to a precise height for the cutting edge), and one for boring or facing eliminates the adjacent slot for turning, so it is really only three-way under those conditions.
    With the Aloris style, you have two dovetail stations, one for turning tools, and one for boring and facing tools. And as long as you have enough toolholders, you can set each to put the tool edge on center height *once* so you don't have to tune the height each time you change tools. (And working in combination with the bed turret, you don't have to worry about indexing when you change tools beyond the four stations of the four-way.
    But -- I got a chance to use a good quick-change fairly early on, after using mostly a lantern style before, so I got hooked. :-) I only had a couple of weeks of experience with the four-way before the quick-change appeared.
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

at
Another idea would be to disturb anyone near you and have them hold the collet while you turn the drawbar. On the other hand, maybe you could just use the damned key as it's intended to be used. I'm completely baffled how some people can go so far out of their way to make things more difficult, and then justify it as if they've made some great discovery. :-)

which
No, US specs, but I may be wrong on the size of the lathe, it may have been an 8" machine, although I remember it as a 6". It was a small machine, bench mounted, so low that you sat to run it. Considering we worked five 12's and one 6 hour day each week, sitting wasn't all that bad of an idea. It had been used as a polishing and junk machine until I came along. It had been poorly cared for, almost never wiped or oiled. I was quite surprised to have it turn out as well as it did. Once it got wiped and oiled routinely it had a pretty nice feel. A far cry from the first time I ran it, when it was stiff as could be.
I had a thing for doing small work, so when they found out I was willing to do it, they started heaping it on me. I was the one to decide to use the little Clausing, I could have used a larger machine, but if you've done much small work, you know how dreadful that is. Speed is essential, and nothing in the place had the same speed capability. Can't even remember how fast the spindle ran, but it had the collet setup and also a Buck 6 jaw chuck, so it was quite nice to use for the small work I did with it. Interestingly, I had left Sperry (Univac by then) only 18 months earlier, and it was sub-contract work from them that I was running where I was employed. As a result, I was very familiar with the type of quality that they expected. All the work was defense oriented, something I had trained to do.

it
Still a nice machine, for sure, but variable drive is really the way to go. I miss it on my Graziano, although I've run it for so many years now that I don't remember just how nice it is to be able to changes speed while cutting. The Graziano does that, but by steps, like a gear change. I like the infinite controls, especially when facing and trying to keep up a good surface finish. I've not run anything equipped with VFD, but understand that's what you gain. Super nice way to go, especially if you don't sacrifice torque at low speed. The EE was famous for not losing power at low speeds.

Unless you've run one, I'm not sure you can really understand just how nice they are. I've always coveted one, but couldn't come to terms with the cost. Not that they weren't worth the money, for I feel they were. It was just one hell of a lot of money for a guy that was starting out, secure in his ability, but insecure as to his ability to secure work enough to pay the bills. Looking back, I would have done just fine. Should have bought the EE, but I sure do like the Graziano. In a way, it's a better choice for a guy with only one lathe.

No, and I'm not familiar with the one you describe. The KDK was similar to the typical insert type tool post, only it had a small handle that was thrown (vertically) to lock or unlock the tool blocks. As I recall it had a dovetail type lock, and the handle operated the gib, so to speak. At any rate, when the handle was thrown, the dovetails tightened up. Sorry to be so vague, but I left that job back in '67. Small wonder I'm a bit puzzled.
As I recall, the (short) handle was (is) located on the right hand side of the holder, knob end towards the operator, and had a pivot that was parallel to the ways. It did not index, but like the other quick change holders, it was adjustable vertically. For a small lathe it wasn't all that bad, but the shop had a 42" DSG lathe with a KDK holder. The tool blocks weighed in at roughly ten pounds each, so changing them wasn't a fun job, especially when one worked 12 hour shifts, which was the norm. The one advantage was that when using the lathe to capacity, the cuts were relatively long lived, so you didn't change often.
I get the idea that the KDK line isn't available any longer. You, of all people, seem to be very familiar with machine tool accessories, so I'm somewhat surprised that you aren't familiar with them.

