time for a question or two......

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

beginning to get acquainted with my machine and right away have a problem 
understanding something...when doing spiral work, how do you index to the 
next cut when doing multiple cuts?...it seems to me you have to drop the 
gears down, index to the next cut and then bring the gears back up...is 
this correct?...on my other machine(not a legacy...a killinger) you simply 
pulled a pin out from the index plate, rotated the workpiece, pin goes back 
into the index plate and you start your next cut...it was quick and 
fast...am i missing something here?...and if anyone has an opinion on that 
4X gear set up i would like to hear if they feel it is a useful 
accessory...i do not have it, which seems odd, since the two machines i 
bought came fully accessorized, or so i thought...thanks in advance for any 
assistance...joe biunno

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: time for a question or two......

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

thanks for the reply bill...the issue i might see is what if the bit 
diameter does not work with the measurements of the lead screw?...i.e. the 
four revolutions per inch...when we do twist work, we calculate the number 
of cuts and then choose a bit that will get us the best looking reed or 
flute as per the number of cuts...the legacy system seems to do the 
opposite...pick the bit then calculate the number of cuts...i'll post a 
photo oh the killinger drive set up which allows the rotation of the 
workpiece while still engaging all the drive gears...joe

On Monday, May 12, 2014 12:17:28 PM UTC-4, aussiman wrote:
>
> Indexing to the next cut is usually done by undoing the split nut and 
> sliding the saddle along and reengaging the split nut .the distance moved 
> is usually the same as the dia of the router bit
>
> And the pitch on multiple spirals is in multiples of the router bit 
>
> Say a 2 inch barley bit a single start is a 2 inch pitch a 2start is a 4 
> inch pitch a 3 start is a 6 inch pitch and so on ..
>
> I like the 4x gears for very fast pitches i have one or on very large dia 
> were a very fast pitch looks right.
>
> But most people are happy with just the 2x gears i think what do you all 
> think
>
>  
>
> Bill
>
>  
>
> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com ] 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 13 May 2014 12:22 AM
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* time for a question or two..
>
>  
>
> beginning to get acquainted with my machine and right away have a problem 
> understanding something...when doing spiral work, how do you index to the 
> next cut when doing multiple cuts?...it seems to me you have to drop the 
> gears down, index to the next cut and then bring the gears back up...is 
> this correct?...on my other machine(not a legacy...a killinger) you simply 
> pulled a pin out from the index plate, rotated the workpiece, pin goes back 
> into the index plate and you start your next cut...it was quick and 
> fast...am i missing something here?...and if anyone has an opinion on that 
> 4X gear set up i would like to hear if they feel it is a useful 
> accessory...i do not have it, which seems odd, since the two machines i 
> bought came fully accessorized, or so i thought...thanks in advance for any 
> assistance...joe biunno
>
> -- 
> 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.
>
>
> --
>  
>
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! 
> Antivirusprotection is active. 
>   
>

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: time for a question or two......

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

this is a photo of the headstock on our killinger twist lathe...the "arm" 
has a spring loaded pin, tapered slightly on the end...the arm revolves 
around a post that projects from the indexing plate, which is attached to 
the spider gear behind it...the indexing plate originally came with 24 
holes(outer ring of holes)...there are four screw holes (pictured with 
screws projecting) so the arm can be firmly attached to the workpiece with 
no chance of any play...so you would make your first cut, pull the spring 
pin out, advance to the next cut and proceed...never having to disengage 
the router bed...the other two rows of holes were machined by us and added 
for 10 and 9 cuts...the plate behind the first plate we also machined for 
the odd numbered holes for that occasional, odd-numbered job...i am 
considering discarding this machine(the backlash is almost 45 degrees!) and 
possibly using the indexing set up on the legacy...not very keen on this 
idea as i would not like to mix up parts from two machines unless i 
absolutely have to...another idea might be to use a rotary table attached 
to the legacy headstock...most likely with a three or four jaw universal 
chuck...this way any division/indexing can be achieved...odd or even 
indexes...just need to be good with your math and your 
memory!...LOL!...still think there could be an issue if you are cutting a 
certain pitch that will not work with the split nut and lead screw 
technique...looking forward to input on this subject...thanks...joe

On Monday, May 12, 2014 4:25:03 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, May 12, 2014 2:35:35 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>>
>> thanks for the reply bill...the issue i might see is what if the bit 
>> diameter does not work with the measurements of the lead screw?...i.e. the 
>> four revolutions per inch...when we do twist work, we calculate the number 
>> of cuts and then choose a bit that will get us the best looking reed or 
>> flute as per the number of cuts...the legacy system seems to do the 
>> opposite...pick the bit then calculate the number of cuts...i'll post a 
>> photo oh the killinger drive set up which allows the rotation of the 
>> workpiece while still engaging all the drive gears...joe
>>
>> On Monday, May 12, 2014 12:17:28 PM UTC-4, aussiman wrote:
>>>
>>> Indexing to the next cut is usually done by undoing the split nut and 
>>> sliding the saddle along and reengaging the split nut .the distance moved 
>>> is usually the same as the dia of the router bit
>>>
>>> And the pitch on multiple spirals is in multiples of the router bit 
>>>
>>> Say a 2 inch barley bit a single start is a 2 inch pitch a 2start is a 4 
>>> inch pitch a 3 start is a 6 inch pitch and so on ..
>>>
>>> I like the 4x gears for very fast pitches i have one or on very large 
>>> dia were a very fast pitch looks right.
>>>
>>> But most people are happy with just the 2x gears i think what do you all 
>>> think
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>>> legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com] 
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 13 May 2014 12:22 AM
>>> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
>>> *Subject:* time for a question or two..
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> beginning to get acquainted with my machine and right away have a 
>>> problem understanding something...when doing spiral work, how do you index 
>>> to the next cut when doing multiple cuts?...it seems to me you have to drop 
>>> the gears down, index to the next cut and then bring the gears back up...is 
>>> this correct?...on my other machine(not a legacy...a killinger) you simply 
>>> pulled a pin out from the index plate, rotated the workpiece, pin goes back 
>>> into the index plate and you start your next cut...it was quick and 
>>> fast...am i missing something here?...and if anyone has an opinion on that 
>>> 4X gear set up i would like to hear if they feel it is a useful 
>>> accessory...i do not have it, which seems odd, since the two machines i 
>>> bought came fully accessorized, or so i thought...thanks in advance for any 
>>> assistance...joe biunno
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>  
>>>
>>> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! 
>>> Antivirusprotection is active. 
>>>   
>>>

-- 
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, 

Re: time for a question or two......

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

thanks for the reply tim...yes, i did  see mikes video on crank handle 
indexing...interesting and certainly can spped up a job, especially if you 
are doing multiples...but i'll assume that it works only on certain pitches 
that are coinciding with the lead screw dimensions and threads...can a 4 
1/2" and 7 1/2" pitch work with that method?...now ,i will admit, some of 
this is getting pretty detailed...how different is a 7 1/2" pitch compared 
to an 8" pitch?...but another way to index would eliminate all concerns, 
counting, etc...and cover all the pitches...joe

On Monday, May 12, 2014 4:42:53 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>
>  
> If the work is a 1, 2, or 4 start, the lazy mans version is to notice the 
> starting point of the lead screw and work.  Open the split nut and return 
> the carriage to this position.  Now open the cam clamp and rotate the work 
> 180 degrees or 90 degrees.  This all assumes you are using the drive hubs. 
>  
> I wrote another method that involves noticing the start of the leadscrew  
> and it does rely on the 1/4" increments to a small degree. It turned into a 
> crank handle method that would allow any degree...maybe I did not talk 
> about that one.  It's close to the time Mike posted his video.  I think I 
> posted under "A new way to spiral".  It's been at least two years!
>  
> Are you familiar with crank handle indexing?
>  
> -Tim
>  
>
> - Original Message - 
> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2014 11:35 AM
> *Subject:* Re: time for a question or two..
>
> thanks for the reply bill...the issue i might see is what if the bit 
> diameter does not work with the measurements of the lead screw?...i.e. the 
> four revolutions per inch...when we do twist work, we calculate the number 
> of cuts and then choose a bit that will get us the best looking reed or 
> flute as per the number of cuts...the legacy system seems to do the 
> opposite...pick the bit then calculate the number of cuts...i'll post a 
> photo oh the killinger drive set up which allows the rotation of the 
> workpiece while still engaging all the drive gears...joe
>
> On Monday, May 12, 2014 12:17:28 PM UTC-4, aussiman wrote: 
>>
>>  Indexing to the next cut is usually done by undoing the split nut and 
>> sliding the saddle along and reengaging the split nut .the distance moved 
>> is usually the same as the dia of the router bit
>>
>> And the pitch on multiple spirals is in multiples of the router bit 
>>
>> Say a 2 inch barley bit a single start is a 2 inch pitch a 2start is a 4 
>> inch pitch a 3 start is a 6 inch pitch and so on ..
>>
>> I like the 4x gears for very fast pitches i have one or on very large dia 
>> were a very fast pitch looks right.
>>
>> But most people are happy with just the 2x gears i think what do you all 
>> think
>>
>>  
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>  
>>  
>> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>> legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com] 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 13 May 2014 12:22 AM
>> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
>> *Subject:* time for a question or two..
>>
>>  
>>  
>> beginning to get acquainted with my machine and right away have a problem 
>> understanding something...when doing spiral work, how do you index to the 
>> next cut when doing multiple cuts?...it seems to me you have to drop the 
>> gears down, index to the next cut and then bring the gears back up...is 
>> this correct?...on my other machine(not a legacy...a killinger) you simply 
>> pulled a pin out from the index plate, rotated the workpiece, pin goes back 
>> into the index plate and you start your next cut...it was quick and 
>> fast...am i missing something here?...and if anyone has an opinion on that 
>> 4X gear set up i would like to hear if they feel it is a useful 
>> accessory...i do not have it, which seems odd, since the two machines i 
>> bought came fully accessorized, or so i thought...thanks in advance for any 
>> assistance...joe biunno
>>
>> -- 
>> 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/opto

Re: time for a question or two......

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

tim...between the standard gears, the .25X set, the .50X set and the 2X set 
just about all pitches anyone would want are covered( a total of 28...with 
3 duplications)...we even played with mixing gears from different sets, but 
the difference in pitches is negligible...again, i'll assume most of the 
legacy guys design around the router bit...whereas we design first, and 
then find the bit that will work with our design, whether we order a custom 
bit or make it ourselves...joe

On Monday, May 12, 2014 5:12:59 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>
>  
> Your not going to be able to make up pitches that you don't have the 
> physical gear combinations.  I was talking strictly about number of 
> starts.  I think Mike's version covers any number of starts like my 
> version.  My version just takes too long to type for me at this point.  I 
> have to go digging for some pictures and links to recreate it. 
>  
> We are about the details in this group!
>  
> -Tim
>  
>
> - Original Message - 
> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2014 2:03 PM
> *Subject:* Re: time for a question or two..
>
> thanks for the reply tim...yes, i did  see mikes video on crank handle 
> indexing...interesting and certainly can spped up a job, especially if you 
> are doing multiples...but i'll assume that it works only on certain pitches 
> that are coinciding with the lead screw dimensions and threads...can a 4 
> 1/2" and 7 1/2" pitch work with that method?...now ,i will admit, some of 
> this is getting pretty detailed...how different is a 7 1/2" pitch compared 
> to an 8" pitch?...but another way to index would eliminate all concerns, 
> counting, etc...and cover all the pitches...joe
>
> On Monday, May 12, 2014 4:42:53 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote: 
>>
>>  
>> If the work is a 1, 2, or 4 start, the lazy mans version is to notice the 
>> starting point of the lead screw and work.  Open the split nut and return 
>> the carriage to this position.  Now open the cam clamp and rotate the work 
>> 180 degrees or 90 degrees.  This all assumes you are using the drive hubs. 
>>  
>> I wrote another method that involves noticing the start of the leadscrew  
>> and it does rely on the 1/4" increments to a small degree. It turned into a 
>> crank handle method that would allow any degree...maybe I did not talk 
>> about that one.  It's close to the time Mike posted his video.  I think I 
>> posted under "A new way to spiral".  It's been at least two years!
>>  
>> Are you familiar with crank handle indexing?
>>  
>> -Tim
>>  
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
>> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2014 11:35 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: time for a question or two..
>>
>> thanks for the reply bill...the issue i might see is what if the bit 
>> diameter does not work with the measurements of the lead screw?...i.e. the 
>> four revolutions per inch...when we do twist work, we calculate the number 
>> of cuts and then choose a bit that will get us the best looking reed or 
>> flute as per the number of cuts...the legacy system seems to do the 
>> opposite...pick the bit then calculate the number of cuts...i'll post a 
>> photo oh the killinger drive set up which allows the rotation of the 
>> workpiece while still engaging all the drive gears...joe
>>
>> On Monday, May 12, 2014 12:17:28 PM UTC-4, aussiman wrote: 
>>>
>>>  Indexing to the next cut is usually done by undoing the split nut and 
>>> sliding the saddle along and reengaging the split nut .the distance moved 
>>> is usually the same as the dia of the router bit
>>>
>>> And the pitch on multiple spirals is in multiples of the router bit 
>>>
>>> Say a 2 inch barley bit a single start is a 2 inch pitch a 2start is a 4 
>>> inch pitch a 3 start is a 6 inch pitch and so on ..
>>>
>>> I like the 4x gears for very fast pitches i have one or on very large 
>>> dia were a very fast pitch looks right.
>>>
>>> But most people are happy with just the 2x gears i think what do you all 
>>> think
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
>>> legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com] 
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, 13 May 2014 12:22 AM
>>> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
>>> *Subje

Re: time for a question or two......

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

tim...thanks for the responses...you always make good points...and i think 
i have learned a lot more from this group of "weekend warriors" then i have 
given back...so i'll say thanks to all!...i'll have to post additional 
photos in the morning though...not currently in the shop...but i will point 
out that i was never happy with the killinger set up...it has a spider gear 
configuration because it has to make a 90 degree turn(just like the rear 
end on a car)...and between initial gear slop and wear on the gears( with 
no way to adjust it as it wears), the back lash is quite a bit...like i 
said, almost 45 degrees!...now, once you begin and you take up the slop, 
all is ok...at least 90% of the time...occasionally in the middle of doing 
a 12 cut piece, the back lash can come up and ruin a piece...luckily, it 
does not happen often...the legacy is so much better...for historical 
reference, i made this 13 ft. beast back in the late 80's/early 90's...i 
did talk to andy about making a custom lengthened machine at that time but 
the price was quite a bit...i seem to remember the number being 
$15,000.00...the 48" killinger was about 450.00 so i bought three of them 
and cut, welded and machined a rube goldberg monster...it got the job done 
but it was a love making process to get it done with any degree of 
accuracy...fell out of touch with the legacy equipment soon thereafter and 
almost 25 years later got tired of fixing frankenstein... so i began to 
work on the legacy project...pictures will follow of everything you'll need 
to try to set up this type of a drive on the legacy...sounds interesting!

On Monday, May 12, 2014 6:21:27 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>
>  
> Joe,
>  
> Regarding the index photo:
>  
> I've seen that mechanism on a couple machines.  Can you take a picture of 
> the whole.  I've thought of implementing something like this in the legacy 
> but on the gear side.   Inborn the mech needs to be small so you don't end 
> up hitting it with it with a router bit or carriage.
>  
> ...I got side tracked with the other message.
>  
> -Tim
>  
>  
>  
>
> - Original Message - 
> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2014 2:36 PM
> *Subject:* Re: time for a question or two..
>
>
>
> On Monday, May 12, 2014 5:05:54 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote: 
>>
>>  
>> You forgot the attachment
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
>> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2014 1:52 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: time for a question or two..
>>
>> this is a photo of the headstock on our killinger twist lathe
>>
>> -- 
> 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 from it, send an email 
to legacy-ornamental-mills+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: time for a question or two......

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

first photo shows the headstock on the outboard side...the machine 
originally had a two gear set up...one at 12 o'clock and the other at 6 
o'clock...the gear positions were not movable so there were only a few 
gears available, and thus, only a few pitches...the bottom gear is what 
drove the workpiece...the top gear has a spider gear on the inboard side 
which meshes with another spider gear which is connected to that horizontal 
shaft that goes from front to back(photos to follow in another post)...the 
shaft is attached to two chain sprockets...one drives the router platform, 
the other is part of a dc drive...the third shaft at the 9 o'clock position 
is one that we added...this add on gave us many more pitches to work with 
by adding a third gear into the mix...but we also had to have some 
adjustability, so the 6 o'clock gear is movable...in the second picture you 
can see the two adjustment bolts...but even with this adjustment and the 
low accuracy which the gears are made from, causes serious backlash 
issuesand then factor in the backlash of the spider gears...another 
improvement we made was the adding ball bearings...all rotaring shafts had 
bronze, sleeve bearings that quickly "egged" out...so we set up the ball 
bearings and holders and welded them in place...i believe there are about 
10 locations on this machine that we did that...the pin on the lower right 
is used to index the workpiece for straight cuts

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:58:27 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>
> tim, as you requested...and possibly anyone's interest themselves...i'll 
> post description seperately
>
> On Monday, May 12, 2014 6:56:54 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>>
>>  
>> That gear is what got me more interested in what's happening on that 
>> machine!
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
>> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2014 3:54 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: time for a question or two..
>>
>> tim...thanks for the responses...you always make good points...and i 
>> think i have learned a lot more from this group of "weekend warriors" then 
>> i have given back...so i'll say thanks to all!...i'll have to post 
>> additional photos in the morning though...not currently in the shop...but i 
>> will point out that i was never happy with the killinger set up...it has a 
>> spider gear configuration because it has to make a 90 degree turn(just like 
>> the rear end on a car)...and between initial gear slop and wear on the 
>> gears( with no way to adjust it as it wears), the back lash is quite a 
>> bit...like i said, almost 45 degrees!...now, once you begin and you take up 
>> the slop, all is ok...at least 90% of the time...occasionally in the middle 
>> of doing a 12 cut piece, the back lash can come up and ruin a 
>> piece...luckily, it does not happen often...the legacy is so much 
>> better...for historical reference, i made this 13 ft. beast back in the 
>> late 80's/early 90's...i did talk to andy about making a custom lengthened 
>> machine at that time but the price was quite a bit...i seem to remember the 
>> number being $15,000.00...the 48" killinger was about 450.00 so i bought 
>> three of them and cut, welded and machined a rube goldberg monster...it got 
>> the job done but it was a love making process to get it done with any 
>> degree of accuracy...fell out of touch with the legacy equipment soon 
>> thereafter and almost 25 years later got tired of fixing frankenstein... so 
>> i began to work on the legacy project...pictures will follow of everything 
>> you'll need to try to set up this type of a drive on the legacy...sounds 
>> interesting!
>>
>> On Monday, May 12, 2014 6:21:27 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote: 
>>>
>>>  
>>> Joe,
>>>  
>>> Regarding the index photo:
>>>  
>>> I've seen that mechanism on a couple machines.  Can you take a picture 
>>> of the whole.  I've thought of implementing something like this in the 
>>> legacy but on the gear side.   Inborn the mech needs to be small so you 
>>> don't end up hitting it with it with a router bit or carriage.
>>>  
>>> ...I got side tracked with the other message.
>>>  
>>> -Tim
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>
>>> - Original Message - 
>>> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
>>> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
>>> *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2014 2:36 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: time for a question or two.

Re: time for a question or two......

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

@ cole...but what if you want to back out that 1" router bit a bit because 
it better suits the finished look you are trying to achieve?...let's say to 
7/8"...the whole mathematics thing is not usable...i found a grizzly piece 
that i think will be a nice add-on piece to the legacy and let you index to 
any cut you want...any repeat from 1 to 360...it will be here in my shop 
tomorrow and i will begin the not-to-difficult process to modify it to fit 
the legacy...see attachment...there are 15 degree indents built into the 
chuck(24 divisions)...the chuck is 3" in diameter...and it has a #2 morse 
taper...should be interesting if i can pull this off...thanks for the 
reply...joe

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:18:37 PM UTC-4, cole wrote:
>
> You move the router the diameter of the bit. Say you have a 1 in. rope 
> bit ,you move 1 in. forward or back it does not matter reengage the 
> router so you can crank it back to the original starting position. you 
> will automatically be ready to do the next start on your twist. 
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:09 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental 
> Mills > wrote: 
> > first photo shows the headstock on the outboard side...the machine 
> > originally had a two gear set up...one at 12 o'clock and the other at 6 
> > o'clock...the gear positions were not movable so there were only a few 
> gears 
> > available, and thus, only a few pitches...the bottom gear is what drove 
> the 
> > workpiece...the top gear has a spider gear on the inboard side which 
> meshes 
> > with another spider gear which is connected to that horizontal shaft 
> that 
> > goes from front to back(photos to follow in another post)...the shaft is 
> > attached to two chain sprockets...one drives the router platform, the 
> other 
> > is part of a dc drive...the third shaft at the 9 o'clock position is one 
> > that we added...this add on gave us many more pitches to work with by 
> adding 
> > a third gear into the mix...but we also had to have some adjustability, 
> so 
> > the 6 o'clock gear is movable...in the second picture you can see the 
> two 
> > adjustment bolts...but even with this adjustment and the low accuracy 
> which 
> > the gears are made from, causes serious backlash issuesand then 
> factor 
> > in the backlash of the spider gears...another improvement we made was 
> the 
> > adding ball bearings...all rotaring shafts had bronze, sleeve bearings 
> that 
> > quickly "egged" out...so we set up the ball bearings and holders and 
> welded 
> > them in place...i believe there are about 10 locations on this machine 
> that 
> > we did that...the pin on the lower right is used to index the workpiece 
> for 
> > straight cuts 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 2:58:27 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote: 
> >> 
> >> tim, as you requested...and possibly anyone's interest 
> themselves...i'll 
> >> post description seperately 
> >> 
> >> On Monday, May 12, 2014 6:56:54 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote: 
> >>> 
> >>>  
> >>> That gear is what got me more interested in what's happening on that 
> >>> machine! 
> >>> 
> >>> - Original Message - 
> >>> From: 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
> >>> To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> >>> Sent: Monday, May 12, 2014 3:54 PM 
> >>> Subject: Re: time for a question or two.. 
> >>> 
> >>> tim...thanks for the responses...you always make good points...and i 
> >>> think i have learned a lot more from this group of "weekend warriors" 
> then i 
> >>> have given back...so i'll say thanks to all!...i'll have to post 
> additional 
> >>> photos in the morning though...not currently in the shop...but i will 
> point 
> >>> out that i was never happy with the killinger set up...it has a spider 
> gear 
> >>> configuration because it has to make a 90 degree turn(just like the 
> rear end 
> >>> on a car)...and between initial gear slop and wear on the gears( with 
> no way 
> >>> to adjust it as it wears), the back lash is quite a bit...like i said, 
> >>> almost 45 degrees!...now, once you begin and you take up the slop, all 
> is 
> >>> ok...at least 90% of the time...occasionally in the middle of doing a 
> 12 cut 
> >>> piece, the back lash can come up and ruin a piece...luckily, it does 
> not 
> >>> happen often...the legacy is so much better...for historical 
> reference, i 

Re: Morse Taper

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

in our shop we use a typical four spur drive center(#2 morse taper) when 
turning on our lathe...when taking a piece from the lathe(for example, a 
leg) to do some decorative cuts, we also remove the spur drive(or use a 
second spur drive, same as the one in the lathe) to bring it over to the 
shaper or legacy to do the milling...this assures us that we are always 
centered going from one machine to another...we have had situations where 
we have turned a few sets of legs, for example, and the client(mostly 
designers, or "desecraters" as we sometimes refer to them...LOL) will come 
in and say "can you make it a bit thinner?"...so being able to save the 
centers on the head and tail end of a workpiece has always been a big 
help...so i would have to say that we would definitely miss the taper if it 
wasn't there...joe

On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 9:02:10 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>
>  Hello All,
>  
> I have a question that might seem odd, but what do you use the MT2 in the 
> headstock for besides the standard drive?  Would you miss it if it was gone?
>  
> -Tim
>  
>  
>

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: time for a question or two......

