Here is a list of all the postings DMR has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
Thread: #209 - new look |
03/11/2013 16:33:34 |
Ah, So the issue number has gone off the front. No wonder I never found it in newsagents! Just to see if it was of any interest you understand. You may gather I lost interest.
Edited By DMR on 03/11/2013 16:35:15 |
Thread: Myford headstock bearing replacement |
13/03/2013 20:10:38 |
You could try the screwdriver (or other rod) test to try and determine which end the noise is coming from first. One end on the mandrel and the other end hard against the back of your ear. It is known that if the mandrel got really hot, as in heavy loading, the felt wick melted and tended to glaze over. Most likely to happen when drilling or using the tailstock for between centres working. It also tended/tends to wear a groove in the mandrel under those conditions! A possible test you could try if all else fails is to release the rear bearings off and stick some oil directly into the front cone. Reset the bearings and try some "noise" production, even applying a bit a bit more oil to the top of the cone outer surface. If no noise initially, then it's that wick To examine the wick assembly, you have to separate the head from the bed. Removing the mandrel alone allows the wick to protrude into the cone bearing centre, but you should not then attempt to re-assemble/reinsert the mandrel, pushing the wick back in place as you go as this action will most likely just bend/destroy the wick. |
Thread: Early Myford quick change gearbox. |
03/03/2013 17:44:48 |
Mike, There is no need to complicate your life thinking you need different thread-cutting abilities with the early gearbox. There is a times (x2) involved, and that is all the info you basically need. The cogs at the left side between tumbler and gearbox input are identical to the later model. We have conversed on this last summer and looking back I see that I failed to reply to one of your mailings as you dropped off the bottom of the visible list. Sorry. I have sent you a PM with my e-mail address and can supply all the tables/diagrams and any other info you need. Dennis |
Thread: Myford S7 old clutch |
23/01/2013 21:38:15 |
HI Jamie,
As to fitting a modern clutch, it is not all that sinister but it will cost you if bought new, and if you could obtain what you need. The new Myford owners in Halifax (RDG) do not advertise a complete-er assembly which is what you would need. The big danger in buying second hand is that you cannot tell if it is OK until you can fit it. Bushes and bearings wear out, but RDG have those. However, as the previous postings you refered to earlier, the bearings are difficult because of the powerful spring in the countershaft. Dennis Edited By DMR on 23/01/2013 21:44:26 Edited By DMR on 23/01/2013 21:48:08 |
Thread: myford super 7 clutch |
23/01/2013 01:09:37 |
For jwb, Michael C, and anyone else with S7 clutch problems Quote from jwb:
"Could you go in to more detail on this please? My S7B has a problem with the cone clutch - running out of adjustment at the outer nut/slotted end of pushrod, noisy operation - and from examination of the parts catalogue and the manual I have suspected that what you describe would indeed happen, and clutch bits would disappear to remote corners of the workshop if I attempted to dismantle it. Sorry jwb, but I but I do not live on the internet. I only log on every couple of days or so.
You both need the two bearings at the right hand end of the countershaft. I can only assume that Eddy Spriggs method above works. I was lucky to get mine done as part of a bed regrind by Myford just before they went down (very sad). The push rod can be adjusted as in Ian Bradleys book with a screwdriver in the slot at the end of the pushrod and the nut released, but this must only be considered as a fine adjustment aide. The push rod should never be rotated against its spring any more than can be helped as the action will create swarf inside the assembly by the ends of the spring rubbing on the countershaft shoulder (at the left end ) and the pushrod head (at the right end). It really is that compressed - it does have to prevent the clutch slipping remember. It follows that it is not on to get the pushrod just started (not that I can see anyone would manage it by hand anyway) and wind the rod in the rest of the way. If you try any adjustment before attempting disassembly, you will understand. Sorry I cannot be more help. There really is no practical advice as it depends on your facilities. Not that it helps, but Myford replaced the bearings in minutes. It sounds to me like jwb may win with Eddy's method, but the clutch should not "run out of adjustment" unless there has been clutch slip wearing out the cone. If you have noise, then you have bearing trouble, but you may need other parts as well. Michael will need a total stripdown anyway as the bearings are sealed-for-life type and he has introduced all sorts of foreign bodies in his "cleanout" where he cannot get, round the spring and pushrod area, and his clutch action will never be smooth or noise free. Good luck to you both, and to anyone tempted to release that pushrod without restraint. Such action would be very dangerous to skin and bone!. Dennis
|
20/01/2013 21:39:51 |
So "hi, Its Michael, ". Strange psuedonym then, but never mind. Perhaps it's Terry's machine. Seems like NJH is sorting you out away from the crowds. No bad thing as it seems you need a Myford manual copy and some personal help. There is some good news. With the serial number on the back, it should mean your bed has never been reground should it need it, and would come up like new in the right regrinding hands, if you can find any outfit to do it. Your serial number is in a form SK123456, always SK if the bed started life as a Super 7 one, and up to six numbers. 71/ might be the SK, but you cannot have number 110413 as such a high number was never on the back of the bed. Even if it is as low as11043 it is the modern clutch. However, I now realise that you are talking about gears and gearboxes not being stopped by the clutch. Does the mandrel stop with clutch action? If it does then there is nothing wrong with the clutch, but NJH seems to be onto your problem. My main concern in getting involved was you releasing that nut as previous mail and doing someone a mischief. Dennis |
