A very small Shaping Machine …

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

Where would the world be if the Americans hadn't worked-out how to mass produce precision "standard parts" for watches and guns ?

living longer less stressed lives………..

[IanTParticipant @iant]

Same old, same old whenever this topic (Shapers) comes up.

Industry might not use Shapers any more these days but I certainly do. But then I don't (want to or cannot) do a lot of things that "industry" does these days.

I have two shapers, an Adept No2 and a 7" Atlas. I also have three mills and four lathes, which all have their own place and uses in my workshop. When I need something cleaning up (e.g. flat), it goes in the 7" and I generally get on with something else (maybe some milling?). It will cut stuff that would rapidly blunt my milling cutters and when the tooling does need sharpening, I can do it quite simply (single point tooling).

I'm still finding modelling uses for the Adept and whilst I wouldn't want to machine large surfaces on it (that's why I purchased the 7" Atlas) it can cut, engrave and 'shave' small parts better than I can by hand (anything that needs an accurate linear motion in fact). Have a good look at the site MichaelG originally pointed to (on page 1) and the model ships this guy builds. They are wonderfully detailed creations, the work of a craftsman. I spent several happy hours yesterday looking through his stuff (so thank you MichaelG).

He also describes the methods he uses to build them, including using a small shaper to machine a 'rotary' gear on a ship's gun carriage. See here for details; **LINK** It looks pretty neat to me.

Of course, I'm sure this work could have been done on a CNC mill too and if he was wanting to mass-produce his models, then I'm sure he would be using CNC to do so. But it's quite possible that the tools he is using (including the shapers) suit the work he's doing (and perhaps more importantly) the way he likes to do that work.

Regards,

IanT

[Sub MandrelParticipant @submandrel]

I thought I posted THIS LINK to Edward's popular mechanics earlier. Obviously not – I got distracted reading all the old 1950s adverts – that was a time when anything was possible – even making a living from sharpening saws!

Some really good 'tips' in that issue as well, unfortunately it doesn't appear to be downloadable..

Neil

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

IanT,

Thanks for the moral support

I am increasingly sure that I want something "shaper-ish" … although it may not end up looking quite like a conventional Shaper.

Incidentally, if anyone wants some good, succinct, notes about the shaper concept; look here.

MichaelG.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Neil,

That's a great link, thanks

MichaelG.

.

[just about to send a PM]

[Gone AwayParticipant @goneaway]

Posted by Stub Mandrel on 24/10/2013 22:05:13:

I thought I posted THIS LINK to Edward's popular mechanics earlier.

…….unfortunately it doesn't appear to be downloadable..

I have a pdf of it in my files so it must be around somewhere. No idea where I got it though.

[ronan walshParticipant @ronanwalsh98054]

Posted by julian atkins on 24/10/2013 01:31:25:

i have used a shaper – once. when at school i made a pattern for frame stays and cast a load of frame stays in the school foundry. i machined them up – if 'machined' is the right word in a shaper. i realised then at quite an early age ie 16 that there must be an easier way of doing things! i used a vertical slide in the lathe for very many years before acquiring my dore westbury mill 25 years ago. ive never used a shaper since i was 16 and have no intention of ever using one again, and everyone i know who has one proudly shows them off but never uses them!

completely obsolete!

glad the isopon amused a few of you!

cheers,

julian

There was an engineering lecturerer (now long retired) when i was back at college doing a degree, who had worked as a toolmaker in america in the aerospace field. I asked him what he thought of shapers one day and he nearly had a fit , he absolutely despised them, said working with them was a complete pita and was glad when the widespread use of the vertical milling machine came in.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by ronan walsh on 24/10/2013 23:07:38:

… he absolutely despised them, said working with them was a complete pita …

.

Ronan,

Serious question … did he say why?

MichaelG.

[ronan walshParticipant @ronanwalsh98054]

Posted by Michael Gilligan on 24/10/2013 23:30:47:

Posted by ronan walsh on 24/10/2013 23:07:38:

… he absolutely despised them, said working with them was a complete pita …

.

Ronan,

Serious question … did he say why?

MichaelG.

