Member postings for MalcB

If the OP Tim dosnt really want to start carving the lathe up, then maybe thinking about using a backplate mounted ER chuck in place of spindle collets would be wise, especially if they havnt hey been purchased.

This would increase the holding capacity down the spindle to practically its I.D. And even larger at the nose for the depth of the collets/chuck.

Big problem with some of the Chinese versions is the fact that they use a lot more current both in service and when switched off. This could be helped by taking the battery out each time after use but very inconvenient.

I still get about 2 years life out of my approx 20 yr old Tesa calipers, just hope they keep on going

You may have to just skip the add.

**LINK**

I don't know what sort of I.D. your spindle is, but is there any chance of tapping it, if it's near the tapping size of any appropriate thread, assuming also it's not thru' hardened?

Easy then to make an extractor bar.

Drawbar then easily made using a flanged bush in the end of the spindle.

I have a TOS 160mm 3 jaw and a TOS 100mm Independant 4 jaw and both are good chucks Really like the narrow grip area on the 100mm TOS as you can get down on smaller diameter stuff if needed.

Similar position to you in that my Pratt 4" is goosed and there were no reverse jaws with it so I took it out of service,

I note with interest the mention of Zither which I have not heard of so will research these myself. Can anybody advise/comment what the grip width is like for small diameters?

As Ian has said, check Total Indicator Reading on the internal taper where the collet locates. And work either way from there.

Backwards to the backplate setup if you get TIR errors.

Forwards to the collet runout checks if the taper runs true.

One of our Daughters lived in Mytholmroyd until 2 weeks before the floods so have been a regular visitor for quite a while ( she was so lucky they moved 10 miles away when they did as they would have been hit badly ).

If you have a small mill then unlikely you will need a vertical slide.

I have one of their T1 sized quick change tool posts on my Boxford and really like it. Holders are cheap and I have been buying an extra one at visits.

I also like their low profile vices for the milling machine.

Their HBM lathe chucks have surprised me on their accuracy ( have a HBM self centreing 4 jaw ).

As mentioned ER collet set ups are a plus.

They are stockists of Eclipse which still seems a tad better engineered than other imported stuff albeit not as good as it used to be.

Also, a backplate mounted ER chuck for the lathe with an ER chuck on the mill plus 1 X collet set gives a versatile set up between lathe and mill.

Good sets of parallels there which are always useful.

The list is endless but the Best Buy for me from there is the QCTPost set.

Edited By MalcB on 10/01/2016 16:28:12

I would highly recommend one of the 626's.

If you buy one of the VMC 626's don't be too put off by the Morse 3 Vs R8 argument. It is very easy to modify the Morse taper 3 version spindle ( without removing even it from the machine) and then to make a simple drawbar ejector with no hammering necessary at all to remove the holders.

Adding a 100mm or so spacer under the head significantly increases this machines versatility.

I would then go for an ER40 chuck Morse or R8 to suit and full collet set for the mill plus an ER40 Backplate or cam lock mounted chuck for your lathe. The collet set can be shared by both machines and will give you a grip range of 2-26mm in both machines.

Clamping kit - I would not go for the 14mm kit that is intended for this machine. IMHO all the M12 studs and clamps are overkill for this machine. I bought this set initially but no longer use it on the mill.

I personally have now gone for the 12mm kit which uses M10 studs and fittings and made 6 x new T Slot nuts 14mm wide but M10 holes. To me is more suited for this machine size and does not feel like overkill.

I personally also find the 4" low profile vice more suitable for me but this will be driven by what you reckon you will be machining.

As requested.

Just to confirm kind response from Stuart Models in that on the eccentric should actually show 9/64" not the 11/64" shown on my older drawing.

They confirmed latest drawing set as being 1993, offering to sell me a set, if I have any further doubts.

Think I will carry on using book and drawings as book seemed fine as the drawings in there were from a later date than mine.

I will however buy the governor drawing set shortly.

Big thanks though on their customer service, appreciated.

Mmmmmmm.....just thinking aloud how the material stability of a bar stock produced crankshaft like the one in the video would be against that of a drop forged item. Not really an area I have any experience in I am afraid.

I have however seen a few stability issues from bar stock machining on expensive duplex stainless where material has been continually moving whilst metal removal was taking place. In particular where the biggest section changes were.

Not sure if this ever happens or takes place with low or higher carbon steels, maybe others can say?

Interesting link as well John A.

That's looking quite a smart job coming on.

Oh how I miss my Kerry bench drill.

John,

Yes, then it's got to a time for a name change.

