Member postings for Clive Foster

As I see it the picture implies that a thin sharp edge, such as a razor bled, placed vertically on the end of the trough should contact both the spiral lands when the drill is pushed forwards to the correct position.

If that is the case the narrow slot, rather than engraved line, described by Roy would be a pretty effective optical gauge to help set things by eye. Basically look down from above the drill and the outer edge of the slot should be just visible past the two edges of the spiral lands.

Unfortunately I don't have practical experience of the Reliance jig. Merely seen one used many years ago.

Clive

Smart & Brown used I & 3/4" by 8 tpi on the spindle nose of the Model L series plain turning lathes.

Often configured as bench top capstan and second operation machines which would commonly use collet work holding.

Clive

Duncan

Sitecom used the N300 designation for a host of different products, range extenders, routers and other wi-fi related stuff. Which doesn't help when you are trying to nail down data.

However if its the WLX-2001 the wall wart included is saId to be 5 volts, 1 amp rating.

Manual here :- **LINK**

http://attachments.content4us.com/datasheets/FULL_MANUAL_CMPSC-WLX2001_ENG.PDF

Odds are that everything in the range using the same basic box will also be 5 volts as there is generally lots of engineering commonality across one makers range.

Always worth doing a Google for the specific manual. Seems that manuals for pretty much anything consumer electrical / electronic and reasonably modern can be found.

Clive

Just to close the thread I'm happy to report that the problem has been solved.

Turned out to be the key operated switch labeled Punch which actually switches between guillotine and punch function. Needed a new actuator. One of those build up from parts BX4 series devices so sourcing things was relatively easy and the actual switch bodies could be changed over onto the new mounting flange and actuator. No need to detach or alter wiring.

Flogging through the 'undreds of parts in the catalogue list to figure exactly which bits you need is a considerable headache tho'. Ended up using a different breed with a better mounting collar set-up. Actual switch bodies fit all breeds.

Clive

+ 1 for LeBlonde Regal.

The top of the headstock is pretty distinctive.

See **LINK**

http://www.lathes.co.uk/regal/index.html

Most likely WW2 vintage as many were bought over during the war.

Clive

+1 for Jasons suggestion of the Spindexer as being faster to change workpieces than a collet block.

I'm surprised how little I use my collet blocks, primarily for that very reason. A box / tube spanner long enough to easily loosen the collet nut when held in my usual vices went on to the to-do list about 5 minutes into my first use of a collet block. Its been on the list about 20 years so far!

As has a base conversion thingy so my Spindexer bolts straight to the Bridgeport table rather than needing clamps. Only 19 years tho'. However I did square off the two long sides in alignment with the spindle so I can set it true (enough for all normal purposes) by setting a parallel in one of the table slots and pushing the Spindexer base up against it.

Clive

Given the incredible sensitivity of the Mk1 human eyeball to tiny errors of centration and concentricity I suspet Daves device would prove disappointing in use. The flexibility of 3D printed plastic may inherently limit the accuracy of holding to a level below what would be desired and setting up so things are truely parallel to the amchine table travel may prove fraught.

Machining in situ from alloy bar would seem a more reliable method. Production CNC jockeys do such as a routine task for multiple part set ups.

Clive

Touch off methods fundamentally assume that there are no infelicities in workpiece mounting, tool grind or cutting behaviour that may affect the relationship between touch position and the edges of the actual cut. It is of course a given that the tool and work be sufficiently stiff not to deflect when the (gentle) touch is made. Like many folk I find the "just tears cigarette paper "or "drag a feeler gauge out of the gap" methods give a better feel for precise touch off than simply bringing the tool down onto workpiece or reference for those jobs that have to be so right that even Inspector Meticulous may smile, briefly.

Nice thing about the known error method is that all infelicities are eliminated because measurements and settings are referenced to an actual cut.

Its also generally quicker.

Eye up cutter for a suitable sweep across a sacrificial component or set up dummy to make the D.

If you have one set DRO to zero, use a different memory if need be so you don't loose important datums.

Measure depth of D and height of flat above table. (Verify that the results are consistent. I'm a great fan of paired check measurements as the habit has saved me significant time when a set-up wasn't what I thought it ought to have been.)

Move cutter so as to bring it to the calculated correct position.

Make a second check cut on another sacrificial or dummy component. If its wrong figure out what your error was and start over, otherwise go into production.

