ML7 Crossfeed direct reading?

[Martin King 2Participant @martinking2]

Hi All,

Does anyone know of any plans for converting the crossfeed dial to direct read the amount of cut instead of having to divide by 2?

This really annoys me as I keep forgetting…..

Many thanks,

Martin

[Martin King 2Participant @martinking2]

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

I would have thought you just need to make a new ring and engrave it with half the number of divisions.

EDIT. I'm not really a Myford man but it has a 10tpi screw and the handwheel is usually divided into 100 divisions eg 0.001" each which would be direct reading  of cut not diameter

Edited By JasonB on 11/12/2014 20:12:03

[Andrew Moyes 1Participant @andrewmoyes1]

I would have thought you just need to make a new ring and engrave it with half the number of divisions.

Should that be twice the number of divisions? One old division will equal two thou on the diameter.

Andrew M

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

As he wants to be able to read "the amount of cut" I was thinking 50 divisions rather than 100 so each turn division would be a one thou advance of the tool.

But my edit suggests that is what the Myford already has a direct reading of depth of cut not reduction of dia.

Can any ML7 users confiorm the tpi and divisions on teh wheel as to me it looks like a direct reading of cut anyway??

[Martin King 2Participant @martinking2]

Now I'm REALLY confused!

Martin

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Jason,

 

 

This [cross slide] one is bent and worn, but it's standard Myford

10 tpi and 100 divisions  =  Direct reading of displacement.

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 12/12/2014 08:01:07

[Andrew Moyes 1Participant @andrewmoyes1]

1 thou on the dial advances the tool by 1 thou. I read it that Martin wanted a dial that shows the change in diameter. Is that correct Martin?

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

"direct read the amount of cut"

But maybe Martin wants to read "amount cut of the diameter" where most of us would term "cut" as the depth of cut eg how much the tool advances

If it is a reading of diameter reduction then yes 100 divs of 0.002" each would do it and is what is on my lathe.

J

PS thanks for the confirmation Michael

[Martin King 2Participant @martinking2]

Hi, Yes I want the dial to read the actual amount of reduction in diameter. If work is 1.001" and I feed the crossfeed .001" work should end up at 1.000", not what I have at the moment I am sure.

Regards,

Martin

[JohnFParticipant @johnf59703]

Hi Martin, what you have is the industry standard, all the machines I have worked on over the last fifty + years have this format, Smart & Brown, Colchester, Boxford, DSG, and my own machines Myford and Emco and few others I can't remember . That's not to say that there may be exceptions but I have never seen any.

To do what you want you would have to half the division or make twice as many divisions on your dial — same result ! This would mean that one division would move the tool 0.0005" thus take a cut of 0.001" off the diameter of the work.

Hope this makes it clear to you but if you persevere you will learn to accommodate the standard format and remember if you do choose to alter your machine any other you may start using will give you the same problem. My advice would be stick with it !

Regards John

Edited By JohnF on 12/12/2014 09:27:09

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Martin King 2 on 12/12/2014 08:57:44:

Hi, Yes I want the dial to read the actual amount of reduction in diameter. If work is 1.001" and I feed the crossfeed .001" work should end up at 1.000"

.

Martin,

Sorry, but you can't have it both ways

If you [quote] feed the crossfeed .001" [/quote] it will reduce the radius by .001", and therefore the diameter by .002"

By all means re-number the divisions to suit your own preference, but there is nothing wrong with the logic of the standard arrangement.

MichaelG.

Edited By Michael Gilligan on 12/12/2014 09:35:49

[Anonymous]

Posted by JohnF on 12/12/2014 09:24:36:

Hi Martin, what you have is the industry standard, all the machines I have worked on over the last fifty + years have this format, Smart & Brown, Colchester, Boxford, DSG, and my own machines Myford and Emco and few others I can't remember . That's not to say that there may be exceptions but I have never seen any.

Never used a Harrison then! On my Harrison M300 if I move the cross slide by 10 thou on the dial then the work is reduced by 10 thou on the diameter. Seems more logical to me, as what you're really interested in is the size of the work, not how far the tool moves.

Andrew

[Martin King 2Participant @martinking2]

OK Guys , many thanks. Got it now! Its just that a friend has a Hardinge which reads directly and it was a pleasure to use.

Cheers all and happy Xmas!

Martin

[Russell EberhardtParticipant @russelleberhardt48058]

Posted by Andrew Johnston on 12/12/2014 09:40:57:

Seems more logical to me, as what you're really interested in is the size of the work, not how far the tool moves.

Unless you're screwcutting?? I don't see a problem, multiplying or dividing by two in my head doesn't exactly stretch the grey cells.

Russell.

[Gordon AParticipant @gordona]

Martin

You could try setting your top or compound slide to exactly 30 degrees and advancing cut from there as I believe that it would give you a direct reading of material removed from the diameter.

I stand to be corrected if this is wrong.

Gordon.

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Or keep your division ring and make a 20 TPI leadscrew

[MuzzerParticipant @muzzer]

The Colchester Bantam also reads directly in terms of diameter reduction. Once I realised it is fitted with metric leadscrews and dials on the cross slide and topslide (but has an imperial main leadscrew and gearbox!), I was able to see that the dials indicate direct 0.1mm (major) and 0.02mm (minor) increments. I was confused for quite a while by the mixed units, although it seems to be a common situation on Bantams, many of which were supplied to schools.

I measure the actual diameter with a digital caliper and dial in the required final cut directly. Works as intended.

Murray

Edited By Muzzer on 12/12/2014 12:32:34

[steamdaveParticipant @steamdave]

I remember reading somewhere that on Imperial lathes the cross slide dial graduations show the depth of cut and on Metric machines, the dials show the reduction in diameter.

I've got two lathes – one Imperial and one Metric, and I get confused when working between them, but I put that down to me old age!

Dave
The Emerald Isle

[Graham ButcherParticipant @grahambutcher80356]

I wonder whether Myford chose tool movement divisions on the cross slide because users were likely to do milling using a vertical slide.

Graham B

[Gordon WParticipant @gordonw]

I assumed that dial readings on any machine tool was the actual movement of the slide, until I got an eastern lathe. This has all showing the actual movement except the cross-slide which shows diameter reduction. Took a while to realise that, I don't like the idea but am now used to it. Bores are a real brain ache, thread cutting just needs a bit of thought. When I get the time I do intend to make a new dial, but by then it will be second nature.

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

You just need to renumber the dial, instead of 0, 10,20,30, 40, etc make one or fit a ring over the top that reads 0, 20, 40, 60……..160, 180 and back to 0.

So each small division will then be 0.002" off diameter.

To try and get 0.001" divisions would really need a larger dia dial as the lines would get too close together.

My far Eastern Imperial lathe reads diameter not tool movement

[Mike PooleParticipant @mikepoole82104]

The Colchesters I have used (Bantam, Student and Triumph) all take off the diameter, I have just looked at a DSG type 15 and Herbert capstan, and the cross slide on both take off the radius. It looks you have to get used to what you have got as there is no standard.

Mike

[MuzzerParticipant @muzzer]

I can't see my Bantam from the armchair here but logically the topslide should have half the scale numbering of the cross slide, given that it spends much (most) of its time not perpendicular to the axis. Can anyone confirm on this or a similar machine?

Murray

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Both arrangements have their niche: Therefore, neither can be 'correct'.

Maybe we need a nice little MEW project to make quickly interchangeable dials; so that you can use the appropriate dial for the job.

MichaelG.

[Author]

Posts