Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
ModelsRailroadsRockets
Radio Controlled
Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater Models
ModelGeeks.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Model Forum / General / Models / July 2007



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Setting up a Myford ML7

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
BRAD - 23 Jul 2007 23:29 GMT
Hi, hope someone can help a neebie before I go meltdown !!.....I bought a
ML7 recently and I'm having loads of trouble setting it up.
I've levelled it up with an engineers level and it now looks spot on.  The
chuck is a recon Burnard 3 jaw from Myford....test report = 0.002" rounout
2" from chuck.
The problem is that when I chuck a length of bar it is quite obviously out
of true......I used a DTI...runout is .005" near the chuck and 0.018" at the
end of the 6" bar when rotated by hand.
I've found the mid point at the chuck end and ran the apron to the far end
(without rotating the chuck) and DTI shows no change, therefore I assume the
bed is now straight.
I clocked the nose on the spindle in many positions...no movement apart from
a 0.004" movement right on the end on the vertical surface when rotated and
the DTI horizontal (not on about the endfloat).
There were a few 'bruises' on the spindle threads wheich I gently filed
down...the chuck now goes on a lot easier, whereas it was very stiff
before....the bar shows a slight improvement too.
I tried turning a bar down but it is still wobbling badly on the end of a 6"
bar.....it's as though the bar is bent (which I'm sure it isn't).  When it's
turned down it is missing all along the side facing me.  I've tried a few
more bars (including a ground test bar)...all clock the same amount.   I
have a 4 jaw...would that run true or is there something else wrong?
Any idea's???....Please!!!
Brad.
Trevor Jones - 24 Jul 2007 03:43 GMT
> Hi, hope someone can help a neebie before I go meltdown !!.....I bought a
> ML7 recently and I'm having loads of trouble setting it up.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Any idea's???....Please!!!
> Brad.

 Chucks wear unevenly.

 All the reconditioning that anyone can throw at one, can at best, make
it relatively accurate for one particular diameter bar. For the other
diameters, not so much.

 If you can get hold of a couple different diameters of accurate bars,
you can get a better idea of what diameters are more accurate.

 Look at how the chuck seats on the spindle. A little swarf at the
register will result in rather a lot of runout at the chuck face.

 Look for damage as well as for solid seating. The burr raised by a
trapped chip can cause some difficulty long after the chip was cleared out.

 The chuck should thread on smoothly, with little play once the
register (the cylindrical area behind the threads) comes into the
backplate or the chuck body.

 Spend less time with the engineers level, and more time taking test
cuts. Stop fiddling with the leg screws when the lathe turns a
reasonably parallel cylinder, rather than a cone. Precision levels are
pretty much overused, and underutilized. Quite useful if you need every
last drop of coolant to run down the drain, but often taken far too much
as the final authority when setting a machine up. How it cuts matters
rather more than how level it is, though level, or near to it, is a good
place to begin. For the most part, a decent carpenters level will do.
 Look on the net for "Rollie's Dad's Method" for setup and adjusting of
feet. Pretty much just a way to read a test cut and understand the cause
and effect of adjustments.

 Now would be a good time to get used to dialing in a 4 jaw chuck. For
whatever reason, the process seems to scare grown men as much as having
to cut threads with a singlepoint tool. Both are easy processes that get
easier with practice. I like to set my dial up with the stylus on the
center of the work, on the back side of the work from me. I can then
adjust the jaws on the front side, and see the movement on the dial at
the same time. A mag base mount on the cross slide is the goods for that
job! Allows you to adjust the position relative to the work, without
having to deal with the friction joints of the mount each time.

 Also! Don't get too hung up on having to achieve perfection before you
can use the lathe. It's supposed to be recreation. If you want a dead
nuts perfect lathe as a hobby, you can have one. If you want a lathe
that cuts accurately enough, you probably already have one of those, too.

 Cheers
  Trevor Jones
Peter Neill - 24 Jul 2007 07:53 GMT
>> Hi, hope someone can help a neebie before I go meltdown !!.....I bought a
>> ML7 recently and I'm having loads of trouble setting it up.
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>> of true......I used a DTI...runout is .005" near the chuck and 0.018" at the
>> end of the 6" bar when rotated by hand.

