By continuing to use this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more
Forum sponsored by:
Forum sponsored by Allendale Jan 24th

Parting Off MEW225

All Topics | Latest Posts

Search for:  in Thread Title in  
KWIL20/01/2015 10:21:11
3309 forum posts
63 photos

I am looking at page 8 of MEW 225 with Reg Merryweather's article on Parting. off in the metal lathe

There is a drawing error on Fig 5 in that the parting tool should be inverted and to the right of the workpiece, but hey-ho these happen.

Notwithstanding that I thought I would simulate the same procedure of mesurement on a 40mm diameter setup.

When I apply a large turning force to my chuck by means of a bar inserted into thechuck  key hole the maximum dip I incure is 0.0028" (c..f.Reg's 0.0190" and with the movement towards the headstock, less than 0.0010" (c.f. Reg at 0.0140"

My parting blade is a flexible blade with carbide insert, mounted in a QCTP, the DTI is a 0.0001" resolution Mercer.

I do not have a digging in problem but I would like to find why my results are so different from those presented in the article.

 

 

Edited By KWIL on 20/01/2015 10:23:29

Neil Wyatt20/01/2015 10:59:45
avatar
Moderator
18250 forum posts
714 photos
77 articles

> There is a drawing error on Fig 5 in that the parting tool should be inverted and to the right of the workpiece, but hey-ho these happen.

That's how the drawing was supplied and it illustrates the measurement the author made.

The differences could be down to lathe type or the individual setup. I am not convinced the place where the toolpost is attached to the slide is critical - if the toolpost and slide are very rigid and effectively act as one lump of metal. Reg may have a less rigid setup, and that may be why it works for him.

I think the real question with rear toolposts (which obviously do work) is that in use they try and lift the rear of the cross slide off the bed. This puts pressure on a normally no-critical bearing surface and also they apply a large twisting moment at the front guide acting to separate the main bearing surfaces, the opposite of the normal action. The lower front bearing surface has to take the largest load of all,.

Should be a recipe for disaster, but it isn't - why?

 

A second thought - surely in normal turning the forces on the tool are the same as on a front mounted parting tool...

 

I am sure the parting debate will run and run!

Neil

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 20/01/2015 11:05:10

blowlamp20/01/2015 11:13:09
avatar
1424 forum posts
87 photos
Posted by Neil Wyatt on 20/01/2015 10:59:45:

> There is a drawing error on Fig 5 in that the parting tool should be inverted and to the right of the workpiece, but hey-ho these happen.

That's how the drawing was supplied and it illustrates the measurement the author made.

I think the real question with rear toolposts (which obviously do work) is that in use they try and lift the rear of the cross slide off the bed. This puts pressure on a normally no-critical bearing surface and also they apply a large twisting moment at the front guide acting to separate the main bearing surfaces, the opposite of the normal action. The lower front bearing surface has to take the largest load of all,.

Should be a recipe for disaster, but it isn't - why?

Neil

Because the swarf falls out of the groove by gravitational attraction smiley instead of piling up on top of the cutting tool until a log-jam is formed. This is why jams never occur in the early stages of parting-off, but the deeper the cut, the more potential there is for swarf to become trapped between tool and workpiece.

Martin.

Muzzer20/01/2015 11:17:10
avatar
2904 forum posts
448 photos

I don't think there is any great mystery. It must be simply down to the design of the actual machine and the severity of the load. If you take a very light cut with a razor sharp tool you will barely load the machine whereas if you take a full cut with an indexable tool, you are going to want the saddle to be fully constrained against being lifted by the cutting forces.

Never owned a Myford but it seems they can tolerate moderate upward loads in typical ME useage. I've looked at the design of my Bantam and there is no obvious means of constraint. Interestingly, the Colchester rear toolpost is designed for operation of the machine in both directions although I haven't bothered getting one.

