Compound Table

[VicParticipant @vic]

I have been thinking one of these small tables might be useful for some jobs on my wood turning lathe. The problem is that the hand wheel on the table is on the wrong side. Do any of you have experience of these things. Is it likely I can swap the table round so the top hand wheel is on the left side instead of the right?

 

[DC31kParticipant @dc31k]

It is possible.

If you look at the second photo (i.e. the technical drawing), the right hand view is of the underside of the table. That shows the nut for the Y-axis at the bottom of the view, nearest the handwheel.

 

If you swap the table to the other side, you might have to swap the nut to the other side of the casting (because if you leave it where it is, the leadscrew is likely to be too short).

[VicParticipant @vic]

Week spotted! Thanks for that. I had (wrongly) assumed the nut would be in the middle. If it’s part of the casting then it’s a no. Buying a new nut and fitting it on the other end could be problematic. Sadly all the small tables follow convention and have the handle on the right as it’s facing you. 🫤

Edit: Looking again the one you mention isn’t the one that needs changing. There’s no guarantee they haven’t done the same thing on the other axis though? The drawing is not too clear that it can be trusted.

[DC31kParticipant @dc31k]

Have a look on YT for Winky’s Workshop. He shows disassembly of a larger version of the table.

The nut is almost certainly NOT part of the casting. It would be like a (bronze) lathe compound slide nut. The nut just floats in a circular hole drilled in the stationary part of the slide. On the table you are considering, the nut won’t be bronze, but it will be a separate part. On the YT video, it is not in a hole, but screwed to the lower part with four capscrews.

The red circled part below is the underside of the nut in question. It would need moving the same distance ‘above’ the horizontal centreline as it is currently ‘below’ that line.

Edit: in the post above, I said Y-axis. That is incorrect. I should have said X-axis (going left-right as you use the table).

Second edit: another alternative is to swap the side of the Y-axis (lower section of the table) but that looks more complicated. A third option is to extend the X-axis screw, leaving the nut where it is. The issue is whether it is a standard thread – some of the Chinese leadscrews use trapezoidal screws in a non-standard diameter/pitch combination.

Table is available cheaper from eBay (item number 394275370463):

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/394275370463

[VicParticipant @vic]

Looking at some of the other pictures the leadscrew doesn’t, as expected look to clever. I really need to see one in the flesh to be confident of converting it TBH.

[DalboyParticipant @dalboy]

I can’t see the benefit of changing the hand wheel to the other end, as it would mean that your hand will be next to the chuck end. Not somewhere I would want to have my hand close to. The only real use of a table on woodlathe is to turn cylinders.

Unless you intend to use it on the wrong side of the lathe and then like most I have seen you would need to reach over the head stock to reach the stop button

[Dalboy]

On Dalboy Said:

I can’t see the benefit of changing the hand wheel to the other end, as it would mean that your hand will be next to the chuck end

Lower handwheel facing tailstock. In standard format the upper wheel would be facing the back of the lathe, hence reversing the upper section would be just like a normal cross slide.

[DC31k]

On DC31k Said:

On Dalboy Said:

I can’t see the benefit of changing the hand wheel to the other end, as it would mean that your hand will be next to the chuck end

Lower handwheel facing tailstock. In standard format the upper wheel would be facing the back of the lathe, hence reversing the upper section would be just like a normal cross slide.

Yes, you’ve got it. 😉

[Dalboy]

On Dalboy Said:

I can’t see the benefit of changing the hand wheel to the other end, as it would mean that your hand will be next to the chuck end. Not somewhere I would want to have my hand close to. The only real use of a table on woodlathe is to turn cylinders.

Unless you intend to use it on the wrong side of the lathe and then like most I have seen you would need to reach over the head stock to reach the stop button

Did you look at the picture? This is how it is at the moment. The bottom hand wheel would face the tail stock. The top hand wheel would be at the back of the lathe. Not very user friendly is it?

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

I take it for your intended application, you can’t simply turn it 90º clockwise (referring to that drawing) so the top handwheel faces the tailstock and the lower (right-hand in the picture) faces outwards as normal?

If so could it be made to suit by mounting it via an appropriate adaptor plate, without losing too much more height below the lathe axis?

[bernard towersParticipant @bernardtowers37738]

Yes Nigel you beat me to it

[peak4Participant @peak4]

I’m guessing that the intended application depends on the orientation of the T slots, as the X & Y travel may be similar.

Bill

[Martin ConnellyParticipant @martinconnelly55370]

I suppose you could add tee slots at 90° to the existing slots but the orientation of the long axis of the table may be the important factor.

