Dongor
Member
Surface grinder or tool grinder cutter??
- Thread starter Dongor
- Start date
Help Support Home Model Engine Machinist Forum:
Dongor
Member
Asking $200 , I didn’t really have a chance to inspect it just took pics, appears to have three axis plus I believe the x axis rotates, I’ve never seen one like it, do you think that’s a fair price? Thanks
Hmm now only my opinion but you have to ask yourself? How often would you use it ? What will it cost you for jigs or what Eva you need to do the work you want to do with it ? 200 hmm only my opinion but it would want to be in good Nic
PopAlexandra
Junior
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2017
- Messages
- 10
- Reaction score
- 0
It's a bit much if it's not in really good shape.
For $200 having a surface grinder would be wonderful. The attachments for grinding cutters would be a bonus that I wouldn't use often. But a surface grinder would be worth it. From pictures you will never know if it works or needs a rebuild. Perhaps the seller can get a third party to inspect it and provide a rating if you are worried. On the other hand, $200 is coffee money.
Dongor
Member
Thanks everyone for the input, I’ll be looking at it closer this weekend, obviously I’ll be checking the wear as far as the way surfaces , I agree with Tim that it’s probably a tool grinder. But I’d like to repurpose it as surface grinder. I’ll be asking if there are any centers or other tool grinding fixtures. I realize one big drawback is there’s probably not an incremental feed calibration for the z axis, and x travel manual feed is probably way too slow, hence modifications will have to be made.
Two years ago I got a similar contraption at scrap value. It was mechanically in fair shape, but it still took me till now to get it all ready and tooled up as precise tool grinder. As surface grinder it will only take very light cuts due to the light motor and the long overhang of the spindle. So it seems to me that you may want to consider the potential investment in time more than the money.
Dongor
Member
Dongor
Member
Thanks for your honesty,I knew from the get go the weak link was the long overhang of the spindle which regardless of the size of motor would have significant deflection, light cuts were definitely what would have to be used. I’ve actually thought about shortening the spindle depending on how much y-axis travel it has thereby reducing deflection, However till I look at it closer I’m not sure it’s feasible. My biggest problem isn’t the amount of money I’m spending but my stubbornness! LOL!
That’s looks really like a tool and cutter grinder. For surface grinding is it not recommended, because the travel of the horizontal x-axis is feedeed by a handcrank with treated spindle. For surface grinding you need a fast travel.
But if you have applications for a cutter grinder, I think it´s a good deal, at least if the motor is running.
But if you have applications for a cutter grinder, I think it´s a good deal, at least if the motor is running.
goldstar31
Well-Known Member
A cut of a thousand of an inch on a tool and cutter grinder is ' a WHOPPER"
I didn't write it, I merely took counsel from a Professor of Engineering who designed the first 'universal tool and cutter grinder' built for home construction ie the Quorn.
I suppose that once one can build a Quorn and use it-- ah, well?
Norm
I didn't write it, I merely took counsel from a Professor of Engineering who designed the first 'universal tool and cutter grinder' built for home construction ie the Quorn.
I suppose that once one can build a Quorn and use it-- ah, well?
Norm
Dongor
Member
Well I went and looked at tool grinder last night, I was actually very impressed at the build , very tight ways other than no swivel adjustment on spindle, there was the y and z travels and two x travels , a lower one on the base and the obvious table one, the rotation for the table was a manual locknut adjustment. Was also impressed that all adjustments had incremental calibrations on handles. The spindle was a little smaller diameter than I had hoped for though lending to the obviously weak link of stock removal because of deflection issues. After consideration I’ve opted not to purchase. Will keep looking for small bench top surface grinder. Again thanks to all for inputs as it kept me focused on not making a rash decision. Don
nel2lar
Well-Known Member
$200 is a drop in the bucket compared to what they cost. Yes it will sit in the shop 90% of the time but every hour spent on it will reward the owner every time.
I would jump on it if it was in my area.
Nelson
I would jump on it if it was in my area.
Nelson
goldstar31
Well-Known Member
I agree about the initial cost of such things but the probability of this machine was that it was pulled out of service and put on the scrap heap with the introduction of insert carbide tooling.
In other words, I bought a Mark 1 Clarkson T&C for £100 and this machine worked i my workshop immediately.
On this machine, I 'hae me doots'
Two things spring to mind about what can be seen. The first is that the work table was not driven by a a lever and rack and the second is perhaps the fond idea that the spindle is too weak because of size.
In my opinion, a screw feed for the x axis is too slow and this is borne out by the Clarkson which was a professional tool but by the Quorn, the Stent which were designed as hobby tooling but by eminent professional engineers for their own needs.
As for the spindle being too weak, I must remind readers that 'Several' of my tool grinders adopt a 1" diameter cartridge and this has never, as far as I am aware, been a matter of concern in all my years. In fact it follows the recommendations of bearing manufacturers and Professor Chaddock notes this in his book on the Quorn.
Again, I noted that every double ended in my possession has a spindle of about 1/2" or 12/13mm.
Again, in my opinion, the scrap price quoted is minuscule compared to the new price of a Deckel or even the Chinese clone- which I am currently 'playing with'.
The one great problem with tool and cutter grinders is being able to get the right grades of abrasive wheels for the the intended work.
Modifying resins for such is---- but I digress and it was way back in the early 1950's
Norman