<snipped loads of stuff>

>  Also! Don't get too hung up on having to achieve perfection before you
>can use the lathe. It's supposed to be recreation. If you want a dead
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>  Cheers
>   Trevor Jones

Brad, Trevor has given you some good advice there.
Old 3-jaws aren't really known for their precision, and a 4-jaw or
collets are a much better bet here.  Or turn between centres.

I had a badly worn Pratt 3-jaw on my Myford for well over a year -
0.012" runout less than 1" from the chuck - but it was not really a
major problem as most of the turning in this was done in one hit
without having to remove and re-chuck the bar. The turned portions
were always concentric with the centre of rotation, if not with the
stub held in the jaws.

Run it,  use it,  get used to it's idiosyncrosies,  and a few months
and a few jobs down the line review your needs and see if you *really*
do need more precision.

Peter
jontom_1uk@hotmail.com - 24 Jul 2007 10:06 GMT
> Hi, hope someone can help a neebie before I go meltdown !!.....I bought a
> ML7 recently and I'm having loads of trouble setting it up.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Any idea's???....Please!!!
> Brad.

Brad Hi, firstly don't panic this is only the first of the
"interesting" issues that using a lathe will throw at you just relax
and enjoy the challenge!

Lots of good advice already but a couple of things spring to mind, .
005" on a three jaw chuck is not good but also not unheard of, they
are not the most accurate method of workholding. You will get more
accurate results with your 4 jaw even over the most accurate three
jaw.

However, to try and improve the three jaw; is it mounted on
"backplate" or directly threaded? If it has a backplate then loosen
the mounting bolts a little and try tapping the chuck to reduce the
error, if you can reduce it then retighten the bolts. If the chuck
will not move on the backplate then you need to take the chuck off the
backplate, fit the backplate on its own and check on the register
diameter where the chuck body fits onto it. If there is any movement
on this small flat face then you will need to machine the register
again whilst fitted to your own machine as well as taking a small cut
of the large flat face. If it is directly threaded then correction is
almost impossible unless we can find something wrong with the mounting
register or thread.

The vertical surface you should be checking is not the one right at
the front but the one just behind the smooth portion (register) on the
spindle (ie close to the bearings). If the register diameter in the
chuck is slightly oversize (very common) then this vertical surface
actually positions the chuck when tight, there should be no movement
at all. Make sure it is absolutely clean and with no burrs etc. Check
the vertical surface within the chuck mounting that fits against it;
again it should be absolutely clean as just a speck can throw things
out. One thing I have had with some chucks is that the very front of
the spindle thread is actually jamming against the chuck body, make
sure there is clearance for the very front of the spindle inside the
chuck body when mounted on the backplate.

When you mount the work try it by tightening with it held gently
against each of the three jaws in turn using different key positions,
you will normally find that one is better than the others. This may
already be marked with a 0 or a centre punch mark. Look at the inside
of each jaw to ensure there is no small burr or swarf trapped between
the jaw and work. Most three jaws when older, even if reasonable, will
only repeat to about .003" (just in front of the jaws) so don't worry
too much if you can't get it absolutely perfect.

Best regards

Keith
ChrisQuayle - 24 Jul 2007 10:49 GMT
> Hi, hope someone can help a neebie before I go meltdown !!.....I bought a
> ML7 recently and I'm having loads of trouble setting it up.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
> Any idea's???....Please!!!
> Brad.

I would start with the test bar, one that fits the spindle internal
taper, as this should be the most accurate datum. Then you can set the
headstock up for vertical and horizontal alignment with the saddle /
bed, using a dial gauge. Of course, the spindle bearing needs to have
zero meaureable play first to get accurate / consistent results. Next,
put a center in the tailstock end, bar between and use the same method
to align the tailstock. Then put the chuck on and see how accurate that
is. Of course, the spindle itself will have a runout and coning motion
on its internal taper, but this should be very small and there's not
much you can do about that anyway.

If you start with a 3 jaw chuck fitted, it just introduces another
variable and you don't really know if the spindle or chuck is in error.
Chuck jaws wear unevenly, tend to bell mouth and (most relevant here)
the error will be different every time you tighten the chuck up.

It's important to get fun out of all this, but I think you have the
right approach, especially with a machine received in an unknown state...

