Hi GOG ,
UK Midlands, Probably due South of you
Terry
UK Midlands, Probably due South of you
Terry
Hi GOG ,
UK Midlands, Probably due South of you
Terry
Reverse procedure. Put your Jacobs in the tail stock. Your brass rod in the chuck and the die in the 3 jaw chuck in head stock. Automatically squared up, stock to die. Power up after releaseing the tail stock from the ways. At least, this works well for smaller mini lathes.How do people do this? I'm currently using a die in a holder, held in my hand -- if I made up a die holder to be held in a chuck in my tailstock would it work?
Reverse procedure. Put your Jacobs in the tail stock. Your brass rod in the chuck and the die in the 3 jaw chuck in head stock. Automatically squared up, stock to die. Power up after releaseing the tail stock from the ways. At least, this works well for smaller mini lathes.
Baron J
Perhaps i should have included the quotes. I seem to have problems getting them to come out in the post.
The suggestion made earlier was to put the die in the 3 jaw chuck & the rod in the jacobs chuck such that the rod passed through the headstock. The follow up to that was that the 3 jaws would compress the die too much & may produce a thread that was too loose. I just made the suggestion that to prevent a split die from closing too much in such a set up one might perhaps shim the split. I have no idea if that would solve the issue, so i put a question mark after the remark.
Apologies if I mislead anyone. Perhaps my inexperience at such activities should have precluded me from commenting in the first place. However, if I do come upon the problem sometime in the future I may well try it.
Would it not be simple to apply pressure to the tailstock with one's hand?Ah I see, no problem. Its a bad idea anyway to put a bare die directly in the lathe chuck. You should use a proper die holder. Also pulling the tailstock along on those thin threads won't do the threads any good, it will cause them to stretch.
That is the right answer! Laying the book down and doing the set task with the tooling one has available most likely will get you there. Easy set up to try. No need to make or purchase specialize holders. Will not be a time / cost consideration if results are not satisfactory for this part. You certainly can get around stretching threads helping the tail stock along as the rod moves thru the die.Would it not be simple to apply pressure to the tailstock with one's hand?
That is the right answer! Laying the book down and doing the set task with the tooling one has available most likely will get you there. Easy set up to try. No need to make or purchase specialize holders. Will not be a time / cost consideration if results are not satisfactory for this part. You certainly can get around stretching threads helping the tail stock along as the rod moves thru the die.
As for torque twisting the brass rod for a 5-44 threads.......then the split die gets around that. Also it is unlikely that the "Committee for the Proper Use & Procedures of Machine Tools" will come to your shop and issue citations for going rogue. ( just in case you were wondering!)
But I still can't imagine doing 5-44 single point.....not even on a mini lathe!
With due respect you have just contradicted yourself. Longbow suggested an alternative idea. -- He suggested a different method-he pushed the envelope. & you are saying he should not. Is one "blind" not to accept that? Nobody has actually said WHY one cannot put the die in the chuck with soft shims. Then push the tailstock along. I do not know why not, but I am certainly not going to accept, " well because it is not the done thing" as an answer. Furthermore, if one has only a single item to make can one tell me why one would want to waste time on an uneccessary task constructing a tool - other than the interest in making something. If that is what you like doing then there is nothing wrong with that, It is a hobby for most people anyway. I sometimes make things to solve a problem that never exists. But, hey, I was having fun !!!Good job the engineers in the past didn't take the attitude " doing the set task with the tooling one has available most likely will get you there", if they had we would still be making stuff with hand tools which in turn had to be hand made such as files made with chisels and charcoal case hardening as they would be happy making stuff with the "available tooling".
Personally I'm really glad that people like Henry Maudsley, Brunel, Whitworth and James Watt et. al. were inquisitive, adventurous and ambitious enough to push the envelope and develop new tools and methods - and spend the time and effort to make them. Still as the Beatles said:
He's as blind as he can be
Just sees what he wants to see
TerryD
Enter your email address to join: