Shaper drive

I have recently acquired a shaper: floor standing, 12" stroke, unknown make, which I intend to rebuild. I saw it working before purchase, with a large 1 hp motor on a homemade platform at the rear, driving via a flat belt to the circumference of a wood-lined cone clutch at the bottom left; probably originally driven from line shafting. Drive then comes out of the other side and up to the drive pinion via (now) a v-belt & idler; two 4-step flat-belt pulleys came with it and are presumed to be the original fittings and speed change arrangement. Currently there is a single speed and the clutch does not disengage, the whole lot being controlled by a Dewhurst reversing switch, wired so it doesn't reverse.

I'd like to simplify all of this whilst keeping the cost under control. I want a clutch (or another way of achieving instant disengagement) and I want speed control, either in a range of fixed speeds or infinitely variable. Having been delighted with the control, smoothness and quiet operation of my Myford Super 7 with digital inverter control, is that an option here? I guess a medium size shaper needs plenty of torque...I have little interest in originality, so would be happy to junk some or all of the existing drive arrangements. For example, if 3-phase & a good inverter provide speed & a substitute for clutch control, why not drive from the right rear direct to the drive pinion?

I will be most interested - and grateful - for your thoughts and suggestions. My thanks in advance.

Adrian

Hi Adrian,

Can you put some pictures of the shaper on the site then we can see what your talking about and what we can do to help you with this new clutch.

you could use a cone clutch or an idler to tension the belt and would engage and disengauge when the tensioner was put into place and tension applied

The inverter is proberly the simplist way for you to get variable speed but if price is an issue you could use two sets of stepped pullies

If you already have an inverter there is little stopping you using it for more than one machine.

I have 4x 3 Phase machines which all share the same inverter, to do this the outlet of the inverter has a 4 pin 3 phase socket each machine then havng it's own plug. Swapping between machines is a simple case of plugging it in. (this method was reccomended by Drives Direct)

The downside is it is all currently on one control pod.

That said I am currently rewiring so all machines have their own control pods by using cat5 wiring and a rj45 socket at the inverter end.

I have 5 shapers and and the best finish is from an 10" Alba 1a fitted with a 1/2 hp "Batwin" 3 phase motor, It's sister machine a much later Elliott 10m has a single phase motor and no matter how carefully setup/adjusted will not equal the finish of the 3 phase machine I put it down to the vibration/harmonics from the single pahse motor.

Regards

Paul

Thanks, John & Paul, I was beginning to lose hope.....

I will happily put up some pics, but not for a while as I will be off to find some sun tomorrow; back on 26th June, after which I'll get cracking.

For now, the machine is crammed into one side of a double garage with a load of other stuff (I cleared a workshop) and I can't take useful pics until it's moved to the other side for rebuild, hopefully by the end of the month.

Not practical to double up on inverter as the current one is built into the purpose-made front panel of the Myford industrial stand. And the shaper is likely to be on a mobile frame once rebuilt as I don't have a final destination for it with the current arrangements.

John: I like the idea of using an idler as a clutch & I'm pleased to read your comment about improved finish with 3ph, Paul.

I will pick up again soon.

Adrian

This didn't by any chance come from Hindhead, did it? If it's the one I'm thinking of (and had a look at) I think that I may have a lead on who made it...

This is interesting to know. I have recently acquired an Elliot 10m, and it has been re-motored with a 4-pole motor, rather than the original slow-running 6-pole one. To get the speed down, the original motor mounting has been replaced by a pair of plummer blocks and a shaft, and the shaft is driven from the new motor, mounted below, and gets a 1/3 speed reduction via its coupling pulley arrangement. The whole thing runs pretty smoothly (now I've realigned the pulleys and done the bolts up!), and the results appear to be quite good. Maybe this isn't so surprising; the motor is rather more isolated from the main drive than it would have been otherwise. Nevertheless, I'm still wondering whether to convert it to three-phase.

I'm assuming that with yours, you just replaced the motor directly and run the three-phase motor slower?

Yes, Steve, it did; keen to learn what you know. Tony at Lathes UK couldn't help & someone else has suggested US origin.