Chris
Peter Neill - 24 Jul 2007 11:07 GMT
>Hi, hope someone can help a neebie before I go meltdown !!.....I bought a
>ML7 recently and I'm having loads of trouble setting it up.
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>Any idea's???....Please!!!
>Brad.

Brad, ignore the chuck for a minute. If Myford said 0.002" runout they
were probably correct.

Take the chuck off. Stick a block of wood in the gap on the bed then
get a broom handle between this and the spindle nose, and see if you
can lever up the spindle, and measure any deflection with your clock.

If may be that the spindle has some wear, but this can usually be
adjusted out. Underneath the caps that hold the bearings on is a
laminated shim - it looks like one piece but is actually a stack of
shims, each one 0.002" thick.
These can be peeled off using the the point of a scalpel or similar to
seperate them, and will take up any clearance caused by wear.

There is a stack on each side of the spindle.

Peter
BRAD - 25 Jul 2007 18:39 GMT
>>Hi, hope someone can help a neebie before I go meltdown !!.....I bought a
>>ML7 recently and I'm having loads of trouble setting it up.
[quoted text clipped - 44 lines]
>
> Peter

Many thanks for all replies to my woes of setting up the ML7, all of which
were invaluable.  The story so far...... I checked the
spindle/bearings....no movement detected at all with DTI...so I assume all
is well there.  I had 0.004" of runout on the vertical surface at the end of
the spindle...this was sorted by facing the end very gingerly...DTI now
reads bang on now for that....I chucked the bar again and clocked it.....now
reading 0.004" near the chuck and 0.010" at the end of the bar.....much
improved........but now I've noticed that if I take the bar out and turn it
around slightly I get a different reading ! Turn it again and yet another
reading !!
Tightening the chuck from a different key position produces another set of
readings.  I'm sure the bar is straight.  Finally, I ran the tailstock up to
the bar (bar previously centre drilled)  tightened the chuck and got some
really good readings.....I'm quite confused with all this now !!
Incidentally, how do you centre drill a long bar when the bar is too big to
fit through the headstock spindle?  Do you have use a steady?
Brad.
jontom_1uk@hotmail.com - 27 Jul 2007 16:24 GMT
> >>Hi, hope someone can help a neebie before I go meltdown !!.....I bought a
> >>ML7 recently and I'm having loads of trouble setting it up.
[quoted text clipped - 64 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Brad

What you describe is pretty well what any 3 jaw self chuck does, the
only difference between new and old is the size of the variation
between tightenings. You need to find the sequence/position that
produces the best result and adopt that when fitting work. You will
not repeatedly get it pefectly concentric in a three jaw unless you
spend a lot of money and buy the "grip-tru" type, even then it will be
much better but still not perfect. I am a little confused about which
face you machined but the frontmost face of the spindle at the end of
the thread should have no affect on chuck mounting whatsoever as it
should contact nothing. If you search on "three jaw accuracy" or
something like that you will find many discussions on how to "tweak
and fettle" to improve them.

The much improved affect you describe by centering with a tailstock
centre is standard practise with a longish bar. I might be tempted to
have a look at the inner face of each of the jaws where it contacts
the work to ensure they are straight and not bell mouthed. If the work
is centre drilled then you can always use it to reduce the usual error
on fitting into the three jaw. In fact any turning job will be
improved if you can support it from the tailstock as well as the
chuck. It is just that we are all a bit lazy sometimes and don't
always do what's best, just quickest. If you want better concentricity
than the three jaw offers then the four jaw or turning between centres
will improve things greatly. If you are still unhappy with the
performance of your chuck then let us have some figures for what you
get on the spindle register (outer surface and front face). Also
possibly on the chuck outer body towards the spindle end and let us
know how these figures repeat with just removing and refitting the
chuck. If these chuck body figures are repeatable then you need to
look at different areas of the chuck for the problem. Is the chuck
screwed body or backplate fitting?

As you suggest if the bar is too large to fit through the spindle you
will need to support with a fixed steady or get a larger lathe (I only
add that as if I don't someone will).

Hope you enjoy using the lathe, learning can be frustrating but
producing that essential (lowcost?) part is very rewarding.

