Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade
good morning to all(at least it's morning for some of us!)...the swivel bearing is an excellent idea, but due to it's overall size, it seems it would take a bit of machining and major modification to the whole gear carriage to make that happen...double checked the taper situation this morning and there will not be a problem with doing tapers on my extended machine if i just loosen the split collars a bit...not sure if there would be an issue on a 1200 or 1500...and then there is the bronze bushing in the middle gear...there is a decent amount of play with that gear, which i am not going to mess with(for now, anyway!...LOL!)...excellent pick up by tim, as i did have to cut a little bit off the end of the idler gear carriage to allow the smallest gear to be used...joe On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:47:59 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote: > > > Can you still install the smallest gear? > > -Tim > > > - Original Message - > *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills > *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 5:58 PM > *Subject:* Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade > > sorry guys, forgot to mention this in my initial e-mail...the needle > bearings are in their own steel housing, so if you loosen the screws a bit > to the split shaft collars,there is enough allowance for the bearing to > move within the confines of the shaft collar to do a taper to your > work...in fact you can "dial it in" ,so to speak, to still have a tight > tolerance while setting up the taper...not sure if there is enough > allowance to deal with a full taper though...i'll play with that > tomorrow...but i would be curious to know if you could do a full taper and > not have any gear issues on, for example, a legacy 1200?...thanks for the > responses...joe > > On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 7:04:37 PM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote: >> >> On longer mills this upgrade may not effect tapers too much. But the >> shorter mills will bind this up, I'm afraid. You should see how sloppy my >> Wood Chuck is, never ever jumped a tooth. And I have all the fine teeth >> gears too. Hope this does not become a problem for you. Only way to tell >> is set it at full taper. >> >> Mike >> OK >> >> On 1/20/2015 5:45 PM, Bill Bulkeley wrote: >> >> Can the mill still do tapers I have found that I like a bit of slop in >> everything in the gears and linkage so there is enough movement for when >> you lower one end of the rails to mill tapers. >> >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com [ >> mailto:legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com] >> *Sent:* Wednesday, 21 January 2015 10:03 AM >> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com >> *Subject:* gear carriage bearing upgrade >> >> >> >> ok, so doing some work on the headstock end and saw that the gear >> carriage assembly was a bit loose and "floating" around a bit...a further >> inspection revealed that the bronze bearings were worn a bit and that was >> enough to cause gears to wobble and perhaps,at times, not mesh >> properly...some quick measurements and a dive into the mcmaster book and i >> could see with just a few shaft collars(3 total) and a couple of needle >> bearings, things should tighten up much better than replacing the bronze >> bushings...so an improvement was called for...a little bit of welding, some >> minimal grinding and the job is done...total time was 1 1/2 hours, start to >> finish...the end result is an incredible difference...the carriage is very >> tight and does not move or waver at all...replacing the bearings is a snap, >> as well, as split collars were used, although i might expect the needle >> bearings to last a very long time...with this mod, the machine is now >> totally on bearings(in the process of doing the "Z" axis now), all axis' >> and all turning points...sorry for the two bad photos, close-ups just don't >> come out well with the camera i am currently using...and haven't decided >> what color to paint this one yet, waiting for a suggestion from >> curtis...LOL!...anyway, all comments welcome and more mods to follow...and >> if anyone should want more detailed info on this mod(like specific mcmaster >> numbers, for example) or any i have done in the past, feel free to >> ask...thanks...joe >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Legacy Ornamental Mills" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to legacy-ornamental-mills+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com. >> Visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Legacy Ornamental Mills" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails fr
Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade
and since we are on the subject of the gear carriage, here is something i will throw out there and see if anyone has any suggestions...in considering( and i will emphasize the word "considering"...LOL) widening the bed to increase the turning capacity of the machine,what could be done to the gear carriage to accommodate the added width that must be made to it, while still being able to use all the legacy gears, including the reversing carriage to do opposite twists?...i have worked out all that has to be done to the machine to widen it, but saved the worst for last...and i would not consider making a complete set of custom made gears a solution...too expensive...high points to anyone who has a solution using only items found in a mcmaster-carr catalog!...LMAO!... later guys!...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:55:36 AM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote: > > good morning to all(at least it's morning for some of us!)...the swivel > bearing is an excellent idea, but due to it's overall size, it seems it > would take a bit of machining and major modification to the whole gear > carriage to make that happen...double checked the taper situation this > morning and there will not be a problem with doing tapers on my extended > machine if i just loosen the split collars a bit...not sure if there would > be an issue on a 1200 or 1500...and then there is the bronze bushing in the > middle gear...there is a decent amount of play with that gear, which i am > not going to mess with(for now, anyway!...LOL!)...excellent pick up by tim, > as i did have to cut a little bit off the end of the idler gear carriage to > allow the smallest gear to be used...joe > > On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:47:59 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote: >> >> >> Can you still install the smallest gear? >> >> -Tim >> >> >> - Original Message - >> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills >> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com >> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 5:58 PM >> *Subject:* Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade >> >> sorry guys, forgot to mention this in my initial e-mail...the needle >> bearings are in their own steel housing, so if you loosen the screws a bit >> to the split shaft collars,there is enough allowance for the bearing to >> move within the confines of the shaft collar to do a taper to your >> work...in fact you can "dial it in" ,so to speak, to still have a tight >> tolerance while setting up the taper...not sure if there is enough >> allowance to deal with a full taper though...i'll play with that >> tomorrow...but i would be curious to know if you could do a full taper and >> not have any gear issues on, for example, a legacy 1200?...thanks for the >> responses...joe >> >> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 7:04:37 PM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote: >>> >>> On longer mills this upgrade may not effect tapers too much. But the >>> shorter mills will bind this up, I'm afraid. You should see how sloppy my >>> Wood Chuck is, never ever jumped a tooth. And I have all the fine teeth >>> gears too. Hope this does not become a problem for you. Only way to tell >>> is set it at full taper. >>> >>> Mike >>> OK >>> >>> On 1/20/2015 5:45 PM, Bill Bulkeley wrote: >>> >>> Can the mill still do tapers I have found that I like a bit of slop in >>> everything in the gears and linkage so there is enough movement for when >>> you lower one end of the rails to mill tapers. >>> >>> >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com [ >>> mailto:legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com] >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, 21 January 2015 10:03 AM >>> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com >>> *Subject:* gear carriage bearing upgrade >>> >>> >>> >>> ok, so doing some work on the headstock end and saw that the gear >>> carriage assembly was a bit loose and "floating" around a bit...a further >>> inspection revealed that the bronze bearings were worn a bit and that was >>> enough to cause gears to wobble and perhaps,at times, not mesh >>> properly...some quick measurements and a dive into the mcmaster book and i >>> could see with just a few shaft collars(3 total) and a couple of needle >>> bearings, things should tighten up much better than replacing the bronze >>> bushings...so an improvement was called for...a little bit of welding, some >>> minimal grinding and the job is done...total time was 1 1/2 hours, start to >>> finish...the end result is an incredible difference...the carriage is very >>> tight and does not move or waver at all...replacing the bearings is a snap, >>> as well, as split collars were used, although i might expect the needle >>> bearings to last a very long time...with this mod, the machine is now >>> totally on bearings(in the process of doing the "Z" axis now), all axis' >>> and all turning points...sorry for the two bad photos, close-ups just don't >>> come out well with the camera i am currently using...and haven't decided >>> what color to pai
Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade
