Here is a list of all the postings IanT has made in our forums. Click on a thread name to jump to the thread.
|Thread: Adept No.2 Shaper|
Mild steel is cut at between 40-70 foot/minute.
The actual cutting 'speed' on a shaper is a function of several things. Most 'crank' shapers move the ram more slowly on the forward (cutting) stroke, compared to the faster 'return' stroke. I'm not clear if your 'stroke' is linear or not. Cutting speed is also function of the length of the stroke (for the same number of strokes/minute). So a very short stroke would be cutting more slowly than a longer stroke (assuming the same strokes/minute) - in other words the tool is travelling further in the same time on the longer stroke, so cutting speed must be faster.
Your 45 strokes/min sounds like it might be in the right area but you might want to think about the various things that effect the actual cutting speed of the tool in your design to get to a "foot/minute" number. This is what you need to know.
|Thread: Drill chucks|
"Let me guess, a member of the double sided flat earth society who believes only in old iron, and who has many hours to waste."
Don't be too unkind to us John - some of us have more time than money (even though both are finite) and anyway have grown very fond of all the old iron we've accumulated over the years. I am always interested to hear of new things and I've learned a lot from yourself (and others) on the various forums. But I also find that many 'obsolete' practices suit my tools and specific modelling needs very well. Fortunately (for me at least) this is just a hobby and I don't have to make a living at it. "Pottering" is part of that enjoyment and it doesn't cost too much either!
By the way, I have a keyless chuck on my larger Bosch drill and it's very nice (as I don't have to search for the chuck key). All my other (taper) chucks are keyed and I'm not going to change them now. If I was buying over again of course, I think that the simple advantage of not trying to find where "the little man in my Shed" has hidden it would probably swing it for me.
|Thread: Sunday evening quiz|
As it happens, I have a base casting for a Stuart Beam engine Graham (no idea why or how) - so if you do sell your Beam Engine parts - you'll know where to send your Buyer for the bottom bit!
In fact the Shaper head (Photo 3) looks quite a lot like an Adept No2 - same as mine - but I cannot recall if the Adept No 1 head is exactly the same shape or not ?
|Thread: Advertising for paid work|
I think your post above was probably a bit too terse for most folk here Jason.
However, I suspect you mean the "TurboCAD Review" on page 62 of MEW 213.
As a user of TCv15 - I was interested enough to turn to it straight away - only to find very, very few words that essentially informed me that Version 20 "has much more in common with Autocad than previous versions" & "the new interface is very clean and intuitive"
I mean that's it - it's quite hard to precise it any further, I kid you not!
Oh well, never mind. I was more amused than upset but on the strength of this "review" I will probably stay with v15 for a bit longer.
PS Paul (The CAD) has some useful training sessions on YouTube that I have just seen and think are worth watching for any 'occasional' user of TC (such as myself).
Edited By IanT on 14/02/2014 21:33:23
|Thread: Water Pump|
I fabricate small brass components (by silver soldering) and the only problem I really have is where some parts are much larger than others. It is very easy (I've found) to melt the smaller parts if you don't take care. I imagine your pump will be quite large - so will need a fair bit of heat.
These days I try build up the heat around the components a bit more gradually, allowing everything as far as possible to warm up evenly and I often use a specially designed brazing hearth to help with this. This magnificent sounding bit of kit is actually a large coffee tin with a hole in the side which is lined with Kaolin Wool! You sound like you might need something a bit larger but the idea will be the same. I purchased the Kaolin blanket here (see link) and it works very well and has lasted a surprisingly long time.
I also try to make my smaller component parts so they either slot together and/or are pinned/screwed where possible. I know many modellers use iron wire to bind things together but I find it easier to make the components hold themselves in place and where necessary machine away any tabs/pinning afterwards. It is obviously easier to plan this before you make the parts than when you come to braze them (again I learned this the hard way). Your larger pieces may not be such a problem.
My apologies if there is any element of 'egg sucking' & 'teaching Grandmothers' for you here George.
|Thread: 3-D Printing|
Hi Neil and welcome!
I saw the 3D printing displays at Sandown and was very much reminded of the early days of microcomputing (1970's 6502/Z80). I spent a lot of money on a Z80 based Nascom II and then time building it and even more time typing programs into it. This 3D printing tech seems to me to be at a similar stage. These days the idea of building a PC from component level would seem somewhat bizarre.
So whilst my immediate reaction was that 3DP might be useful to me for the smaller model components (either for use directly or as patterns) that I currently have to fabricate - with my current grasp of 3D CAD it is probably faster for me to just make these bits rather than print them.
