|
Good Afternoon All:
Finally got most kinks out of my alignment problems with
replacement parts from Homier. Headstock, saddle, cross-slide and
compound assemblies were replaced. Accuracy is dramatically improved,
although new problem is headstock is 0.015" lower than the tailstock.
What would be the preferred method of correction? Should I shim the
headstock, and if so, is there a difference in brass vs. steel shims?
Or, should the tailstock base be carefully cut down? Replacement of
the parts has improved accuracy greatly, but due to this height
difference, I get a slight chatter and taper 0.0055" on a 9.5" length
of stock. I attribute the chatter to the height difference as the
tool advances toward the headstock. If you advise that shimming the
headstock is the preferred method, I would also consider upgrading
the spindle bearing to ABEC-3 units, in contemplation of eventually
using a 4 or 5" 4-jaw chuck on this lathe. Have any of you changed
these bearings? If so, any notable difference in how the lathe
sounds/operates? Any suggestions/recommendations would be greatly
appreciated.
Regards,
Nick
|
My choice would be cutting on the tailstock. A number of people have found that the tailstock machining is not parallel to the bed/headstock axis. You've now got room to correct errors without having to shim the tailstock after machining. Roy --- In 7x12minilathe@..., "ntdefeo <ntdefeo@y...>" <ntdefeo@y...> wrote: Good Afternoon All:
Finally got most kinks out of my alignment problems with
replacement parts from Homier. Headstock, saddle, cross-slide and
compound assemblies were replaced. Accuracy is dramatically improved, although new problem is headstock is 0.015" lower than the tailstock. What would be the preferred method of correction? Should I shim the
headstock, and if so, is there a difference in brass vs. steel shims? Or, should the tailstock base be carefully cut down? Replacement of
the parts has improved accuracy greatly, but due to this height
difference, I get a slight chatter and taper 0.0055" on a 9.5" length of stock. I attribute the chatter to the height difference as the
tool advances toward the headstock. If you advise that shimming the
headstock is the preferred method, I would also consider upgrading
the spindle bearing to ABEC-3 units, in contemplation of eventually
using a 4 or 5" 4-jaw chuck on this lathe. Have any of you changed
these bearings? If so, any notable difference in how the lathe
sounds/operates? Any suggestions/recommendations would be greatly
appreciated.
Regards,
Nick
|
Roy: Should the material be removed from the base or the tail stock casting, or both? I imagine it will require setting either piece accurately in all three planes prior to cutting. How should the base be checked on the lathe prior to milling? What methods have others used to determine squareness in regard to the bed? I appreciate all your help in getting this lathe up to an acceptable level of accuracy. Best regards, Nick "roylowenthal <roylowenthal@...>" <roylowenthal@...> wrote: My choice would be cutting on the tailstock. A number of people have found that the tailstock machining is not parallel to the bed/headstock axis. You've now got room to correct errors without having to shim the tailstock after machining. Roy --- In 7x12minilathe@..., "ntdefeo <ntdefeo@y...>" <ntdefeo@y...> wrote: Good Afternoon All:
Finally got most kinks out of my alignment problems with
replacement parts from Homier. Headstock, saddle, cross-slide and
compound assemblies were replaced. Accuracy is dramatically improved, although new problem is headstock is 0.015" lower than the tailstock. What would be the preferred method of correction? Should I shim the
headstock, and if so, is there a difference in brass vs. steel shims? Or, should the tailstock base be carefully cut down? Replacement of
the parts has improved accuracy greatly, but due to this height
difference, I get a slight chatter and taper 0.0055" on a 9.5" length of stock. I attribute the chatter to the height difference as the
tool advances toward the headstock. If you advise that shimming the
headstock is the preferred method, I would also consider upgrading
the spindle bearing to ABEC-3 units, in contemplation of eventually
using a 4 or 5" 4-jaw chuck on this lathe. Have any of you changed
these bearings? If so, any notable difference in how the lathe
sounds/operates? Any suggestions/recommendations would be greatly
appreciated.