Hello Joe. and Good morning to you as well. ;-) I do not think that you need to make a set of gears to conpencate for you wideiing your Machine. I belive all that you need to do is add one more gear into the linkage, (think of it as a spacer so to speak.) When gears are in line with each other (un-like pulleys) the rpm dose not change, adding a new gear would chang the direction of the rotation, but the pitch will not change, that is un-less you make a duplex gear Then...( you would need do some math to get your pitches ). Buy adding a slot or and adjuctable linkage into you gear arm is all that I belive you will need. you could make a slide arm much like the directional gear set.Your gear arm mostlikely will need to be extended. Now as a side note, you would think that Legacy would have made a nicer arm for there machines ... There should have been a better way to adjust linkage with out moving and changing screw holes, to and for engauging the large/small gearing. Now back to work. Have a Great day Joe. I cant wait to hear how you new machine is running. C.A.G. - Original Message - From: "'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills" To: legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 6:10:25 AM Subject: Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade and since we are on the subject of the gear carriage, here is something i will throw out there and see if anyone has any suggestions...in considering( and i will emphasize the word "considering"...LOL) widening the bed to increase the turning capacity of the machine,what could be done to the gear carriage to accommodate the added width that must be made to it, while still being able to use all the legacy gears, including the reversing carriage to do opposite twists?...i have worked out all that has to be done to the machine to widen it, but saved the worst for last...and i would not consider making a complete set of custom made gears a solution...too expensive...high points to anyone who has a solution using only items found in a mcmaster-carr catalog!...LMAO!... later guys!...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:55:36 AM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote: good morning to all(at least it's morning for some of us!)...the swivel bearing is an excellent idea, but due to it's overall size, it seems it would take a bit of machining and major modification to the whole gear carriage to make that happen...double checked the taper situation this morning and there will not be a problem with doing tapers on my extended machine if i just loosen the split collars a bit...not sure if there would be an issue on a 1200 or 1500...and then there is the bronze bushing in the middle gear...there is a decent amount of play with that gear, which i am not going to mess with(for now, anyway!...LOL!)...excellent pick up by tim, as i did have to cut a little bit off the end of the idler gear carriage to allow the smallest gear to be used...joe On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:47:59 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote: Can you still install the smallest gear? -Tim - Original Message - From: 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 5:58 PM Subject: Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade sorry guys, forgot to mention this in my initial e-mail...the needle bearings are in their own steel housing, so if you loosen the screws a bit to the split shaft collars,there is enough allowance for the bearing to move within the confines of the shaft collar to do a taper to your work...in fact you can "dial it in" ,so to speak, to still have a tight tolerance while setting up the taper...not sure if there is enough allowance to deal with a full taper though...i'll play with that tomorrow...but i would be curious to know if you could do a full taper and not have any gear issues on, for example, a legacy 1200?...thanks for the responses...joe On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 7:04:37 PM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote: On longer mills this upgrade may not effect tapers too much. But the shorter mills will bind this up, I'm afraid. You should see how sloppy my Wood Chuck is, never ever jumped a tooth. And I have all the fine teeth gears too. Hope this does not become a problem for you. Only way to tell is set it at full taper. Mike OK On 1/20/2015 5:45 PM, Bill Bulkeley wrote: Can the mill still do tapers I have found that I like a bit of slop in everything in the gears and linkage so there is enough movement for when you lower one end of the rails to mill tapers. Bill From: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com [ mailto:legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com ] Sent: Wednesday, 21 January 2015 10:03 AM To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com Subject: gear carriage bearing upgrade ok, so doing some work on the headstock end and saw that the gear carriage assembly was a bit loose and "floating" around a bit...a furt
Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade
I would think that you should increase depth rather than width. Question is, how big of a turning are you wanting to do? My wood chuck is only 9" wide at the rails. I can turn a 19.375" piece. All accomplished by making it taller, not wider. I am only supposed to turn 11" but that just seems like a starting point to me LOL. Mike OK On 1/21/2015 5:10 AM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills wrote: and since we are on the subject of the gear carriage, here is something i will throw out there and see if anyone has any suggestions...in considering( and i will emphasize the word "considering"...LOL) widening the bed to increase the turning capacity of the machine,what could be done to the gear carriage to accommodate the added width that must be made to it, while still being able to use all the legacy gears, including the reversing carriage to do opposite twists?...i have worked out all that has to be done to the machine to widen it, but saved the worst for last...and i would not consider making a complete set of custom made gears a solution...too expensive...high points to anyone who has a solution using only items found in a mcmaster-carr catalog!...LMAO!... later guys!...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:55:36 AM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote: good morning to all(at least it's morning for some of us!)...the swivel bearing is an excellent idea, but due to it's overall size, it seems it would take a bit of machining and major modification to the whole gear carriage to make that happen...double checked the taper situation this morning and there will not be a problem with doing tapers on my extended machine if i just loosen the split collars a bit...not sure if there would be an issue on a 1200 or 1500...and then there is the bronze bushing in the middle gear...there is a decent amount of play with that gear, which i am not going to mess with(for now, anyway!...LOL!)...excellent pick up by tim, as i did have to cut a little bit off the end of the idler gear carriage to allow the smallest gear to be used...joe On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:47:59 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote: Can you still install the smallest gear? -Tim - Original Message - *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 5:58 PM *Subject:* Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade sorry guys, forgot to mention this in my initial e-mail...the needle bearings are in their own steel housing, so if you loosen the screws a bit to the split shaft collars,there is enough allowance for the bearing to move within the confines of the shaft collar to do a taper to your work...in fact you can "dial it in" ,so to speak, to still have a tight tolerance while setting up the taper...not sure if there is enough allowance to deal with a full taper though...i'll play with that tomorrow...but i would be curious to know if you could do a full taper and not have any gear issues on, for example, a legacy 1200?...thanks for the responses...joe On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 7:04:37 PM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote: On longer mills this upgrade may not effect tapers too much. But the shorter mills will bind this up, I'm afraid. You should see how sloppy my Wood Chuck is, never ever jumped a tooth. And I have all the fine teeth gears too. Hope this does not become a problem for you. Only way to tell is set it at full taper. Mike OK On 1/20/2015 5:45 PM, Bill Bulkeley wrote: Can the mill still do tapers I have found that I like a bit of slop in everything in the gears and linkage so there is enough movement for when you lower one end of the rails to mill tapers. Bill *From:*legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com [mailto:legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com] *Sent:* Wednesday, 21 January 2015 10:03 AM *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com *Subject:* gear carriage bearing upgrade ok, so doing some work on the headstock end and saw that the gear carriage assembly was a bit loose and "floating" around a bit...a further inspection revealed that the bronze bearings were worn a bit and that was enough to cause gears to wobble and perhaps,at times, not mesh properly...some quick measurements and a dive into the mcmaster book and i could see with just
Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade
hi curtis, thanks for the input...i am thinking though that i will need two gears...reason being that one gear would be bare and the other gear would have the two washers on either side of it...so the progression would be a bare gear on the lead screw(as originally intended), then the existing idler gear that has the washers(as set up originally by legacy), then a new bare gear(that can mesh with the idler gear), then a new gear with washers which can then mesh properly with the existing legacy gear that goes on the shaft in the middle of the carriage(at the bottom)...now, with all these gears, the backlash is increased...how much?...i don't know...would the amount of additional backlash be an issue?...again, i do not know...could this mod turn out to be a PITA?...this i do know...YES!...basically, i would be shooting for a 7"-8" increase in the diameter capacity of the machine...currently it is just a bit more than 11" and i would be shooting for 18"...going by that dimension increase, i would need to increase the carriage length approximately 3 1/2"-4", but all in just the one half of the carriage assembly(i.e. between the lead screw and the shaft at the bottom of the carriage when it is hanging down)...this should not be difficult as i do have an extra carriage assembly from my second machine...the issue is finding two gears that will do the job without overly extending the carriage assembly...hope i did not bite off more than i can chew with this...haven't ordered material or made a hard core decision to proceed yet...waiting for someone to give me a reason why this will not work...LOL!...thanks...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 6:43:44 AM UTC-5, Curtis wrote: > > Hello Joe. and Good morning to you as well. ;-) > I do not think that you need to make a set of gears to conpencate for you > wideiing your Machine. I belive all that you need to do is add one more > gear into the linkage, (think of it as a spacer so to speak.) When gears > are in line with each other (un-like pulleys) the rpm dose not change, > adding a new gear would chang the direction of the rotation, but the pitch > will not change, that is un-less you make a duplex gear Then...