 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Models / April 2007Poorly Fitting Holders Dixon Type QCTP Myford Size
As a favour for a friend I bought him a genuine Dixon QCTP (Myford Size) as I picked up up some other things for myself. He is now moaning that his cheap "patern" holders do not fit well. Apparently the large 45 deg (?) faces are further apart on the genuine tool post. Has anyone else found this problem? If so has anyone found a source of patern (read as cheap) holders that fit properly. Any help appreciated otherwise it seems I have inadvertantly bought myself another QCTP. Regards Keith >As a favour for a friend I bought him a genuine Dixon QCTP (Myford >Size) as I picked up up some other things for myself. He is now [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Keith Smack him playfully round the head with a wet copy of Exchange and Mart and tell him to get off his arse and look for his own bargains. . -- Regards, John Stevenson Nottingham, England. Visit the new Model Engineering adverts page at:- http://www.homeworkshop.org.uk/ On Apr 28, 9:44 am, John Stevenson <j...@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote: > >As a favour for a friend I bought him a genuine Dixon QCTP (Myford > >Size) as I picked up up some other things for myself. He is now [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Visit the new Model Engineering adverts page at:-http://www.homeworkshop.org.uk/ Very tempted John, but at the moment I have a sense of humour failure so the "playfully" might not apply. Can you still get Exchange & Mart I haven't noticed one for ages. I should have learnt years ago about doing favours for some "friends". Regards Keith >Can you still get Exchange & Mart >I haven't noticed one for ages. I believe that by popular demand, they are even selling a special wet edition these days <G> Sorry...typo there...that should read "Web". Reagrds, Tony In answer to your question has anyone else had the problem .....yes, but I took my "cheap" holders back to the supplier who refunded me. Maybe your supplier will take the post back? You can but ask. On Apr 28, 12:43 pm, "Alan Marshall" <alan_marsh...@ldsl.pipex.com> wrote: > In answer to your question has anyone else had the problem .....yes, but I > took my "cheap" holders back to the supplier who refunded me. Maybe your > supplier will take the post back? You can but ask. Thanks Alan, at least that means that it is not just this "one" block. I'm afraid I will need to "absorb" the cost this time though. I have now had both tool holders and both types of post in my hand and see that the problem is on the cheap holders the part that locates under the "T" is far thicker than on the genuine Dixon, this holds the angled faces apart as it grounds on the Dixon. I suppose the simplist way would be to thin this section of the holder down on the surface grinder.........if I had one. Another method might be to grind the genuine toolpost behind the locking plate to give more clearance. The problem there is that I've never taken one of these apart so not sure if that is a simple task. Ah, well we live and learn. I have just taken the opportunity to buy myself a much newer S7 so when I sell my current power crossfeed S7B it will be an even better deal as it will come with a Dixon of its own. Best regards Keith >On Apr 28, 12:43 pm, "Alan Marshall" <alan_marsh...@ldsl.pipex.com> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Keith Had the same problem with reproduction Dickson T1/S1 holders. Got so hacked off at the crapness of the reproduction parts and the silly cost of the real ones that I flogged it and bought a piston type holder from Arc Euro. Lovely piece of kit,works a dream. Added bonus is that the holders are a "dovetail" design and can therefore be easily made at home. Charles > Had the same problem with reproduction Dickson T1/S1 holders. Got so > hacked off at the crapness of the reproduction parts and the silly [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Charles This is very relevant to my own thoughts. My recently acquired Boxford AUD came with a Dixon tool post and a couple of holders and I was thinking about buying some additional holders at Harrogate although the S0 is pricey compared to the S00 size for a Myford. I have had a look at the piston type from Arc but I am unsure about how the tool locking mechanism works. The picture seems to show that the tool holder is pushed away from the tool post locking against the dovetail. This doesn't seem to me to be as rigid as a Dixon type where the tool holder is pulled back against the tool post. Have I understood the piston type locking arrangement or is there something else going on? Archie > > Had the same problem with reproduction Dickson T1/S1 holders. Got so > > hacked off at the crapness of the reproduction parts and the silly [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Archie Archie, I have one of the 200 series piston type toolposts on my BH600. While I was initially concerned as it does lock as you describe, in practise it has worked extremely well. Even with heavy and intermittant cuts I have not sensed any lack of rigidity or had the tool come loose. The locking movement is very small and the cam seems well up to providing sufficient force to resist the cutting loads. It also has the advantage that the holders are easy to make. My only comment would be that for some reason it seems to need very firm tightening to lock the block to the topslide. On my own AUD I have one of the John Stevenson toolposts that I made myself and that also works extremely well. It also has easy to make tool holders. To be honest with the