Rubber
I guess our first experiences are quite influential. It was on the EE that I became familiar with the OK Rubber Welders head, and then once again I ran a machine briefly that was equipped with one when I left Sperry. I got used to having a small box of shims near, and still do, so it's really easy to set up a tool when you're familiar with the system. For the most part, when I was actively machining I could almost guess the right shim combination to find center. Usually one try, then an adjustment by adding or removing a thin shim and it was done. That can be a real PITA if you don't have a supply of shims on hand, though.
The OK Rubber Welders square head is unique in that it indexes by detent every 15 degrees, but has serrations at 3 degree intervals that allow the head to lock down precisely on location. You can make setups and mark dials and trust the head to repeat. Without the serrations, it's no different from any other square indexing block, though. It does not self index, you must index manually, but that's actually a good feature for me because I often used tools in random sequence, occasionally using a tool for more than one function. That way you could index in either direction when the handle was unlocked. No big deal.
In a nut shell, I like the advantage of having unlimited tool holders, which makes a machine much more flexible. I guess the one thing I don't like is having to handle them. You do get used to it, though, and it would be dead easy to go from a lantern type toolpost to *any* device that allowed you to actually make a setup. In all honesty, there's no way in hell you'd catch me running with a lantern toolpost. I like the flexibility, but they suck when it comes to any kind of repetition, as you well know.
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    [ ... ]

    Since it is a hobby shop at this point, I would have to go upstairs, talk my wife into leaving her anti-spam research (or whatever else she is doing on the computer) and come downstairs to hold it. And she really does not *like* to come into the shop that much. :-)

    Amen!
    :-)
    O.K. A very different machine, then. It may well have been 6", though I haven't seen one that small.

    I'll bet. Did it have the flame-hardened ways? Mine does, and I suspect that is one reason that it shows so little wear. (The bed turret is a second contributing factor, of course.)

    For certain small work, I use either the old Unimat SL-1000, or the Taig -- usually with the WW (watchmaker's) spindles and collet sets. Those both give me plenty of speed, and the ability to hold really small parts accurately. The "collets" for the standard Taig spindle are far from what I would prefer, but with the watchmaker's spindle, things are quite nice.

    What size collets? Perhaps 3C? (good up to 1/2" or perhaps 5/8" I guess.) Mine handles the 5C comfortably, and has the lever style closer.

    Very nice!

    :-)
    It is, indeed. It should even be possible to set up a rack gear turning a potentiometer to automatically change the spindle speed as you are facing, for lots of repeat cuts.

    The EE had a very interesting way of doing that, with a DC motor and separate control of field and armature to maximize both speed at the high end and torque at the low end. Several different techniques were used over the years, and now they are selling rebuilds with oversized induction motors and VFDs to maintain the low-end torque.

    I have. One of the ones with a motor-generator in the right pedestal to power the DC motor. I always wondered why I had to turn it on and hear this big motor spinning up while nothing visible moved. :-) This one was where I worked, and the only thing wrong with it was that the spindle tach was dead, so I had to set speeds by feel. :-) If it were mine, I would have pulled that tach and tried to repair it, but it belonged to the government, and was on someone else's property list.

    I'm quite happy with my Clausing most of the time. There are times when I would like to have the continuously-variable speed (which I will get when I put the three-phase motor and the VFD into it), and there are times when I would like a bit more swing, but most of the time it is quite satisfactory. And I have the little Compact-5/CNC for things like metric threads, and other repetitive small work, and the Taig and the Unimat SL-1000 for the very small work. Each has its benefits.

    Did it have two dovetails -- one for turning and one for facing/boring? The location of the lever suggests that it has only the one dovetail.
    The Compact-5 has yet another style of quick-change. There are two male 'V's on the turning and the facing/boring sides of the post, and corresponding female 'V's on the tool holders. Between the 'V's on the post there is a T-head on a cam which engages a T-slot in the tool holder. When you operate the cam, the tool holder is pulled firmly against the toolpost, so you get a good rigid setup. Of course, each holder has its own height adjustment, so you can change tools without having to worry about center height.

    :-)
    This is what makes me think that it used a single dovetail. I've seen some on eBay (which may be what you are describing) which have some tool holders in an 'L' shape to wrap around the post to provide a facing/boring holder.
    I've never actually *used* these (or even seen them other than in the eBay auctions) so the name does not stick.

    That sounds as though a counterbalanced crane for changing toolholders would have been helpful.

    There is that. For a given number of horsepower fed to the spindle, there are only so many cubic inches of steel which can be removed per hour. :-)

    I haven't had hands-on experience with all of them. I think that I have seen them in eBay auctions (if the L-shaped tool holder for facing and boring is right), but I've never used them.

