Here is a list of all the postings Clive Foster has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Linisher Advice Please|
Whatever type you get make decent arrangements to collect the dust. Doesn't take long to create an incredible mess of fine dust. Not quite as bad as cast iron but up in the same league.
I have an older version of this :- https://www.lawson-his.co.uk/draper-50021-bds368-350-w-230-v-belt-and-disc-sander?gclid=CK7v3aGgrNICFQxmGwodg70Dng . Its killed one motor so far and current one is playing silly with the shop RCD so probably not long for this world. I suspect the enclosed design leads to dust getting where it shouldn't. No great worry as I have a industrial rated 3 phase one with built in dust cabinet to go in as soon as I arrange wiring.
Stockpiling belts hasn't worked for me. After about 3 or 4 years in store the stickum on the joint seems to loose flexibility and the belts tend to tear up in strips away from the join if when working on narrower parts. I found belt life and metal shifting ability to be rather better than expected. Hence the 200% over-stock. Got me a serious price break tho'.
|Thread: Waterless Hand Cleaners for Shop Grubby Paws|
Thanks for the advice. Looks like trade variety of impregnated wipes are the thing to try. Baby wipes didn't always do it for me.
Unless they have changed the composition of Swarfega I don't dare use it. About 4 or 5 washes in a week and my skin splits over the knuckles, was fine for the first 20 odd years I used it but not now.
I have a roll of one of the Wypall products which, again isn't always enough.
Never could get the glove habit. I'm impressed by folks who can tho'.
Looking for advice on waterless hand cleaners for workshop use. No sink or water in the shop and getting tired of trotting 30 yards back to to the house every time I want to use the shop computer, modify drawings or handle bits that I really want to keep clean. Also getting tired of cleaning up finger-marks after a good hand wipe didn't actually get the paws clean enough!
Seem to be loads to choose from but which variety is best for oily and similar shop mess without ripping skin apart if used on a regular basis. Have to be a bit careful of my skin. For example I can no longer use green Swarfega.
How about the impregnated towel thingies, Scrubs et al. Seem to work out more expensive per clean-up but presumably no need to use a wipe or two afterwards. Blue roll, centre pull stacks and so on are getting expensive from the usual sources so do need to be priced in if required. Are there any cheaper alternatives for those too?
|Thread: Elliott 14m shaper|
As I understand it Alba was the original design for smaller shapers and Invicta for larger ones. Elliotts commonly sold machines from companies "whose output they completely controlled" under both the original brand and the Elliott name. Generally once the market for the original models began to die off production was rationalised under the Elliot name.
The Elliott group was um "complicated". Probably the nearest thing to a short guide is :- **LINK** .
As I understand matters Elliott started out, like Herbert, as aggressive machine tool suppliers. Typically they would begin as selling agents for a company and take advantage of any financial opportunities to become sole agents followed by getting a controlling interest and eventually taking full ownership. Presumably having become full owners they followed the Staveley route of running down and rationalising factories to extract money whist killing the original firm.
I imagine some of the oddities reflect the difficulties of properly integrating acquired companies into a single group management in the pen and paper era. Probably easier to just let the working bits of your new toy run along pretty much as is and introduce changes with new models.
Don't know if you have the Elliot 10M manual to hand but according to mine the corresponding dimensions for the 10M are 1118 mm x 609 mm and net weight 330 kg. Call it 4 ft, 2 ft and 1/3 rd of a ton. Holding the tape up against mine makes it clear that the 14M is, in practice, much, much bigger and takes a good deal of space to accommodate. The 10M is still, just, in the slot in size range. I find pretty much everything useful in the shop needs a generous 3 ft or so from the wall.
My 10M runs very nicely from an inverter drive. Even though it has an effective clutch I feel much happier with a nice slow start. Given the propensity of even a small shaper to punch inadequately secured things across the workshop my nerves aren't really up to going off at full speed.
|Thread: adaptling ISO30 pull studs to BT30?|
On a small machine like that Emco you should be safe if the stud flange has decent metal to metal contact with the end of the taper. Bigger question then is whether the overall length is such that the stud is gripped properly and pulls up hard when inserted. There is some tolerance for variations but probably not much. Cutwell tools do a pull stud identifier matrix which might help sort what differences you are left with once you have modified them to screw in.
If the ball is a bit low when screwed in one wonders if a spacer washer would be acceptable given that its a small machine.
Spigot is a nominal size so a touch under or over won't hurt. Just needs to be close enough for the gripping parts to work Obviously if its too small bits will try to drop out and if too large the innards won't close up enough to work but within a thou or three should be fine.
