So much of the web wants javascript enabled, or flash, or lots of other things. I don't trust those, and have them turned off except for sites which I trust -- and that does not mean that they won't get cracked and malicious HTML installed.
I like to look at the URL, perhaps run a whois on the domain, and various other checks before deciding to go to the site. If it is set up to respond to a click, I could wind up visiting one which I don't care for because one of my cats hopped into my lap and nudged my hand thus pressing the mouse button at just the wrong time. (Aside from the mouse (actually a trackball) falling off the arm of the chair and bumping the buttons in falling.
So -- the most that a mouse click in my newsreader can do is to highlight some text and perhaps copy it into the clip buffer. :-) I've got to bring up another window, and type a command line before I get to a web site.
And you got that. (And got rid of the chatter problem with the new gib. Congratulations.
BTW -- the squeal might be because the trepanning tool is not ground to give proper clearance on the curve of the slot.
[ ... ]
Because I don't depend on them *always* focusing on Windows systems, just because they are the easiest target. There have been experimental attacks which used javascript, or java, and I see lots of information about security holes in the flash plugins (information from the CERT mailing list). Anything attacking something other than the basic native machine language can be made to work on other systems.
[ ... ]
Good!
[ ... ]
It was about half. Cranking the cross-slide out to near falling out of the nut reduced the backlash to 0.036".
[ ... ]
Hmm ... it must be much more enclosed there than the 5418 is.
[ ... ]
:-) That dirt does tend to mask details, doesn't it? :-)
[ ... ]
O.K. I don't have problems with the shoes. I wear oil-resistant steel toed boots, and the legs of my pants come down below the top of the boots, so it would have to bounce off the floor and come up to get in. :-) Given some of the things I have dropped, I am glad to have those steel-toed boots. :-)
And if you want nasty needles, try a horizontal mill with a conventional milling cutter on steel. :-) I'll take what comes from my lahte any day. :-)
Thanks. I've been reflecting on how I came to the conclusion that the
5914 needed new gibs.
The key was the gross tilting of the toolpost, which moved something like a tenth or even an eighth of an inch, and yet nothing broke (except for a tool bit now and then).
There is a reason people don't make springs out of cast iron, so the castings could not be bending enough to explain such large deflections. So it had to be the joints and/or slideways. The only joints were firmly bolted (toolpost to slide) or wedged (tool holder to toolpost), and no relative motion could be felt. And the headstock was firmly bolted to the bed.
This left the slideways, of which there are three.
The first is between the bed ways and the carriage. This originally had ~0.003" wear-induced clearance, reduced to ~0.001" by removal of one
0.002" brass shim from each of the two rear hold-down plates. The carriage is about 12" wide along the bed, so this 0.001" could account for only about 0.001" of the tilt (measured at the end of the 5" overhang). Only ~0.099" to go.
The second is the cross-slide dovetail (~2" wide), and the third is the compound dovetail (~1.625" wide). The observed wear (~0.004" in both) would easily explain the observed deflection, given the leverage from the overhang plus the 2:1 amplification in each of the 60-degree dovetails.
And it didn't feel right when I tightened the gibs. The effect on slideway drag was very gradual as I tightened the gibs; one would expect the effect on drag to be far more abrupt. This pointed to misshapen gibs springing under pressure, versus being in pure compression.
That also happened, when the groove got deeper, until I ground a little more off the bit.
It's true that everything has vulnerabilities, but as a matter of actual (versus theoretical) risk, once you leave Windows things get pretty quiet, and the expense (dollar cost and time cost and lost opportunity cost) of security soon outweighs the cost of cleaning up the occasional problem.
I read in one of the Mac magazines that only 10% or 15% of Mac owners use any kind of add-on anti-virus product, and the unprotected Mac owners are none the worse for it, and have been for years.
Unix/Linux users have even less to worry about.
By contrast, an unprotected Windows machine on the web will last a few days at most, and a dialup machine might manage months before getting caught.
I should say how I did this. It turned out to be simple. There is a black steel collar upon which the dial rotates, the collar being fixed to the screw shaft with a setscrew. Loosen setscrew. Tighten the cone nut (or nylock nut) until the screw shaft binds, then back off just enough that the screw shaft turns freely. Tighten setscrew.