There may be some parallel universe where slitting saws are universally renowned for their stiffness, flatness, accuracy, good behaviour in cut and general tolerance of all but the most grievous mishandling. Where ever it is it's far enough away that the light hasn't got to my workshop yet!

Touching off an affordable slitting saw in an affordable holder is a prime example of the sort of job where I want an easier way to be accurate. My slitting saws and holder came from ArcEurotrade a decade or more ago so they are decent and were good value for money but lack the ultimate accuracy of high end industrial products.

Clive

For this sort of job I prefer known error methods where a suitable test cut is made deliberately offset from the desired position and the actual offset derived by measurement and calculation allowing things to be adjusted to place the cut correctly on the actual workpiece.

Especially so if a DRO system is fitted as it makes compensating for the deliberate error in the test cut much easier than when using conventional methods.

For this job I'd make a dummy cheesehead "screw" and slice part of the head off leaving a D shape.

The position of the flat side of the D can be measured to appropriate accuracy hence establishing the position of the lower side of the screw slot produced at that vertical position of the slitting saw.

Given the diameter of the dummy "screw" head and measuring the depth of the D the offset needed to put the bottom of the slot to be cut in the proper screws exactly half the width of the screw slot below the collet centre line can be calculated.

I tend to break out the CAD system and accurately draw the proper screw head along with the D shape test dummy.

Clive

Gentlemen

Thanks for the assistance.

Looks like first thing to do is confirm that it actually is a rocking beam type where punch and guillotine move in opposite directions. If so it seems that sorting out the wiring of the ram reversing control should fix it.

Unfortunately my friend is not the most electrically savvy of people and only tends to call me in after he has fiddled with things and failed. So I may have to work out what he has done to get it partially working before I can fix the real fault!

Currently waiting on some XB4 switch gear components to replace a broken one no longer held together by faith.

Clive

bernard

Thanks for that.

Clive

Nick

Thanks for confirming that the guillotine blade should be in the up position at rest. I did wonder if the key operated switch labeled punch reversed things so that the unused side parked down as a safety feature reducing the chances of foreign bodies getting into dangerous places.

Noel

We have peered through the inspection cover and, so far as can be seen given the very restricted visibility all the mechanics look OK. Those things are very heavily built and access in general is poor so it would take a very determined person to upset the mechanics.

First impressions are that the punch and guillotine are driven via a rocking lever system from the bi-directional hydraulic cylinder so the punch and guillotine may well move in opposite directions. The control is electrical via solenoid controlled valves or spool valve. Dunno which, can't see.

Given Nicks comments about the complexity of the wiring, there seems an awful lot for what naively might be expected to be a simple device, we think it most likely that something is wrong there. At least its still clean and neatly laid out.

Clive

When considering any affordable Hardinge its important to remember that a Hardinge doesn't do well once relegated to ordinary and "that dirty old lathe in the corner" duties.

If not adequately looked after they rapidly decline to Colchester and below levels of performance. As Mark says sorting all the details to restore proper Hardinge level performance takes dedication, a deep(ish) pocket and understanding of the many details that make a Hardinge what its is.

Before I bought my Smart & Brown 1024VSL I looked at several affordable Hardinge in "imperfect" environments where they were being used as ordinary machines. Although still working reasonably well it was clear that a heck of a lot of effort would be needed to bring them back to the expected levels of performance.

I saw no point in buying a Hardinge and getting older Colchester performance.

The problem is that a clean Hardinge from its proper environment will either be very expensive or have had a long working life and be suffering from sufficient honest wear that its performance and accuracy will be, by Hardinge standards, rather below par.

The unusual chuck mount really doesn't help if teh chcukcs with the machine are sufficiently well used to need replacement.

Clive

Helping a friend sort out some electrical and other issues with a Kingsland Compact 40 Ironworker. Unfortunately manuals and other data appear to be unobtanium so I was hoping that someone here may have experience with these machines. Allegedly working before being disconnected and pushed into a corner for a couple of years with the usual electrical derangements suffered during such treatment.

We think we have the electrical issues sorted but the guillotine operation doesn't seem right.

The punch parks in the expected up position and downstrokes to make the hole when the control pedal is operated. Which is what you'd expect.

The guillotine section currently works in the opposite fashion. The blade parks in the down position and pressing the pedal lifts it so the cut is made on the downstroke as it returns to the park position. Which doesn't seem right as it makes positioning the material incredibly inconvenient.