Personally, I don't feel the need for a dedicated rear toolpost, as I can swap tools quickly easily with the QCTP and keep the machining area clear of projecting tools - surely that is its primary benefit? However, I often machine parts with the tool behind the centre line (usually a boring bar), with the machine running in reverse. TBH, it seems to me that if you are going to make use of a rear-mounted tool, you may as well run it in reverse and keep the tool loads in the direction the machine was designed for.

Murray

JasonB20/01/2015 13:09:09
avatar
Moderator
18930 forum posts
2083 photos
1 articles

Kwil I wonder if you nice M300 has anything to do with itwink 2

Neil as you say the loads when turning are the same as when parting but how often do you take a 3mm depth of cut which is basically what a 3mm wide parting tool is doing. A lot of hobby lathes would also chatter etc taking that sort of cut with a turning tool.

Edited By JasonB on 20/01/2015 13:12:09

John Stevenson20/01/2015 14:32:52
avatar
Moderator
5068 forum posts
3 photos

Posted by JasonB on 20/01/2015 13:09:09:

.

how often do you take a 3mm depth of cut

.

Aahh you mean a finishing cut ?

Speedy Builder520/01/2015 16:13:54
2112 forum posts
146 photos

I haven't read the article, but users should be aware that if you have a chuck which screws onto the headstock, it can unscrew when parting off with a rear toolpost and reverse rotation of the chuck.
If you use an inverted blade and rear tool post with normal chuck rotation, then you would suffer the same amount of chatter as using a normal too post ?

BobH

KWIL20/01/2015 16:15:12
3309 forum posts
63 photos

Jason,

All measurements made on a properly adjusted Myford Super 7.

Did not try the M300!!smiley

Swarf entrapment is not a problem with insert tooling, the shape of the insert makes the swarf narrower than the kerf, so entrapment is not a problem.

Edited By KWIL on 20/01/2015 16:15:43

blowlamp20/01/2015 16:23:22
avatar
1424 forum posts
87 photos
Posted by KWIL on 20/01/2015 16:15:12:

Jason,

All measurements made on a properly adjusted Myford Super 7.

Did not try the M300!!smiley

Swarf entrapment is not a problem with insert tooling, the shape of the insert makes the swarf narrower than the kerf, so entrapment is not a problem.

Edited By KWIL on 20/01/2015 16:15:43

Agreed, and that's why they can be employed as usual in the front toolpost without problems, plus the blade is quite a bit narrower than the insert which gives clearance there as well.

Martin.

mick21/01/2015 17:46:29
396 forum posts
44 photos

Wish I had a fiver for every time there's a thread on parting! Using a rear mounted parting tool there's no need to reverse the motion as the tool is inverted, you only reverse when using an inverted parting tool in the front tool holder and yes this could spin the chuck off under some circumstances.

Michael Gilligan21/01/2015 18:50:55
avatar
16422 forum posts
715 photos
Posted by Speedy Builder5 on 20/01/2015 16:13:54:

If you use an inverted blade and rear tool post with normal chuck rotation, then you would suffer the same amount of chatter as using a normal too post ?

.

Bob,

... only if your "normal" toolpost is mounted direct on the cross-slide

I think the main cause of problems is that the top-slide introduces another layer of flexibility.

MichaelG.

.

P.S. ... The Gibraltar ToolPost looks a very sensible design ... Can anyone offer a review?

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 21/01/2015 18:56:04

Neil Wyatt21/01/2015 21:08:36
avatar
Moderator
18250 forum posts
714 photos
77 articles

I have a sub-Gibraltar toolpost for my mini-lathe that fits on the t-slotted slide. A simple cube of meehanite that has a twin-screw t-nut to attach it and takes the standard toolpost on top. It's very good but annoyingly I got the height slightly different so I have to use different shims for each tool :-/

Neil

sub - gibraltar toolpost.

Danny M2Z22/01/2015 06:49:57
avatar
892 forum posts
283 photos

Nice T-slotted topslide for the mini-lathe Neil.

Any more details? - Enquiring minds need to know!