Before doing this, it helps to disassemble, clean, and lubricate the entire dial assembly, so things can turn freely.
I just tried this same crank-it-out test on the 5914: the backlash is
0.020" throughout the range, which implies that the bronze nut is the culprit. And implies that the screw is far newer than the bronze T-nut it now mates with.
Hmm. The nut is far cheaper than the screw, and very easy to install. Replacing just the nut might be worthwhile.
Someday I'll have the room for a horizontal mill. I keep running into jobs for which it would be perfect. But it sounds like a perfect application for copious flood cooling, if only to control the swarf.
Yes. I think that the cost of security provisions have now much exceeded the cost of cleaning up the occasional problem. Unix and Linux boxes are pretty much immune to actual attacks seen in the wild.
All computers are vulnerable to attack by a skilled human, so if one is targeted by name, security is very difficult to achieve. However, if the threat is automated attack on random computers, avoidance of Windows pretty much solves the problem.
Said another way, a Mac or Unix/Linux box behind a hardware firewall (or on dialup) is pretty safe.
Later in the man page: "xclip can also print the contents of a selection to standard out with the -o option." Also see last example in man page.
...
I meant that you'd change the script to invoke without command line parameters. Get URL from current selection. The current selection is whatever you most recently copied or cut or xclip -i'd. For example, when I left drag the mouse cursor over the two lines: test 1 @ 2 $ 3 % 4 test 5 ? 6 # 7 ! 8 and then execute URL="`xclip -o | tr -d '\n'`"; echo "/$URL/" bash displays: / test 1 @ 2 $ 3 % 4 test 5 ? 6 # 7 ! 8/
To use URL from command line when given, else use selection: U=$1 [ "$U" ] || U="`xclip -o | tr -d '\n'`" firefox "$U"
Aha! It was too late, and I was trying to get through my usenet reading before crashing. I've now tested that feature, and it works.
O.K. I currently have it set so if there is nothing on the command line, it fires it up looking at my own home page. I could instead modify it so if there is nothing on the command line, it uses xclip(1) instead. That would break less of what I do with it. Perhaps add another feature so if there is a single '.' as an argument, it still brings up my home page.
And -- your compound has less adjustment range for the gib because the dovetail itself is shorter, so the compound would show the problems sooner, given equal wear.
Yep! Good diagnostics.
O.K.
[ ... ]
Yes -- though there is a tradeoff to being a user of the most numerous unix version -- which I think is now Solaris 10. That makes it the next likeliest target.
An unpatched Windows box, from first connection to the net in a college dorm, has an expected mean-time-to-infection significantly less than the time needed to download the patches via the net -- even with a fast pipe. This is why at least some colleges (those who care about security) will not connect a new box to the net until one of their staff have come around with a DVD or CD containing all the patches and applied them. This at least slows down the infection rate somewhat. :-)
Oh -- the thrust bearing was loose. On the cross-slide of mine, the handcrank screws onto the leadscrew and then is locked by a cone nut which goes into a countersink in the crank (IIRC). It is easy to get this too tight. But it is also easy to tell that this is the source of the play by feel. You feel a bit of a "thud" as the bearing play is taken up, while the backlash in the actual leadscrew/net interface is less sudden. :-)
Of course.
[ ... ]
That narrows things down significantly.
I think so.
[ ... ]
The Nichols horizontal mill takes a lot less space than many, and (usually) offers a choice between leadscrew or lever feed through a rack-and-pinion drive for the X-axis feed. And -- there are a pair of micrometer stops which can be set up to restrict the X-axis travel rather precisely. Nice for certain forms of production work.
It was the narrower dovetail width that matters, more so than the length. On a narrower dovetail the same amount of wear in thousandths allows for greater angular motion.
Ya gotta have a feel for feel.
I did another experiment today, this time cutting 1018 steel with the grooving tool with the flat nose 0.206" wide held upside down in a toolholder and with the lathe in reverse, and the backgear engaged. I can cut a wide groove without drama and in almost total silence (aside for the noise of the gears), but the tool and toolpost rises visibly under the strain.
