Member postings for Clive Foster

Basically pins and string or equivalent.

Divide by 2 is easy. Fix one end of the string, find the length to the other side and double back to the original end. Loop back position gives you half.

Repeat as needed for all the even divisions.

For thirds you set the string in a right angled triangle with the long side 1 1/2 units long. Without measuring equipment best way is probably to set up a rectangle of with one pair of sides one unit long and the diagonals 1 1/2 long. Equal diagonals give right angled corners as close as you care to go.

Same trick for all the other prime divisions.

Tedious but not hard.

Makes you realise why common units (imperial for us) wer always done by dividinng down from something sensible.

Clive

Sounds like a power supply issue. Enough power to drive one readout properly but when the second one is added it can't supply either the voltage or current needed to run both.

As the scales work OK individually at least we can rule out socket pin out incompatibility. Unfortunately not all the 9 pin D connectors have the same layout.

Clive

John

That's a much more secure and engineering way of going about things.

Putting a set of extra high jaws in the box with the vice to be used like that, and occasionally in the normal position, seems to me better than suggesting using the tiny lips left when the standard jaw is utilised. Maybe add tapped holes in the top of the fixed jaw too so the standard jaws could be set flat giving a reasonably substantial lip too. Such holes would also let you add clamps to either hold work to the top of the vice or provide extra retention to a component which is difficult to hold securely by simple clamping. I've had jobs shift for lack of that extra top clamp.

Things that I might well have done to my vices if the basic casting were more suitable.

The common way is more of a "looks nice in the specifications" thing rather than "really useful for all sorts of difficult stuff". But throwing in tall jaws et al puts the price up without the gains being immediately obvious to the ordinary purchaser. That said I'd have thought that Arc Euros reputation for quality could stand the extra few pounds for two more tapped holes and taller jaws to use on the back and front.

My experience suggests that the 4" size would gain most from readily available, adequately secure, extra capacity given by tall jaws used as shown in Johns pictures. I see a fair number of jobs that wouldn't fit the standard opening of a 4" Versatile but would do just fine with Johns taller jaws on back and front.

With my VJ400 ones I, of course, just pull the pin and shift the nut for extra opening beyond a normal 4" vice capacity. But thats why I bought them after all. Removing the standard jaws and fitting taller jaws back and front on a Versatile would be nearly as easy. Beats the heck out of pulling the vice and the "how do I strap this to the table" headache for sure. Let alone tramming the vice in when you put it back.

Clive

Colin

I'm impressed by the capacity / weight ratio of that ARC 125 mm Versatile. At 22 kg its actually a bit lighter than the Vertex VJ400, which is said to be just under 25 kg, so its respectably handleable.

According to Google Andrews Kurt tips the scales at nearly 38 kg, a couple or three kg heavier than my 6" Abwood so shifting is very much workout time.

If they had been around at that relative price I might well have bought ARC Versatiles instead of my Vertexes as, for me at least, the useful capacity would have been similar.

I'm unconvinced as to the utility of the extra jaw positions as the work holding is fundamentally via a small lip which seems less secure than one would ideally like. Although willing to be convinced to the contrary by photographic evidence I'm not sure I'd have the nerve to actually try.

If I were buy another vice it would be a Chick! Not likely to actually happen. At around £2,000 a pop they cost more than I, and most other folk pay for their mills. But I am eying up the practicality of a look-alike as part of a project that needs an integrated vice.

Clive

+1 for the 6 mm push fit system. inexpensive, the ordinary blue'n black plastic fittings will do fine but the metal ones are swankier and cost little more. Fittings can be found for just about any reasonable thread for such applications.

Easy to use and designed for the job. Just make sure you cut the tube straight with a really sharp cutter whilst supporting the tube bore to ensure you don't deform it. Hanging burrs can upset the sealing O ring(s) inside.