Martin C

[peak4]

On peak4 Said:

I’m guessing that the intended application depends on the orientation of the T slots, as the X & Y travel may be similar.

Bill

Yes, that’s exactly right bill. I need the long axis of the compound table across the lathe bed with one hand wheel towards me and the other to the right.

[Martin ConnellyParticipant @martinconnelly55370]

Bit OTT maybe but as a last resort you could machine off the top of the table and add a dowelled bolted on T slotted plate in the orientation required.

Martin C

[DiogenesParticipant @diogenes]

Dunno whether you are still mulling the project over, but AimTools do a 185×100 that looks like it might be slightly different in the detail, there’s some useful photos on their website – to me it looks like reversing the saddle might be an option, the nut is central.. ..of course reversing the saddle will put the gib on the ‘wrong’ side, but I guess it depends what you are hoping to do with it..

I’ll leave it with you, it’s been a long day..

Cast Iron Compound Working Table 2 Axis 4 Way 185*100

[VicParticipant @vic]

Thanks for that. It looks identical to the others I’ve seen but they show a picture of the underside. It looks like I could just flip it round as, as you say the nut is in the middle?

 

[Vic]

On Vic Said:

as you say the nut is in the middle

The nut shown in the picture in your post is for the Y-axis. That is not the nut that would be entered from the opposite side if reversing the X-axis.

It would be a big step to assume the nut for the X-axis is central and directly above (below in the photo) that one. Try to draw a cross section of the table with that assumption held to be true: it would be difficult to come up with a method of constraining the two nuts with the necessary degrees of freedom if they were directly on top of one another.

Maybe you could be cheeky and ask AIM Tools to unwind the X-axis off one of their tables and take a photo what we all need to see.

[Martin ConnellyParticipant @martinconnelly55370]

I do wonder if the two axes share the same piece of metal for a nut.

Martin C

[VicParticipant @vic]

From what I’ve seen of other tables the nuts share the same part. Due to the bolt holes though they are not opposite each other. One nut is in the centre and the nut on the other side is quite some distance away. I’ve asked another vendor that sells this type of table (at a considerable discount compared to the Aim one) if they would be able to take a picture of the base. If it’s the same as the Aim table I may take a chance.

I’d obviously like to avoid it but if it comes to it I can hopefully replace the nuts and make spindles from off the shelf threaded rod. It won’t much impact the table for the use I have in mind for it.

Edit: If the castings are any good I’ve just seen some trapezoidal screws and nuts that aren’t too exorbitant. 😄

[Martin Connelly]

On Martin Connelly Said:

I do wonder if the two axes share the same piece of metal for a nut.

As a practical matter, I think that would be harder and more costly to make than with separate nuts.

It would mean the centre-to-centre distance of the threaded holes to accept the two leadscrews would have to be predetermined. It gives no place for any tolerance in the up-and-down location of either axis screw on its casting. It means the total stack up of the male-female dovetails on X plus the male-female dovetails on Y has to be held to an exact number.

Much easier to have two separate nuts, that can slide vertically in their housing. The two dovetails then become independent of each other and each can accommodate variation in its overall height. It also decouples any variation in dovetail stack height from variation in leadscrew height relative to any set datum line.

As I said, draw a cross section through the centre of the one piece nut that you suggest and then draw all the other pieces in relation to it. You will see the difficulties it imposes and thus the manufacturing cost increase it would cause.

[VicParticipant @vic]

A couple of days ago I watched the video you suggested. I’m guessing the smaller table has a similar setup? I’ll post a link for others to see the issues.

 

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

I don’t want to resurrect old bigotries [some things have improved  a lot in recent years] … but that video reminds me so much of the the old saying that Chinese machine tools were fine if you considered them as a kit of parts.

I sometimes wonder if both customer and supplier would get a better deal if they sold a kit of part-finished castings instead.

 

MichaelG.

[Martin ConnellyParticipant @martinconnelly55370]

The video shows that you don’t need a trained fitter to put a Ø15 shaft in a Ø16 hole so you can make cheap parts with cheap labour. The problem of poor fits is then the customer’s problem when they have bought the cheap goods. Quality always costs more.

Martin C

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

My point was that by omitting  the ‘cheap parts with cheap labour’ … buyer and seller could benefit.

[ compare Hemingway ]

I suppose it depends on whether the labour is being exploited, or is supported by having a job.

But let’s not get into Politics.

MichaelG.

[Author]

Posts