Now this is a very severe test, yielding chips about -0.008" thick by
0.200" wide, and involves very large forces, so the toolbit rising is not a surprise. One has to push pretty hard before the tool starts to bite with an audible bump, and it then yields the 0.008" thick chip. If one maintains the pressure, one can make a very long and curly chip.
But it has not happened yet. And while Solaris isn't completely hack-proof, it's orders of magnitude less vulnerable than Windows.
A college dorm has to be some kind of worst case test.
One very large problem in Windows is that one does not have to provide a password to install most software, while in MacOS and Unix, one does. This sharply limits the growth rate of viruses as at ever step of the way, a human is required. This prevention of automation is sufficient to sharply reduce the prevalence of viruses in non-Windows platforms.
Now, Microsoft is slowly changing Windows so people don't have to run their software from an administrator account, but this is like turning the Queen Mary. But it five or ten years it will have been done.
The hand cranks are woodruff keyed to the screw shafts on the 5914, and are kept on the screw shaft with a thread and cone nut as well.
Mine turned OK albeit with drag, and I worried that people might not realize how much better it would work after a cleaning, in particular if one wants to move the dial to a new zero without disturbing things.
I've seen pictures, but never met one in person. What do they weigh?
O.K. But you also probably don't have as much adjustment range in the tapered gib so you can't tune out as much wear as you could in the cross-slide.
[ ... ]
O.K.
Yes -- though the long and curly chip when parting can be a problem, because it can wedge in the groove and result in a broken parting tool.
[ ... ]
And I've also turned off quite a few things which I don't need or want. And, at least in unix systems, it is fairly easy to learn how to turn things off or on.
Indeed so. Lots of machines in unskilled hands, tons of bandwidth, so they can all be attacking each other. :-)
And toss in the "have you forgotten your password? Would you like to set another?" behavior, and ... :-)
Indeed so.
If they are still around by then. :-)
[ ... ]
I had to go back to the manual to make sure that I had remembered it properly. It is a threaded collar of fairly small diameter with a step towards the crank on which the dial slips and rotates when the thumbscrew is loose. And yes, the collar *does* thread onto the end of the shaft, with a nut which locks against that, and then the crank screws on. But there is not the cone nut which I thought that I remembered.
Indeed -- and the drag for the crank actually helps avoid disturbing the crank position while re-positioning the dial.
[ ... ]
About 1100 pounds. It comes with a gearhead three-phase motor, so you would need a VFD or a rotary converter to run it. I can't see swapping in any other motor. Lots of cast iron in the base, the knee, and the table. the head is mounted to the side of the column via a dovetail, and there is a lever connected to a rack-and-quadrant gear arrangement to move the head up and down. There is a lever between the motor and the head pivoted in the middle of the column, so when the head goes up, the motor goes down, maintaining a constant spacing and thus constant belt tension. The really old ones have 1" shafts on both the motor and the quill, and the pulleys are double groove per speed, two speeds, and to get the other two speeds, you had to interchange the motor pulley with the spindle pulley.
The later ones had a single belt instead of double, and five steps so you had a pretty good range of speeds. I've adapted the later pulleys to mine -- but I don't have the larger bore for a bigger drawbar which the newer ones had. I had to make my own mounting ring for the vertical head. But mine was a *very* old one. Both the horizontal head and the vertical adaptor use 40-taper NTMB holders and arbors.
But the tool is upsidedown, so that won't happen. Well, not often.
True enough.
And absolutely no common sense about which websites are likely to be a problem.
Oh, they will for sure, It's damn near impossible for a billion dollar company to fail, even if they try real hard.
On the 5914, the collar is not threaded (aside from the setscrew).
I found the drag to be a problem.
That puts it into the same weight class as my Millrite MVI vertical mill and of course the Clausing 5914. Seems to be a reasonable size for a home shop. When I was looking for a lathe, some Logans came by, but I let them pass because they weighed only ~300 pounds. Far too floppy for my taste.
Someday. Space is my issue. I saw a local Nichols horizontal hand mill go for ~$500 about six months ago. There were few takers.
