Member postings for Pete

By now I do think this really should be just standard and pretty well general knowledge on any of these forums. None of this is at all secret. A three jaw self centering chuck is a relatively recent invention for the lathe if you consider when the very first modern screw cutting lathe was invented. But that ultra accurate or even any 3 jaw is or should be considered as just a convenience more than any real actual necessity. And as others have already mentioned, we have for some illogical reason gotten incorrectly fixated on a very low run out chuck that requires large money to obtain and keep accurate. Yet one single swarf chip in it's internals will ruin that high cost accuracy till it's cleaned. It is IMO much more important that any chucks jaws are directly inline and dead true to the the lathes ways.

So nothing could ever be accurately machined before an accurate 3 jaw was invented? Of course not, prior to the invention of the 3 jaw self centering, and the 4 jaw independent chuck, they used a faceplate, then a faceplate with screw adjustable jaws, then the obvious invention of the 4 jaw independent. And then finally that 3 jaw independent. Shaft work was always done between centers, and that's still the most accurate way today no matter what level of accuracy your own personal 3 jaw or collet system will repeat to. The amount of time and posts that have been wasted on somehow obtaining that magical ultra low run out 3 jaw is a very bad example and should be judged as more than un-nessisary for the people here trying to learn. Chuck your part up once, fully machine it and then part it off. Your part is then as accurate as the surface finish, headstock bearings, and machine condition will ever do no matter how cheap or expensive your chuck is. If you really do think a high end low runout chuck is going to somehow make your lathe more accurate? I just might have some super expensive but very magical 3 bean chuck grease for sale that I just invented, but please keep it quiet as it's still not on the market yet.

If your parts need X amount of accuracy and due to the part shape and layout, they do require re-chucking, then yes an accurate 3 jaw just might be handy, But I do have a very accurate heavy duty Emco chuck that will average right around .001 on any diameter I've ever checked it with that I bought long before I knew what I do now. But if the part requires some real accuracy? I still turn shaft work between centers, or I'll do plate type work in a 4 jaw independent, or on that faceplate. I can assure you that for any work I can think of from a M.E. or HSM perspective, one of those high cost ultra repeatable low run out 3 jaw chucks isn't at all necessary. An industrial high volume situation is of course or might be a different thing. But a good low run out chuck could help speed things up in the right situation. They aren't a total waste, just not needed as much as some would like to think or imply.

But exactly why do subjects like this just keep repeating themselves? Aren't these forums in place to help educate all of us? So why aren't we getting or at least doing that? Simple common knowledge subjects such as this should have been dealt with and solved a long time ago IMO.

Pete

Books and the abilty to read and understand what there trying to teach me.

He's posted a very clever way to properly tram in a mill vise as Roger has already mentioned. That was a brand new and very welcome idea to me. So many thanks for the heads up. Yes the first video was repetitive and probably boring, but there was quite a bit of useful info in it. Much better than a lot of videos that aren't boring, yet the information can be anything but correct. Just because it's on Youtube it obviously doesn't mean it's automatically 100% right.

The original Rotary Table for these Emco mills was approximately 6" for the table size. And I'd very much agree with Andrew about the internal MT isn't as useful as probably a staight bore would be. Even a 6" table can get very small very fast when your trying to fit tee nuts or studs, step blocks, washers and nuts just to hold the part in position. Vertex is ok and I have an older 6" model. Phase II are built a bit better and more accurate,.and the price reflects that. Personaly I wouldn't buy any Rotary Table without buying the dividing plates and the tailstock.Your thoughts and work may not agree with that. But If your using a rotary table? Then probably or at least sooner or later you'll be needing the extras. Building a replica of your lathes spindle nose that can be exactly centered and fixtured to the table is more than handy since you can then use the lathes faceplate or 4 jaw independant to also hold parts. Depending on the work requirements and our exact accuracy levels the lathes 3 jaw might be useful too.