Regards,
Nick Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
|
Rick Kruger has posted some info on aligning the ts: --- Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@...> wrote:
Roy:
Should the material be removed from the base or
the tail stock casting, or both? I imagine it will
require setting either piece accurately in all three
planes prior to cutting. How should the base be
checked on the lathe prior to milling? What methods
have others used to determine squareness in regard
to the bed? I appreciate all your help in getting
this lathe up to an acceptable level of accuracy.
Best regards, Nick
"roylowenthal <roylowenthal@...>"
<roylowenthal@...> wrote: My choice would be
cutting on the tailstock. A number of people
have found that the tailstock machining is not
parallel to the
bed/headstock axis. You've now got room to correct
errors without
having to shim the tailstock after machining.
Roy
--- In 7x12minilathe@..., "ntdefeo
<ntdefeo@y...>"
<ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Good Afternoon All:
Finally got most kinks out of my alignment problems with
replacement parts from Homier. Headstock, saddle, cross-slide and
compound assemblies were replaced. Accuracy is dramatically
improved,
although new problem is headstock is 0.015" lower than the
tailstock.
What would be the preferred method of correction? Should I shim the
headstock, and if so, is there a difference in brass vs. steel
shims?
Or, should the tailstock base be carefully cut down? Replacement of
the parts has improved accuracy greatly, but due to this height
difference, I get a slight chatter and taper 0.0055" on a 9.5"
length
of stock. I attribute the chatter to the height difference as the
tool advances toward the headstock. If you advise that shimming the
headstock is the preferred method, I would also consider upgrading
the spindle bearing to ABEC-3 units, in contemplation of eventually
using a 4 or 5" 4-jaw chuck on this lathe. Have any of you changed
these bearings? If so, any notable difference in how the lathe
sounds/operates? Any suggestions/recommendations would be greatly
appreciated.
Regards,
Nick
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
|
Thanks for the site Frank, now all I need do is purchase a mill and some extras to accomplish this task! Nick Frank Hoose <fhoose@...> wrote:Rick Kruger has posted some info on aligning the ts: --- Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@...> wrote:
Roy:
Should the material be removed from the base or
the tail stock casting, or both? I imagine it will
require setting either piece accurately in all three
planes prior to cutting. How should the base be
checked on the lathe prior to milling? What methods
have others used to determine squareness in regard
to the bed? I appreciate all your help in getting
this lathe up to an acceptable level of accuracy.
Best regards, Nick
"roylowenthal <roylowenthal@...>"
<roylowenthal@...> wrote: My choice would be
cutting on the tailstock. A number of people
have found that the tailstock machining is not
parallel to the
bed/headstock axis. You've now got room to correct
errors without
having to shim the tailstock after machining.
Roy
--- In 7x12minilathe@..., "ntdefeo
<ntdefeo@y...>"
<ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Good Afternoon All:
Finally got most kinks out of my alignment problems with
replacement parts from Homier. Headstock, saddle, cross-slide and
compound assemblies were replaced. Accuracy is dramatically
improved,
although new problem is headstock is 0.015" lower than the
tailstock.
What would be the preferred method of correction? Should I shim the
headstock, and if so, is there a difference in brass vs. steel
shims?
Or, should the tailstock base be carefully cut down? Replacement of
the parts has improved accuracy greatly, but due to this height
difference, I get a slight chatter and taper 0.0055" on a 9.5"
length
of stock. I attribute the chatter to the height difference as the
tool advances toward the headstock. If you advise that shimming the
headstock is the preferred method, I would also consider upgrading
the spindle bearing to ABEC-3 units, in contemplation of eventually
using a 4 or 5" 4-jaw chuck on this lathe. Have any of you changed
these bearings? If so, any notable difference in how the lathe
sounds/operates? Any suggestions/recommendations would be greatly
appreciated.
