lathe identification

[Andy Freeman 1Participant @andyfreeman1]

My friend has had this lathe for many years and has no idea what make it is. Looking at it today I said I had no idea either but I am sure I'll have answer for you by tomorrow!

So, does anyone recognise it and do you think a larger chuck was ever available for it?

Thanks

[Andy Freeman 1Participant @andyfreeman1]

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

For some reason it makes me think Boley (they ahd lots of wacky bed shapes), but I can't see a match on lathes.co.uk

Neil

[MalcBParticipant @malcb52554]

Yes an unusual bed profile for sure. Not one I have seen before.

No reason why a slightly bigger chuck wont go on, just a case of sorting out a backing plate. Until spindle nose configuration is known, will not be able to tell if shop bought is available or a homemade one will be necessary.

[Clive FosterParticipant @clivefoster55965]

Trapezoidal bed, twin bevel gear leadscrew reverse and too clever by half worm drive change wheel equivalent system.

Can only be a Pittler. Model B is 3" centre height, Model C is 5" version.

See **LINK**.

Clive.

[Andy Freeman 1Participant @andyfreeman1]

Thanks all for your replies! I knew I could rely on you guys! A Pittler lathe it is.

I will also check the spindle nose thread size.

Andy

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

"Capable of 200 different machining operations" – turning, facing, boring, screwcutting and 196 you will never use…

So likely to be over100 years old!

Neil

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Interesting to see Pittler's current product:

**LINK**

http://www.dvs-gruppe.com/fileadmin/user_upload/pittler/Pittler_Multi-Tool_Internet_ENG.pdf

MichaelG.

.

Edit: and here is [a very interesting] one of Pittler's patents !!

https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/originalDocument?CC=US&NR=674177A&KC=A&FT=D&ND=3&date=19010514&DB=EPODOC&locale=en_EP

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 11/03/2017 22:38:01

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

This page, about a quarter-size model, mentions Geo. Gentry articles in M.E.

**LINK**

http://modelengineeringwebsite.com/Pittler_lathe.html

… Those would make interesting reading.

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 11/03/2017 22:51:42

[John OlsenParticipant @johnolsen79199]

Well, I only have a few issues from 1940 so only have one of the articles…Here it is for your perusal.

John

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by John Olsen on 12/03/2017 02:18:14:

Well, I only have a few issues from 1940 so only have one of the articles…Here it is for your perusal.

John

.

John,

Many thanks for posting this ^^^

On brief acquaintance, I am very impressed by Herr Pittler !!

MichaelG.

[Clive FosterParticipant @clivefoster55965]

Michael

Impressive indeed. Herr Pittler must have had a truly amazing ability to visualise not only the solid geometry of shapes but also their production by usefully simple manipulation of the tool approach angle. Previously I'd always thought that the rotating slide carrier capability of the Pittler was pretty much an exercise in being different for different's sake in an era before a generally satisfactory standard engineering metal turning lathe configuration had evolved.

That article makes it clear that the Pittler is more heir to the Ornamental Turning Lathe approach rather than the standard lathe whose evolution is clearly much more directly from the simple pole lathe. Ornamental turning is based on clever tool positioning to create complex shapes and the Pittler clearly follows the same reasoning. Albeit in the more robust form required for machined engineering components.

The skill and care needed in set-up to produce accurate work must have been considerable. Especially if another identical batch of components were needed later after the settings had been changed to do other jobs. Calculation of the settings can't have been trivial either in a world without calculators, log table or slide rules. Objectively a blind ally i machine tool evolution but an impressive one.

Fairly obvious how you get the 200 operations claim. Basically every class of shape counts as an operation. Neil's skepticism aside I think its a valid viewpoint as doing the more complex things on a conventional machine would need a raft of attachments and considerable numbers of accessories for said attachments. Or a CNC. Wonder how a Pittler style CNC would go.

Inherent tool height adjustment too. No shims or expensive QC systems needed.

Clive.

[Alan Johnson 7Participant @alanjohnson7]

Hello Andy,

I also have a Pittler B3 – with several attachments including the dividing head, and a fine set of carbon steel tools in a beautiful wooden box – for ornamental work (I suspect). Would you happen to have the dividing head too, or more importantly, know how to fit it to the lathe?

Many thanks to John for the reference to the Model Engineer articles. I have the book "100 Years of Pittler" but it obviously deals with the history of the firm, and not so much on the machines and how to use them. It is also in German!

Regards,

Alan.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Looking at the diagrams, there must have been some huge challenges as all the more complex shapes need careful roughing out (if that isn't an oxymoron) multiple tool setting, even to complete individual curves.

That said. I'm unconvinced that a height adjustable cross-slide mounted internal/external ball turning tool couldn't do all those operations. This gives you the same three up, across, along axes of movement of the axis of rotation as his tilting arrangement.

It's a very clever way of doing something that could be done rather more simply.

The advantage of the Pittler being you don't lose centre height over the cross slide and the down side being that his swivel arrangement would mean all setting having to be done by eye, whereas with a cross-slide mounted tool you could use dials to set the tool.

Neil

[Clive FosterParticipant @clivefoster55965]

Posted by Neil Wyatt on 12/03/2017 09:16:43:

It's a very clever way of doing something that could be done rather more simply.

Neil

Probably not. The Pittler seems to achieve everything with two rotational and one linear movement in additional to the usual along the bed shifts. Your ball turning tool approach would need to be top slide mounted and have two rotational and three linear movements as well as the along the bed shift. Once you start getting into asymmetric and ovoid shapes life becomes difficult without tilt. As I understand it the Pittler is inherently capable of producing such.

Need to consider the actual manufacture of the machine too. Accurate slides are harder than pivots. Especially in those days. So the Pittler way is less costly to make than Neil's equivalent. Yet still eye watering expensive. Dials is a bit of a red herring as they weren't the thing then. Again very expensive until rotary embossing and similar tools able to do them by simple rolling were developed. For accurate rotational setting a degree disk and vernier may well have been easier to produce. Ruling engines being established technology even then.

No getting away from highly skilled operators tho'.

Clive.

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Clive Foster on 12/03/2017 09:50:51:

… The Pittler seems to achieve everything with two rotational and one linear movement in additional to the usual along the bed shifts.

.

… and the basic design [rather than the actual hardware] might therefore lend itself to the application of stepper motors.

MichaelG.

[JAParticipant @ja]

Not about the lathe but has anyone read the small article "Grey finish for tool and steel model parts" at the bottom of the second illustrated page?

Don't try it. Lead Acetate is a nasty poison.

JA

[Author]

Posts