By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by Forum House Ad Zone

Travelling Steady.

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
Dusty10/03/2011 20:09:12
498 forum posts
9 photos
mgj
Oh dear, you have missed the point I was making. The travelling steady is to prevent the workpiece deflecting whilst machining long items, the fingers should allways lead the tool. it is immaterial what happens to the workpiece after the tool has passed. It is not possible to stradle the cut when screwcutting, as the burr thrown up by the tool will cut a helix in the fingers equal to the pitch of thread being cut. This helix will grow in width as the screwcutting progresses. If you are screwcutting with a travelling steady the fingers must lead the tool and the burr thrown up by the tool must be removed on every pass. We are not talking about optimum support we are talking about practical application. When talking about leading the tool I would use about 1cm, this gives room to view what is happening with the cut and gives reasonable support.
Geoff Causon11/03/2011 10:00:29
16 forum posts
6 photos
Good advice.
The 1st thing I will do is thread a scrap part & perhaps I can contribute a bit more intelligently. As you can tell from my posts I have never used a travelling steady.
If I use the old 4way toolpost it moves the tool about 20mm closer to the fingers so that will help.
I am reluctant to just make a spacer for the steady, as every mm of spacer means a mm less length of leadscrew & I want it as long as possible.( The spacer would be a minimum 29mm)
 
Keith's idea of turning the toolpost 90deg & using the clamp screws to longitudinally adjust the position of a "special" toolholder sounds like a simple solution. I already have a 16mm square holder that allows me to use short pieces of 1/4" HHS. Bit like a boring bar & is close to what is req'd.
Re: Inclining the Top Slide.
One advantage is it clears the top slide from the tailstock without having to excessively extend the tool from the toolholder. Quite important with small thread diameters.
mgj11/03/2011 18:12:25
1017 forum posts
14 photos
No, the fingers should not lead the tool if possible, especially on long slender items.
 
Lets be engineers and look at the forces involved.
 
Firstly lets ignore any rotatational translation- because it is very small and can be ignored.
Second lets assume the tool generates a force in a single vertical plane for the purposes of this discussion. It doesn't of course, and there is a vector that can be defined in 2 axes. However that force is taken on the headstock.
 
So, if the tool leads the ifngers, there is a leverage (moment) upwards generated by the tool tip whose fulcrum is the fingers, and it is resisted in rotation at the headstock. It can actually distort a long slender item, causing the work to hog or hump at the point of cut..
 
Likewise if the steady leads the tool, except that now we have an upthrust at the tailstock.
 
So the ONLY place where a long slender item is not subject to an undesirable deforming force is where there is no leverage generated . And the ONLY palce where there is no moment is when the tool is exactly inline with the fingers., which is exactly how one should set a travelling steady. If it is possible.
 
In fact cutting a thread is the only place where it is possible, because there is no change in overall dimension/diameter .
 
As for that "Oh Dear and missing points". I don't think so- as I read my post I specically mentioned the business of engraving the fingers and cariages being invited to move. Did I not? Or was that the bit that wasn't read?
 
It isn't a big problem as long as one is aware of it but there is, as always, a way round that, if one is prepared to make a little effort. A set of steel tipped fingers and a dab of grease.
 
May I commend it to you, especailly as most people don't cut a thread to full depth from virgin metal in one pass, it which case it hardly matters whether the tool leads or trails, its still going to pick up a thread if the tip is soft.
 
More generally, the fingers on the steadies on my Chinese lathe are not the most wonderful of items and at the shows I have seen other steadies which were not too great. I made a new set of fingers with screw in tips, so I have hard and soft tips.
 
These days I do very little screwcutting - what counts for precise involves selecting the picth on the gearbox, and running a shallow groove down a job just to guide the die on a die guide in the tailstock. However, when it did matter doing the Quorn and the Dore Westbury and various boring heads which had proper calibrated feedscrews, then hard tips and proper placing of the steady were the answer to accurately sized threads with minimal backlash.
 