With a shorter total dovetail, there is less linear travel before the gib gets too far off center to give proper support. Assuming that the taper is along the length rather than the width, which would require an interesting adjustment system.
One of the benefits of upside down is that chips tend to fall out of the cut. But with a long curl, you would have the chip feeding back cycle after cycle until there was enough to drag into the cutter from pure edge friction.
[ ... ]
And only a fool says that a system is hack-proof (using the wrong sense of "hack".) I prefer to call that "cracking", as it has no constructive target.
[ ... ]
There is that, too. :-)
[ ... ]
They appear to be trying "real hard". :-)
[ ... ]
O.K. A definite difference. You've seen the 5418 design in the manual which you have.
[ ... ]
Well ... it needs to be just right. Too loose and vibration will change it -- even with a balanced crank. Too tight, and it is easy to overshoot when you get past the friction limit. Just right and you can steady the crank with one hand as you loosen the thumbscrew, rotate the outer dial, and re-tighten the thumbscrew.
[ ... ]
:-)
There are some larger Logans, I think. We've got an expert on the newsgroup -- Scott Logan.
[ ... ]
Mine was $200.00 on eBay -- and cost more to ship down to the DC area from the Boston area. :-)
Well, in theory yes, but the gib adjustment range is the same for both dovetails. The taper is indeed along the length, and is the same (5/32" per foot) in both gibs.
The tool tip is slightly angled, and so the chip usually curls into a helix, versus a tight jellyroll.
I don't think the hack/crack distinction has any traction in the language at large. White hat versus black hat seems to be how the distinction is made.
Well, they have always been good at understanding their business. After all, they managed to achieve 90% market share selling products that were far from "best in their class" technically.
Right. The mechanics are quite different.
Thumbscrew? Mine came with hex socket cap machine screws riding on brass slugs. Hmm. The 5914 manual shows knurled thumbscrews, also riding on brass slugs. So both thumbscrews were lost and replaced. The cap screws are clumsy to use.
Yes, there are suitable 1000# Logan lathes, but none came onto the local market while I was looking. Logans were a definite possibility because Logan Actuator still exists and still supports their old iron.
That's a bit of a drive. How much did the shipping cost, and what year was this? Perhaps I should have considered non-local sources.
O.K. So they didn't give an extra adjustment range to the cross-slide, even though they could have.
[ ... ]
O.K. And if the tip has a shallow 'V' in the top, it will make the chip narrower than the slot, to reduce the chances of catching.
[ ... ]
Yes -- it is a lost cause -- though it *used* to be a term of praise.
[ ... ]
:-)
[ ... ]
[ ... ]
Mine had one thumbscrew and one cap screw, so I ordered a thumbscrew along with the leadscrew and T-nut for the cross-slide.
[ ... ]
Yes. I guess that more of the Logan lathes were sold in the hobbist size range, so we don't see the larger ones coming up on the used market very often.
[ ... Nichols mill ... ]
I don't remember for sure, but I think about $240.00. And this was back around 2000 I think.
Yes, although I have not had that problem if I can prevent self-feeding and overly thick chips.
I've been looking for a cutoff tool that can be used in front, but with reverse rotation. The BXA7R doesn't actually work for this, instead being intended for use on the back side of a forward rotating workpiece. What is needed is the mirror image of a BXA-7, versus an upside-down BXA-7.
I've also been looking at the Aloris holder for SGIH blades, BXA-77. However, it isn't clear that one can use upsidedown blades in this holder, as the bevels on the blade are not symmetrical.
Perhaps the best solution is to install a cutoff tool bar with rectangular shank upsidedown in a regular tool holder.
I may do the same. I'm close to ordering a T-nut for the cross-slide screw.
Actually, one did go by, at Gold Machinery in Rhode Island, but before I was ready to buy anything. So did a Clausing 5914 for that matter.
Gold's reputation around Boston is that they are expensive, but have good stuff.
Even with eight years of inflation, not such a bad price. One problem I had with getting stuff from Gold Machinery was the distance. Perhaps it was not as big a problem as feared.