    And the name does not inspire confidence in their rigidity, though I suspect that they in reality are very rigid. :-)

    [ ... ]

    One regular on the newsgroup keeps each tool with the associated shims in a pill bottle. That makes for fairly quick setup.

    Agreed -- and when I was using the machine at work with the 4-way toolpost -- the shop was new, and we didn't have shims around, so I had to cut some out of aluminum and whatever else was near the right thickness, using the DiAcro metal shear. :-) When the machinist in charge of the shop ordered and got the Aloris quick-change toolpost, I fell in love with it. :-)

    O.K. -- with the Aloris style, I normally don't change the setting of the post (unless I change the compound angle, in which case I re-square it with the ways and chuck face). For different angles of cut, I use different tools, pre designed for that angle. I do have one tool holder with multiple rows of setscrews which would allow mounting a tool at a strange angle, though what I intend it for is next time I go into production mode on the microphone adaptors. I should be able to mount two tools in it -- one to groove the runout groove for the external threads, and the other to part off the previous workpiece, all in a single pass.

    Agreed -- though you are still limited to a maximum of four tools at a given setup. With the Aloris style post, I can have any length sequence of tools I need. Let's see:
1)    Parting (and grooving)
2)    Turning OD to shoulder
3)    OD threading
4)    beveling edge
5)    facing end
6)    Boring ID
7)    ID threading
    I can picture using all of these on a single project -- and making multiples of a given workpiece. And that is ignoring project-specific form tools.
    But I guess that you could have two bodies for your four-way, and swap them in mid project, so you could handle up to eight tools at once. I would probably put all the boring/facing ones on one turret, and the OD turning/threading and parting ones on another one.

    Indeed so. They also have the *dis*advantage of flexibility too. They are not nearly as rigid as a good block form toolpost. (Though I guess using a raw HSS tool ground to shape without a holder might offer a bit more rigidity.
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
snip-----

idea.
had
surprised
ran
Funny, I recall it did have hardened ways, but only when you asked.
Like you, I have a bed turret for my Graziano, but use it only infrequently. I believe we've had a similar conversation before and I mentioned that my turret was screwed up from it's first day, so it doesn't perform well. I like having it and have used it in small production operations. By making good setups you can even cock die heads, so many sequences of operation can be accomplished without ever touching anything but the four arms of the hand wheel. I intend to cast a new head for the turret and re-machine the body so the indexing pin is concentric. That's the problem I have with it now, so the holes do not line up properly. As the indexing pin has worn, it has worsened. Had the pin been on location, it wouldn't have worn unevenly.

It had the 5C collet. I trained and used the 1J collets at Sperry, so assumed they were the norm. Even the three Hardinge lathes they had used the 1J. It was interesting to run into the 5C. Didn't take me long to figure out that the 1J was the anomaly when I started shopping for collets for my own machine, though. Interestingly, the only place I've ever seen the 1J was at Sperry, where they also had the Sjogren collet chucks for the larger machines, only using the 2J series of collets.

In a nut shell, that's why I like the Graziano. They are built strangely, with a natural gap, so the Sag 12 (my machine) can swing 17-1/2". It's a light machine for such a swing, but when used to it's rated capacity, it's quite a tough machine. For that odd occasion when you must turn something large, you slow down and take lighter cuts.
but most of the time

Agreed. I think if a person had a dozen lathes or mills, there would often be one machine that had features that made it more desirable to use for specific functions than the others. If I had unlimited funds and could find one, I'd love to own a little Levin lathe. I was shocked when years ago I inquired and found that they were much like buying an EE. They made a nice little turret type machine, obviously table top variety, and cost, as I recall something like $20,000. So much for that idea.

them,
to
had a

You got my curiosity up, so I did a quick search and found that they are still in business. Here's a link. http://www.kdktools.com /
As you suggest, they have only one dovetail. I was never unhappy with the holder, I just preferred the OK Rubber Welders type.

That system sounds very much like the one that came with my hydraulic duplicator for the Graziano. It, too, was made in Italy, and is called a Duplomatic. I like the head for the tracer, where you don't do any changing. I used the tracer for production runs so once the setup was made it rarely got changed until the run was finished. As long as I don't have to handle the holders, I'm a happy camper.