Not really DIY material proposition if you want them to last Needs to have the right combination of hardness and toughness. Even professional grade ones get seriously marked up in time. In pro shops considered a consumable item.
Heavy 10 on legs is about 4 ft 6 long so almost certainly a 13". At £300 good value if its in decent order. Top speed is on the low side for smaller work. Short tailstock barrel travel will inspire verbals when you inadvertently pop the drill chuck out for the umteenth time but its an honest machine. At least the headstock is quiet running.
my Heavy 10 could work to tenths with appropriate care. I see no reason why a good 13" Southbend cant do so too.
|Thread: Posilock collets|
Pozilocks, Clarkson et al dont really squeeze significantly on the shank anyway during installation. Initial collet action is more for getting things concentric than outright grip. Which is why you hand tighten the outer ring onto its stop and draw the collet out against the seat by screwing the cutter in. Bumping the ring up a nats doobie with the spanner gives a bit of grip but thats mostly to keep things under control when cutting starts. The real holding comes from the cutter screwing in further under cutting loads. Unless you actually manage to find cutting loads that will actually start unscrewing the cutter under the screw thread ensures that the only way the cutter is pulling out will be to bring both collet and outer ring too. Which will be an impressive smash up.
Clarkson, Posilock et al balance the loads as the cutter screws out, pushing the collet forward until it has enough grip to stop the cutter turning. So the exact extension isn't known. Which is why they are out of favour for CNC purposes. Only a thou or three variation but thats enough to mess things up. If you try to set things up like a conventional collet by tightening the outer ring to make it grip the balance will be upset, movement become unpredictable and there is a good chance of shattering the centred end of smaller cutters. I have a pair of 4 mm with ends shattered that way due to trying to use the system like a normal collet.
That large block at the spindle end suggest its a D1 series camlock spindle not screwed. My heavy 10 had a D1 and the spindle end looked very similar. Off hand I can't think of any screwed spindle fittings that look like that. From that angle you would probably see the threaded spigot of the driver plate which is about the only remotely similar candidate. If so more likely to be a 13" than a Heavy 10. Large dial D1 - 4 spindle Heavy 10's almost always had the wider range gearbox, 7 positions on the first lever I think not 5, and came on a cabinet stand.
The 13" never got a cabinet stand. Telling the difference from photos is very hard but Heavy 10's tend to look short from that sort of angle. Looking at pictures of mine its barely two apron lengths between centres. Checked the parts book and later 13" did get the D1- series camlock spindel
Its later than 1942. Especially if a Heavy 10. In that era a Heavy 10 would have had small dials, a single tumbler gearbox and star wheel feed clutch.
Edited By Clive Foster on 20/02/2017 16:58:03
|Thread: Posilock collets|
ER collets are always secure if you tighten them up to the specified torques. Which are scary and certainly not achievable with the little pressed steel spanner you get in the set. One firm recommends 42 ft lb for ER 16, 59 for ER 20, 77 for ER 25 and 100 for ER 32. I'd not care to be hauling that hard on a spindle only restrained by the usual lock pin. Ball bearing nuts help a lot but you still need things tight.
For all sorts of reasons an ER may hold fine at much lower torque but its only guaranteed to hit its retention and TIR specifications if tightened to specifications. With their long compression range ERs are wonderful beasties but there are some inherent engineering compromises. They do have to be very well made to hit peak performance. I pretty much never use my set. Posilock or direct in the spindle R8 type usually.
My Posilock chuck has an integral R8 arbor.
Agree with Neil that you are best off selling your set complete and buying a new set on MT 2 arbor.
Posilocks were generally sold to the amateur market as complete sets in nice boxes. About the only readily available spares are extra collets to make metric or imperial sets dual standard. Amateurs pretty much never wear out sets so they don't get broken for parts.
|Thread: Is It Hard To Remove The Mill Column?|
Shouldn't be too difficult provided you can arrange overhead support to take the weight. When I did my similar one a roof truss cross beam was sufficiently close to simply run a rope round the head and wind the assembly off using the elevating screw. Dowels will probably be tight so you need a decently straight lift.
The sheet metalwork and switchgear looks the bigger pain as that will all have to come off and be put safely out of the way. Fairly straightforward but time consuming.
As you have dowels as well as bolts at the bottom of the head don't even think about trying to shift things without support. Theoretically it could be levered off but you are almost certain to bend a dowel. Even if you do get it off you will run out of hands to support and shift the removed column. Did similar with a simple bolt down column, lighter and a balanced load. Things still got a bit hairy once the bolts were out and I went for the move. Admittedly mostly due to poor planning in that case.