Regards,
Nick
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
|
A milling machine is the nicest way, but, a cross-slide milling attachment (Varmint Al's) and a fly cutter will work. Once the errors are "mapped," mount the pieces (with shims) to indicate the same errors. Take light cuts until the whole surface is machined, reinstall & re-measure; correct any errors that crept in. Roy --- In 7x12minilathe@..., Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Thanks for the site Frank, now all I need do is purchase a mill and
some extras to accomplish this task! Nick Frank Hoose <fhoose@y...> wrote:Rick Kruger has posted some info on aligning the ts:
lstock/BaseMod/MillingBase.html
--- Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Roy:
Should the material be removed from the base or
the tail stock casting, or both? I imagine it will
require setting either piece accurately in all three
planes prior to cutting. How should the base be
checked on the lathe prior to milling? What methods
have others used to determine squareness in regard
to the bed? I appreciate all your help in getting
this lathe up to an acceptable level of accuracy.
Best regards, Nick
"roylowenthal <roylowenthal@y...>"
<roylowenthal@y...> wrote: My choice would be
cutting on the tailstock. A number of people
have found that the tailstock machining is not
parallel to the
bed/headstock axis. You've now got room to correct
errors without
having to shim the tailstock after machining.
Roy
--- In 7x12minilathe@..., "ntdefeo
<ntdefeo@y...>"
<ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Good Afternoon All:
Finally got most kinks out of my alignment problems with
replacement parts from Homier. Headstock, saddle, cross-slide and
compound assemblies were replaced. Accuracy is dramatically
improved,
although new problem is headstock is 0.015" lower than the
tailstock.
What would be the preferred method of correction? Should I shim the
headstock, and if so, is there a difference in brass vs. steel
shims?
Or, should the tailstock base be carefully cut down? Replacement of
the parts has improved accuracy greatly, but due to this height
difference, I get a slight chatter and taper 0.0055" on a 9.5"
length
of stock. I attribute the chatter to the height difference as the
tool advances toward the headstock. If you advise that shimming the
headstock is the preferred method, I would also consider upgrading
the spindle bearing to ABEC-3 units, in contemplation of eventually
using a 4 or 5" 4-jaw chuck on this lathe. Have any of you changed
these bearings? If so, any notable difference in how the lathe
sounds/operates? Any suggestions/recommendations would be greatly
appreciated.
Regards,
Nick
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
|
Roy: I am wondering if using end mills might be better suited in correcting the base, due to the limited amount of stock that needs to be removed from each surface, especially when quasi machining in a horizontal plane. I have had some experience using flycutters years ago (Bridgeport mill), and wonder if the milling attachment can withstand the forces produced by the flycutter. The milling attachment seems to be the most cost effective way to go, requiring just a good angle plate and a suitable vice for the compound assembly. Thanks for the excellent tip on getting this corrected with a different method! Regards, Nick "roylowenthal <roylowenthal@...>" <roylowenthal@...> wrote: A milling machine is the nicest way, but, a cross-slide milling attachment (Varmint Al's) and a fly cutter will work. Once the errors are "mapped," mount the pieces (with shims) to indicate the same errors. Take light cuts until the whole surface is machined, reinstall & re-measure; correct any errors that crept in. Roy --- In 7x12minilathe@..., Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Thanks for the site Frank, now all I need do is purchase a mill and
some extras to accomplish this task! Nick Frank Hoose <fhoose@y...> wrote:Rick Kruger has posted some info on aligning the ts:
lstock/BaseMod/MillingBase.html
--- Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Roy:
Should the material be removed from the base or
the tail stock casting, or both? I imagine it will
require setting either piece accurately in all three
planes prior to cutting. How should the base be
checked on the lathe prior to milling? What methods
have others used to determine squareness in regard
to the bed? I appreciate all your help in getting
this lathe up to an acceptable level of accuracy.
Best regards, Nick
"roylowenthal <roylowenthal@y...>"
<roylowenthal@y...> wrote: My choice would be
cutting on the tailstock. A number of people
have found that the tailstock machining is not
parallel to the
bed/headstock axis. You've now got room to correct
errors without
having to shim the tailstock after machining.
Roy
--- In 7x12minilathe@..., "ntdefeo
<ntdefeo@y...>"
<ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Good Afternoon All:
Finally got most kinks out of my alignment problems with
replacement parts from Homier. Headstock, saddle, cross-slide and
compound assemblies were replaced. Accuracy is dramatically
improved,
although new problem is headstock is 0.015" lower than the
tailstock.
