Member postings for SillyOldDuffer

Don't be disheartened Margaret! I'm 8 years into the hobby, and - so far - haven't felt the need for a QCTP.

As you've found fitting a QCTP can turn awkward, and when this happens a beginner might not have the skills needed. So step one is to build skills, basically starting by making very simple objects, and gradually tackling more difficult parts.

I'm self-taught. I started by reading Sparey's "The Amateur's Lathe", which I found excellent. The book's only fault is not covering later technology like carbide inserts and DROs; not surprising - it was written in 1948! Next step was to collect a stock of scrap metal, then buy a lathe and start using it. I almost came unstuck at this stage because, by pure bad luck my entire collection of scrap was unsuitable - I'd picked up a range of alloys that were all difficult to machine - soft Aluminium, gritty Brass, hardened steels, and work-hardening Stainless. Driven by a beginner with hazy ideas about cutters, RPM, depth-of-cut, feed-rate and everything else, the mini-lathe didn't perform well. I was well out of my depth. Luckily, I was given a length of EN1A, which machines well, and that saved the day. Having made a start, stuff started making sense. I got a lot of help from the forum and still do. Many gaps in my understanding because I've learned haphazardly, not benefiting from an apprenticeship or mentor. (I suspect many internet videos are made by people like me because so many contain strange mixtures of good and bad practice. Watch them critically!)

Though I'm not a model maker, I found building a few engines extraordinarily valuable. They exercise:

• Reading drawings
• Planning work - which parts should be made first, and what sequence of cuts is needed to shape them
• Preparing stock - bandsawing to approximate size, removing scale from castings, marking up etc
• Setting up the lathe:
  • Oiling and cleaning the slides
  • Holding the job securely in the correct position: mandrels, glue, faceplate clamps, chucks, collets, steadies, centres etc
  • Choosing a cutter suited to the metal and to the operation - saws, files, drills, knives, boring bars, taps, dies, etc
  • Selecting and adjusting RPM, DOC and Feed-rate to suit the metal and operation
  • Locking unused axes,
  • Removing loose swarf, oil-cans and wandering tools away from the action
  • Asking 'what could possibly go wrong?', especially checking that nothing will collide whilst the machine is cutting
• Driving the machine - a combination of managing sequences of roughing and finishing cuts, removing metal in a sensible order to get accurately sized parts, with an acceptable finish. Achieving the correct size requires understanding lathe dials, calipers, micrometers, DTI and gauges. Driving a lathe requires understanding the various controls, and being able to engage and disengage them at the right times. A 'feel' develops with practice: the optimum work rate is a balance between operator actions, machine capability, the metal, and the cutter.
• Dealing with Failure. As there's a lot to learn, most of us have junk boxes full of rejects. Very upsetting! It's all part of the game. If metal-work was easy it wouldn't be an interesting hobby.

My all time favourite learning engine is Stewart Hart's PottyMill. Neither too simple or too complicated. The finished engine works, and there are no mistakes in the plans. Though all the parts are within beginner range you have to think, apply various techniques, and maybe take a couple of goes to certain parts right. The engine does not require super-accuracy, and is fabricated from stock metal. As a learning project it offers the opportunity to make a crudely finished but working engine, then to develop the skills needed to produce a finely finished well-made version, and then to move on to smart paint-work, in a realistic historic mill setting, with Lancashire boiler, figurines, and factory chimney made of individual scale accurate bricks.

After making a PottyMill, the acquired skills make fitting a QCTP rather easier!

The reason I don't have a QCTP is I find carbide inserts pre-shimmed to height don't take long to swap in and out of a 4 way tool post. I think pre-shimmed inserts in a 4-way are nearly as fast as a QCTP.

QCTPs pay off when the operator favours HSS tooling (which have to come off for resharpening), or their particular work involves a lot of rapid tool swaps, which isn't typical of beginner workshops! There's another trade-off too - though tool changes are faster, QCTP are less rigid than a 4-way. I decided to spend my money on other tools, and have never regretted it. Has to be said though, that I work rather slowly.