I had to fold the "References: " header again. It got too long for jove to accept on a single line. :-) Then I had to create my own } Message-Id: because that was where jove was snipping things off when following-up.
Perhaps we should start trimm> [ ... ]
O.K.
So -- make your own using the design of the Aloris one. The main trick is getting the dovetail width and depth right. The trick for measuring the width is to measure between two pieces of drill rod pushed into the 'V's.
Perhaps. Or make something which you can clamp in the regular holder but which will hold the blade of your choice upside down.
[ ... ]
They were pretty cheap when I got mine -- at least by comparison with everything else which I ordered. (Oh yes -- the felts for the carriage-to-ways interface were pretty cheap, too.
[ ... ]
O.K. I'm retired too long to have the money to buy more large tools, so that will simply be filed in memory somewhere in case I win a
*real* lottery instead of all the fake ones I get e-mails about. :-)
[ ... ]
Perhaps. But the prices will probably change on a day-to-day basis with the fuel costs.
I never delved into how the threading mechanism works, and the nesting gets pretty deep and sometimes complex, but perhaps there is a clever way to prune.
Perhaps it's best to start a daughter thread of the same title.
Most of the stuff I would cut off are not that large, so a narrower blade is also useful, and it reduces the force causing all the problems.
Hmm. The BXA-7R would be a lot of trouble to duplicate in full, but it is certainly practical to duplicate the BXA dovetail, allowing me to make special BXA toolholders.
I received a somewhat beat up Hardinge C31 cutoff blade holder with the lathe. The C31 is designed to be clamped in the slot of a toolholder in their CHNC line. Google for "HARDINGE CHNC TOOLING.PDF".
Nor would it be difficult to make one's own mirror image C31. The only problem with this approach is the large overhang, 3.5" versus 2" from the center of the 5/8-20 bolt clamping the toolpost to the slide.
One could make a mirror-image C31 with a BXA dovetail, but the two designs are pulling in different directions. The C31 has a very deep horizontal slit which closes slightly when two hex socket cap screws are tightened, thus bringing the top and bottom of the blade groove together, clamping the blade. The bending caused by clamping would tend to distort the dovetail, unless a second slit were provided. The second slit would orphan part of the dovetail. This needs some design analysis.
I think I'll also troll in the catalogs of BXA-compatible toolpost vendors for ideas and/or products.
Felts. The left front carriage wiper always leaves a black dirty-oil trail in the bed way. Solvent cleaning didn't help, although continuous flushing by over-oiling with Vactra #2 is helping.
I should see if the black is coming from the carriage versus the felt, as I have not yet disassembled and cleaned this part of the lathe.
Who knows. Maybe that nice man from West Africa will arrive with the $20 million he promised. Maybe.
More seriously, I'm wondering if the more expensive machine might prove cheaper, as I will probably end up spending the difference on new parts. Although it has certainly been educational.
I never delved into how the threading mechanism works, and the nesting gets pretty deep and sometimes complex, but perhaps there is a clever way to prune.
Well ... my approach -- pre-folding the header and starting every extra one with a tab at the left margin was too successful. The system accepted it as a properly folded header, and straightened it out again. I've folded again, and after the first few, I've introduced an "X-References: " header
We would have to edit out the existing "References: " to make it be accepted as a new thread.
Essentially, the newsreader takes the "References: " header's contents which represents a long string of messages, gets older messages by "Message-Id: ", and finds all of the articles which reference those to build up the full thread tree.
Of course, Windows newsreaders (like OE) and some others simply use the "Subject: " header contents and ignore the "References: " totally. And -- they also Take any two-character start to the Subject header which is followed by a ':' and delete it, replacing all of them it finds with a single "Re:". It assumes that anything of that format is "Re:" in some language or other, which results in attempts to mark a thread as off-topic by prepending "OT: " to the "Subject: " header results in it being stripped off the first time it passes through OE. :-(
Of course -- if people would stop using the ':', it would work as desired.
O.K.