I've always used nylon tube which was what the system was first designed to use. A bit on the stiff side for feeding round tighter bends but totally reliable and well up to the job. My 22 year old Range Rover P38 air suspension is still on the original factory fit nylon 6 mm tube and push fit connections with nary a leak at (nominal) 160 psi. So I guess the stuff works.

Not sure about Jasons reference to PVC tube. Usual alternative to nylon is polythene (PU). Various types. All more flexible, usually more expensive and all less durable than nylon in hostile environments. Not that any normal person would notice the differences.

Clive

Colin

Cheaping out on a vice, especially your first one, is always a bad move. Although its generally pretty easy to re-work one of essentially sound design and construction with inaccuracies due to a selling price too low for the factory to afford proper quality control its a faff you can do without when you just want to use the mill.

Going to Arc is a good move to get a decent product a fair price.

However I'd question the advice to get a 6" one for home shop use on a Bridgeport. In practice the main advantage of a 6" vice over a 4" one is jaw opening. The disadvantage is its big and 'kin heavy. I "obtained" a 6" Abwood for my Bridgeport which, after refurb is probably better than any of the affordable new options, and have used it maybe twice in 20 years. However the price was right, basically negative as part of a complex deal.

My go to vices are a pair of Vertex VJ400 110 mm jaw width / 180 mm max opening purchased from Rotagrip on a show offer when I had my big square column bench mill.

I'm convinced Rotagrip cocked up the show pricing but my credit card came out smoking and I've never regretted it.

Basically an economy version of a hydraulic vice with screw drive. Actual screw driven closing range is about 2 1/2 inches but the nut is located by a simple pull out pin with three alternate positions for openings of just under 2 1/2, 5, and 7 1/4 inches. Specification accuracy is 0.01 mm / 100 mm, mine came out better when I checked them but the figures are long lost.

Currently £325 from Rotagrip **LINK**

http://www.rotagriponline.com/index.php?page=shop.product_details&flypage=shop.flypage&product_id=19436&category_id=125&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=29

Which still seems pretty good value. The hydraulic version is £300 more!

I keep the 3" vice in the background for use on angle plates and sine tables.

In defiance of popular opinion I keep the swivel base on.

A Bridgeport has ample room under the quill and keeping the swivel makes it easy to set the jaws parallel to the slots for normal use. I find that, once set, simply pulling back against the locating bolts before final tightening is repeatable to a thou or so in 4". Good enough for most jobs. Generally the bolt down slots on a vice aren't super accurate in position so you need to either accept the need to a djust each time you fit it or do a bt of re-working. Jason reports that his Arc supplied vice was pretty much dead nuts on as delivered. I reckon he was either lucky or Ketan sorted out a special one for his mate! From what I've seen something in the region of 5 to 10 thou error across 4" in jaw allignment when using simple pull back is more typical. Not bad given that the slots are rarely fully machined.

Clive

Edited By Clive Foster on 06/04/2022 09:45:06

Spanner sizes?

Measured across flats in ascending order

M6................0.394"........................10.00 mm

0 BA.............0.413"........................10.50 mm

1/4" UNF.......0.438".........7/16".......11.11 mm

1/4" BSF.......0.525"........................13.34 mm

(assuming the spreadsheet I found ages ago is right)

Of course grease and oil nipples often use undersize hexagons.

BSF marginally more likely on a Pultra think.

Clive

Edited By Clive Foster on 03/04/2022 18:59:24

0 BA and 1/4" BSF are dangerously close in size and pitch. 14 thou difference in outside diameter, 12 thou in core diameter, 0.38 tpi difference in pitch. 0 BA being smaller and finer.

Depending on the tolerances involved both will screw onto the other with varying degrees of ease and slack. Despite the difference in thread form. Such mis-fits dangerously reduce the ultimate tensile strength of the joint so pull out stresses will be much lower, probably around 1/4 of a properly mated pair.

Clive

+1 for serial taps.

Considerable reduction in tapping force which makes life much less fraught with small taps. Especially on difficult materials.