( you would > need do some math to get your pitches ). > Buy adding a slot or and adjuctable linkage into you gear arm is all that > I belive you will need. you could make a slide arm much like the > directional gear set.Your gear arm mostlikely will need to be extended. > Now as a side note, you would think that Legacy would have made a nicer > arm for there machines ... There should have been a better way to adjust > linkage with out moving and changing screw holes, to and for engauging the > large/small gearing. > Now back to work. > Have a Great day Joe. > I cant wait to hear how you new machine is running. > C.A.G. > > -- > *From: *"'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills" < > legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com > > *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com > *Sent: *Wednesday, January 21, 2015 6:10:25 AM > *Subject: *Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade > > and since we are on the subject of the gear carriage, here is something i > will throw out there and see if anyone has any suggestions...in > considering( and i will emphasize the word "considering"...LOL) widening > the bed to increase the turning capacity of the machine,what could be done > to the gear carriage to accommodate the added width that must be made to > it, while still being able to use all the legacy gears, including the > reversing carriage to do opposite twists?...i have worked out all that has > to be done to the machine to widen it, but saved the worst for last...and i > would not consider making a complete set of custom made gears a > solution...too expensive...high points to anyone who has a solution using > only items found in a mcmaster-carr catalog!...LMAO!... later guys!...joe > > On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:55:36 AM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote: >> >> good morning to all(at least it's morning for some of us!)...the swivel >> bearing is an excellent idea, but due to it's overall size, it seems it >> would take a bit of machining and major modification to the whole gear >> carriage to make that happen...double checked the taper situation this >> morning and there will not be a problem with doing tapers on my extended >> machine if i just loosen the split collars a bit...not sure if there would >> be an issue on a 1200 or 1500...and then there is the bronze bushing in the >> middle gear...there is a decent amount of play with that gear, which i am >> not going to mess with(for now, anyway!...LOL!)...excellent pick up by tim, >> as i did have to cut a little bit off the end of the idler gear carriage to >> allow the smallest gear to be used...joe >> >> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:47:59 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote: >>> >>> >>> Can you still install the smallest gear? >>> >>> -Tim >>
Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade
hi mike!, you might get some answers from the reply i was typing while you were posting yours...i have done my calculations thinking that i need to get my workpiece between the bed rails(currently a bit more than 11"), and i need the "Y" and "Z" axis' carriage to ride over the workpiece...so an increase in the depth, as well as the height, seems to be in order...in the set up you mentioned can you still flute and twist a piece that large in diameter?...and if you are doing the turning with the workpiece protruding outside the rails(with the rails above and below the workpiece, i assume), that will work for you on your woodchuck, but for the legacy that came after that, if there is a center support, that can't happen(models 1500,1800,2000...and maybe the 1200, not sure)...anyway, certainly would like your input on this idea...much appreciated...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:59:33 AM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote: > > I would think that you should increase depth rather than width. > Question is, how big of a turning are you wanting to do? My wood chuck is > only 9" wide at the rails. I can turn a 19.375" piece. All accomplished > by making it taller, not wider. I am only supposed to turn 11" but that > just seems like a starting point to me LOL. > Mike > OK > On 1/21/2015 5:10 AM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills wrote: > > and since we are on the subject of the gear carriage, here is something i > will throw out there and see if anyone has any suggestions...in > considering( and i will emphasize the word "considering"...LOL) widening > the bed to increase the turning capacity of the machine,what could be done > to the gear carriage to accommodate the added width that must be made to > it, while still being able to use all the legacy gears, including the > reversing carriage to do opposite twists?...i have worked out all that has > to be done to the machine to widen it, but saved the worst for last...and i > would not consider making a complete set of custom made gears a > solution...too expensive...high points to anyone who has a solution using > only items found in a mcmaster-carr catalog!...LMAO!... later guys!...joe > > On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:55:36 AM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote: >> >> good morning to all(at least it's morning for some of us!)...the swivel >> bearing is an excellent idea, but due to it's overall size, it seems it >> would take a bit of machining and major modification to the whole gear >> carriage to make that happen...double checked the taper situation this >> morning and there will not be a problem with doing tapers on my extended >> machine if i just loosen the split collars a bit...not sure if there would >> be an issue on a 1200 or 1500...and then there is the bronze bushing in the >> middle gear...there is a decent amount of play with that gear, which i am >> not going to mess with(for now, anyway!...LOL!)...excellent pick up by tim, >> as i did have to cut a little bit off the end of the idler gear carriage to >> allow the smallest gear to be used...joe >> >> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:47:59 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote: >>> >>> >>> Can you still install the smallest gear? >>> >>> -Tim >>> >>> >>> - Original Message - >>> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills >>> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 5:58 PM >>> *Subject:* Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade >>> >>> sorry guys, forgot to mention this in my initial e-mail...the needle >>> bearings are in their own steel housing, so if you loosen the screws a bit >>> to the split shaft collars,there is enough allowance for the bearing to >>> move within the confines of the shaft collar to do a taper to your >>> work...in fact you can "dial it in" ,so to speak, to still have a tight >>> tolerance while setting up the taper...not sure if there is enough >>> allowance to deal with a full taper though...i'll play with that >>> tomorrow...but i would be curious to know if you could do a full taper and >>> not have any gear issues on, for example, a legacy 1200?...thanks for the >>> responses...joe >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 7:04:37 PM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote: On longer mills this upgrade may not effect tapers too much. But the shorter mills will bind this up, I'm afraid. You should see how sloppy my Wood Chuck is, never ever jumped a tooth. And I have all the fine teeth gears too. Hope this does not become a problem for you. Only way to tell is set it at full taper. Mike OK On 1/20/2015 5:45 PM, Bill Bulkeley wrote: Can the mill still do tapers I have found that I like a bit of slop in everything in the gears and linkage so there is enough movement for when you lower one end of the rails to mill tapers. Bill *From:* legacy-orna...@goog
Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade
Hello Joe and everyone. Since we are thinking out side the box. (so to speak) How about a high-bread between the two ideas, your machine and Mikes higher concepts. just might be able to work together. (of a mater of coarse things will have to be modified you head stock a little, to make it work, but Just think of this idea. Make a new center point for your head-stock. I think Bill (but I could be wrong.) did something like what Im thinking of at this moment, it a while back ( a few years ago So Im not really sure of all the details. but...). He made a second center lower on the Legacy head stock,, I think it was 3" or 4" lower, and hooked the two heads up with a chain and sprockets so they would turn at the same time I would think that 4" of depth would give you the ability to turns a much larger turning, On my 1000 the lower rails are at 15"between centers, if I lower the center I should be able to turn a log much larger than what I can do now. Its just an idea to think about, I dont think it would be to hard to do, a set of ball-bearings , new shaft and two sprockets and a chain to link the to together, and then the steel to wield onto the original head-stock. the beauty here is your machine really dose not change the chain can be used or not when not turning large spindles. AND THE TIME it would save vs the widening of the machine... Again just an idea to mull over. C.A.G. - Original Message - From: "'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills" To: legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:46:20 PM Subject: Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade hi mike!, you might get some answers from the reply i was typing while you were posting yours...i have done my calculations thinking that i need to get my workpiece between the bed rails(currently a bit more than 11"), and i need the "Y" and "Z" axis' carriage to ride over the workpiece...so an increase in the depth, as well as the height, seems to be in order...in the set up you mentioned can you still flute and twist a piece that large in diameter?...and if you are doing the turning with the workpiece protruding outside the rails(with the rails above and below the workpiece, i assume), that will work for you on your woodchuck, but for the legacy that came after that, if there is a center support, that can't happen(models 1500,1800,2000...and maybe the 1200, not sure)...anyway, certainly would like your input on this idea...much appreciated...