A very small Shaping Machine ...

Ian,

Thanks for posting Vautrin's Planer.

... I have sent you a PM

MichaelG.

.

Thanks Ronan,

Yes, that sort of thing does tend to forge an attitude in one's mind.

Risk of Failure x Impact of Failure = an unpleasantly large number.

My own requirement is for something that will take very small, very precise, cuts ... so I'm assuming that tool-breakage is Very Low Risk. ... [albeit that could be my epitaph]

MichaelG.

It is only the west where shaping machines are obsolete. Not so in China. There again all machine tools are becomeing obsolete here.

.

Good point, Jason

That's one of the many things that I had in mind when I said "shaper-ish" in my recent post.

The German paper that I linked earlier, describes the action of a conventional Shaper as being like a Lathe cutting an infinite radius workpiece ... That got me thinking!

MichaelG.

"Bunyons" (or something similar). Just hit the wrong button and lost the reply I have taken some time to type in!

Let's try again.

With regards to the recent posts above, I'm not too sure how the (ram) tool would sweep in a horizontal arc as it cut (if that is what is being suggested above) but a 'rotating' hand tool held over the work by the (static) ram might? (Does this sound too much like a milling machine??) I would certainly like to know more about your idea though.

Of course, there are shaper heads that allow the tool to be swung in a vertical arc (with the ram static) enabling circular cavities to be shaped and it's also quite possible to 'profile' shape (but not easy I can assure you). There are also "diving heads" (for want of a better description) that enable the work to be turned as it is shaped. A variation of this enables involute gears to be cut (the work is rotated a fixed amount as the table moves sideways - this happening as the ram moves backwards for the next cut). But I don't think this is what is being suggested - so I'm somewhat puzzled but also curious.

Going back to "a very small shaping machine" Michael - I have a slightly different approach for you. I am of course heavily influenced by the fact I already have an Adept No 2. Mine is probably coming inside this winter (to join my other small modelling tools) and I have been thinking along the following lines.

I will make a sub-table to fit the existing Adept table - but it will have a series of accurately spaced tapped holes to enable a flexible clamping approach. I will equip this base with several devices (possibly loaned from other machines) such as a compound slide and 3" rotary table both of which can also hold/clamp small parts (so an ER16 faceplate on the rotary table for instance). I will also make a range of small cutting tools (including saws and files) to fit the existing tool head. I will therefore retain the (relatively) massive rigidity of the No2 but gain (I hope) a good deal of finesse in terms of work movement & measurement. Perhaps I should also mention that the No 2 has a base footprint of about 7" x 8" ( and I can pick it up without too much effort if required) so it's not a massive machine in that sense. It's also very quiet in use if course.

By the way - if I needed to cut semi-arcs on the (hand) shaper (and I would most likely use the Taig for this) I could fix the ram (X & Y) and use a 'free' rotary table to swing the work, just putting the cut on with the head. But I don't think that was being suggested above either?

Anyway, my suggestion (in a nutshell) Michael, is to not completely ignore the larger (hand) shapers but to perhaps think more in terms of finding other ways to move the work under the ram/tool of the larger machine with the degree of finesse that you require. Just a thought.

Regards,

IanT

Edited By IanT on 25/10/2013 11:35:08

IanT,

Thank you for the extensive reply [especially as you had to write it twice]

This is exactly the sort of discussion I was hoping for, when I first posted.

I will respond properly this evening; but just wanted express my appreciation.

... This is a much better use of the forum than some of what has happened recently.

MichaelG.

MichaelG, you'v got a fairly long PM, hope that will work Ian S C

Ian,

That's great

Thanks for taking the trouble.

MichaelG.

Thanks Michael,

I think you are more likely to find a large (hand) shaper than one of the smaller one and it would give you a big leg up in terms of a usable base unit.

Regards,

IanT

No problem Michael. The book it came from is a bound volume, one of the second hand book shops in Christchurch, ("Smiths Book Shop", the locals will know it well), had about 20 volumes at $NZ50 each, except the one I have that was water damaged, and I got it for $NZ5. Love these old books, you soon learn there is nothing new in this world, they were, in 1868 worrying about climate change, it was getting colder, and they thought an ice age may be on the way. Ian S C

Have been following this thread with interest - I had a motorised Adept No.2 shaper for about 20 years. Apparently not many were produced. It required quite a lot of work to bring it back to something like it’s original condition as previous owners had abused it., probably through not understanding it properly.

