Member postings for Andrew Tinsley

Hello Barry,

Thanks for the info, I am always bothered that I might miss some oiling point on a new to me machine

I have always had a soft spot for shapers and it seems that very few other people have one! Which is good, as you can pick one up for very little money.

They are extremely versatile. I got rid of a big industrial shaper and missed it from the word go. I machined dovetails, table T slots, as well as making new gib strips for my Myford. I machined the angle on a piece of ground flat stock, of the correct size, a lot cheaper than buying from Myfords.

On the last shaper, I even machined a Myford saddle ! I intend to cut gears on my new shaper, when I have it fully fettled, as per the recent discussion on here.

All the above can be achieved using a cheap single point too,l so no expensive milling cutters! Cheap to buy and cheap to run and the things you can do with one are amazing!

Andrew.

Andrew.

Seems odd that no one has had a bed regrind or knows of someone that has. The Nuneaton guy seems to be most mentioned, anyone care to pass on their experience via a PM?

Thanks,

Andrew.

Ha,

The above is an interesting way of thinking about ME. I started off building steam locos and the kit was merely an ends to a means. Now however, I am more interested in making kit not models! There is always the opposite viewpoint.

My old Cushman has had its jaws ground via a dremel and the improvement was well, not a lot. As I said before, if I can half the average run out, then I would be a happy man. Some simple turning and 4 holes drilled and tapped, sounds a very small price to pay, if it works. I am just about to start doing the job so I can report back tomorrow.

The Cushman chuck is definitely not a worn out heap of manure, in fact it isn't in bad nick as far as I can tell, The jaws are a good fit with no appreciable rock detectable and the scroll looks to be in good condition. Well worth an hour or twos punt, to see if it can be improved.

I have an excellent 3 jaw chuck (Polish) and I prefer to keep that for relatively precise work. The Cushman is used for any old rubbish job, when I don't wan to wear out my good chuck. OK for real precision, a 4 jaw and DTI are the way to go. Changing chucks relatively frequently, as I do, I never have problems with chucks sticking!

Andrew.

I am just getting round to tidying up a, new to me, Realm shaper. A manual would be great, but even where to lubricate and what with, would be good information!

I suspect a worn cross feed screw or nut is giving me a little more backlash than I would like, but that can be easily sorted. I may have some trouble putting in a new slightly oversized motor, but what are friends for if not to help!

I have read the Lathes UK write up and it sounds a good machine, even has the vertical axis and the tilt facility on the table is great.

Anything anyone can tell me about this machine would be most appreciated.

Regards,

Andrew.

Thank you John,

That is exactly where I read about it! Thanks for reminding me, at least I got that bit correct! George, there isn't much in the way of vibration. It is a TOS chuck, which I always thought to be pretty good. There seems to be no difference in noise or vibration when it is changed for another chuck. So quite where the excessive run out on the outside diameter of the chuck comes from, I do not know. it came with the ML10 I purchased as a stopgap. The jaws are firm and the backplate has about the same degree of run out as the work, I just checked it at 1.2 thou. The run out of a 1 inch diameter bar of silver steel is 2.2 thou The outer body of the chuck is out 32 thou, no wonder it looks a bit wobbly! All very strange, maybe it is a Friday afternoon job. The chuck is good enough for me!

As to using my old Cushman chuck to carry out the modification recommended by Prof Chaddock. I can see no reason why I should not experiment. I fully understand the various comments which imply it is a waste of time. I suspect that I can get the average errors to be less using the device than it is as present. If so, then time well spent for the small amount of effort. I am not under the impression that I can get zero run out. I am not that wet behind the ears. A halving of the current run out would make me quite happy.

Thanks everyone for their input, much appreciated,

Andrew.

Somewhere I have the instructions for my six jaw Burnered grip tru chuck. I will see what that says about adjusting, if anything.

It has at least 5 sets of jaws, some of which I don't know what they are for! "No good giving me something complicated mister"

Thanks everyone,

I am now sorted with the back issue that I wanted.

Andrew.

Hello,

Do the publishers do back issues of MEW or does one have to go to people like Tee publishing. A link to MEW publishers would be good too.

Thanks,

Andrew.

I always get the oxyacetylene on the offending stub. get it really red hot! After cooling I have had a lot of luck with using a vey small chisel and suitable hammer, just get the chisel embedded in the periphery of the stub and keep tapping, never failed yet. This will only work if the stub is relatively large in diameter.

Whenever I mix acetone with ATF fluid, they immediately separate into two layers. What brand name ATF are you using, so I can try it as a penetrating agent. It is highly spoken of, but I never had any success in mixing the two.

Andrew.

Thanks for the replies. For some idiotic reason, I assumed that the three adjusting screws were in the backplate! Obviously they have to be in the chuck body. Talk about having a one track mind!

Interesting that so far, no one thinks this is worth doing. If the run out is a thou or two then its OK. If greater than this, then use the 4 jaw. The inference I get from this is that a Burnered Grip tru is a waste of money! I bet that will upset quite a few people!

I have an old American chuck that isn't too good in the run out stakes, jaws and scroll seem good too, so I may well try this tip out. I don't have anything to lose.