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

tim, i don't like extending the headstock on the inboard side as well...it 
increases the chance of your work turning out of round...but in this 
instance it is going to be an improvement...since i widened my z axis 
platform, the router could not reach the spindle, which caused me to factor 
in waste material on my work to compensate...i believe when the chuck is 
added(successfully, i hope!), the router center line will be right at the 
end of the jaws of the new chuck...and hopefully, the workpiece will still 
stay centered and spin true...we will see...thanks for the input...joe

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 3:37:45 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>
>  
> I've been thinking about this one more tonight.  It can be made to work 
> inboard very easily.  I don't like big thing inboard because the damage 
> that could happen to a router bit could be a bad thing.  In my mind we 
> really only need 20 and 24 hole patterns on a index plate.  I don't get the 
> feeling people are working on large diameter pieces other than a few 
> people.  Thanks for sharing.
>  
> -Tim
>
> - Original Message - 
> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2014 2:36 PM
> *Subject:* Re: time for a question or two..
>
>
>
> On Monday, May 12, 2014 5:05:54 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote: 
>>
>>  
>> You forgot the attachment
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
>> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
>> *Sent:* Monday, May 12, 2014 1:52 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: time for a question or two..
>>
>> this is a photo of the headstock on our killinger twist lathe
>>
>> -- 
> 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 from it, send an email 
to legacy-ornamental-mills+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

gear question

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

can anyone explain...i have two gears that seem a bit out of place...one is 
7 1/2" dia., fine tooth, rectangular hole(headstock gear) but with no holes 
for indexing...the other gear is also 7 1/2" dia. and has the smaller 2" 
gear with four bolts bolting them together but the smaller gear is a fine 
tooth...could this set be from a woodchuck machine, which i do have?...for 
the record the paperwork i have says the machine was made in 1995 and is a 
model MA-12...obviously it seems legacy changed at some point to that 
larger tooth, headstock gear meshing with the smaller, 2", large tooth 
gear...was/is there a specific reason for the change?...is the fine tooth 
better than the large tooth?...any opinions out there?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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: time for a question or two......

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

here's an update tim...got the chuck today, a day later than i 
anticipated...the idea is to get a 6" faceplate(here monday) with a 1"-8 
thread...screw the faceplate onto the headstock...also setting up a 1" 
shaft collar so the faceplate can never unscrew when in use...this will be 
welded to the back of the faceplate, in a similiar set up of legacy's 
double shaft collar lock...a lot of these pieces are from 
mcmaster-carr...also purchased a #2 morse taper collet that has a 1/2" 
bore...i have already turned a piece of brass to use as an alignment 
pin,,,1/2" on one side and 19/32" on the other, which is the bore of the 
indexing chuck(it does not have a morse taper built into it, as i had 
thought)...get everything in place and aligned, tack weld the indexer to 
the faceplate, remove the assembly from the headstock by simply unscrewing 
it and finish the mounting by drilling and tapping holes threw the 
faceplate into the back of the chuck...then grind away the tack 
welds...this is so i can separate the faceplate and indexing chuck in the 
future if i have to...i can then screw the indexer onto the headstock like 
it is an accessory piece...unscrew it and the headstock is exactly like it 
was before, with no modifications...about the only issues i can see is the 
fact that the entire assembly will protrude from the end of the headstock 
more than i thought(about 5") and the unit will have a bit of weight to it( 
i'll guess and say at least 16 lbs.!...yikes!)...although i will probably 
reduce the weight of the indexer a good amount by milling/cutting/grinding 
as much as i can, since a lot of it is not necessary...don't have the part 
# of the indexer with me now but look in the section that has rotary 
tables...work resumes on monday and will certainly post photos and give an 
update...your comments and suggestions are welcome...thanks...joe

On Friday, May 16, 2014 8:31:48 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>
>  
> Did this chuck work?  I can't find it on Grizzly's site.  What's the part 
> number or link?  My only concern is what's the swing of the whole piece and 
> does it need a drawbar to stay in place?  The legacy is not designed to 
> pound a 2mt object into the headstock.  You have to be nice to the socket 
> :-).
>  
> -Tim
>  
>
> - Original Message - 
> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:49 PM
> *Subject:* Re: time for a question or two..
>
> @ cole...but what if you want to back out that 1" router bit a bit because 
> it better suits the finished look you are trying to achieve?...let's say to 
> 7/8"...the whole mathematics thing is not usable...i found a grizzly piece 
> that i think will be a nice add-on piece to the legacy and let you index to 
> any cut you want...any repeat from 1 to 360...it will be here in my shop 
> tomorrow and i will begin the not-to-difficult process to modify it to fit 
> the legacy...see attachment...there are 15 degree indents built into the 
> chuck(24 divisions)...the chuck is 3" in diameter...and it has a #2 morse 
> taper...should be interesting if i can pull this off...thanks for the 
> reply...joe
>
> On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:18:37 PM UTC-4, cole wrote: 
>>
>> You move the router the diameter of the bit. Say you have a 1 in. rope 
>> bit ,you move 1 in. forward or back it does not matter reengage the 
>> router so you can crank it back to the original starting position. you 
>> will automatically be ready to do the next start on your twist. 
>>
>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:09 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental 
>> Mills  wrote: 
>> > first photo shows the headstock on the outboard side...the machine 
>> > originally had a two gear set up...one at 12 o'clock and the other at 6 
>> > o'clock...the gear positions were not movable so there were only a few 
>> gears 
>> > available, and thus, only a few pitches...the bottom gear is what drove 
>> the 
>> > workpiece...the top gear has a spider gear on the inboard side which 
>> meshes 
>> > with another spider gear which is connected to that horizontal shaft 
>> that 
>> > goes from front to back(photos to follow in another post)...the shaft 
>> is 
>> > attached to two chain sprockets...one drives the router platform, the 
>> other 
>> > is part of a dc drive...the third shaft at the 9 o'clock position is 
>> one 
>> > that we added...this add on gave us many more pitches to work with by 
>> adding 
>> > a third gear into the mix...but we also had to have some adjustability, 
>> so 
>&

Re: time for a question or two......

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

forgot to mention...not using the morse in the headstock for mounting 
purposes, so no issues there...and no issues with the swing...plenty of 
room to spare

On Friday, May 16, 2014 9:22:42 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>
> here's an update tim...got the chuck today, a day later than i 
> anticipated...the idea is to get a 6" faceplate(here monday) with a 1"-8 
> thread...screw the faceplate onto the headstock...also setting up a 1" 
> shaft collar so the faceplate can never unscrew when in use...this will be 
> welded to the back of the faceplate, in a similiar set up of legacy's 
> double shaft collar lock...a lot of these pieces are from 
> mcmaster-carr...also purchased a #2 morse taper collet that has a 1/2" 
> bore...i have already turned a piece of brass to use as an alignment 
> pin,,,1/2" on one side and 19/32" on the other, which is the bore of the 
> indexing chuck(it does not have a morse taper built into it, as i had 
> thought)...get everything in place and aligned, tack weld the indexer to 
> the faceplate, remove the assembly from the headstock by simply unscrewing 
> it and finish the mounting by drilling and tapping holes threw the 
> faceplate into the back of the chuck...then grind away the tack 
> welds...this is so i can separate the faceplate and indexing chuck in the 
> future if i have to...i can then screw the indexer onto the headstock like 
> it is an accessory piece...unscrew it and the headstock is exactly like it 
> was before, with no modifications...about the only issues i can see is the 
> fact that the entire assembly will protrude from the end of the headstock 
> more than i thought(about 5") and the unit will have a bit of weight to it( 
> i'll guess and say at least 16 lbs.!...yikes!)...although i will probably 
> reduce the weight of the indexer a good amount by milling/cutting/grinding 
> as much as i can, since a lot of it is not necessary...don't have the part 
> # of the indexer with me now but look in the section that has rotary 
> tables...work resumes on monday and will certainly post photos and give an 
> update...your comments and suggestions are welcome...thanks...joe
>
> On Friday, May 16, 2014 8:31:48 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>>
>>  
>> Did this chuck work?  I can't find it on Grizzly's site.  What's the part 
>> number or link?  My only concern is what's the swing of the whole piece and 
>> does it need a drawbar to stay in place?  The legacy is not designed to 
>> pound a 2mt object into the headstock.  You have to be nice to the socket 
>> :-).
>>  
>> -Tim
>>  
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
>> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, May 14, 2014 1:49 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: time for a question or two..
>>
>> @ cole...but what if you want to back out that 1" router bit a bit 
>> because it better suits the finished look you are trying to 
>> achieve?...let's say to 7/8"...the whole mathematics thing is not 
>> usable...i found a grizzly piece that i think will be a nice add-on piece 
>> to the legacy and let you index to any cut you want...any repeat from 1 to 
>> 360...it will be here in my shop tomorrow and i will begin the 
>> not-to-difficult process to modify it to fit the legacy...see 
>> attachment...there are 15 degree indents built into the chuck(24 
>> divisions)...the chuck is 3" in diameter...and it has a #2 morse 
>> taper...should be interesting if i can pull this off...thanks for the 
>> reply...joe
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 4:18:37 PM UTC-4, cole wrote: 
>>>
>>> You move the router the diameter of the bit. Say you have a 1 in. rope 
>>> bit ,you move 1 in. forward or back it does not matter reengage the 
>>> router so you can crank it back to the original starting position. you 
>>> will automatically be ready to do the next start on your twist. 
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 4:09 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental 
>>> Mills  wrote: 
>>> > first photo shows the headstock on the outboard side...the machine 
>>> > originally had a two gear set up...one at 12 o'clock and the other at 
>>> 6 
>>> > o'clock...the gear positions were not movable so there were only a few 
>>> gears 
>>> > available, and thus, only a few pitches...the bottom gear is what 
>>> drove the 
>>> > workpiece...the top gear has a spider gear on the inboard side which 
>>> meshes 
>>> > with another spider gear w

Re: time for a question or two......

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

 i like the idea you came up with...never would have thought to back out 
the tailstock!...that is slick...going to ponder that a bit...also forgot 
to mention what a help it is to have so many extra parts from the second 
legacy machine...all the work i am doing now i am doing on my bench since i 
have the exact same headstock left over from the donor machine...the cross 
piece with the bearings and threaded piece all intact as i separated it 
from the rails...it is making this job quite a bit easier...as far as 
alternate ideas, i was considering butchering the set up from the killinger 
and modifying that piece to do the job,which sounds like what you were 
suggesting with the indexing plate... but that would make the killinger 
useless and i am not ready to do that...i might find a dedicated use for 
the killinger machine...i can't imagine the set up being unbalanced would 
create a problem...with the RPM during spiraling work being so low, i would 
guess it would not trow the workpiece off center...but it certainly 
warrants concern, now that you mentioned it...i'll just have to cross my 
fingers and hope the machine gods save my ass on that!...LOL...again, 
thanks...joe
On Friday, May 16, 2014 9:33:42 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>
>  
> 16lbs is a lot of extra weight, but your headstock can easily take it.  I 
> don't like the idea that it's unbalanced.  Grinding away a $200 fixture 
> really makes my mind go crazy.   I would think you could fabricate 
> something much smaller in your shop.  In fact it's something I've given 
> quite a bit of thought to in the past and started on an idea that I did not 
> follow through with.  It was a disk with 24 holes in it.  The idea was to 
> mount the disk to the stock.  The headstock had a locating pin in the 
> center and that fit one of the holes in the disk.  To change the index you 
> open up the tailstock and rotate the work to your next index.  I don't 
> think I ever showed the group that one. 
>  
> -Tim
>  
>
> - Original Message - 
> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Sent:* Friday, May 16, 2014 6:22 PM
> *Subject:* Re: time for a question or two..
>
> here's an update tim...got the chuck today, a day later than i 
> anticipated...the idea is to get a 6" faceplate(here monday) with a 1"-8 
> thread...screw the faceplate onto the headstock...also setting up a 1" 
> shaft collar so the faceplate can never unscrew when in use...this will be 
> welded to the back of the faceplate, in a similiar set up of legacy's 
> double shaft collar lock...a lot of these pieces are from 
> mcmaster-carr...also purchased a #2 morse taper collet that has a 1/2" 
> bore...i have already turned a piece of brass to use as an alignment 
> pin,,,1/2" on one side and 19/32" on the other, which is the bore of the 
> indexing chuck(it does not have a morse taper built into it, as i had 
> thought)...get everything in place and aligned, tack weld the indexer to 
> the faceplate, remove the assembly from the headstock by simply unscrewing 
> it and finish the mounting by drilling and tapping holes threw the 
> faceplate into the back of the chuck...then grind away the tack 
> welds...this is so i can separate the faceplate and indexing chuck in the 
> future if i have to...i can then screw the indexer onto the headstock like 
> it is an accessory piece...unscrew it and the headstock is exactly like it 
> was before, with no modifications...about the only issues i can see is the 
> fact that the entire assembly will protrude from the end of the headstock 
> more than i thought(about 5") and the unit will have a bit of weight to it( 
> i'll guess and say at least 16 lbs.!...yikes!)...although i will probably 
> reduce the weight of the indexer a good amount by milling/cutting/grinding 
> as much as i can, since a lot of it is not necessary...don't have the part 
> # of the indexer with me now but look in the section that has rotary 
> tables...work resumes on monday and will certainly post photos and give an 
> update...your comments and suggestions are welcome...thanks...joe
>
> On Friday, May 16, 2014 8:31:48 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote: 
>>
>>  
>> Did this chuck work?  I can't find it on Grizzly's site.  What's the part 
>> number or link?  My only concern is what's the swing of the whole piece and 
>> does it need a drawbar to stay in place?  The legacy is not designed to 
>> pound a 2mt object into the headstock.  You have to be nice to the socket 
>> :-).
>>  
>> -Tim
>>  
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 

Re: gear question

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

thanks for the input guys...sounds logical to me...i'll just put those 
gears with the woodchuck as i have them already on the later legacy 
machine...joe
On Friday, May 16, 2014 6:50:50 PM UTC-4, Curtis wrote:
>
> Hello everyone.
> Tim on my 1000 It came with the old small teeth on my gears, and a few 
> years latter  I bought a X-2 gear set and the .25 gear sets which have 
> large teeth, so I have both kind in question, I don't find any difference 
> between the two, as far as pitches or ...?  but as you said the large 
> socket of the duplex gear will collect wood chips easily.( and dose need to 
> be picked out) Ive not had that problem with the older (small teeth) gears 
> sets.But on the flip-side of the conversation, I have had the smaller teeth 
> slip out of gear more easily. ( most of the time its my fault, of not 
> having the gears set right. being in a hurry.) But this have not had that 
> happened with the newer (large tooth) gears sets. (yet?)
> So as I see it, Its a crap's shoot here. Both work well, but each have its 
> own problems that need to be addressed. (or watched out for.) ;-)  " 
> Come-on Gears, Daddy needs to make a new pair of shoes! " ( please excuse 
> the play on words, You know Crap's shoot, Dice...? )
> "O"Well ! 
> Have a good night all.
> C.A.G.
>
> --
> They sound like the main drive and standard duplex gear for the old 
> woodchuck model (MA-12).  Yes Legacy made a change to the gear count during 
> the middle of the model 900's.  I don't know why, I could only guess that 
> reduced tooth count on the newer machines (larger teeth) decreased 
> manufacturing time.   88 versus 180 teeth and the larger teeth are easier 
> to maintain definition and increase laser speed. 
>  
> From a user stand point it's hard to say which one is better.  Both styles 
> end up in the same destination.  On my duplex gear (large teeth) I have to 
> clean out the teeth occasionally.  Does this happen on the small teeth 
> version? 
>  
> -Tim
>  
>
> - Original Message - 
> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Sent:* Friday, May 16, 2014 1:38 PM
> *Subject:* gear question
>
> can anyone explain...i have two gears that seem a bit out of place...one 
> is 7 1/2" dia., fine tooth, rectangular hole(headstock gear) but with no 
> holes for indexing...the other gear is also 7 1/2" dia. and has the smaller 
> 2" gear with four bolts bolting them together but the smaller gear is a 
> fine tooth...could this set be from a woodchuck machine, which i do 
> have?...for the record the paperwork i have says the machine was made in 
> 1995 and is a model MA-12...obviously it seems legacy changed at some point 
> to that larger tooth, headstock gear meshing with the smaller, 2", large 
> tooth gear...was/is there a specific reason for the change?...is the fine 
> tooth better than the large tooth?...any opinions out there?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 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 from it, send an email 
to legacy-ornamental-mills+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

tailstock mod?

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

while i am waiting for some items to be delivered to complete the indexer 
accessory to the legacy, i was wondering if anyone has made an improvement 
to their tailstock...i currently have two of the lever/cam types that leave 
a bit to be desired in my opinion...does that lever ever 
malfunction?...which would be a big issue if it did in the middle of a cut, 
obviously...would also like a morse taper (preferably a #2) in it as well 
for things like live centers...or perhaps a drill chuck (?)...and a typical 
crank handle to apply pressure into the end of a workpiece would be 
nice...and a way to lock it down so it cannot loosen, much like on a 
typical lathe...been giving it some thought and there are some items on 
ebay that would seem to be an easy modification into the legacy tail stock 
cross bar...i am close to pulling the trigger on this and was interested if 
anyone had any previous experience or thoughts on this...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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: tailstock mod?

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

LMAO mac!...although i would never do a mod of this type when there are 
machines out there that can already do what that person made...delta made a 
gear box for their bandsaw(i have a 14" vertical,delta bandsaw with the 
factory gearbox reducer) and walker-turner made one as well(which i also 
have! LOL!)...i am a complete, machine/tool OCB nut!...you name it, i have 
it for just about any trade...my reading material, whether it be in the 
bathroom or next to my bed is a mcmaster-carr catalog!...and that's not a 
joke!...thanks for the reply and you can expect quite a bit more!...joe

On Monday, May 19, 2014 4:40:57 PM UTC-4, Va Oak wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> This link "has your name written all over it" - something you would buy. 
>  There is a link *within* the Craigs posting.  Be sure to cut & paste it 
> into your browser - it takes you to a very interesting "story about the 
> modification of the saw".  Is this guy your brother?  I think you two may 
> be "brothers from a different mother".  :-)
>
> http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/tls/4475804651.html
>
> They don't make 'em like this one any more.
>
> Enjoy!
>
> Mac
>
>
> -----------------------
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
> Sent: May 19, 2014 4:12 PM 
> To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> Subject: tailstock mod? 
>
> while i am waiting for some items to be delivered to complete the indexer 
> accessory to the legacy, i was wondering if anyone has made an improvement 
> to their tailstock...i currently have two of the lever/cam types that 
> leave 
> a bit to be desired in my opinion...does that lever ever 
> malfunction?...which would be a big issue if it did in the middle of a 
> cut, 
> obviously...would also like a morse taper (preferably a #2) in it as well 
> for things like live centers...or perhaps a drill chuck (?)...and a 
> typical 
> crank handle to apply pressure into the end of a workpiece would be 
> nice...and a way to lock it down so it cannot loosen, much like on a 
> typical lathe...been giving it some thought and there are some items on 
> ebay that would seem to be an easy modification into the legacy tail stock 
> cross bar...i am close to pulling the trigger on this and was interested 
> if 
> anyone had any previous experience or thoughts on this...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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: tailstock mod?

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

wow!...incredible work, jon...very impressive...not sure if i would be able 
to execute a mod of this quality...i just try to do something between this 
and a rube goldberg set up...LOL...i also try to keep the mods simple in 
regards to as small a financial budget as possible, some careful layout 
work, some drilling and tapping, a bit of hardware from mcmaster-carr, 
possibly a bit of welding and your done...a job that most of the members 
can do on a saturday, functions well and something to be proud of...nice 
work on the linear bearings as well!...that mod is on the drawing board, 
just waiting for some finances so i can buy the rails and carriers...thanks 
for sharing the photos...joe

On Monday, May 19, 2014 5:32:00 PM UTC-4, Jon Preston wrote:
>
>  
> Here are photos of the tailstock I've made for my lom. It's a solid block 
> of aluminum with a conventional lead screw/ Morse Taper 3. The large 
> engagement to the side rails gives more rigidity to the mill under load as 
> well. All of my mill has been modified like this. There are numerous photos 
> of the entire mill already posted on the LOM site.
>  
>   
>  
> ----- Original Message - 
> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Cc:* mwfo...@earthlink.net  
> *Sent:* Monday, May 19, 2014 5:15 PM
> *Subject:* Re: tailstock mod?
>
> LMAO mac!...although i would never do a mod of this type when there are 
> machines out there that can already do what that person made...delta made a 
> gear box for their bandsaw(i have a 14" vertical,delta bandsaw with the 
> factory gearbox reducer) and walker-turner made one as well(which i also 
> have! LOL!)...i am a complete, machine/tool OCB nut!...you name it, i have 
> it for just about any trade...my reading material, whether it be in the 
> bathroom or next to my bed is a mcmaster-carr catalog!...and that's not a 
> joke!...thanks for the reply and you can expect quite a bit more!...joe
>
> On Monday, May 19, 2014 4:40:57 PM UTC-4, Va Oak wrote: 
>>
>>  Joe,
>>
>> This link "has your name written all over it" - something you would buy. 
>>  There is a link *within* the Craigs posting.  Be sure to cut & paste it 
>> into your browser - it takes you to a very interesting "story about the 
>> modification of the saw".  Is this guy your brother?  I think you two may 
>> be "brothers from a different mother".  :-)
>>
>> http://washingtondc.craigslist.org/nva/tls/4475804651.html
>>
>> They don't make 'em like this one any more.
>>
>> Enjoy!
>>
>> Mac
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> -Original Message- 
>> From: 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
>> Sent: May 19, 2014 4:12 PM 
>> To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
>> Subject: tailstock mod? 
>>
>> while i am waiting for some items to be delivered to complete the indexer 
>> accessory to the legacy, i was wondering if anyone has made an 
>> improvement 
>> to their tailstock...i currently have two of the lever/cam types that 
>> leave 
>> a bit to be desired in my opinion...does that lever ever 
>> malfunction?...which would be a big issue if it did in the middle of a 
>> cut, 
>> obviously...would also like a morse taper (preferably a #2) in it as well 
>> for things like live centers...or perhaps a drill chuck (?)...and a 
>> typical 
>> crank handle to apply pressure into the end of a workpiece would be 
>> nice...and a way to lock it down so it cannot loosen, much like on a 
>> typical lathe...been giving it some thought and there are some items on 
>> ebay that would seem to be an easy modification into the legacy tail 
>> stock 
>> cross bar...i am close to pulling the trigger on this and was interested 
>> if 
>> anyone had any previous experience or thoughts on this...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 from it, send an email 
to legacy-ornamental-mills+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

traditional lathe accessories

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

going through some stuff i have stored in my garages and came across a 
number of lathe accessories, if anyone is interested in purchasing or 
trading...originally from a koning lathe but will also fit a oneway lathe, 
i believe...the thread on the headstock nose is 33mm...there are 3 and 4 
jaw chucks( both are of the universal type), faceplates, extended drive 
centers(there is a threaded collar nut that you use with the drive 
centers...after inserting the drive center, you can tighten it down with 
the collar nut and there is no chance the drive center can turn), 33mm 
screw on drive centers...complete headstock assembly without the casting( 
spindle,bearings,multi-sheave pulley,etc.-but most likely this is for a 
konig lathe only...my guess), adapters(i.e. 33mm female to 1"-8 male), 
screw chucks, vacuum chuck, buffing wheel holder(works with the collar 
nut)...all items are new and never used...and just about two of 
everything!...don't remember exactly how i got all this stuff, but it is 
quite a bit...so much that i might consider modifying one of the headstock 
spindles a bit to fit it to the legacy, the accessories are that well 
made...perhaps a crazy idea, but what the hell, mods are fun(and i have an 
extra headstock to play with!)...if anyone is interested, make a post here 
or send me an e-mail...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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: indexing accessory completed

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

one more tweak to this set up...need to cut off,grind/shape and re weld 
that flat lever, so it follows the curvature of the indexing base and then 
will not interfere with the y-axis router carriage