But you can probably ignore the so called specification or "test" certificate that comes with the Vertex tables. It's pretty well worthless.as John Stevenson can verify I think. But the orginal Emco Rotary Tables aren't impossible to find either, and a lightly used well cared for Emco table will be a far better Rotary Table than anything that's usually sold today at the average M.E. prices. One of those would require an accurate 90 degree angle plate in addition to the Emco table since they were built as a horizontal table only.

Pete

I'll admitt shipping from the U.S to the U.K. isn't exactly cheap, and the added VAT drives the costs even higher. But try a search at www.brownells.com for some of there boxed sets of screwdriver tips. You'll get exactly what your looking for at a fair price for profesional grade gunsmithing tooling, and at a far lower cost than the very high priced profesional grade jewlers screwdrivers. I've yet to buy a poor or overpriced tool from them. Cheap screwdrivers are far too expensive sooner or later.

Pete

I can't and won't comment about the electrical since there's not much in common with our two countries and anything electrical. But if you can? Then most definately use a VFD.

I bought my mill new, but I see nothing I'd change for methods today, and I think this is more than a bit important. These types of mills are a pretty simple collection of parts that break down into the major sub assemblys fairly easy. Given your mills past history, length of storage without use, etc. If it were me? I'd blow it apart using an engine hoist, and do a full clean and adjust. You will be amazed at just what you find for swarf packed away into areas you'd swear it shouldn't be possible to reach. You'll also have a mixture of old congealed oil, machine wear particals, cutting fluid, and that swarf, along with any dust and dirt it's managed to pick up while not being used. None of that will help with it's future accuracy or smoothness of operaion.

After stripping the table, Y axis assembly, feed screws. Then the knee lifts out straight up past the knee dovetail. The motor, head, and ram should be removed to allow clearence for the knee as it slides up the dovetail. Remember to slack the knees gib right off or remove it before removing the knee. After doing that cleaning, you can then verify that the one shot lube system is correctly metering oil to everywhere it should as you put the mill back togeather. It's also the time to check everything for needed repairs or excess wear. And make the nessisary feed screw / nut / gib adjustments. A couple of days spent doing this and you'll be amazed at just how smooth it now operates. Probably including that knee. It sounds like something is jamming it up. And depending on just what design you have for gibs? You do NOT want to break a tapered gib in that knee. It is a very long, tough to do vergeing on the impossible job.

I also wouldn't remove the feed nuts from there factory aligned position. I would make sure the bolts holding them in place were very tight. And I'd then just clean them in place using something like a spray contact cleaner.

New verses old vice? That depends. How old is old, and to state the obvious, condition is everything. A lot of the older vice designs didn't use something like the Kurt style of vises do where the moving jaw is also pulled down as it fully tightens up. Even with that, they can still need a bit of help tapping the work down with a dead blow as the vise tightens at times. Old enough and with enough wear? It may only be worth scrap value.

ER collets and chucks? I've got an ER-40 setup on mine. Probably the ER-40 is a bit too large for a R-8 taper mill though. But the internal R-8 collets do of course get the cutting tools positioned a lot closer to the mills lower spindle bearing. It depends I guess on just how hard you figure you'll push that mill towards taking maximum cuts.

There's one book I highly recommend if you don't have a lot of experience with these types of mills. "Turret Mill Operation". Mine isn't handy right now, but maybe a google search will turn up the author and ISBN.

Pete

"Condescending"? No it wasn't typed or meant as such. I'm just very tired of the newer people making the exact same mistakes I did, and in turn wasting their money in the same way due to no good reason other than inexperience and bad judgement. And I said or meant nothing at all about "Rolls Royce" quality. A well built accurate vise strong enough to fixture the raw material in place, and it's designed and built to counteract the cutting forces built with proper materials has nothing to do with RR now does it. It's the bare minimums and certainly not optional of what is needed to get the damned job done now isn't it? Or are we going to waste time and argue that point also? What I tried to do was state some honest opinions that weren't subject to interpretation. Apparently for some, I failed at that. This thread isn't going around in circles, or it wouldn't be if the people who haven't decided that the bottom of the barrel dirt cheap tooling is worthless would just refrain from posting. Or at least just post something helpful, worthwhile, and logical that can and will help to educate those new people about what they really need to know.