20/01/2013 17:07:09 |
First question is are you a Terry or a Michael? Next question is does the clutch operating lever flop about, or is it stuck fast in some position? There are two S7 clutches. Early answers assume you have the later (post 1956) version, so what is the serial number of your machine? On no account at this stage release the central nut on the end of the modern cone clutch (as implied by early answers). You could have a push-rod fly across the room, and you will not be able to get it all back together without a fancy (special) spring compresser. Dennis
|
Thread: Myford Super 7 |
02/10/2012 19:21:20 |
Mike, There is no wick down the oil hole in early drip feed machines! Earliest countershaft/clutches ran on needle roller bearings and that is how you have picked up on the noise aspect. Yours clearly has had the bushes retrofitted at a date after manufacture. It was a Myford offer for all the early machines which became noisy; but not a free offer. A noisy countershaft would still work fine with no noticeable play, but sounded awful. Dennis |
Thread: Super 7 motor pulley |
08/09/2012 21:43:15 |
Mike Mc,
Sparky Mike,
FYI early motor pulleys were alloy but at some point an iron one was made available as a spare. The small (inner-slow speed) tended to wear out rapidly. Dennis |
Thread: Myford quick-change gearbox |
29/07/2012 22:17:43 |
Mike,
You are not getting the full story. So before you get in too deep...... 9. The guts of the boxes are identical and interchangeable apart from the shaft differences of course Think that's it. You have some way to go to get going. Dennis |
Thread: Myford Super 7 - Which changewheel on reverse tumbler stud? |
08/06/2012 21:17:49 |
Barney, It's not that simple. It's 24T if your gearbox is after serial number QC2501. Before that it was 12T consisting of a 30T/12T combination which is now sold as being for the ML7 only! Gearboxes prior to QC2501 had different external gearing and an aluminium cover on the right hand end of the gearbox. Dennis |
Thread: MEW 184 |
16/12/2011 23:42:59 |
At least Steve Talbot 1 skipped over the article on Care & Lubrication of Myford S7 Lathes, spotting the photo 13 error. Everyone with a Myford obviously knows where to put oils, so never read the article, and people without Myfords were not interested anyway. What about the comment in the second paragraph of page 23 starting "In photo 14.." that all the top oil nipples in earlier gearboxes are a press fit. In all the gearboxes that I now of, and almost certainly the one in photo14, the nipples are screwed in, 2 BA I think. Also, oil via these nipples will never reach the gears as is commented. That is what the oil bath is for. Correctly filled of course! Both these errors about the gearboxes could make a bit of a mess to unsuspecting peoples gearboxes. All a bit academic now I suppose since Myford/RDG do not seem to list the early nipples or the modern cups. On a slightly scewed line from a different post, I too have a Myford oil gun (as photo 2 of the same article) that leaked from new. Bought from the Myford shop 100 miles away some years ago, it was not returned. I figured out how it came apart and replaced the O-ring where the brass part slides in and out of the body, I "improved" the edge of the brass where it slides over the O-ring so as not to shave any off it and it has been fine ever since. I did struggle for a replacement O-ring though, and have no idea where it came from. My leak was out of said collar on applying pressure/oil to a nipple. I never had a leak out the business end if that is what other people mean by a leak. Edited By DMR on 16/12/2011 23:56:15 |
Thread: This months MEW are 3 CNC features two too many |
02/06/2011 01:54:13 |
It cut me off. Last bit of post should read:
He failed to grasp the intention of the "adaptor piece" on the basic holder which is the pre-Whetren adaptor/fitment piece. Kirk at Hemingway would have agreed to it of course because it may sell a few kits although the article did not praise the kit presentation, which I consider unfair. Thats it Dennis Rushton |
02/06/2011 01:43:05 |
My last MEW on subscription was issue 164 and I have not regretted that decision - keeping my eye on what is in each issue on this site, and in Smiths, and picking up outdated issues for a quid or 50p. I do not normally participate in these discussions , but I have to add to what is being said. I am prompted to post by the posting from some chap mentioning that it was his decision to stop subscribing that was the one mentioned in issue 165 Page 61 "Reasons not to Subscribe 1", And I thought that was me! Unfortunately I cannot locate that posting in this thread - it may have been deleted as being a touch embarrassing! It amazes me that the Editor has not terminated this thread long ago - he would have done if he had been around at the start of it instead of at Harrogate. He must hate it and hope it goes away with the next issue. I have met him on his two visits to the (most recent) spring Myford open days. I told him (by e-mail at the time) by way of explanation as to why I was not renewing my subscription - not least because I could get no responses to my offer of articles or (mainly) Scribe a Line. Ironically he used my Scribe a Line offering from my same mailing telling him why I was terminating my subscription in issue 169 (I think) "Light short circuit", which I thought a real stab in the back. I seem to have deleted my e-mail to DC ending my subscription; otherwise I would just attach it here, but I generate a similar version as follows: I should