drive pin on R8 collets

That does make a significant difference. Sounds like you have to have all your ducks in a row when you "push the button". I can see how a guy could be deep in thought and do so prematurely.

I fully agree with the lack of training, in part because the educational system (in all its wisdom) has made the decision that we no longer need that type of training. Before moving from Utah I shared in the good fortune that came from schools selling out by attending a few auctions, at which I bought a lot of nice equipment to augment my shop for use in retirement. For the most part, I would not have been able to otherwise acquire the stuff.

I contend that guys coming up on CNC machines must know totally different things than guys do that run manual machines. My age group has a nice mix of both talents, so it's not as obvious that the manual skills are absent in general. I'm of the opinion that younger guys coming up generally don't know how to do the manual work, which is skill intensive, at least for a predictable outcome. I've always said anyone can make chips, but it takes considerable talent and experience to make good parts, and do it reliably and efficiently. That doesn't come without considerable effort.

I don't mean to demean those that run the CNC's, just point out that the skills involved are not the same. An outstanding CNC operator, one that can do his own programming, is likely as skilled as many of the old time guys were that were considered the cream of the crop, but the run of the mill operator may not have any machining skills at all, yet still do good work, thanks to the machine and the programming skills of others. Sadly, the skills that were required to be considered a machinist are getting lost in the shuffle from manual to CNC. Even tooling departments are using CNC these days. I guess the only thing to consider is how important is it? Seems no one is making buggy whips any longer, and we get by nicely without them. It's just a little hard to consider yourself outdated and useless. Can't tell you how pleased I am to be retired, where it makes no difference any longer. I think I'd be hard pressed to hold a job in today's market.

Harold

Reply to
Harold & Susan Vordos
Loading thread data ...

I think that's completely accurate. From what I've read what training that still survives is oriented to CNC processes rather than the manual skills that used to be taught. While I've never had any formal training, and this sort of thing is just a hobby, I did have the good fortune to spend a good bit of time with what was arguably a couple of "master toolmakers" back in the 70's. I was a physics major working part time in a physics research facility and had a number of occasions to have to have things built in the machine shop. I learned a lot about how to design things from those guys (and how not to design things as well).

The shop had an old beat up mill and lathe that could be used, with permission from the guy that ran the shop. After he was satisfied that you weren't going the break the machine or injure yourself or anyone near you could use the tools. Having had lots of experience, he did require that one of the machinists inspect your setup before power could be applied. After I while I had learned quite a bit and, surprisingly, my skills had progressed to the point that the old tools had become a limiting factor (although I didn't have the experience to realize it at the time).

One day when I was struggling to cut some fine threads on an adapter ring for some camera gear (a home project) the head guy walked by, saw what I was doing and "took my project away". He took into "his area", set the part up in a EE Monarch and had me finish it there. I remarked on how easy that was and how well the part came out and he said, halfway jokingly, that if I could make a true 1" cube from mild steel with nothing but hand tools he'd let me use the EE or one of the new Bridgeports. I suspect he figured I try, find out hard it was to do, and give up on it. What he didn't realize that "having had a taste" I was highly motivated to learn how to do it just to be able to get my hands on good tools again.

It took over a month and I blew the first one. The angles were correct and the sides flat to less than a half, but one dimension was 0.998" instead of 1.000" and another was 0.999". So I made another, correctly this time having learned how to do it from the first one. I showed him the finished part, which he duly inspected and declared to be satisfactory. After that I could use, unsupervised any tool in the shop that wasn't being used for a shop project. He later told me that he'd been required to do that years before as a part of his formal machinist schooling. Apparently it was a "standard test" at that time.

I don't think they teach those sort of "hand arts" skills now. And for the most part they probably aren't required for a CNC process.

The same can be said for a number of other things. Back in the seventies the computer courses I took started with assembly programming and worked up to high-level languages (Fortran & Cobal at the time). We're talking punch cards and "submit the job today, find out if it worked tomorrow". One learned a lot about how computers worked and consequently how to right good code, the first time. Now they plunk these kids down in from of a windows box and "teach" them programming using Visual C++ in a Gui only environment. While those kids do learn to program they usually don't have any idea of what "is under the hood" in that process (Makefiles, compile steps & options, or linking and libraries) and know next to nothing about the internal workings of the CPU.

Reply to
Jim Levie

That point is one that is difficult to explain to fans of rusty machines. I see many defend buying old rusted hulks, especially when they can be cleaned up and made operational without too much trouble. The "rebuild" usually includes a wonderful paint job. Unfortunately, paint does nothing to make a machine tool work well, and the portions that are critical often get the rust removed and nothing more. That is where experience comes into play. Unless one knows what can be reasonably expected from a machine tool, it is most difficult to say with certainty that the tool is working properly. Many just assume that it is difficult to hold a thou, that it has nothing to do with any given machine. For those with experience, though, it takes little to no time to point a finger at the cause for given difficulties. It's a good step forward when you can finally ascertain that it is the machine, not you, that has a problem. While it's true that a good machinist can do reasonably good work on most any machine, it isn't cost effective, especially when the risk of scrap increases.

snip-----

Talk about dedication! Congratulations of the accomplishment. You paid a small price to have the use of nice machines. I'd have done the same thing had I been in a like situation.