Michael

He did say he had several complex workpieces destroyed by cutting tools breaking and the remainder of the tool crashing into the job, like i said this was for aerospace work so the cost may have been an issue (piecework payments perhaps ?). I cannot say for sure if this was the reason for his hate of these machines and i suppose i will never know. I am indifferent to shapers as my experience of them is limited and i cannot make any comments on them one way or the other, but if they were so useful why have they been consigned largely to history in favour of the bridgeport and clones ? When i was finishing off my apprenticeship in a medium sized marine engineers there were rows of vertical mills, lathes, grinders, even some horizontal mills and a large planer (which i only seen used once for a very trivial job) but there was no shapers, they had been scrapped 20 years earlier.

[NobbyParticipant @nobby]

Hi Guys
It was high flow milling that finished of the shaper where I worked .
Nobby

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

Thought I had put in a picture of M. Vautrin's miniature planer of the 1860s, I'll try again. Ian S C

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Ian,

Thanks for posting Vautrin's Planer.

… I have sent you a PM

MichaelG.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by ronan walsh on 25/10/2013 00:25:56:

He did say he had several complex workpieces destroyed by cutting tools breaking and the remainder of the tool crashing into the job, like i said this was for aerospace work …

.

Thanks Ronan,

Yes, that sort of thing does tend to forge an attitude in one's mind.

Risk of Failure x Impact of Failure = an unpleasantly large number.

My own requirement is for something that will take very small, very precise, cuts … so I'm assuming that tool-breakage is Very Low Risk. … [albeit that could be my epitaph]

MichaelG.

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

It is only the west where shaping machines are obsolete. Not so in China. There again all machine tools are becomeing obsolete here.

[jason udallParticipant @jasonudall57142]

Do shaper motions have to be linear?..could arcs be used?
I could imagine a tool with a rotating tool head sweeping a tool past the work. ..sort of like the difference between a circular saw verses a hack saw…

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by jason udall on 25/10/2013 08:52:33:
Do shaper motions have to be linear?..could arcs be used?
I could imagine a tool with a rotating tool head sweeping a tool past the work. ..sort of like the difference between a circular saw verses a hack saw…

.

Good point, Jason

That's one of the many things that I had in mind when I said "shaper-ish" in my recent post.

The German paper that I linked earlier, describes the action of a conventional Shaper as being like a Lathe cutting an infinite radius workpiece … That got me thinking!

MichaelG.

[IanTParticipant @iant]

"Bunyons" (or something similar). Just hit the wrong button and lost the reply I have taken some time to type in!

Let's try again.

With regards to the recent posts above, I'm not too sure how the (ram) tool would sweep in a horizontal arc as it cut (if that is what is being suggested above) but a 'rotating' hand tool held over the work by the (static) ram might? (Does this sound too much like a milling machine??) I would certainly like to know more about your idea though.

Of course, there are shaper heads that allow the tool to be swung in a vertical arc (with the ram static) enabling circular cavities to be shaped and it's also quite possible to 'profile' shape (but not easy I can assure you). There are also "diving heads" (for want of a better description) that enable the work to be turned as it is shaped. A variation of this enables involute gears to be cut (the work is rotated a fixed amount as the table moves sideways – this happening as the ram moves backwards for the next cut). But I don't think this is what is being suggested – so I'm somewhat puzzled but also curious.

Going back to "a very small shaping machine" Michael – I have a slightly different approach for you. I am of course heavily influenced by the fact I already have an Adept No 2. Mine is probably coming inside this winter (to join my other small modelling tools) and I have been thinking along the following lines.

I will make a sub-table to fit the existing Adept table – but it will have a series of accurately spaced tapped holes to enable a flexible clamping approach. I will equip this base with several devices (possibly loaned from other machines) such as a compound slide and 3" rotary table both of which can also hold/clamp small parts (so an ER16 faceplate on the rotary table for instance). I will also make a range of small cutting tools (including saws and files) to fit the existing tool head. I will therefore retain the (relatively) massive rigidity of the No2 but gain (I hope) a good deal of finesse in terms of work movement & measurement. Perhaps I should also mention that the No 2 has a base footprint of about 7" x 8" ( and I can pick it up without too much effort if required) so it's not a massive machine in that sense. It's also very quiet in use if course.

By the way – if I needed to cut semi-arcs on the (hand) shaper (and I would most likely use the Taig for this) I could fix the ram (X & Y) and use a 'free' rotary table to swing the work, just putting the cut on with the head. But I don't think that was being suggested above either?

Anyway, my suggestion (in a nutshell) Michael, is to not completely ignore the larger (hand) shapers but to perhaps think more in terms of finding other ways to move the work under the ram/tool of the larger machine with the degree of finesse that you require. Just a thought.

