Diamond tool holder.??

Yes quite right, once set up you're only limited by the number of Toolholders you have. Nice selection Norman!

I couldn't justify the cost for what I do so I've stuck with the four way though. I've got round the quick change part by bonding shims of the right thickness to the bottom of my insert holders so the're permanently on centre. Good plan except I noticed one of the shims had dropped off of one during last years house move! I think perhaps I didn't degrease it properly when I epoxied it. Oh well, another little job to add to the list!

.

As the OP on this I feel I should update.

I did purchase left and right handed tools along with the grinding jig. I must say I am very pleased with them and the finish they give.

I used a round tool bit for turning the crankshaft of the Stuart engine build I have on the go. - The finish on it is great.

A friend of mine who has been a pro engineer for 40+ years called round, and while he was here had a little play. He was also impressed and found them an 'interesting' tool and although he mostly uses insert tips stated there would be times when he would use such.

I remarked that although I was pleased with them they were expensive. He disagreed with me and thought them to be very good value.!!! - Different scale of priorities and viewpoint I suppose.

Nick

After reading the article in the Autumn 2009 issue of M E W, I made one. Was so impressed that I made one for a pal.

Mine never was used much in anger, (reverted to replaceable tips) but a few months ago, made a bigger version to take 5/16 toolbits.

This has now become the standard tool of choice. Nearly as good as replaceable tip, (better at interrupted cuts), easy to set to centre height (using a gauge), and a lot cheaper than T.C. tips.

Initially used the 20 degree sharpening jig as per the article, but have made up a holder for the Worden. This makes a better job of it, but takes time to dig out the Worden from under the fitting bench and set it up. "Do I hear someone say "you get what you pay for?"

Am now wondering about making a L H version, (scrooge!) or maybe even buying one.

Conclusion: Either way; recommended.

Howard

Sorry Vic, missed your post, 30 deg for the jig it is, thanks for that. Will make a toolholder in the fullness of time, that is, just as soon as I can get to it on the work list!

Chris

Same here, I've been meaning to make a left hand version Chris!

If you use a four way toolpost consider this: If you get the design right and critically the thickness of the tool holder then you can quickly and easily set the tool height by turning the Toolholder upside down on a flat surface and dropping the cutter until it touches then clamp in place. I hope this makes sense! In essence the top edge of the tool holder is exactly on centre height of your Lathe when it's in the tool post. I hasten to add its not my idea but it's too good not to pass on. I'll be incorporating this idea on my next one. This really is another example of why it's such a good idea to make your own tooling sometimes. Let's see pictures when you've made yours!

The Wimberley tool-holder arrived a few days ago,

I've now had a chance to have a good look at the toolholder and read through the booklet, which is commendably comprehensive. I haven't used it yet as my lathe won't take a 1/2" shank tool, so I either have to modify one of my QCTP holders or make a new one. As I plan a batch of toolholders in the near future, I will probably make one especially for it, as a wider, as well as deeper, groove will help minimise overhang.

I am struck with the feel and look of quality; it's a beautiful, well finished casting machined to an excellent finish. I'll probably bring it to MEX in my pocket...

Neil

Pictures!

Sorry Vic,

I thought I had posted a link to the Wimberley website. Below is a picture of a well-used example from the site.

Neil

Can anyone explain why these wimbly wobbly or tangential toolholders should perform any better than conventional HSS tooling?

As far as I can see, the only advantage is that they are easier to regrind. However if you wish to use different rake angles to suit different materials that advantage would seem to disappear as it does if Howard has to dig out his Worden to regrind them.

I'll stick to grinding my own, one set for brass and another for mild steel plus a few specials. Does that make me a Luddite?

Russell.

Yup! Afraid so..........

I have found my home made tangential took holders (r/h and l/h) will cut equally as well on ALU, brass and steel and give a good finish and at less than a fiver each including 1/4 in HSS cutting bits. I thought £75 each for the diamond version more than my wallet could handle - though I may have been tempted at half that price. Still, I get a kick out of using something I have made rather than bought.

Yes, I've found It works for most materials. Not sure it's any better than other tools although I do like using it. Cost was a primary reason for me to try one. Insert tooling is great but the tips can start to work out expensive. The Tangential tool uses short pieces of inexpensive HSS and grinding is easy with the jig. Setting centre height is also a breeze.