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 4:01:27 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>
> completed the indexer...not too many surprises in the process...total 
> investment was $300, give or take...labor took about 12 hours...there are 
> 24 indents built into the grizzly indexer( item # H7592)...press the spring 
> loaded lever a bit and you can index to any 15 degree indent(total of 
> 24)...use the locking lever if you want, but the spring in the lever is 
> strong enough to keep the degree setting without worry of it slipping 
> out...or do the math for any of the odd divisions(5,7,9,11, etc.) and use 
> the chuck locking lever...there is a 360 degree wheel around the base of 
> the chuck to make this problem free(so long as you are good at math and 
> have a good memory!...LOL!)...the three jaw chuck is very well machined and 
> has excellent tolerances...certainly good enough for woodworking...cut off 
> the #2 mortise end of the legacy drive center and used the remaining hub to 
> lock into the chuck so i can still use the legacy drive plates...there is a 
> shaft collar lock at the end of the faceplate to lock the piece to the 
> legacy headstock nose...but you still screw the unit onto the legacy 1"-8 
> thread(the face plate is threaded, a local purchase), then lock it 
> down...we drilled and tapped 4, 1/4"-20 holes into the back of the 
> chuck/indexer that were in alignment with the holes in the faceplate...we 
> also trimmed as much metal from the indexer as we could to reduce the 
> overall weight, which comes in at 14 lbsyou loose the #2 morse taper in 
> the legacy headstock with the indexer in place, but i can live with 
> that(the hole through the indexer is 19/32")...indexer will add about 5" to 
> the length of the headstock nose, no issues on my machine,LOL...overall, 
> very pleased with the piece and what it can do and how it can simplify 
> indexing tasks when doing spiral work...comments and suggestions are 
> welcome...onto the next mod!...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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: indexing accessory completed

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

tim...the reason i am not using the plates i showed a photo of previously 
is those plates are from the other twist machine(the killinger) i have been 
using for the past twenty years or so...i did not want to bust up that 
machine, even though i do not plan to use it in the future..is that machine 
possibly worth something?...maybe...but the better reason as to why i went 
with the grizzly indexer is i can do any number of divisions with the 
indexer while with the plates, i was limited to the number of holes we 
drilled into the plate...now the odds of ever using some obscure indexing 
number are extremely great, but i will have that capability with the 
indexer, regardless...my intentions on how to use this are straight 
forward...basically for doing reeding or fluting work on poles, finials or 
furniture legs...whether it be straight or spiraled work(yes, straight work 
is easily accomplished with the legacy indexing plates, but if the indexer 
is on the machine, why not just us it)...the indexer simplifies things to a 
great degree...and also to keep in mind, is that i am delegating this work 
to others(after a quick usage course), so keeping it simple is in my 
favor...the method everyone seems to use(moving the carriage) seems a bit 
complex, especially if i have to explain it to others...and it still only 
works in regards to numbers that work with the lead screw(four revolutions 
per inch)...if you need a 5,7,9 or 11 repeat, for example, it can't be done 
without some guess work on the part of the operator...with the indexer, it 
is simply done by using some mathematics...if you need 5 cuts, for example, 
you start at 0 for the first cut, then index to 72 for the next cut, then 
144, and so on...i am a bit surprised that legacy didn't seem to address 
this situation...they did so well with the other nuances of the 
machine...anyway, i'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject...thanks 
for the reply...joe...p.s. working on the tailstock mod, but hit a little 
snag...working it out...more to follow

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:18:20 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>
>  
> I've got some thoughts on this, but I need a while fully understand why 
> you are doing this method instead of the index plate you originally showed 
> us.  All I thought was needed was a scaled down version.  I'd love to hear 
> how you are going to use this.  I might have some suggestions, but most 
> have been written in the group already.
>  
> -Tim
>  
>
> ----- Original Message - 
> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:11 PM
> *Subject:* Re: indexing accessory completed
>
> one more tweak to this set up...need to cut off,grind/shape and re weld 
> that flat lever, so it follows the curvature of the indexing base and then 
> will not interfere with the y-axis router carriage
>
> On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 4:01:27 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote: 
>>
>> completed the indexer...not too many surprises in the process...total 
>> investment was $300, give or take...labor took about 12 hours...there are 
>> 24 indents built into the grizzly indexer( item # H7592)...press the spring 
>> loaded lever a bit and you can index to any 15 degree indent(total of 
>> 24)...use the locking lever if you want, but the spring in the lever is 
>> strong enough to keep the degree setting without worry of it slipping 
>> out...or do the math for any of the odd divisions(5,7,9,11, etc.) and use 
>> the chuck locking lever...there is a 360 degree wheel around the base of 
>> the chuck to make this problem free(so long as you are good at math and 
>> have a good memory!...LOL!)...the three jaw chuck is very well machined and 
>> has excellent tolerances...certainly good enough for woodworking...cut off 
>> the #2 mortise end of the legacy drive center and used the remaining hub to 
>> lock into the chuck so i can still use the legacy drive plates...there is a 
>> shaft collar lock at the end of the faceplate to lock the piece to the 
>> legacy headstock nose...but you still screw the unit onto the legacy 1"-8 
>> thread(the face plate is threaded, a local purchase), then lock it 
>> down...we drilled and tapped 4, 1/4"-20 holes into the back of the 
>> chuck/indexer that were in alignment with the holes in the faceplate...we 
>> also trimmed as much metal from the indexer as we could to reduce the 
>> overall weight, which comes in at 14 lbsyou loose the #2 morse taper in 
>> the legacy headstock with the indexer in place, but i can live with 
>> that(the hole through the indexer is 19/32")...indexer will add about 5" to 
>> the length of the headstock nose, no issues on my machine,LOL...overall, 
>&

Re: indexing accessory completed

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

curtis...do not want to sound like a broken record myself...i did see the 
videos and mike's technique is a great time saver, but it cannot do odd 
ball divisions...great for 2,4,8, 12 or 16...cannot do 
3,5,6,7,9,11...granted, these are rarely done but the point of setting up 
the indexer is to make it extremely user friendly with the added benefit 
that it can quickly and easily do all the common indexing divisions and the 
odd divisions as well...but my main motivation in doing all of this is to 
make it user friendly, so anyone with minimal woodworking experience can 
begin to do ornamental milling work with not a great deal of 
instruction...thanks for the reply...joe

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:02:03 AM UTC-4, Curtis wrote:
>
> Hello Joe
> I dont want to sound like a broken record.
> but did you see Mike Pungs videos on gear indexing and carrage travel 
> indexing. those two videos make the hole set-up of indexing plates and 
> moving the carrage to a new location for roping into a simple ABC type of 
> problem. Yes there still is some math, but there is not need for other jigs 
> or tools to get even those odd parts done more easly.
>
> I have to get to work now.
> I wish you luck on your new mod. I hope it works out well for you.
> Have a great day.
> C.A.G.
>
> ----- Original Message -
> From: 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills <
> legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com >
> To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> Sent: Thu, 29 May 2014 05:34:32 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: indexing accessory completed
>
> tim...the reason i am not using the plates i showed a photo of previously 
> is those plates are from the other twist machine(the killinger) i have been 
> using for the past twenty years or so...i did not want to bust up that 
> machine, even though i do not plan to use it in the future..is that machine 
> possibly worth something?...maybe...but the better reason as to why i went 
> with the grizzly indexer is i can do any number of divisions with the 
> indexer while with the plates, i was limited to the number of holes we 
> drilled into the plate...now the odds of ever using some obscure indexing 
> number are extremely great, but i will have that capability with the 
> indexer, regardless...my intentions on how to use this are straight 
> forward...basically for doing reeding or fluting work on poles, finials or 
> furniture legs...whether it be straight or spiraled work(yes, straight work 
> is easily accomplished with the legacy indexing plates, but if the indexer 
> is on the machine, why not just us it)...the indexer simplifies things to a 
> great degree...and also to keep in mind, is that i am delegating this work 
> to others(after a quick usage course), so keeping it simple is in my 
> favor...the method everyone seems to use(moving the carriage) seems a bit 
> complex, especially if i have to explain it to others...and it still only 
> works in regards to numbers that work with the lead screw(four revolutions 
> per inch)...if you need a 5,7,9 or 11 repeat, for example, it can't be done 
> without some guess work on the part of the operator...with the indexer, it 
> is simply done by using some mathematics...if you need 5 cuts, for example, 
> you start at 0 for the first cut, then index to 72 for the next cut, then 
> 144, and so on...i am a bit surprised that legacy didn't seem to address 
> this situation...they did so well with the other nuances of the 
> machine...anyway, i'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject...thanks 
> for the reply...joe...p.s. working on the tailstock mod, but hit a little 
> snag...working it out...more to follow
>
> On Thursday, May 29, 2014 4:18:20 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote: 
>>
>>  
>> I've got some thoughts on this, but I need a while fully understand why 
>> you are doing this method instead of the index plate you originally showed 
>> us.  All I thought was needed was a scaled down version.  I'd love to hear 
>> how you are going to use this.  I might have some suggestions, but most 
>> have been written in the group already.
>>  
>> -Tim
>>  
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> *From:*'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills
>> *To:*legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:11 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: indexing accessory completed
>>
>> one more tweak to this set up...need to cut off,grind/shape and re weld 
>> that flat lever, so it follows the curvature of the indexing base and then 
>> will not interfere with the y-axis router carriage
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 4:01:27 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote: 
>>>
>>> completed the indexer...not too many surprises in the

Re: indexing accessory completed

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

okay, i must be missing something here...is everyone assuming that to 
achieve a certain number of indexes( let's say, 5, for example), you set up 
your gears to produce a 5 pitch?...that seems to be what i am seeing in 
everyone's post...but what if you want a 7 1/2" pitch, with 12 
cuts/indexes?...the leads crew method does not work in that instance...and 
as tim pointed out, you can do the "eyeball" thing when you do have an 
index that just does not work with the pitch method, but what i have laid 
out eliminates all of that...pick any pitch you want, choose any number of 
cuts that will best suit the diameter of your workpiece, choose the router 
bit that will produce the desired cut and away you go...this goes back to 
what i had mentioned before of which way to produce a piece...do you start 
with the router bit and work forward or do start with the design/drawing 
and proceed from there...we have always begun from a drawing, calculate the 
pitch( or use the pitch that is the closest to the desired pitch), 
determine the number of cuts, then find,make or modify a router bit to 
suite the job at hand...when you are doing your own piece, whether it is 
for a piece of furniture(like a leg,for example) or perhaps a walking 
sticking, certainly you can tweak the design whatever is necessary to suit 
the indexing method...but the grizzly indexer simplifies making all those 
decisions...although i can see it being a bit pricey, especially if you 
bought a legacy for $1200...$300 for an indexer(not counting your labor) 
can be illogical...but not if you are running a business,which i am...and @ 
tim...definitely getting a headache reading the last part of your 
post...LOL!...if i had to go into the shop and start explaining those 
numbers to the men, i would certainly get "this guy is nuts" kind of 
reactions...LOL...looking forward to anyone's suggestions,ideas,comments, 
etcmany thanks...joe

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 12:00:18 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>
>  
> 3, 5,  and 6 starts can be done on the standard machine.  as well as 10.  
> I really need time to consider this before I saw anything since spirals are 
> not my main thing.  This is turning into a challenge that I can't back down 
> from.  I think Joe has a point about the pitch of the leadscrew influencing 
> the number of starts but I recall my method being unlimited.  I have to 
> find out. It was a simple method knuckle draggers can work out since I am 
> one!
>  
> Curt, mikes version I'm not convinced could answer the call to all of Joes 
> numbers like the 7, 9 and 11 or 13 starts.  Primes are the odd balls and I 
> think mike would say to just fudge it with a decimal of crank after each 
> one, but I'd be looking for more precision, and I think Joe has high 
> standards as well.  We don't have the pitches he is looking for.  For the 
> record as far as I understand from my study of Mike's system there are 
> ,3,4,5,6,8,9,10,12,15,16,18,20,24,30,32,36,40,48,54,60,72,90 pitches with 
> the standard gear set.  Missing would be the 7, 11, 13,  you can see.  
>  
> I could make a gear set that would produce the odd pitches.  It's time to 
> get nerdy.  According to my private chart, you could only get a 7.2" pitch 
> using any of Legacy's and my custom gears.  That would be a 25 tooth gear.  
> A 17 tooth gear gets 10.90", not 11.  Then it jumps to 11.25" using an 18 
> tooth.  27 gets you 13.333" but that's not good enough.  But still we are 
> depending on a pitch to provide a number of starts.  I think my version 
> with a small next step no harder than rotating the crank would work fine 
> and be accurate.  I really need to test it before I go any farther.  
>  
> Reference for study 
> http://artscopes.com/legacyornamentalmill/tools/pungs_index_method/pungs_index_method.html
>  
>  
> You're making my brain hurt and I'm writing too much without really 
> thinking, but it's what this group is for.  
>  
> I just thought of a close to no math method for odd balls.  I'll post it 
> under a new message. 
>  
> -Tim
>  
>
> - Original Message - 
> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Cc:* noki...@msn.com  
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:24 AM
> *Subject:* Re: indexing accessory completed
>
> curtis...do not want to sound like a broken record myself...i did see the 
> videos and mike's technique is a great time saver, but it cannot do odd 
> ball divisions...great for 2,4,8, 12 or 16...cannot do 
> 3,5,6,7,9,11...granted, these are rarely done but the point of setting up 
> the indexer is to make it extremely user friendly with the added benefit 
> that it can quickly and easily do

Re: indexing accessory completed

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

some "for what its worth" info...we have done 12 cuts(a reed), with a 3 
3/4" pitch(the pitch being dictated by the gears available on our killinger 
machine), on a 2 1/2" pole...seemed to be ok and that is what the client 
picked out from our samples for their particular curtain pole order...in my 
opinion, legacy's charts are limited to what router bit you can use and 
what was/is available, then and now...if, for example, a job called for a 
twisted, fluted pole of 12 cuts and a pitch of 4 1/2"(i.e.  what that 
killinger could give us), we would find the closest fluting bit that we 
felt would work in that situation and simply adjust the depth of cut, which 
would determine the "flat" area between each flute...a narrow flat,plunge 
the bit in...a wider flat, pull the bit out...were there times when we felt 
the look of the pole would be better if the depth of cut was 
more?...yes!...but short of ordering a custom bit, we went with what was 
there at that moment...did we compromise the job a bit by making that 
decision?...probably...but that is how the proverbial cookie 
crumbles!...and if a customer came to us with a drawing of a twist that was 
not attainable with our existing gearing, we simply made a sample of the 
closest we could get to their sketch(which was usually very close) and 
submitted it for approval...don't think we ever lost a job because of not 
being able to do exactly what was on a drawing submitted to us...the best 
business practice?...no...but we did the best we could with what we had at 
hand...my point in saying all of this is, you do what you can with the 
equipment you have...improvise here and there?...you bet...cut a corner 
once in a while?...hell yeah!...did we hit a snag here and there?...nothing 
some 80 grit sandpaper could not fix!...lol...so i do not want anyone to 
think that i am so kind of pitch/start guru, lol...my biggest intent is to 
make using our legacy as easy as possible without me having to have legacy 
seminars for the guys in the shop...lol...thus the indexer mod...i am 
totally blown away at what a lot of the members of this group have come up 
with in the way of jigs,fixtures and what not to get through and complete a 
job...it's impressive...and if i was in the shop, working the legacy 
myself, i would be using quite a bit of those ideasand yes, i was 
wondering if mike was going to sit this one out...glad to see he will come 
in with his thoughts and suggestions at some point...looking forward to 
it!...and thanks tim!...want to see what you are coming up with as 
well...thanks to all...joe

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 2:12:42 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>
>  
> I'm working on this.. please hang on.  My method does not limit the travel 
> to the number of starts desired.  So a 7 start 3" pitch is fine.  3" being 
> normal, 7 being way out of the park if you consult Legacy's charts.  Your 
> might introduce errors from memory and having to know I have to turn to 
> 257.13 degrees of the fifth index since there is no detent on you indexer 
> the degree ring becomes your guide.  I've been down that road and unless I 
> have a chart in front of me I got confused on too many parts and ditched 
> the idea.   For what it's worth, I have a degree wheel on my standard index 
> plate that I don't use that often.  I came up with another idea to track 
> the indexes,  but Curt came up with the ultimate dummies version.  Like I 
> said, I'm working on writing it back up, showing some pictures and try to 
> make it simple and clear. 
>  
> -Tim
>  
>
> - Original Message - 
> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 29, 2014 10:44 AM
> *Subject:* Re: indexing accessory completed
>
> okay, i must be missing something here...is everyone assuming that to 
> achieve a certain number of indexes( let's say, 5, for example), you set up 
> your gears to produce a 5 pitch?...that seems to be what i am seeing in 
> everyone's post...but what if you want a 7 1/2" pitch, with 12 
> cuts/indexes?...the leads crew method does not work in that instance...and 
> as tim pointed out, you can do the "eyeball" thing when you do have an 
> index that just does not work with the pitch method, but what i have laid 
> out eliminates all of that...pick any pitch you want, choose any number of 
> cuts that will best suit the diameter of your workpiece, choose the router 
> bit that will produce the desired cut and away you go...this goes back to 
> what i had mentioned before of which way to produce a piece...do you start 
> with the router bit and work forward or do start with the design/drawing 
> and proceed from there...we have always begun from a drawing, calculate the 

Re: indexing accessory completed

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

well, i'm impressed how a potential problem was solved with a bit of math 
and ingenuity...i'll admit that i am having trouble understanding the 
concepts but i might attribute that to the fact that i have never had to 
solve this type of problem...the killinger machine we have been using for 
the past 25 years made our work easy and thus, we became lazy...it simply 
rotated the workpiece at the headstock, no calculations needed...but 
necessity is the mother of invention so i do find it interesting how the 
legacy users solved the issue, especially Mike...i always wondered why 
legacy did not come up with a way to do the indexing (for spirals) a bit 
better, even copying the killinger method, but then realized that they 
needed to keep a low profile so the y-axis carriage could travel over the 
headstock...anyway, i am just glad that i do not have to go into the shop 
and explain the math to the men, LOL...these discussions are always 
informative and educational...thanks guys...joe

On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 6:39:11 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>
>  
> Mike, 
>  
> You will always be known to me as Lil Twisted, but I'd grant you the title 
> of Sir Twists-A-Lot if it was up to me :-) 
>  
> I've been looking at your example and the first thing that comes to mind 
> is there is no 3.75" pitch with the newer Legacy models.   How do you get 
> to that distance? I'm guessing 7" pitch gear and a .5 reduction duplex 
> gear.  I know I could get there with a custom gear and our standard duplex 
> gear, but no one has ever inquired so I've never cut one.
>  
> Right now I'm trying to figure out on the first problem why we need to 
> rotate the stock 90º and not just keep going to 21-1/4 to get an equal 
> pattern all the way around.   I could answer my own question by doing your 
> instructions but you must know off the top of your head. 
>  
> -Tim
>  
> - Original Message - 
>
> *From:* Okla Mike (Liltwisted)  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Sent:* Monday, June 02, 2014 4:48 PM
> *Subject:* Re: indexing accessory completed
>
> I like where this thread has developed.  The flexibility of degrees on the 
> positioning of the stock is awesome!
>
> Where to start.
> First of all the crank handle indexing is only for straight milling so the 
> 12 cuts down the side or top.  Set the mill on a 3" pitch, times 4 threads 
> per inch and you will get 12.  So 1/12th turn of the stock for every full 
> turn of the handle.  
>
> But we are talking about on a spiral, so we will look at carriage 
> indexing.  But, lets use the numbers you have below as compared to the 
> pitches that you will be stuck with on the Legacy.  Then we will stick to 
> 12 cuts.  
>
> Our first problem is the travel of 3.75 divided by 12 is 5/16 in order to 
> make it a full divisor of .25 (drive screw thread count) we will have to 
> multiply it by 4.  to equal 1-1/4".  So on a 20 inch stick we will allow 
> the carriage to stop on the switch, then move it back left to the start 
> position 21-1/4 and cut again for a total of 3 times.  Then un-chuck the 
> stock and rotate it in the drive dog 90º, make 3 cuts,  rotate again etc 
> until it is complete.
>
>

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: indexing accessory completed

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

tim,
 i'll assume that question is directed at me...the majority of the time 
we are working with a 2 1/4" dia. pole that is readily available from most 
lumber yards(not a home depot or lowes) in a plain round state...after that 
it's 2" diaoccasionally we will see a 3" dia. pole,...and most times we 
are doing 12 cuts, either fluted or reeded...but we do do a good amount of 
specialty cuts...here is the link to our website, which is as old as that 
killinger...lol...http://www.antiquefurnitureusa.com/index2.html

On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 8:29:04 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>
>  
> I prefer no calculations myself but if the job needs to be done and your, 
> "The Guy", well then it's going to get done.  I'm curios, what would you 
> say your normal diameter range is that you are working on?
>  
> -Tim
>  
>
> - Original Message - 
> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Sent:* Tuesday, June 03, 2014 5:21 AM
> *Subject:* Re: indexing accessory completed
>
> well, i'm impressed how a potential problem was solved with a bit of math 
> and ingenuity...i'll admit that i am having trouble understanding the 
> concepts but i might attribute that to the fact that i have never had to 
> solve this type of problem...the killinger machine we have been using for 
> the past 25 years made our work easy and thus, we became lazy...it simply 
> rotated the workpiece at the headstock, no calculations needed...but 
> necessity is the mother of invention so i do find it interesting how the 
> legacy users solved the issue, especially Mike...i always wondered why 
> legacy did not come up with a way to do the indexing (for spirals) a bit 
> better, even copying the killinger method, but then realized that they 
> needed to keep a low profile so the y-axis carriage could travel over the 
> headstock...anyway, i am just glad that i do not have to go into the shop 
> and explain the math to the men, LOL...these discussions are always 
> informative and educational...thanks guys...joe
>
> On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 6:39:11 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote: 
>>
>>  
>> Mike, 
>>  
>> You will always be known to me as Lil Twisted, but I'd grant you the 
>> title of Sir Twists-A-Lot if it was up to me :-) 
>>  
>> I've been looking at your example and the first thing that comes to mind 
>> is there is no 3.75" pitch with the newer Legacy models.   How do you get 
>> to that distance? I'm guessing 7" pitch gear and a .5 reduction duplex 
>> gear.  I know I could get there with a custom gear and our standard duplex 
>> gear, but no one has ever inquired so I've never cut one.
>>  
>> Right now I'm trying to figure out on the first problem why we need to 
>> rotate the stock 90º and not just keep going to 21-1/4 to get an equal 
>> pattern all the way around.   I could answer my own question by doing your 
>> instructions but you must know off the top of your head. 
>>  
>> -Tim
>>  
>> - Original Message - 
>>
>> *From:* Okla Mike (Liltwisted) 
>> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
>> *Sent:* Monday, June 02, 2014 4:48 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: indexing accessory completed
>>
>> I like where this thread has developed.  The flexibility of degrees on 
>> the positioning of the stock is awesome!
>>
>> Where to start.
>> First of all the crank handle indexing is only for straight milling so 
>> the 12 cuts down the side or top.  Set the mill on a 3" pitch, times 4 
>> threads per inch and you will get 12.  So 1/12th turn of the stock for 
>> every full turn of the handle.  
>>
>> But we are talking about on a spiral, so we will look at carriage 
>> indexing.  But, lets use the numbers you have below as compared to the 
>> pitches that you will be stuck with on the Legacy.  Then we will stick to 
>> 12 cuts.  
>>
>> Our first problem is the travel of 3.75 divided by 12 is 5/16 in order to 
>> make it a full divisor of .25 (drive screw thread count) we will have to 
>> multiply it by 4.  to equal 1-1/4".  So on a 20 inch stick we will allow 
>> the carriage to stop on the switch, then move it back left to the start 
>> position 21-1/4 and cut again for a total of 3 times.  Then un-chuck the 
>> stock and rotate it in the drive dog 90º, make 3 cuts,  rotate again etc 
>> until it is complete.
>>
>> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Legacy Ornamental Mills" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receivin