As Margaret made good progress with a nasty tool-post problem, I say 'keep going'. Once a few basic skills are acquired, I'm sure a second attempt will succeed.

Dave

For breaking stuck joints, I think fast heating rather than slow is required.

If the base is heated rapidly with a torch, the base starts expanding before any heat reaches the column, and the expansion pulls hard on the rust sticking them together. And if the base is then cooled quickly, it contracts and crushes the rust against the column. Both actions give the rust a hard time, which loosens the joint. Several hot-cold cycles may be needed.

Slowly heating the base and column together much reduces the stretch/crush action because the parts expand and contract at together at the same rate, giving the rust an easy ride.

Slow heating works if the joint is stuck by gummed oil, paint or loctite, which have to be burnt out.

Shock is more effective at breaking joints than a slow push with a hydraulic ram, but there's a risk of cracking cast-iron. Sharp raps with a big hammer often get stuff moving, though whacking stuff hard always makes me nervous! Anyone tried a jack hammer?

Dave

I wondered if anyone had made a youtube video of an engine being dismantled so we could count them! Of course they have - there are loads of 'em.

'I do cars' is entertaining, but it's not easy to count different bolt head types and sizes, other than 'several'. And I was led astray by the many other interesting details!

This example may be of interest because it's the Ford Eco engine steviegtr reported, where the internal fabric belt frayed and blocked the oil feed. There was some discussion on the forum about chains versus belts. ECO Video here. (https://youtu.be/0yx1-50iqnA)

Now I've seen how a Ford Eco engine is built, I don't know what the designer was thinking! My guess is the belts did 150000 miles in a test rig, but there's something different about what happens inside a real engine, or that a different belt was used. In principle protecting a belt inside an engine not intended to last longer than the car is good, but if it goes wrong, bad things happen!

Back to why different heads are used, perhaps production convenience is a factor. Maybe on a production line, a robot puts in a set of triple-square bolts for an engineering reason, (high-torque needed), and then bungs in a few unrelated others because they happen to be in the right place at the right time, even though plain Hex heads would be more logical. The opportunity to speed production could save more money than resetting to use cheaper bolts, or fitting bolt heads that suit maintenance work!

Dave

My advice - don't bother! What you have is probably no worse than any other bar, and it will be useful in future.

All boring bars start to chatter at some point, but exactly when varies a lot. Not just the length of the bar, much depends on the job, cutting fluid, RPM, depth-of-cut, feed-rate and insert-shape.

As usual cutting tool length should be kept as short as possible. No problem when a long boring bar is held in a lathe tool-post because the unused part sticks harmlessly out the back. Not possible with boring heads which normally work with short boring bars unless a deep or very wide hole is needed. So I think a short boring bar is needed as well.

Annoying a long bar was supplied with the head rather than a short one, but the bar isn't useless.

Dave

+1 From memory most charts are for less than 80% engagement.

Cutting tight threads puts progressively more stress on taps and dies causing rapid wear and breakages. As high engagements aren't much stronger than 80%, and are more hassle to fit because alignment is critical, most threads are generally made on the loose side unless there's a specific need for tightness.

Brass and a new die should cut to size without bother, otherwise I'd suspect an unfriendly material and/or blunt cutter.

M10 x 1.0 into a 9.0mm hole gives a 77% engagement. An 8.9mm hole gives 85% engagement., and 8.8 provides 92.4%. For real men only, an 11/32" tap drill gives 97.7%. Not recommended - over 90% the risk of breaking the tap shoots up, as does the chance of the thread veering off axis.

As Model Engineers hate spending money, it's not unusual for us to keep well below 80% engagement. Mollycoddled taps and dies last much longer.

Dave

Judging by the website, it's a miracle Vertex sell anything! So awful I wondered if it was a fake. For a time it seemed Vertex of Taiwan don't make Boring Heads at all. Persisting, they do. Looks like they're either sold as a boxed set, with arbour, accessories and 3 or 4 boring bars, or just as a boring head, where you have to buy an arbour and bars separately.

My guess is Chris bought from a retailer who paired the head with an arbour and bunged in a lathe type boring bar as part of the deal.