Like you, the name always made me come up short. Interestingly, they are a very nicely built head and very rigid. The body is heat treated well and the serrations have stayed very sharp. The only complaint I have had with using them is that it's fairly easy to get fine chips inside, where they can interfere with indexing precision. Once you know, it's no big deal to make certain it's clean.

Yeah, I recall reading his post, and have communicated with him often. He's a remarkable guy with considerable talent. I like his idea of storing the tools and shims as a unit, but I'd have to have one hell of a large cabinet if I was actively machining. I found it just as easy to trust to memory for shim size. I guess it's all in what you get used to.

I can see how the Aloris looked pretty good after chasing shims.
One of the great sources for shims is using metal banding. It comes in various thicknesses and is already a nice width. I have aluminum shims that are 1/8" and 1/16", then a generous supply of shim stock or feeler gage shims, and lots of banding shims. In a pinch I'll even use a layer of paper if I must, although that's not my preferred shim.

That's one of the advantages of having tool holders. The way I use my tool block, I never worry about it being square with the ways, although I don't like the back side to be closer to the chuck than the front side. It's too easy to be watching the tool and hit the jaws on the head that way. Because I change tools instead of replace holders, how they mount is determined at setup time.
I do have one

When involved in production, little steps like that can yield considerable time savings. That's not a bad idea. I can see that the first cut would be the parting, the second the groove depth.

With some creativity, you can actually mount more than four tools (in a square head), although one of them may be nothing more than a chamfering tool.
To get around the above sequence with fewer tools, what you do is call upon some tools to perform multiple service. For example, I'd turn, face and chamfer with the same tool. You can do that with the OK type holder because it is capable of indexing in 3 degree increments.
Where you lose positions is going from OD to ID work, however. Once you've mounted tools in both directions, unless you have very short shanks, you often can't use both ends of the block. They have definite negatives compared to the replaceable types. I can honestly say that there have been times when I wished I had a KDK or Aloris for a given job. Now that I'm retired, I don't really much care because time is no longer very important to me in that regard.

That would have been the best of all worlds for me, although I'm not sure I ever considered the idea. It doesn't take very long to change the head, it's just about four turns of the handle and it's off. I can see that if one was running a complex part and insisted on using such a head, that would be a slick way to increase tool positions.

which
is
dead
to
catch
suck
I'd forgotten the lack of rigidity when using the lantern type holders. My little Craftsman had the lantern type holder, but the tool mounted directly on top of the rocker, so it was far more rigid than the 1/2-20 spindle,which I bent trying to part an item. It's pretty easy to see that the evolution of indexing heads, or multiple heads came only when we were able to use cutting tools that had longevity. Did it really matter if you couldn't mark your dials when you were forced to use carbon steel cutting tools? I dare say that in a production facility, one spent one hell of a lot of time sharpening tools instead of using them. Where would we be without HSS and carbide?
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    [ ... ]

    So it was one of the later ones. Probably similar vintage to my 5418 -- which Clausing says left the factory in 1957.

    You also mentioned a feature (or modification) so you could lock the ram in a given extension. I have yet to make that modification to mine.

    Is the existing head cast iron, or steel? I think that mine is steel, but have never tried it.

    Hmm ... can you replace the pin, and bush and re-drill the index holes? And if the tool shank holes don't line up -- perhaps you could bore to the next size up in the lathe itself, so you get concentric holes again? Perhaps bore oversize and bush the tool holes as well as the index holes.

    That sounds like the 12" swing one, then. There were earlier 12" Clausings which used a smaller collet -- is there a 4C?. About the period of mine, they stepped the spindle bore up to 1-3/8", and the collet size to 5C. They also may have made the bed wider at the same time.
    You said that yours was a benchtop lathe, instead of a pedestal lathe. But the manual for mine covers a benchtop version as well as the pedestal version. (Different headstock casting, with the motor assembly mounted behind the lathe on a swinging plate with a turnbuckle to adjust belt tension.)
    If you wish, I could provide you a link to a scan of the manual, so you could compare it to your memory. (But yours had variable speed, so it was probably the 5900 series, not my 5400.

    It sounds as though Sperry opted to standardize on a given maker of collets, and two sizes, no matter what the machine (except perhaps for a watchmaker's lathe. :-)

    O.K. So it is a permanent gap, not one with a section of ways which drop in place when not needed as a gap (as the current Chinese and Taiwanese lathes are set up)? I would consider the gap to be a bit of loss of rigidity, but if the lathe was designed to run that way, I guess that they made up the rigidity in other places.

