Member postings for Harold Hall 1

I cannot agree with Mark P about it being "cheap and nasty" it is not cheap but neither is it nasty. As someone who does quite a lot of cabinet making I would love to have one, but of course not at that price. Another thing that I like is that it is good so see some attempt to get away from the typical designs that have been around for many years. I consider that both the metalworking (cnc excluded) and woodworking machines and equipment show very little effort to consider new things. If therefore the price were right I would love to have one, for woodworking that is.

However, for metalworking I have severe reservations. You ask about the quill Martin, there isn't one, the video shows the head going up and down the rear column. I cannot see just how the head is keyed to the column but as perfection with such a design is difficult to achieve it is likely that the head will move left and right at the spindle, not ideal for metalworking.

You say that the motor has a 700W rating but that is only at top speed at lower speed the power available is most likely to be insufficient for drilling, say 12mm holes in steel.

If anyone at Bosch is reading this I would love to review one but I don't expect that to happen as I feel sure they would say that it is not a precision metalworking machine. Maybe OK for the occasional smallish hole in thin metal for the woodworker.

Harold

Like you Johan, I hate getting nice clean books dirty by taking them into the workshop.

As you are therefore going to produce a set of drawings to work to you may be tempted, I would have, to replace the slot in the angle with just two mounting holes for the magnetic bases as the bases would seem to be able to provide all the necessary adjustment.

However, I have very occasionally found it helpful to mount the two bases to one end with the rest at the other. Photo 21 on the following page shows an example.

**LINK**

Have you considered including the modification that ensures that the lower locking handle for the two arms always locks at the same angle, As originally designed the final handle position changes as the angle of the arms change, its a very simple mod.

The details are here if you are not aware of them.

**LINK**

Harold

Whilst I have never owned, or know anyone who has owned, one, I have always thought the dual purpose machines to be very much less than ideal. The distance between the worktable and the head seems to be too great for one thing. Even the suppliers provide raising blocks to overcome this situation.

I agree with others that using a lathe with a vertical slide is a better option and see you already have these. Does the lathe have a tee slotted cross slide this. is esential?

If you would like to see examples of milling being undertaken on the lathe there are some projects on my website intended for the lathe only workshop, these will give you an idea of what is possible. The index for these is at (bottom right) **LINK**

As was mentioned by Bazyle working sideways can be a bit of a barrier but is not that difficult to accommodate. You could though, once you come to terms with using a vertical slide, consider making a milling head for the lathe such as seen here, a milling machine is not required for its manufacture. **LINK**

The following pages shows it being used for making the horizontal steam engine “Tina” and show that it is capable of some complex work. It is not quite as robust as using the lathes spindle and vertical slide but working that way can be reserved for any heavy duty tasks that surface. **LINK**

Harold Hall

I thought you would never notice!!

Harold

May I suggest Merlin that you consider The Metalworkers Data Book, Workshop Practice Series number 42. Over 200 pages of data and only £5.12 from Amazon with free deliver in the UK

See here Also here

Harold

I should have added that the machine standards state that the departure from perpendicular should be no more than 0.025mm over 300mm amounting to a maximum angle of 0.005°. Hence my comments about minute adjustments. Again this is explained in the text.

Harold

Even with suitable test equipment Tony, making the very minute adjustments necessary can be very tedious. The method shown in photograph 5 here enables very small adjustments to be made easily. In simple terms, the table's traverse is used to push, or pull, the head sideways by very small amounts and with the dial indicator showing the results as it is being done . The text explains it in detail.

Harold

Actually Norman, I made it when needing to make a worm for a worm wheel drive for a dividing head I was making. Have since used it very occasionally for metric threads. When making both the internal and external threads for metric designs, including my own, I make them to a metric diameters but with an Imperial pitch.

John's idea of changing the gear on the tumbler assembly is an ideal one but think the quadrant is essential when cutting worms which come with very odd pitches being required, but then I may be wrong.

Harold

I think Steve that other contributors have overlooked the fact that you are purchasing for stock and not for a specific project. You do therefore have to ask what proportion of the tasks you will undertake will involve welding. If, say, only 20%, then it would be foolish not to benefit from the free cutting results that En1A (230M07) will give just to be able to weld the 20%. In this case, either purchase a small stock of weldable steel or purchase as required. Of course, if a large proportion of you activity involves welding then forgoing the free cutting aspect of En1A may be OK.

Another factor is that welding most frequently, though you may be doing something out of the ordinary, involves rectangular materials. In this case, En1A (as per Macreadys) is only available in a small range of imperial sizes and you will have to purchase En3B. I only know of one supplier to the home workshop who lists EnIA in rectangles and having purchased from them what I received was certainly not En1A.

