Issue 215 Coming Soon

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Subscription copies of Issue 215 should be out early next week.

You can get a sneak preview here.

Neil

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Preview of Issue 215 is now on the website

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Thanks Neil

Also glad to see that the image link at the top of the web page has been updated … it's been linking to Issue 208 for quite a while.

Best wishes for your Editorial tenure.

MichaelG.

[RobboParticipant @robbo]

Thanks for that Neil. And it contains a method of doing a job which I have coming up shortly!

[JohnFParticipant @johnf59703]

Neil, looks good but here's a suggestion for the issues containing the Index for the previous issues — Make the issue tab in the top corner a very distinctive colour and different from the normal ones.

This would make it easy to locate these in the "vertical stack" file.

Cheers John.

[Steamer1915Participant @steamer1915]

Have to agree with Gray.

Steve.

[Diane CarneyModerator @dianecarney30678]

It's looking good Neil. Well done!

Diane

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

Seems a good mix of articles given that there are a couple of grandfathered articles still running.

Quite liked the Warco raising block and his idea of a 3 part one, just come right as I have a couple to do but have already decided to do them as one piece units and use longer tee bolts. Just need some kind soul with big arms to help me get a 6 foot length of 6" bar on the power saw.

Had to smile at Peter Shaws postscript where he modified the tailstock of his machine and quote " I therefore bought a proper MT2 arbor and reduced the tang "

So if it was proper why did it need reducing ? Can't understand people modifying a part that's not wrong to make up for a machine that is.

So that tanged tool is only suitable for one machine now, I can certainly understand why he did it but not the way he did.

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

John,

How come you know that? 'cos I ain't yet seen it in print!

Anyway, the answer is:

Originally, I kept the drill chuck from my Hobbymat (MT1) and bought a MT1 to MT2 adaptor. The 220 has a self-ejecting tailstock and with that combination, it was impossible to retract to zero without the self-eject working. Changing to the proper B16-MT2 adaptor for the chuck reduced the minimum some way towards zero but not fully. Removing the tang overcame that particular problem.

Now ok, I suppose I could have reduced the self-eject prong, but in general I do not like modifying the lathe on a permanent basis so removing the tang was the lesser of two evils. In any case, the B16-MT2 adaptor can always be replaced if necessary at some future stage.

Regards,

Peter G. Shaw

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

I'll admit I have a selection of MT2 drill arbors with the tang chopped off. The mini lathe doesn't have anything to engage the tang and neither does it have the facility for a drawbar. Thing is, if you use a tapped arbor, the eject screw seems to get stuck in it sometimes, so a plain taper with no tang or threaded hole works best.

The digital edition is now available for download. I haven't seen a paper one yet myself!

Neil

Edited By Neil Wyatt on 05/04/2014 18:00:14

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

End of the day the lathe should eject a tanged tool at the end of it's travel.

All MT tooling should be to a British Standard or ISO or whatever.

Decent lathes eject at the right place so it's not the tooling. I just can't understand people who won't drill holes in a machine tool because the factory didn't do it but hack and slash at everything else that touches it.

Long, short is a lot of manufacturers got it wrong.

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

You know I'm happy to hack my lathe, John! Problem is the design doesn't lend itself to adding the extra without losing travel or space between centres.

Neil

[Peter G. ShawParticipant @peterg-shaw75338]

John,

Agree with what you say, but we do live in an imperfect world and in my case it is always the lesser of two evils.

I have added two little heaters to the lathe (four holes), cleaned up a cone in the self-act mechanism (for the life of I cannot see how it worked in the state it was in, but work it did), drilled two holes in the cross-slide to take a vertical slide, filled other holes with epoxy filler paste to prevent dirt going down them, so modifying the lathe isn't an absolute no-no for me. In any case, I do have a recollection that when I stripped, cleaned, and adjusted the tailstock some years ago, there was something I could not get out. Whether it was the self-eject or something else I cannot remember.