I have a Czech chuck that came with my ML10 lathe This one is a puzzle, Measuring the run out at the work, gives just under a couple of thou. However when running, the periphery of the chuck body has a huge run out! I have not measured it, but I would guess about 20 thou! A neighbour of mine came in while I was using the lathe and the first thing he said was "There is something wrong with that chuck, just look at the run out!". I am now hijacking my own thread!

Andrew.

I recall reading recently about getting three jaw chucks to run true, I think it was either George Thomas or professor Chaddock, who advocated that a back plate should be turned under size and the 3 bolt fixing holes to be made somewhat larger than necessary.

This would enable one to set the chuck to have minimum (zero?) run out. I think there was even mention of using 3 screws on the backplate periphery to give a grip true type adjustment. I cannot visualise how this would work in practice.

Now all of this sounds heresy to me! I have always read and been told that the backplate should be turned to exactly a push fit into the chuck. However if such luminaries advocate a poor man's grip true chuck, then I am hardly in a position to complain!

What are peoples views on this heretical claim? More important, how would the 3 adjusting screws be made to work?

Andrew.

Hello,

I should be picking up a Myford ML7 bed in the next couple of weeks. I have a local guy that can do a regrind. However I would like to know of other firms that could do the job. Quality first, price second!

Andrew.

Hello.

It does look to be a very neat ball turning attachment. I was thinking of building the Radford version, but I am not too sure now! Anyone like to comment on the relative merits of the two designs?

Andrew.

I have both carbon steel taps and HSS, I can't tell the difference in use and I have yet to wear out any carbon steel taps. For hobby use I don't think it matters as long as they are decent quality.

Tubal Cain's tapping drill sizes are the way to go, Using the manufacturers chart's suggested hole size, is a recipe for breaking taps.

Andrew.

Hello Clive,

Many years ago I used a boring bar which had a "micrometer" adjustment for the tool. This made life a lot easier and I could bore without the usual sweat and finger crossing. I have never seen one since, but having looked in GHT's book on workshop practice. There is one described there, the type I used is much more like the ones shown in the Hemingway catalogue. It certainly beats the slacken off, pray move cutter , pray again and then tighten cutter!

Andrew.

One of the first jobs I need to do when my ML7 is together (at long last), is to make and use a boring bar.

I have seen several photos of between centres boring and they always show the boring bar held in the 3 jaw chuck and a live centre at the tailstock end. I was a bit bothered about the associated run out of a 3 jaw. However I did satisfy myself that even if the bar is running out of true at the chuck end, any boring of items on the saddle would be unaffected by this.

Or have I missed something? Maybe a second order effect? I still have the urge to use the 4 jaw and get the bar running true at the chuck end. Is this a waste of time as I suspect it might be?

Andrew.

Thanks Clive,

I was aware of the likely problems with the half nuts, which need renewing anyway. If there is no real advantage with the thicker lead screw, then discretion is the better part of valour!

Thanks,

Andrew.

Hello,

I will be putting a new lead screw on my ML7 as part of its long drawn out rebuild. I will be buying the item direct from the manufacturers in Hull.

It did dawn on me that I could put either the early or later (thicker)lead screw onto the lathe. I shall have to turn the ends of either lead screw on my friends larger lathe.

Is there any advantage in going for the thicker (later) lead screw or conversely what are the downsides of such a move. I have certainly got the bearings for the older lead screw and I probably have them for the thicker lead screw amongst my pile of Myford spares.

Andrew.

Oh Dear, embarrassed again! I have retried the locking of the shaft via the large screw. This time I found that it does clamp the table. My apologies for the false information. The pointed locking shaft could not have been entering the large dimple on the main shaft, on the previous time that I tried it!

So I have two alignment methods, the first being the movable table and the second being the eccentric bush that hold the tools! So why are there two methods of alignment?

Apologies for false information (read incompetence for that!),

Andrew.

Thanks everyone,

I still don't understand what is going on!

Speedy, I do like your staking tool. The press is rather a bonus. It looks as if the "press mode" is centred in the middle of the rotating table. Quite how you use the staking tool to operate on the peripheral "anvil" positions I really can't understand. Maybe it is a trick of the photograph? I am intrigued by the clamping arrangement at the anvil positions, at least that is what they appear to be? Certainly your staking tool is a lot more versatile than mine. I am quite envious, wish I had one like that!!!!!

Jimmeh, thanks for the photographs. Your staking tool looks great in chrome finish! Far better than my pea green crackle paint! Seriously I can see that your rotating table has a larger counter bore than the diameter of the shaft head, so it can move around in the same way as mine. The locking arrangement for the shaft is similar in concept to mine. But here is the rub, when I lock my shaft, the table is still free to move, which isn't the way your tool works!

It would appear from the photos that the position of the hole that takes the staking tool is fixed and the tool's position cannot be adjusted in any way. Whereas my version goes into a shaft housing that is eccentric and this enables it to move radially.

Maybe for some odd reason I have both means of adjusting the stake position relative to the "anvil" holes. But not being able to lock the table position is a touch worrying.

Thanks again,

Andrew.