So I don't think I will be too interested in owning one of these devices until I am able to download a (pre-designed) 'part', simply scale it to my requirement and just print it. It may well be in the future that MEW/ME articles will have links provided where the author makes some component parts of the design available for download (and printing).- and this would be a real incentive to adopt the technology.
What I wouldn't want to see is (to me) the rather annoying separation of 'hardware' from 'software' such as the homebrew DRO recently published. I might never build one but I would have been interested in the Arduino code used (as I have a Uno). So design/construction articles where 3DP is used but you have to (metaphorically) "type" in your own design code would be a big turnoff.
I'm sure however that this technology will be driven by (other mass) markets and I'm sure new standards and norms will emerge - especially in these days of Open Source.
|Thread: What to do with a pile of bits?|
It has been some time since I've been able to get into any of my corners Al - but I've always known why.
'Head' says "just get rid of all this junk" but 'Heart' says "you might need it some day"
So whilst I would really like one of those lovely (tidy & well laid out) workshops that I so often envy online, the truth is that I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon. Stupid I know....
|Thread: Best linisher|
I have something from Warco similar to this machine Richard (which is what I think you mean?):
But I must admit, I don't use it as much as I thought I would (although I know others are enthusiastic about them). I keep meaning to make better rests for it but I haven't quite got around to it yet. Maybe that's the problem (it's a bit chicken and egg). I don't like using the rests (too flimsy) but I don't use it enough to do something about it.
Edited By IanT on 11/02/2014 11:52:04
|Thread: Myford 254s, Super 7 and Emco FB2 mill values|
And I'd ignore any calls from anyone offering to clear your Grandad's workshop of the "bit's & pieces" too.
Take your time and if you can sell everything individually - it is probably worth quite a lot and it can rapidly mount up
|Thread: Myford S7 jamming when using live centre|
Thanks for the PDF Michael, I already had a hard copy but it's useful to be able to print out some pages.
Readers should note that this manual is for the later (Mk2?) S7 and whilst a good bit of it is still pertinent & useful, the clutch adjustment and headstock oiling arrangements are different - as well as some bits of the illustrated parts list of course.
|Thread: what's the best mini mill|
Yup - and 17 pairs of bi-focals too apparently!
(although I can assure you John I still have only 16!)
|Thread: Between centres|
I seem to remember bolting sacrificial pieces on both ends of some work and then drilling centres into the bolt heads. I was then able to turn the main work piece (and reverse it as required) and I managed to get all the surfaces I wanted true to each other. The drive dog was fitted to the extension bits out of the way of the cutting tool.
The only problem is that I really cannot remember why I did this now (as Nobby's way should work just fine) only that I had some kind of problem doing it the 'easy' way. I clearly wasn't bothered that I had screw holes in the work ends either. You have to do all the work you want concentric before you remove the centre extensions, as you won't get them back central again.
Funny thing memory. Some work I can remember just about every detail of it, other bits I have to think hard about why I even made them, let alone how.
|Thread: New or Old?|
Where 'older' vices are concerned, I think it depends on a couple of things Mike - will they fit and how much?
I have a couple of large good quality vices that I can only use on the Victoria HO - they'd be much too large for any of my other machines. Most "industrial" quality stuff was made for use on bigger machines and although it's tempting when you see this stuff, it's not much use if they won't fit on your kit. I have seen similar vices (Abwood) to my two go for £150+ each but I didn't pay anything like that, only about £20 from memory. So the asking price has to be considered in the equation.
I have a number of smaller vices, including a 'Myford' one - but the small one that I tend to use a lot, is a cheap chinese "push down" design that seems to be good enough for most of my needs and has long bolting slots. This means that it can be fixed to my various (all different) T-slot systems. I doubt I paid more than £20 for that new either (although it was 4-5 years ago now).
Thinking about it, I don't have any "medium" vices (except for my Atlas Shaper vice which really is worth it's weight in gold) as I guess I tend to clamp larger work directly to the milling table. A 'Kurt' would be very nice but would cost more than I've paid for most of my "old iron".
So industry (or s/h) quality tooling is certainly well worth having provided you can actually use it (e.g. it will fit your machines) and that you don't pay through the nose for it. I understand John's view by the way - but I've tended to purchase my workshop in small increments over the years. Although the total spent would add up to quite a bit, I've been able to afford it on that basis. Others might prefer to buy the best on day one and then manage to forget what it cost over time. Different horses for different courses I guess.
|Thread: what's the best mini mill|
I think you had in mind "two strong young men" when you were thinking of "transportable" Becky.
