New learning curve -- pouring babbits

I have an old F.E. Reed 14" lathe, the headstock bearings of which have seen better days.

Do any of you know of some good references and/or techniques for re-pouring my babbit bearings?

(I ain't pullin' it apart until I understand what I'm getting into!)

LLoyd

Reply to
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
Loading thread data ...

No direct experience, but I uploaded this booklet from the 1920's a while back to the Metal Web News site:

formatting link
and it might be a good start.

Also, those that work with vintage woodworking tools seem to deal with this fairly often and you can find some material on this site:

www,owwm.com

ands specifically here:

formatting link
BTW, the OWWM site has a rather extensive collection of old manuals, catalogs, and brochures. Mostly for old woodworking tools but there is some stuff on dual purpose tools like drill presses and bandsaws.

Mike

Reply to
Mike Henry

Thanks! That is a good start. Now, anyone with experience to lead me away from stupidity?

LLoyd

Reply to
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh

The biggest thing is to have a system in place for aligning the spindle with the bed of the machine before the pour. You can turn some discs with a ring that is a tight fit into the ends of the spindle and a center-drill on the opposite side. Then you can put candle smoke on the spindle and do the pour pretty much to final size.

The other way is to make an undersize mandrel, and pour the babbit to an undersize diameter, and then hand scrape to obtain correct alignment of the spindle.

Setting up the tailstock with the disc to align the chuck end of the spindle is pretty obvious, but what do you do to position the back end? You'll just have to construct something.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Elson

molten lead alloy...

in my local newspaper.

formatting link
(i apologize if this is inappropriate and sensationalist.) (is pretty incredible though huh?)

b.w.

Reply to
William Wixon

What I find incredible is the fact that they where able to get lead to 9,000 deg F. I think that might be a little tough to do.

Wayne Cook Shamrock, TX

formatting link

Reply to
Wayne Cook

well, when i googled it i went directly to the article, just now when i tested the link it asked me to register. the article from another source,

Worker Falls Into Vat Of Molten Lead

(Wallkill, NY) AP 08/18/05 -- A worker was killed when he fell into a vat of molten lead at an Orange County company.

State Police say Jose Sartillo, 24, of Middletown worked at the Revere Smelting and Refining Corporation in Wallkill.

Police say Sartillo was working near the smelting kettle when he fell in at about 1:00 a.m. Wednesday and was severely burned over his entire body. Orange County Coroner Tom Murray says death was probably instantaneous.

He says the lead was 9,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration is investigating how Sartillo fell into the vat.

Reply to
William Wixon

yeah, me too, when i read that in the paper i remembered something someone said here, can't remember exactly but was something like "if you want to know how the news media can't get things right, just read an article about something you know something about". but then again, i think the person who was being quoted was intentionally exaggerating.

Reply to
William Wixon

Okay, this is taking the thread OT a bit.

I cringe when I hear someone speak of a difficult task as having a steep learning curve.

A steep learning curve was GOOD.

The learning curve originally meant the curve of manhours to produce each unit, or the number of units produced per manhour, versus calender time.

If it involved a lot of new skills, it took a long time for the number of units per manhour to build up. If it was an easy transition, the curve went up steeply.

The curve was also sometimes expressed as dollars to make each unit, but the same basic idea held- a change to a new product that did not require much in the way of new skills produced a rapid (steep) drop in costs per unit.

Reply to
Don Stauffer

Hmmmm.... I don't think so..............

************************************************************ Lead Atomic Number: 82 Atomic Weight: 207.2 Melting Point: 621.43°F Boiling Point: 3180°F Density: 11.342 grams per cubic centimeter *********************************************************

So, much more likely a decimal displaced in the article.

Reply to
Brian Lawson

Well ... let's see:

Lead: C F

MP 327.4 621.3 BP 1620 2984

So -- it was claimed to be at over three times the *boiling* point. No way it would remain in an uncovered container (which would be necessary for someone to fall into it) for long enough to do anything reasonable with it.

However, I suspect that the actual temperature was 900 F (just a slip of a decimal point), since they were alloying the lead with something else, which in many cases requires a higher temperature -- at least to start things going.

Enjoy, DoN.

Reply to
DoN. Nichols

I suspect also - slip of the decimal point 'type setter error :-) ' or it was steel that was about to be leaded.

Perhaps the lead pot was entering the steel Ladle and the person was moving the lead pot... Steel at 9000 is still 3x that of the temp of a Tuyere temp zone of 3630F.

So it has to be a 900.0 number and only lead.

Martin

Martin

Reply to
Martin H. Eastburn

So -- the lead was 9000 degrees F. It must have been boiling very vigorously.

Reply to
Robert Swinney

Babbitt isn't that hard to work with. I have poured a few engine bearings and a couple lathe head bearings. The biggest problem is setting up the head and shaft in correct alignment before the pour. The first one I did I made up a pair of adjustable V notch saddles that could be clamped on the ways in front and the frame in the rear. Then used a piece of round bar stock shimmed tight in the shaft. Used fine thread bolts with jam nuts to jack the shaft in to position. Then CLEANED up the old Babbitt and shaft VERY well. Cleaned out the head as well. IF you have a headstock with shims add a couple in before you do the final setup.Sooted the shaft with the torch (candle would also work) and locked it all down. Dammed the front side with a small vent port on top and dammed the back with a pour area left open. Used a heat lamp to heat up the head so it was very warm before I heated the Babbitt up (you can reuse the old that you removed and just add a bit to it and skim the dross off). Then you just pour the Babbitt in ONE POUR. Don't stop once you start. Pour until the Babbitt comes out the vent and the pour spout. Let everything cool back down. Remove the damming material and the shaft retainers and see if the shaft is where it should be. Clean off any soot and oil your new bearing.

Reply to
Steve W.

Thanks, Steve. That seems to be a very straightforward method. Maybe I'll pull the bearing caps off, and look underneath!

LLoyd

Reply to
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh

Where do you purchase babbit material?

Reply to
TheAndroid

There are quite a few bearing supply houses that carry it and online there are hundreds of places. I doubt if I'll have to buy any for a while since a man who was going out of business sold me about 200 pounds of 2 different types. Considering that many times you can remove and reuse most of the original and add maybe 1/4 pound of new I'll be able to handle a few repairs....

Reply to
Steve W.

Lloyd- don't heat the babbit too ,long. Just long enough to get hot enough to pour. I was taught to use a pine stick to check the temp. When it just started to char the temp was correct. Stir before pouring to make sure the alloy in homogenous. ERS

Reply to
Eric R Snow

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.