A casting for a conventional design of 1/2 ton capacity arbor press was machined 1/8 inch on a 2 x 10 inch side for a metal removal of less than 2.5 cu in. An open work envelope was configured on a Smithy Super Shop using the saw table and fence to guide the work. The cutter was a 2.5 inch dovetail milling cutter with 1 inch center hole and keyway. The cutter was adapted to the drive with a 1/2 inch shank jeweler's saw holder with 1/2, 5/8, 3/4, and 1 inch ring mandrels supported by a spring, held without the included top cap, and with a purpose made double bevel washer and a M8x1.25 socket flat head machine screw. The base of the casting was leveled by rubbing with a
12 inch sanding disc by hand, using 120 grit Al2O3 abrasive paper, to prevent rocking which stalled the cut several times without damage to the machine.The passive voice was used because I feel like I've been through a time machine to the 1700s when all of this was done routinely. Pip pip, and all that.
So I figured I'd better tell somebody because this moves the machine tool self-reproduction problem into the international standards segment of development. The question of whether a machine fit can be made on a part larger than the machine tool it is made with is
*resolved* by this constructive proof; this casting could have been seven feet long, and with a few low-wage helpers, would have been machined to the same precision. Remember, the first postulate of machine tool self-reproduction is "We are universal, we define universality, and we self-reproduce." The second is "To make one of anything, you need two of everything". (Except the furnace and forge)It can be done!
Douglas (Dana) Goncz Replikon Research Seven Corners, VA 22044-0394
Ref:
Phase Relationships in the Standardization Process. James Gosling. August, 1990.