As a guide to relative machinability, Macreadys use 100 for En1A as a baseline for all others, giving 55 for En3B (070M20) and 080A15 (no En number, known as good commercial quality) both of which they quote as being suitable for welding.

Incidentally, they give a value of 130 for leaded En1A

In a nutshell then, do consider how much of your work involves welding before limiting a large proportion of your turning to materials that machine less well.

Harold

You ask for ideas Phil, you may like therefore to look at my method which is an extension on Jason's idea. See here for the details.

Harold

IanT and Dennis both mention the Cowells drilling machine, have a look here for a photo of one I made, complete with the speed range modification. This was supplied as three castings with the major machining already done. However, as a teenager I could not afford them so asked if I could purchase the raw castings, completing the task on a Myford ML4.

Incidentally, Cowells still exist, and in the same premises in Watford as they did 61 years ago. Unfortunately, they no longer supply the casting kits that they did then, one of which was a very nice hand powered shaper, see here . Does anyone reading this still own one?

This is not the same company who presently make small lathes and milling machines.

Harold

As Ian says Kwil, I was not suggesting that all drawings should be drawn in portrait format but only when convenient, I would say at least 90% of the drawings I have provided have been in that form and the individual parts picked out a printed separately. The problem in this case is that the detail part drawings have been drawn landscape and published as a whole, complete with drawing border.

With regard to horizontal dimensions being upside down, I agree if one is making the parts then the drawings need studying in detail and this needs rotating the magazine and there is no problem. However, when I look at detail drawings in the magazine first time, I see the horizontal dimensions reading left to right and I can also read the vertical dimensions even without turning the page.

If though the horizontal dimensions were upside down, as they would be if the drawings in question were turned to face the other way, I would find the need to turn the page much more frequently as I would not be able to read the drawing easily with the magazine held normally.

As someone not making the item I think that may deter me from studying the project as deeply as I would normally do. I tried turning the magazine round and I found the view very off putting but of course we all cope with such things differently.

I should add though that I am not saying the draughtsman should produce the drawings differently to suit left and right pages, no way. That would be totally wrong. 

Harold

Edited By Harold Hall 1 on 22/10/2012 22:25:26

I, like Robin, found the drawings placed with the bottom to the left, that is to the fold on a right hand page and to the edge on the left hand page, a little difficult to come to terms with and asked myself why?

I had been brought up with what I considered to be the most common method of dimensioning, That is, dimension running left to right with the value horizontal and dimensions running top to bottom with the value vertical, and upright if viewed from the right hand edge. This naturally lead one to turn the drawing clockwise to read the vertical dimensions if there were many of them. I did not feel that strongly about the situation now appearing in the magazine so kept quite on the matter.

However, the latest copy of MEW appeared today and I found that there are four pages displayed with their bottom edge to the left. This led me to check how the drawings had been dimension and they were all to that I had grown to expect. It then occurred to me that if drawings were placed with the bottom of the drawing to the right, then when viewing the magazine normally all the horizontal dimensions would be upside down. On balance therefore I have to accept that the method adopted is the better of the two.

Having said that, I would prefer the detail parts to be separated into individual items and printed conventionally. The alternative for any future article, realising that the drawings have almost certainly been completed for the present one, is to have the drawings for detail parts drawn on a portrait orientated page.

Harold

Unfortunately, Martin, 99 percent of lathe owners, almost certainly more, don't know that, ask a builder who has a lathe. I do agree though that if an engineers level is available It is not only the simplest method, it is by far the quickest, especially if the lathe has jacking screws for its mounting. But even then a test piece must be turned so as final adjustments can be made if necessary, so that the lathe turns parallel. Also, engineers levels are very expensive in most peoples estimation, OK, they can be had for around £60 so I am told. Even so, many have purchased a machine and then found they do not have the cash for the essential extras, let alone a spirit level. I know, I've been there, which is why I got so much into making workshop tools.

Now to Jan's problem. As there would seem to be some conflicting facts in the data we have, in that if the bed is lower at the rear at the chuck end, especially by the amount given, then the test piece should be larger at the free end, not smaller.

I would suggest therefore Jan, that you forget the spirit level at this stage and make adjustments purely on the basis of the result of turning a test piece.

Harold

Your Myford cabinet will certainly not be a strong as your lathe Jan so the thickness of any packing you place under one foot will mostly be accommodated by the cabinet twisting. So if you put 3mm packing under one foot do not worry that you will be twisting the lathe by that amount.