piston type being so reasonably priced these days from suppliers like ArcEuro I wouldn't make my own again. I also have a Dixon on my Myford and that is superb. Having all three types in use, I have to say that given the choice with money not an issue it would be a Dixon on every machine for me (just my personal opinion). In the real world where I have to pay for the tooling I would have no hessitation in recommending the piston type as a good second choice. When I decided to make my toolpost for the AUD it was a financial decision. I had looked at the Dixon type that is available for the machine, but while the basic set always appears available, the individual tool holders regularly seemed to be in short supply. I don't know if that is still the case today. Best regards Keith >> > Had the same problem with reproduction Dickson T1/S1 holders. Got so >> > hacked off at the crapness of the reproduction parts and the silly [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > >Keith One the size of lathe we are talking about they work very well, true they push and don't pull but the design allows them to lock far better then the Dixon type even if they pull. The Dixon type pulls and relies on the angular contact of the cam but has no over centre mechanism to actually lock it so although it looks to work opposite is as poor as the piston for actually locking. As I say these are fine for small lathes but I have a big Dixon type on my large TOS lathe, probably a size 4 ?and on large work with interrupted cuts like flame cut plates it often vibrates undone and requires a lot of effort to keep it clamped. It isn't until you get onto this scale of work that the limitations of design show. Another annoying point on the Dixon type is the number of protruding screws, adjusters etc on the top. When you are plowing steel off in large quantities it always gets raveled around these, dragging turnings from the back of the lathe and your biscuits off the headstock. Hob Nobs with EN8 mangled in them plays havoc with the pearly whites. . -- Regards, John Stevenson Nottingham, England. Visit the new Model Engineering adverts page at:- http://www.homeworkshop.org.uk/ On Apr 29, 9:42 am, John Stevenson <j...@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> wrote: > >> > Had the same problem with reproduction Dickson T1/S1 holders. Got so > >> > hacked off at the crapness of the reproduction parts and the silly [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Thanks John, good information as always. That explains why when I was working the guys on the shop floor always wanted to buy a QCT system as an extra buy with a new machine. I think they used to like an American type but I can't remember the specific manufacturer, I do remember they were expensive though. Still not a problem for us amateurs, I still think it's a novelty (risky?) to get the swarf a pretty blue colour. Regards Keith > On Apr 29, 9:42 am, John Stevenson <j...@stevenson-engineers.co.uk> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 110 lines] > > Keith Keith, Assuming I go for the piston type, do you think the 100 or 200 is most suitable for the Boxford. If it makes any difference, mine a Mk III 5" centre height. I have had a look at the spec and it seems to me that the S0 Dixon falls half way between the piston types 100 and 200. John, Does Ketan usually bring stock of these along to the shows? Archie > <jontom_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 129 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Archie Hi, I personally would go with the 100 series as the 5" centre height Boxford is right in the middle of its intended range (up to 6"). I have just put my 200 series on my AUD and although it would work is really too large. It will be working with the holders right at the bottom of their range and the height and size of the main block will interfere with access. The 100 series main block is very close in size to the toolholder I have made for my AUD and I think that is ideal. Bulky enough to be rigid but small enough not to overpower the lathe and inhibit access. To be honest the 200 (range 5" to 7.5") is large for my 6" centre height Warco, had I chosen the system myself I would have gone for the 100. One other issue might be the size of tool that they will accommodate if you have a lot of large tools already, the 100 is listed as having a capacity of 1/2" sq and the 200 as 5/8" sq. This wouldn't bother me as the holders are so easy to make I would just make a couple with oversize slots. I can't comment on Arc Euros' stock at shows but to me (as a happy customer) it looks fairly comprehensive. I'm sure if you gave Ketan a ring before hand he would make sure there was one there for you. I have always found him friendly and helpful and he doesn't appear to me to be the sort who would be too slow to miss a sales opportunity. :-) I'm sure John will soon arrive with the inside story. Best regards Keith On 30 Apr, 09:56, jontom_...@hotmail.com wrote: > > <jontom_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 158 lines] > > Keith I agonised over which to buy, 100 or 200. fortunatly I only live down the road from arc, so took my existing toolpost with me one trip. I got a 200 form my Harrison L5, which is only 4.5" center height. The tool holders are nicely halfway up it, and I dont find it to large. I guess the Harrison has a quite thin cross / top slide assy. As for the locking it seems very good, and Ive not had a tool come loose. Made my first extra tool holder the other evening, using the shaper, took a while, but was very simple :) Dave |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.