Unfortunately I don't appear to have the pictures I took any more, but from what I could tell (and a photograph opposite the preface of Ian Bradley's  "The Shaping Machine" that shaper bears more than a passing resemblence to a 12" Butler. Butlers certainly had the drive arranged similarly - OH line shaft drive to the RHS at the rear, and a clutch on the opposite side, and whilst I don't think that's unique, it's certainly quite unusual. What put me off the idea slightly was that generally, Butlers said 'Butler' on the side quite conspicuously - and yours doesn't.

As far as rebuilding it is concerned, I very much get the impression that if you run it from a 3-phase inverter-controlled motor, and have a sufficiently large braking resistor attached, you should be able to stop it pretty quickly, and not need a clutch as such. On the other hand, if you could find a way to make the clutch work without that bloody great lump of wood attached to it, it would probably stop even faster!

Edited By Steve Garnett on 08/06/2012 01:10:01

Strip-down nearing completion & photos in my album; here are some samples:-

1. As seen & working

2. Light strip for transport:

3. Fuller strip, LH (clutch opened up; the metre rule is indicating 38" to ram base)

4. Fuller strip, RH:

Things I have discovered so far:- Still no clue to maker. Original colour seesm to have been a light grey - see area behind vice table. Some blowholes in the main casting (none critical). Most theoretically symmetrical mating parts stamped with number (always 1) & do not fit well 180 deg out; poorly-aligned (Whit) boltholes discourage "alternative" fitting. Clutch driving member is an offset, internally coned, spoked, flat belt pulley, now modified with the addition of a plywood, v-belt circumference, outer face bolted through the spokes. The mating driven member is hardwood lined & fixed to the cross-shaft, with separate bronze-bushed bearing housings either side of the main body. From the RHS, drive is taken upwards to the pinion shaft, which is steel running directly in a separate iron housing. Of the 2 flat-belt, 4-step pulleys that came with the m/c but were not fitted, one fits well but the other will not slide fully along the smaller of the 2 shafts - it has a curious lacquer-like finish to the bore that has started to tear with my efforts to test fit it - and there is no obvious way of keying it to the shaft. These pulleys are of slightly different size/weight and the bores are slightly different (not the originals (?)). I intend to fully dismantle the m/c to check the bearings & gear tooth wear and the next step is to invert it to separate the base & main castings and gain access to the bearing at the bottom of the operating arm. I should also apologise for the use of any incorrect terminology as I'm making the part names up as I go along......

My latest thoughts:- 1. Forget about flat-belt drive. 2. Re-con the clutch & fabricate from steel an improved lever operating system. 3. Using the as-supplied motor platform, I estimate v-belt primary drive would be over about 70 cm, with about 8mm of axial motion for clutch operation. Similarly on the other side, re-instate the later v-belt drive to the pinion shaft, junking the 4-step pulleys. 4. Deep breath, install new 3-phase motor & matched inverter.

Questions:-

1. Should I consider modifying the pinion drive housing & make a bronze bush? The shaft surface isn't great, so a light clean-up, bore the housing and turn up a bush seems like a "proper" solution. There again, it's lasted 75 years or more as it is...

2. Between what appears to be cellulose filler under the coats of paint and the iron is a thick-ish shellac-like black layer that isn't susceptible to paint stripper; any ideas?

3. Reference previous discussions: I've gone off the idea of direct drive from motor to pinion shaft with electric "clutching" as too experimental for my situation & capabilities. However, are we in agreement about the layout described in my latest thoughts above?

4. And, of course, any suggestions on parentage would be welcome; we have Butler as a starter for 10...

My thanks in advance, again, for any comments or suggestions.

Adrian

Steve,

It came fitted with it's circa 1937 Batwin motor which was hard wired "Star", I wanted to check/replace the motor bearings so I had to strip the motor while I was in there I picked out the "Star Point" and converted it to "Delta".

It's surprising how even well damped single phase will still produce unwanted effects my ML7 came fitted with a resilient mount single phase motor and always left a slight bit of a chatter when threadcutting, fitted it with a three phase resilient mount and now almost nothing.

