Member postings for Enough!

No problem, Graeme (I can relate ). Turns out I actually have those issues among my motley collection. Looks really interesting and adaptable for just about anything.

Thanks.

Put it in a box and send it to me with your compliments. Pre-paid of course.

..... *If* you have it rewound (not cheap) and checked out with a megger. I stand by what I said - I'd rather put that money into a new motor. There are plenty of good ones to be had. And not all old ones were good even at the start of their lives let alone after 70 years.

To each his own though.

Edited By Bandersnatch on 20/08/2014 22:54:56

Yes, I do see where you're coming from Neil but perhaps not nearly as high a bar as for yet another ball-turning or qr-toolpost article (even if those are new entries!). At least this type of add-on hasn't been done much (if at all) over the intervening 50 years. (I may be blind - not unlikely actually - but I'm blowed if I can find Coalburner's reference in MEW 93-95).

Of course a new article, by an experienced author, would be better and would be a good candidate for MEW. Given that the actual interface at the lathe is minimal, it should be possible to make it general enough to apply to most any lathe. Pity Graham was driven away by the more uncouth elements here.

This thread is really revealing about the current direction of MEW. Motorcycle articles are, apparently, "de rigueur" but it takes a forum poll to justify one on a tailstock rack-feed?

I'd hazard a guess that rather more people here own series seven lathes than own motorcycles .... just my guess though. In any event, it would be trivial to adapt the Myford version of either the Cowell or Cleeves design to other lathes. And if you don't want a rack-feed ..... well, there's one article that wasn't of interest; move on to the next - it's happened to me a few times too.

OK, so it's a good fit. Now, unless you subscribe to the view that only articles that appeal only to the majority should be published I'd say it's very appropriate.

And considering some of the recent articles ......

Huh? 100% slap-bang in the middle of what MEW should be about.

Searching on "rack tailstock" in Dias's database gives a 2-part Martin Cleeve construction series in 1956 and a 2-part follow-up in 1960 which sounds like it could be what you remember, Simon.

The relevant issues are 2877 & 2879 (Vol-115) and 3091 & 3093 (Vol-123).

Phil,

see pm

Thanks for the pointer. According to Dias Costa's database search program, this sounds like ME Vol-107 Issue 2672 (7-Aug 1952).

Looking at the pictures of this device, it looks like it should be eminently feasible to come up with a home-made version. Does anyone know (or could someone check) the rack and pinion ratio ..... say the distance travelled for one complete turn of the capstan?

Personally, in the interests of safety, I wouldn't mess around trying to utilise an old motor on any machine. Chances are, the insulation (whatever it is) is breaking down and you usually have no idea of the motor's history. Much safer and less time consuming to replace it with a new one.

If it's a first lathe there will be some start-up costs for refurbishment, tooling etc and a new motor with reliable electrics is not the worst place to to put some of those costs.

If you get :AAQ:CA:1123">this one, it comes with a readout display. Unsolder the trimmer and wire in a panel mounting pot. Put the whole thing in a little box for a power supply you can make with any wall-wart.

I'd agree with Graham. I got my ML7 in much the same shape as yours with a motor that wasn't much better (and had been taken apart as well).

I ended up buying a new 3-ph motor and a VFD and have never looked back.

If I need a flat-bottomed hole, I generally start off with one before boring by selecting a drill the same size or slightly less than an appropriate end-mill. Then run the end mill down after drilling to take out the drill depression.. Bore up to that surface as a limit then take a final surfacing cut.

Don't know how far afield you want to go, Graham, but I've always found VXB to have a wide range of bearings at reasonable prices and shipping rates.

Sorry you took such offence at my use of the term socialist, Ketan .... perhaps it wasn't the best word. I did quote it to soften it and it was a small (not capital) "s". I just meant it in terms of a "sense of fair play to all" (misguided or otherwise )

>how to address it: Bury it as an overhead and take the hit? May Be. Bury it as an overheadand increase prices as suggested? don't know if the market will accept it.

Are you so sure that the market will accept CC surcharges more easily? It would be risky, I think, to rely on the encouragement of a few sycophants in this respect.

I think you probably meant that humorously, Jason but in the early days of credit cards here in Canada, it was against the merchant agreement with the bank to apply a surcharge to use the card. (I guess the banks felt it would reduce the cards' acceptance with the public.) A number of merchants did just as you suggest, offering a discount for cash and apparently that was a sufficient loophole in their agreements because they got away with it.

I suspect the same ban on credit-card surcharges still applies here since I can't recall ever seeing any stated directly. Some merchants have a slightly different (and perhaps more blatant) scheme now. They state that the prices quoted are already discounted for cash. Credit-card purchases are then subject to the full retail price which is 3% more. This tends to be small companies working to very narrow margins such as computer parts suppliers.

As far as the additional fee described in this thread for CC users but not others, I don't see the logic myself. I know it sounds all nice and "socialist" to charge the actual users for the overhead costs that they cause, while not charging those that don't cause them but logically that should lead to the same attitude with other overhead costs.

For example, I'm sure spending hours on the phone talking to customers who demand a lot of attention (everyone has them) costs quite a bit. Should those who never trouble the retailer pay for that? Should everyone pay for the fact that some people will return product for the most trivial of reasons while others don't? There are probably many other things.

The point is, all these, including the merchant's CC fees, are overhead costs which one expects will be burdened on the whole customer base when setting the selling price of the goods. It doesn't seem fair to single out one item and one group of users.

My own view is that if I was faced with CC surcharges it would be a discouragement .... particularly if Paypal was also limited and I was purchasing overseas (where I have no other sensible options).

Yes, sorry .... I thought you were talking about regular web pages too.

You can print from the PocketMag offline reader with the print icon at lower left .... 1 page at a time, indifferent quality and it prints with a watermark.

If as you say in the original post, you need this for printing circuit diagrams that appear on web pages, these are usually in the form of graphics files (jpg or similar). In that case, you can right click and select "Save Image as ...", save it to a file then open that in your favourite graphics program and do what you will (change size, sharpen etc and print) from there. Or select "Copy Image" and paste it into your graphics program.

To print web pages I generally just select File > Print Preview which gives you a wysiwyg of the print out and you can adjust printing parameters to suit. If the printout goes into multiple pages, you can also select individual pages (or a range) when printing to save supplies (why do web pages always seem to spill two or three useless lines onto an extra page when printing?)