    About the only one which I don't use at all these days is my old 6x18" Craftsman/Atlas. Flat ways, rather bunged up near the chuck, worn sleeve bearings, and the compound top slide broke when a parting tool jammed (lantern style toolpost), so I had to make a new one. (I've since found that I probably could still have gotten a replacement from Sears, of not from Clausing at the time.
    Later versions of the same lathe had roller bearings in the headstock -- but still had the flat ways.
    And still -- it was better than the 6" Craftsman which you had, a 109 from AA products, based on your later description at the bottom of this article. The spindle was of mine was 3/4", not 1/2" in diameter, so it could handle a bit more -- and survive breaking the T-slot out of the compound. :-)

    Keep your eyes on eBay -- one may sneak through someday.

    [ ... ]

    I can see why it would be awkward with larger machines -- there is a *lot* of steel in each of the tool holders, in part to make the corner turn from the dovetail (which turns out to be in the boring-facing position, based on Aloris style toolpost usage.

    This one is from Austria, but there is one almost identical sold by a company called "Dickenson" (I think) in the U.K. And I've found reports of much larger sizes with the same design. The only disadvantage to it, in my mind, is the need for keeping track of the wrench -- a socket on the end of a bar like this:
+-\______ Socket --> | _____ \ +-/ \ \ \ \ \ \ Handle --> \ \ ~~~ <-- cut here

    :-)
    Probably the heaviest one for my Aloris is the one with a pair of knurling wheels on arms which travel on a vertical set of ways on the holder. The spacing is adjusted by a screw with left-hand threads on one end and right-hand threads on the other, an da big knurled knob on the top. It is adjusted to clamp on top and bottom of the workpiece, instead of pressing into it from the side. I use a T-bar knurler in the turret for most things, but there are things which only this can handle.
    The next heaviest is the block for 1" boring bars.
    By contrast, everything else is quite light -- at least in the BXA size range. :-)

    Just loosen the clamp nut, and run an acid brush in under it all?

    The same applies in spades to keeping everything in its own BXA size holder. :-) Bu the most common ones have their own dedicated holders, and there are a couple of spares for the infrequently used tools. (I even have one dedicated to the round insert tool which is nice for putting a radius at the end of a cut -- for appearance, or to minimize stress risers. :-)

    Indeed.
    Indeed so. And that one only had four holders. I've probably got 12-15 of them by now -- some new from Phase-II, some used Aloris from eBay and other used sources, and three special ones from Aloris, the double-ended negative rake insert holder, the block with multiple rows of setscrews for weird setups, and one toolblock with extends out towards the workpiece with an angle on the tailstock side to improve the support while clearing a live center offering tailstock support to the workpiece. That one happens to hold the insert holder for OD threading.

    It is even hard enough to make passable concertina reeds from, though good quality band spring stock is better. (I just had to try. :-)

    Have you considered beverage cans? I believe that the aluminum is now 0.001" thick in most of them -- including the ubiquitous Coke can. :-)

    O.K. For most of the tooling, a bit off won't matter too much, but when I pop in a threading insert tool (OD or ID), I want it square to start with, so I don't have to tweak the toolpost's angle and then lose the dial settings on the tools which I've used earlier in that run.

    Exactly! At first, I was looking for a way to part off and groove the same piece (since I don't really need the runout groove when *cutting* the thread, because it is done with a Geometric die head. But when some parts need to thread up to the shoulder, the runout groove makes sure that nothing will bind where the thread would otherwise taper up to full diameter.
    Then I realized that I could part off the finished piece with the right-hand tool, and groove the next workpiece with the left-hand one with no worries.

    [ ... Seven tools ... ]

    O.K.
    Just as I have made a tool for the turret which is a combination center drill and stock stop -- because otherwise, I would need seven tools in a six-station turret. :-)

    You could also grind the tool something like this (top view): A ____ / | B | | | | ~~~~~ more shank below
and use the B portion for facing, and the A portion for the chamfer without having to disturb the toolpost setting.
    Is there a setscrew which holds the T-nut for the toolpost in a constant location in the T-slot of the compound?