Yesterday I used my M4 serial set when making some 6 mm long threaded inserts to glue into thick glass fibre panels without decent rear access for proper headed inserts. M6 stainless steel stubs tapped M4. Done on the S&B 1024 lathe by holding the tap in a chuck in the tailstock with the stub gripped a collet in the spindle. Lathe in neutral. Spindle turned by hand using the collet handwheel. Bit of push in on the tailstock to engage the tap.

Easy to feel the difference between ordinary hand tap, spiral form machine tap and serial ones. As the collet was gripping on a short thread holding force wasn't wonderful but both ordinary taps and the machine tap would turn the stub when well into the thread. Accompanied by "cracking" feel. Not good for the nerves. Plenty of trefolux tapping lube applied of coarse. Fairly hefty lathe so plenty of metal turning round with a good deal of inertia to watch out for.

These days I buy serial or machine taps if I have the choice.

One issue to bear in mind when tapping in a drill chuck is the drag and inertia of the spindle, belt and motor. Which interferes with feel, dangerously so on small taps. Best to drop the belt or at least put it on top speed so the motor is effectively geared down relative to the spindle reducing its contribution to the load.

When using smaller taps there is much to be said in favour of the sliding tap holder on a spigot devices with a knurled wheel to turn by hand. No load from the drill spindle so far easier to feel what's happening so you can stop and reverse before the tap breaks. Something I should have made many years ago but no longer need as I have alternatives.

Clive

Edited By Clive Foster on 03/04/2022 10:40:21

Bernard

Very probably knurling would do fine but probably even harder to arrange than threads on that diameter.

Clive

Gary

Nice to know that such things go quite easily given reasonable care.

Clive

pgk pgk

Thanks for that. Looks like I do have an option for correct size to thread roll then.

1.5 mm fully threaded would be too large. Specific thread isn't important, its the grooves that matter as they help it hold in place.

Clive

I see no issues with sharing the toolpost designs if you have changed them.

Obviously if its a simple build thread then reference back to the source rather than publish your drawings.

If its an "I liked the idea but changed things because I thought that would work better / be easier to make / better fit with my machine" or whatever then frankly the changes, unless stupidly trivial, make it your work so free publication is fine. But reference the source because other folk may prefer the original.

Copying and modification is how progress gets made after all.

Commercial use is a little different because clearly the person who has gone to all the trouble of developing something that works is entitled to a fair return on that effort. Patents are explicitly published so folk can copy and improve but "should" give the innovator protection form other folk selling something containing that innovation for several years after.

Clive

Clive

Reckon Speedy Builder5 is right about what this M 1.4 rod is for. Certainly looks so from the sample "fit to this" parts I have. Interesting that brass has been found acceptable before as my man says it has to be steel.

Trying hard not to be sucked deeper into this job. Big difference between half and hour or so on t'net to unearth a "get it from here" and deep involvement in making it. Straightening wire is definitely about 4 steps too far. Would soft wire even be stiff enough to thread?

Looks like options are:-

1) die cut thread using 1.4 mm rod from Hobby Holidays and a die from Tracy Tools

2) thread rolling head and 1.2 mm kirschner wires, both off E-Bay

Interestingly that E-Bay thread rolling head is for bicycle spokes but 18 gauge spokes don't seem to be made.

I'll see what he says.

Clive

Thanks for the advice gentlemen.

It's for something to do with renovating a harpsichord. The grooves that are important to retain the parts in wood so it doesn't need to be a screw in thread. The pieces need to be straight too, the ones that came out certainly aren't. I found the M2 studding last year. Acceptable then but considered oversize now the man comes to do the job.

After further searching it looks like 1.4 mm steel rod can be got from Hobby Holidays at about 50 pence a foot so I'll probably go with that. Tracy Tools have dies at £18 each so sticker shock shouldn't give him a heart attack.