Gentlemen, you can argue all you'd like, that does not change the facts that work holding is one of the last places where you should try and pinch pennies. To imply otherwise does nothing to try and help to educate these newer people. In fact it does exactly the opposite. Good accurate tooling will always be expensive no matter where and who builds it. A whatever inaccuracy's that are built into your work holding will result in them being replicated into everything held and machined in that work holding system.

I consider that I actually owe something to the vast amount of book authors, forum posters, and even a few real live people I've met over the years who have helped me learn the very little I have about this hobby. I do think I'm required to help pass that information along the same way they did and continue to do today. We owe these new people at least the bare minimum of providing factual, honest and logical information. If your not willing to do that? Then just maybe your points of view aren't factual, honest, and logical. I very much hate to quote myself, but. "If you haven't actually tested some of it, then just how do you know and how do you think any of your points of view about them are even valid". So at the risk of offending. Have you even bothered to do so? Talk is as they say, cheap. Your personal level of inexperience does not dictate my points are invalid or untrue.

Pete

When is a precision vise not a precision vise? When it's exactly what you found. But advertising specializes in half truths if not direct lies. This is a fairly long thread, and I did read all but the OT posts. There seems to be a bit too much posted here where people don't seem to quite understand logic and basic thinking about economics though. There is and never will be any such thing as good, accurate, and cheap.

To name just two people, I've been reading both John Stevenson's and Jasons posts for a long time. Both without fail always freely offer as much of their experience as possible. And both have a very large amount of that experience that anyone here with a lesser amount would do very well to pay close attention to what they have to say. You might even learn something if you ever get past your own personal biases.

I certainly don't expect anyone here to embrace my way of doing things since everyone is of course different.

But even with this being a hobby for most. Exactly why does that mean were under no need to do our own product research? I guess if you don't own a computer, then you'd have some reasons for not being able to do it as well as those who do. I doubt anyone here are managing to get their own thoughts posted here by or with a crystal ball. So.........................................

I've slowly learned by a lot time, trial and error, and wasted money that there are areas where you DO NOT buy on price alone. Work holding would be just one of those. Shortly after buying my Taiwan built Bridgeport clone, I bought two 4" capacity Kurt style Chinese built mill vises. Due to my job at the time, it was over a year before I was even able to get them bolted down to the mill table. And I used one of those vises exactly once. The fixed jaw deflection, trueness of that fixed jaw, internal machining, or to be more honest, the lack of internal machining never mind accurate grinding, etc,etc. All of it added up to a pair of vises that were useless. Yes I can or I could remachine them to be much better than they are now. But I can't fix the basic bondo filled weak castings, or the quality of the cast iron that was used either. They look ok, it's when you start to actualy dig into them when you find out there not even a basic casting kit that can be reworked to be suitable. I then bought what I knew very well I should have but didn't to begin with. A matched pair of Glacern 615's. At $1,000 plus shipping for the pair of them, it really did hurt my wallet. But I won't ever need better no matter what work shows up given the accuracy an average Bridgeport type mill is capable of producing. These vices are fully able to match and exceed anything myself or this mill is capable of. But I bought them after a lot of research about what would get me the most performance for my money. That was also buying a nessisary product and using proper logic while doing so. Even at the hobby level, everything we do should be based on the bare minimum of using some logic.

Yes I fully understand the problems that the entry level people are going through in regards to choosing tooling or even paying for it since there is so much that seems to be needed right away even to do the most basic of jobs. I can't help you with that problem. I can list some of my experience, and it's then up to them to pay attention to it or not.

I've always made a point of buying the very best metrology equipment I can afford since if I can't depend on reliable readings and measurements, then I may as well just use a carpenters tape measure. So far that idea has worked well.