What would be the preferred method of correction? Should I shim the
headstock, and if so, is there a difference in brass vs. steel
shims?
Or, should the tailstock base be carefully cut down? Replacement of
the parts has improved accuracy greatly, but due to this height
difference, I get a slight chatter and taper 0.0055" on a 9.5"
length
of stock. I attribute the chatter to the height difference as the
tool advances toward the headstock. If you advise that shimming the
headstock is the preferred method, I would also consider upgrading
the spindle bearing to ABEC-3 units, in contemplation of eventually
using a 4 or 5" 4-jaw chuck on this lathe. Have any of you changed
these bearings? If so, any notable difference in how the lathe
sounds/operates? Any suggestions/recommendations would be greatly
appreciated.
Regards,
Nick
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
|
My thinking on a flycutter was primarily for surface finish. With either an endmill or a flycutter it's going to require multiple passes of light cuts. With no rational reason, I prefer the appearance of the flycut surface; it's strictly aesthetics :-) There is the issue of why not make it Homier's problem? I know some of us (me), suffer from "male answer syndrome" and hate to leave a problem personally unsolved. However, the posts pointing out that this is a vendor QC problem, raise a valid point. As delivered, the lathe was unsatisfactory; the vendor's low budget "fix" has not corrected the problem; time for a refund or replacement machine. Roy --- In 7x12minilathe@..., Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Roy:
I am wondering if using end mills might be better suited in
correcting the base, due to the limited amount of stock that needs to be removed from each surface, especially when quasi machining in a horizontal plane. I have had some experience using flycutters years ago (Bridgeport mill), and wonder if the milling attachment can withstand the forces produced by the flycutter. The milling attachment seems to be the most cost effective way to go, requiring just a good angle plate and a suitable vice for the compound assembly. Thanks for the excellent tip on getting this corrected with a different method! Regards, Nick "roylowenthal <roylowenthal@y...>" <roylowenthal@y...> wrote: A milling machine is the nicest way, but, a cross-slide milling attachment (Varmint Al's) and a fly cutter will work. Once the
errors are "mapped," mount the pieces (with shims) to indicate the
same errors. Take light cuts until the whole surface is machined,
reinstall & re-measure; correct any errors that crept in.
Roy
<<SNIP>>
|
My thinking on a flycutter was primarily for surface finish. With either an endmill or a flycutter it's going to require multiple passes of light cuts. With no rational reason, I prefer the appearance of the flycut surface; it's strictly aesthetics :-) There is the issue of why not make it Homier's problem? I know some of us (me), suffer from "male answer syndrome" and hate to leave a problem personally unsolved. However, the posts pointing out that this is a vendor QC problem, raise a valid point. As delivered, the lathe was unsatisfactory; the vendor's low budget "fix" has not corrected the problem; time for a refund or replacement machine. Roy --- In 7x12minilathe@..., Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Roy:
I am wondering if using end mills might be better suited in
correcting the base, due to the limited amount of stock that needs to be removed from each surface, especially when quasi machining in a horizontal plane. I have had some experience using flycutters years ago (Bridgeport mill), and wonder if the milling attachment can withstand the forces produced by the flycutter. The milling attachment seems to be the most cost effective way to go, requiring just a good angle plate and a suitable vice for the compound assembly. Thanks for the excellent tip on getting this corrected with a different method! Regards, Nick "roylowenthal <roylowenthal@y...>" <roylowenthal@y...> wrote: A milling machine is the nicest way, but, a cross-slide milling attachment (Varmint Al's) and a fly cutter will work. Once the
errors are "mapped," mount the pieces (with shims) to indicate the
same errors. Take light cuts until the whole surface is machined,
reinstall & re-measure; correct any errors that crept in.
