Member postings for Fowlers Fury

As submitted before - many topics, like this one, have been 'done to death' on here previously.
A quick search (top right) will provide many answers.
Try this:-
Forum thread on Myford & oiling

As with many issues/queries raised ~ they have been covered on here before. I'd recommend to "Ignatz" that it's worth looking at this thread of 8 years ago:-
**LINK**

Other useful info can be found by searching on "Esso Nutto"

Shortly after acquiring my new S7B, there was a rumbling noise from around the 1ph motor. Myfords sent out a guy to inspect & rectify. He left me with a 1 litre bottle of Esso Nutto and advised that I always use that for lubrication. (He also left me with 1 litre of Shell Ensis and said to apply regularly to all bare metal surfaces of the lathe. Words of wisdom because there's never been a trace of surface rust since).
Like Martin K above - I'm no bearing expert but I'd support his doubts about chainsaw oil [and his other comments]. When I use such oil in my chainsaw, it leaves a very sticky residue.

I think the consensus re. oil loss is "it ain't broke so don't fix it".

I can't offer any useful advice re "......but should I be concerned at this great rate of oil loss? A related question: If the oil loss is this fast when using the high speed range, how long would you estimate that I could safely run the counter shaft at high speed before needing to give it another shot of oil?"
It is very seldom that I've had need to run the S7 by switching to the "high speed" pulleys from motor to countershaft in the 20+ years since it was new. But as before ~ those oil cups on the countershaft do empty fast.
(I've equipped the S7 with a VFD etc - an excellent investment - I can now run the lathe at a fast enough rpm for 95% of jobs by leaving the belt on the "slower speed" pulleys).
No doubt it'd bring a sharp intake of breath from the experts but a few times, I've added some molybdenum disulphfide oil to the cups.
I wouldn't get too neurotic about oil loss; IMHO it's more important to keep topping up with the correct oil !

Re: Ignatz & oil loss from countershaft:-

Unless you feel some compelling, desperate need to dismantle & replace the bush then I doubt there is any great requirement to do so. AFAIK, those oiling cups on the counter-shaft of S7s lose oil at a prodigious rate.(it's almost worth collecting and recycling !).
I just top up prior to use and live with it - been that way for many years on my S7. The oiling cup on the front bearing of the mandrel doesn't lose oil at anything like that rate and remains full for long periods.
I do though always oil the nipple on the other end of the countershaft. For that it's worth investing in a genuine Reilang oil can with the appropriate female end as the Myford oiler is notoriously cr*p. The Reilang is not cheap but saves a great deal of annoyance as the oil goes through the nipple and not all over the lathe.

No doubt you'll receive a variety of answers to your queries !

• Which size segmented belt is correct for the Super 7?
  It appears there are no 'hard & fast rules'. I've seen on the (new) Myford stand that their belts are much thinner i.e less thick, than the Fenner or Brammer belts. I went with the thicker belt & it's hard to provide you with a dimension given its nature. However you might get some idea from this:-
  
  
  
  Advantages? # smoother running & no pattern when light turning due to orig solid belt joint running over pulleys. # can be fitted without removing the mandrel & disturbing bearings.
  Disadvantages? # provokes bad language when trying to remove a link # they stretch (mine needs 1 link removing after about 5 years - a job that is regularly put off) # they don't "bed down" into the pulleys as well as the 'solid' belt when taking a deep cut meaning they can slip when old. That's not necessarily a bad thing.
• Does one change just the belt running from the jack shaft to the lathe or the motor belt as well?
  Only ever used it between countershaft & mandrel.
• Does running a segmented belt in reverse cause problems in practice? Here I’m referencing the need to run the motor both forward and reverse for threading.
  Never experienced that, even when being forced to cut with lathe in reverse BUT work in collet not of course in chuck or on faceplate !
  
  Anyway, I’m going to hold off for the moment as the standard V-belts appear to be in very good condition. Truth to tell, I ran a few test cuts today and the machine is already so much quieter relative to the old ML-10 that I’m not sure I even need extra sound/vibration dampening.
  It's at high speed that you'd notice the benefits compared with the original hard belt.

Sorry for two unsolicited comments in addition to suggesting you have a good looking Super7B there.

(1) What size bolts are employed to hold down the lathe onto the raising blocks? From your photo it appears there are small dome nuts which I'd suggest are maybe inadequate to ensure it's secured level for prolonged use. The S7 bed will flex more than your previous ML10 and truly accurate levelling is really important.

(2) If you have the original "V" belt driving from countershaft (i.e. a solid, continuous belt) then replacing it with a multi-link belt (e.g. Brammer) will not only make for a smoother running & cutting S7 but will also reduce that "subtle noise" you hear.