I've never had to pass that test (the 1" cube), and was more than fortunate to have been assigned to an EE that was but one year old, on which I learned the fine art of thread chasing, along with other lathe operations. I started in the trade having owned a small lathe and having taken some machine shop classes in high school. It was interesting to note that in school I was on top of the class, yet when I was hired it became apparent to not only me, but my supervisors, that I knew almost nothing about machining.

There were times when I chased threads for an entire week, then on to other parts. I guess what prompted me to get serious about quality was the fact that everything we produced received 100% inspection (defense work), even between operations, so good money wasn't thrown after bad. I was fortunate to have had a supervisor that took a personal interest in me and my progress. He patiently talked to me and lead me along, teaching me the right and wrong ways to do things, and encouraging me to shoot for quality. I was told that if I learned to do things in an acceptable manner, that speed would come automatically. It was true.

Yeah, that was my point, too. In a way, I guess it's no loss, but I can't help but wonder if the day won't come that we have regrets. My training was job specific, so I didn't have to jump through the hoops the way apprentices did in the "old days". I managed to run a shop, subcontracting, for the most part, from the industry from which I came. It treated me well, and I closed the doors voluntarily. I could have kept busy endlessly. Still, my skills alone would not have been enough to compete. Without CNC training, not many can do so today. I guess that, in part, helps explain why the classes have been dropped. What disturbs me is that we wouldn't be able to respond as easily in a national emergency as we once could, not when we depend on foreign nations for the majority of our manufacturing, and few are learning the skills, be they CNC or manual.

That is the part about CNC operators that troubles me. I realize that they turn out the work, but without the computer, often they can't. They may be well trained to do what they do, but in many cases they don't really understand the workings. For example, can they sharpen tools? Of necessity, CNC operations dictate almost exclusive use of inserts. I don't have a problem with the fact, but those that train on and operate such machines are very likely to never have a grip on cutting tool geometry, and couldn't hand grind a tool if their life depended on it. If a CNC operator thinks it's a simple step to go from the computer to a manual machine, they're in for one hell of a shock. Again, anyone can make chips, but when it comes to stepping off dimensions for drilling, or cutting a window, it can be a dreadful experience when done for the first time. My hat's off to guys like you that have taken the bull by the horns and learned the things that constitute one being worthy of having the title "machinist", even though to be one doesn't command much respect.

Harold

Reply to
Harold & Susan Vordos

snip-----

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 c*ck 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.

You got my curiosity up, so I did a quick search and found that they are still in business. Here's a link.

formatting link
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.

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

Reply to
Harold & Susan Vordos

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 --> \ \ ~~~ It, too, was made in Italy, and is called a

:-)

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.

Reply to
DoN. Nichols

Absolutely correct in all respects. While I've developed the skills (on a hobby basis for the most part) to be able to resurrect an old machine with lots wear, it's not something that I'd want to invest the time in again. When I get the shop space to re-acquire metal working tools I'll get new unless I can find an awesome deal on a GOOD used machine. And if I do find a used one I'm going to have to have "hands on time under power" before I'll plunk down the coin. At least I've had enough experience to know if the machine is in decent shape and won't require a large investment in time to restore it to good condition.

Thanks... In addition to the manual skills one has to learn to do that I suspect that the most valuable one is learning to work carefully and be patient. Too many times folks get in too much of a hurry and quality suffers.

It's really these old guys that have been doing this sort of work since tools were steam powered that are some of the best teachers. Just about anything you can think of they've done. And they've probably found all the ways not to do it as well as what works.

I have little doubt that will happen. Consider industries like ship building. With the fewer yards every year we're loosing the years & years of experience that's necessary to build ships well. At some point all the "old guys" may be gone and with them all that knowledge. And that's not something you can "learn from a book".

I get a kick out of watching the show about Craig Boddington's (SP?) shop and the guy that's "older than dirt" that can work magic with metal. There's fewer & fewer of those guys around every year what with production moving off-shore and the increasing reliance on CNC. I'd love to have the opportunity to just be able to stand around and watch that guy work...

Yep...

Yeah, that, in a sideways sort of way, was what I was talking about. Those guy's might be a gee whiz at programming and setting up a CNC machine, but if you really only needed one part it would cost a fortune compared to a manual process by a good machinist. And, by and large, I suspect that the CNC guys couldn't do it if the job had any complexity (needing jigs, careful planning, etc).

If you have the time learning the old skills can be immensely rewarding. And this is true of any "hand arts" skill set and isn't confined to metalworking. And, suprise, suprise, the fastest and best way to learn those is to hook up with one of the "old geezers" that did it that way for years. While it is unlikely that one will ever make any money with those skills the self satisfaction one gets is well worth the investment in time.

Reply to
Jim Levie

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Reply to
Harold & Susan Vordos

Reply moved to private e-mail.

Enjoy, DoN.

Reply to
DoN. Nichols

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.