Russell,

The main advantage, as far as I can see, is that both avoid the necessity for grinding two faces that meet at a cutting edge, as is essential if making a standard knife tool. This means that creating side clearance and top rake (other than on a flat-topped tool for brass) is always rather tricky and tends to leave the tool undersize. This is a major boon, not just to a beginner, but the ease with which a standard and effective geometry can be achieved quickly means sharper tools and a happier life for all

Neil

Yes, I can see that the tangential tool is easier to grind but if you want to get the correct top and side rake it isn't quite as straightforward as using the supplied grinding jig.

The Wimberley seems to require two ground facets and gives fixed rake angles unless you grind a third which is then the same as grinding a conventional tool. Having said that, grinding back rake does give a problem after many regrinds so I have made this holder:

Russell

The Wimberly is strictly meant to be used with fixed rake angles. The clever bit is that the side and front rake are equal so it faces and turns with equal facility. The lengthy manual makes it seem harder to sharpen than I suspect it really is. Perhaps a key advantage is how little material you have to remove.

Your holder effectively is a 'Semi-Wimberly' only giving rake in the 'facing' direction.

Neil

Hi Russell, it is a myth that you need different rake/clearance angles for different materials, well it is for the average home user where a few seconds less between sharpenings is of little or no importance. Metal should be cut the way she likes to be cut and that usually means a fair amount of rake, where different rake angles come in the equation is in making the edge stronger hence last longer. It was in industry, where seconds saved might mean profit instead of loss, that all those rake/clearance angles came in but industry gave up on HSS decades ago so feel free to ignore the outmoded, but oft repeated, information.

A single Tangential tool will do most turning and facing jobs, and without having to swivel the tool post between those operations, except for jobs where HSS is less than ideal like abrasive cast iron skins or case hardened steels etc. Unless of course you put a piece of solid carbide in instead of HSS but that is another matter.

As for being a Luddite not at all, it makes you more modern than you thought you were, Tangential tooling goes back to mid Victorian times before HSS came about and high carbon steels were the in thing for cutting tools, and by the way another reason for various rake/clearance angles to protect the cutting edge.

Perhaps Neil could commission an article on the history of lathe tools, it might prove interesting to the self taught homeshoppist and give them food for thought for reinventing lost but still, potentially, useful ideas.

chriStephens

Very interesting what you say about rake angles Chris. I've never used different angles for turning tools, not even brass and not had any problems with finish or anything else. I guess folks just repeat what they've heard or read in old books. Perhaps it's time for a new reference book for model engineers.

The one BIG advantage of using a tangential tool was shown to me some time ago, and which I posted about, when in BrainFade mode, I turned the Saddle Handwheel anti-clockwise with lathe running and the bit jammed into the work.

Well, you can imagine my relief when nothing bad happened, with just the bit being pushed down the holder away from the work.

Another big advantage if the ease of keeping it sharp.

Been taking 3/4mm cuts with ease on BMS and still experimenting.

Can't wait to get the FeedRodMotor finished, but being sidetracked as usual.

The tangential made mincemeat of turning the bronze bearing for the Tom Senior Overarm.

Geoff - My tool of choice now.

Edit: Posts now take ages to upload. Anyone else experiencing this?

Edited By OuBallie on 07/12/2014 10:15:59

Hi Chris, it's all too easy to dismiss years of theory and experience. True the rake angles affect tool life between regrinds but they have other effects as well. A well known one in ME circles is that for brass if there is much rake the tool can be dragged into the material and give a poor finish. A fine cutting angle (high rake) produces less cutting force and, for less rigid home machines, is less likely to deflect the tool or workpiece and is thus ideal for fine finishing and slender workpieces. Plastics are another thing altogether. Treat hard plastics like brass and for softer plastics use high rake angles and clearance angles.

Of course, if you're happy with the results you get with one tool form for everything that's great.

Russell

For a more scientific test it should be tested alongside other types of tooling for comparison. Just using it in isolation and saying that it works is not much of a test.

Russell.

Good link David, thanks for posting that!

I don't think anyone will be doing any scientific testing of production tools dropped over a hundred years ago Russell but one may hope!