Best regards

Keith
BRAD - 27 Jul 2007 21:23 GMT
>> >>Hi, hope someone can help a neebie before I go meltdown !!.....I bought
>> >>a
[quoted text clipped - 127 lines]
>
> Keith

Cheers for  that, just a few points to hopefully clarify things a little.
1)  The surface that I 'faced up' was the vertical surface right in the very
end of the spindle, where the threads start, the first bit to enter the
chuck !  I did this as the end looked and felt damaged slightly, and as
someone pointed out, if the front part of the spindle is damaged it may
interfere with the inner part of the chuck.  The chuck was very tight before
I faced the spindle and cleaned the threads up....now it is a lot better fit
altogether with plenty of oil on the threads.
2)  I clocked ALL external surfaces on the spindle and all read 0.....and
there is no percievable movement in the head stock bearings.
3)  The chuck is a Bernerd 3 jaw that was reconditioned at Myfords
recently..the test report shows 0.002" run-out nearest the chuck, with no
bell mouthing present.  The chuck appears to be a screwbody type with 3 hex
head bolts on the rear......no backplate!
4)  Can't buy a bigger lathe as I've only just bought this one (my first).
I'm sure it just needs setting up properly.
5)  I have a 4 jaw and will try concentricity on that when I can....can I
assume that the 4 jaw will be a little better?  Can I also assume that if
you clock a bar in the 4 jaw and you go to the free end of the bar, (if all
is well) the bar should read similar to near the chuck?
6)  We didn't seem to have this problem at school (many, many years ago, on
Boxfords|), we just chucked the work and did the turning etc.....so I assume
something is amiss with mine......I don't expect perfection, but I thought
that a Myford ML7, once set up, should be pretty accurate.  Or am I
dreaming??
Cheers
BRAD.
ravensworth2674 - 27 Jul 2007 23:14 GMT
Standing back, I think that you are up Sh1ts creek without a paddle!

You are assuming far too much about alignment because you are assuming
that your bed is straight in all planes, that your saddle etc etc are
in perfect alignment.
This is fine in theory but you have a point at about 6" from the
business end of the spindle which is worn in at least two planes. In
the course of years, this is wher( sorry) the most discernable wear
has taken place. So if the wear is only a thou on the top of the bed,
you will have another thou at the front shear. Regardless of any other
wear points, your lathe will cut four thous or more- or show up on
your dial mike on a test bar.. I haven't discussed the added wear of a
lathe chuck or the alignment of spindle and tailstock. I am talking
about plane geometry.
Your straight lines- are not straight lines.

I am not being pedantic or flaming because I didn't invent geometry
but I have written on lathe overhaul before. I have two Myfords- a 7
and a Super 7B- and I recently had the top of the 7 blancharded to
remove the incipient wear- in one plane but there is no guarantee that
the old Lumsden which did the job was true- true.
Again, I have to report that the No1 shear had worn hollow and so on
and so forth for the rest of the machine.

So have you stripped and checked the bed? Have you then remedially
corrected all the lathe bed faults and moved on to overhauling the
saddle and its gibs and moved on to the slides and handscraped or
surface ground everything in sight?

So now you have to trip off and get Connelly's Machine Tool
Reconditioning and a set of carbide scrapers and a machine to hone the
blades on a diamond wheel and a set of references to scrape to.

With a hint of humour, Connelly writes on the South Bend of which your
Boxford of a bygone age is a fair copy.

So, you have the start- it then gets difficult after this!

Well, someone has to be truthful!

Norm
jontom_1uk@hotmail.com - 28 Jul 2007 10:08 GMT
> Cheers for  that, just a few points to hopefully clarify things a little.

Brad, Hi. I'll try once more but to be honest fixing this type of
problem is a methodical process where we need to eliminate one
potential cause at a time. Without being rude, you cannot assume that
because the chuck screws on it is mounting correctly. Or sorry to say
that a chuck that tested OK for Myford will fit too your machine in
the same way. How big is the bar that you are using to test is it
entering the jaws their full length or just the forward part? To give
the chuck a fair chance it should be small enough to enter the chuck
and allow full jaw length contact.