add that a secondary reason was the endless Linton Wedlock thing on that drawing program, which ran to at least a full edition and was totally OTT. I have been in automation all my life, working first at the North Staffs Tech (now a pseudo university), then at Harwell for a few years and all the rest with various versions of GEC which ended up in french hands. In later years it has all been on-site automation on power stations/substations and steel works: central data loggers, sequence and remote terminal controls. anything from humble pumps to Olympus Engines, main boilers and turbines - the lot. I knew/know many programming codes, both complex source codes and basic machine codes. They are good for things you need to do more than once or you are otherwise into manufacturing. They are useless for one-off production as in building a model unless (my example to DC) I wanted to make lots of spokes for Traction Engine wheels. As a fact, I know that it would take me far longer to set up a lathe or mill for one -off's using CNC than just do the job manually, a unique application being the cutting of spokes in a wheel from solid which is why ArcEuro use it by way of example on their show demo's. It looks impressive and is a sort of 3D item cutting in two dimensions, needing no datum start point as such beyond the middle of the uncut lump. Some of the postings on this thread infer or state that individuals have gone down the CNC path, "I modified my S7 but am disappointed with my progress", and are now realising their error. I am not against CAD/CAM/CNC articles as such, but since the normal mortal making one-off models has to be the main reader of ME/MEW, then it should be restricted. I suspect DC was given the Editorial job as he offered to take MEW forward on a CAD/CAM path, and I suspect Dave Fenner (come back Dave) gave up the job because he could not see enough meaningful content to support more issues per year. I made the following observations to DC, most likely in a different order: 1) If he has insufficient meaningful content, he should not have (agreed to go to) gone to more issues. ME is not like MEW. There is always a different model to serialise in ME - infinitely more variatons on a theme. With MEW a lathe is still a lathe in a literal sense and all we get is variations on a theme and there is a lot less meaningful content per month than there used to be, as others have poined out. 2) He has insufficient content for Scribe a Line because it is all appearing on the web site. Instead of appealing for content he or his assistants should be routing articles to Scribe a Line with permission of the writers at the start of a thread. I always read all the scribes therein. 3) Being Editor of both magazines is clearly one too many and many aspects are suffering. As an added bit not said at the time he claims that the Eds Bench (such as it is these days) is the last thing he writes yet he manages to advertise the Myford open days a month late. Subscribers may just have got it in time. 4) If he dares to, run a questionaire on how many people have gone down the CNC path and given up on it and why. 5) It takes time to master any programming language and even longer to get good at it, and stay abreast of updates and debugs. And you have to be using it all the time or you go rusty! I never make the same item twice, but I do remake bits when I get it wrong. If I went CNC now I would have more failed bits due to my CNC errors. Yes you can cut air and wood first (thus taking even longer) and save all the segments of code for use again, but that is like saving every bit of scrap metal in the hope that it will be handy some day, and how many of us have an ever growing scraps pile. 6) If he wants to go down a CNC path, then he should go off and start a new mag just for CNC. 7) I have no idea how many bullet points I made and this getting a bit long...... By way of example of superfluous content apart from CNC, I considered the recent Tony Jeffree run on the basic Worden tool and cutter grinder quite naff and scraping the barrel for articles. Tony being an "in" person gets listened to of course, and I have admired his submissions for stepper motor articles. He claims to have read all the MEW's, and yet is unaware of Jim Whetrens efforts to improve the machine and he makes the basic Hemingway kit - as is. He failed to grasp th |
Thread: Myford Dividing Attachment |
19/06/2010 21:53:18 |
No. My genuine Myford plates measure as follows:
1 = 5.996"
2 = 5.998"
3 = 6.370"
4 = 6.370"
And yes, the fingures only just cover the outer holes, but they do cover sufficiently to avoid error (with care). My set is painted grey which makes it an early version if that helps at all.
In any case, The likelyhood of needing those outer rings at 89 and 97 holes is somewhat remote only producing 89 or 178 and 97 or 194 divisions so carry on regardless, and you have a very worthwhile tool with your lathe.
|
Thread: Old Super Seven - worn clutch |
09/06/2009 18:35:18 |
Ian,
I have SK1711 as original with roller bearings. I fitted a backup grub screw behind the main one (BSF) to lock the position as I descided it was probably working its way out. No more troubles.
Originally (3 years ago) I had slip as I had set it up. descided I was probablly being too soft and it was wearing out the clutch because of slip. the tighter you make it, the more you think the two bits holding the roller bearing in the handle are going to give up, but it all seems OK. Myford still have those bits as they fit the clutched ML7, but not the bearing which can be had from elsewhere anyway.
Good luck anyway,
Dennis
|
Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!
Sign up to our newsletter and get a free digital issue.
You can unsubscribe at anytime. View our privacy policy at www.mortons.co.uk/privacy
You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.
Click THIS LINK for full contact details.
For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.