But I've personally decided for myself after buying those worthless mill vises that I can no longer afford to buy cheap, or to word it a bit better? Poorly built tooling or cutting tools. And I've yet to buy anything at a cheap price for this hobby that was worthwhile. That was a hard and expensive lesson to finally learn, but it was a true one. Yes it does hurt a bit to make a point of buying proper industrial quality. But it hurts far more to buy junk to begin with and then replace it with what's really required. And those much higher cost cutting tools work out cheaper due to there dureability, faster metal removal rates, and much better finishes. Our usual lower horse power equipment can also stand all the help they can get by using tools that do come as proper and real high quality HSS or Carbide, and then they even come properly sharpened. And before you protest that you can't afford that industrial quality because this is after all just a hobby? If you haven't actually tested some of it, then just how do you know and exactly how do you think any of your points of view about them are even valid or logical? In fact, if you haven't tried any of it, then you don't have enough experience to say if I'm even right or wrong. Tooling is exactly the same. "It's only a hobby, better isn't needed" Uh huh, and when something shows up that does need better?

All high quality tooling should list some specifications for accuracy, runouts, etc. A mill vise for example should list just how true the bed and fixed jaw is. But when tooling doesn't have any specifications listed. I just don't buy it. What are your complaints then? You have nothing measureable to check or judge it against.

Pete

It really does depend on what the part is from and where and when it was built. Because there's also a metric series of taper pins too. Machinery's Handbook lists the dimensions. But a good industrial tool supplier would also list the dimensions for the taper pin reamers. You might need to make up a imperial and metric pin to see what fits the best. They do need to fit almost as well as a male Morse taper needs to fit the female bore.

Pete

In no way am I trying to upset any of the Myford owners and users here. But they are or were an old design that should have been updated, way over priced when new from Myfords, and there's many others just as accurate or more so with far better capabilitys. Otherwise Myford would still be in business. And there's not many accesories and drawings for Myford specific items that couldn't be reworked to fit other equipment that's comparable or larger in size. It just takes some experience and thought.

And if I was limited to a wood structured floor (and I am) I would do my very best to way over support under the floor area around any bench top mounted lathe since even moving your own body weight to a different position around a lathe will change and twist the lathes bed.

Pete

I can't say if these types of fly cutters would be avalible in the U.K. But they are in North America. Their built by "New Generation". They do take a bit larger round industrial carbide replaceable tip, but that can be a good thing since various grades and coatings are avalible in those sizes. Unless you make a large error and badly chip or totally destroy the tip, their really cost effective. They might be a bit too large and heavy to be used in something lighter than a Bridgeport type mill since they can be adjusted up to a 6" diameter.

Pete

From my limited experience, Andy is 100% correct. Mine are "supposed" to be matched within .0002, they may well be, but their certainly not ground flat and true on the working surfaces.

You could plastic wrap your mill to guard against the grit, and then install a fiber cut off wheel in the mills spindle, then set each parrallel vertical and locked in the mill vice, set that cut off wheel at the 4" elevation, and then just cut each parrallel to the size you want. A 4" tall angle plate might work better. I agree with David though. The full length will work fine.

Pete

I have almost a complete collection from the first one up to the 1960's. There's some very interesting reading in them. Just how few had any mill at all was more than a bit supriseing. The prices in the adds are also a bit funny today. I also didn't know the M.E. office got bombed during the second WW.

Pete

Jon,

www.tools4cheap.net sell exactly what your looking for including the spacers for positioning the cutting tool. These are brand new reproductions of what the Atlas horizontal mill use. Jeff Beck is the owner and an excellent person to deal with.

Pete

Michael,

No doubt your correct. Since I'm not using CNC, I had to post how I set up mine the old school way. I envy those of you who have the knowledge and abilities to fully utilise what CNC can do. I was more than happy the day I installed a X axis power feed.

Pete

Hi Andrew,

A few thoughts that may be worth far less than you paid.