The questions I asked were to try and see if the chuck was mounting
squarely and repeatedly on the spindle, something we still haven't
proven. The issue you describe has several elements, the chuck must
itself be mounting square and parallel to the spindle and it must also
hold the work in the same way. As Norman says the spindle itself must
also be parallel with the bed which in turn must be straight and true.
All of those things must be correct to replicate your experience at
school. With a secondhand lathe you cannot assume any of these is
true. But let's start with the chuck. The wobble at the end of the bar
could be the chuck not holding the bar correctly or the bar is bent.
Your improvement with the tailstock support doesn't eliminate either
possibility. Is the bar straight? Does it give the same result if you
turn it end for end? Does it give much better figures at say 3" or 4"
out of the chuck? What is it like if you hold the bar in the chuck at
about the halfway point? These will give you a good idea if and where
the bar might be slightly bent.

> 1)  The surface that I 'faced up' was the vertical surface right in the very
> end of the spindle, where the threads start, the first bit to enter the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> I faced the spindle and cleaned the threads up....now it is a lot better fit
> altogether with plenty of oil on the threads.

If you look at the back of the chuck you will see the face that
contacts the spindle register, is that flat and undamaged both on the
flat face and the internal surface? Have you any measuring equipment
to see what the internal register diameter is and what the external
spindle register diameter is? Look down the chuck from the back is it
clear or is there anything that could be contacting the end of the
spindle and throwing things out? Has someone put something in the
chuck to stop swarf going through if so is it contacting the spindle
end on your machine? How stiff are the threads? One should not need to
oil them to get the chuck to screw on; it should screw easily by hand
up until the register surfaces contact. Can you feel when the spindle
register outside diameter enters the chuck; does it get tight before
it stops against the backface? Does it stop suddenly or just get
tighter and tighter until you stop? I don't need the answers to these
but they will all give you a clue if the thread is causing the problem
and not allowing the alignment surfaces to contact correctly. This
would mount the chuck off square with the spindle.

> 2)  I clocked ALL external surfaces on the spindle and all read 0.....and
> there is no percievable movement in the head stock bearings.

Those are all good signs but the only surfaces we are really
interested in are the large outer register surface and its flat front
face. Are you totally sure that you can detect no movement in the
spindle bearings at all? It would be normal to see some very small
amount of movement when they are loaded as Peter suggested, it might
however be less than the resolution of your DTI.

> 3)  The chuck is a Bernerd 3 jaw that was reconditioned at Myfords
> recently..the test report shows 0.002" run-out nearest the chuck, with no
> bell mouthing present.  The chuck appears to be a screwbody type with 3 hex
> head bolts on the rear......no backplate!

The jaws of the chuck where they contact the work are they sharp and
pointed giving one line of contact per jaw or slightly convex giving
two lines per jaw?

> 4)  Can't buy a bigger lathe as I've only just bought this one (my first).
> I'm sure it just needs setting up properly.

I didn't really mean you should just the sense of humour on this
forum.

> 5)  I have a 4 jaw and will try concentricity on that when I can....can I
> assume that the 4 jaw will be a little better?  Can I also assume that if
> you clock a bar in the 4 jaw and you go to the free end of the bar, (if all
> is well) the bar should read similar to near the chuck?

The 4 jaw will hold the work as concentric as you have patience to set
it; you adjust the runout by tightening the jaws independently. Unless
you have a self centering 4 jaw in which case it might be no better
than the three jaw. The readings on the end of the bar even in a four
jaw will depend on how straight the test bar is and if the chuck is
mounted square to the spindle.

> 6)  We didn't seem to have this problem at school (many, many years ago, on
> Boxfords|), we just chucked the work and did the turning etc.....so I assume
> something is amiss with mine......I don't expect perfection, but I thought
> that a Myford ML7, once set up, should be pretty accurate.  Or am I
> dreaming??

Not dreaming but maybe hoping that your machine is unworn and fully
OK. A Myford when set up is as accurate as any other lathe in its
class and better than most, which is one reason they are so popular.
However, there are a lot of worn or badly set up ones on the
secondhand market and they will need to be fully sorted before working
correctly. Just approach the checks methodically and you will soon
find out if yours is badly set up or worn. Nothing you have said up to
now indicates to me anything other than the chuck is not mounting
correctly on the spindle. Once we have sorted that problem out or
confirmed that it actual is then we can start to worry about some of
the things that Norman has identified.

Brad, apologies if you think this is trying to "teach granny" but
sorting out a lathe is a question of methodically eliminating problems
one at a time until things work. If I am being too simplistic then
just ignore these ramblings and I'm sure someone else will come along
with a different view.