    :-)
    I just like to make the time in the shop as productive as I can, as I too seldom break away from this keyboard. :-)

    Or -- add a rear toolpost (of the same type), with the tools mounted upside-down, to give you that many more. And I am given to understand that that location makes parting easier, as the chips fall clear of the workpiece more easily.
    I can't do this -- unless I get an alternate cross-slide. Mine is made to work with a taper turning attachment, and not to offer a mounting point for a second toolpost. Though I have done the inverted tool on a rear-mounted toolpost on the Taig, which has nice T-slots the full length of the cross-slide. (Though the compound is an add-on option, not a standard part, and it is a bit awkward to use. :-)
    [ ... ]

    So -- we both damaged 6" Craftsman lathes -- though different models, and differing degrees of damage. :_)

    Of course -- the old lathe tools were ground from large bars of carbon steel, and did not have to live with the extension and weakness of the Armstrong style tool holders, so that is probably another reason that the lantern style toolpost stayed around as long as it did. :-)
    I recently acquired some nice size HSS bars (8" long, and otherwise the right size for tools in the Rockwell/Delta/AMMCO 7" shaper. I've got to get around to grinding some proper tools for that machine
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

snip-----
The head is cast iron, and the cross bolts are steel. If yours came machine ready, you have likely had no reason to touch yours. Mine came blank and was drilled and bored on the lathe. Had I known that indexing pin was eccentric to the indexing ring of the head, I'd have never finish machined mine. I'd have returned it in a heart beat, secure in the knowledge that it would worsen with use exactly as it has. When it was finish machined there were no signs of any problems, but as it was used time and again it started indexing poorly and not repeating. Only then did I discover that the indexing pin was not entering the tapered bushings properly because of the eccentricity. As the pin wore, it forced the head to stop in a different position.

It's been a long time since I last looked at the head, especially when you consider the long period of time my shop was unused because of the precious metal refining business that thankfully kept me away from the machines for so long. The prolonged break was just what the doctor ordered to get me over my burnout from all the years on the machines, almost non-stop.
As I recall, though, there's no one simple fix. I seem to recall the tapered locating center lug is eccentric with the six tapered bushings in which the pin stops. In order to make it right, the location of the pin would have to be altered, and the bushings then made oversized and each of the pockets bored to proper location. The problems of getting everything on location are greater than the problems of making a new head, which I could control closely with careful workmanship. A large part of the problem is that the 1" holes in the head are now not properly located because of the error in the locating pins and the bushings. The location is an average of the poor conditions, so with the wearing of the pins and bushings, the holes no longer index to center. Boring oversized isn't really an option because the cross bolts are already machined to the centerline. Any further machining would weaken them to the point where I'd expect that tightening the nuts could allow enough stretching for the bolt to fail.
I'll likely eventually get to the project and use it as an excuse to cast some iron when I get my induction furnace up and running. At this point, I look at all my projects as entertainment, nothing more. Part of the fun will be in making the new head, and I'll likely make the pin and bushings new, too. I have heat treat capabilities, along with grinding and honing capabilities, so I have everything that is necessary to rebuild the head to good condition.

I don't know that there is or isn't. I was pleasantly surprised just a month ago when I drove to Southern Oregon to assist in the disposal of a deceased friend's estate to find that there was a 3J collet, larger than the 2J, so nothing would surprise me at this point.
Sadly, the bulk of my years of experience have revolved around my personal world, especially since running my own shop. Because my work was restricted to specific areas, I achieved a good level of skill and ability in the work I did, but my overall exposure has been relatively restricted. It's safe to say that the best exposure I got was working in the job shop where I ran the little Clausing. We were not as well equipped there as the shop at Sperry, but the work was so diverse that it forced all of us to use a lot of imagination and become quite creative in making setups. I recall one job where I converted the little Clausing to a tracer machine when I had to cut a 1" radius runout in the center of 3" long lengths of 1/8" tungsten, which was reduced to .100" diameter for a short distance. The pieces were tensile specimens and were highly polished and held to quite close tolerance. I still have a couple of the pieces in my show and tell box.

I recall that the little Clausing was built much like the Hardinge in that it had the variable drive in the base of the steel cabinet that was a part of the machine. Drive power was located directly under the headstock.