 

 

 

 
 

Edited By mgj on 11/03/2011 18:14:15

Dusty11/03/2011 20:08:19
498 forum posts
9 photos
mgj
I am sorry but you will never convince me in a million years that your way is right . I understand about the forces involved and where you are coming from, but as a practical engineer with over 50yrs experience which includes toolmaking and building special purpose machinery, I am afraid we must agree to disagree.
mgj11/03/2011 21:04:36
1017 forum posts
14 photos
Well fair enough - Since the steady is there to resist forces, and you say you understand them, I don't quite see your point. We know what the forces are, and what they can do. So clearly the "right" answer is the one that best resists them directly, in so far as is practical
 
If one understands the problem yet chooses to ignore it - thats someting I find.... most unusual in an engineer.
 
So yes, as someone with an MSc and a year or two in engineering, I am quite happy to differ - because it doesn't make engineering sense. Why start introducing a moment, and the potential for a long slender workpiece to lift , when you don't need to?
 
One can achieve perfection in this case, and yet one shies away from it?
 
 

 


KMP12/03/2011 10:38:06
73 forum posts
2 photos
Sorry, too many words so willhave to start again
Keith 

Edited By KMP on 12/03/2011 10:56:46

KMP12/03/2011 12:28:51
73 forum posts
2 photos
I do not mean to argue with anybody, all posts in this thread I have read offer good practical advice and will work in a relevant situation. The discussion also identifies the two main viewpoints in such situations, the practical (worked for me), or the theoretical (detailed scientific analysis of the process). Both have their application of course but I would argue that in this instance too much “discussion” of the theoretical may serve to confuse the OP. Encouragingly, in this thread both camps appear to understand what the other is trying to say; sadly that is not always the case on engineering forums.
 
My main gripe is that without a full specification of the job or actually seeing it we all have to assume and therein lies confusion for the less experienced. To understand and make relevant all the advice so far offered one would need to be an experienced engineer. So firstly, a plea to Geoff, for clear advice we need at least the length, diameter, pitch, thread form, material and the degree of accuracy you have to achieve. Along with the relevant tooling you have or are willing to make or buy. Any machining problem has many solutions and we need to find yours.
 
The main point of contention appears to be where to support the work, in my limited knowledge, I believe the best position is directly opposite the cutting point. This is where the difficulty starts and some of the potential problems have already been identified. This position is more critical the longer and thinner the thread is. In my simple understanding this is because the forces involved in the cutting process have to be resolved by the rest, headstock or tailstock (and of course the tool post but I guess that is of sufficient rigidity in this case). If the latter two the forces are transmitted through the workpiece and can cause distortion. However, practicalities can affect what is happening and such things as soft fingers being mangled and reducing the support available during the cut or hard fingers rolling the burrs into the work can both affect the best practical supporting position as of course can machine access and rest design. So given that we have not got the tooling for the perfect solution (in my limited practical experience we would have used a boxtool or roller box where support straddled the tool point), we have to compromise. The position of the top finger is also important as the work will bend up and away from the tool and try to go between the two fingers. Here again a number of factors will affect our success but, if we are cutting a long thin fine pitch thread of a full form with soft fingers it will go there if we ignore the burrs and do not re-set the fingers.
 
Assuming a typical leadscrew of not less than 6mm or so and using the rest in the pictures I would suggest a position where the rear edge of the support point is directly opposite the tool point. The pitch of the thread will take the burr slightly to the rear of the rest and so will neither wear the rest or be rolled in. For threads smaller than this I personally would cut the thread with the rest directly opposite the tool and check the damage to the rest and reset if required after a couple of passes if cuts are small as they should be. Where possible I would make new finger tips that straddled at least 6 thread crests and more if possible.
 
Keith
PS Still to crack the formatting when cutting and pasting from Word

Edited By KMP on 12/03/2011 12:33:44

KWIL12/03/2011 12:38:39
3681 forum posts
70 photos
I cannot agree about not allowing for the helix angle, try cutting a 2.5mm trapezoidal without it.
mgj12/03/2011 17:20:04
1017 forum posts
14 photos
Graham - I agree entirely about burrs- good sharp tool. Perhaps I am fortunate, having a Quorn, but for others, possiblyly a tipped tool for screwcutting is the way to go. And if, as you say, there are no burrs, then the carriage doesn't get dragged about.
 