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:59:33 AM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote: I would think that you should increase depth rather than width. Question is, how big of a turning are you wanting to do? My wood chuck is only 9" wide at the rails. I can turn a 19.375" piece. All accomplished by making it taller, not wider. I am only supposed to turn 11" but that just seems like a starting point to me LOL. Mike OK On 1/21/2015 5:10 AM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills wrote: and since we are on the subject of the gear carriage, here is something i will throw out there and see if anyone has any suggestions...in considering( and i will emphasize the word "considering"...LOL) widening the bed to increase the turning capacity of the machine,what could be done to the gear carriage to accommodate the added width that must be made to it, while still being able to use all the legacy gears, including the reversing carriage to do opposite twists?...i have worked out all that has to be done to the machine to widen it, but saved the worst for last...and i would not consider making a complete set of custom made gears a solution...too expensive...high points to anyone who has a solution using only items found in a mcmaster-carr catalog!...LMAO!... later guys!...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:55:36 AM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote: good morning to all(at least it's morning for some of us!)...the swivel bearing is an excellent idea, but due to it's overall size, it seems it would take a bit of machining and major modification to the whole gear carriage to make that happen...double checked the taper situation this morning and there will not be a problem with doing tapers on my extended machine if i just loosen the split collars a bit...not sure if there would be an issue on a 1200 or 1500...and then there is the bronze bushing in the middle gear...there is a decent amount of play with that gear, which i am not going to mess with(for now, anyway!...LOL!)...excellent pick up by tim, as i did have to cut a little bit off the end of the idler gear carriage to allow the smallest gear to be used...joe On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:47:59 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote: Can you still install the smallest gear? -Tim - Original Message - From: 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 5:58 PM Subject: Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade sorry g
Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade
well, that concept would work with a machine that does not have a center support...and not because of the vertical support, but for the brace that goes front to back on the longer machines...and you would have to modify the tailstock as well...and there can be no play in the chain drive if you were to do any spiral work...did a little research and it seems the 1200,1800 and 2000 all had center supports with the bottom brace going front to back...and 15" is a very nice capacity, but i would want at least 18"...i originally was shooting for 20", but the same problems that are there with an 18" modification are there but to a much bigger degree of difficulty and not worth pursuing, in my opinion...so i am currently shooting for 18", but that could change to a smaller dimension...and as far as time goes, i am guessing that this would be a three day mod(total of 24 hours)...just a good amount of cutting and welding(oh yeah!, and some painting!...LOL)...cut, and lengthen the vertical supports(total of 14 in my case, total of 6 and 8 for the 1200 or 1800)...cut and lengthen the head and tail stocks, the bottom cross pieces( 1 piece, 2 in my case) and the bed risers(2 pieces)...do what is necessary to the gear carriage and you are done...easier said than done,for sure, but manageable and doable, in my opinion...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 3:41:34 PM UTC-5, Curtis wrote: > > Hello Joe and everyone. > Since we are thinking out side the box. (so to speak) How about a > high-bread between the two ideas, your machine and Mikes higher concepts. > just might be able to work together. (of a mater of coarse things will have > to be modified you head stock a little, to make it work, but Just think of > this idea. Make a new center point for your head-stock. > I think Bill (but I could be wrong.) did something like what Im thinking > of at this moment, it a while back ( a few years ago So Im not really sure > of all the details. but...). He made a second center lower on the Legacy > head stock,, I think it was 3" or 4" lower, and hooked the two heads up > with a chain and sprockets so they would turn at the same time I would > think that 4" of depth would give you the ability to turns a much larger > turning, On my 1000 the lower rails are at 15"between centers, if I lower > the center I should be able to turn a log much larger than what I can do > now. > Its just an idea to think about, I dont think it would be to hard to do, > a set of ball-bearings , new shaft and two sprockets and a chain to link > the to together, and then the steel to wield onto the original head-stock. > the beauty here is your machine really dose not change the chain can be > used or not when not turning large spindles. AND THE TIME it would save vs > the widening of the machine... > Again just an idea to mull over. > C.A.G. > > -- > *From: *"'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills" < > legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com > > *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com > *Sent: *Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:46:20 PM > *Subject: *Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade > > hi mike!, > you might get some answers from the reply i was typing while > you were posting yours...i have done my calculations thinking that i need > to get my workpiece between the bed rails(currently a bit more than 11"), > and i need the "Y" and "Z" axis' carriage to ride over the workpiece...so > an increase in the depth, as well as the height, seems to be in order...in > the set up you mentioned can you still flute and twist a piece that large > in diameter?...and if you are doing the turning with the workpiece > protruding outside the rails(with the rails above and below the workpiece, > i assume), that will work for you on your woodchuck, but for the legacy > that came after that, if there is a center support, that can't > happen(models 1500,1800,2000...and maybe the 1200, not sure)...anyway, > certainly would like your input on this idea...much appreciated...joe > > On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:59:33 AM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote: >> >> I would think that you should increase depth rather than width. >> Question is, how big of a turning are you wanting to do? My wood chuck is >> only 9" wide at the rails. I can turn a 19.375" piece. All accomplished >> by making it taller, not wider. I am only supposed to turn 11" but that >> just seems like a starting point to me LOL. >> Mike >> OK >> On 1/21/2015 5:10 AM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills wrote: >> >> and since we are on the subject of the gear carriage, here is something i >> will throw out there and see if anyone has any suggestions...in >> considering( and i will emphasize the word "considering"...LOL) widening >> the bed to increase the turning capacity of the machine,what could be done >> to the gear carriage to accommodate the added width that must be made to >> it, while still being able to us
Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade
a sidebar question, but still pertains to this discussion...does anyone have any info on the gears that legacy used?...were they custom made?...or are they commercially available?...or were they made by legacy or an outside vendor for legacy?...basically, can any of the stock gears still be gotten?...thanks...joe "i must be out of my mind to consider this mod" biunno On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 4:29:19 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote: > > well, that concept would work with a machine that does not have a center > support...and not because of the vertical support, but for the brace that > goes front to back on the longer machines...and you would have to modify > the tailstock as well...and there can be no play in the chain drive if you > were to do any spiral work...did a little research and it seems the > 1200,1800 and 2000 all had center supports with the bottom brace going > front to back...and 15" is a very nice capacity, but i would want at least > 18"...i originally was shooting for 20", but the same problems that are > there with an 18" modification are there but to a much bigger degree of > difficulty and not worth pursuing, in my opinion...so i am currently > shooting for 18", but that could change to a smaller dimension...and as far > as time goes, i am guessing that this would be a three day mod(total of 24 > hours)...just a good amount of cutting and welding(oh yeah!, and some > painting!...LOL)...cut, and lengthen the vertical supports(total of 14 in > my case, total of 6 and 8 for the 1200 or 1800)...cut and lengthen the head > and tail stocks, the bottom cross pieces( 1 piece, 2 in my case) and the > bed risers(2 pieces)...do what is necessary to the gear carriage and you > are done...easier said than done,for sure, but manageable and doable, in my > opinion...joe > > On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 3:41:34 PM UTC-5, Curtis wrote: >> >> Hello Joe and everyone. >> Since we are thinking out side the box. (so to speak) How about a >> high-bread between the two ideas, your machine and Mikes higher concepts. >> just might be able to work together. (of a mater of coarse things will have >> to be modified you head stock a little, to make it work, but Just think of >> this idea. Make a new center point for your head-stock. >> I think Bill (but I could be wrong.) did something like what Im thinking >> of at this moment, it a while back ( a few years ago So Im not really sure >> of all the details. but...). He made a second center lower on the Legacy >> head stock,, I think it was 3" or 4" lower, and hooked the two heads up >> with a chain and sprockets so they would turn at the same time I would >> think that 4" of depth would give you the ability to turns a much larger >> turning, On my 1000 the lower rails are at 15"between centers, if I lower >> the center I should be able to turn a log much larger than what I can do >> now. >> Its just an idea to think about, I dont think it would be to hard to do, >> a set of ball-bearings , new shaft and two sprockets and a chain to link >> the to together, and then the steel to wield onto the original head-stock. >> the beauty here is your machine really dose not change the chain can be >> used or