Quick Change Toolposts

Phil, Both types, piston and wedge seems to be what everyone uses in the USA, but that is because no body there has experienced the European favorite, the Mulifix. I have all 3. I will clearly state that there is no comparison. The Multifix is superior in every way. The biggest advantage it has is the ability to mount the toolholder on the head in 15 degree increments. These are not inexpensive, but they are certainly well worth the investment. You can see these by going to eBay.de (Germany) and search for Multifix. There are different sizes ranging from A to C, small to large. A = 9 to 11" swing, B = 12-16" and C = 17-22". The exception to this rule is the AA and the D. I think these are intended for very small jeweler size machines. There are a myriad of different toolholders. Many of which are not available with the wedge or piston types like internal and external threading holders. These have lever operated cam tool withdrawal capability. There are many other types as well. Once you use these, you will never consider others. Steve

Reply to
Steve Lusardi
Loading thread data ...

Don't make my mistake. Buy the B or 200 size tool post.

A-men.

In a multiple machine shop, go with the BXA/200, even for a 10" machine.

Thereby, all your toolholders will fit all your posts.

Reply to
Peter H.

... which appears to have a lever for withdrawing the tool form engagement with the thread being cut in the workpiece without having to disturb the calibrated feed settings ...

Standard features of Monarch 10EEs (ca. 1938-present) and the various Hardinge toolroom lathes going way back to the TL (ca. 1936-1948) and forward to the present HLV-H.

Reply to
Peter H.

I've heard all good compliments about the Phase II units. Enco puts 'em on sale for about $90 for the 100 series as 5 piece set, I think. I've heard that Enco may substitute generic parts in the set, from one guy.

Not in my experience.

I got a 100 at an Enco sale and it was gen-u-wine Phase II.

Note that Phase II has admitted that their set screws are bad news, and are reworking them for greater lifetime.

Still, my subsequent purchases have been gen-u-wine Aloris.

Reply to
Peter H.

Indeed. which is why all my machines sport KDK. Though one with a side mount would be nice at times......

Gunner

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rourke

Reply to
Gunner

OK, the cone screw fits into a slot. How repeatable is this considering the lever distance to the cutting point? If I am turning an OD anr remove & replace the tool holder how much does the OD change?

Reply to
Nick Hull

I'm not clear about what you mean by "lever distance to the cutting point". I would think it would be very repeatable, though. The base and post do not move, and the set screw is very tight (using nylon friction rod). I've never experimented with this; when I remove a tool and replace it, I'm usually doing something like sharpening the tool so I always remeasure.

Reply to
Bruno

... I will clearly state that there is no comparison. The Multifix is superior in every way. The biggest advantage it has is the ability to mount the toolholder on the head in 15 degree increments ...

A standard feature on the "-I" series of Aloris posts.

Reply to
Peter H.

O.K.

The tool holder rotates around the post until clamped. The center of the post is the center of rotation.

The height adjustment screw is fairly close to the OD of the post itself based on the illustrations. Let's say that the OD is 1" (1/2" radius from the center and the center of height adjustment screw is perhaps 5/16" farther out -- say 9/16" total radius. The tip of the cutting tool is significantly farther from the center of rotation, perhaps 1-1/2". This means that an error of position of the height adjustment point of 0.005" would result in an error of 0.0133" at the cutting tip of the tool. (Obviously, a smaller error at the height adjustment screw point would result in a smaller error in the tool's cutting tip position.

But careless holding of the tool holder while tightening the clamp bolt could result in several thousandths of an inch in error in the position of the height-adjustment-screw/index. And wear or deformation of the point of that screw (perhaps from setting it down too hard on a hard surface, or dropping it on a concrete floor) could introduce similar offsets.

O.K. *There* is a major difference. I use the wedge style Phase-II (with some genuine Aloris tool holders), and I also (usually) use replaceable insert carbide tooling. The combination means that the point of the tool is replaced within 0.001" or better when the tool holder is removed and replaced -- *even* if I have to rotate or replace the insert to bring a fresh cutting edge into play. And since I am sometimes making multiple parts, retaining the position through cycles of tool changes means that I can trust the dials on the cross-slide.

As an example, I will describe one thing which I have made four of in a session in my shop.