Is that a "zero-able" dial on the carriage hand wheel? Why?

Reproduced - my posting here from 2018:-

The subject has been aired several times on here. After I made the simple version with vertical cutter, its shortcomings were soon evident. The main irritant being accurate measurement when advancing the tool tip. I then made one to the Geo. Thomas design and had no further problems.
(There were several postings on here in early November 2018 about b-c boring bars)
There are 2 sources of his design:-

1. GHT's original article in Model Engineer. Model Engineer, 3rd June 1977 p. 615 (Vol 143, No. 3562)

2. That most valuable compendium of GHT's articles - "The Model Engineers Workshop Manual (vol 1)" 1992. Pub: Tee Publishing, ISBN 1-85761-000-8. It's on page 92.

His comment about the normal, 90 deg tool resulting in flexure of a boring bar was well made IMHO. By putting the tool in the bar at an angle, that effect is very much reduced as well as resulting in very much easier ability to measure the swing with a micrometer. Geo. Thomas wrote “….the boring bar in its usual form leaves a lot to be desired. My main objection to it is the absence of any controlled means of advancing the cutter and all my design attempts to provide a suitable means ended in severe weakening of the bar at the point of maximum bending moment.”

IMHO it would time well spent to make one to the GHT design at the maximum diameter commensurate with your cylinder bores.

This was my GHT b-c bar boring out a 5" CI cylinder casting.

That brass item on the casting, under the boring bar, contains several small Neodymium magnets. It should have been within a plastic bag so that the collected iron bits could have been emptied straight in the bin !

Topic covered on here several times in the past.

I use Jenolite, painted on to the dried surface of the sink at night after working with CI. Next morning wash sink with water & all traces of rust spots gone from the acrylic and no aggravation form SWMBO.

However, potentially bigger sources of ear-ache can arise from the carbon particles deposited on clothes & in hair. These contaminate - so I'm informed - "everything around the house".
I've tried in vain to explain that machining close-grained cast iron is one of the few pleasures left to an old man.

Very grateful to Jason B and Martin K.
The Evans dwg of the valve chamber is reproduced below.
In answer to Jason ~ yes, his distance is 1.874"
I made one attempt to machine the valve chamber i.e. liner, in 2 parts but found particular difficulties with the varying bore and especially producing square holes for the ports in precise locations. So - next, the valve liner was made in 3 parts (see red lines below) which proved a much better method for maintaining accuracy.
However for months now, I've been unable to get the valve timing to make sense. Martin Evans did not make any reference to setting the eccentric etc. All my dimensions are within about 0.004" of Evans' dwg (checked innumerable times). I've tried the old LBSC methodology of equalising air bubbles from the drain cocks at F&BDCs but cannot get equivalent air flow. I've tried exactly centralising the bobbin within the chamber again though there's no logic to air emerging from the drain cocks as the wheels are rotated by hand. All done with the main piston at precisely mid point.
I've read ad nauseam articles by such luminaries as Dons Young & Ashton etc but found no references to this "exhaust clearance" or at least, nothing I could understand.
In desperation, I've spent many hours producing a CAD dwg of the entire valve chamber and bobbin in order to "move" the bobbin along the X axis and see how the ports were (theoretically) uncovered. It was checking Evans' dwg for the nth time that I noticed this "Exhaust clearance 0.020" which prompted the plea for help.

I think Martin however has identified the problem (and my naivety) .
Now though, machining the bobbin to create that "0,020" is easy enough so renewed thanks !

Duncan,

It's a subject I was researching intently just as the article appeared by "Artisan".
I have copies of that and other relevant follow-up articles.

This evening I'll PM you and if you still need them, I'll gladly forward.

In a Martin Evans series from back in 1975, he appears to have pasted, as an after-thought, a drawing of the inside valve "bobbin" of a 3 cylinder loco.
It's clear enough except for his comment "Exhaust clearance 0.020". (Elsewhere he specified exactly where the exhaust ports should be positioned within the valve chamber. Furthermore, he shows the ends of the bobbin (not the rings) at mid posn. exactly in line with the outer edges of the transfer passages to the main cylinder).

I'd welcome info please on what this comment might mean in terms of the bobbin.

Perhaps your greater concern ought to be exposure to oil mist viz " I have just fitted a mist coolant system".
It's less of a problem in a workplace fitted with approved, adequate exhaust ventilation, but if you've a home workshop without such controls or proper respiratory & eye protection, please consider doing a search on "Inhalation of oil mist".

"I've not got hard stops on the table."

