Just discovered another way to double post!

Edited By ega on 14/02/2020 17:00:07

Some early hydraulic brakes did run on water.

From memory, the Miller Indianapolis cars.

Sounds interesting; can you post a reference to details of this?

Someone once told me that brake fluid would soften the carbon deposit in a cylinder head; might be worth a (careful) try.

What is the lathe and might you post a picture?

A very effective way of opening up a pilot hole is to use a core drill with three or more flutes.

In default, the pilot hole can be opened up to fit the larger drill with a boring bar even if this is too big to enter the target hole to any depth.

Isn't there a trade-off between depth of engagement with the scroll and the distance between the work and the face of the chuck? Neither setting is ideal in my opinion.

The chuck is apparently a Grip Tru and if it is in good condition it would be a shame to overtighten it.

Too late to edit; I meant to say would *not* prevent.

Presumably implying that he has no change gears that are accessible for this purpose they being, as Martin Cleeve would say, locked up in his gear box.

Obviously, the gear box would prevent the use of change gears if available.

Thank you, Neil.

And, by the way, so far as I am aware, there is no silver in silver steel!

Edited By ega on 10/02/2020 17:45:42

STP stood for "Scientifically treated petroleum".

JC54:

PM now sent.

I'll PM you later today.

NDIY:

Thanks - I've now "seen the light"!

The slant bed might be an issue for anyone installing a DRO on the Willson.

Thanks for explaining.

I have a Willson (sic) of around the same vintage as your friend's and may be able to help with specifics.

I forked out for Tony's manual but you may find a cheaper version online. Most of us owe a debt of gratitude to him.

Mine came with travelling steady but not the peculiar-shaped fixed steady. I have knocked up an adapter to allow the use of a conventional fixed steady.

It looks as though your gear selector needs attention.

Is that a DRO above the headstock? Some photos of the installation would be welcome.

Ah yes, of course; I should have thought of that.

But wouldn't you lock the barrel with screw feed?

John Baron:

Good point about the split clamp (cotter). In fact, mine was the simpler type to a Len Mason design in ME. The reduced centre height of the ML10 might be an issue for this type of toolpost since the "shelf" on which the tool sits needs to be thick enough to resist deflection.

I later made a four-way indexing toolpost to the GHT design and have sometimes wondered whether he would have become a QCTP convert.

MichaelG:

May I trouble you to elaborate your two-handed point? I'm having difficulty in envisaging a situation in which there would be more of a need for two hands with the rack feed as opposed to the screw.

I use a lever feed with great satisfaction on my S7 and can't imagine reverting to the standard arrangement. The only small disadvantage that I encounter is that the tailstock is somewhat tail-heavy when the lever is fully extended to the right. Incidentally, although I would like to try the (expensive) rack feed, the lever does allow you to vary the mechanical advantage.

John Baron:

Am I right in thinking that, strictly speaking, the Norman patent envisaged a square section hole rather than an open slot?

I used one like yours for some years - cheap and easy to make and very versatile. I have seen a suggestion that the height adjustment screw should be as near as possible to the tool tip so as to prevent or limit dipping.

I notice from old mart's link that Cutwel do a

Quick Change Anti-Vibration Tool Holder for Imperial Boring Bars

which looks very much like the GHT sleeve but costs over £118!

Thanks for those other useful pointers. I understand that the shape of the cutting edge also affects the direction in which the tool is pushed away from the bore - perhaps, therefore, another reason for using shop-made or modified cutting tools.

Edited By ega on 07/02/2020 11:28:18

Edited By ega on 07/02/2020 11:28:55