Start with four lengths of 3.5" ID aluminum schedule 40 pipe. Two of one length, and two of a slightly longer length, The tailstock end is supported by a small 3-jaw chuck with soft jaws gripping the ID. I face one end of each, and then remove all four to the surface plate, where I use a height gauge to scribe the desired height on each, by rotating each past the scribe.

Then back to the lathe, where I face the second end to the scribe line, change tools to bevel the edge (similar insert, but mounted at a different angle), then change tools again, to thread the OD for about an inch. I touch off the threading tool on the first workpiece, and zero the dial at this point. I measure carefully (using a thread micrometer) as I thread the first one, until I get the proper depth of thread, and note the dial setting on the compound for that. (I actually have a dial indicator measuring the cross-feed in addition to the dial itself. Both were zeroed at the OD at the start of the first part.)

I then exchange ends on the workpiece (the main chuck is also gripping by the inside), and repeat the operations (the beveling with one tool and the threading with another tool). This means that for each of four workpieces, I used the beveling tool twice and the threading tool twice. Because of the repeatability of the indexable tooling and the wedge style post, I don't have to re-zero the dials for each successive workpiece. (And if the tools became dull during the operation, I could simply rotate or replace the insert and continue with the same settings.)

Having HSS tooling, which you remove only to sharpen means that the repeatability is less important to you. For me, the carbide insert tooling and the wedge style toolpost save a lot of time in repeat operations. (I also have a bed turret (six station) full of tooling and a turret carriage stop (with four stops) when doing work while feeding through the spindle and collets and making a lot more pieces.

Obviously, for one-off projects, you don't really care -- most of the time. However, picture that you are almost at the final dimension, and the finish degrades because the tool is getting dull. With your system, you have to remove the tool, sharpen it, re-install and try to pick up your previous dimension. I pull the tool holder off, pull out an appropriate sized Torx wrench, loosen the clamp, rotate the insert (if there is yet a good corner left on it), or replace it, return the tool holder to the toolpost, and proceed without having to pick up my dimensions again.

BTW -- the method of clamping carbide inserts in the tool holder which is shown on their web page strikes me as:

1) Not sufficiently rigid. (Note the suggestion that a piece of steel be involved in the clamping -- presumably to avoid the screw applying too much force and breaking the insert.) 2) Not repeatable, as I see no stops other than for the back edge.

Proper insert tool holders have the insert guided on two edges, and (often) on a pin or screw through a center hole, so the next insert is in *precisely* the same position as the previous one.

And -- the insert sits on an anvil of carbide, so it is firmly backed up -- and *that* anvil is backed up with more steel. The benefit of the carbide anvil is that chips won't embed in it, holding the insert at an angle, and providing a fulcrum around which to break the insert. They *are* quite brittle.

Enjoy, DoN.

Reply to
DoN. Nichols

These are the ones with a scalloped curve on the tool holders, held to a matching curve on the toolpost? They appear to be held on by a clamp which reaches around the back of the post and hooks both ends to pull them in?

Enco used to sell them (back in the late 1960s and early 1970s), but I have never put my hands on one.

Generally, for the angles, I use alternate tools in their own holders. I keep the dovetails of the Phase-II parallel to the axis and the face of the chuck. This means that the most-used tools are all in the desired orientation -- including the threading tool. (Obviously, I have to reset this when I'm shifting the compound from the normal setting for threading (29.5 degrees) to that for Acme threading (14.5 degrees) -- or to whatever I would want for Whitworth threading (whenever I get around to needing that.)

How many tool holders do you have? I've got *lots* -- a mix of Phase-II and Aloris, and have each tool which I want to use pre-mounted and pre-adjusted for height.

The one question that I have is how much extra attention is needed to avoid disturbing the clamp when exchanging tools if you want both to use the same setting? It *looks* to me as though the clamp could just fall off once you remove the toolholder. (But, as I say, I've never had my hands on one.)

Enjoy, DoN.

Reply to
DoN. Nichols

Thanks to everyone that responded. THe concensus is the PhaseII Series 200 Wedge I'll order it tomorrow.

Again, Thanks everyone - Phil

Reply to
Phil Stein

I didn't see what lathe you have. Just to muddy the waters, the 200 series didn't fit on my 11" Delta, too tall. The 100 works fine. The

200 is better if it'll fit your lathe.