Re: indexing accessory completed

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

tim,
  looks good to me...i had an easy time modifying my killinger plates 
for off numbered indexes...there were the 24 index holes around the outer 
perimeter that came with the machine...i was able to drill two inner 
circles of holes for additional indexing...and since i had purchased 3 
machines, i had two additional plates, giving me a total of 6 additional 
possibilities of making new, off-numbered indexes...and i modified the 
piece that you would attach to the workpiece, so the index pin could be 
moved to any circle of holes...it was an easy mod to do at the time...what 
i like about the legacy is the 1"-8 thread on the headstock and the fact 
that you can get locking collars (even collars with a 1"-8 thread) from 
mcmaster carr, for not a lot of money...so, some steel plates with a 1" 
bore(one with a pin and attached to the legacy drive piece,the others with 
the drilled index holes), some collars and the legacy drive piece (with the 
morse taper cut off, leaving the 1" shoulder for a collar to grab) and a 
similar system like the killinger could easily be set up on the 
legacy...make up some extra plates while you are at it, for the rare job 
you might need an off used index...only have to come up with a spring 
loaded index pin...just a lot of drilling and some tapping(or welding,if 
you prefer)...and with the collar set up, it can come on and off the 
machine easily, as an accessory would (i.e. not permanent)...good stuff 
here!...joe

On Sunday, June 8, 2014 7:56:05 AM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>
>  
> I've got an attachment of an interesting index plate used in the 1920's 
> for indexing 1,2,3,4,5 starts on  a piece.  I'm wondering how error free 
> does it look?
>  
> This is used like the killinger lathe Joe showed at the front of this 
> thread.  The holes are numbered for the indexes.   I think I see a little 
> potential for trouble free spirals, but I need to thik about it some more.  
>  
> Any omments woud be appreciated. 
>  
> -Tim
>  
>

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: tailstock mod completed

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

well, yes i violated my own rule(s)...and i guess i'll just have to do my 
time purgatory for that...LOL...but i did save the cut off piece for future 
consideration of putting things back together just the way they were...see 
photo attached...some welding, some bondo, a little paint and back to 
original condition...i might guess i would be wasting my time asking if 
anyone had an extra tailstock crossbar?...or a headstock crossbar, for that 
matter?...didn't think anyone would...will do more pics in the am (E.S.T.) 
of this mod...the headstock butchery on my extra headstock piece for a 
spindle drive motor will most likely put me into legacy hell...but hey!, 
unless i can get one of you guys to buy my shit before i die, i'll be 
leaving this headache to my  what's-a-legacy? kids...later mac!...and 
thanks for the reply!...joe

On Monday, June 9, 2014 5:44:49 PM UTC-4, Va Oak wrote:
>
> OH NO!  "Say it ain't so, Joe!"  
>
> You *cut* a piece of one of your Legacy's!!  All this time you have been 
> posting here you kept reiterating that you were being VERY careful to NOT 
> do anything to the mills' parts.  Because you wanted to be able to put them 
> back to their "original"  configuration.  I remember all that you talked 
> about when assembling "Mill-zilla".
> Appears that you have realized that perhaps one Mill will not ever make it 
> back to "original".  :-)
> Interesting mod that you made here.  Can you provide a couple more pics - 
> taken from both ends as well as from the underside.  I'd like to see the 
> installation from those other angles.
> Thanks for sharing. 
> Mac
> ------
> --
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
> Sent: Jun 9, 2014 5:13 PM 
> To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> Subject: tailstock mod completed 
>
> completed the tailstock mod...except for a coat of legacy red paint, which 
> will have to wait as i am in the middle of a job and need the use of a live 
> tailstock asap...first tailstock purchased on ebay was a bust as i thought 
> it had a #2 morse taper, it had a #1 taper...ate that one and put it into 
> the "hope to use in the future" file...as fate would have it a woodworking 
> neighbor had done in a delta 46-700 lathe headstock pulley set up and was 
> tossing the machine...picked up that piece for zero money and the tailstock 
> seemed perfect for how i wanted to set it up on the legacy...the machine 
> gods were smiling on me that day!...and the headstock spindle has a 1"-8 
> thread, might have ause for that soon...and again, using the second legacy 
> tailstock cross bar piece from my donor machine took the fear out of the 
> "what if i screw it up" situation...began by chopping up the delta 
> tailstock piece... cut, gring, sand,etc...squared it all up...layed it down 
> on its side and took some measurements...all seemed to line up well...then 
> took to taking out a section of the back of the legacy crossbar...and not 
> touching the front as i wanted to keep a good amount of the strength of the 
> crossbar...used a double ended #2 morse taper alignment piece into the 
> headstock and the new tailstock just to be sure all was in line on all 
> planes...clamped the tailstock to the crossbar and began drilling and 
> tapping four holes to attach it all together...might consider welding it 
> all together if i feel it slips out of alignment...time will tell...welded 
> a cross bar on the bottom, backside of the crossbar to get back the 
> stiffness of the crossbar...might change the hand wheel to a sliding-pin 
> type if i feel there is interference with the y carriage going over 
> it...the tightening handle is at the bottom in the 6 o'clock 
> position...going to be nice to have that #2 morse in the tailstock...can 
> definitely use a live center here and there...and other pieces as well for 
> odd ball set-ups...next mod seems to be a dc motor drive for the headstock, 
> since i found a very nice dc motor in the "pile" of stuff from my swap meet 
> travels...just hope it works and is not fried...comments and suggestions 
> are always welcome...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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: accessories

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

damn!...i definitely would have bought that piece before doing the set up 
with the shaft collars...i would say they are both of the same quality but 
most likely the penn state piece is better because it looks like the 
bearings might be a bit larger than the ones in my live center...oh 
well...might pick up this piece anyway...thanks curtis for the link...i 
need to go on line and hunt for things before i let my impatience get the 
better of me...joe

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:21:56 PM UTC-4, Curtis wrote:
>
> Hi Joe
>
> I very much like your modification to your mill.
> I have done something very much like what you did with a chuck on the 
> tailstock end, I bought a Pen State  Tailstock adapt or a few years ago. 
> your unit most likely is a higher quality then what I bought, but for me 
> its worked out pretty well when needed. (which is not often.)
> Here is the link to the adapter in question.
>
>
> If I may, Im assuming that since you made no comments about your tail 
> stock, Everything worked out well with it?  If so that is Awesome, 
> Keep up the Great work.
> And Thank you for sharing. ;-)
> C.A.G.
> [image: Live Tailstock Chuck Adapter: 1 in. x 8tpi - #2MT Shaft]
> 
>
> Click Image to Magnify
> Live Tailstock Chuck Adapter: 1 in. x 8tpi - #2MT Shaft  Item #: LTCA18
>  
> 16 reviews
> In stock, Ready to ship!
>
>- $34.95
>
> *Quantity:*   [image: Add to Wishlist] 
> 
> Get fast answers from customers who own this
> Ask a question See *7* questions | *40* answers
> View in Catalog 
>
>
> Product Description
> Live Tailstock Chuck Adapter - #2MT tailstock mount, 1" x 8tpi Chuck Mount
>   This unique adapter allows precision centering of spindles or dowels at 
> the tailstock end. Also, it provides the ideal system for the mounting 
> bowls for hollowing; after turning the outside of the bowl blank, turn a 
> tenon on the bowl bottom. Then mount your chuck to the tailstock using this 
> adapter; grabbing the tenon with the chuck while still attached to the 
> faceplate. When the chuck and blank is remounted on the headstock, your 
> bowl will be perfectly centered.
> Read More
>
>- Specs 
>- [image: star] Reviews 
>- Customer Q & A
>
> SpecificationDescriptionCompatible Spindle Sizes:1" x 8tpiCategory:Tailstock 
> Live Centers
> *Just For You...*
>

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: accessories

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

curtis, forgot to mention...the tailstock is rock solid and is working out 
very well...thanks for asking...joe

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:21:56 PM UTC-4, Curtis wrote:
>
> Hi Joe
>
> I very much like your modification to your mill.
> I have done something very much like what you did with a chuck on the 
> tailstock end, I bought a Pen State  Tailstock adapt or a few years ago. 
> your unit most likely is a higher quality then what I bought, but for me 
> its worked out pretty well when needed. (which is not often.)
> Here is the link to the adapter in question.
>
>
> If I may, Im assuming that since you made no comments about your tail 
> stock, Everything worked out well with it?  If so that is Awesome, 
> Keep up the Great work.
> And Thank you for sharing. ;-)
> C.A.G.
> [image: Live Tailstock Chuck Adapter: 1 in. x 8tpi - #2MT Shaft]
> 
>
> Click Image to Magnify
> Live Tailstock Chuck Adapter: 1 in. x 8tpi - #2MT Shaft  Item #: LTCA18
>  
> 16 reviews
> In stock, Ready to ship!
>
>- $34.95
>
> *Quantity:*   [image: Add to Wishlist] 
> 
> Get fast answers from customers who own this
> Ask a question See *7* questions | *40* answers
> View in Catalog 
>
>
> Product Description
> Live Tailstock Chuck Adapter - #2MT tailstock mount, 1" x 8tpi Chuck Mount
>   This unique adapter allows precision centering of spindles or dowels at 
> the tailstock end. Also, it provides the ideal system for the mounting 
> bowls for hollowing; after turning the outside of the bowl blank, turn a 
> tenon on the bowl bottom. Then mount your chuck to the tailstock using this 
> adapter; grabbing the tenon with the chuck while still attached to the 
> faceplate. When the chuck and blank is remounted on the headstock, your 
> bowl will be perfectly centered.
> Read More
>
>- Specs 
>- [image: star] Reviews 
>- Customer Q & A
>
> SpecificationDescriptionCompatible Spindle Sizes:1" x 8tpiCategory:Tailstock 
> Live Centers
> *Just For You...*
>

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Site I stumbled upon

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

mac...i have seen this site previously and also thought it was well done 
and informative...but there is one point this person is making that i tend 
to disagree with...and to note that i have seen this point in the legacy 
group discussion as well...and that is the idea of building a machine 
capable of what the legacy can do rather than just buying a 
legacy...granted, maybe a person can build a better piece of equipment( i 
doubt it) but in the end, if you ever need to sell it, who might buy it 
without thinking they are buying a homemade item with no track record...if 
any of us that currently have a legacy, want to sell it and perhaps move up 
to a cnc piece of equipment, i doubt there would be much trouble selling 
their legacy...i do applaud a person's desire to make and create a piece, 
but perhaps they are not looking down the road and into the future to 
possibly give themselves better options as to what to do with their 
equipment...anyway, a bit of rambling here but it was what i thought when i 
first saw that website originally...like i said, there is some excellent 
stuff on that site and thanks for providing the link...i only found it by 
randomly looking for anything regarding ornamental turning and forgot to 
bookmark the site...joe

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 6:31:17 PM UTC-4, Va Oak wrote:
>
> Tim, *et al*,
>
> I stumbled upon this ( http://benchmark.20m.com/ ) a few minutes ago - 
> while researching a router table on CraigsList.  Click on the "Tools" tab 
> on the left side - then scroll down the list.  You will find this person is 
> a Legacy Ornamental Mill owner (or *was*).
> The site owner has done a great job building his website.  I find it very 
> well done and interesting.
>
> Tim - perhaps you know whose site this is.  Please tell them "well done".
>
> Enjoy.
> Mac
>

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: legacy design kit

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

if anyone is up for a trade of some sort, here is what i have...a pad of 
paper that has a 1" grid pattern laid out on it, with the legacy trademark 
on it...the pad measures 13" x 40" overall...approx. 30 pages...also a pad 
that has a circular graph on it that you would use with your rotary table, 
also with the legacy info on it...this pad is full and about 40 
pages...three thick plastic sheets with template cut outs that i would 
assume would correspond to various router bit profiles...they still have 
the protective plastic on each side of the piece so my guess is that they 
were never used...and all of this is still in the original box as shipped 
by legacy...i'd be interested in trading for some legacy 
items...railing?...let me know...thanks...joe...e-mail   

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 3:06:12 PM UTC-4, Milt wrote:
>
> I just found mine.  Will PDF and post by the weekend. 
>
> Sent from my Iphone 5
>
> On Jun 12, 2014, at 7:51 AM, > wrote:
>
> Max,
> No, I have been searching for one for well over a year.  Still no luck.
> Why, do you have one you are no longer using and are willing to part with?
> Thanks.
> Mac
> --
> --
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: MAX LATHAM 
> Sent: Jun 12, 2014 9:56 AM 
> To: "legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com " 
> Subject: RE: legacy design kit 
>
> Did you ever get a set?
> max latham
>
>
> --
> From: bulk...@mmnet.com.au 
> To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> Subject: legacy design kit
> Date: Mon, 12 May 2014 14:35:53 +1000
>
> Has anybody out there got the sheets with all the router bit shapes and 
> numbers of the bits on it that comes with the legacy design kit .my kit I 
> got second hand doesn’t have this sheet and I would like to get one again 
>
> Not the plastic sheets the paper ones 
>
> If so could someone scan it and either post it here or email it to me
>
> I started to design some stair balustrades  and found out I didn’t have it
>
> I have to keep going to the router cupboard to check if I have the bits 
> I’m tracing and the number on them it’s a pain  
>
> Bill
>
>
> --
>  
>
> This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus 
>  protection is active. 
>   
>
> -- 
> 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 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 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 from it, send an email 
to legacy-ornamental-mills+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: spindle motor mod...done

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

ok, some negatives and positives...the unit takes away 14" from my length 
between centers...but in my case, that is not a problem...but it can be 
removed in less than 5 minutes to get back the 14", should i ever need it 
on a very long piece...thus the reason i wanted something im place that 
would stay set up, ready to use...to do spiral work, simply turn the hex 
nut pictured at the top of the motor base and the belt will loosen, thus 
not turning the motor pulley and putting unnecessary strain on the gear 
train...to use the motor spindle, simply loosen the screws on the shaft 
collars, slide the collars out of the way, and remove the 1" rod connecting 
the two headstocks...you are now ready for the higher speed spindle 
work...the entire assembly moves with the legacy bed in regards to going up 
or down and it was worked out so that a maximum turning diameter of 11+" 
can still be achieved...if i should ever need more in regards to the 
diameter, i can modify the wood base a bit to allow the motor more downward 
adjustment...still need to mount the DC controller, probably on the z-axis 
carriage, but did a quick-hook-up test and all is good...the legacy 
headstock is not bolted or welded to the motor set up, so it locks to the 
rails with the legacy hardware, as originally intended...will also be 
making a cover for the pulley projecting up out of the headstock cross 
bar...will continue this description as things come to me...joe

On Monday, June 30, 2014 4:01:00 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>
> ok, start from the beginning...thought turning a workpiece faster than the 
> legacy would normally allow, would have benefits doing certain jobs...and 
> after a group search, seems a good amount feel the same...so i set out to 
> do this mod...but also wanted to do it on the cheap so i remembered i had 
> picked up a never used/new, baldor, 1/2 hp, 1725 rpm, 90 volt DC 
> motor...now before anyone starts saying that this is overkill for what it 
> is expected to do, i will agree that it is a bit more than what is 
> needed...but it is also a $500.00-plus motor that i picked up years ago for 
> $10!...so i was determined to use it...and perhaps that extra torque could 
> come in handy one day...i also wanted the set up to be on the machine at 
> all times, with little to no machine-mod time to  to use it, not interfere 
> with using the gears when necessary, not increase the foot print of the 
> legacy itself, etc., etc...so i decided to incorporate the second head 
> stock i had...and before mac chimes in, the only work done to that 
> headstock was the slot cut into the top...otherwise no drilling, welding, 
> etc. done to the headstock...so it still can be used as intended, if 
> necessary...i also decided that there was no way i was going to spin 
> anything 1725 rpm on the legacy, so i decided to use a 6" pulley on the 
> headstock spindle and a 2" pulley on the motor...this knocked thing down a 
> bit to 575 RPM...a DC controller gotten on ebay will take over from there 
> to give me a nice range from 0 to 575 and if i ever get stupid enough to 
> try it, i can play with the pulleys to increase the speed...but this set up 
> will give me plenty of torque, if i should ever need it...the motor is 
> mounted on an adjustable motor base that was modified a bit to shrink it's 
> height down...this was just some cut-and weld work, no big deal...the motor 
> base is welded to the two cross bars that can slide on the legacy rails, 
> and the unit is locked down with legacy inserts that slide into the rails 
> and some allen head bolts...it can come off easily by simply removing the 
> four bolts and sliding the belt off the motor pulley...will continue this 
> mod in a reply message
>

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: spindle motor mod...done

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

curtis,
 part of my motivation to set-up, accessorize, modify, etc. this 
piece of machinery(to the extent that we do) is the fact that this extended 
machine is what sets us apart from other companies doing the same type of 
work...to set it up so it is easy to use, easy to repair and looks 
professional will be to my benefit if i ever do need to sell the 
company...the machine will be a factor in the sale (if a sale should ever 
happen)...the other motivation is the fact that i enjoy restoring machinery 
and setting them up for ease of use...thanks for your comment(s)...more to 
come!

On Monday, June 30, 2014 8:43:27 PM UTC-4, Curtis wrote:
>
> Joe you differently have a flair with your equipment, Nicely done, 
> Please give us all the details on how it works out for you.
> C.A.G.
>
> --
> ok, some negatives and positives...the unit takes away 14" from my length 
> between centers...but in my case, that is not a problem...but it can be 
> removed in less than 5 minutes to get back the 14", should i ever need it 
> on a very long piece...thus the reason i wanted something im place that 
> would stay set up, ready to use...to do spiral work, simply turn the hex 
> nut pictured at the top of the motor base and the belt will loosen, thus 
> not turning the motor pulley and putting unnecessary strain on the gear 
> train...to use the motor spindle, simply loosen the screws on the shaft 
> collars, slide the collars out of the way, and remove the 1" rod connecting 
> the two headstocks...you are now ready for the higher speed spindle 
> work...the entire assembly moves with the legacy bed in regards to going up 
> or down and it was worked out so that a maximum turning diameter of 11+" 
> can still be achieved...if i should ever need more in regards to the 
> diameter, i can modify the wood base a bit to allow the motor more downward 
> adjustment...still need to mount the DC controller, probably on the z-axis 
> carriage, but did a quick-hook-up test and all is good...the legacy 
> headstock is not bolted or welded to the motor set up, so it locks to the 
> rails with the legacy hardware, as originally intended...will also be 
> making a cover for the pulley projecting up out of the headstock cross 
> bar...will continue this description as things come to me...joe
>
> On Monday, June 30, 2014 4:01:00 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>>
>> ok, start from the beginning...thought turning a workpiece faster than 
>> the legacy would normally allow, would have benefits doing certain 
>> jobs...and after a group search, seems a good amount feel the same...so i 
>> set out to do this mod...but also wanted to do it on the cheap so i 
>> remembered i had picked up a never used/new, baldor, 1/2 hp, 1725 rpm, 90 
>> volt DC motor...now before anyone starts saying that this is overkill for 
>> what it is expected to do, i will agree that it is a bit more than what is 
>> needed...but it is also a $500.00-plus motor that i picked up years ago for 
>> $10!...so i was determined to use it...and perhaps that extra torque could 
>> come in handy one day...i also wanted the set up to be on the machine at 
>> all times, with little to no machine-mod time to  to use it, not interfere 
>> with using the gears when necessary, not increase the foot print of the 
>> legacy itself, etc., etc...so i decided to incorporate the second head 
>> stock i had...and before mac chimes in, the only work done to that 
>> headstock was the slot cut into the top...otherwise no drilling, welding, 
>> etc. done to the headstock...so it still can be used as intended, if 
>> necessary...i also decided that there was no way i was going to spin 
>> anything 1725 rpm on the legacy, so i decided to use a 6" pulley on the 
>> headstock spindle and a 2" pulley on the motor...this knocked thing down a 
>> bit to 575 RPM...a DC controller gotten on ebay will take over from there 
>> to give me a nice range from 0 to 575 and if i ever get stupid enough to 
>> try it, i can play with the pulleys to increase the speed...but this set up 
>> will give me plenty of torque, if i should ever need it...the motor is 
>> mounted on an adjustable motor base that was modified a bit to shrink it's 
>> height down...this was just some cut-and weld work, no big deal...the motor 
>> base is welded to the two cross bars that can slide on the legacy rails, 
>> and the unit is locked down with legacy inserts that slide into the rails 
>> and some allen head bolts...it can come off easily by simply removing the 
>> four bolts and sliding the belt off the motor pulley...will continue this 
>> mod in a reply message
>>
>  -- 
> 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 

Re: spindle motor mod...done

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:13:30 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>
> update...first photo shows the dc controller mounted next to the legacy 
> controller for the lead screw...also a crank handle for the belt tension on 
> the spindle motor now makes belt adjustment possible without any tools 
> necessary...first time everything was in place and i  took the spindle 
> motor through its paces...first, the indexing head does not like the 
> spindle motor at all!...can't say i am surprised though...the indexing 
> accessory came in at about 14 lbs and just by looking at it you can see it 
> is not balanced...it was acceptable at about 1/4 of the controller's 
> range...1/2 setting was a big "maybe"...so at about 100-140 rpm, it was 
> fine...going up to 250-300 is questionable...but again, that is with the 
> indexing head in place, which really is intended for spiraling work and for 
> now i cannot think of a reason why i would want the indexing head on the 
> machine when using the spindle motor...take the indexing head off and all 
> is fine right up to 500-575 rpm...of course, this was all done without a 
> workpiece in place, which certainly can and most often does have balance 
> issues...and also do not anticipate spinning a workpiece at those high 
> rpm's anyway...a reversing will be installed into the controller at a later 
> date...so, all in all, i am pleased with the mod and fully expect it to do 
> the work it is intended to do, with no complications...switching from 
> straight spindle drive ( no gear attachments) to being attached to the the 
> gear train was fast and easy, as anticipated... the second photo shows the 
> controller, which was an ebay buy...total 120.00...total cost of this mod 
> (pulleys, belt, wire,motor base, controller, collars, paint, etc.,etc.) was 
> $300.00, not counting the cost of the motor, which i already had...labor, 
> i'll guess and say about 20 hours...have a few more things i would like to 
> make for this machine...a fully adjustable, following steady rest...saw 
> some posts on this topic and some good ideas that i would like to expand 
> on...also, a rolling storage cabinet for all the 
> accessories,mods,bits,adapters,etc. that have been piling up...think a 
> modern day holtzapffel cabinet (metal, not wood...this stuff has some 
> serious weight!...LOL)...and the big one!, linear bearings!...waiting to 
> see if i can score something on the cheap before breaking the bank for that 
> mod...all comments, suggestions,critiques, etc. welcome...thanks...joe
>
> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 1:35:50 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>>
>> curtis,
>>  part of my motivation to set-up, accessorize, modify, etc. this 
>> piece of machinery(to the extent that we do) is the fact that this extended 
>> machine is what sets us apart from other companies doing the same type of 
>> work as we do...to set it up so it is easy to use, easy to repair and looks 
>> professional will be to my benefit if i ever do need to sell the 
>> company...the machine will be a factor in the sale (if a sale should ever 
>> happen)...the other motivation is the fact that i enjoy restoring machinery 
>> and setting them up for ease of use...thanks for your comment(s)...more to 
>> come!
>>
>> On Monday, June 30, 2014 8:43:27 PM UTC-4, Curtis wrote:
>>>
>>> Joe you differently have a flair with your equipment, Nicely done, 
>>> Please give us all the details on how it works out for you.
>>> C.A.G.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ok, some negatives and positives...the unit takes away 14" from my 
>>> length between centers...but in my case, that is not a problem...but it can 
>>> be removed in less than 5 minutes to get back the 14", should i ever need 
>>> it on a very long piece...thus the reason i wanted something im place that 
>>> would stay set up, ready to use...to do spiral work, simply turn the hex 
>>> nut pictured at the top of the motor base and the belt will loosen, thus 
>>> not turning the motor pulley and putting unnecessary strain on the gear 
>>> train...to use the motor spindle, simply loosen the screws on the shaft 
>>> collars, slide the collars out of the way, and remove the 1" rod connecting 
>>> the two headstocks...you are now ready for the higher speed spindle 
>>> work...the entire assembly moves with the legacy bed in regards to going up 
>>> or down and it was worked out so that a maximum turning diameter of 11+" 
>>> can still be achieved...if i should ever need more in regards to the 
>>> diameter, i can modify the wood base a bit to allow the motor more downward 
>>> adjustment...still need to mount the DC controller, probably on the z-axis 
>>> carriage, but did a quick-hook-up test and all is good...the legacy 
>>> headstock is not bolted or welded to the motor set up, so it locks to the 
>>> rails with the legacy hardware, as originally intended...will also be 
>>> making a cover for the pulley projecting up out of the headstock cross 
>>> bar...will co