[ ... ]
Yes -- and you could make a rear-mounted toolpost whose sole purpose is to mount a parting tool, so it does not have the two dovetails, just the one, and can be locked by pulling in the rear dovetail (the one away from the centerline of the spindle) with a through bolt and a nut, since it does not need to be quick change. This could get the blade a lot closer to the bolt which holds it down. You could even pass that bolt partially through the dovetail -- and give the rear post a foot which extends under the actual parting tool to make it less likely to tilt under cutting forces.
Of course -- you would want a cross-slide which had rear T-slots to do it properly.
O.K. A starting point. It will go in the slot of a BXA-1 won't it?
That is why the design modifications I suggested to a rear-mount toolpost specifically for the parting tool.
O.K. Though I'll bet that you won't find much in the others which is not in the Aloris catalog.
[ ... ]
What happens if you remove the felt from under the cover and just squish it in a vise or in pliers? Does it squirt out black goo then? If so, then it is time to purchase or make replacements. Start with an arch punch to cut out circles of the right diameter, then a guillotine to cut the flat on the bottom and a leather punch to punch the screw hole, and you can make new ones from high density felt (which you can get from MSC or McMaster Carr in lifetime supply quantities (and only in such quantities. :-)
Yes -- you should. If it is coming from under the carriage, then it suggests that the carriage ways are worn into a shallow arc, which could contribute to your chatter problems. Then it would be time to look for a replacement on eBay, or to explore the special compounds used to make replacement ways. Ah yes -- "Moglice" is the name, I was struggling for it for a bit. :-)
[ ... ]
Have you noticed that the recent ones (or at least some of them)
*admit* that the previous ones were scams, and purport to be the government of Nigeria trying to set things right. :-)
There is something to be said for educational -- especially if you don't seriously *need* to use the machine yet. :-)
[ ... ]
It may well be just that at today's fuel prices -- especially bearing in mind that diesel now costs more than gasoline.
You or DoN could delete a few references out of the middle of the list.
Note, if you turn off MT-NewsWatcher's Message-ID generation as at
formatting link
let the news server generate message id's instead, I think you'll get somewhat shorter id's. Your id's are like: snipped-for-privacy@comcast.dca.giganews.com.msg which is about 25% longer than the average server-generated message id and about 50% longer than the pan-generated id's in my posts, which are short due to a short fake domain name. slrn and MTNW could do likewise, although id collisions can occur in certain cases; eg, if two pan users with same domain post articles within the same second.
This sounds like far too much effort compared to spawning daughter threads as needed.
Another bit of evidence of MS's deep respect for standards.
Of course, in English syntax anyway, the colon is the correct punctuation mark to use.
I can visualize a number of ways to do this, but they all sound a bit over-extended and floppy. I think that if I make anything, it will a for front-mounting an upsidedown blade, to be used with lathe in reverse.
That's the problem. I have the ordinary one-slot tool slide, and it does not have the reach to allow use of rear parting tools.
It will. The attachment stub plate is 0.438" thick (the clamping dimension) by 0.5" deep (into the BXA-1 slot) by 1.25" long.
Yes and no. Phase II and DTM seem to have only a subset of the Aloris range, but Dorian Tool in particular seems to have their own ideas and products.
I'm looking at the Dorian D30BXA-7-71C, which looks capable of full reversal and is it's own mirror image, looks like the best bet.
The Dorian D30BXA-771, which is billed as "universal" but not reversible, seems less suited to use with upsidedown blades.
The felt is very hard, and does not squish. I think it is solidified with hardened cutting oil. I bet I have the original felts all around.
Hmm. I don't think that this is a significant problem, but I'll test for this. The simplest approach is to mount a dial indicator on the carriage with the indicator probe tip riding the the flat tailstock way, and crank the carriage back and forth (to test the bed ways) and torque the carriage for-and-aft with a bar in a boring bar holder (to see if the bottom of the carriage is shaped like a boat hull).
I would think that the rocking would be constrained by the hold-down plates.
I've seen those. And the ones that purport to come from other than Nigeria, but have the same story and sure sound like Nigerian English. And often use all caps.
Retirement is a few years away for me.
There is that.
Well, it will be at least a year before I contemplate buying another machine, and we will have a different set of problems by then.
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.