Pete Keillor

Reply to
Peter T. Keillor III

I have a Logan 1920 which is an 11." It says the 200 will work for

10". I hope they are correct.

Thanks

Reply to
Phil Stein

It depends on what tooling you want to put in the tool holders. I have an AXA (100 ) series Phase-II (wedge type) on my 10" Logan, and I've had to mill some of the tool holders to hold certain tooling options. the problem is that the top (usually the cutting surface) of some tools will be above lathe center with the toolholder all the way down. The solution is either to deepen the slot in the toolholder, or mill some off the bottom of the toolholder. Both solutions reduce the rigidity of the holder, but may be satisfactory depending on loading. I've not had a problem with the modified holders.

The larger BXA (200) series may well be worse in this regard.

Dan Mitchell ============

Reply to
Daniel A. Mitchell

I have a Logan 1920 which is an 11." It says the 200 will work for 10". I hope they are correct.

All holders will go (can be set) to the bottom of the post, which is level with the top of the compound.

To that level must be added the reference surface of the holder (varies with the holder number, and with the series) *plus* the tool height (thickness, for HSS tools).

If a 1/4" tool just barely works with a BXA (200) post on a 10" Logan (820, for example), then a 3/8" tool surely won't.

Of course, nothing prevents one from machining the bottom of a holder, in order to facilitate using BXA holders (on BXA posts) on smaller machines, provided the tool clamping strength of the holder isn't compromized. (The post clamping strength isn't likely to be affected with such a modification).

Such a modified holder could still be useful on a BXA post on a larger machine. Say, a 12".

Phase II and equal Far East holders are relatively inexpensive, and obtaining a few, and then modifying these to allow an owner's existing BXA post to be used on a smaller machine appears to be a good option.

Frankly, I'm shocked ... SHOCKED ... I didn't think of this earlier, as I now have two machines equipped with their own BXAs (wedge type, indexable) and one equipped with its own AXA (piston type), and never the holders shall meet. (BXA holders are slightly wider than are AXA holders).

Sirola originally designed (and made, under the Aloris name ... Sirola spelled backwards) piston type posts, but he quickly abandoned them for the wedge type, and it has been making wedge type posts (conventional, and later, after Dorian introduced their's, indexable), ever since.

Reply to
Peter H.

Agreed.

Certainly. A BXA holder (for standard square shanks) is designed for a 5/8" square shaft. CXA for 3/4", and AXA for only 1/2".

I've always felt that the remaining thickness at the bottom was selected for the strength needed for that size of tool holder.

I have modified some insert style tool shanks by grinding off the bottom of the shank -- thus reducing the height from 3/4" to 5/8", and allowing me to use them in the BXA/Series-200 holders. I consider this a better choice -- unless the insert style shank is way more expensive than the tool holder, *and* you expect to move it to a larger lathe in the future.

I think that with a 12" machine, you will have removed sufficient strength so it is possible for it to give under a heavy cut, especially if you combine the cutting forces with a serious tightening of the setscrews in the holder (as I normally do.)

Well ... my next smaller lathe is an Emco-Maier Compact-5/CNC, and that is *way* too small for a BXA -- or even an AXA, and it uses its own custom style of QC toolpost -- sort of an inverse piston -- the piston has a T-head which engages a T-slot in the holder and (cam) pulls it into very firm contact with a pair or vertical inverted Vs.

Enjoy, DoN.

Reply to
DoN. Nichols

Sorry, the 200 Series will not properly fit your 1920. You should order the 100 Series.

We offer these with the T-Nut already machined to fit your lathe at no extra charge.

formatting link
For T-Nut machining, just add a comment to the order with your Model Number. This service is available to all, not just for those with Logan Lathes.

Reply to
Scott S. Logan

I've always felt that the remaining thickness at the bottom was selected for the strength needed for that size of tool holder.

Sounds right.

I have modified some insert style tool shanks by grinding off the bottom of the shank -- thus reducing the height from 3/4" to 5/8", and allowing me to use them in the BXA/Series-200 holders. I consider this a better choice -- unless the insert style shank is way more expensive than the tool holder, *and* you expect to move it to a larger lathe in the future.

Makes complete sense to me.

Reply to
Peter H.

Nope! Still available, and apparently thriving.

formatting link
Harold

Reply to
Harold & Susan Vordos

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