Re: spindle motor mod...done

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:13:30 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>
> update...first photo shows the dc controller mounted next to the legacy 
> controller for the lead screw...also a crank handle for the belt tension on 
> the spindle motor now makes belt adjustment possible without any tools 
> necessary...first time everything was in place and i  took the spindle 
> motor through its paces...first, the indexing head does not like the 
> spindle motor at all!...can't say i am surprised though...the indexing 
> accessory came in at about 14 lbs and just by looking at it you can see it 
> is not balanced...it was acceptable at about 1/4 of the controller's 
> range...1/2 setting was a big "maybe"...so at about 100-140 rpm, it was 
> fine...going up to 250-300 is questionable...but again, that is with the 
> indexing head in place, which really is intended for spiraling work and for 
> now i cannot think of a reason why i would want the indexing head on the 
> machine when using the spindle motor...take the indexing head off and all 
> is fine right up to 500-575 rpm...of course, this was all done without a 
> workpiece in place, which certainly can and most often does have balance 
> issues...and also do not anticipate spinning a workpiece at those high 
> rpm's anyway...a reversing will be installed into the controller at a later 
> date...so, all in all, i am pleased with the mod and fully expect it to do 
> the work it is intended to do, with no complications...switching from 
> straight spindle drive ( no gear attachments) to being attached to the the 
> gear train was fast and easy, as anticipated... the second photo shows the 
> controller, which was an ebay buy...total 120.00...total cost of this mod 
> (pulleys, belt, wire,motor base, controller, collars, paint, etc.,etc.) was 
> $300.00, not counting the cost of the motor, which i already had...labor, 
> i'll guess and say about 20 hours...have a few more things i would like to 
> make for this machine...a fully adjustable, following steady rest...saw 
> some posts on this topic and some good ideas that i would like to expand 
> on...also, a rolling storage cabinet for all the 
> accessories,mods,bits,adapters,etc. that have been piling up...think a 
> modern day holtzapffel cabinet (metal, not wood...this stuff has some 
> serious weight!...LOL)...and the big one!, linear bearings!...waiting to 
> see if i can score something on the cheap before breaking the bank for that 
> mod...all comments, suggestions,critiques, etc. welcome...thanks...joe
>
> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 1:35:50 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>>
>> curtis,
>>  part of my motivation to set-up, accessorize, modify, etc. this 
>> piece of machinery(to the extent that we do) is the fact that this extended 
>> machine is what sets us apart from other companies doing the same type of 
>> work as we do...to set it up so it is easy to use, easy to repair and looks 
>> professional will be to my benefit if i ever do need to sell the 
>> company...the machine will be a factor in the sale (if a sale should ever 
>> happen)...the other motivation is the fact that i enjoy restoring machinery 
>> and setting them up for ease of use...thanks for your comment(s)...more to 
>> come!
>>
>> On Monday, June 30, 2014 8:43:27 PM UTC-4, Curtis wrote:
>>>
>>> Joe you differently have a flair with your equipment, Nicely done, 
>>> Please give us all the details on how it works out for you.
>>> C.A.G.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ok, some negatives and positives...the unit takes away 14" from my 
>>> length between centers...but in my case, that is not a problem...but it can 
>>> be removed in less than 5 minutes to get back the 14", should i ever need 
>>> it on a very long piece...thus the reason i wanted something im place that 
>>> would stay set up, ready to use...to do spiral work, simply turn the hex 
>>> nut pictured at the top of the motor base and the belt will loosen, thus 
>>> not turning the motor pulley and putting unnecessary strain on the gear 
>>> train...to use the motor spindle, simply loosen the screws on the shaft 
>>> collars, slide the collars out of the way, and remove the 1" rod connecting 
>>> the two headstocks...you are now ready for the higher speed spindle 
>>> work...the entire assembly moves with the legacy bed in regards to going up 
>>> or down and it was worked out so that a maximum turning diameter of 11+" 
>>> can still be achieved...if i should ever need more in regards to the 
>>> diameter, i can modify the wood base a bit to allow the motor more downward 
>>> adjustment...still need to mount the DC controller, probably on the z-axis 
>>> carriage, but did a quick-hook-up test and all is good...the legacy 
>>> headstock is not bolted or welded to the motor set up, so it locks to the 
>>> rails with the legacy hardware, as originally intended...will also be 
>>> making a cover for the pulley projecting up out of the headstock cross 
>>> bar...will co

Re: spindle motor mod...done

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

sorry guys, that was me deleting...computer going a bit nuts...joe

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:20:44 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:13:30 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>>
>> update...first photo shows the dc controller mounted next to the legacy 
>> controller for the lead screw...also a crank handle for the belt tension on 
>> the spindle motor now makes belt adjustment possible without any tools 
>> necessary...first time everything was in place and i  took the spindle 
>> motor through its paces...first, the indexing head does not like the 
>> spindle motor at all!...can't say i am surprised though...the indexing 
>> accessory came in at about 14 lbs and just by looking at it you can see it 
>> is not balanced...it was acceptable at about 1/4 of the controller's 
>> range...1/2 setting was a big "maybe"...so at about 100-140 rpm, it was 
>> fine...going up to 250-300 is questionable...but again, that is with the 
>> indexing head in place, which really is intended for spiraling work and for 
>> now i cannot think of a reason why i would want the indexing head on the 
>> machine when using the spindle motor...take the indexing head off and all 
>> is fine right up to 500-575 rpm...of course, this was all done without a 
>> workpiece in place, which certainly can and most often does have balance 
>> issues...and also do not anticipate spinning a workpiece at those high 
>> rpm's anyway...a reversing will be installed into the controller at a later 
>> date...so, all in all, i am pleased with the mod and fully expect it to do 
>> the work it is intended to do, with no complications...switching from 
>> straight spindle drive ( no gear attachments) to being attached to the the 
>> gear train was fast and easy, as anticipated... the second photo shows the 
>> controller, which was an ebay buy...total 120.00...total cost of this mod 
>> (pulleys, belt, wire,motor base, controller, collars, paint, etc.,etc.) was 
>> $300.00, not counting the cost of the motor, which i already had...labor, 
>> i'll guess and say about 20 hours...have a few more things i would like to 
>> make for this machine...a fully adjustable, following steady rest...saw 
>> some posts on this topic and some good ideas that i would like to expand 
>> on...also, a rolling storage cabinet for all the 
>> accessories,mods,bits,adapters,etc. that have been piling up...think a 
>> modern day holtzapffel cabinet (metal, not wood...this stuff has some 
>> serious weight!...LOL)...and the big one!, linear bearings!...waiting to 
>> see if i can score something on the cheap before breaking the bank for that 
>> mod...all comments, suggestions,critiques, etc. welcome...thanks...joe
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 1:35:50 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>>>
>>> curtis,
>>>  part of my motivation to set-up, accessorize, modify, etc. this 
>>> piece of machinery(to the extent that we do) is the fact that this extended 
>>> machine is what sets us apart from other companies doing the same type of 
>>> work as we do...to set it up so it is easy to use, easy to repair and looks 
>>> professional will be to my benefit if i ever do need to sell the 
>>> company...the machine will be a factor in the sale (if a sale should ever 
>>> happen)...the other motivation is the fact that i enjoy restoring machinery 
>>> and setting them up for ease of use...thanks for your comment(s)...more to 
>>> come!
>>>
>>> On Monday, June 30, 2014 8:43:27 PM UTC-4, Curtis wrote:

 Joe you differently have a flair with your equipment, Nicely done, 
 Please give us all the details on how it works out for you.
 C.A.G.

 --
 ok, some negatives and positives...the unit takes away 14" from my 
 length between centers...but in my case, that is not a problem...but it 
 can 
 be removed in less than 5 minutes to get back the 14", should i ever need 
 it on a very long piece...thus the reason i wanted something im place that 
 would stay set up, ready to use...to do spiral work, simply turn the hex 
 nut pictured at the top of the motor base and the belt will loosen, thus 
 not turning the motor pulley and putting unnecessary strain on the gear 
 train...to use the motor spindle, simply loosen the screws on the shaft 
 collars, slide the collars out of the way, and remove the 1" rod 
 connecting 
 the two headstocks...you are now ready for the higher speed spindle 
 work...the entire assembly moves with the legacy bed in regards to going 
 up 
 or down and it was worked out so that a maximum turning diameter of 11+" 
 can still be achieved...if i should ever need more in regards to the 
 diameter, i can modify the wood base a bit to allow the motor more 
 downward 
 adjustment...still need to mount the DC controller, probably on the z-axis 
 carriage, but did a quick-hook-up test and all is good...the legacy 
 headstock is

Re: spindle motor mod...done

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

there are never any dumb questions!...took a piece that i had cut out from 
my tailstock mod, down to my local home depot to see if there was a 
match...they carry the rust-oleum brand of paints...rust-oleum "sunrise 
red", #7762, nails it, in my opinion...but to make things even a bit 
easier, i first sprayed the bare metal with rust-oleum "gloss apple red", 
#249124...this is one of those paint and primer combo spray paints 
eliminating spraying on a dedicated primer...the gloss apple red is close 
to the legacy color, but is just a shade off...so i then finished up with 
the sunrise red... and if i did miss a spot, you cannot tell...if you pick 
up a can, i would be interested to know what your opinion of the color 
match might be...joe

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:38:25 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>
>  
> Dumb question Joe, How did you match the paint color?
>  
> -Tim
>  
>

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: spindle motor mod...done

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

curtis,
 you are correct in that the indexing head would not be used when 
using the spindle drive motor set up...but it was there and i was just 
seeing how it might work with the motor drive...i'll file this test under 
the "you never know" file...thanks...joe

























On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:56:43 PM UTC-4, Curtis wrote:
>
> Hay Joe (Dinner will be done in a min. or two.so I need to keep this one 
> fast.)
>
> Indexing head? Why??? 
> Let me say this, The way that  I see this attachment being used on the 
> Legacy, is for making round spindle (straight or tapered), not for doing 
> any other roping or such. that can all be done after the spindle has been 
> made round. I think of it as a big step #1 and then other steps can follow. 
> ((( 
> Its dinner time )))
>
> talk to you more latter.
> C.A.G.
>
> --
> sorry guys, that was me deleting...computer going a bit nuts...joe
>
> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:20:44 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:13:30 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>>>
>>> update...first photo shows the dc controller mounted next to the legacy 
>>> controller for the lead screw...also a crank handle for the belt tension on 
>>> the spindle motor now makes belt adjustment possible without any tools 
>>> necessary...first time everything was in place and i  took the spindle 
>>> motor through its paces...first, the indexing head does not like the 
>>> spindle motor at all!...can't say i am surprised though...the indexing 
>>> accessory came in at about 14 lbs and just by looking at it you can see it 
>>> is not balanced...it was acceptable at about 1/4 of the controller's 
>>> range...1/2 setting was a big "maybe"...so at about 100-140 rpm, it was 
>>> fine...going up to 250-300 is questionable...but again, that is with the 
>>> indexing head in place, which really is intended for spiraling work and for 
>>> now i cannot think of a reason why i would want the indexing head on the 
>>> machine when using the spindle motor...take the indexing head off and all 
>>> is fine right up to 500-575 rpm...of course, this was all done without a 
>>> workpiece in place, which certainly can and most often does have balance 
>>> issues...and also do not anticipate spinning a workpiece at those high 
>>> rpm's anyway...a reversing will be installed into the controller at a later 
>>> date...so, all in all, i am pleased with the mod and fully expect it to do 
>>> the work it is intended to do, with no complications...switching from 
>>> straight spindle drive ( no gear attachments) to being attached to the the 
>>> gear train was fast and easy, as anticipated... the second photo shows the 
>>> controller, which was an ebay buy...total 120.00...total cost of this mod 
>>> (pulleys, belt, wire,motor base, controller, collars, paint, etc.,etc.) was 
>>> $300.00, not counting the cost of the motor, which i already had...labor, 
>>> i'll guess and say about 20 hours...have a few more things i would like to 
>>> make for this machine...a fully adjustable, following steady rest...saw 
>>> some posts on this topic and some good ideas that i would like to expand 
>>> on...also, a rolling storage cabinet for all the 
>>> accessories,mods,bits,adapters,etc. that have been piling up...think a 
>>> modern day holtzapffel cabinet (metal, not wood...this stuff has some 
>>> serious weight!...LOL)...and the big one!, linear bearings!...waiting to 
>>> see if i can score something on the cheap before breaking the bank for that 
>>> mod...all comments, suggestions,critiques, etc. welcome...thanks...joe
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 1:35:50 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:

 curtis,
  part of my motivation to set-up, accessorize, modify, etc. 
 this piece of machinery(to the extent that we do) is the fact that this 
 extended machine is what sets us apart from other companies doing the same 
 type of work as we do...to set it up so it is easy to use, easy to repair 
 and looks professional will be to my benefit if i ever do need to sell the 
 company...the machine will be a factor in the sale (if a sale should ever 
 happen)...the other motivation is the fact that i enjoy restoring 
 machinery 
 and setting them up for ease of use...thanks for your comment(s)...more to 
 come!

 On Monday, June 30, 2014 8:43:27 PM UTC-4, Curtis wrote:
>
> Joe you differently have a flair with your equipment, Nicely done, 
> Please give us all the details on how it works out for you.
> C.A.G.
>
> --
> ok, some negatives and positives...the unit takes away 14" from my 
> length between centers...but in my case, that is not a problem...but it 
> can 
> be removed in less than 5 minutes to get back the 14", should i ever need 
> it on a very long piece...thus the reason i wanted something im place 
> that 
> would stay 

Re: spindle motor mod...done

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

curtis,
 boy, you are keeping me busy today!...LOL!...we do not use the 
legacy to do what i would call traditional turning work, like most of the 
legacy owner's use the machine to do...so the spindle drive set up is going 
to be used for other situations...one of which is doing long, small 
diameter, bamboo poles...when we do a "turned" bamboo pole( we also do a 
hand carved version of a bamboo pole), there are what we call "knuckles" 
every 7" or so...these knuckles are of a larger diameter than the pole 
itself... that is, between the knuckles...so, using the spindle drive, you 
can use the right combination of router bits to make a "knuckle", then 
switch to a bit that will turn down the area between the knuckles to 
achieve a slightly smaller diameter, then do the next knuckle, and so on 
until the pole is done...this is just one style of pole we do that i feel 
the spindle drive will be a big help...thanks...joe

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:48:52 PM UTC-4, Curtis wrote:
>
>
>
> --
> Hello Joe
> As I already said, you have a flair at it, Your tooling looks great. I for 
> myself, have always worked towards the side of function over appearance , 
> (that is until I started working with my Legacy, some years ago.)
>  I give the use of the Legacy credit for my change of view, but perhaps 
> its just my age/time of my life that caused a change of objectives? Even 
> having said that, my tools tend to lean on the side of function, 
> rarely  end up with a tool that looks pretty.( like you spindle motor.)
> Having said that, I think you will find if your spindle moves at something 
> like 200 rpm and make the drive motor crawl over the length of the spindle, 
> you will end up with a spindle that is smooth as glass that will need 
> almost no sanding, The spindle drive motor will also make the Legacy's 
> template follower work like it was meant to,(meaning very well, almost up 
> to PRO. level.) (there still are a few tricks that need to be done before 
> it reaches that state.) But I will let you experiment with that,before I 
> put in my two cents worth of it. on that topic. :-) 
>
> I have to run!
> Keep up the good work JOE. and Please keep us up to date on your projects.
> C.A.G.
>
> --
> curtis,
>  part of my motivation to set-up, accessorize, modify, etc. this 
> piece of machinery(to the extent that we do) is the fact that this extended 
> machine is what sets us apart from other companies doing the same type of 
> work...to set it up so it is easy to use, easy to repair and looks 
> professional will be to my benefit if i ever do need to sell the 
> company...the machine will be a factor in the sale (if a sale should ever 
> happen)...the other motivation is the fact that i enjoy restoring machinery 
> and setting them up for ease of use...thanks for your comment(s)...more to 
> come!
>
> On Monday, June 30, 2014 8:43:27 PM UTC-4, Curtis wrote:
>>
>> Joe you differently have a flair with your equipment, Nicely done, 
>> Please give us all the details on how it works out for you.
>> C.A.G.
>>
>> --
>> ok, some negatives and positives...the unit takes away 14" from my length 
>> between centers...but in my case, that is not a problem...but it can be 
>> removed in less than 5 minutes to get back the 14", should i ever need it 
>> on a very long piece...thus the reason i wanted something im place that 
>> would stay set up, ready to use...to do spiral work, simply turn the hex 
>> nut pictured at the top of the motor base and the belt will loosen, thus 
>> not turning the motor pulley and putting unnecessary strain on the gear 
>> train...to use the motor spindle, simply loosen the screws on the shaft 
>> collars, slide the collars out of the way, and remove the 1" rod connecting 
>> the two headstocks...you are now ready for the higher speed spindle 
>> work...the entire assembly moves with the legacy bed in regards to going up 
>> or down and it was worked out so that a maximum turning diameter of 11+" 
>> can still be achieved...if i should ever need more in regards to the 
>> diameter, i can modify the wood base a bit to allow the motor more downward 
>> adjustment...still need to mount the DC controller, probably on the z-axis 
>> carriage, but did a quick-hook-up test and all is good...the legacy 
>> headstock is not bolted or welded to the motor set up, so it locks to the 
>> rails with the legacy hardware, as originally intended...will also be 
>> making a cover for the pulley projecting up out of the headstock cross 
>> bar...will continue this description as things come to me...joe
>>
>> On Monday, June 30, 2014 4:01:00 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>>>
>>> ok, start from the beginning...thought turning a workpiece faster than 
>>> the legacy would normally allow, would have benefits doing certain 
>>> jobs...and after a group search, seems a good amount feel the same...so i 
>>> set out to do 

Re: spindle motor mod...done

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

mac,
that was not me...and i am not a pilot...lol...not very computer 
savvy myself, but i'll take a guess that was someone hacking into the group 
and trying to get a member to respond to their e-mail...i'll assume they 
get some kind of financial benefit if they can get anyone to respond...and 
the "shout out" is all in jest...need to find some humor in all of 
this...lol...and as far as making a mod look as well as it might perform is 
a carry over from what we do here in the shop, where we are expected to be 
detail oriented when it comes to furniture restoration or fabrication...the 
people we work for demand and expect perfection...we don't always get 
there, but we try awfully hard!...thanks for the reply...joe

On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 9:39:13 PM UTC-4, Va Oak wrote:
>
>
> Joe,
>
> Something really "weird" just happened.  When I accessed my emails, The 
> "From" address on this one read "p-61_...@comcast.net ".  I 
> thought P-61 - never heard of it; P-51, yes; I wonder who thos "newbie" to 
> The Group is.  When I opened it, I found it was from you.  I now can't seem 
> to get it to repeat what I saw.
> Were you a pilot? P-61?
> Just curious how this occurred.  Perhaps Tim can shed some light on this 
> one.
>
> I have enjoyed AND *Appreciated* your recent posts re: the spindle motor 
> mod.  I saw your "shout out" to me. :-)
> Your mod is fantastic looking - and I am sure it will perform as well as 
> it looks - kinda like Sandra Bullock or Katherine Zeta Jones.
>
> Have a Happy and SAFE 4th!!!
> Mac
> --
> --
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
> Sent: Jul 1, 2014 6:07 PM 
> To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> Subject: Re: spindle motor mod...done 
>
> there are never any dumb questions!...took a piece that i had cut out from 
> my tailstock mod, down to my local home depot to see if there was a 
> match...they carry the rust-oleum brand of paints...rust-oleum "sunrise 
> red", #7762, nails it, in my opinion...but to make things even a bit 
> easier, i first sprayed the bare metal with rust-oleum "gloss apple red", 
> #249124...this is one of those paint and primer combo spray paints 
> eliminating spraying on a dedicated primer...the gloss apple red is close 
> to the legacy color, but is just a shade off...so i then finished up with 
> the sunrise red... and if i did miss a spot, you cannot tell...if you pick 
> up a can, i would be interested to know what your opinion of the color 
> match might be...joe
>
> On Tuesday, July 1, 2014 5:38:25 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>>
>>  
>> Dumb question Joe, How did you match the paint color?
>>  
>> -Tim
>>  
>>
>  -- 
> 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 from it, send an email 
to legacy-ornamental-mills+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Matching Paint Color

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

thanks tim for the confirmation...if it's good for you it's good for me...a 
question or two...what is a RAL number?...and what is arduino?...if it's a 
software program of some type, no detailed explanation necessary...right 
now not into the computer controlled thing, although i do have the cnc 
performance package legacy sold back in the late 2000's that came with the 
1800 i picked up last year...thanks...joe 

On Saturday, July 12, 2014 6:51:28 AM UTC-4, Curtis wrote:
>
> Looks very nice Tim.
> I cant wait to hear how your new "Toy" works out.
> I wish you Luck.
> C.A.G.
>
> --
> Hi Roger, 
>  
> I could not tell you the RAL number.  
>  
> The part is a Tim special that I'm building for myself.  I'm working on an 
> Arduino controlled turn table.  The turn table is an Ebay special from 
> 2007.  It's got a 5.5:1 drive ratio and does not use a worm drive to 
> achieve rotation.  This means zero measurable backlash.  It's going on my 
> model 200.  The idea is inspired by an article in Digital Machinist 
> magazine.  That means I'm only partially flying blind, it's a nice 
> opportunity to exercise my programming, electrical and mechanical skills. 
>  
> -Tim
>  
>
> - Original Message - 
> *From:* Roger P  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:31 AM
> *Subject:* Re: Matching Paint Color
>
>   
>  Great Tim
> Now we know the colour can we have the RAL Number and the real question 
> is, what is the item in the picture another Tim special?
> Regards
> Euro Roger
>  
>  
>
>  -- 
> 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 from it, send an email 
to legacy-ornamental-mills+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Matching Paint Color

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

tim,thanks for the explanations...i'll assume roger cannot get rust-oleum 
paints...right now i cannot think of any use we might have for the circular 
table on the legacy( i do have the accessory)...30 years of making 
furniture and various other decorative items, the need for a spiral on a 
rosette has never come up...and if it did(my memory is a bit spotty at 
times!), unless we needed a good number of pieces, we simply did the work 
by hand...if it was straight cuts, we always did the work on our shaper 
with a french spindle...i will admit though, i have seen what the 
computerized machines can do and it is very impressive...but for where my 
business is at at this time, for what i see coming up in the next several 
years and for what my customers need, i do not see investing in computer 
equipment prudent for my shop...plus it would be up to yours truly to do 
the programming and i don't see that happening either...but i do find it 
interesting...perhaps we can see your mod when it is 
done...again,thanks...joe

On Saturday, July 12, 2014 6:57:55 PM UTC-4, Tim wrote:
>
> 
> RAL is a number system for defining paint colors.  Similar to RGB or 
> Pantone that we would use over here. 
>  
> Arduino is a small platform circuit board that allows a programmable 
> platform that works with various hardware.  Basically it's a mini 
> computer.  When done I'll be able to type in a number of indexes and the 
> indexer will make it happen.  I'll just hit a button to go to the next 
> index.  I'll also be able to enter a program of degrees so is I wanted to 
> go from zero to 45 to 95 to 118 to 240 to 350 and back to zero I will be 
> able to.  It will also jog or constantly turn.  All of this without having 
> a PC in the shop.  In theory, that is where I'm going.  If not I'll bring 
> the PC into the shop and run it as a cnc A axis like a normal pc based cnc 
> operates.  I'm Just trying to limit g-code and software steps. 
>  
> -Tim
>  
>
> - Original Message - 
> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Cc:* curtg...@wowway.com  
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 12, 2014 3:29 PM
> *Subject:* Re: Matching Paint Color
>
> thanks tim for the confirmation...if it's good for you it's good for 
> me...a question or two...what is a RAL number?...and what is arduino?...if 
> it's a software program of some type, no detailed explanation 
> necessary...right now not into the computer controlled thing, although i do 
> have the cnc performance package legacy sold back in the late 2000's that 
> came with the 1800 i picked up last year...thanks...joe 
>
> On Saturday, July 12, 2014 6:51:28 AM UTC-4, Curtis wrote: 
>>
>>  Looks very nice Tim. 
>> I cant wait to hear how your new "Toy" works out.
>> I wish you Luck.
>> C.A.G.
>>
>> --
>> Hi Roger, 
>>  
>> I could not tell you the RAL number.  
>>  
>> The part is a Tim special that I'm building for myself.  I'm working on 
>> an Arduino controlled turn table.  The turn table is an Ebay special from 
>> 2007.  It's got a 5.5:1 drive ratio and does not use a worm drive to 
>> achieve rotation.  This means zero measurable backlash.  It's going on my 
>> model 200.  The idea is inspired by an article in Digital Machinist 
>> magazine.  That means I'm only partially flying blind, it's a nice 
>> opportunity to exercise my programming, electrical and mechanical skills. 
>>  
>> -Tim
>>  
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> *From:* Roger P 
>> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
>> *Sent:* Saturday, July 12, 2014 12:31 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: Matching Paint Color
>>
>>   
>>  Great Tim
>> Now we know the colour can we have the RAL Number and the real question 
>> is, what is the item in the picture another Tim special?
>> Regards
>> Euro Roger
>>  
>>  
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 unsubscrib

Re: Legacy support cabinet... a la holtzapffel

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

ok gavin, to be totally honest here, the original plan was to cover the 
whole cabinet, upper and lower, with oak panels and mouldings...the lower 
section was to have hinged storage doors on the sides(much like the front 
panels on the second holtzapffel photo), a pull out shelf from the center 
piece and a few other goodies...in looking back i am actually proud at how 
i restrained myself on this one!...LOL!...and there are times i don't 
remember all the crap i have... i sometimes banged my head against a wall 
trying to figure out how to set up for a particular operation when i 
suddenly remember "i have the adapter to do this!"...maybe i should 
consider a  reference manual to go with the cabinet...lol!...but it's all 
good...if nothing else, maybe this post  will drag some group members out 
of hibernation...thanks for the reply...next!