Best regards

Keith
Mike Hopkins - 28 Jul 2007 10:49 GMT
Perhaps it is time to stop, make a cup of coffee and revise the whole
set of objectives of the exercise.

Reading through this thread it seems to me that Brad is chasing a level
of perfection that may be impossible to achieve. Particularly in view of
his level of experience. So my advice to Brad is to start cutting metal
and make something simple and straight forward such as a tool height
setting gauge and progress from there. My guess is that it will be a
long time before he gets to the point where absolute accuracy of the
machine is a limitation. He will know by then that no piece of bar stock
taken off the shelf can be expected to be perfectly round or perfectly
straight. He will also know a bit more about using the four-jaw, about
turning between centres, about using fixed or travelling steadies, etc.,
and have a whole basket of other tricks to use to overcome machine
limitations and achieve results that, I hope, he will find personally
satisfying.

Signature

Mike Hopkins
CSME <http://www.cheltsme.org.uk>
5" gauge (2 1/2" scale) Alice class Hunslet

ravensworth2674 - 28 Jul 2007 10:58 GMT
On Jul 28, 10:08 am, jontom_...@hotmail.com wrote:

> > Cheers for  that, just a few points to hopefully clarify things a little.
>
[quoted text clipped - 115 lines]
>
> Keith

I cannot ever fault Keith's comments and would congratulate him on his
detailed treatise ( send a quid, eh?)
No body knows where, what, and when your chuck was at Myfords.
Frankly, I dismissed its present accuracy. Until proved accurate now,
it is crap. At best, you can only expect concentricity of .0.002 thous
and if you know what you are doing, you use the best jaw- always! If
you bugger about to true the jaws you will only get them right at that
the trued dimension. Again, if you true using a ring round the jaws-
you migt bugger the chuck even more.
Now, this spindle lark! You have filed the thread but have you checked
the spindle register to the chuck register?  The chuck thread is not
the final arbiter, the mating to the lathe spindle is. To all intents
and purposes, the thread on a lot of new chucks is done on a Unified
tap when Myford made a bastard BSW spindle.
I warned you- my comments are not pretty ones.

Now this alignment business! Keith is dead right( another quid, mate)
about the alignment bar. I would set the whole gubbins up with new
centres and I would clock them to make sure that they were correct in
their respective ends. Quite frankly, I would doubt that the tailstock
end is true. the front one- mebbe OK.
Here you want old Schlesinger's limits and tests book out of the
library or summat similar.

The bed--- let us go back, Eh?

You have in all probability a knackered bed. You read the installation
manual which myford g helpfully provides for a NEW lathe which is all
bright and shiny having been on a slideways grinder and assembled
carefully by skilled staff.
You have to make the best of things. Unless you are equally skilled-
and I confess that I am not, you are going to have to approximate when
levelling up.
Strictly you need a minimum of three machinists spirit levels and the
ability to go round each bubble in a strange circular fertility dance
as each bolt is tightened down and shimmed. You haven't got three ?
Quelle surprise- moi,  aussie.
Got one ancient thing and I have to do this strange evocative dance
with bubbles from lesser quality and price.

So Brad, I wasn't joking or being rude. You are somewhere at the
beginning of a learning curve- and you owe Keith a quid!

Let us know whether we are right or wrong- enclosing quids or beer
tokens.

Norm
BRAD - 28 Jul 2007 14:53 GMT
> On Jul 28, 10:08 am, jontom_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 179 lines]
>
> Norm

Hi everyone, many thanks for all your replies to my little problem, every
one of which were greatly appreciated.  I must admit that I am even more
confused now than at the beginning, yes maybe I am chasing a dream.  I've
come to the conclusion from what people are saying, that I bought a heap of
s**t, I don't have the skill or money to put it right, and I might as well
get rid of it and give up on my life's dream of trying out a little model
engineering.  That too goes for the mill I bought recently.  All I wanted to
do is learn but it's probably too late.
Cheers to you all.
Brad.
Trevor Jones - 28 Jul 2007 15:28 GMT
> Hi everyone, many thanks for all your replies to my little problem, every
> one of which were greatly appreciated.  I must admit that I am even more
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> Cheers to you all.
> Brad.

 Probably less likely that, than you "bought in" to a legend, that,
even when new, was not quite up to it's reputation.