If nothing else, that would be fun to peruse. It would surely help me recall the machine better, so if you'd like, either post the link or send it directly to me.

collets
seen
the
That's certainly the way it appears now. It's strange, though, when you consider that the 5C collet is so widely used. Had I known more about collets at that time, I'm sure I'd have had some questions. As I said, I figured the 1J was the norm and was quite unhappy when I bought my first collet device. I was looking to buy 1J and almost no one knew what I was talking about, but everyone that sold collets had the 5C on the shelf. Sigh! Those were the days! I recall paying only $6.75 for new Hardinge 5C collets. What are they now, over $25? Haven't purchased any in years. I remember that they kept going up, so I finally started buying Royal collets, which seemed to be quite good. I still have all of them.

strangely,
a
it's
something
Graziano built the Sag 12 such that the tailstock ways are higher than the bed ways, and the bed ways are fully covered with formed steel protectors. The ways stay almost free of chips by the design. All they did is stop the tailstock ways short of the headstock, so the bed mass is almost no different at the headstock, although it would not be true to suggest that it isn't reduced any. The bed at that point is almost a full box, so it's quite rigid. The Sag 12 is not what I would call a heavy duty machine, but certainly qualifies for a medium duty industrial machine. It weighs over a ton, but is about 1,000 pounds lighter than the EE, so that may help you with how well it's built.

Must say that's quite impressive. I recall that they suggested a 1/4 horse motor for my little 109, but I purchased a 1/3 horse. If the spindle had been larger, it's very possible I could have broken the compound on mine, too, from what you've said. I know it won't sit well with some, but having machines like either of those two makes no sense to me now. A good example of one thing that was wrong with the 109 is that it had no dials. Everything you did you did by guess. Once you're learned proper machining procedures, you come to realize how it was almost no better than a wood lathe, but I had a lot of fun with it as a kid and learned enough that I had begun to understand grinding tool bits. Must say it was a real intimidating experience at first.
Once I had run serious machines, I could never go back to the little lathe, so I sold it. Aside from the memories, I've never regretted selling it.

the
They must all think alike. The Duplomatic comes with its own wrench, too, a hex socket offset handle that I must track constantly. Works very well, though. Luckily, the square socket "T" wrench that fits the set screws on the tool holders is the same size as the wrench for the OK R Welders head, so I can use that one when changing tools. I keep it on the headstock in its own bracket, where it's out of the way and always within reach. I never hunt for it.

That sounds like a nice tool. I've always done knurling the old fashioned way and it's not always in your best interest .

That's one place where the OK head isn't the best. I have made some shop aid boring bar holders that mount in the head, but it's a compromise at best. Works fine, just doesn't look all the great. These were created when needed, so no time was spent making them look good. Once you have them and they work, you keep them, or so it seems. Definitely not the type of work of which I'd be proud, though.

Which is likely a good reason to go a route other than KDK. I wonder if I'll see things differently if I ever get far enough along to be working on a steam loco, as I have planned. Some of the components will have to be made in quantity and I'll be thinking of a different post when I can't get the tools in the OK head. I'll probably touch base with you if that happens for more input. At this point it seems you are far more in touch with current technology than I am.

can
make
What I've learned to do is keep fine chips (tiny hairs, really) from accumulating around the base plate. Larger chips pose no problem. Once I find it's not repeating, I generally remove the head and check the fine serrations, where I usually find a tiny hair of a chip embedded. It's usually been well clamped on at that point, it is flattened quite thin, so I usually use a fine pointed scriber and remove it from both faces. Blow it out with air, oil and re-assemble. Takes only a minute or two and you're back in business. It doesn't seem to do any damage, just causes the head to locate in a different spot, so you can't trust your dial. It's generally off only a couple thou at most, but for me that's too much.

He's
the
cabinet
That's another advantage of having that type of post. Often times I have to remove a tool to mount another. Again, it's what I'm used to and it doesn't take much time, but it's certainly not as convenient as just picking up the other holder. The real advantage is when threading, parting or groove cutting, as you stated. You know that the tool is already at the right attitude, that it doesn't have to be squared with the setup. That part takes me more time than anything else.

Chuckle! Trust us retired home shop types to try all the dodges.

Nope. Never even given it a thought, but I'll be sure to do so in the future. When doing very fine small work it's not unusual to find yourself a thou too low, so having the ability to change slightly is very desirable. Thanks for the tip. I've used cellophane, but it's really hard to work with because it's so limber.

upon
Yep, that's the kinds of things you learn to do. It may sound trivial, but when you're running production, the slightest time savings adds up, as you've found.