not when not turning large spindles. AND THE TIME it would save vs >> the widening of the machine... >> Again just an idea to mull over. >> C.A.G. >> >> -- >> *From: *"'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills" < >> legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com> >> *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com >> *Sent: *Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:46:20 PM >> *Subject: *Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade >> >> hi mike!, >> you might get some answers from the reply i was typing while >> you were posting yours...i have done my calculations thinking that i need >> to get my workpiece between the bed rails(currently a bit more than 11"), >> and i need the "Y" and "Z" axis' carriage to ride over the workpiece...so >> an increase in the depth, as well as the height, seems to be in order...in >> the set up you mentioned can you still flute and twist a piece that large >> in diameter?...and if you are doing the turning with the workpiece >> protruding outside the rails(with the rails above and below the workpiece, >> i assume), that will work for you on your woodchuck, but for the legacy >> that came after that, if there is a center support, that can't >> happen(models 1500,1800,2000...and maybe the 1200, not sure)...anyway, >> certainly would like your input on this idea...much appreciated...joe >> >> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:59:33 AM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote: >>> >>> I would think that you should increase depth rather than width. >>> Question is, how big of a turning are you wanting to do? My wood chuck is >>> only 9" wide at the rails. I can turn a 19.375" piece. All accomplished >>> by making it taller, not wider. I am only supposed to turn 11" but that >>> just seems
RE: gear carriage bearing upgrade
If you lowered the centres could you not lower the centre support as well to achieve the larger dia I did do as curtis suggested and lowered my centre and tail stock to achieve larger dia work Slop was not a problem it never is as long as you take it up by always turning in the one direction And not changing direction while cutting. Lowering the tail stock and head stock would be much easier I think than totally rebuilding the mill by widening it, if the only hurdle is the centre supports I would think that would be an easier path to go but I am interested in what you come up with. Here is the pics of my side cutting mod which shows how I lowered everything. I don’t have pics any more of doing larger dia work with it http://www.ornamentalmills.com/Bill_Bulkeley/side_cutting_mod.html Bill From: legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com [mailto:legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com] Sent: Thursday, 22 January 2015 8:29 AM To: legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com Cc: curtgeo...@wowway.com Subject: Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade well, that concept would work with a machine that does not have a center support...and not because of the vertical support, but for the brace that goes front to back on the longer machines...and you would have to modify the tailstock as well...and there can be no play in the chain drive if you were to do any spiral work...did a little research and it seems the 1200,1800 and 2000 all had center supports with the bottom brace going front to back...and 15" is a very nice capacity, but i would want at least 18"...i originally was shooting for 20", but the same problems that are there with an 18" modification are there but to a much bigger degree of difficulty and not worth pursuing, in my opinion...so i am currently shooting for 18", but that could change to a smaller dimension...and as far as time goes, i am guessing that this would be a three day mod(total of 24 hours)...just a good amount of cutting and welding(oh yeah!, and some painting!...LOL)...cut, and lengthen the vertical supports(total of 14 in my case, total of 6 and 8 for the 1200 or 1800)...cut and lengthen the head and tail stocks, the bottom cross pieces( 1 piece, 2 in my case) and the bed risers(2 pieces)...do what is necessary to the gear carriage and you are done...easier said than done,for sure, but manageable and doable, in my opinion...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 3:41:34 PM UTC-5, Curtis wrote: Hello Joe and everyone. Since we are thinking out side the box. (so to speak) How about a high-bread between the two ideas, your machine and Mikes higher concepts. just might be able to work together. (of a mater of coarse things will have to be modified you head stock a little, to make it work, but Just think of this idea. Make a new center point for your head-stock. I think Bill (but I could be wrong.) did something like what Im thinking of at this moment, it a while back ( a few years ago So Im not really sure of all the details. but...). He made a second center lower on the Legacy head stock,, I think it was 3" or 4" lower, and hooked the two heads up with a chain and sprockets so they would turn at the same time I would think that 4" of depth would give you the ability to turns a much larger turning, On my 1000 the lower rails are at 15"between centers, if I lower the center I should be able to turn a log much larger than what I can do now. Its just an idea to think about, I dont think it would be to hard to do, a set of ball-bearings , new shaft and two sprockets and a chain to link the to together, and then the steel to wield onto the original head-stock. the beauty here is your machine really dose not change the chain can be used or not when not turning large spindles. AND THE TIME it would save vs the widening of the machine... Again just an idea to mull over. C.A.G. _ From: "'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills" > To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:46:20 PM Subject: Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade hi mike!, you might get some answers from the reply i was typing while you were posting yours...i have done my calculations thinking that i need to get my workpiece between the bed rails(currently a bit more than 11"), and i need the "Y" and "Z" axis' carriage to ride over the workpiece...so an increase in the depth, as well as the height, seems to be in order...in the set up you mentioned can you still flute and twist a piece that large in diameter?...and if you are doing the turning with the workpiece protruding outside the rails(with the rails above and below the workpiece, i assume), that will work for you on your woodchuck, but for the legacy that came after that, if there is a center support, that can't happen(models 1500,1800,2000...and maybe the 1200, not sure)...anyway, certainly would like your input on this idea...much appre
Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade
The short version is the gears where custom laser cut. Give them a call to see if any of them are still available. -Tim - Original Message - From: 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills To: legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com Cc: curtgeo...@wowway.com Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 1:35 PM Subject: Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade a sidebar question, but still pertains to this discussion...does anyone have any info on the gears that legacy used?...were they custom made?...or are they commercially available?...or were they made by legacy or an outside vendor for legacy?...basically, can any of the stock gears still be gotten?...thanks...joe "i must be out of my mind to consider this mod" biunno On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 4:29:19 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote: well, that concept would work with a machine that does not have a center support...and not because of the vertical support, but for the brace that goes front to back on the longer machines...and you would have to modify the tailstock as well...and there can be no play in the chain drive if you were to do any spiral work...did a little research and it seems the 1200,1800 and 2000 all had center supports with the bottom brace going front to back...and 15" is a very nice capacity, but i would want at least 18"...i originally was shooting for 20", but the same problems that are there with an 18" modification are there but to a much bigger degree of difficulty and not worth pursuing, in my opinion...so i am currently shooting for 18", but that could change to a smaller dimension...and as far as time goes, i am guessing that this would be a three day mod(total of 24 hours)...just a good amount of cutting and welding(oh yeah!, and some painting!...LOL)...cut, and lengthen the vertical supports(total of 14 in my case, total of 6 and 8 for the 1200 or 1800)...cut and lengthen the head and tail stocks, the bottom cross pieces( 1 piece, 2 in my case) and the bed risers(2 pieces)...do what is necessary to the gear carriage and you are done...easier said than done,for sure, but manageable and doable, in my opinion...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 3:41:34 PM UTC-5, Curtis wrote: Hello Joe and everyone. Since we are thinking out side the box. (so to speak) How about a high-bread between the two ideas, your machine and Mikes higher concepts. just might be able to work together. (of a mater of coarse things will have to be modified you head stock a little, to make it work, but Just think of this idea. Make a new center point for your head-stock. I think Bill (but I could be wrong.) did something like what Im thinking of at this moment, it a while back ( a few years ago So Im not really sure of all the details. but...). He made a second center lower on the Legacy head stock,, I think it was 3" or 4" lower, and hooked the two heads up with a chain and sprockets so they would turn at the same time I would think that 4" of depth would give you the ability to turns a much larger turning, On my 1000 the lower rails are at 15"between centers, if I lower the center I should be able to turn a log much larger than what I can do now. Its just an idea to think about, I dont think it would be to hard to do, a set of ball-bearings , new shaft and two sprockets and a chain to link the to together, and then the steel to wield onto the original head-stock. the beauty here is your machine really dose not change the chain can be used or not when not turning large spindles. AND THE TIME it would save vs the widening of the machine... Again just an idea to mull over. C.A.G. -- From: "'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills" To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:46:20 PM Subject: Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade hi mike!, you might get some answers from the reply i was typing while you were posting yours...i have done my calculations thinking that i need to get my workpiece between the bed rails(currently a bit more than 11"), and i need the "Y" and "Z" axis' carriage to ride over the workpiece...so an increase in the depth, as well as the height, seems to be in order...in the set up you mentioned can you still flute and twist a piece that large in diameter?...and if you are doing the turning with the workpiece protruding outside the rails(with the rails above and below the workpiece, i assume), that will work for you on your woodchuck, but for the legacy that came after that, if there is a center support, that can't happen(models 1500,1800,2000...and maybe the 1200, not sure)...anyway, certainly would like your input on this idea...much appreciated...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:59:33 AM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote: I would think that you shou
Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade
I guess another questions would be, are you planning to do a full length 18" post?, got a crane? When I do that size I am usually working a pedestal no higher than 48 inches. If that is where you are going, all you have to do is have removable sections for the belly girth. On 1/21/2015 3:29 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills wrote: well, that concept would work with a machine that does not have a center support...and not because of the vertical support, but for the brace that goes front to back on the longer machines...and you would have to modify the tailstock as well...and there can be no play in the chain drive if you were to do any spiral work...did a little research and it seems the 1200,1800 and 2000 all had center supports with the bottom brace going front to back...and 15" is a very nice capacity, but i would want at least 18"...i originally was shooting for 20", but the same problems that are there with an 18" modification are there but to a much bigger degree of difficulty and not worth pursuing, in my opinion...so i am currently shooting for 18", but that could change to a smaller dimension...and as far as time goes, i am guessing that this would be a three day mod(total of 24 hours)...just a good amount of cutting and welding(oh yeah!, and some painting!...LOL)...cut, and lengthen the vertical supports(total of 14 in my case, total of 6 and 8 for the 1200 or 1800)...cut and lengthen the head and tail stocks, the bottom cross pieces( 1 piece, 2 in my case) and the bed risers(2 pieces)...do what is necessary to the gear carriage and you are done...easier said than done,for sure, but manageable and doable, in my opinion...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 3:41:34 PM UTC-5, Curtis wrote: Hello Joe and everyone. Since we are thinking out side the box. (so to speak) How about a high-bread between the two ideas, your machine and Mikes higher concepts. just might be able to work together. (of a mater of coarse things will have to be modified you head stock a little, to make it work, but Just think of this idea. Make a new center point for your head-stock. I think Bill (but I could be wrong.) did something like what Im thinking of at this moment, it a while back ( a few years ago So Im not really sure of all the details. but...). He made a second center lower on the Legacy head stock,, I think it was 3" or 4" lower, and hooked the two heads up with a chain and sprockets so they would turn at the same time I would think that 4" of depth would give you the ability to turns a much larger turning, On my 1000 the lower rails are at 15"between centers, if I lower the center I should be able to turn a log much larger than what I can do now. Its just an idea to think about, I dont think it would be to hard to do, a set of ball-bearings , new shaft and two sprockets and a chain to link the to together, and then the steel to wield onto the original head-stock. the beauty here is your machine really dose not change the chain can be used or not when not turning large spindles. AND THE TIME it would save vs the widening of the machine... Again just an idea to mull over. C.A.G. *From: *"'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills" > *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com *Sent: *Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:46:20 PM *Subject: *Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade hi mike!, you might get some answers from the reply i was typing while you were posting yours...i have done my calculations thinking that i need to get my workpiece between the bed rails(currently a bit more than 11"), and i need the "Y" and "Z" axis' carriage to ride over the workpiece...so an increase in the depth, as well as the height, seems to be in order...in the set up you mentioned can you still flute and twist a piece that large in diameter?...and if you are doing the turning with the workpiece protruding outside the rails(with the rails above and below the workpiece, i assume), that will work for you on your woodchuck, but for the legacy that came after that, if there is a center support, that can't happen(models 1500,1800,2000...and maybe the 1200, not sure)...anyway, certainly would like your input on this idea...much appreciated...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:59:33 AM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote: I would think that you should increase depth rather than width. Question is, how big of a turning are you wanting to do? My wood chuck is only 9" wide at the rails. I can turn a 19.375" piece. All accomplished by making it taller, not wider. I am only supposed to turn 11" but that just seems like a starting point to me LOL. Mike OK On 1/21/20
Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade
hey bill, on a typical legacy, lowering the center brace would be very easy to do...so i do agree with you...how much did you have to lower the tailstock and headstock to achieve the 15" capacity?...and was there any indexing problems after you did your mod?...in my case, i can't lower the cross braces as the machine is mounted on a reinforced, platform base...and if i am going to spend any time doing a mod of this type, i want the 18" capacity, for potential column work...still haven't committed to doing this mod, but every day i am working out potential issues( some with the help from the group), so i am leaning towards doing it...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:14:15 PM UTC-5, aussiman wrote: > > If you lowered the centres could you not lower the centre support as > well to achieve the larger dia > > I did do as curtis suggested and lowered my centre and tail stock to > achieve larger dia work > > Slop was not a problem it never is as long as you take it up by always > turning in the one direction > > And not changing direction while cutting. > > Lowering the tail stock and head stock would be much easier I think than > totally rebuilding the mill by widening it, if the only hurdle is the > centre supports I would think that would be an easier path to go but I am > interested in what you come up with. Here is the pics of my side cutting > mod which shows how I lowered everything. I don’t have pics any more of > doing larger dia work with it > > http://www.ornamentalmills.com/Bill_Bulkeley/side_cutting_mod.html > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com [mailto: > legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com ] > *Sent:* Thursday, 22 January 2015 8:29 AM > *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com > *Cc:* curtg...@wowway.com > *Subject:* Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade > > > > well, that concept would work with a machine that does not have a center > support...and not because of the vertical support, but for the brace that > goes front to back on the longer machines...and you would have to modify > the tailstock as well...and there can be no play in the chain drive if you > were to do any spiral work...did a little research and it seems the > 1200,1800 and 2000 all had center supports with the bottom brace going > front to back...and 15" is a very nice capacity, but i would want at least > 18"...i originally was shooting for 20", but the same problems that are > there with an 18" modification are there but to a much bigger degree of > difficulty and not worth pursuing, in my opinion...so i am currently > shooting for 18", but that could change to a smaller dimension...and as far > as time goes, i am guessing that this would be a three day mod(total of 24 > hours)...just a good amount of cutting and welding(oh yeah!, and some > painting!...LOL)...cut, and lengthen the vertical supports(total of 14 in > my case, total of 6 and 8 for the 1200 or 1800)...cut and lengthen the head > and tail stocks, the bottom cross pieces( 1 piece, 2 in my case) and the > bed risers(2 pieces)...do what is necessary to the gear carriage and you > are done...easier said than done,for sure, but manageable and doable, in my > opinion...joe > > On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 3:41:34 PM UTC-5, Curtis wrote: > > Hello Joe and everyone. > > Since we are thinking out side the box. (so to speak) How about a > high-bread between the two ideas, your machine and Mikes higher concepts. > just might be able to work together. (of a mater of coarse things will have > to be modified you head stock a little, to make it work, but Just think of > this idea. Make a new center point for your head-stock. > > I think Bill (but I could be wrong.) did something like what Im thinking > of at this moment, it a while back ( a few years ago So Im not really sure > of all the details. but...). He made a second center lower on the Legacy > head stock,, I think it was 3" or 4" lower, and hooked the two heads up > with a chain and sprockets so they would turn at the same time I would > think that 4" of depth would give you the ability to turns a much larger > turning, On my 1000 the lower rails are at 15"between centers, if I lower > the center I should be able to turn a log much larger than what I can do > now. > > Its just an idea to think about, I dont think it would be to hard to do, > a set of ball-bearings , new shaft and two sprockets and a chain to link > the to together, and then the steel to wield onto the original head-stock. > the beauty here is your machine really dose not change the chain can be > used or not when not turning large spindles. AND THE TIME it would save vs > the widening of the machine... > > Again just an idea to mull over. > > C.A.G. > > > -- > > *From: *"'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills" < > legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com> > *To: *legacy-orna...
Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade
thanks tim...will do...i do have the gears i would need to do this mod, but i would have to break up a set...i would rather buy the gears i need...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 6:26:26 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote: > > > The short version is the gears where custom laser cut. Give them a call > to see if any of them are still available. > > -Tim > > > - Original Message - > *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills > *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com > *Cc:* curtg...@wowway.com > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 21, 2015 1:35 PM > *Subject:* Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade > > a sidebar question, but still pertains to this discussion...does anyone > have any info on the gears that legacy used?...were they custom made?...or > are they commercially available?...or were they made by legacy or an > outside vendor for legacy?...basically, can any of the stock gears still be > gotten?...thanks...joe "i must be out of my mind to consider this mod" > biunno > > On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 4:29:19 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote: >> >> well, that concept would work with a machine that does not have a center >> support...and not because of the vertical support, but for the brace that >> goes front to back on the longer machines...and you would have to modify >> the tailstock as well...and there can be no play in the chain drive if you >> were to do any spiral work...did a little research and it seems the >> 1200,1800 and 2000 all had center supports with the bottom brace going >> front to back...and 15" is a very nice capacity, but i would want at least >> 18"...i originally was shooting for 20", but the same problems that are >> there with an 18" modification are there but to a much bigger degree of >> difficulty and not worth pursuing, in my opinion...so i am currently >> shooting for 18", but that could change to a smaller dimension...and as far >> as time goes, i am guessing that this would be a three day mod(total of 24 >> hours)...just a good amount of cutting and welding(oh yeah!, and some >> painting!...LOL)...cut, and lengthen the vertical supports(total of 14 in >> my case, total of 6 and 8 for the 1200 or 1800)...cut and lengthen the head >> and tail stocks, the bottom cross pieces( 1 piece, 2 in my case) and the >> bed risers(2 pieces)...do what is necessary to the gear carriage and you >> are done...easier said than done,for sure, but manageable and doable, in my >> opinion...joe >> >> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 3:41:34 PM UTC-5, Curtis wrote: >>> >>> Hello Joe and everyone. >>> Since we are thinking out side the box. (so to speak) How about a >>> high-bread between the two ideas, your machine and Mikes higher concepts. >>> just might be able to work together. (of a mater of coarse things will have >>> to be modified you head stock a little, to make it work, but Just think of >>> this idea. Make a new center point for your head-stock. >>> I think Bill (but I could be wrong.) did something like what Im >>> thinking of at this moment, it a while back ( a few years ago So Im >>> not really sure of all the details. but...). He made a second center lower >>> on the Legacy head stock,, I think it was 3" or 4" lower, and hooked the >>> two heads up with a chain and sprockets so they would turn at the same >>> time I would think that 4" of depth would give you the ability to turns >>> a much larger turning, On my 1000 the lower rails are at 15"between >>> centers, if I lower the center I should be able to turn a log much larger >>> than what I can do now. >>> Its just an idea to think about, I dont think it would be to hard to do, >>> a set of ball-bearings , new shaft and two sprockets and a chain to link >>> the to together, and then the steel to wield onto the original head-stock. >>> the beauty here is your machine really dose not change the chain can be >>> used or not when not turning large spindles. AND THE TIME it would save vs >>> the widening of the machine... >>> Again just an idea to mull over. >>> C.A.G. >>> >>> -- >>> *From: *"'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills" < >>> legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com> >>> *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com >>> *Sent: *Wednesday, January 21, 2015 12:46:20 PM >>> *Subject: *Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade >>> >>> hi mike!, >>> you might get some answers from the reply i was typing >>> while you were posting yours...i have done my calculations thinking that i >>> need to get my workpiece between the bed rails(currently a bit more than >>> 11"), and i need the "Y" and "Z" axis' carriage to ride over the >>> workpiece...so an increase in the depth, as well as the height, seems to be >>> in order...in the set up you mentioned can you still flute and twist a >>> piece that large in diameter?...and if you are doing the turning with the >>> workpiece protruding outside the rails(with the rails above and below the >>> workpi
Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade
mike, i would be curious to know how much lateral stress an 8" addition would put on the tailstock and headstock...it could be reinforced to avoid that, but it would seem to be an issue...and although i do not have a crane, we do have ceiling mounted hoists...LOL...but a harbor freight engine lift would also serve this situation very well...and not cost much at all...this is a very good thread, having a lot of fun with it...thanks...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 7:25:49 PM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote: > > Curtis replied about Bill lowering the the tail stock and head stock a > few inches and chaining them to the original drive. That is on the same > line I was thinking, only difference to this would be to lift it above it's > center point about 8". This would also require you to extend the side > supports to lower the bottom rails and center rails away from the top > rails. > > > > Mike > OK > On 1/21/2015 11:46 AM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills wrote: > > hi mike!, > you might get some answers from the reply i was typing while > you were posting yours...i have done my calculations thinking that i need > to get my workpiece between the bed rails(currently a bit more than 11"), > and i need the "Y" and "Z" axis' carriage to ride over the workpiece...so > an increase in the depth, as well as the height, seems to be in order...in > the set up you mentioned can you still flute and twist a piece that large > in diameter?...and if you are doing the turning with the workpiece > protruding outside the rails(with the rails above and below the workpiece, > i assume), that will work for you on your woodchuck, but for the legacy > that came after that, if there is a center support, that can't > happen(models 1500,1800,2000...and maybe the 1200, not sure)...anyway, > certainly would like your input on this idea...much appreciated...joe > > On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:59:33 AM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote: >> >> I would think that you should increase depth rather than width. >> Question is, how big of a turning are you wanting to do? My wood chuck is >> only 9" wide at the rails. I can turn a 19.375" piece. All accomplished >> by making it taller, not wider. I am only supposed to turn 11" but that >> just seems like a starting point to me LOL. >> Mike >> OK >> On 1/21/2015 5:10 AM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills wrote: >> >> and since we are on the subject of the gear carriage, here is something i >> will throw out there and see if anyone has any suggestions...in >> considering( and i will emphasize the word "considering"...LOL) widening >> the bed to increase the turning capacity of the machine,what could be done >> to the gear carriage to accommodate the added width that must be made to >> it, while still being able to use all the legacy gears, including the >> reversing carriage to do opposite twists?...i have worked out all that has >> to be done to the machine to widen it, but saved the worst for last...and i >> would not consider making a complete set of custom made gears a >> solution...too expensive...high points to anyone who has a solution using >> only items found in a mcmaster-carr catalog!...LMAO!... later guys!...joe >> >> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:55:36 AM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote: >>> >>> good morning to all(at least it's morning for some of us!)...the swivel >>> bearing is an excellent idea, but due to it's overall size, it seems it >>> would take a bit of machining and major modification to the whole gear >>> carriage to make that happen...double checked the taper situation this >>> morning and there will not be a problem with doing tapers on my extended >>> machine if i just loosen the split collars a bit...not sure if there would >>> be an issue on a 1200 or 1500...and then there is the bronze bushing in the >>> middle gear...there is a decent amount of play with that gear, which i am >>> not going to mess with(for now, anyway!...LOL!)...excellent pick up by tim, >>> as i did have to cut a little bit off the end of the idler gear carriage to >>> allow the smallest gear to be used...joe >>> >>> On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:47:59 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote: Can you still install the smallest gear? -Tim - Original Message - *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com *Sent:* Tuesday, January 20, 2015 5:58 PM *Subject:* Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade sorry guys, forgot to mention this in my initial e-mail...the needle bearings are in their own steel housing, so if you loosen the screws a bit to the split shaft collars,there is enough allowance for the bearing to move within the confines of the shaft collar to do a taper to your work...in fact you can "dial it in" ,so to speak, to still have a tight tolerance while s
Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade
some general info...i am very fortunate to have a small metal shop within my woodworking shop...although my equipment is on the light duty side(no bridgeport miller,southbend lathe or doall bandsaw here), it is a tremendous plus when upgrading or repairing a machine...with that being said, i would like to think that the proposal to widen my legacy could also be applied to anyone who would want to do the same to their machine...a chop saw,some careful layout work and a TIG welder could do the job very well...in regards to the vertical supports, a single cross cut,just above where the cross brace and bed risers mount would do... insert a piece of 2" X 3" X 1/8" wall,cold rolled, rectangular tubing between the two pieces, some welding, some quick grinding and that piece is done...not much work at all...the bed risers are a different story, as you have to make two cuts in each piece to keep the screw centered,prepare two pieces of cold rolled tubing to match the dimensions of the piece legacy fabricated( a big PITA!) and weld away...some grinding and a light coat of "curtis red"(LOL!) and that piece is done...a good amount more work than the vertical supports for sure, but not complicated at all...the bottom cross braces would be the easiest to do, no explanation needed...all this is so the original legacy design of assembling the machine remains the same...no slotting,drilling,tapping,etc.,etci hope i have explained it properly...all comments welcome...thanks...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 8:02:29 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote: > > mike, > i would be curious to know how much lateral stress an 8" > addition would put on the tailstock and headstock...it could be reinforced > to avoid that, but it would seem to be an issue...and although i do not > have a crane, we do have ceiling mounted hoists...LOL...but a harbor > freight engine lift would also serve this situation very well...and not > cost much at all...this is a very good thread, having a lot of fun with > it...thanks...joe > > On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 7:25:49 PM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote: >> >> Curtis replied about Bill lowering the the tail stock and head stock a >> few inches and chaining them to the original drive. That is on the same >> line I was thinking, only difference to this would be to lift it above it's >> center point about 8". This would also require you to extend the side >> supports to lower the bottom rails and center rails away from the top >> rails. >> >> >> >> Mike >> OK >> On 1/21/2015 11:46 AM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills wrote: >> >> hi mike!, >> you might get some answers from the reply i was typing while >> you were posting yours...i have done my calculations thinking that i need >> to get my workpiece between the bed rails(currently a bit more than 11"), >> and i need the "Y" and "Z" axis' carriage to ride over the workpiece...so >> an increase in the depth, as well as the height, seems to be in order...in >> the set up you mentioned can you still flute and twist a piece that large >> in diameter?...and if you are doing the turning with the workpiece >> protruding outside the rails(with the rails above and below the workpiece, >> i assume), that will work for you on your woodchuck, but for the legacy >> that came after that, if there is a center support, that can't >> happen(models 1500,1800,2000...and maybe the 1200, not sure)...anyway, >> certainly would like your input on this idea...much appreciated...joe >> >> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:59:33 AM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote: >>> >>> I would think that you should increase depth rather than width. >>> Question is, how big of a turning are you wanting to do? My wood chuck is >>> only 9" wide at the rails. I can turn a 19.375" piece. All accomplished >>> by making it taller, not wider. I am only supposed to turn 11" but that >>> just seems like a starting point to me LOL. >>> Mike >>> OK >>> On 1/21/2015 5:10 AM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills wrote: >>> >>> and since we are on the subject of the gear carriage, here is something >>> i will throw out there and see if anyone has any suggestions...in >>> considering( and i will emphasize the word "considering"...LOL) widening >>> the bed to increase the turning capacity of the machine,what could be done >>> to the gear carriage to accommodate the added width that must be made to >>> it, while still being able to use all the legacy gears, including the >>> reversing carriage to do opposite twists?...i have worked out all that has >>> to be done to the machine to widen it, but saved the worst for last...and i >>> would not consider making a complete set of custom made gears a >>> solution...too expensive...high points to anyone who has a solution using >>> only items found in a mcmaster-carr catalog!...LMAO!... later guys!...joe >>> >>> On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:55:36 AM UTC-5, j
RE: gear carriage bearing upgrade
If I remember correctly I lowered it about 6 inches , Once you start working on the larger dia stuff it puts quite a strain on the headstock, tailstock bearings I would be working 2 steady rests in somewhere to take a lot of the weight I didn’t do any indexing with it but I don’t think it would have been a problem just keep the slack up and index in only one direction and most importantly have some sort of lock on the lower bearing Personally i would have just rigged up the indexing plate and locking pin on the lower bearing. Just another crazy thought and i do get lots of them have you considered making something out the back of the mill to mount and turn the work and extend the cross rails so you can run the router out the back an use the existing mill to do the work. Bill From: legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com [mailto:legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com] Sent: Thursday, 22 January 2015 11:38 AM To: legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade hey bill, on a typical legacy, lowering the center brace would be very easy to do...so i do agree with you...how much did you have to lower the tailstock and headstock to achieve the 15" capacity?...and was there any indexing problems after you did your mod?...in my case, i can't lower the cross braces as the machine is mounted on a reinforced, platform base...and if i am going to spend any time doing a mod of this type, i want the 18" capacity, for potential column work...still haven't committed to doing this mod, but every day i am working out potential issues( some with the help from the group), so i am leaning towards doing it...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 5:14:15 PM UTC-5, aussiman wrote: If you lowered the centres could you not lower the centre support as well to achieve the larger dia I did do as curtis suggested and lowered my centre and tail stock to achieve larger dia work Slop was not a problem it never is as long as you take it up by always turning in the one direction And not changing direction while cutting. Lowering the tail stock and head stock would be much easier I think than totally rebuilding the mill by widening it, if the only hurdle is the centre supports I would think that would be an easier path to go but I am interested in what you come up with. Here is the pics of my side cutting mod which shows how I lowered everything. I don’t have pics any more of doing larger dia work with it http://www.ornamentalmills.com/Bill_Bulkeley/side_cutting_mod.html Bill From: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com [mailto:legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com ] Sent: Thursday, 22 January 2015 8:29 AM To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com Cc: curtg...@wowway.com Subject: Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade well, that concept would work with a machine that does not have a center support...and not because of the vertical support, but for the brace that goes front to back on the longer machines...and you would have to modify the tailstock as well...and there can be no play in the chain drive if you were to do any spiral work...did a little research and it seems the 1200,1800 and 2000 all had center supports with the bottom brace going front to back...and 15" is a very nice capacity, but i would want at least 18"...i originally was shooting for 20", but the same problems that are there with an 18" modification are there but to a much bigger degree of difficulty and not worth pursuing, in my opinion...so i am currently shooting for 18", but that could change to a smaller dimension...and as far as time goes, i am guessing that this would be a three day mod(total of 24 hours)...just a good amount of cutting and welding(oh yeah!, and some painting!...LOL)...cut, and lengthen the vertical supports(total of 14 in my case, total of 6 and 8 for the 1200 or 1800)...cut and lengthen the head and tail stocks, the bottom cross pieces( 1 piece, 2 in my case) and the bed risers(2 pieces)...do what is necessary to the gear carriage and you are done...easier said than done,for sure, but manageable and doable, in my opinion...joe On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 3:41:34 PM UTC-5, Curtis wrote: Hello Joe and everyone. Since we are thinking out side the box. (so to speak) How about a high-bread between the two ideas, your machine and Mikes higher concepts. just might be able to work together. (of a mater of coarse things will have to be modified you head stock a little, to make it work, but Just think of this idea. Make a new center point for your head-stock. I think Bill (but I could be wrong.) did something like what Im thinking of at this moment, it a while back ( a few years ago So Im not really sure of all the details. but...). He made a second center lower on the Legacy head stock,, I think it was 3" or 4" lower, and hooked the two heads up with a chain and sprockets so they would turn at the