Roy
<<SNIP>>
|
Point well taken Roy, although I have contacted Homier several times, and wonder if I do exercise the option to return the lathe, if they will give me the "newer" style 7 X 12, or another of the older style, which is what I have. While both have their shortcomings, the older Homier does have some additional features not found on the newer style: oil ports, way wipers and lead screw extension. I will attempt to shim the headstock, as this seems to be far less complicated than cutting the tail stock base, as the tail stock does indicate true in all three planes. Regards, Nick "roylowenthal <roylowenthal@...>" <roylowenthal@...> wrote: My thinking on a flycutter was primarily for surface finish. With either an endmill or a flycutter it's going to require multiple passes of light cuts. With no rational reason, I prefer the appearance of the flycut surface; it's strictly aesthetics :-) There is the issue of why not make it Homier's problem? I know some of us (me), suffer from "male answer syndrome" and hate to leave a problem personally unsolved. However, the posts pointing out that this is a vendor QC problem, raise a valid point. As delivered, the lathe was unsatisfactory; the vendor's low budget "fix" has not corrected the problem; time for a refund or replacement machine. Roy --- In 7x12minilathe@..., Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Roy:
I am wondering if using end mills might be better suited in
correcting the base, due to the limited amount of stock that needs to be removed from each surface, especially when quasi machining in a horizontal plane. I have had some experience using flycutters years ago (Bridgeport mill), and wonder if the milling attachment can withstand the forces produced by the flycutter. The milling attachment seems to be the most cost effective way to go, requiring just a good angle plate and a suitable vice for the compound assembly. Thanks for the excellent tip on getting this corrected with a different method! Regards, Nick "roylowenthal <roylowenthal@y...>" <roylowenthal@y...> wrote: A milling machine is the nicest way, but, a cross-slide milling attachment (Varmint Al's) and a fly cutter will work. Once the
errors are "mapped," mount the pieces (with shims) to indicate the
same errors. Take light cuts until the whole surface is machined,
reinstall & re-measure; correct any errors that crept in.
Roy
<<SNIP>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
|
Shimming is valid; I suspect they'd replace your lathe with current production, not an exact duplicate of original. Shimming is also much easier to undo than cutting ;-) Roy --- In 7x12minilathe@..., Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Point well taken Roy, although I have contacted Homier several
times, and wonder if I do exercise the option to return the lathe, if they will give me the "newer" style 7 X 12, or another of the older style, which is what I have. While both have their shortcomings, the older Homier does have some additional features not found on the newer style: oil ports, way wipers and lead screw extension. I will attempt to shim the headstock, as this seems to be far less complicated than cutting the tail stock base, as the tail stock does indicate true in all three planes. Regards, Nick "roylowenthal <roylowenthal@y...>" <roylowenthal@y...> wrote: My thinking on a flycutter was primarily for surface finish. With either an endmill or a flycutter it's going to require multiple
passes of light cuts. With no rational reason, I prefer the
appearance of the flycut surface; it's strictly aesthetics :-)
There is the issue of why not make it Homier's problem? I know
some of us (me), suffer from "male answer syndrome" and hate to leave a problem personally unsolved. However, the posts pointing out that this is a vendor QC problem, raise a valid point. As delivered, the lathe was unsatisfactory; the vendor's low budget "fix" has not
corrected the problem; time for a refund or replacement machine.
Roy
--- In 7x12minilathe@..., Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Roy:
I am wondering if using end mills might be better suited in
correcting the base, due to the limited amount of stock that needs
to be removed from each surface, especially when quasi machining in a
horizontal plane. I have had some experience using flycutters years
ago (Bridgeport mill), and wonder if the milling attachment can
withstand the forces produced by the flycutter. The milling
attachment seems to be the most cost effective way to go, requiring
just a good angle plate and a suitable vice for the compound
assembly. Thanks for the excellent tip on getting this corrected with a different method! Regards, Nick
"roylowenthal <roylowenthal@y...>" <roylowenthal@y...> wrote: A milling machine is the nicest way, but, a cross-slide milling
attachment (Varmint Al's) and a fly cutter will work. Once the
errors are "mapped," mount the pieces (with shims) to indicate the same errors. Take light cuts until the whole surface is
machined, reinstall & re-measure; correct any errors that crept in.