A long bar may not be complete madness because they can be mounted vertically to bore deep holes:

And a long boring bar is an asset on a lathe because the end can stick out the back.

I'd either chop it down or buy a shorter bar. Neither of my boring heads came with bars.

Dave

Edited By SillyOldDuffer on 30/07/2023 14:24:15

Shine a torch into the holes to make sure there isn't another pair of grub screws inside. Quite common for grub screws to be anti-vibration locked by screwing another one into the first.

The torch might also show a thread.

My guess is years of rust in a joint too deep to be easily penetrated by oil. In which case, repeated cycles of strong heat. Berhard's Oxy Acetylene is best because it gets objects quickly up to high temperature but a blow-torch should do the job eventually. Needs to be a big one though - that's a lot of metal and the faster the base is heated the better.

Dave

Well done you! Though painful, a valuable learning experience. It will be useful in future. But ask again, the best way to approach the blasted things varies. I'm not sure why these jambed, unlikely to have been thread-locked, possibly over-tightened by a factory gorilla.

The originals seem to have been very ordinary, which made them easier to remove. Higher-grade screws would have put up a proper fight! I don't think the screws need to be anything special. Torx are over the top, and I'd avoid stainless because they can spall and stick. Slotted screws are easily chewed up unless the correct screwdriver blade is used and held straight. Cross-head (actually cruciform) are better, but beware - the two common types (Phillips and Pozidrive), chew each other up : it's important to use the right blade! I like Allen Heads - harder to get the keys wrong, and they have excellent grip. Allen, Torx and other special headed fasteners are usually made of tougher, stronger alloy than ordinary types. They should be done up tight, but not too tight. If the bolt is stronger than the female overtightening can strip the thread in the socket, which is another pain to fix.

Bottom line though, once replaced, it's unlikely these screws will ever be touched again. Almost anything that fits will do.

Dave

I agree. Though it could be used to water a garden, this type of application is an example. We all understand what watering a garden entails, and there are many ways of doing it, including not bothering! However, if you want to learn about microcontrollers, watering the garden is a respectable teaching aid, The example covers sensors, servos, programming, and bring the whole lot together on a real microcontroller.

My dear old dad, clever chap though he was, had a huge blind-spot when it came to computers. In his experience, machines were dedicated to a single function, where pushing a button, pulling a lever, or turning a knob did one thing only. He couldn't comprehend that computers can be programmed do almost anything, and he was lucky to retire just before the shift to microcontrollers made his electromechanical skills redundant.

Ian's project isn't about watering the garden, it's purpose is to get folk started with a technology with almost unlimited applications. It leads to bigger things: in my case, Dynamometers, Septic Tank Controller, Photographic controllers, Ballistic Chronograph, Condensation alarm (able to turn on a dehumidifier), Rotary Table driver, Precision Event Timers, Pendulum Clock Analyser, various motor controllers and much else.

Better not say what I think of BASIC as a computer language though - it upsets people!

Dave

I'm not impressed by the idea. Spending £80 on a set of files may not be smart If the idea of buying scrap is to save money. An ordinary file will indicate if a metal is too hard to machine, but not much beyond that. Hardness gives a hint about steel, but is less useful on non-ferrous metals.

I know it's painful, but I recommend coughing up for metal known to be machinable. After becoming familiar with how machinable metal cuts, it's much easier to identify whether or not scrap is suitable.

Dave

I recognised it as a Keats from Sparey's excellent "The Amateur's Lathe", and remember thinking in my innocent youth that it was a must have accessory.

But are they still useful when many of us have milling machines? In practice I've never had call for a Keats, thinking it's because a mill is a better alternative to a Keats or an milling slide on a lathe. I hadn't thought of a Keats on a mill-table though. A vice, angle table, rotary table, or clamping down direct do most of what I need. Am I missing something? (Quite likely - I'm self-taught, and have many odd gaps in my skill-set!)

Dave

I plead guilty to contributing to thread deviation, M'lud.

In mitigation, I claim to have suggested the best engineering reasons for mixing threads and heads on the same modern engine.