If overhead support isn't possible you might be able to mange by fitting a strong pillar to the table. Gripping it with a collet and again using the elevating screw to help move the column. Being an inflexible set-up you must to be very careful to ensure it comes up straight and the column will be in the way. Swing round and stand on the table I guess. Wood blocks et al for support so it can't go anywhere.
|Thread: Warco GH universal milling machine dismantling advice|
Invest in a couple of sheets of shuttering ply for the trip over wet grass. Its a pain running over two sheets, shifting the first one and moving on. But much, much safer. If using sack barrow splash out for one with pneumatic tyres. Easier to move. Better behaved and might not go down too far if you run off the edge. Don't even think about using an old type one with solid metal wheels. One Bikepete linked to is excellent value for money although I think the one I found is worth the extra.
Engine hoist is for taking it apart and lifting bits onto a high table ready to carry so the hoist doesn't have to go through the house. You really really want to avoid lifting from floor, or close too floor, level which is a strike against the sack barrow idea unless you have hoist capability at the workshop end.
If I were buying a sack barrow now I'd probably splash out on something like this :- **LINK** . Bit more expensive than the usual suspects but appears to be very nicely made and the three positions are very handy. I bought an economy Machine Mart special two position one, sack barrow or flat bed, donkeys years ago and its done me proud. Coped with serious overloading a time or three but the bottom of the range aspect shows. Would have been really handy to have the third, lay back on extra wheels, position when I bought my Pollard 15AY drill home.
Stair climber barrows are great for stairs and steps but they don't like going round corners. As they normally run on four wheels in closely coupled pairs the minimum curve radius is of railway proportions. Wouldn't be without mine but not ideal as the one and only.
Use gloves for handling. Preferably the proper type with grippy palms and fingers. I stock up from Lidl when they have them because they do proper sizes. Not the Small, Medium, Large crap which never quite fits. Especially as I have small size 6 mitts. Bit stretchy too which helps even more. Cheap enough that I don't care if I lunch a new pair on one job. I always figure that gloves you can buy, fingers (and backs) you can't.
Sounds like a plan. Having, like Ian, done similar twice I'd take the column off too. Half the battle with this carry heavy lump business is to get things into nicely shaped parts that can be "cuddle carried" pulled in close to your chest so your centre of gravity is pretty close to what you are used to.
Base plus column balances poorly. Second move was a two person affair. Mate said "leave the column on, we can manage". Should have gone with my better knowledge as it was a struggle. Weight wise was OK between two but keeping it balanced was not. Glad we had no stairs to cope with. Two steps quite bad enough.
Engine crane for dismantle and shift onto high table to minimise lifting after you cuddle it. If you can put raisers on the bench top so you only have to come down a few inches when unloading. Usual bench height means dropping a foot or more. Easy to run out of knee room and be tempted to bend your back. Bending back isn't a good idea. Consider setting up an unloading table outside the workshop because you will probably be bringing parts round in the wrong order and need to spread things out to re-assemble. No problem if you have loads of room but if you don't such a table is a godsend.
A weightlifters belt or similar is a good idea to help you keep straight. If you possibly can arrange some assistance. Doesn't have to be a lift rated person. Someone to give a bit of a shove to balance things properly as you lift, watch where you are putting your feet, untangle that rope, push that bit of wood along the bench so I don't pinch my fingers and so on makes a big difference. With a lump of cast iron cuddled to your chest you can't do anything. Somewhat annoying when you have to take it all the way back to unlimber safely 'cos you forgot to prop the workshop door open. 30 yards each way for me. Ooops!
Really there are no major issues providing you think your way round the little stuff which can trip you up.
Oh Don't Bend Your Back.
|Thread: Cromton Parkinson Motor Replacement Bearing|
I've made sleeve bearings for similar motors in the past from bronze and don't recall it being a particularly difficult job. Think they were all different styles.
Usual issue with unobtanium sleeve bearing sizes is being unable to find the right bore in the right OD to fit the housing. Oversize is simple turning job. Undersize can be dealt with by fitting a sleeve. If the bore size is a little over put a slit in the bearing and push into a tighter sleeve to get the size. Slitting works with oilite and wrapped dry bearing bushes too although the dry bearing ones are already split so just need opening out. Up to maybe 40 thou / 1 mm bore reduction is possible. Probably won't last as long as original but should do all a home shop user needs.