Roy
<<SNIP>>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
|
Well, you needed an excuse to buy a mill anyway. You won't regret having one. Frank Hoose --- Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@...> wrote:
Thanks for the site Frank, now all I need do is
purchase a mill and some extras to accomplish this
task! Nick
Frank Hoose <fhoose@...> wrote:Rick Kruger
has posted some info on aligning the ts:
--- Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@...> wrote:
Roy:
Should the material be removed from the base
or
the tail stock casting, or both? I imagine it will
require setting either piece accurately in all three
planes prior to cutting. How should the base be
checked on the lathe prior to milling? What methods
have others used to determine squareness in regard
to the bed? I appreciate all your help in getting
this lathe up to an acceptable level of accuracy.
Best regards, Nick
"roylowenthal <roylowenthal@...>"
<roylowenthal@...> wrote: My choice would be
cutting on the tailstock. A number of people
have found that the tailstock machining is not
parallel to the
bed/headstock axis. You've now got room to correct
errors without
having to shim the tailstock after machining.
Roy
--- In 7x12minilathe@..., "ntdefeo
<ntdefeo@y...>"
<ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Good Afternoon All:
Finally got most kinks out of my alignment problems with
replacement parts from Homier. Headstock, saddle,
cross-slide and
compound assemblies were replaced. Accuracy is dramatically
improved,
although new problem is headstock is 0.015" lower
than the
tailstock.
What would be the preferred method of correction?
Should I shim the
headstock, and if so, is there a difference in brass vs. steel
shims?
Or, should the tailstock base be carefully cut down? Replacement of
the parts has improved accuracy greatly, but due to this height
difference, I get a slight chatter and taper 0.0055" on a 9.5"
length
of stock. I attribute the chatter to the height difference as the
tool advances toward the headstock. If you advise
that shimming the
headstock is the preferred method, I would also consider upgrading
the spindle bearing to ABEC-3 units, in contemplation of eventually
using a 4 or 5" 4-jaw chuck on this lathe. Have any of you changed
these bearings? If so, any notable difference in how the lathe
sounds/operates? Any suggestions/recommendations would be greatly
appreciated.
Regards,
Nick
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
now.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
|
Good Morning, Frank: I managed to get the headstock shimmed dead center with the tail stock height. I placed a length of 12L14 between centers and indicated along the top and rear of the stock. The indicator moved less than 1/2 of 0.001", which I felt was fairly accurate. I took a light test cut of 0.010" and got a nice, smooth cut with no chatter, which was caused by the height difference originally. Here is my current situation: Both ends of the stock are spot on when miked, but the center of the stock is about 0.007" larger. Any thoughts as to corrective action, or am I looking for too great precision in this machine? Best regards, Nick Frank Hoose <fhoose@...> wrote:Well, you needed an excuse to buy a mill anyway. You won't regret having one. Frank Hoose --- Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@...> wrote:
Thanks for the site Frank, now all I need do is
purchase a mill and some extras to accomplish this
task! Nick
Frank Hoose <fhoose@...> wrote:Rick Kruger
has posted some info on aligning the ts:
--- Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@...> wrote:
Roy:
Should the material be removed from the base
or
the tail stock casting, or both? I imagine it will
require setting either piece accurately in all three
planes prior to cutting. How should the base be
checked on the lathe prior to milling? What methods
have others used to determine squareness in regard
to the bed? I appreciate all your help in getting
this lathe up to an acceptable level of accuracy.
Best regards, Nick
"roylowenthal <roylowenthal@...>"
<roylowenthal@...> wrote: My choice would be
cutting on the tailstock. A number of people
have found that the tailstock machining is not
parallel to the
bed/headstock axis. You've now got room to correct
errors without
having to shim the tailstock after machining.
Roy
--- In 7x12minilathe@..., "ntdefeo
<ntdefeo@y...>"
<ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Good Afternoon All:
Finally got most kinks out of my alignment problems with
replacement parts from Homier. Headstock, saddle,
cross-slide and
compound assemblies were replaced. Accuracy is dramatically
improved,
although new problem is headstock is 0.015" lower
than the
tailstock.