* Danny M *

JasonB22/01/2015 07:34:24
avatar
Moderator
18930 forum posts
2083 photos
1 articles

Neil assuming you made the bit of iron too small then why not cut a shim the full size of the block and fit it under the toolpost so you don't have to use two sets of shim for each tool?

J

PS it would have looked better painted yellowwink 2

Roger Williams 222/01/2015 09:24:50
331 forum posts
1 photos

John Stevenson, as a bloke who does it for a living, and must have parted off hundreds of times, what are your thoughts on the subject ?. For instance, do you use power feed ?. Thanks.

Neil Wyatt22/01/2015 09:37:12
avatar
Moderator
18250 forum posts
714 photos
77 articles

> Nice T-slotted topslide for the mini-lathe Neil.

> Any more details? - Enquiring minds need to know!

Yes - if you want to keep your sanity, don't do it. I chewed it out of a block of CI making the bottom to match they existing slide (plus recess so it can come further back over the index) and then three t-slots in the top.

Would be an easy job on a mill, but I used a taig/peatol vertical slide...

Jason

I hate unsecured shims, actually with most tools it takes a 1/16" shim so it's not a big issue.

The green is good old Humbrol Brunswick green I use for various home-made accessories I do have a full tine of (old formula) yellow smoothrite that matches the lathe and one day I will do a full repaint!

More pics here

Neil

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 22/01/2015 09:40:26

Ian S C22/01/2015 11:12:57
avatar
7468 forum posts
230 photos

My theory for jamb ups when parting is that the side of the tool wears a few thou, more at the tip than further back(more use), and when a deep cut is made in one go is when the danger occurs, hense the idea of taking a second cut to widen the slot. This is with HSS tooling, carbide tools should be no problem.

Ian S C

Gordon W22/01/2015 14:05:42
2011 forum posts

I was asking for help re parting-off only a couple of years ago, but here is what I have found, - My lathe has 3/4 hp motor but not really enough power for parting steel with an insert tool. HSS tool ground with side clearance and 2mm wide or less work well. But cannot have top rake ground or the clearance is lost. I ground a bit more front clearance and tilt the cutter to get some top rake. Like IanSC I take an extra side cut to widen the groove when needed. To me it seems obvious that the more joints they are in the set-up the less rigid it will be. I have been looking for a bit of heavy steel to make a one piece toolholder and not use the top-slide. I don't have slots on the cross-slide, just 2 x 6mm bolts to hold top-slide or toolpost, so need a flange for mounting,hence steel so it can be welded up solid. Do not use shims if possible, one thick one if must, just an extra 2 joints. Slow speed, slower than normal, just to keep down vibration which is difficult to stop once started.

KWIL22/01/2015 16:26:37
3309 forum posts
63 photos

Gordon,

Which lathe do you have? I can chew through steel with only 3/4 hp motor using inserts on a Myford Super 7 running around 400 rpm,

Gordon W22/01/2015 16:46:47
2011 forum posts

Chester DB8, older belt drive ( which I like ) 8" dia. max. The toolbit is 3mm wide I think, can't get at it now. No roof and 2" ice. 400 revs ok at 1" dia maybe but 200 better ie less vibration. A "V" section tool is easier on steel. I 'm not into mass production tho'. Every thing is better if all gibs etc. are tight but not always very practical.

All Topics | Latest Posts

Please login to post a reply.

Magazine Locator

Want the latest issue of Model Engineer or Model Engineers' Workshop? Use our magazine locator links to find your nearest stockist!

Find Model Engineer & Model Engineers' Workshop

Latest Forum Posts
Support Our Partners
Warco
Eccentric July 5 2018
cowells
EngineDIY
emcomachinetools
ChesterUK
Eccentric Engineering
Subscription Offer

Latest "For Sale" Ads
Latest "Wanted" Ads
Get In Touch!

Do you want to contact the Model Engineer and Model Engineers' Workshop team?

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.

Digital Back Issues

Social Media online

'Like' us on Facebook
Follow us on Facebook

Follow us on Twitter
 Twitter Logo

Pin us on Pinterest