Before getting too involved verify that the motor has a thrust bearing inside. Many sleeve bearing ones don't have a proper thrust bearing area being made for running only with the shaft horizontal.
|Thread: Machining EN24T|
EN 24 (817M40) is notoriously sensitive to heat treatment control and wouldn't be my choice of steel for home shop work when we are typically buying in small quantities without being able to ensure batch traceability. Its unfortunate that you have found a hard spot but I don't find it remarkable having had similar issues myself with materials supplied for a job. I think the guy thought EN24T would be better than EN16T or EN19T because it was more expensive.
Far as I can see the only reason to choose EN 24T over EN19T (709M40T) or EN 16T (605M36T) is to get T tensile range in larger diameters. Ruling section, largest diameter that can be heat treated to a specific tensile range, is 250 mm for EN24T but only 100mm for EN19T and 65 mm for EN16T. Other properties are much of a muchness with EN24T coming out to the top of the range and EN16 towards the bottom. Machinability being very much t'other way about. Not that we ordinary home shop guys have any business messing with things where the difference is important.
Besides speed and feeds all three steels are sensitive to tool tip radius, especially when boring, and you must keep the tool cutting. Years since I bored any so I don't have helpful figures, probably tip radii in the 0.5 mm, 1/64 th region, razor sharp and nicely polished. On external turning a carbide insert properly specified for such materials gives an awesome finish when run at book speeds and feeds but such are too high for most folks machinery. Many inserts do just fine at home shop machine friendly speeds and feeds but finding out which one can be difficult as the usual "choose something sharp with positive rake intended for Aluminium" advice may come up with selections that, whist fine for ordinary black and bright bar, aren't really strong enough for extended use on these tougher steels.
|Thread: Converting German metal grades to UK|
The Wikipedia entry on steel grades **LINK** has the common, basic, En numbers folk like us usually use under the BS970 table.
These days its probably easier to work with the modern composition based numbers eg 9SMn36 or CF9SMn36 = En 1A for example. Its what you will get anyway.
If you do use the Wiki page their EN column is not our En. Confusing. Our En is in BS970.
For model purposes its probably not terribly critical anyway unless you are welding or case-hardening.
Engineers Black Book is interesting but the different USA & Second Edition (metric) content is irritating as I would really need both to cover imperial and metric.
|Thread: Knurling/Nurling tool|
See no reason why not but my version of the ordinary one doesn't have enough movement to take up the same angles. Pivot radius is rather less too. So it probably wouldn't be a valid test. Knurl size is about the same tho'. Can't get it low enough on either of my lathes or I'd have given it a try just to see.
Its bugging me that the asymmetric layout was clearly seen as the better back in the 1890 to 1900 + whatever period. Symmetrical one knurl above centre and one equal amount below is obvious way and has since become the norm. So why was it done differently in those days and the less obvious approach considered to be sufficiently important to be worth patenting by Pratt & Whitney who were a serious company.
Yup we shall have to agree to differ on this.
Picture of Pratt & Whitney Knurling Tool as requested mocked up with roll of tape to show the position I normally use it in.
Patent date stamped on it is December 18 1888. I've tried to find the patent but no luck. I have another clearly later one without the patent date stamping. When it first arrived I simply set it up with the upper knurl on centre and it worked very well indeed. Almost proof against mis-tracking but you can get a bad knurl if really casual. Clearly less pressure needed than with common modern form with the knurls running at more or less equal offsets above and below centre. Out of curiosity I tried setting it up with the pivot as close to centre line as possible, didn't work at all well. So it is geometry not just having a super set of knurls.
Page 1 of the patent is interesting demonstrating the Mr Miller clearly could have come up with the modern form with two symmetrically disposed pivots. However he clearly decided that the best way to do things was to arrange things asymmetrically with only a single pivot between the two arms. The geometry and relative disposition of forces in his arrangements changes once you move off the dead centre position. The modern layout is essentially constant force at any reasonable set up position so any wobbling around, with reason, makes no difference. Mr Millers arrangements have different effective lever lengths between pivot and knurl contact points so any movement does change things.
Interestingly Mr Millers Figure 3 is effectively an adjustable version of my Pratt & Whitney tool. But his Figure 1 shows it set to a geometry effectively the same as the modern form of straddle clamp tool. Given that tooling was relatively far more expensive in those days it makes sense to have a single tool that can be configured in straddle clamp form for small workpieces and bump push for larger ones. But that can be done as easily with the modern symmetrical form as it can with those shown. So the question remains why go to the extra bother of asymmetry. That said the P&W tool does work very well indeed. P&W made bench and instrument lathes in those days so I guess they knew what worked best on these small, low powered and somewhat lightly built yet very accurate machines.
Love Model Engineering? Sign up to our emails for the latest news and special offers!
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.