It seems unlikely that anyone has gotten into the machine and upset the mechanics so is there an electrical control issue, possibly linked to the travel stop switches, that could cause this.

Controls are slightly puzzling in that there is a key operated switch labeled punch but no separate control for the guillotine section.

Thanks for any help.

Clive

Simon

As you have commercial ball bearings it should be possible to unearth some official manufacturers specifications for that particular bearing.

Probably need your Google-Fu firing on all cylinders but I imagine some carefully worded searches along the lines of "shaft fit for bearing no ....." may be more rapidly productive than hunting through online catalogues. That said the data is usually relatively easy to find in the big "books" but understanding can be a different matter as the listings are for professionals with more understanding of what it all means than home shop guy.

Clive

Howard

The old US Standard 1/2" thread is 13 tpi.

Apparently the Americans stayed with the 1/2" Ø 13 tpi and 1" Ø 14 tpi SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) after all other sizes were switched to the UNC, UNF and UNS (Unified Special) standards.

Don't know if the detail tolerance and clearance specs were updated to conform with Unified or not.

Clive

+1 for Roberts suggestion of a 6 pole motor rather than the usual 4 pole. Generally not that much more expensive is our sort of sizes.

The lower base speed of the 6 pole motor means torque and power hold up much better when speed is reduced using a VFD.

For practical purposes the "don't see a significant difference in motor performance" range of a modern motor running from a modern vector drive VFD is ± 1/3 rd the nominal speed. So a 6 pole motor runs up to pretty much same speed as the original with no practical difference in performance and goes down to around half the original speed before you seriously have to start engineering for the lower power.

Obviously you don't get the torque multiplication of changing to a lower gear or belt pulley step ratio but if you choose your normal operating gear or pulley step wisely the VFD and back gear can handle the most of your desired speed range without the motor running out of oomph.

I'd probably reduce the primary drive ratio a bit to further enhance the useful low speed range. High speeds are for smaller jobs so you don't need that much power anyway. It's pretty rare that my S&B 1024 goes over 1,000 rpm let alone makes it to the 2,200 top end!

Using a 4 pole 1,400 rpm motor tends to waste the higher speed capabilities of the VFD.

Clive

Hafta disagree with Calum as to the action of brad point drills.

Correctly ground they cut from the outside edge inwards. The actual cutting edge should be slightly concave. Good quality commercial ones have a very shallow lip on the circumference projecting slightly forwards of the cutting edge.

As the brad point stabilises the centre the cutting forces on flat material will be balanced at the outside diameter of the drill so there should be no net deflection forces. Unlike a conventional drill where the cutting edges are offset from the centre creating a net deflection force. The deflection force remains even when the cutting edges of a conventional drill are fully engaged but generally they are overwhelmed by the stabilising effects of cully engaged cutting edges and, on deeper drillings the hole walls. If the deflecting forces are not fully overcome the drill wanders.

As with a conventional chisel point a brad point doesn't properly cut. Its more ore less forced into the material. Hence the general restriction to softer materials. The concave shape of the cutting edge means a brad point drill is much worse than a conical point at clearing the extruded material produced when the point is forced into the material being drilled. Another reason for the restriction to soft or thin materials. Generally if the material is thicker than the brad point lenght things start getting iffy on more resistant materails.

Clive

If Rohan ever stop making their iconic Bags trousers you will hear my curses in Australia. Pretty much live in them.

Couldn't live without the double pockets with full sized inner zipped portion. Phone and glasses case with the other pair in it safely in right side, immediate access money in left. Outer part of pocket for normal pocket duties. Maybe a bit on the light side but I get 2 years plus out of two pairs worn one on one off and washed weekly. Dry fast if they get wet too, unlike jeans. Just have to remember not to try welding in them!

I get them in the twice yearly sales and accept whatever colours they have overstocked.

Not cut for the more er "rotund" person tho'.

Clive

Further to my earlier post here is a video showing how to make a wooden jig to do brad points using the same technique. The method of cutting the point is sligtly different and, possibly, more accurate. Metal version could be smaller.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0jGbXY3rUY

Can't make the embed thing work!

PS That is the video referenced by DC31K who posted whilst I was struggling.

Clive

Edited By Clive Foster on 24/07/2022 08:46:39