I bought mine a couple of years ago from a U.S. dealer where imperial measurements, tooling, and what I'm most comfortable working with are much more comman than most other areas of the world. The shank on mine is a true 3/4" and I'm using a Bison built end mill holder for mine.

After going back thru my Haimer manual and with a bit of thinking. Even though Haimer say's they should only be used with the same spindle you zeroed it to, just maybe zeroing your unit to the machine you use the most would be the best. Then with that preset zero, you could retest it in the second mill and record your deviation from a true zero in both X and Y? No it wouldn't be ideal since you'd have to always remember to compensate for that deviation on that machine. But these units are accurate enough that I think you could still depend on very good and accurate readings. Since I haven't yet used or tested mine on a second machine, I could easily have missed something with my logic.

Due to the way their designed, a dead true tram on both your milling heads probably isn't required. But I did do that while adjusting mine just as a precaution. I'll also 100% agree about the manual and Haimers description for zeroing with the built in adjustments. Frankly they could have done better. My manual shows the use of a standard dial indicator for setting that zero, since my .0001 reading indicators are the D.T.I. type, that's what I used. And I hope you've got a real good .0001 reading, or it's metric equivellent DI or DTI that your positive will give 100% accurate and repeatable results.

Your unit is newer and non digital, so the following may not match up exactly with what you have. The zeroing procedure in my manual do look to be the same for each type though. Setting for zero on these isn't something you want to rush. Maybe this will help you understand it a bit better? Think of the procedure as the same as what you'd do while setting an ultra precision ground rod in a lathes 4 jaw chuck for .0000 runout. It's basicly the same idea, except your now working vertical instead of horizontal, and with a lot finer thread pitch for those adjustments. From what I can tell, Haimer use an internal and fairly heavy spring loaded gimbal that the system uses to measure the probe movement. So, set up your DI or DTI with it's ball end centered as close as possible by eye to the center of the Haimers ball on the probe. Loosen all 4 of the Haimer adjustment screws, their located in the 4 holes just above the shank on your unit. (mine were pretty tight from the factory) Zero the dial on your DI or DTI. Ok, what you want to do is zero one axis at a time for either X or Y. We'll use X as an example. rotate your spindle by hand 180 degrees and check your DI or DTI indicator readings. Adjust those two Haimer adjustment screws till your indicator readings are the same each time you rotate the milling heads spindle by hand 180 degrees. Lock those screws down. Now do exactly the same for the Y axis screws. Your final check along with probably some very minor corrections on each of the adjustment screws is to rotate your spindle 360 degrees without getting ANY deflection on the DI or DTI indicators needle. It will take a bit of time to get this done. Good enough ISN'T for this job. You really do want .0000 if your patient enough. The really nice thing about this tool is that it doesn't depend on any real imperial or metric measurement system. Once the unit is properly adjusted for zero to your spindle centerline, then all your needing is to move your part edge for either axis till the needle or display reads zero. There's nothing to remember to do or compensate for like the standard offsets on the wobble type edge finders. Once your unit is properly adjusted for a dead on zero, then when the needle or display reads zero, that's exactly where you are. Your also not depending on these to "visually kick off" like the standard types do. Leaving aside a normal mills table flatness and overall machine rigidity. With one of these and a very good DRO, you can in a home shop replicate locational accuracys quite compareable to what some of the very accurate and more than very expensive jig borers like Moore Tools built could do.

Given that your also using CNC, overtravel well beyond the units safety limits could I guess easily happen. I hope you ordered or will now order a spare probe. You can't damage the measurement unit itself unless you had a sudden and unexpected Z axis crash, but you could break the probe due to that overtravel on either X or Y.

I really know less than nothing about CNC. But it's my understanding these can be used as a 3 axis probe system to manualy reverse engineer almost anything with a few different computer programs that are avalible. Yes it's much, much slower than something like a proper setup such as the Renshaw probe system uses. But it can be done with a lot more time involved.

You have my apologys for how long this turned out to be. But I hope this helps a bit.