Adrian,

It looks a very well made machine as to it's lineage I would also say possibly Butler or perhaps even Hendey but then I am no expert on American shapers.

IMHO I would lean toward an inverter, you already know how flexible they are, have a look on the Home Workshop site a chap on there (Gavin Oseman) sells competitively priced units.

Steve,

My Teco inverter parameters can be set to stop my mill spindle in what appears to be a turn or less, unfortunately I cant have it set that vicious as the inverter is shared with both my ML7 and Boxford lathes both of which have screw on chucks.

It will stop the shaper quite quickly too not as quick as the mill as it has a bit more inertia to deal with but still quick enough.

Regards

Paul

Adrian,

I can't help regarding the shaper itself; but I would recommend that you look at converting to Poly V belt drive.

I have only used the small profiles myself, but the principle applies at all scales: ... Very efficient, and capable of handling large pulley-ratios.

You may even be able to machine the grooves into your original flat-belt pulleys.

MichaelG.

Hmmmm, there seem to be some features that are remarkably similar to my Invicta shaper. These include the circular opening, the circular cover and knurled knob on same. The arrangement of the cross slide and table mount, and the four bolts used to hold the table, and the front of the base. The clapper box and rotating slide on the ram also look familiar.

If it would help I can post a picture of my shaper for reference.

Regards,

Andrew

Andrew: yes, please. I have seen a number of similarities with other makes on the NEMES shaper group website, although never enough in the same machine to be convincing. Worth a look for its single-interest focus.

Michael: thanks for the suggestion, but my Myford wouldn't cope with the diameter of the larger pulleys, but it's something to bear in mind for the future.

And I don't put a lot of credence in the US-origin suggestion from my neighbour....

Adrian

Here's a picture of my shaper:

In has the name 'Invicta' cast on the side panel as well as in the base. It's a 4M, which translates as 18". Sadly it's a broken at the moment as the main drive crank casting is broken, due to a combination of poor design and poor casting. I have a repair scheme sketched out; it's just a case of convincing myself I need to keep the shaper and then finding the time to repair it. Getting the broken crank casting out is going to be a challenge too.

Regards,

Andrew

I looked at Invictas during my previous investigation but came to the conclusion that the ram sliding arrangements are different, and generally manufacturers tended to stick to one system or the other. Your Invicta has dovetails, and the unknown one hasn't...

I did come across one other un-named machine whilst looking, and although it's similar, there are too many major discrepancies. And that one is still un-named, so not much help either!

One way or another, I think that this may be a little bit of history that is receding from us and vanishing into the distance without proper recording, which is a shame. I get the impression that there are quite a few shaper manufacturers who aren't on Tony's list - and all credit to him, it's the best list there is on the planet. We should help him fill in the gaps whilst somebody still can.

There is quite a lot of it that looks like a family resemblance to the 14 and 18 in Alba shapers. (Both of which I have.) The shape of the base...although the Albas have three slots in the supplementary table at the front, the two gears for the fine feed in a sort of figure 8 shaped case, the ram and the downfeed...there are lots of bits that look like pure Alba. But that shaft at the lower back looks like nothing I have ever seen before. I dunno...if it is not an Alba maybe it is a copy of one with a few changes here and there.

The Alba was the forerunner of the Elliot. My 14 inch has a flat belt drive with a pair of four step pulleys, a countershaft and a fast and loose pulley. It is not yet set up to work. The 18 inch has a probably later arrangement with a four speed gearbox on the back, a clutch, and a motor added on the back of the machine.

I'd say that a VFD is really overkill for a shaper, speed is not usually all that critical, but on the other hand it is a convenient way of getting a three phase motor to run on the usual domestic supply.

I've got the ten inch Alba as well, but that is a quite different design. I also have an AMMCO 6 inch shaper, an American machine.

John

Had a quick look at the rest of the pictures, and bearing in mind that it is a 12 inch machine, I think it is certainly an Alba. There is just too much in common with my machines for it to be anything else. How about posting it over to me to round out my collection...then all I will need is the 16 inch version which I think they also made.

John

PS, I am in NZ, hope the postage is not too expensive!

John: you have a PM. Adrian

Adrian, you had a reply 10 days back.

John