On Thursday, July 17, 2014 4:24:09 PM UTC-4, Gavin wrote:
>
> Joe,
> Wow!, are you sure you couldn't squeeze another draw/flap/shelf in 
> somewhere!?
> That is an amazing storage cabinet ~ how do you remember where you have 
> parked everything?
> Legacy Widow
>
>
> On 17 July 2014 20:13, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills <
> legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> ok, time for the insane!...lol!...the upper cabinet being 18" deep, i 
>> knew i needed some easy modifications to get all the pieces i wanted into 
>> it...so the depth was divided into three "layers" and each layer split into 
>> two...the front layer has two sections, both on piano hinges and swing out 
>> just a bit more than 90 degrees...wish it swung out more, but in life. 
>> there are compromises!...each shelf can come out as if it were a 
>> tray...there are slots in the ends of the shelves that slide onto pieces 
>> that are screwed into the sides of each section...this way, the shelves are 
>> easily adjustable...the middle layer has one section that slides left or 
>> right to gain access to the last layer...again, all layers have the same 
>> "tray" type shelf...the back, right section that holds all the gears and 
>> index plates has a hinged partition to double up the storage in that 
>> section...the middle and back sections are all individual boxes that can be 
>> interchanged, if desired...what you are looking at are head stock 
>> accessories...chucks, thread adapters(virtually covers all popular lathe 
>> thread sizes),spur drives, face plates, live centers(various types), router 
>> bits, and other specialty pieces we have made to do repetitive work...it 
>> was a fun project that did take a decent amount of time, but not at a great 
>> expense...for the time being, that is the end of the machine upgrades and 
>> mods...will now spend my free time looking for the hardware i need for some 
>> other mods i would like to do, which i expect will take a good amount of 
>> time...as always, comments, suggestions and critiques are 
>> welcome...thanks...joe 
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, July 17, 2014 2:28:56 PM UTC-4, joe biunno wrote:
>>>
>>> well, i'll begin by saying the group should have a good time busting my 
>>> chops for this, but, what the hell, this is what we do!...LOL!...things 
>>> were getting a bit out of hand with mods, accessories, tooling, bits, etc., 
>>> so it seemed appropriate to have a way to store and organize 
>>> everything...the inspiration coming from the Holtzapffel cabinets that i 
>>> have seen in the past(2nd picture)...i had the bottom cabinet(garage sale 
>>> find), an older mac tool cabinet with 8 drawers, so very little spent 
>>> there...purchased the upper section because i wanted a metal cabinet due to 
>>> the weight it had to hold and i wanted glass/plastic in the doors...the 
>>> wood base moulding, middle and crown mouldings just helped to make the 
>>> transitions between the upper and lower cabinets look a bit better and to 
>>> give it a "woodworking" look...would have liked to have made the whole 
>>> cabinet in wood, but time, money, weight-hold capabilities, etc. dictated 
>>> otherwise...the upper, thinner drawers are great to hold all the nuts, 
>>> bolts and screws that is leftover from various mods(and for future 
>>> work!)...upper cabinet reduced in height a bit, so overall, cabinet is 76 
>>> 1/4" high to easily fit through a doorway...low profile, ball bearing, 
>>> swivel casters(swap meet find!) make it easy to move around...and of 
>>> course, painted, legacy red...the upper cabinet is where the fun 
>>> begins...photos and details in second post...joe
&

Re: Legacy 1200 in Topeka Kanas for sale

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

"reserve not met" tells you that there is a minimum...it's anyone's guess 
as to what the minimum might be...joe

On Thursday, September 4, 2014 4:36:17 PM UTC-4, Curtis wrote:
>
> Hello everyone, just a heads up on a possible good deal for someone. I 
> have no idea on if there is a min. but at $100.00  This one looks to good 
> not to look at. ;-)
> By the way it is local pick up only.
> C.A.G.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> http://www.ebay.com/itm/LEGACY-1200-ORNAMENTAL-MILL-/331309199867?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item4d239131fb
>
>
>
> *Mouse over to Zoom-Click to enlarge*
> Click to view larger image and other views
>
>- [image: LEGACY-1200-ORNAMENTAL-MILL]
>- [image: LEGACY-1200-ORNAMENTAL-MILL]
>- [image: LEGACY-1200-ORNAMENTAL-MILL]
>
> *Have one to sell?* Sell now 
> 
> LEGACY 1200 ORNAMENTAL MILL
>
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> | Add to watch list 
> 
> Seller information
> camaro8589  (41 
> 
>  )
> 100% Positive feedback
>  Follow this seller 
> 
> See other items 
> 
> AdChoice
> Item condition:
> Used
> Time left:
> 5d 18h (Sep 10, 2014 07:41:13 PDT)
> Current bid:
> US $100.00
> Reserve not met
> [ 1 bid 
> 
>  ]
>  
> Place bid 
> 
>  
> Enter US $102.50 or more
>  
>  
> Add to watch list 
> 
> Add to collection 
> 
> 100% positive feedback
> Free local pickup
> [image: PayPal Credit]*Spend $99+ and get 6 months to pay*
> Subject to credit approval. See terms- opens in a new window or tab 
> 
> Shipping:
> Free Local Pickup | See details 
> 
>  
> Item location:
> http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Have YOU made a "splice" like this?

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

okay, being the pessimist that i am, here goes...a few observations, in no 
particular order...1) this seems to be a beam that is to be used in exposed 
wood construction. i would think it would not pass our building codes. but 
we do not know the length of the beam, so can't say for sure 2) is it 
practical to do this type of joinery, when thinking of a building budget? i 
would think a lot of us could do this joint after seeing this video, but 
exactly how much time does it take to complete it? i am in a business where 
i have seen people spend ridiculously large amounts of money on making 
things, but even so, every job has a balance between artistry and budget. 
but i will assume this temple's construction budget warrants this type of 
intense labor 3)regarding that driven-in wedge. the grain of the wood seems 
to run the length of the wedge. question-if the wedge should shrink over 
time, would that compromise the joint? since the tightness of the wedge is 
what keeps everything tightly together. not saying that the joint would 
ever separate,obviously, but still, would the beam ever sag just a bit, 
because of wood shrinkage? even the small tab at the end of the joint, if 
it shrinks, could cause a bit of sagging, perhaps...personally, i would go 
with laminated, solid wood(not the "strand" stuff) beams with decorative 
iron joist hangers and/or brackets and braces...when it comes to a roof 
over my head, i'll go with strength (with small bit of artistry) over pure 
artistry every time...but i do find it interesting...thanks for the post 
and all comebacks welcome!

On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 12:37:20 AM UTC-4, Va Oak wrote:
>
> Mike,
> Thanks for sharing the link - I hadn't seen it.
> That's what you call "precision joinery on a MASSIVE scale"!  I am 
> impressed at how well it all seems to fit together so tightly.  Appears the 
> only metal/steel used in the construction of the temple is in the blades 
> used to make the cuts - NOT in screws & bolts.  Amazing!
> I can't help but wonder - this method of construction must be more 
> seismically compatible - vs using bolts/screws.  What do you think?
> I shudder at thinking what this would cost to do in North America.  It 
> would probably never pass "code" either.
> Any bets that Joe B. in NYC is already figuring out how to make these in 
> his "Big Bertha"?  LoL 
> (Joe - you there?)
> Mac
> --
> --
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: "Okla Mike (Liltwisted)" 
> Sent: Oct 28, 2014 9:03 PM 
> To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> Subject: Re: Have YOU made a "splice" like this? 
>
> Intro Video
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuBBDDOSSY0
>  On 10/28/2014 8:03 PM, Okla Mike (Liltwisted) wrote:
>  
> Look at their intro video, it shows quite a few of their joints in 
> construction of a temple.
>
> Mike
> OK
>  On 10/28/2014 6:41 PM, CURTIS GEORGE wrote:
>  
>  Hello Mac.
> Now that's impressive!  The machine is pretty Cool, but that interlocking 
> wedge joint is something that I would like to learn more about .
> Thanks for the heads up. 
> C.A.G.
>
>  --
> *From: *mwfo...@earthlink.net 
> *To: *"LOM - Tim"  
> *Sent: *Tuesday, October 28, 2014 3:59:19 PM
> *Subject: *Have YOU made a "splice" like this?
>
>  I know that some of ya'll will end up trying to replicate what this 
> craftsman is seen doing.
> (Joe - that includes you.  Send us pics of you making this joint.)
>
>  
> http://www.toolsofthetrade.net/hand-tools/a-traditional-locking-scarf-jointnot-so-traditionally-made_o.aspx?utm_source=newsletter&utm_content=jump&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=JLCNL_102314&day=2014-10-23&he=1b08e8b0803fc50bb62caed67108d12dfaaabc74
>
>  Enjoy.
>
>  Mac
>
>  

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Have YOU made a "splice" like this?

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

"often wonder how they achieved what they did achieve"...perhaps this can 
be answered like a lot of other seemingly impossible builds are answered 
lately...ALIEN INTERVENTION!...LOL!...all kidding aside, i have found in 42 
years of work that necessity is the mother of invention...and with team 
work, amazing things can be accomplished and/or made...joe 

On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 2:17:26 PM UTC-4, ITwoodwork wrote:
>
>   Hi Guys
> Very interesting video and nice to see that craftsmanship still exists. 
> Thinking about it there is nothing new there and I am not belittling it but 
> in Europe buildings have passed the test of time using these techniques, in 
> fact people love to buy barn conversions that normally incorporate this 
> type of construction and they pay top $.
>  
> I look at old buildings when I drive around the UK and often wonder how 
> they achieved what they did achieve. Take my home town, well it was really 
> a village when I was a boy, of Portchester in southern England. It has a 
> castle dating back to Roman times 
> http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/portchester-castle/ 
> and then a little further in land there is Salisbury Cathedral 
> http://www.salisburycathedral.org.uk/ with its spire around 400 feet tall 
> built in 1230. You have to ask yourself how did they achieve these wondrous 
> feats and without building regulations and the tools we take for granted. 
>  
> Portchester is at the top of Portsmouth Harbour and in the City of 
> Portsmouth we have two famous wooden ships. The Mary Rose built in 1510 
> http://www.maryrose.org/discover-our-collection/story-of-the-ship/henry-viii-the-mary-rose/
>  
> served King Henry VIII for 35 years before going base over apex and 
> sinking, allegedly tacking and firing a broadside at the French, this is a 
> well known English hobby. She was raised a few years ago 
> http://www.maryrose.org/discover-our-collection/story-of-the-ship/henry-viii-the-mary-rose/and
>  
> has yielded much knowledge about her construction. Then we have HMS 
> Victory, flagship of Admiral Horatio Nelson, and again a marvel of wooden 
> construction launched in 1765 
> http://www.historicdockyard.co.uk/hmsvictory/ .
>  
> Having been able to see these things as a child without lots of parental 
> control must be part of the reason I like wood working and associated 
> tools. It has just occurred to me that even while I was in the Royal Air 
> Force working on Radar the radar towers were 350 feet tall and of wooden 
> construction, and bloody scary to climb and being right on the cliff tops 
> they would move with the North Sea winds.  
>  
> Bring back hand tools!
> Regards
> Radar Roger
>  
>   
>  *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills  
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 29, 2014 5:08 PM
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Cc:* mwfo...@earthlink.net  
> *Subject:* Re: Have YOU made a "splice" like this?
>  
>  okay, being the pessimist that i am, here goes...a few observations, in 
> no particular order...1) this seems to be a beam that is to be used in 
> exposed wood construction. i would think it would not pass our building 
> codes. but we do not know the length of the beam, so can't say for sure 2) 
> is it practical to do this type of joinery, when thinking of a building 
> budget? i would think a lot of us could do this joint after seeing this 
> video, but exactly how much time does it take to complete it? i am in a 
> business where i have seen people spend ridiculously large amounts of money 
> on making things, but even so, every job has a balance between artistry and 
> budget. but i will assume this temple's construction budget warrants this 
> type of intense labor 3)regarding that driven-in wedge. the grain of the 
> wood seems to run the length of the wedge. question-if the wedge should 
> shrink over time, would that compromise the joint? since the tightness of 
> the wedge is what keeps everything tightly together. not saying that the 
> joint would ever separate,obviously, but still, would the beam ever sag 
> just a bit, because of wood shrinkage? even the small tab at the end of the 
> joint, if it shrinks, could cause a bit of sagging, perhaps...personally, i 
> would go with laminated, solid wood(not the "strand" stuff) beams with 
> decorative iron joist hangers and/or brackets and braces...when it comes to 
> a roof over my head, i'll go with strength (with small bit of artistry) 
> over pure artistry every time...but i do find it interesting...thanks for 
> the post and all comebacks welcome!
>
> On Wednesday, October 29, 2014 12:37:20 AM UTC-4, Va Oak wrote: 
>>
>>  Mike,
>> Thanks for sharing th

Re: Drive Motor Dayton 4Z128B or 4Z381A

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

not a bad machine for doing smaller work...LMAO!...THIS! is the piece of 
equipment that will get curtis to the promised land... 
  http://youtu.be/0zVD22NqgSc   ...a business friend of mine just picked 
this piece up...10ft between centers...totally CNC controlled with an 
automatic tool changer head...impressive piece of equipment...a legacy on 
some serious steroids!

On Monday, November 3, 2014 8:56:49 PM UTC-5, Curtis wrote:
>
> Dont worry about me NOT sleeping tonight, Mike, I will be dreaming of 
> making a barley twisted telephone pole. ;-)
> Have a good night.
> C.A.G.
>
> --
> *From: *"Okla Mike (Liltwisted)" >
> *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Sent: *Monday, November 3, 2014 8:18:51 PM
> *Subject: *Re: Drive Motor Dayton 4Z128B or 4Z381A
>
> We know who won't be sleeping tonight
> On 11/3/2014 4:21 PM, CURTIS GEORGE wrote:
>
> "O"Man ! I think Im in love.  What a machine!  turning a 1500lb log! a 
> moving carriage That's AWESOME! thanks Bill.
> C.A.G.
>
> --
> *From: *"Bill Bulkeley"  
> *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Sent: *Monday, November 3, 2014 6:08:09 AM
> *Subject: *RE: Drive Motor Dayton 4Z128B or 4Z381A
>
> Maybe this is the one he wanted to show
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvw3doJiAV4&list=TLWhCw_hiQUfE
>
> Bill
>
>  
>
> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  [
> mailto:legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf 
> Of *CURTIS GEORGE
> *Sent:* Monday, 3 November 2014 8:09 PM
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: Drive Motor Dayton 4Z128B or 4Z381A
>
>  
>
> YES. I too was finally able to open his link, the
> *Woodworking - Laguna Tools Mortiser - Platinum Series Hollow Chisel 
> Mortiser  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyrj5QJJUzs 
> ) is what I saw as well, Nice 
> machinery but not quite what I expected to see, I guess Alex. was just 
> stating that he is buying expensive high quality tools for his shop, and my 
> squabbling about prices are not justified. He is going to get what he 
> wants," and Dam the torpedo's" Nothing is going to stop him. ;-) **C.A.G.*
>
>  
> --
>
> *From: *mwfo...@earthlink.net 
> *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 7:03:39 PM
> *Subject: *Re: Drive Motor Dayton 4Z128B or 4Z381A
>
>  
>
> Curtis,
> I was able to view a YouTube video using the number that Alexsandr had in 
> his link (link would not cooperate for me either).  
> Go to YouTube.com and put this code in their search box line:
>
>  
>
> v = lyrj5QJJUzs
>
>  
>
> I'm not positive that that is what he wanted us to see - its a Laguna Tool 
> mortiser.  Other than that, I don't know what he is wanting/expecting us to 
> see.
>
>  
>
> Mac
> --
> --
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: CURTIS GEORGE 
> Sent: Nov 2, 2014 6:48 AM 
> To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> Subject: Re: Drive Motor Dayton 4Z128B or 4Z381A 
>
>  
>
> Alex.  I can get your link to work. could you re-post it?
>
> C.A.G.
>
>  
> --
>
> *From: *"Александр Ткач"  
> *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Sent: *Sunday, November 2, 2014 1:25:03 AM
> *Subject: *Re: Drive Motor Dayton 4Z128B or 4Z381A
>
>  
>
> In Ukraine, there is also the city of Odessa, where I live it is far from 
> the US. I have already brought the machine https://www.youtube.com/watch? 
> v = lyrj5QJJUzs & feature = youtube_gdata_player.Aleksandr.
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>
> -- 
> 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.
>
>  
>
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5315 / Virus Database: 4189/8499 - Release Date: 11/02/14
>
> -- 
> 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 from it, send an 
> email to legacy-ornamental-mills+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to

Re: Inside-out turning video

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

ok mac, i see where you want to go with this...a little "legacy" envy 
perhaps?...LOL!...but hey!, it is what it is...i'll volunteer an update to 
give you some additional comeback fodder...still waiting for the linear 
bearing gods to shine down on me before i can do that mod...might come as a 
surprise to mac, but i do have budget issues!...the machine is running fine 
with the top hats in place, so no great necessity to do that upgrade...all 
the bells and whistles i made for the machine are working just as i had 
intended them to, so no quirks there...on the horizon, i am thinking of 
trying to increase the diameter capacity of my "monster mill"...why? you 
ask...because bigger is better...just ask mac...have everything worked out, 
except the meshing of the gears...has this subject ever been discussed in 
this group before?...anyone care to offer any ideas?...recently acquired a 
two spindle carving machine...and, of course, modifying it a bit to better 
suite our needs...and certainly a happy holiday season to all, including 
mac!...LMAO!...joe "if we buy it, we modify it!" biunno

On Friday, December 12, 2014 12:26:31 AM UTC-5, Va Oak wrote:
>
> I like your suggestion to just make the ornament stock a couple inches 
> longer and lop off the glued ends to separate them.
> I was jesting re: you celebrating Christmas on an "opposite cycle" (in 
> your mid-winter) from the northern hemisphere - 25 December is 25 December 
> everywhere (within 24 hrs) - same for 1 January.   :-)
> Of course Joe w/the Monster Mill in New York will tell us that NO ONE 
> celebrates New Year's like they do in New York!  Right, Joe?
> Mac
> --
> --
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: Bill Bulkeley 
> Sent: Dec 11, 2014 9:43 PM 
> To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> Subject: RE: Inside-out turning video 
>
>  No our Christmas and new year is at the same time the difference here is 
> the summer holidays start strait after Christmas so instead of just a long 
> week end for Christmas it’s like 4 weeks long
>
> Better for the kids i feel and one of the pass times here at Christmas is 
> swimming be a bit hard getting through all that ice over your way to do 
> that lolol
>
>  
>
> As for the inside out ornament, splitting it in half instead of doing it 
> like the guy in the video did just make your blank longer and cut the glued 
> ends off with the drop saw to get them apart much easier
>
> Bill
>
>  
>
>  
>
>  
>  
> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *
> mwfo...@earthlink.net 
> *Sent:* Friday, 12 December 2014 12:36 PM
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: Inside-out turning video
>  
>  
>  
> Curtis,
> Thank you for sharing that link.  That is a beautiful piece.  I just wish 
> I could understand Italian (I think that's what he was speaking.) - I'd 
> have gotten even more out of it.  It's my guess that in the beginning he 
> was addressing the importance/value of the grain of the wood he was using - 
> and how to achieve the effect he did.  
>
> I would have eased/beveled the 4 edges that form the glue lines at the top 
> and bottom so that when it's time to split it apart you have a groove 
> exactly where the joints are - aligning the knife/splitter exactly where it 
> needs to be.
>
> I wonder what the species of wood were that he used - they were a nice 
> combination.
>
> At the rate we (The Group) are "communicating" of late - I'd better send 
> my "Merry Christmas and a Happy, Safe, and Prosperous New Year to all" 
> wishes right now.  
> (Bill - do you folks celebrate New Year's "opposite" us - like you do 
> winter - summer?  so you celebrate New Year's on July 1? :-)   JK!)
> Mac
>  --
>  --
>  
> -Original Message- 
> From: CURTIS GEORGE 
> Sent: Dec 11, 2014 7:49 PM 
> To: Legacy-Ornamental-Mills 
> Subject: Inside-out turning video 
>
>
>   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adgB1z-hGVQ  Inside out turning. 
>  
>  
>  
> Bill introduced us to inside-out turning a few years back.,In this 
> video,The turning is done on the lathe. but I feel that the Legacy could do 
> as well or better, in some cases. 
>  
> Dose anyone have any Christmas ideas or projects that could be done for a 
> Holiday gift project?
>  
> Come on people, Lets start talking.
>  
> And and all ideas are welcome.
>  
> C.A.G.
>  
>  No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4235/8718 - Release Date: 12/11/14
>
> -- 
> 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 

Re: Inside-out turning video

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

hi ken,
  what i would like to use is a low profile set up from PBC...or a 
similar design from another company, hopefully cheaper than PBC...the 
overall height on the PBC piece is 5/8"(that is the total of the rail and 
carriage)...the travel in the legacy Z axis can certainly compensate for 
that without any worry of losing router bit depth...if you also add this 
set up on the Y axis,  now it is a total of 1 1/4"...might be an issue, but 
i have already compensated for any lose in router bit depth when i upgraded 
my Z axis...i would attach the PBC rail directly to the legacy aluminum 
extrusion with some t-nuts that i picked up a sample of from 
mcmaster-carr...they fit the legacy rail perfectly, just need a little 
filing on the bottom corners, which does not effect the tightness of the 
fit and lightly skim the top of the t-nut...it has a 1/4"-20 thread and the 
existing rail mounting holes would have to be enlarged just a bit...but if 
you do this carefully,with a tight tolerance, it should be self centering 
onto the legacy rails...attaching the legacy Y axis to the PBC carriage 
would be done in a similar fashion, but it would require being a bit more 
meticulous when laying out and drilling the holes in the carriage...google 
"PBC low profile" and you should get right to it...problem being their 
rails and carriages are a bit on the expensive side...hope this helps...and 
also need to mention, i did get a free sample of rail(5") and a carriage 
from PBC, so i have a pretty good idea how all of this can work...any 
questions, keep them coming...thanks...joe