Anyway, I really cannot see anything wrong in what I did, after all, Tubal Cain once said something like "there is no single right way in engineering". It was simple and easy to do, and best of all for me, if I got it wrong, I could always order up a replacement arbor.

Regards,

Peter G. Shaw

Edited By Peter G. Shaw on 05/04/2014 20:14:08

[JasonBModerator @jasonb]

John if you alter the lathe to eject tanged tooling at the end of the tailstocks travel what happens when you want to eject say a live or dead centre that has no tang?

In my case if I had left the drill arbor with the tang and taken 20mm off the screw it would need to wind the tailstock barrel to minus 5mm to eject my Skoda live ctr and as it stops at zero there is no way the ctr would eject.

J

[Ian PParticipant @ianp]

I have a MT2 Skoda live centre and it only ejects from my Boxford if I unscrew its endcap about half a mm.

As far as I know the tailstock is standard, some of the tooling I use in it is shared with the milling machine and I put M10 or 3/8 UNC hex socket capheads in the drawbar threads as they are cheaper than screw in tangs (which I think would lose me a little of the travel anyway)

Ian P

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi, like Peter, I have a 220 and I agree when using a chuck with a tang or a tanged MT drill, it will eject before zero. My live centre without a tang will not eject at all in the 220, but will in my Boxford. Can't be bothered to faff about with the tailstock, got to much else to do, so I just get on with it as is.

Regards Nick.

Edited By Nicholas Farr on 05/04/2014 22:56:20

[Michael GilliganParticipant @michaelgilligan61133]

Posted by Graham Meek on 10/04/2014 09:10:08:

I see from the index of this issue that there is an article on a Poly belt conversion for the Super 7, I have a feeling this was covered by someone in the 1980's, possibly in ME.

….

Gray,

.

… And yet; here we are in 2014 and there are still many who don't know;

 

(a) How good they are, and

 

(b) How easy they are to work with.

 

Maybe this latest article will spread the word.

 

MichaelG.

 

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

or

(c) how easy it is to get much bigger ratios simply and in a small space

The smallest pulley size can be as little as 19mm, indeed tumble driers usually use one around a very small motor mounted pulley and then taken around the drum.

Neil

[jason udallParticipant @jasonudall57142]

Good to see Chuck again

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

> Good to see Chuck again

Indeed, he might pop up from time to time, but the cartoon was so apt for the accompanying article I had to use it

Neil

[Rick Kirkland 1Participant @rickkirkland1]

Just read issue 215. Neil, welcome to the editorship. Nice mix of articles. Poly vee belts eh? It may have been done in ME in the past but I dont take ME and so I appreciate this kind of thing in MEW. Stuff is bound to be repeated but why get uptight about it. Just move on to something that does interest you. I don't ( at the moment) read anything on CNC but I know the time will come when I want or need to know something about it and having my back issues I can easily find it. I recall articles on electroplating which I scanned through at the time but the occasion will arise when I need to plate something and the information is to hand to study in full. Keep the mix of articles flowing and make sure there is something of interest to everyone in each issue and you can't do much more. If you send out an issue with nothing of interest to anyone you really have gone wrong. I imagine to do that would need a great deal of effort. You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people. . . .blah blah etc. I like the mag as do many more of the non complaining get stuff done in the workshop brigade. All the best for the future.

Rick

[John Stevenson 1Participant @johnstevenson1]

Might have been in ME in the 1980's but given the average age of model engineers is around 134 years of age they will all have died off by now so worth repeating.

[Gray62Participant @gray62]

Posted by John Stevenson on 10/04/2014 21:42:20:

Might have been in ME in the 1980's but given the average age of model engineers is around 134 years of age they will all have died off by now so worth repeating.

Or maybe not into model engineering at that time​​​.

I've been thinking about modifying a flat belt driven machine to polly fee for a while, the info in this article was very useful.

Overall a good first mag Neil, keep it up

[Neil WyattModerator @neilwyatt]

Interesting comments, thanks for the feedback.

I think poly-v is probably best when you have good access to the belts. 'Traditional' v-belts are better when you have to work by feel.

Neil

[Author]

Posts