Two of us went to collect the Atlas MF (about 300lb) in a van and used a trolley to move it but lifting it back onto the bench (on arrival back home) resulted in one of us having problems getting out of bed the next day! With about 140 years between the two of us you would think we would know better by now.
For any Atlas MF owners out there, the Taig head idea is not new and there's a version on YouTube here:
I think you will get the general idea - and it will work well for anyone else (especially those with a small horizontal mill) who would like a vertical milling capability.
If you go the 'two mill' route Becky, then a Taig (Peatol in UK) or Sherline would both be good choices for the smaller machine. They are easily transportable and have ER16 collet heads that will hold 10mm tooling. They are both capable of high RPM and can either be upgraded to CNC or purchased with it fitted (Sherline) - or as you mention DRO's
In terms of a larger (new) mill I'm not really the go-to guy here for best advice - especially on Chinese kit.
I already have two mills but they are both old iron (Atlas MF & Victoria H0 ). I have a MT2 vertical head for my Atlas MF (which is driven by the existing motor arrangements) but I am looking at mounting my Taig milling head (with its own motor) on the MF instead. This is a pretty simple thing to do - the Taig head is secured via an aluminium 'gib' strip and can be detached by loosening one screw. A similar gib fitting on the MF would make the Taig head easily movable. This will give me the added advantages of the MF's longer table, power feed and generally heavier machine build, with the Taig's ability to spin much smaller tools quickly.
The other possible solution (for high speed work) is to make a special 'through' spindle that fits the existing milling head but that is driven separately by its own power. I have thought about this for my Victoria H0, which also has a vertical head and is again driven via the existing (but speed limiting) motor arrangements. This head is MT3 so there should be room to fit an MT3 adaptor with a fast spindle through it, driven by a small top mounted motor. Again the advantages are having a very fast spindle on a massive base and a long table (20" travel) with power feed. I haven't needed to do this so far but it remains an option if the need arises. The Taig head is the much simpler/quicker upgrade route.
So you might also want to consider fitting a larger mill (or perhaps your existing one?) with either a high speed milling head, such as the Taig - or a "through" high speed spindle.
Edit: damn thing keeps inserting 'smilies' instead of brackets!
Edited By IanT on 06/02/2014 10:42:04
|Thread: Wiring an MEM starter for 240v Lathe|
These are a wee bit cheaper.
|Thread: What did you do today? (2014)|
The one in the photo is a 2" Eclipse [No 410]. I have several and they get used a lot. I've made most of my larger ones myself and they are also very useful (when other means of holding things just won't work). I think Harold Hall did an article about how useful/versatile they are not too long ago?
I read the posts (in the link you provided Michael) and I suspect that at least one of the posters doesn't know how to 'set' the clamp properly. If you set the spacing too wide, the clamps only grip on their very ends/tips and they will not hold properly. The clamp has to be initially set to the same width as the work before clamping up.
Of course, it is also important to realise their limitations too. You cannot take just any cut with impunity and they will not replace a proper machine vice for heavier work. In this case it was fine and for smaller parts (and smaller cuts) they are very useful.
Having been a bit too quick to cut some brass angle into 20mm lengths the other day, I needed to reduce the width of it from 10mm to 8mm. As I mentioned on another thread, it would have been better to keep them on the parent metal for longer, as work holding small bits can be a pain. Several ways I could have done it but since I have some other milling work I need to do - I set up my 'Taig' milling head on the EW (where the tailstock normally sits) and used a small toolmakers clamp to hold the work in the vice. Once I'd set everything to depth the whole lot (16 sides) took less than 30 minutes.
It's not exactly a precision device but since I made the attachment last year (with an ex power-shower motor and some scrap aluminium block) and the whole lot only cost me about £100 (mostly for the Taig ER16 head itself) I'm very happy with it. It seems accurate enough for this kind of work and I'm starting too use it more and more. My EW is developing into a very useful small machining centre and best of all - I can use it in the warm.
I'm using a 5.5mm carbide end mill and I think it will be running at about 3500 rpm (motor runs at 2,880). This is a good deal faster than the EW headstock can manage and it's cutting the required 2mm off in one pass. Nothing remarkable but it was quick and convenient. To turn the work over (or to set the next piece) I just eased the TM clamp, so everything stayed set.
They are for some small fabrications (8 off) so there is still some work to do on them yet.
Edited By IanT on 05/02/2014 16:55:50
|Thread: ARC Eurotrade|
"because we all know that a squint eyed model engineer with 17 pairs of bi-focals can see hole pitches far more accurately than an engineering drawing."
Just to set the record straight John - I only have 16 pairs of bi-focals! (and I struggle to see the drawings too these days)
Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!
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.