 A couple thou run out on a 3 jaw chuck is pretty normal. 10 or 15 is
not good, but not uncommon, either. And it can be worked with.

 One learns to grab a bar that is a 1/16" or so over the size needed,
and to turn as many surfaces concentric as possible, before removal from
the chuck.
 One also learns to plan around the idiosyncrasy's of ones machine.

 Money to put it right?

 Christ alive, man. Use the damn lathe! Perfection is for guys with too
much money to spend.

 Guys have been making stuff on new lathes that were nowhere near as
accurate as your one is now, for longer that Model Engineer magazine has
been in print.
 If you get a chance to look at some of the "home shop" type lathes
that were foisted off on the buying public before the wars, you will see
why, exactly, that the Myford got elevated to the near mythical status
that it has, as most of the lathes in a price range that a model
engineer could afford, were pure trash.

 Quit bloody well feeling sorry for yourself and go make some chips!
Its good therapy! :-)

 Cheers
  Trevor Jones
John Stevenson - 28 Jul 2007 15:55 GMT
>Hi everyone, many thanks for all your replies to my little problem, every
>one of which were greatly appreciated.  I must admit that I am even more
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Cheers to you all.
>Brad.

Brad,
Don't give up that easily, short of it being that knacked that it's
condition should be obvious you would be surprised at what can be
achieved even on a crap machine, I know I've worked some.

I have a old Myford here that can serve better as a post hole borer
but before it got robbed for spares it could still do a reasonable
job.

Where are you based ?
ravensworth2674 - 28 Jul 2007 16:31 GMT
On Jul 28, 3:55 pm, John Stevenson <j...@stevenson-engineers.co.uk>
wrote:

> >Hi everyone, many thanks for all your replies to my little problem, every
> >one of which were greatly appreciated.  I must admit that I am even more
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> Where are you based ?

OK Brad,
             'our' John isn't a fairy Godmother and you will find me
a bloody sight older and uglier. I'm in Newcastle upon Tyne if that
helps.

Years ago-bugger, I'm 77- I had a Pools lathe which would only turn
bananas.
I got loads of help from people that I didn't know. Some where
professionals giving up what little time they had.

In MEW, I returned the help by writing up how I' restored' a friend's
ML7. It cost a mere ?35.and was capable of a 1/2 thou run out at 6" in
a week.

People will rally round. As others have said- Don't despair but don't
expect miracles.
Our John is a grumpy old b. but he took time off at the Harrogate Show
to sort a few of my problems. I got the help- John didn't even get a
drink till the Show closed.
'Nuff, John?

Norm
No, It wasn't going to
BRAD - 30 Jul 2007 00:25 GMT
On Jul 28, 3:55 pm, John Stevenson <j...@stevenson-engineers.co.uk>
wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Jul 2007 14:53:08 +0100, "BRAD" <merlin_in...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> Where are you based ?

OK Brad,
             'our' John isn't a fairy Godmother and you will find me
a bloody sight older and uglier. I'm in Newcastle upon Tyne if that
helps.

Years ago-bugger, I'm 77- I had a Pools lathe which would only turn
bananas.
I got loads of help from people that I didn't know. Some where
professionals giving up what little time they had.

In MEW, I returned the help by writing up how I' restored' a friend's
ML7. It cost a mere £35.and was capable of a 1/2 thou run out at 6" in
a week.

Hi Norm, would you happen to remember which issue of MEW your article was in
by any chance?  It would be very interesting to see if I could get a back
copy (if possible).
Cheers
Brad.

People will rally round. As others have said- Don't despair but don't
expect miracles.
Our John is a grumpy old b. but he took time off at the Harrogate Show
to sort a few of my problems. I got the help- John didn't even get a
drink till the Show closed.
'Nuff, John?

Norm
No, It wasn't going to
BRAD - 30 Jul 2007 00:28 GMT
Hi Norm, would you happen to remember which issue of MEW your article was in
about restoring your friends ML7 by any chance?
It would be very interesting to see if I could get a back
copy (if possible).
Cheers
Brad.