I don't believe it's done simply to screw-up home mechanics, because different heads are found far deeper inside the engine than maintenance normally goes. Things like the bolts holding water-pumps and the alternator together, those fixing the oil pick-up to the engine block inside the sump, fixings inside the cam-block, and those connecting cranks to the crankshaft, or that anti-harmonic thingy. Anyone on the forum ever completely dismantled an entire engine?

The engine in one of my early cars, a Talbot/Chrysler Sunbeam, or maybe a Horizon, contained a wild mixture of US, imperial and metric bolts. I think this resulted from the dreadful mess the British car industry was in at the time, where part of the answer was seen as collaboration between previously independent manufacturers in the same group. Chrysler owned what had been Rootes in the UK and Simca in Europe. Building on existing assets Chrysler UK produced a number of cars, as did others, from parts sourced from around the world. Not sure how long this went on, but many of the 'British' cars I drove during the seventies and eighties had both Imperial and Metric thread types, indicating mixed heritage. Due to being in terrible financial trouble makers couldn't afford to design new cars and engines from scratch, and had to make the best of what they already had. In the long run, not good enough, when foreign competitors have brand-new production facilities and haven't trashed their relationship with lenders, staff, and government!

Pretty sure this kind of financial pressure doesn't explain why universally metric modern engines mix hex, torx and other heads. As far as I know all modern engines are made with lots of different heads, reason unclear.

Dave

A classic illustration of why security is difficult. Using the 'full-name' provides a temporary improvement by releasing information that can be noted and exploited later.

Security a constant battle between the bad guys looking for new ways of breaking in whilst the good guys look for new ways of stopping them. This often leads to long sequences of measure, counter-measure, and counter-counter measure, of which this is an example. Like as not PayPal are already thinking about improvements.

Meanwhile, everyone should be aware that being addressed by their full-name doesn't guarantee anything.

Paranoia never helps. My advice is don't be naive on the internet. Minimise the amount of personal information released. Doesn't provide impregnable security but it takes much longer for the bad guys to collect enough information to mount an effective attack. The folk who blab everything on Facebook, Twitter, et al, are much easier, and quite often belong to a family that does the same. They're a softer target.

Capita are in a different league. Very serious when a financial organisation is hacked, because deeply private information can end up in the wrong hands. If it does the victims are pretty much on their own. Capita, who have a reputation, will no doubt be fined the maximum by the Information Commissioner (about £20M), but the money is small beer. (The maximum fine allowed is set by government, I think it should be much bigger.)

Despite their failure, the firm continues to be awarded major contracts by firms and public bodies keen to reduce the cost of pension admin and other services. In my view it is irresponsible to give Capita new work whilst an incident like this in ongoing, but hey, it saves money!

I'm in favour of leaders being held accountable, which rarely happens in the UK. The best way to hold Capita's feet to the fire is probably to join the Class Action. Apart from making Capita more accountable, I think this is the only way an individual victim can get recompense.

Dave

Loads of ways of cocking up precision work, you can guess how I know.

The mistake may be expecting too much of the chuck. Possibly the flat-end of the chuck body isn't turned precisely at 90° to the axis. In a hand-drill chuck, there's no reason why it should be, so the end may only be cosmetic. It not being flat and true would explain why the run-out gets worse when the chuck is screwed home on the arbour. In which case, Samuel's arbour is better made than these particular Rohm chucks!

Try a set-up like this:

To show the principle I bunged the test-bar into my lathe's 3-jaw, but if accuracy matters centre it in a 4-jaw or a collet chuck.

The run-out of the test-bar is measured first. Ideally zero, if not take the discrepancy into account before condemning the drill-chuck.

Then measure how flat the end of drill-chuck is as shown above. Mine is an inexpensive Chinese machine drill-chuck, not hand-type, and the error is 0.02mm. Most of the error is from the 3-jaw lathe chuck, so this one is OK.

Had the set-up revealed the base to be off-true, the same arrangement allows the drill-chuck to be skimmed true on the lathe. Usual precautions about rigidity and light-cuts only.

Dave

Martin doesn't say his enquiry is historic. The information won't be public if the person of interest is alive. It is possible to ask the Ministry of Defence, but personal information isn't handed out with the rations. Solid reasons and bona fides required.