Thread depth is 0.15 mm so I guess I'd need 1.25 mm steel rod to start with which seems pretty unlikely. Translates to 0.049" which is near enough 18 gauge (0.048" ) so thread rolling is possible if suitable material can be found.

No luck at component-shop, nearest kirschner wires from UK suppliers appear to be 1.2 mm which may not be enough to thread roll. Fascinating how much stuff I didn't know about can be found by asking here.

Clive

Edited By Clive Foster on 01/04/2022 22:36:19

I've been asked to source a few feet of 1.4 mm diameter grooved steel rod. For all practical purposes the size and groove depth match M 1.4 thread so some threaded rod will do just fine.

I can only find it in short lengths of brass which won't do. Does anyone know of a source in steel?

If not is it practical to make my own. Tracey tools can supply a die, E-Bay also offers a thread rolling head at a not impossible cost, but what material to use and where to get it from. Common piano wire will clearly be far too hard to thread.

I imagine stopping something that slender from twisting during the threading process will require care and creativity.

Thanks

Clive

Price is near enough the same so no economic reason to choose one or the other.

Bandsaw preference may well be just familiarity and confidence that blades can easily be got.

But the chop saw, like a power hacksaw, is strictly a stock cutting machine. Only things that can be held in the vice can be cut. Vice is also shallower than that on the usual H-V bandsaw so less scope for creative gripping of tricky stuff. For folk like us the big advantage of the H-V bandsaw is its ability to shape things way too big for the vice when in vertical mode.

That said my H-V bandsaw got very little use as a vertical. Always seemed too much trouble to change over. Flimsy table never inspired confidence. Now I have a big Startrite vertical which gets very regular use as I can just switch on and go. Almost the default option for cutting stuff now except for proper bar and round stock which the old Rapidor power hacksaw handles with effortless aplomb.

Hafta say I prefer a power hacksaw for stock cutting as its quiet and undramatic.

On a slightly different note the Makita DCS552Z 18 V hand held metal cutting circular saw :- **LINK**

https://makitauk.com/product/dcs552z

is an excellent device. Not sure I'd care to use mine for stock due to the difficulty of holding the soleplate down on small things but its great for larger things and sheet. Got it when I had 5 full sheets of tread-plate to knock down to size. If you have already paid the Makita battery and charger tax its decent value at £120 from Screwfix. Not convinced if its going to be your one and only 18V Makita tho'. I've nearly finished transitioning all my hand held tools to 18V Makita so good deal for me. Wonder if you could sling one under a router table, or similar, device for stock cutting. lethality factor about warp 9 I think.

As ever its choosing the best solution for the jobs you do rather than worrying about specific technology.

Clive

Edited By Clive Foster on 31/03/2022 09:22:07

I think the thing about a good inverter welder is that they clamp the current almost instantaneously once the arc is struck. An old style transformer welder inherently controls the voltage rather than the current so by altering the arc length you have some manual control over the actual weld current and heat input. The AC output helps as the continual voltage cycling between zero and peak reduces the average heating input but still has a decent peak to make the weld. Sort of like an uber fast preheat - weld cycle I guess.

With a DC inverter what you set is what you get. If you set a bit too much it rapidly burns through due tothe continuous heat input. Strike voltage is generally higher so arc starting can be more reliable but breaking the arc harder. My Fronius needs a very quick pull back to break the arc. If you want to play silly games on higher current settings a slow, careful pull back can stretch the arc to 6 or 8 inches long before it breaks!

Good Inverter welders can work with a very short arc length. Which helps on thinner materials as the ent heat input is less. With the right balance of current and metal thickness its possible to make good welds between well prepped edges by simply dragging the rod own the joint with a little side to side movement. Handy on vertical welds. But a trick I've not yet mastered. About 50/50 good/crap ratio. The good ones are amazingly clean joins.

John is absolutely right to say that the art is getting a sufficiently capable machine able to do relaible work without too much operator compensation. The usual price performance ratio.There is only so much capability you can pack into a lower cost machine so the operator generall has to work harder. Which makes life difficult for neophytes.