Very quiet in use, tool grinding very easy, using standard HSS blanks, and the ability to create “specials“ was handy. Probably saved me quite a lot of worn milling cutters over the years. Provided hours of amusement for the cat, who was fascinated by the chips flying through the air. A sheet metal tray was eventually fitted, which spoiled her fun.

Despite it‘s substantial construction, I felt that rigidity was a problem, and on longer strokes there was a tendency for the ram to lift slightly towards the end of the stroke, despite properly adjusted slides. This lift could be corrected by slight downward pressure on the ram. This might not be as apparent with the hand operated model, and most certainly not on larger industrial machines such as Boxford.

Adjusting the length of stroke and the start/finish points was quite a fiddle sometimes, and the auto cross feed needed careful adjustment and observation.

The occasional “dig in” of the tool could ruin a work piece and snap the tool, though generally belt slip saved the tool but not always the work piece.

An excellent surface finish was possible, with fine feed and really sharp, correctly ground and positioned tools, but could be very slow… a reasonable machine for sedate work progress.

The short series by John Olsen in ME in 2005 on cutting curves and cutting between centres on the shaping machine would be of interest I am sure. I recollect that the writer produced sets of expansion links, shaping both the external and internal profiles.

A very small hand shaper such as that envisaged by the OP would have been a great asset when I was making 0 and 1 gauge models 30+ years ago, and I can see the attraction of such a machine. I hope that this project succeeds, as I would be most interested to see the result.

The miller v. shaper discussion in Model Engineering circles has cropped up fairly regularly for at least 25 years in my experience, and no doubt will continue, but such discussion often leads to new useful information from the users of both types of machine. Even if the shaper is considered obsolete in industry, it is apparent that it has a useful life in the amateur area. It is not a substitute for a milling machine, but if one has the space and cash then it can be a useful and interesting additional machine.

As a final comment, my late father, a professional engineer, talking about his RAF service in North Africa during WW2, explained that the destruction of his mobile workshops in an air raid was not the disaster it seemed, as “we were re-equipped PDQ with decent modern American machine tools and reliable generators, no more “new” lathes of antiquated design, and no b***** hand shapers ”

Dave

Dave,

Thanks ... What an excellent first post !!

MichaelG.

> I could imagine a tool with a rotating tool head sweeping a tool past the work. ..sort of like the difference between a circular saw verses a hack saw...

Called a milling machine?

Four main types of machine tool:

Stationary work, rotating cutter = milling/drilling machine

Rotating work, stationary cutter = lathe

Stationary work, linear cutter motion = shaper

Linear work motion, stationary cutter = planer

Also:

Moving work, moving cutter = universal mill or multi-axis CNC machine!

Stationary work, stationary cutter = as used at British Leyland, mid-1970s ("All out!"

Neil

.

Ian,

I have abridged your post, for ease of replying ... Hope that's O.K.

On reflection, I think I was too hasty in my reply to Jason Udall

When Jason mentioned a "rotating tool head" ... I thought he meant a rotating [i.e. angularly positionable] Ram, with its own linear motion. However, upon re-reading, I think Jason may have actually meant a head carrying a rotating tool. ... If you are reading this, Jason; could you please confirm what you had in mind ?

I was not contemplating this particular machine having a "rotating tool", although I have also been looking at Rose Engines [Ornamental Turning] and have found an excellent modern design for such a cutting tool ... I will post a link, later.

For the Shaper, I was only proposing that the Ram and/or the Workpiece might be moved in one or more directions.

MichaelG.

<to be continued>

For info.

Cutting Frames, for Ornamental Turning ... here

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 25/10/2013 20:19:00

.

<another abridged version>

Ian,

I'm sure that this is an excellent approach [and it's not unlike what Aciera did with the F1].

I opened the thread with mention of a very small stand-alone machine [by Vautrin], but it is very likely that I would actually build a very small, high-precision "Shaper Head" to fit on the BCA, or the Lathe, or an existing Angle Plate, or the remains of a Taylor Hobson engraving machine that's sitting in the corner [complete except for the all-important Pantograph].

That said; there is a possibility that I will be buying a small-ish Shaper sometime soon ...

The options are many and varied !!

MichaelG.

.

Thanks Jason,

I suspected as much, but didn't want to presume.

No need for apology ... There is many a true word spoken in jest, and many of our machines are just mix-and-match variations on the basic themes.

[see my Cutting Frames link, above.]

MichaelG.

.

Ian,

You probably know this ME article, but here is a link for the benefit of others.

These days, the synchronisation and drive could easily be done with electronics and stepper motor[s] ...

MichaelG.