I should have been more explicit. By "hard stops" I meant at the end of the lead screw (threaded rod) which moves the mill table i.e. the point at which the table wont move further. It is the reference point for repeated measurement.

"Doesn’t your method rely on the laser axis being absolutely co-axial with the body? I’ve had a couple of laser collimaters for my telescope, and even with those the dot describes a circle on a distant wall, if the body is rotated in a v-block. "

Apologies for previous brevity again. I don't believe that "being absolutely co-axial with the body" is too critical providing the laser pointer is held in the vice jaws at the same angle to the horizontal (hence shining on the cross lines on wall). The cross lines in the workshop are about 4 metres from the laser source so when lined up, it repeats the original, DTI-based, set up accurately enough. I do check from time to time and haven't found significant change. Below is a picture taken of the laser spot centralised.The image is poor as the laser spot didn't focus well.

One of those many jobs awaiting my getting 'a round tuit' is to mount the laser pointer in a substantial block which would sit within the vice jaws at the correct angle and orientation just to save a few minutes each time.

Re "Are there any tips/tricks/standard procedures for doing this more efficiently? "

Not professing this to be more efficient, nor is it a standard procedure but it might qualify as a tip........

• Ensure vice is pulled back so mounting bolts are tight against T slots, tighten bolts enough for light grip.
• Use one of the methods (dti against a parallel?) for aligning your vice with the mill table wound right out - or in - so its hard against the stop. Tighten the vice down.
• Lightly clamp a laser pointer (ideally metal bodied, there''s one for GBP1.99 on Fleabuy) in the vice jaws so the spot shows on a far surface.
• Now you need a vertical line right under the point (I find thin black felt tip line on small piece of baking foil glued to wall is best with a red laser).
• Despite the invited ridicule, I find this to be reproducibly accurate with the mill table in original full out (or full in) position to reset the vice parallel to table movement.

You state they were prescription reading glasses. If the optician's prescription was to correct astigmatism (unlikely for reading glasses) then I would not attempt to modify the lens surface, however slightly.

As most of the cheapo shops sell 'self-select' reading glasses for less than a fiver (e.g. B&M, Poundland etc) - why bother?

I'm 100% in agreement with Dave (SoD) above. This subject of damnable cookies, privacy and "solutions" was aired on here not so long ago. The whole business reminds me of the old adage "you can't win you can't loose, you can't even get out of the game".
I use Firefox and have added the excellent Extension "Behind the Overlay". When confronted with that infuriating overlay demanding you "select" cookie preferences, "Behind the Overlay" will, with one click of their icon - remove it and you can then use the website without more ado. But - and there's a but - a few sites have got wise to this and the screen freezes i.e. you can't win, you can't.........etc. Bit if I really need to view that site then the other option is to load the free programme "Sandboxie". This AFAIK - will permit you to accept all cookies from the site and any other crap the site chooses to dump on you. When you've finished your browser session, you then empty the sandbox, so nothing is retained.
A decent VPN is also a safeguard but that brings its own irritations and still requires a Sandbox. Furthermore Google will bombard you with notices that some foreigner is trying to use your passwords.

Like many others above, I've used Firefox for years through its various versions, studiously ignoring all of M/soft's browser offerings.
However, the full version of Firefox has become a bit "resource heavy" of late. It is showing around 300Mb of memory usage just now on my system.
(Press Ctrl+Alt+Delete together in order to load Task Manager and see).
Whereas loading Edge instead shows it uses about 100Mb less.
So maybe if your system is short on memory (if still using Win 7 that maybe the case) then you might find Edge is less stressful despite its many annoyances & frustrations c/f Firefox.

Nigel's reference to a "gripping" screwdriver prompted a visit to the garage to retrieve a similar sounding device made by Draper and purchased within the last couple of years. The other tool shown was purchased in one of the 'Pound shops'. Depression of the spring-loaded, red T-handle pushes out from the end 3 little prongs which can grip surprisingly well when needing to recover bolts dropped into crankcases.

What really annoys me is that if perchance I do not drop something of value during time in the workshop, that little sod who lives under the bench satiates him/her-self by tangling up all the mains leads on my power tools during the hours of darkness.

Dave's bullet point 1 has prompted some investigation which has confirmed his thesis.
I selected a b&w image of a loco from my files and pasted it into the blank posting space.
Pressing <Add posting> brought up the message "xxxxx characters too many, spilt into different postings" or words to that effect.
The image was progressively reduced in size and dpi until it was just 55Kb and that message still came up though with a different value for the "excess" characters. I tried it in various file types (jpg, png, pdf etc) but no joy.

Thanks for the enlightenment.