There is a free database of WW2 Royal Navy deaths.

Otherwise, for historic people, Ancestry.com and similar sites are the best bet. When I used Ancestry about 10 years ago they had very little apart from census data but since then lots of other data has been added, including military records.

Unfortunately probably necessary to take out a subscription and certainly necessary to learn how to use the site. The sites are good fun when tracing a family tree as an interest, less suited to finding one-off individuals. Rarely as easy as typing in a name and pressing Send. More like puzzle solving, where clues are followed until the individual is identified. Unusual names are much easier than common ones, and it's surprising how often people in the past wandered away from their birth certificates.

Might get lucky and find a forum member actively researching their family who could do a search for you? Otherwise, hope a free trial will find the chap, or cough up for a subscription

Dave

I think the forum does what you need Andy.

Login, and select 'Settings' from top left in the Green Bar running across the screen top

This opens the 'My Details' dialogue. Click on 'My Profile'.

This allows a Nickname to be entered. Try it and see what happens: I think all your posts, past, present and future, will be tagged with the Nickname not your real name.

Dave

Doesn't matter what I drive Maurice: it's what's happening in the world that we need to worry about. Forty years of anti-green sentiment were badly wrong, so what next? Sadly Car Huggers are the problem, not Greenies.

I say transport is important. Therefore when the evidence says IC is on the way out, it's time to find an alternative.

No-one ever fixed a physical or economic problem by denying it!

Not all is lost. Providing transport without relying on cheap oil is an engineering problem that can be tackled. Bad news for petrol-heads maybe, but I don't care what the technical answer is provided it keeps the economy moving.

Belief systems shouldn't be allowed to get in the way. There are no sacred cows in engineering. If one sneaks in, it has to be slaughtered.

Dave

It's the fossil-fueled nutters you need to worry about Nigel! They're in denial about two much bigger problems: the oil supply running out, and man-made climate change.

The future of IC engines depends entirely on cheap oil. Pure fantasy to believe that mineral oil supplies are inexhaustible, the question is when demand for oil exceeds supply, not if. Prices are going to sky-rocket.

I'm not sure why the need for green is so difficult to comprehend. Is it just that folk can't bear to admit they got it wrong? Can't cope with any form of change? Fear? Vested interests? Or simply that the old ways are the best, even when it's obvious they aren't.

Over the last 40 years there's been a barrage of anti-green propaganda, most of which has proved wrong: green energy will always be expensive; green will never replace coal as a way of generating electricity; electric cars won't work; it's all too difficult etc etc etc. All deniers have managed to do is delay change, causing a lot of avoidable damage, whilst green engineering provides answers.

Although IC engines did a great job in the past, I'm afraid the end is in sight. They are not future proof. Given that transport is vital, I say it's essential to find alternatives to Internal Combustion pronto! Expecting oil to last for ever isn't an alternative.

Never mind where electricity for cars is coming from, ask where will the oil for IC come from in 30 years time? One of the two is a dead-end.

Dave

I'm shocked to hear Rolls Royce did that, but if you worked for them Bernard it must be true. Dreadful news, my next car won't be a Roller!

Surprising too, hard to imagine a production line switching bolt heads on engines mid-stream just to save a few bob.

Dave

My guess is there's more than one reason, such as:

• Different Preload requirements - For example Torx can go tighter than hex head without damaging the head, but hex are cheaper whe n that doesn't matter..
• When the bolt head has to fit into a small space - too small for a hex head
• To identify groups of bolts used for a common purpose, so that mechanics don't undo timing cover bolts when they're meant to be replacing the water pump.
• Making sure that different grades of bolts don't get mixed up during manufacture and maintenance. (The bolts holding the head down are a much higher grade than those that stop the sump falling off.)
• Encouraging garages to pay for the full manual.

Space saving may be the main reason: I'm amazed how tightly packed modern engines are, almost to the point it's necessary to take an engine out to change the oil filter. My guess is the needs of home mechanics aren't considered at all because most owners have their cars to serviced by fully equipped garages full of diagnostic gear, socket sets, and special tools.

Dave