> On Jul 28, 3:55 pm, John Stevenson <j...@stevenson-engineers.co.uk>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 58 lines]
> Norm
> No, It wasn't going to
ravensworth2674 - 30 Jul 2007 09:43 GMT
> Hi Norm, would you happen to remember which issue of MEW your article was in
> about restoring your friends ML7 by any chance?
[quoted text clipped - 67 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Brad,
           this modern techni- gadgetry is getting me con-fused.
I have the article somewhere and I have a few other things which I
might 'scrape together' Could you E-Mail me with your E-mail add.
Mine, I believe is on file here.

Sorry about the delays etc

Norm
BRAD - 28 Jul 2007 16:45 GMT
>>Hi everyone, many thanks for all your replies to my little problem, every
>>one of which were greatly appreciated.  I must admit that I am even more
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Where are you based ?

Hi, I'm based near Mansfield, Notts so I'm not that far from Myfords...it's
just a pity they are so expensive on bits !!!

I apologise for sounding sorry for myself, but I was overwhelmed by all the
advise, quite a lot of which I didn't understand to be fair.  I felt low as
I thought I'd wasted a load of money on a crap machine.....BUT, I don't
think the Myford is in a really bad condition considering it's age (1952)
and I'm obviously suffering from lack of experience.
Yes, there is a small amount of play in the saddle which I will have a 'go
at',  but what scares me when I'm told that this that and the other needs
doing and I dont even know where to start.  I thought I did well trying to
level the lathe with a precision level.....I've managed to get it spot on in
every way I could.  If I need a new chuck, then great, I'll spend my last
few farthings on one , as long as I can be assured that the chuck is
knackered ! ....despite the very recent Myford report on the one in
question.
And yes, I was probably expected too much and everything to work properly
first time......it's a huge learning curve.
Cheers
Brad.
jontom_1uk@hotmail.com - 28 Jul 2007 19:16 GMT
> >>Hi everyone, many thanks for all your replies to my little problem, every
> >>one of which were greatly appreciated.  I must admit that I am even more
[quoted text clipped - 42 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

Brad

I think you need to step back a little and think of what has been said
and why; several of the posts have said that the runout is not
brilliant but a long way from a diasaster. To be blunt it is you that
is saying that it does not do what you want; like John and Mike say
excellent work can still be produced and has been from far worse
machines. The machine will still produce fine work YOU just need to
learn how to do it and the best way to do that is to get a piece of
bar load it up and make something. The best investment you can make
before doing anything else is a copy of the "Amatuers Lathe" or
something similar and if possible an hour or two with someone local
who will sort you out in very short time. I'm sorry but I'm in south
wales or I would help. The machine doesn't need anything doing to it
immediately apart from using it to produce a few simple items so that
you get used to how it cuts. The other point you need to understand at
the start of this learning curve is that the most accurate machine in
the world will produce crap work in the wrong hands, spend thousands
of pounds on tools and equipment and they mean s***t if you don't know
how to use them. For at least the last 60 years and possibly more
model engineers have produced superb engineering from lathes that were
far worse than yours is or could be, they would see yours as manna
from heaven. What they did and do have though is patience and
determination and I'm sure you have those qualities as well.

Brad, at the risk of boring you please listen to one piece of advice,
the sort of runout you describe is acceptable for an older three jaw
and the machine is usable and will produce good work. Use it for 6
months and you will look back and say what was I worried about? True
by then you might want to make a few improvements but will have
sufficient experience and confidence to make them without spending a
fortune.

Good luck

Keith
Mike Hopkins - 28 Jul 2007 16:18 GMT
>Hi everyone, many thanks for all your replies to my little problem, every
>one of which were greatly appreciated.  I must admit that I am even more
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>Cheers to you all.
>Brad.

Don't give up before you have started! Try cutting some metal instead.

No matter how badly out your three jaw chuck is, everything that you
machine at a single 'chucking' will be self-consistent as far as
concentricity is concerned. If the work needs to be removed from the
chuck and then replaced then marking the work in relation to jaw number
one may be good enough. But better still, once you have had a bit of
practice, it will take seconds rather than minutes to chuck something in
the four-jaw using a DTI and get it within a small fraction of a thou'
without even trying. For very small stuff use collets rather than a
chuck.

This from one who had never cut metal in his life until a friend talked
him into a project that all the 'wisenheimers' told him he would never
finish!
Signature

Mike Hopkins
CSME <http://www.cheltsme.org.uk>
5" gauge (2 1/2" scale) Alice class Hunslet

 
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.