I've ground parting tools with a chamfer at the base of the tool for just such an occasion. That's a great way to conserve when you don't have enough positions.

That's an excellent point. I find I spend considerable time at the keyboard, time that might be better spent elsewhere, but for me it's my social life. We have few neighbors, and little social life outside home. No family near, either, so I enjoy my time online, especially when talking shop.

It's more involved than that, too. I recall an old Dutch guy (now deceased) that worked with us at Sperry that was famous for running tools upside down and running the machine in reverse for certain operations. It loads the cross slide/compound totally differently and often solves chatter problems, along with other problems. He was sold on the idea, although I've not explored it much. Because my duplicator cuts on the back side, I've machined quite a bit that way, though. Just not any other way. It still cuts in the forward direction, with the tool upside down, as you might imagine.

Fortunately, my cross slide is flat and has holes drilled and tapped at intervals for its entire length, so mounting additional things to the slide is no problem. That's how the duplicator mounts. It would be very easy to mount a back side tool post if one desired, although you might have to fabricate it. I am not aware of one that was available.

While I'm sure that's true in many situations, it isn't true in all. I was hired into tool, die and gauge at Tooele Army Depot in Utah in December of '65. I was absolutely shocked to find a machine shop engaged in rebuilding war equipment for Viet Nam that was tooled with rocker type tool posts and the Armstrong type holders. You might recall that they had straight holders (no rake) for holding brazed carbide tools. That job was, without a doubt, the worst job I held in all my years. So bad, in fact, that I quit after only two months. The money was good and the hours long (5 12's and 2 8's, mandatory. No time off, not even holidays because of the war effort). The atmosphere was stifling. The shop super was a time keeper that had bid on the job and got it, but had little shop experience, and ran the shop with what could be called an iron fist. One thing he didn't allow was the use of soft jaws. Everything that had to be turned was done between centers, so it took a lot more time to make parts. Having had considerable experience in production at that point, I couldn't stand to be held back, limited by archaic procedures. I can say, honestly, that I hated the job. Tooele Army Depot is no longer an Army post.

That should make a world of difference in rigidity for your shaper. I recall Pete Somebody had gone to such tools when I last spoke to him. Haven't heard a word from him in about two years now. Is he well? When I last heard, he had purchased a home and was moving to it.
Harold
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

    Reply moved to private e-mail.
    Enjoy,         DoN.
--
Email: < snipped-for-privacy@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
d.

Collet wrenches are used on collet closers to install/remove the collet. --Doozer
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 30 Jun 2004 17:51:28 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@w-sherwood.ih.lucent.com (Charles A. Sherwood) wrote:

Gretings Chuck, A friend of mine who is probably the best machinist I know removes his because the speed up tool changes. You don't need the key to hold the collet still when tightening the drawbar if your collets and drawbar have good threads. But, I keep mine because the drill chucks and boring heads with R-8 shanks always go in the same. So you can put the chuck in and it will always run true and the boring head will cut the same size. My buddy agrees with this and he marks his tool shanks and the spindle nose so they go in the same while at the same time allowing faster tool changes otherwise. But he never forgets to line up the marks. And I would aleays forget. Eric R Snow, E T Precision Machine
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
So after all these comments:
Keep it if you have it, don't worry if you don't?
Regards,
Robin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Robin sez: "So after all these comments:
Keep it if you have it, don't worry if you don't?"
Jeeze, Robin. I dunno! After considering all the comments here, I got to feeling guilty and removed the pin in my mill. It wasn't all that hard to get out; about 15 minutes with a rat tail file, upside down, did the trick. Now my mill is as good as anybodys! Only thing I noticed is that now it takes more pressure on the drawbar to make the tooling stay in place.
Bob Swinney

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Seem to me that everything will work just fine without it. But you might find it annoying to change tooling because you might need another hand to hold the collet from turning. I will just have to try my "new" machine without the pin for a while and see if it annoys me. If it does, add the pin, but frankly it would have to annoy me a lot to pull the spindle to replace the pin.
Thanks for all the wonderful comments! chuck
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I don't know about your mill, but on the bridgeport clones, The pin can be replaced without disassembling the spindle. Its been a while but I seem to recall an access screw was removed to get at the pin, the spindle had to be indexed to get at the pin, and there was a lock screw as well.
Charles A. Sherwood wrote:

--
James P Crombie
Slemon Park, PEI
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.