My Myford cabinet (not industrial) has an angle iron frame below the drip tray, I would imagine the industrial stand does also. As you have a super seven on an industrial stand, do you not have jacking screws at each foot. See my website here for an example Photograph 1

I Think you are saying that the lathe is level at the tailstock but requires a piece of packing, 0.25mm, under the rear of the level to make it read level at the chuck end, that is far too much. It is getting late so I may be getting it wrong, but I think that error is at odds with the error you are getting in the test piece. I will think more about it in the morning.

I know I will be shot down for saying this but being level is not vital, not being twisted is the important requirement, if you needed 0.25mm at both ends that would be almost as good. In any case, a very small twist can sometimes be needed to offset manufacturing errors in the lathe itself.

Harold

Hi Jan

Can we first get this clear, after turning the test piece it was smallest at the free end of the bar, that is farthest from the chuck holding it.

I must say though that 250mm projecting from the chuck at 20mm diameter is too much. I would suggest no more than 100mm with a 25mm diameter bar would be better.

You do not say on what the lathe is mounted as whilst the packing is 3mm thick much of the twisting will probably be in the mounting surface. Twisting the bed by that amount would seem very extreme.

Turning a test piece of 250mm long by 20mm diameter one would expect some deflection so the actual situation will be worse than the amount you have measured. Do carry out the test with a shorter larger diameter bar as above.

Harold

Adding to my answer above.

If a well made internal thread is made to fit a threaded spindle, then one is just in with a chance, providing the internal thread is kept clean.

If though a well fitted register is machined to fit the lathes register, then it cannot fail to work.

Harold

Edited By Harold Hall 1 on 17/10/2012 18:18:14

You are correct Joe, I do not claim to be an authority on workshop activity, and am often concerned that people send me questions giving the impresion that they think I am. On the other hand, I often feel that my remoteness from the activity helps me to view situations, not blinkered by tradition.

However, to the question of fitting items to a lathe's screwed spindle nose I would like to ask one question and make one observation.

Question. Why do lathe manufacturers spend so much time and effort producing an accurate parallel portion to their lathes spindle if just a screw thread would work just as well?

Observation. It is extreemely difficult to keep the internal thread of a chuck or back plate perfectly clean.

Harold

Pleased to learn Alan that you are finding my square collet jaws useful. I first came up with the idea when I had to make about 100 2mm square nuts for a monmouth cart I was making. The thought of having to make these using a 150mm four chuck soon forced me into coming up with a better method. Incidentally, they are not tapped, just held on with a minute dab of adhesive.

If anyone is interested in the jaws for square material, see here

As you are presently working without a milling machine Garry, you may find the projects on my website for the lathe only workshop of interest. See this page for a list of them.

Whilst many of them will not be of interest to you, you will no doubt find some of the setups within them helpful, giving you an idea of just how much can be achieved without a milling machine.

Harold

Johan

I cannot comment on which sharpening device is the best for you as I know little about the Bonelle or the Tinker, in any case it would be difficult for me not to be biassed, I will though add that having looked at the Raymac in the magazine (MEW issue 76) it describes it as just an end mill sharpening device.

You ask though "Why is Mr Hall using his own design if he can very easily make an advanced cutter grinder with his experience."

Firstly, practically all the items I have made have been chosen to suit the need of the magazine, either, purely as something to make, or to describe particular machining methods. Often though both.

The grinding rest though was a case of satisfying the magazine requirements and my own as at that time my only method was by hand using the workshops off hand grinder.

As, for me, designing an item is as satisfying as making it. In fact, if I had to place my preferences, it would be designing, using and finally making.

Had I have designed a more conventional tool and cutter grinder it would not have met the need of the magazine, the rest being part of a milling series for the newcomer to milling.

Also, such a machine would not do anything more than my rest that I would find beneficial. These would be such things as sharpening reamers, taps, etc. also outside the need of most workshop owners.

I do hope that the comments made by the previous contributors will have helped you come to a decision as either mine, the Bonelle or the Tinker will I am sure produce very good results. I have reservations about the Raymac a I believe it is only for end mills.

If you have not done so already, a look at the following two pages on my web site may be off help. There are also others that you could look at, see the sites index.

For sharpening in general

For shaping and sharping boring tools

Perhaps I should add that I also designed a grinding rest for the workshop who only had a lathe to make it on, though using a milling machine would still be appropriate if one was available. It is a simpler rest but the method of using it is almost identical to the one being discussed above. See here for details

Which ever machine you chose, sharpening workshop tools is a demanding task. Sharpening a lathes knife tool will be relatively easy but sharping a dovetail cutter, of making a cutter for cutting a clocks escape wheel will be much more demanding, Both of which I have done using my grinding rests

Hope this helps

Harold.

Edited By Harold Hall 1 on 09/10/2012 22:44:32