Clive

My understanding is that, as well as being a penetrating lubricant, real Plus Gas Formula A is able to draw out the included water from rust reducing its volume and hence the sticktion between a rusted in bolt and its nut or rusted shaft and its housing. Which obviously makes things easier to turn or move.

A pure penetrating oil merely lubricates the various surfaces, whether between rust and component or between prust particles to ease movement.

I have in the past seen several applications of Plus Gas A reduce the binding of a rusted in shaft from immobile with a hammer to stiff hand pull out levels so I'm inclined to believe the claims. But it does need time to work. Overnight is good.

WD40 is always to hand and gets used more than it should for all sorts of things despite being pretty crap at everything compared to the job specific special sauces.

Clive

As has been said step one is to get a reliable brand. I tend to buy mid range industrial ones as my machine is a Bridgeport.

Step two is to make best use of what you have bought within the limitations of the machine. My Bridgeport is a monster compared to your X1 but its still only specced for endmills up to 1" diameter!

There is much more to be gained by setting into a proper technique to get longest life than by stumping up the extra ££ for a super duper extra quality cutter costs over decent mid range.

Coatings are generally thermally sensitive and usually need to get hot to work properly. No point in paying the extra if you aren't going to see any real benefit because your machine cannot work them hard enough to heat up. However even if the coating doesn't get into working range the cutter may still last a little longer but this is usually more due to the base cutter being of higher quality than a simple mid range one. If a good maker is going to go to the trouble of coating it makes sense to start with a high quality cutter.

If buying off brand a certain care and feel for prices is needed to avoid the low end cutters dressed up with a pretty coating for showroom appeal. Rather like the pretty TiN coated drill sets in the bargain bin.

Normally too messy for us but decently arranged coolant, either mist or flood, is probably the best way of extending cutter life. On my Bridgeport decent but inexpensive with mist is about the equal of good (mid range industrial) dry for lifetime.

The big neophyte error is babying the cutter with tiny cuts rather than letting it cut. For best results and life you need to get close to book values. Oh and use the sides, book says depth same as diameter at 1/4 diameter width for endmilling and 1/2 diameter depth for slots so get as close as you can given the job and machine specifications. I can just follow the book, you will need to be more circumspect with larger cutters.

Fundamentally the cutter lifetime is defined in number of turns and number of passes. Crudely twice as many passes at half the feed means 1/4 as many jobs per cutter. Keep the chips clear, recutting chips still counts and conditions are unfavourable.

Don't go mad as you are machine stiffness limited but it's well worth sacrificing a cutter or three just to get a good handle on what works for you. When you have found out the best settings, whether by experiment or inadvertently mid job write them down.

The advice against carbide cutters is primarily against the insert kind. Generally the holder diameters are too large and the inserts designed for heavier cuts at higher speeds than your X1 likes. But, as with lathe tooling, there are a fair number of inserts that work fine in lighter machines at well below book speeds and cuts. There are also some that will leave a ploughed field finish if used off book. Experimentation is expensive!

Normal endmills in carbide will be fine. Handle with care as they are very sharp. They don't like vibration which can lead to edge chipping. Given the much greater durability of the sharp edge relative to HSS this is the one time where going light on cuts may be an advantage with a small machine which doesn't have the mass to tamp down vibration.

Carbide shanks are "more slippery" than steel ones so they don't hold as well in collets. Collet needs to be pulled up well. ER are better than Morse or 5C but you should use book torques. Don't even think about bodging one into a drill chuck to save changing the chuck out. It will walk straight out under cut! Learned that the hard way many years ago when I "only wanted a quick counterbore" on a drilled hole. My carbides are weldon flat types.

Clive

PS Sorry for repeating some previous advice. Slow typing. + 1 Andrews recommendation for Cutwel, a very good supplier.

Edited By Clive Foster on 29/03/2022 10:13:58