Pete

Hi Andrew,

Your more than welcome. These units once fully adjusted are an extremly accurate piece of equipment. I ran into a problem with mine due to inexperience with it till I figured out where my seemingly random results were coming from, and that just might possibly be what your seeing. During initial setup, your edge needs to be spotlessly clean and burr free. The same goes for when your using them. It can be easy enough to pick up a false edge just due to a burr, metal chip, or if your trying for close to jig boring accuracy and a dead on zero, even a film of heavy cutting oil could I guess be just enough to throw your results out to get that very accurate zero adjustment.

By now you've gone thru your manual and do understand what's needed. But others who might be considering buying one will be reading this also. You did mention using a collet to test the unit. For those that don't know it yet. Haimer recommends using an end mill holder as a dedicated holder for these units. Ideally you'd never remove it from that tool holder since for the final adjustments you zero the 3-D units probe to the spindles center line using Haimers built in adjustment screws. All or at least most spindles and collets have enough runout that the end mill holder is the much better way to go to get repeatable results. Now if your spindle and collets show .0001 for runout? Then you don't even need to be reading this.

These are a pretty expensive bit of tooling, There certainly not required for Model Engineering or almost anything I can think of done in a home shop. To get the most out of them, they do need the machine their used on to have a very good DRO. Considering their quality and accuracy, I think that their high price is justified.

I've also yet to understand just why most or all Chinese built tooling still has those soft and it seems non standard allen wrench openings. That's more than a bit frustrating.

Pete

Andrew,

I have a Haimer digital unit,. It's doubtful anyone could find fault with Haimers quality. I can understand and fully sympathise with you about some of the problems with various dealers and the games they happen to play just like you've experienced. Since I wasn't planning on using mine on a second mill, I haven't given it all that much thought. But given the way the Haimer is adjusted and set up for zero runout for that exact machine, it may or may not be practical to try and use it on two different mills. But I could be completlly wrong, so please post what you learn. This tool is about the only reason I can see that there's that internal set screw within a R-8 taper since it allows the endmill holder you would use to hold the Haimer unit to be inserted and be sure it's always at the same position each time in the spindle.. Most or any other spindle taper would need a permanent mark on the endmill holder and the spindle to use for alignment.

You will not have a good day if you happen to drop that unit. As far as I know there's no one in all of North America that can repair them. I can't say if there's anyone in your area that can. For myself, I'd need to return it to Haimer.

Pete

Normaly I wouldn't go against Davids opinions since I've found him to be very fair. His first comment was to me rather humerous also.

I can see and understand a new design having mistakes within it. That's understandable. While I don't know the exact process used to print the drawings today that My Hobby Store sells, and I'll refrain from getting into the fit for purpose issue. I do have a issue with the old drawings that contain well documented mistakes.

The George Gentry designed Model Engineer Beam Engine for example contains at least 11 mistakes that I know of. These drawings have remained unchanged for at least 30-40 years and possibly much longer than that. AFAIK Revees and My Hobby Store still sell these drawings without including a single additional sheet with those corrections listed that would be most welcome by any builder, and in todays world it would be almost impossible to add more than 10 cents in cost. I'm certainly not faulting David for this since it's not part of his job and the needed corrections should have been done decades before he became editor. So to be a bit logical about this? My Hobby Store, Revees, and any other supplier of drawings we use do have an obligation to at least correct the drawing mistakes as there found. Instead those mistakes are generaly ignored, and year after year different builders get the joy of rediscovering those same mistakes again and again. That is and would be a comman and important item for any company that cared about their customers perceptions in my humble opinion. That's not too much to ask from any company no matter what they sell. Or at least it shouldn't be if they want to remain in business today. As the end users and the people who keep Model Engineer and Model Engineers Workshop magazines going. I think we well deserve that minimal amount of attention to what My Hobby Store is selling to us. Any older drawing should by now be 100% correct. To say otherwise is illogical.

Pete

Edited By Pete on 30/06/2012 09:26:56