What would be the preferred method of correction?
Should I shim the
headstock, and if so, is there a difference in brass vs. steel
shims?
Or, should the tailstock base be carefully cut down? Replacement of
the parts has improved accuracy greatly, but due to this height
difference, I get a slight chatter and taper 0.0055" on a 9.5"
length
of stock. I attribute the chatter to the height difference as the
tool advances toward the headstock. If you advise
that shimming the
headstock is the preferred method, I would also consider upgrading
the spindle bearing to ABEC-3 units, in contemplation of eventually
using a 4 or 5" 4-jaw chuck on this lathe. Have any of you changed
these bearings? If so, any notable difference in how the lathe
sounds/operates? Any suggestions/recommendations would be greatly
appreciated.
Regards,
Nick
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
now.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
|
Good Morning, Roy: I got around to shimming the headstock this weekend past. Took several tries but the head and tail stock are now in perfect alignment. Once this was completed, I centered a length of 12L14 between centers and indicated both the top and rear of the stock for alignment. I got readings of less than 1/2 of 0.001" in both planes which I thought were pretty accurate. When I took a light 0.010" cut, both ends of the stock were spot on, but the center was about 0.007" larger. What would cause this slight "bulge" in the center of the stock? I had the live center firm but certainly not forced into the stock to cause a bow in it. As I do not have a follower rest, would that eliminate this minor change in diameter, or is this within reason for the accuracy of these machines? Best regards, Nick "roylowenthal <roylowenthal@...>" <roylowenthal@...> wrote: Shimming is valid; I suspect they'd replace your lathe with current production, not an exact duplicate of original. Shimming is also much easier to undo than cutting ;-) Roy --- In 7x12minilathe@..., Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Point well taken Roy, although I have contacted Homier several
times, and wonder if I do exercise the option to return the lathe, if they will give me the "newer" style 7 X 12, or another of the older style, which is what I have. While both have their shortcomings, the older Homier does have some additional features not found on the newer style: oil ports, way wipers and lead screw extension. I will attempt to shim the headstock, as this seems to be far less complicated than cutting the tail stock base, as the tail stock does indicate true in all three planes. Regards, Nick "roylowenthal <roylowenthal@y...>" <roylowenthal@y...> wrote: My thinking on a flycutter was primarily for surface finish. With either an endmill or a flycutter it's going to require multiple
passes of light cuts. With no rational reason, I prefer the
appearance of the flycut surface; it's strictly aesthetics :-)
There is the issue of why not make it Homier's problem? I know
some of us (me), suffer from "male answer syndrome" and hate to leave a problem personally unsolved. However, the posts pointing out that this is a vendor QC problem, raise a valid point. As delivered, the lathe was unsatisfactory; the vendor's low budget "fix" has not
corrected the problem; time for a refund or replacement machine.
Roy
--- In 7x12minilathe@..., Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Roy:
I am wondering if using end mills might be better suited in
correcting the base, due to the limited amount of stock that needs
to be removed from each surface, especially when quasi machining in a
horizontal plane. I have had some experience using flycutters years
ago (Bridgeport mill), and wonder if the milling attachment can
withstand the forces produced by the flycutter. The milling
attachment seems to be the most cost effective way to go, requiring
just a good angle plate and a suitable vice for the compound
assembly. Thanks for the excellent tip on getting this corrected with a different method! Regards, Nick
"roylowenthal <roylowenthal@y...>" <roylowenthal@y...> wrote: A milling machine is the nicest way, but, a cross-slide milling
attachment (Varmint Al's) and a fly cutter will work. Once the
errors are "mapped," mount the pieces (with shims) to indicate the same errors. Take light cuts until the whole surface is
machined, reinstall & re-measure; correct any errors that crept in.