With the harder work, perhaps using differnt tips is a counsel of perfection - as long as one doesn't pressthe fingers in too hard and chucks a bit lof lubricant about, and I think in this case grease of often better than oil. The soft materials are/can be a different story but hte average ME doesn't machine long slender length ver often. In the samller sizes the little combination tool is pretty handy.
KMP13/03/2011 10:30:39
73 forum posts
2 photos

Graham, mgj, Hi,

Sorry no subterfuge intended, I am neither a “Rocket Scientist” or a “50 years on the dials” man. My background is in Aircraft but includes large machine shops repairing worn or damaged parts.

I have no issue at all with what you say but feel that we need to put it in context for the typical “home workshop”. As you say, only luck will see you with a “round” bar off the shelf but it will not be straight either. My concern would be if Geoff, on his new machine with an unfamiliar rest can better the errors one would typically find on the OD over a long (?) length. If the leadscrew is less than 13” (shows my age) long I would suggest Silver Steel would be a reasonable starting point but again not perfect. I would have suggested EN8 (BS 970 080M40 Carbon Steel) or even better 226M44 (BS970) listed as "USACUT 45". Now I am wandering and suspect those type of details will not bother Geoff at the moment.

I totally agree with your and mgj’s comments on burrs but, once again, we must put it in context of someone who is developing his skills. I have found in helping others into this wonderful world that “sharp tools” is something they either learn instantly or after a period of struggling. For some reason many see tool grinding as a “black art” or something that needs a Quorn and the ability to use it (I have yet to build one myself but it is on the “to do” list). The tipped tool path is fine but one needs to select the insert carefully as the cheaper variety for general use will not be that sharp, unless one has found the newer generation of “aluminium” positive rake tips that are sharp and superb on most of our materials. I can’t really recommend as I do not know what the thread angle is being produced, 60 deg would be easier.

Again, I agree with your comments on finger tip wear, but the newer engineer also has other factors to contend with. Chip removal is often neglected particularly where no coolant flow is available or is inadequate. A problem on subsequent cuts but can cause havoc when they get between fingers and work. I find cheap paint brushes invaluable particularly if I am using cutting oil. One other major issue is with using any old “mild steel” whatever that is; I have seen some round bar that would not cut cleanly with the sharpest tool.

Sorry Geoff if I have confused the issue for you and profuse apologies if in my assumptions I have put you on the wrong part of the learning curve. I am guilty of always starting with the very simplistic but in this hobby without someone looking over your shoulder, the basic can be the most difficult to pick up. Most writers on the subject are at the other end of the curve.

Keith

mgj13/03/2011 11:41:04
1017 forum posts
14 photos
Keith dead right.
 
I just wanted to get away from this notion that you put the fingers anywhere but (if possible) directly in line with the axis of the force, to stop slender objects lifting. We have all had that problem and we all know it leads to wrecked work.
 
I managed for years without steel fingers - I just did my feed/leadscrews with bronze tips and didn't worry. I still wouldn't worry on the Myford, because I don't have steel tipped fingers for it, and so low on my list of priorities are they that I doubt I ever will - ain't that important for us amateurs.
 
I only went on about sharp tools because of the burr issue. That's why I suggested tips - because if one is starting thats one of the tool grinding cops outs in an area where perhaps its a touch more critical than others. But frankly I could live with the burrs - as a non grinder of tools, I had to build the Quorn of course!
 
I'm actually a very pragmatic downmarket/mostly good enough sort of model engineeer, but I don't get over impressed when people post stuff that is clearly unwise or can lead to disaster. The less experienced pick it up and dive into trouble, and the older ought to know better and none of us are so ancient or good that we cannot learn or change. It's about open minds.
 
Here we just got dragged into lunacy, because there was a lack of thought, in engineering terms about what was going on in a machine tool - and that was perhaps why I got more technical - but then its a technical subject, and those that wish to progress need to learn, and those that don't learn continue to get it wrong. (Still I never got the maths out to prove my point algebraically )
 
My background - I was a soldier, and not a nut strangler either. But my degrees were in AVF design and guided weapons engineering. (pluys racing cars - they were important)


I have no beef with a word you said.
 