Regards,

 

IanT

Edited By IanT on 25/10/2013 11:35:08

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

IanT,

Thank you for the extensive reply [especially as you had to write it twice]

This is exactly the sort of discussion I was hoping for, when I first posted.

I will respond properly this evening; but just wanted express my appreciation.

… This is a much better use of the forum than some of what has happened recently.

MichaelG.

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

MichaelG, you'v got a fairly long PM, hope that will work Ian S C

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Ian S C on 25/10/2013 12:20:58:

MichaelG, you'v got a fairly long PM, hope that will work Ian S C

Ian,

That's great

Thanks for taking the trouble.

MichaelG.

[IanTParticipant @iant]

Thanks Michael,

I think you are more likely to find a large (hand) shaper than one of the smaller one and it would give you a big leg up in terms of a usable base unit.

Regards,

IanT

[Ian S CParticipant @iansc]

No problem Michael. The book it came from is a bound volume, one of the second hand book shops in Christchurch, ("Smiths Book Shop", the locals will know it well), had about 20 volumes at $NZ50 each, except the one I have that was water damaged, and I got it for $NZ5. Love these old books, you soon learn there is nothing new in this world, they were, in 1868 worrying about climate change, it was getting colder, and they thought an ice age may be on the way. Ian S C

[North WesternParticipant @northwestern]

Have been following this thread with interest – I had a motorised Adept No.2 shaper for about 20 years. Apparently not many were produced. It required quite a lot of work to bring it back to something like it’s original condition as previous owners had abused it., probably through not understanding it properly.

Very quiet in use, tool grinding very easy, using standard HSS blanks, and the ability to create “specials“ was handy. Probably saved me quite a lot of worn milling cutters over the years. Provided hours of amusement for the cat, who was fascinated by the chips flying through the air. A sheet metal tray was eventually fitted, which spoiled her fun.

Despite it‘s substantial construction, I felt that rigidity was a problem, and on longer strokes there was a tendency for the ram to lift slightly towards the end of the stroke, despite properly adjusted slides. This lift could be corrected by slight downward pressure on the ram. This might not be as apparent with the hand operated model, and most certainly not on larger industrial machines such as Boxford.

Adjusting the length of stroke and the start/finish points was quite a fiddle sometimes, and the auto cross feed needed careful adjustment and observation.

The occasional “dig in” of the tool could ruin a work piece and snap the tool, though generally belt slip saved the tool but not always the work piece.

An excellent surface finish was possible, with fine feed and really sharp, correctly ground and positioned tools, but could be very slow… a reasonable machine for sedate work progress.

The short series by John Olsen in ME in 2005 on cutting curves and cutting between centres on the shaping machine would be of interest I am sure. I recollect that the writer produced sets of expansion links, shaping both the external and internal profiles.

A very small hand shaper such as that envisaged by the OP would have been a great asset when I was making 0 and 1 gauge models 30+ years ago, and I can see the attraction of such a machine. I hope that this project succeeds, as I would be most interested to see the result.

The miller v. shaper discussion in Model Engineering circles has cropped up fairly regularly for at least 25 years in my experience, and no doubt will continue, but such discussion often leads to new useful information from the users of both types of machine. Even if the shaper is considered obsolete in industry, it is apparent that it has a useful life in the amateur area. It is not a substitute for a milling machine, but if one has the space and cash then it can be a useful and interesting additional machine.

As a final comment, my late father, a professional engineer, talking about his RAF service in North Africa during WW2, explained that the destruction of his mobile workshops in an air raid was not the disaster it seemed, as “we were re-equipped PDQ with decent modern American machine tools and reliable generators, no more “new” lathes of antiquated design, and no b***** hand shapers ”

Dave

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Dave,

Thanks … What an excellent first post !!

MichaelG.

[Sub MandrelParticipant @submandrel]

> I could imagine a tool with a rotating tool head sweeping a tool past the work. ..sort of like the difference between a circular saw verses a hack saw…

Called a milling machine?

Four main types of machine tool:

Stationary work, rotating cutter = milling/drilling machine

Rotating work, stationary cutter = lathe

Stationary work, linear cutter motion = shaper

Linear work motion, stationary cutter = planer

Also:

Moving work, moving cutter = universal mill or multi-axis CNC machine!

Stationary work, stationary cutter = as used at British Leyland, mid-1970s ("All out!&quot

Neil

[Author]

Posts