Roy
<<SNIP>>
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@... Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
|
Try making a couple of passes without advancing the tool. It sounds like the work is deflecting, which a follower rest will take care of. Repeating a finish cut without changing the tool setting will also take care of it. You'll be surprised at how much cutting is done on the 2nd pass! Then again, .002" is my idea of a heavy finishing cut. Roy --- In 7x12minilathe@..., Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Good Morning, Roy:
I got around to shimming the headstock this weekend past. Took
several tries but the head and tail stock are now in perfect alignment. Once this was completed, I centered a length of 12L14 between centers and indicated both the top and rear of the stock for alignment. I got readings of less than 1/2 of 0.001" in both planes which I thought were pretty accurate. When I took a light 0.010" cut, both ends of the stock were spot on, but the center was about 0.007" larger. What would cause this slight "bulge" in the center of the stock? I had the live center firm but certainly not forced into the stock to cause a bow in it. As I do not have a follower rest, would that eliminate this minor change in diameter, or is this within reason for the accuracy of these machines? Best regards, Nick <<SNIP>>>
|
Most likely, the work is springing away from the tool at the center point where there is the greatest amount of flex. This will happen if the work is relatively long (thus limber) compared to the diameter. For example, a piece 8" long and 1/2" dia would have some flex near the center, while a 1" dia. piece of the same length would have much less. Frank Hoose --- Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@...> wrote:
Good Morning, Frank:
I managed to get the headstock shimmed dead
center with the tail stock height. I placed a length
of 12L14 between centers and indicated along the top
and rear of the stock. The indicator moved less than
1/2 of 0.001", which I felt was fairly accurate. I
took a light test cut of 0.010" and got a nice,
smooth cut with no chatter, which was caused by the
height difference originally. Here is my current
situation: Both ends of the stock are spot on when
miked, but the center of the stock is about 0.007"
larger. Any thoughts as to corrective action, or am
I looking for too great precision in this machine?
Best regards, Nick
Frank Hoose <fhoose@...> wrote:Well, you
needed an excuse to buy a mill anyway. You
won't regret having one.
Frank Hoose
--- Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@...> wrote:
Thanks for the site Frank, now all I need do is
purchase a mill and some extras to accomplish this
task! Nick
Frank Hoose <fhoose@...> wrote:Rick Kruger
has posted some info on aligning the ts:
--- Nick DeFeo <ntdefeo@...> wrote:
Roy:
Should the material be removed from the
base
or
the tail stock casting, or both? I imagine it will
require setting either piece accurately in all three
planes prior to cutting. How should the base be
checked on the lathe prior to milling? What methods
have others used to determine squareness in
regard
to the bed? I appreciate all your help in
getting
this lathe up to an acceptable level of
accuracy.
Best regards, Nick
"roylowenthal <roylowenthal@...>"
<roylowenthal@...> wrote: My choice
would
be
cutting on the tailstock. A number of people
have found that the tailstock machining is not
parallel to the
bed/headstock axis. You've now got room to correct
errors without
having to shim the tailstock after machining.
Roy
--- In 7x12minilathe@..., "ntdefeo
<ntdefeo@y...>"
<ntdefeo@y...> wrote:
Good Afternoon All:
Finally got most kinks out of my alignment
problems with
replacement parts from Homier. Headstock, saddle,
cross-slide and
compound assemblies were replaced. Accuracy is dramatically
improved,
although new problem is headstock is 0.015" lower
than the
tailstock.
What would be the preferred method of correction?
Should I shim the
headstock, and if so, is there a difference in brass vs. steel
shims?
Or, should the tailstock base be carefully cut down? Replacement of
the parts has improved accuracy greatly, but
due
to this height
difference, I get a slight chatter and taper 0.0055" on a 9.5"
length
of stock. I attribute the chatter to the
height
difference as the
tool advances toward the headstock. If you advise
that shimming the
headstock is the preferred method, I would
also
consider upgrading
the spindle bearing to ABEC-3 units, in contemplation of eventually
using a 4 or 5" 4-jaw chuck on this lathe.
Have
any of you changed
these bearings? If so, any notable difference
in
how the lathe
sounds/operates? Any
suggestions/recommendations
would be greatly
appreciated.
Regards,
Nick
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
now.
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
now
[Non-text portions of this message have been
removed]
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
7x12minilathe-unsubscribe@...
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up
now.
=== message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now.
|