I knew it was only a matter of time before a string of 'G' codes appeared.

You know what I thought when I first watched the video was:

Would I ever want a crankshaft made from solid bar stock in an engine of mine?

Surely with that amount of metal removal and the complex section changes left remaining, there must be a high level of induced stresses now present? Heat treatment would surely distort? Maybe vacuum stress relieving, who knows.

Or maybe just a demonstration/promotional video.

Edited By MalcB on 05/01/2016 23:45:29

When homeworkshop CNC machining gets to this level, them maybe a name change would be in order.

**LINK**

Another plus from me for Ralph H.

Was heavily involved with the introduction of our first CNC in the early 80's, being one of the first programmer/setter/operators, moving on to planning and production engineer, then works manager with Director status responsible for then for the full CNC justification and implementation programme within the company with a much hands on throughout.

In those early days it was exciting times with much training and development to be done by myself and those following along. The company still does operate conventional machines along side the CNC because as others have stated full programming and setting cannot always be justified in production costing. All our operators are fully competent programmer/setter/operators.

Now that I am semi retired I actually find it more exciting going back to the basic machining skills gained in my earlier toolroom years.

Would I have CNC in my home workshop ( if I had room ) - No Thanks, I love the basics albeit I do find DRO so good in there.

I do have a lot of respect and understanding for people who do want to go down the CNC path who havnt yet done it, it is very exciting and challenging learning the new skills and disciplines required. There is a real feeling of achievement when things go right.

There will always be people who want to do go that way, but I suppose there are people also like me who after having heavy CNC involvement find it refreshing to get away from it.

Thanks Brian and John.

Martin Connelly has highlighted one of the essentials in that is very important to recognise the difference between climb milling and conventional milling.

Conventional machines ( i.e. None CNC ) have varying amounts of backlash and this can be climb millings downfall.

Aim to do as much as possible on your particular mill using conventional milling to start with as it is more forgiving where backlash is present. Even if your machine is new, check your jib strips on all slideways and take up any play that shouldn't be there as you should seek to maximise rigidity whilst cutting.

Also lock the two axis's that you are not using for your cutter feed. You sound as though you have already encountered the need to maximise the rigidity in your clamping arrangements. Speeds/feeds and depth of cut already covered.

Choice of using soluble cutting oils even if applied from squirt or spray bottle can help with cutter life and finishes just as with lathe work.

As with anything, protect your eyes and enjoy.

Thanks Jason, it's in my thoughts to maybe do the governor. Probably buy the drawing set some time shortly.

Thanks John.

Sounds as though your plans are around same time issue status as mine. As confirmed 9/64" is what I will go for from other helpful feedback.

I did send Stuart an email this afternnoon for when they return after their holiday break. Expressed some concern about if there are any other changes I need to take into account from my old drawings.

Don't know if they will reply but will let you know the outcome if or when they do.

If you want to protect your cylinders from corrosion/seizure during storage periods, use a good quality marine fogging oil in them.

Thanks, happy to use the 9/64" when I start the eccentric. Your marking outs practically as good as jig boring

. I have concerns about if there are any more differences, so as advised earlier I will contact Stuart to see if they are willing to advise/assist.

Had promised myself for a long time to make a beam engine.

I managed earlier this year to get my hands on an unstarted complete castings/raw materials/fasteners kit for the Stuart Beam Engine. One or two extras such as extra valves and lubricators were also included. Luckily at a decent price away from the Bay.

The negative being that this package had been originally purchased in 1975 and consequently stored since. With this was the original drawing package. I then bought a new copy of Andrew Smith's Stuart build guide.

As his build is lathe based for both turning and milling. My methodology adopted, has differed slightly being able to carry out milling on my 626 with 3 axis readout. I started in October on an " on and off basis " twixt doing other things. I think I am about half way through at a guess.

Having done a search I found 4 posts only on the Beam, one of which being on the eccentric raised an important issue.

Distance on my drawing for the eccentric centres is 11/64".

Andrew Smiths description shows 11/64".

The drawing in Andrew Smiths book shows 9/64".

One of the posts makes reference to a later ( 1993 ) Stuart drawing showing it to be 9/64".

I know it's a bit late in the day but I have been following the dimensions in his book rather than my drawing and now having 2nd thoughts about this, so a couple of questions please if anybody is able to answer:

1) If the build of the Stuart Beam has been covered in Model Engineer, how would I find out which editions if at all possible?

2) Do I need to go to Stuart and buy the latest set of drawings or can I continue to use the drawings in Andrew Smiths copy like I have been doing?

P.S. I hope the grammar police don't read this.