 

 

mgj13/03/2011 16:40:41
1017 forum posts
14 photos
Thaks Gray - but now I'm going to disagree with the idea of silver steel for leadscrews. Its only half an apology, because one of ther other recommendations was IMO the best selection. (Maybe SS wasn't your recommendation?  )
 
anyway .... wherever it came from
 
Let me have a go at SS first. Often its recommended because its tough, but for me that is only half the story. Its very difficult, except on exposed surfaces like say loco crankpins or the like, to get a really high finish. So when you add that to a bronze feed nut, unless one is very lucky, one will be through the feed nut a bit sharpish.
 
So what one needs is a material which above all can be finished well, because in general on leadscrews there is plenty of bearing area. Surface hardness/toughness for us, is not an issue. (normally), So EN8 for my money is a much much better choice. (Or even 220M07. For most modelling applications - because you get such a fine finish)
 
If wear really is a problem (and even a Myfords feedscrews are not hard!) then one has to surface harden. Well casehardening will almost guarantee to creat distortion, so one is left with nitriding - if its absolutely necessary. Which it probably isn't
 
At one stage I used to help a friend knocking out milling machine feedscrews - the originals weren't hard at all. You could file them easily. Nor were the replacements - no we didn't file them, but I know what they were like to machine. And I know darned well where the steady fingers were set and why!!!
 
Quite nifty at Acme threads me!
 
Going back to loco crankpins - I did make mine out of SS and what a pain it was, getting all 6 to exactly the same dimension (+/-.0001"). For no gain in wear properties. Next time it will be 220M07, and case harden, for a better, harder - where it matters - and more easily made product.
 

 
 
 


Edited By mgj on 13/03/2011 16:41:12

Edited By mgj on 13/03/2011 16:44:56

Edited By mgj on 13/03/2011 16:49:14

Edited By mgj on 13/03/2011 16:58:01

Terryd13/03/2011 17:46:44
avatar
1946 forum posts
179 photos
Posted by Graham Meek on 12/03/2011 16:10:58:
Hi KMP,
......................
 
The reason I ask is that drawn bar will seldom be round and dependent on the diameter will have a helical wave running down the outside due to the rolling process. The travelling steady should always follow the tool on initial cuts so that these imperfections are not transmitted to the work via the steady fingers.
 
............
 
Graham
Hi Graham,
 
you have me really confused on this one, You say 'drawn' bar is 'rolled'. I was always under the illusion that 'drawn' bar was actually drawn after rolling and pickling which, given accurate dies, produces quite an accurate material. The drawing process should remove any imperfections such as you mention due to rolling. That is the whole purpose of drawing surely.
 
Best regards
 
Terry
KMP13/03/2011 18:37:04
73 forum posts
2 photos

Gray, mgj, Terry, Hi

Gentlemen, and I thought we were getting on so well. In Graham’s defense twas I, I suggested that Silver Steel could be an alternative. In my defense, I didn’t recommend it and suggested En8 or 226M44 both of which I have found superb for this application. The suggestion was nothing to do with its toughness or hardness but was in relation to having an accurate, consistent outer diameter to work with rather than to have to surface a long slender bar. My own experience of Silver Steel is that it certainly needs more careful selection of speeds and feeds but, in its normal (soft) state, it machines better than many of the alternatives. As mgj says there is no need to harden it in fact life is made much more difficult if you do. I have found that with a, sharp tool, SFM at the lower end of the range, and with a positive depth and feed all will be OK. For small tasks I tend not to use lubricant and have found “suds” better than oil if necessary. It certainly doesn’t like any rubbing or “dust” cuts with a blunt tool, hard spots will quickly appear. So if you tend to creep up on a finished size, leave it alone and pick one of the other suggestions. Do though make sure you actually have En1a, En8 et al, as many suppliers are apt to take liberties when supplying our small needs.

Mgj, one day we might explore the wear rates of two mirror surfaces when under load without a pressure oil film, but Geoff’s thread is not the place I feel. You will also have to promise that the maths are kept out of it.

 
Terry, the "accepted" standard for drawn steel rod between 6 - 18mm is an allowable deviation in size of 0.07mm (2 thou in my old money), in fairness the actual is normally much better but still worth checking if the diameter is important. Anyone had a tight die on nominal bar?
 
Keith

Edited By KMP on 13/03/2011 18:38:08

Edited By KMP on 13/03/2011 18:41:09

Andrew Johnston13/03/2011 18:53:20
avatar
7061 forum posts
719 photos
Hi Keith,
 
Oh dear you've been short changed; I make 0.07mm nearer 3 thou.

A tolerance of 0.07mm, up to a diameter of 18mm, comes under a h10 tolerance class. However, the 'out of round' condition is specified to be not more than half the OD tolerance.

Regards,

Andrew
mgj13/03/2011 19:18:28
1017 forum posts
14 photos
I wasn't attacking the SS person - with apologies to all the innocent. Just saying why I wasn't so keen, and if I had the choice.....And hopefully putting sound reasons.
 
 
KMP - you are right about mirror surfaces and oil. Very often the smoother surface can generate more heat because of the increased area in contact, and sometimes the surface is so shiny the oil won't stick.
 
One wants to have a nice open grain surface. (cast iron holds oil well at the molecular level) You pros I daresay can cut SS to a wonderful finish. Quorn or not, mine is a slightly more than open. More sort of like a badgers bum. Hence my reasoning.
 
220M07(Pb) is pretty good stuff. We get very familiar and tend to write it off - its weak, it cuts well, its soft etc. Well it ain't that weak, and that lead in it makes it very slippery, and a very good choice for sliding surfaces, in absolute terms, never mind model engineering.
 
Talking of pros- Gray - I saw the Seagull you made in another mags advertising blurb. Beautiful job.You could win a gold medal with that, I should think. Really beautiful.

Edited By mgj on 13/03/2011 19:23:08

KMP13/03/2011 19:19:53
73 forum posts
2 photos
Hi Andrew,
 
An ex MOD man, Hmmmmmmm
 
You are right of course (2.7 sooooomething thou) but I would say understated rather than short changed
 
No defence, but it is Sunday and getting late for us old folks
 
Regards
 
Keith
 
 
KMP13/03/2011 19:31:06
73 forum posts
2 photos
mgj Hi,
 
Certainly didn't see it as an attack at all, but will take issue with "you pros" if you were refering to me . Acceptable finish is what I would call my attempts with SS. I have seen "wonderful" though and on an old Drumond. When an apprentice my "mentor", who had the use of one arm produced work that was more like "Graham's than mine will ever be.
 
Regards
 
Keith
KMP13/03/2011 19:55:56
73 forum posts
2 photos
Graham hi,
 
I certainly haven't taken any offence at all; I saw the discussion as a bit of "merry banter among the men" as well. I am new here and do not want to upset anyone particularly as I am enjoying the relaxed banter that sets this forum apart from the majority. If the humour in my "tongue in cheek" defence is likely to upset anyone I will stop immediately.
 
Graham, Meyrick, please don't take my comments as anything other than good intentioned banter, I have enjoyed our discussion very much and am looking forward to learning much from you all.
 
Keith
Terryd13/03/2011 20:05:28
avatar
1946 forum posts
179 photos
Hi Graham,
 
Companies will draw bright bar through dies up to at least 80mm diameter on modern drawbenches with very strict tolerances both as to diameter and roundness. I'm not sure where your helical wave came from but not from the drawing process I believe.
 
Best regards
 
Terry

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!

Find Model Engineer & Model Engineers' Workshop

Sign up to our Newsletter

Sign up to our newsletter and get a free digital issue.

You can unsubscribe at anytime. View our privacy policy at www.mortons.co.uk/privacy

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
cowells
Sarik
MERIDIENNE EXHIBITIONS LTD
Subscription Offer

Latest "For Sale" Ads
Latest "Wanted" Ads
Get In Touch!

Do you want to contact the Model Engineer and Model Engineers' Workshop team?

You can contact us by phone, mail or email about the magazines including becoming a contributor, submitting reader's letters or making queries about articles. You can also get in touch about this website, advertising or other general issues.

Click THIS LINK for full contact details.

For subscription issues please see THIS LINK.

Digital Back Issues

Social Media online

'Like' us on Facebook
Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter
 Twitter Logo

Pin us on Pinterest

 

Donate

donate