On Friday, December 12, 2014 5:20:01 PM UTC-5, Old Mill wrote:
>
> What linear setup do you prefer to use Joe, and do you attach the rail 
> directly to the extrusions or use an adapter plate? 
> Thanks, Ken (New Legacy user using old Legacy)
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:42 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
> > wrote:
>>
>> ok mac, i see where you want to go with this...a little "legacy" envy 
>> perhaps?...LOL!...but hey!, it is what it is...i'll volunteer an update to 
>> give you some additional comeback fodder...still waiting for the linear 
>> bearing gods to shine down on me before i can do that mod...might come as a 
>> surprise to mac, but i do have budget issues!...the machine is running fine 
>> with the top hats in place, so no great necessity to do that upgrade...all 
>> the bells and whistles i made for the machine are working just as i had 
>> intended them to, so no quirks there...on the horizon, i am thinking of 
>> trying to increase the diameter capacity of my "monster mill"...why? you 
>> ask...because bigger is better...just ask mac...have everything worked out, 
>> except the meshing of the gears...has this subject ever been discussed in 
>> this group before?...anyone care to offer any ideas?...recently acquired a 
>> two spindle carving machine...and, of course, modifying it a bit to better 
>> suite our needs...and certainly a happy holiday season to all, including 
>> mac!...LMAO!...joe "if we buy it, we modify it!" biunno
>>
>> On Friday, December 12, 2014 12:26:31 AM UTC-5, Va Oak wrote:
>>>
>>> I like your suggestion to just make the ornament stock a couple inches 
>>> longer and lop off the glued ends to separate them.
>>> I was jesting re: you celebrating Christmas on an "opposite cycle" (in 
>>> your mid-winter) from the northern hemisphere - 25 December is 25 December 
>>> everywhere (within 24 hrs) - same for 1 January.   :-)
>>> Of course Joe w/the Monster Mill in New York will tell us that NO ONE 
>>> celebrates New Year's like they do in New York!  Right, Joe?
>>> Mac
>>> --
>>> --
>>>
>>> -Original Message- 
>>> From: Bill Bulkeley 
>>> Sent: Dec 11, 2014 9:43 PM 
>>> To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
>>> Subject: RE: Inside-out turning video 
>>>
>>>  No our Christmas and new year is at the same time the difference here 
>>> is the summer holidays start strait after Christmas so instead of just a 
>>> long week end for Christmas it’s like 4 weeks long
>>>
>>> Better for the kids i feel and one of the pass times here at Christmas 
>>> is swimming be a bit hard getting through all that ice over your way to do 
>>> that lolol
>>>
>>>  
>>>
>>> As for the inside out ornament, splitting it in half instead of doing it 
>>> like the guy in the video did just make your blank longer and cut the glued 
>>> ends off with the drop s

Re: Inside-out turning video

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

curtis,
 a misunderstanding...in my previous post i was referring to the 
fact that i recently purchased a two spindle carving machine...a terrco 
northstar 10-2R...which has been taking a lot of my time in making some up 
grades to it and thus, not leaving me any time to "play" with the 
legacy...in regards to needing an additional gear, i believe you are 
correct...i am thinking of widening the bed an additional 3 1/4", which is 
the width of the legacy rail X 2...i have small pieces of rail from the leg 
bases from the two machines  i have...only need small pieces at the 
vertical supports so i believe i am covered there...the bottom cross pieces 
would be a simple cut and weld to lengthen...the headstock and tailstock 
would be a bit more complicated  to lengthen, but doable without much 
complication...back to the gear thing, would need to make up only 1 
5/8"...haven't played with all the legacy gears yet, but perhaps there is 
one that will do the job...would slightly throw off the pitch measurements 
a bit, but that would be an acceptable change...this topic should have it's 
own thread...anyway,any input is appreciated...thanks...joe

On Saturday, December 13, 2014 9:32:16 AM UTC-5, Curtis wrote:
>
> Hello Joe
> I have a few ideas on how to get the job done, first the wider unit. will 
> need a way to hook up one more gear into the linkage. I would not think 
> that would be to hard to do. The double caving machine could be done by 
> placing a lathe next to the Legacy and hooking the spindles together with a 
> set of sprockets and chain,you carriage would have to be changed or a 
> second carriage could be made to do the work, I envision something like 
> this.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y7Ev51oWCFE 
>
> talk to you more latter.
> C.A.G.
>
>
> ------
> *From: *"'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills" <
> legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com >
> *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Sent: *Friday, December 12, 2014 5:49:26 PM
> *Subject: *Re: Inside-out turning video
>
> hi ken,
>   what i would like to use is a low profile set up from PBC...or a 
> similar design from another company, hopefully cheaper than PBC...the 
> overall height on the PBC piece is 5/8"(that is the total of the rail and 
> carriage)...the travel in the legacy Z axis can certainly compensate for 
> that without any worry of losing router bit depth...if you also add this 
> set up on the Y axis,  now it is a total of 1 1/4"...might be an issue, but 
> i have already compensated for any lose in router bit depth when i upgraded 
> my Z axis...i would attach the PBC rail directly to the legacy aluminum 
> extrusion with some t-nuts that i picked up a sample of from 
> mcmaster-carr...they fit the legacy rail perfectly, just need a little 
> filing on the bottom corners, which does not effect the tightness of the 
> fit and lightly skim the top of the t-nut...it has a 1/4"-20 thread and the 
> existing rail mounting holes would have to be enlarged just a bit...but if 
> you do this carefully,with a tight tolerance, it should be self centering 
> onto the legacy rails...attaching the legacy Y axis to the PBC carriage 
> would be done in a similar fashion, but it would require being a bit more 
> meticulous when laying out and drilling the holes in the carriage...google 
> "PBC low profile" and you should get right to it...problem being their 
> rails and carriages are a bit on the expensive side...hope this helps...and 
> also need to mention, i did get a free sample of rail(5") and a carriage 
> from PBC, so i have a pretty good idea how all of this can work...any 
> questions, keep them coming...thanks...joe
>
> On Friday, December 12, 2014 5:20:01 PM UTC-5, Old Mill wrote:
>>
>> What linear setup do you prefer to use Joe, and do you attach the rail 
>> directly to the extrusions or use an adapter plate? 
>> Thanks, Ken (New Legacy user using old Legacy)
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 3:42 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
>> http://JAVASCRIPT-BLOCKED>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ok mac, i see where you want to go with this...a little "legacy" envy 
>>> perhaps?...LOL!...but hey!, it is what it is...i'll volunteer an update to 
>>> give you some additional comeback fodder...still waiting for the linear 
>>> bearing gods to shine down on me before i can do that mod...might come as a 
>>> surprise to mac, but i do have budget issues!...the machine is running fine 
>>> with the top hats in place, so no great necessity to do that upgrade...all 
>>> the bells and whistles i made for the machine are working just as i had 
&

linear bearing mod for a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

starting a new topic here to address help in possibly setting up a legacy 
with linear bearings... suggestions for possible sources of materials and 
anything else that might make this mod as easy and inexpensive as 
possiblefirst photo is of a piece of sample track and a carriage type, 
both from PBC LINEAR, sitting on a piece of legacy rail...this is PBC's 
"low profile redi rail' line...total height is 3/4"...the rail is 1 7/16" 
wide(legacy rail is 1 5/8" wide)...this carriage is 3" wide and might not 
work well on the the legacy...but i did get it as a free sample it does 
allow me to play with the mounting a bit...difficult to see, but there is a 
't' nut inside the legacy rail that was gotten from mcmaster-carr...it has 
a 1/4-20 thread in it and needed very little modification(file the bottom 
corners a bit and filed the top down just a hair) to make it fit the legacy 
rail...the PBC rail comes pre drilled with holes exactly in the center of 
the linear rail, so it is practically self centering onto the legacy 
rail(due to the "t" nut)...they also have a set up called "redi-rail slide" 
that is a TOTAL of 1 3/8" wide, which is less than the legacy rail...the 
height is a bit more than the low profile rail though(15/16" +/-), but 
certainly acceptable, i believe...the only problem with these set-ups(and 
others from other manufacturers) is the cost...usually rail will cost 
around $30 per foot and a single carriage can cost around $70...so an "X" 
axis alone would be in the neighborhood of $640(2-6ft pcs. of rail and 4 
carriages)...add in the "Y" axis(do not see a need to do the "Z" axis), and 
you could easily be spending $1,000 when shipping and other expenses are 
factored in...so a pricey mod for sure...anyone have some definitive, less 
expensive sources for rails and carriages?...i do remember reading jon 
preston's posts regarding his mod (excellent work!) and his finding 
inexpensive bearing hardware on ebay...and i have seen the same or similar 
my self, but they all seem to be coming from china...and with all due 
respect to burney's mod, this is a bit better due to the fact that you can 
adjust the bearings on each carriage for wear(which should be in about ten 
to twenty years!...LOL!)...these rails will also add some rigidity to the 
legacy rails(if it's even needed at all)...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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: terrco carving machine

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

hi tom,
   yes the center and right spindles are adjusted as they should 
be, which is centered over each, small faceplate...i removed the typical 
spur drives(like what you would see on a typical wood lathe) and opted for 
the faceplates...less chance the workpieces can rotate while they are being 
machined...screwing the workpiece to the faceplate solves that 
problem...the round metal piece between the two spindles can be rotated to 
adjust the distance from spindle center to spindle center...and then the 
far left spindle that holds the profile follower can be adjusted and 
centered...seems the photo angle distorts it a bit to look like they are 
not centered...and it is a flat belt drive but one of the first things we 
did was to make belt covers...safety first, always...not sure of the 
RPM...i'll look into that as i am a bit curious myself...the cutters are 
two wing cutters...not many options there, as you need a left cutting bit 
to match the right cutter...one nice thing about this machine (and most of 
terrco's other models) is that it broke down very easily for an easy 
transport...i took my small bed pickup to cleveland, and had it apart in 
about an hour or so...my research shows that the gunstock people are still 
using these quite a bit...but, like a lot of things, the computer machines 
are making these obsolete...i might have a job coming up where i will be 
using the machine...let's see if i have any video skills...LOL!...thanks 
for the compliments...joe
On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:19:41 AM UTC-5, Tom Dotta wrote:
>
> Hi Joe
>
> Neat machine, nice cleanup and mod. Are the center and right spindles in 
> their proper orientation relative to each other? It looks like they would 
> have to move toward each other and away from each other in order to stay in 
> contact with the workpieces. Looks like a flat belt drive, what is the 
> approximate RPM. Thanks for sharing and cheersTom D
> P.S. Love to see a U tube of the machine in action?
>
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:27 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
> > wrote:
>>
>> curtis...here is the model 10-2R carving machine made by terrco...this 
>> terrco line was designed for commercial use and with the introduction of 
>> computerized equipment, the company no longer makes this line of 
>> equipment(sound familiar!)...although they do make a lower end type of 
>> machine that can do the same type of work...but that line is intended for 
>> the occasional user...the 10 represents the largest diameter of a piece 
>> that will fit the machine(they also made machines for larger 
>> diameters)...the 2 is for the number of pieces that can be worked on at any 
>> one time(they made machines in upwards of 24 spindles)...the R is 
>> interesting and the reason i bought this machine( i really wanted a 4 
>> spindle machine)...it stands for "reversing" which means you can have a 
>> carving that has a specific direction to it( like a face looking to the 
>> right,for example) and from a right hand carving model, you can carve a 
>> right and a left(the same face but looking to the left), all at the same 
>> time...a nice time saving feature when making chairs, for example, that 
>> have different shaped arms or rear legs...this machine can handle work 
>> pieces 48" long(machines capable of longer pieces were available...perhaps 
>> a future mod for my machine!...lol!)...the pieces used to do the reversing 
>> are in the fourth photo...you can remove the "reversers" and simply do 
>> straight forward carvings...in the third photo your model would be mounted 
>> to the left, and the rough-sized wood blanks would be to the right of the 
>> model...they mount between centers, much like we mount work on the legacy 
>> or a typical lathe...there is also a set up to do flat panel work, where 
>> the work pieces are clamped down onto a flat table...there are left and 
>> right cutters with a corresponding, shaped follower bit in various shapes 
>> and sizes, all the way down to a pencil point bit for fine detailed 
>> carving...the cutters spinning left and right are set up so their forces 
>> will counter each other and provide for a smooth operation of the head that 
>> rolls front to back...the second photo shows a mod i did to rotate the 
>> model and work pieces in unison when cutting all around a work piece...this 
>> was previously done with a crank handle but the manufacturer did offer an 
>> upgrade to a motorized set up...the last photo shows a caster and leveling 
>> system we set up to give the machine some mobility and the ability to 
>> easily level it, which is a must...the overall footprint of the piece is 
>> a

Re: terrco carving machine

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

ken,
   i have to say that i was impressed with the photos you posted of 
your pattern maker...very well done...and certainly did not look like it 
was "cobbled" together...as far as making any mod look good, it's very 
simple...years ago i would say to my fellow business acquaintances, "no 
worries, just spending the kids college money!"...now that i finished with 
the college tuition(youngest just graduated this past sunday!), i now 
say,"no worries,just spending my kid's inheritance!"...point being, throw 
some time and money at something and it will look great!(as well as work 
great!)...you would be surprised what a can of spray paint will 
do...LOL!...anyway, being in a manager mode, and there not being much work 
these days, allows me the time to really think through these mods, research 
quite a bit to get the right pieces and/or hardware at the right price, to 
get the job done...the latest being spending hours on the computer 
researching the linear bearing mod for the legacy...and i'm still not done 
researching yet!...anyway, show us whatcha got, ken!...thanks for the 
comments...joe

On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 2:44:47 PM UTC-5, Old Mill wrote:
>
> I certainly agree with Tom on the "nice clean up and mod",  I wish you 
> would make something a bit more "Rube" on occasion Joe.  Your work sets the 
> bar so high, I find find myself uneasy about showing pictures of anything I 
> cobble (You would use the word fabricate, of course.) together in a wood 
> shop. Very nice and inspiring, so please keep them coming.
> Ken
> PS Like many I would guess, I have been "lurking" for a while.  I 
> hesitated to join discussions due to unfamiliarity with the machines, but 
> finally decided to jump in because I needed advice.  I think that if I am 
> going to have the nerve to share ideas, (or show any machines in my shop) 
> there will need to be a new level of participation.  Something like the 
> "Cobblers Club" would fit me well at present.  (Maybe there already is one. 
> ??)
>
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:14 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
> > wrote:
>>
>> hi tom,
>>yes the center and right spindles are adjusted as they should 
>> be, which is centered over each, small faceplate...i removed the typical 
>> spur drives(like what you would see on a typical wood lathe) and opted for 
>> the faceplates...less chance the workpieces can rotate while they are being 
>> machined...screwing the workpiece to the faceplate solves that 
>> problem...the round metal piece between the two spindles can be rotated to 
>> adjust the distance from spindle center to spindle center...and then the 
>> far left spindle that holds the profile follower can be adjusted and 
>> centered...seems the photo angle distorts it a bit to look like they are 
>> not centered...and it is a flat belt drive but one of the first things we 
>> did was to make belt covers...safety first, always...not sure of the 
>> RPM...i'll look into that as i am a bit curious myself...the cutters are 
>> two wing cutters...not many options there, as you need a left cutting bit 
>> to match the right cutter...one nice thing about this machine (and most of 
>> terrco's other models) is that it broke down very easily for an easy 
>> transport...i took my small bed pickup to cleveland, and had it apart in 
>> about an hour or so...my research shows that the gunstock people are still 
>> using these quite a bit...but, like a lot of things, the computer machines 
>> are making these obsolete...i might have a job coming up where i will be 
>> using the machine...let's see if i have any video skills...LOL!...thanks 
>> for the compliments...joe
>> On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:19:41 AM UTC-5, Tom Dotta wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Joe
>>>
>>> Neat machine, nice cleanup and mod. Are the center and right spindles in 
>>> their proper orientation relative to each other? It looks like they would 
>>> have to move toward each other and away from each other in order to stay in 
>>> contact with the workpieces. Looks like a flat belt drive, what is the 
>>> approximate RPM. Thanks for sharing and cheersTom D
>>> P.S. Love to see a U tube of the machine in action?
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:27 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental 
>>> Mills  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> curtis...here is the model 10-2R carving machine made by terrco...this 
>>>> terrco line was designed for commercial use and with the introduction of 
>>>> computerized equipment, the company no longer makes 

Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

curtis,
 took a look at that rail set up and unless anyone is considering a 
major re-design and rebuild of their legacy, i do not see it working well 
on a legacy...you need to build your own carriage and i did not see a way 
to adjust the bearings to eliminate play...my intention is to simply, and 
as cheaply as possible, modify the legacy...using the pbc rail and 
carriages, i think there will be just a bit of drilling,tapping, some minor 
filing/sanding of some of the mcmaster-carr hardware and your 
done...probably the most difficult aspect of this mod would be the careful 
layout of holes that need to be drilled...all have to be dead on the 
mark...anyway, i've decided move forward on this so i will be posting 
progress,photos and unforeseen problems, hopefully with solutions...stay 
tuned...joe

On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 6:29:52 PM UTC-5, Curtis wrote:
>
> Joe
> that rail looks good, but have you checked out 
> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/openrail/openrail-open-source-linear-bearing-system
>   
> ? there rail also looks like it would work out for you. I have not priced 
> out the cost, but It couldn't hurt to take a look. 
>
> I too have been looking for a good (but cheap linear rail for a while.) 
>  so far Im not ready to take the plunge yet. BUT,  WHERE There is a WILL, 
> There's ALWAYS a Way!   And at this time And stage of  my life I can take 
> as long as its needed to do my homework before I start re-designing my 
> Legacy,( That is more than what Ive already done.) ;-)  It will happen, the 
> only question is when?
> I wish you luck Joe. Please give us the blow by blow details, on your 
> project.
> C.A.G.
>
> --
> *From: *"'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills" <
> legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com >
> *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 17, 2014 5:48:49 PM
> *Subject: *Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy
>
> well, seems i might be going with this bearing set up from PBC LINEAR...it 
> is what they call their "commercial rail" line...it is their least 
> expensive rail and carriage set up...specifically, the CR30 is the largest 
> size that will go on the legacy rail without having to modify the "Y" 
> carriage mounts...it is a total of 1 3/16" wide(the legacy rail is 1 5/8" 
> wide)...each carriage has a load rating of 94 lbs., so no issues 
> there...the carriages are adjustable, if they should ever need to be(middle 
> bearing/wheel is adjustable to set any load anyone might want)...now the 
> best part, the price...the rail is priced at  $.023 per mm(this works out 
> to be $7 per foot...most all other rails i have found are $30 to $40 per 
> foot)...for example, if you wanted to put a slide set up on a legacy 1200, 
> you would need two rails, at 2100mm each(83")...approx. $50 per rail...the 
> carriages are $54 each(most other carriages are $70 to $90 each)...X 4 = 
> $216...total cost(not including some mounting hardware) is $316 plus 
> shipping...the "Y" axis needs two 600mm rails and four carriages, total 
> cost $244...total to do both the "X" and "Y" axis' is $560...throw in $40 
> for hardware, $600 total(plus shpg.)...perhaps reasonable, for this type of 
> mod...plus i like the fact that it is made by a very reputable company and 
> if i should ever need any thing replaced, there should not be an 
> issue...cost for doing my beast comes in at approx $750, which is about 
> $1300 less than anything else i have seen...so it now boils down to if i 
> feel i deserve an early christmas present...plus it goes down as a business 
> expense...anyway, would like to here if anyone has any comments, 
> suggestions, hidden flaws that i overlooked, or any thing else...much 
> appreciated...joe
>
> On Tuesday, December 16, 2014 4:58:40 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>>
>> starting a new topic here to address help in possibly setting up a legacy 
>> with linear bearings... suggestions for possible sources of materials and 
>> anything else that might make this mod as easy and inexpensive as 
>> possiblefirst photo is of a piece of sample track and a carriage type, 
>> both from PBC LINEAR, sitting on a piece of legacy rail...this is PBC's 
>> "low profile redi rail' line...total height is 3/4"...the rail is 1 7/16" 
>> wide(legacy rail is 1 5/8" wide)...this carriage is 3" wide and might not 
>> work well on the the legacy...but i did get it as a free sample it does 
>> allow me to play with the mounting a bit...difficult to see, but there is a 
>> 't' nut inside the legacy rail that was gotten from mcmaster-carr...it has 
>>

Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

mike,
excellent point and i have given it a good amount of 
thought...basically it boiled down to the design of the rail and 
carriage...from what i have researched, the type of rail and carriage that 
will have little to no sawdust issues has a very high mounting 
point...could be as much as a total of 3" or more, if you do the "X" and 
"Y" axis'...this presents other issues of router bit reach and carriage 
attachment to the lead screw...i anticipate the necessity of simply having 
to use a blow gun while the machine is working...a pain in the ass for 
sure, but i have seen cnc machinery in action and it seems often enough 
that a blow gun is used to keep sawdust invasion down to a minimum...i 
guess in some instances it is a must...if you are standing there watching 
as you do the first twist, of let's say eight, on a workpiece, i do not see 
an issue of using a blow gun...plus my circumstances present other 
problems...i need two, 16ft pieces of rail...the only way to do that is to 
join sections together...welding extruded aluminum is not one of my welding 
skills, so the fact that this rail is steel is a big plus for me...i 
believe two sections of steel rail can be TIG welded together, filed and 
sanded down and there will be no "bump" as a carriage passes over it...i am 
also considering the fact of how much i use my legacy(and how much anyone 
else in the group uses their machine)...my machine can easily go a month or 
two with no use whatsoever(lately, business STINKS!)...realistically, if i 
had that much work, i would buy the cnc machine and call it a day...but to 
spend several thousand dollars to get even a higher end linear bearing 
set-up for my present machine does not seem logical and is not in my 
budget...anyway, appreciate the comment and would certainly welcome 
more,especially if it helps to solve a potential problem that i missed(THAT 
HAPPENS A LOT LATELY!...lol!)...thanks...joe

On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 11:01:47 PM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote:
>
>  My greatest concern for this system is sawdust.  How do you intend to 
> keep them clear?  Sawdust in them will be like a road block.  Cheap will be 
> a disaster, spend the money you need to, to do it right the first time.  I 
> would not use these unless you have a solution for the dust.  Look at open 
> bearings instead
>
> Mike
> OK  
> On 12/17/2014 7:58 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills wrote:
>  
> curtis, 
>  took a look at that rail set up and unless anyone is considering 
> a major re-design and rebuild of their legacy, i do not see it working well 
> on a legacy...you need to build your own carriage and i did not see a way 
> to adjust the bearings to eliminate play...my intention is to simply, and 
> as cheaply as possible, modify the legacy...using the pbc rail and 
> carriages, i think there will be just a bit of drilling,tapping, some minor 
> filing/sanding of some of the mcmaster-carr hardware and your 
> done...probably the most difficult aspect of this mod would be the careful 
> layout of holes that need to be drilled...all have to be dead on the 
> mark...anyway, i've decided move forward on this so i will be posting 
> progress,photos and unforeseen problems, hopefully with solutions...stay 
> tuned...joe
>
> On Wednesday, December 17, 2014 6:29:52 PM UTC-5, Curtis wrote: 
>>
>>  Joe
>> that rail looks good, but have you checked out 
>> https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/openrail/openrail-open-source-linear-bearing-system
>>   
>> ? there rail also looks like it would work out for you. I have not priced 
>> out the cost, but It couldn't hurt to take a look. 
>>
>>  I too have been looking for a good (but cheap linear rail for a while.) 
>>  so far Im not ready to take the plunge yet. BUT,  WHERE There is a WILL, 
>> There's ALWAYS a Way!   And at this time And stage of  my life I can take 
>> as long as its needed to do my homework before I start re-designing my 
>> Legacy,( That is more than what Ive already done.) ;-)  It will happen, the 
>> only question is when?
>> I wish you luck Joe. Please give us the blow by blow details, on your 
>> project.
>> C.A.G.
>>
>>  --
>> *From: *"'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills" <
>> legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com>
>> *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
>> *Sent: *Wednesday, December 17, 2014 5:48:49 PM
>> *Subject: *Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy
>>
>>  well, seems i might be going with this bearing set up from PBC 
>> LINEAR...it is what they call their "commercial rail" line...it is their 
>> least expensive rail and carriage set up...specifically, the 

Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

here is the same PBC linear rail as it will mount onto the "X" axis legacy 
rail...as mentioned previously, the t-nuts are from mcmaster-carr and 
needed just a bit of filing on the bottom, outside edges and the top...it 
came with e 1/4-20 thread in the center...it virtually has no play between 
the two edges of the legacy rail...but if there is, a center punch divet 
into the t-nut and just a little bit of fine filing will get it down to a 
zero tolerance...the bottom of the linear rail is wide enough (5/8") to 
span across the open space on top of the legacy rail (3/8")...one concern i 
have is how parallel the legacy rails are...if they are not perfectly 
parallel, it might cause some issues when the "Z" axis carriage when it is 
traveling from one end of the bed to the other...will the carriage bog 
down? or will the legacy rails and bed just flex enough to allow the 
carriage to travel  freely, with perhaps a small bit of drag to it?...i 
expect that can only be determined when the entire set up is assembled and 
some free-hand test runs are done...and not sure you can shim the legacy 
rails to be parallel, with the expectation that they will stay that way...i 
might expect some of these issues to be there with any bearing and rail set 
up...if it shows up, you just have to deal with it i guess...joe

On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 3:30:03 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>
> tim, and others,
>that is exactly the plan...to butt weld a series of 
> 22" lengths of the linear rail...attached are some photos of a butt welded 
> seam that i TIG welded together...in the second photo you can see two 
> "humps" which are penetrations from the outside weld...these are not in the 
> way of the linear slide carriage so no need to file them down...i might 
> even run a bead here on the inside for additional strength, but i don't 
> think it is needed...these rails are made from .100 thick material or 12 
> gauge...there is no chance of it distorting, especially when TIG welding it 
> together...i did three, 22" pieces(two butt welds) in a jig we put together 
> and it is straight on all planes and not twisted...for my machine, i need 
> to do 8 1/2 pieces with a total of 8 butt welds...i could buy a 16ft rail 
> in one piece(no welds), but even that will bow and twist just holding it 
> up...and any linear rail might do the same, i would imagine...but the 
> expense of shipping would be too great(not fortunate to have the company 
> two blocks from where i live this time!...LOL!)...i could buy two 8 ft. 
> pieces and ship UPS...but still need a butt weld...obviously better than 8 
> 1/2 pieces with 8 welds, but what the hell, i'll be saving money and 
> brushing up on my welding skills...and there is an expectation of the 
> legacy rail keeping everything straight and true, or at least helping to a 
> great degree to do just that...but if anyone else decided to do this mod on 
> their 1200 or 1000, logic dictates that they buy the length needed and not 
> deal with any welding...at $6.50 a foot from PBC, it is still a very good 
> deal...and, if when all is said and done, the 16 ft. rail is a bit on the 
> distorted side, i will simply break down and buy the two 8 footers...my 
> investment to this point is $100 and a small bit of time...not a lot to 
> lose to gain an education...thanks for the response and please keep'em 
> coming...joe
>
> On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 1:13:01 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote:
>>
>>  
>> Personally, I would not weld the pieces together.  I think the metal will 
>> distort.  I would try two sections butted together and test it out. 
>>  
>> -Tim
>>  
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
>> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 23, 2014 8:51 AM
>> *Subject:* Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy
>>
>> update time...was able to purchase some of the railing i intend to use 
>> from ebay...great deal...worked out to be $2.50 a foot...will soon try 
>> welding two pieces together(they are 22" each...total of ten pieces 
>> purchased)...hopefully, no "bumps"...was a little concerned because i 
>> forgot(duh!), that the legacy railing is laid down on the "Y" axis...this 
>> presents a 7/8" wide opening and the need to redesign the attachment 
>> hardware...but the linear rail "nestles" into legacy rail quite nicely, to 
>> the point of self centering itself, if so desired...next, picked up a piece 
>> of 1/8" X 1 1/2" flat steel from mcmaster...this slides into the legacy 
>> rail...that space is 1 5/8" wide, the difference of 1/8" 

Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

tim,
 not sure what you don't like...TIG welding?...or the idea of welding 
these pieces end to end?...i understand there are other welding issues to 
contend with...the filler rod metal contracting and pulling pieces out of 
alignment. for instance...but the design of this track will not let this 
happen if you clamp the pieces in an alignment jig and do your tack welds 
on all sides...it really is all in the jig...the pre-drilled mounting holes 
in the track are every 3-plus inches, so when attached to the legacy rail, 
things will straighten themselves out quite a bit, if it is necessary...i 
have checked the tolerances of these 22" pieces of rail on my jointer bed, 
and to be honest there is a bit of misalignment on a few pieces(from the 
factory)...but it is very little and certainly within the confines of what 
to expect from a mod like this...the legacy machine was never intended to 
do wood milling work to such high tolerances...by the time any particular 
machine operation goes from the bearing/rail set up on the "X" axis, to the 
bearing/rail set up on the "Y" axis, to the set up on the "Z" axis,through 
the gear train(sometimes), into the router and down through the router bit, 
the expected tolerance level cannot be that high...now, i know they make 
equipment that does reach very high tolerances(i have seen them in action 
many times), but some of those machines are serious, six-figure 
machines...this mod's sole purpose is to make a nice piece of equipment 
just a little bit better for as little money as possible...can't expect it 
to do what legacy's cnc machinery can do...otherwise, as a businessman, 
logic says to simply buy a legacy cnc machine...anyway, always enjoy what 
you have to say, so please keep'em coming...many thanks...joe

On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 6:17:42 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote:
>
>  
> I was going to add in my message that TIG welding would be your only 
> chance, but I removed it from my message!  I don't like it one bit, but I'm 
> waiting to hear how it turns out.
>  
> -Tim
>  
>
> - Original Message - 
> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 23, 2014 12:30 PM
> *Subject:* Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy
>
> tim, and others, 
>that is exactly the plan...to butt weld a series of 
> 22" lengths of the linear rail...attached are some photos of a butt welded 
> seam that i TIG welded together...in the second photo you can see two 
> "humps" which are penetrations from the outside weld...these are not in the 
> way of the linear slide carriage so no need to file them down...i might 
> even run a bead here on the inside for additional strength, but i don't 
> think it is needed...these rails are made from .100 thick material or 12 
> gauge...there is no chance of it distorting, especially when TIG welding it 
> together...i did three, 22" pieces(two butt welds) in a jig we put together 
> and it is straight on all planes and not twisted...for my machine, i need 
> to do 8 1/2 pieces with a total of 8 butt welds...i could buy a 16ft rail 
> in one piece(no welds), but even that will bow and twist just holding it 
> up...and any linear rail might do the same, i would imagine...but the 
> expense of shipping would be too great(not fortunate to have the company 
> two blocks from where i live this time!...LOL!)...i could buy two 8 ft. 
> pieces and ship UPS...but still need a butt weld...obviously better than 8 
> 1/2 pieces with 8 welds, but what the hell, i'll be saving money and 
> brushing up on my welding skills...and there is an expectation of the 
> legacy rail keeping everything straight and true, or at least helping to a 
> great degree to do just that...but if anyone else decided to do this mod on 
> their 1200 or 1000, logic dictates that they buy the length needed and not 
> deal with any welding...at $6.50 a foot from PBC, it is still a very good 
> deal...and, if when all is said and done, the 16 ft. rail is a bit on the 
> distorted side, i will simply break down and buy the two 8 footers...my 
> investment to this point is $100 and a small bit of time...not a lot to 
> lose to gain an education...thanks for the response and please keep'em 
> coming...joe
>
> On Tuesday, December 23, 2014 1:13:01 PM UTC-5, Tim wrote: 
>>
>>  
>> Personally, I would not weld the pieces together.  I think the metal will 
>> distort.  I would try two sections butted together and test it out. 
>>  
>> -Tim
>>  
>>
>> - Original Message - 
>> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
>> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroup

Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

i do consider myself fortunate to have a small metal working shop within my 
wood shop...we do use it occasionally  for some jobs but it really helps 
out when doing a machine jig or mod...but if this linear bearing mod works 
out(and i would emphasize the "if"), it can be done on any legacy machine 
without the need for welding...taking off for a week or so, so an update 
won't be forth coming until next year!...thanks to all for their input, it 
is appreciated and helpful...merry christmas and a happy,healthy and 
prosperous new year...joe biunno
On Wednesday, December 24, 2014 9:31:22 AM UTC-5, Tim wrote:
>
>  
> I love TIG, but few people have them, so I removed it from my message 
> that's all. 
>  
> -Tim
>
> - Original Message - 
> *From:* 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 23, 2014 4:22 PM
> *Subject:* Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy
>
> tim, 
>  not sure what you don't like...TIG welding?...
>
>

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

hi mike
  that approach never crossed my mind! (and why this group is so 
helpful when doing things like this)...i am not in the shop at this moment, 
but i think it could work on the "X" axis...certainly would do an excellent 
job of reducing or even eliminating the dust problem...the "Y" axis might 
be difficult...setting the rails deeper might reduce the diameter capacity 
of the machine...nut sure, but definitely worth looking into...certainly 
will look at this first thing monday morning and post some thoughts...many 
thanks mike

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 12:00:00 PM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote:
>
>  Joe
> I am wondering if there is any way you would be able to mount the track 
> under the rails.  This would take care of the sawdust catching problem as 
> well as allow you to get the carriage lowered to the exact position needed 
> for optimum use.  All that would be necessary would be to mount the rails 
> from the outer edge.  Then a big set of "C" brackets to mount the existing 
> carriage to.  Then connect that assembly to the linear carriage brackets in 
> the picture.  With the proper legs going down the the rollers, you would be 
> able to get the existing carriage to hunker down a bit closer to the work.  
> Or shorten the carriage "Y" rails and actually set the carriage deeper 
> between the rails.  Just a thought
>
> Mike
> OK
>  On 1/2/2015 5:13 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills wrote:
>  
> progress report...received a linear carriage recently that is to be used 
> with the rails i have chosen...did not want to take the plunge of buying a 
> quantity without being sure that it all would function to my needs, so i 
> opted for just the one piece...the carriage is made very well, tight 
> tolerances on the bearings and bolt holes, all bearings easily 
> adjustable...set up mock-ups of the mounting on the "X" axis and the "Y" 
> axis...the first photo shows the mounting set up for the "X" axis...this 
> worked out extremely well using the "T" slot nuts and button head allen 
> bolts( 1/4"-20), all from mcmaster...the carriage centers perfectly in the 
> rail...it will add 13/16" in height to the "Z" axis assembly, but i feel 
> that is minimal and certainly manageable...the second photo shows the 
> mounting on the "Y" axis...the flat plate is 1/8" X 1 1/2", drilled and 
> tapped( 1/4"-20) holes that line up to the holes in the linear rails...i 
> originally thought the rail would "cradle" into the legacy extruded 
> aluminum railing very easily, but it took a bit of tweaking for it to sit 
> the way it should...but it did work out and all is tight and 
> secure...again, the same button heads were used and there is no 
> interference with the linear slide passing over them. 
>
>  some other miscellaneous notes:
>
>  1) when i passed the linear carriage through the track that i had welded 
> together(three, 22" pieces, two welded joints), there was a "bump"...so i 
> did a bit of filing and the bump was reduced to almost no bump at all...and 
> certainly not anything that would transfer through three axis' and the 
> router to then leave a mark on a workpiece...still might consider buying 
> the lengths i need and thus not have to do any filing, but there is some 
> finances saved by doing the joints...and i feel if i jig the pieces up 
> better than i did before, then weld, the filing would be little or perhaps 
> not even necessary
>
>  2) yes, i did paint the rails, "legacy" red...from
>  this moment forward, this set up was a legacy option from back in the 
> day!...that's my story and i'm sticking to it!...LMAO!
>  
>  3) to the moderators of this page, please take note...i am just kidding 
> in regards to #2...LOL
>
>  well, now i wait for the rest of the carriages that i ordered...in the 
> meantime i will begin doing the welding...after that it will be just a 
> bunch of drilling, tapping and some assembly...and two axis' will be 
> completed...considering doing the "Z" axis...i can see doing some template 
> following using the "Z": axis, but only if a small, counter weight set up 
> can be done so the router assembly can "float" above the workpiece, while 
> the carriage follows a template on the up/down plane, NOT the front/back 
> plane...there are times we need to do work like this in our shop, but have 
> found a way to do it on our shaper...but i get very nervous when we do it 
> because it is a bit precarious...thus the consideration of the floating "Z" 
> axis and perhaps making that particular operation as safe as possible..

Re: Pantorouter

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

the concept of what this can do is excellent, but it is only working on two 
axis', "Z" and "Y"...here is a link of a piece we have in the shop and have 
been using for 30 years...http://jdstools.com/multi-router.aspx...works all 
three axis', all on linear slides...templates for dovetails,finger joinery 
and other types of joints...only problem is it retails for 
$2,700.00...i rarely see these on ebay or craigslist and if i do, never 
for less than $1,500!...guys just don't want to give them up...the piece 
jeff is referring to is excellent for the price that it is being sold 
for...just surprised that the maker did not work in the third axis...for a 
bit more money, it would certainly be worth it...but i would definitely 
recommend it to any woodworker...great addition...joe

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 7:48:33 PM UTC-5, Love to turn in Oregon wrote:
>
> Not sure if you all have seen this or not. Great concept router.
>
> http://woodgears.ca/pantorouter/kuldeep/buy.html 
>
> Jeff W

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pantorouter

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

you are correct, it does have the third axis...but it is a bit awkward as 
to how it would work in unison with the other two axis'...we use our jds 
for so much more than just mortise and tenon work...to the point that 
sometimes two people need to work all three axis' at one time...anyway, 
this pantorouter looks like a very good piece for the money they are 
charging...but if you should ever come across a jds for a reasonable price, 
buy it!, you will not be disappointed...joe

On Sunday, January 4, 2015 12:59:39 PM UTC-5, Ccm Ccm wrote:
>
> Hello Joe,the pantorouter has all three axis, it really is a very neat 
> machine it takes a little fiddling around
> to get the template the right size for a good fit but once you have it, it 
> will give you very consistent results,
> i used it to cut all the tenons in the attached picture for a mahogany 
> gate they all fit  the mortices perfectly​
>  20140725_102043.jpg 
> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0ffQhsFBzONcW4xUWpOTGlJQm9jM0g0djN4R2xXY1pmaE1r/edit?usp=drive_web>
> ​​
>  IMG_0201.JPG 
> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0ffQhsFBzONOHlyQUdRd2VZV0U/edit?usp=drive_web>
> ​  
>
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 7:21 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills <
> legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> the concept of what this can do is excellent, but it is only working on 
>> two axis', "Z" and "Y"...here is a link of a piece we have in the shop and 
>> have been using for 30 years...
>> http://jdstools.com/multi-router.aspx...works all three axis', all on 
>> linear slides...templates for dovetails,finger joinery and other types of 
>> joints...only problem is it retails for $2,700.00...i rarely see these 
>> on ebay or craigslist and if i do, never for less than $1,500!...guys just 
>> don't want to give them up...the piece jeff is referring to is excellent 
>> for the price that it is being sold for...just surprised that the maker did 
>> not work in the third axis...for a bit more money, it would certainly be 
>> worth it...but i would definitely recommend it to any woodworker...great 
>> addition...joe
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 7:48:33 PM UTC-5, Love to turn in Oregon 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Not sure if you all have seen this or not. Great concept router.
>>>
>>> http://woodgears.ca/pantorouter/kuldeep/buy.html 
>>>
>>> Jeff W
>>
>>  -- 
>> 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 from it, send an email 
to legacy-ornamental-mills+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

well, got to the shop this morning and headed for the legacy before taking 
off my coat!...LOL!...can't mount the slide on the underside of the "X" 
axis rail...the vertical rail supports are in the way...they are every 3 
ft. or so...but this idea would work on the other legacy's, providing there 
is no support in the center of the machine...i think the 1000 models are 
doable, and the 1200's perhaps...the 1800's are not doable as they have the 
vertical support i am referring to...so it's a top mounted linear rail for 
my machine and i will just have to deal with the dust...but in my 
situations, the dust is very minimal as we use the legacy strictly for 
decorative cuts...no turning, planing, etc. operations that would produce 
large amounts of sawdust...with an adequate collector set up on the 
machine, i am anticipating not having that big a problem with dust getting 
into the rails...and as mentioned before, i will just have to diligent in 
using a blow gun when operating the machine, as needed...for others using 
the full capabilities of the legacy, the problem would most likely be more 
of an issue...anyway, the mod continues...progress reports to 
follow...thanks for the feedback...joe

On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:31:33 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>
> hi mike
>   that approach never crossed my mind! (and why this group is so 
> helpful when doing things like this)...i am not in the shop at this moment, 
> but i think it could work on the "X" axis...certainly would do an excellent 
> job of reducing or even eliminating the dust problem...the "Y" axis might 
> be difficult...setting the rails deeper might reduce the diameter capacity 
> of the machine...nut sure, but definitely worth looking into...certainly 
> will look at this first thing monday morning and post some thoughts...many 
> thanks mike
>
> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 12:00:00 PM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote:
>>
>>  Joe
>> I am wondering if there is any way you would be able to mount the track 
>> under the rails.  This would take care of the sawdust catching problem as 
>> well as allow you to get the carriage lowered to the exact position needed 
>> for optimum use.  All that would be necessary would be to mount the rails 
>> from the outer edge.  Then a big set of "C" brackets to mount the existing 
>> carriage to.  Then connect that assembly to the linear carriage brackets in 
>> the picture.  With the proper legs going down the the rollers, you would be 
>> able to get the existing carriage to hunker down a bit closer to the work.  
>> Or shorten the carriage "Y" rails and actually set the carriage deeper 
>> between the rails.  Just a thought
>>
>> Mike
>> OK
>>  On 1/2/2015 5:13 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills wrote:
>>  
>> progress report...received a linear carriage recently that is to be used 
>> with the rails i have chosen...did not want to take the plunge of buying a 
>> quantity without being sure that it all would function to my needs, so i 
>> opted for just the one piece...the carriage is made very well, tight 
>> tolerances on the bearings and bolt holes, all bearings easily 
>> adjustable...set up mock-ups of the mounting on the "X" axis and the "Y" 
>> axis...the first photo shows the mounting set up for the "X" axis...this 
>> worked out extremely well using the "T" slot nuts and button head allen 
>> bolts( 1/4"-20), all from mcmaster...the carriage centers perfectly in the 
>> rail...it will add 13/16" in height to the "Z" axis assembly, but i feel 
>> that is minimal and certainly manageable...the second photo shows the 
>> mounting on the "Y" axis...the flat plate is 1/8" X 1 1/2", drilled and 
>> tapped( 1/4"-20) holes that line up to the holes in the linear rails...i 
>> originally thought the rail would "cradle" into the legacy extruded 
>> aluminum railing very easily, but it took a bit of tweaking for it to sit 
>> the way it should...but it did work out and all is tight and 
>> secure...again, the same button heads were used and there is no 
>> interference with the linear slide passing over them. 
>>
>>  some other miscellaneous notes:
>>
>>  1) when i passed the linear carriage through the track that i had 
>> welded together(three, 22" pieces, two welded joints), there was a 
>> "bump"...so i did a bit of filing and the bump was reduced to almost no 
>> bump at all...and certainly not anything that would transfer through three 
>> axis' and the router to then leave a mark on a workpiece...s

Re: Pantorouter

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

i agree totally with your thinking, absolutely...my perspective though, 
comes from a different point of view...as a business owner in the 
woodworking field, it is to the benefit of the shop to give the men easy, 
usable equipment...if i was retired or just doing this kind of work as a 
second income or hobby, i would definitely be building a lot of "toys" 
myself...personally, i would rather build the somewhat "exotic" pieces, 
like a multi-router, but business sense dictates i buy the equipment rather 
than spend the man hours to build it in house...but i applaud the 
creativity and ingenuity of anyone who builds a piece like this pantograph 
router...one of the reasons i take my mods to certain extremes is i am a 
bit of a frustrated builder myself...anyway, it is all good and look 
forward to anything else that is along these lines...keep it 
coming!...thanks...joe

On Monday, January 5, 2015 6:11:40 PM UTC-5, Ccm Ccm wrote:
>
> Joe, I would jump on a Jds in a second if I came across one. my point is 
> don't sell the pantorouter short, my experience with
> It is that it works very well for many types of joints if you take the 
> time to make proper sized templates for it, and it only  cost me 
> About Fifteen dollars and a couple of days time to make it
>
> On Monday, January 5, 2015, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills <
> legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> you are correct, it does have the third axis...but it is a bit awkward as 
>> to how it would work in unison with the other two axis'...we use our jds 
>> for so much more than just mortise and tenon work...to the point that 
>> sometimes two people need to work all three axis' at one time...anyway, 
>> this pantorouter looks like a very good piece for the money they are 
>> charging...but if you should ever come across a jds for a reasonable price, 
>> buy it!, you will not be disappointed...joe
>>
>> On Sunday, January 4, 2015 12:59:39 PM UTC-5, Ccm Ccm wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Joe,the pantorouter has all three axis, it really is a very neat 
>>> machine it takes a little fiddling around
>>> to get the template the right size for a good fit but once you have it, 
>>> it will give you very consistent results,
>>> i used it to cut all the tenons in the attached picture for a mahogany 
>>> gate they all fit  the mortices perfectly​
>>>  20140725_102043.jpg 
>>> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0ffQhsFBzONcW4xUWpOTGlJQm9jM0g0djN4R2xXY1pmaE1r/edit?usp=drive_web>
>>> ​​
>>>  IMG_0201.JPG 
>>> <https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0ffQhsFBzONOHlyQUdRd2VZV0U/edit?usp=drive_web>
>>> ​  
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 7:21 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>>> the concept of what this can do is excellent, but it is only working on 
>>>> two axis', "Z" and "Y"...here is a link of a piece we have in the shop and 
>>>> have been using for 30 years...http://jdstools.com/
>>>> multi-router.aspx...works all three axis', all on linear 
>>>> slides...templates for dovetails,finger joinery and other types of 
>>>> joints...only problem is it retails for $2,700.00...i rarely see these 
>>>> on ebay or craigslist and if i do, never for less than $1,500!...guys just 
>>>> don't want to give them up...the piece jeff is referring to is excellent 
>>>> for the price that it is being sold for...just surprised that the maker 
>>>> did 
>>>> not work in the third axis...for a bit more money, it would certainly be 
>>>> worth it...but i would definitely recommend it to any woodworker...great 
>>>> addition...joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 7:48:33 PM UTC-5, Love to turn in Oregon 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Not sure if you all have seen this or not. Great concept router.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://woodgears.ca/pantorouter/kuldeep/buy.html 
>>>>>
>>>>> Jeff W
>>>>
>>>>  -- 
>>>> 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-ornament

Re: linear bearing update...the good, the bad and the ugly

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

bill,
 curious if you had a dedicated dust collector set up on your 
mill?...or even a shop vac?...i understand a lot of legacy owners use their 
mills to do turning operations, which will produce a tremendous amount of 
dust, large and small...but my intentions are to do only ornamental milling 
cuts...reeding, fluting multi-facets(even then, we would turn the piece on 
a lathe first),etcunder those circumstances, a dedicated dust 
collector, with the use-as-necessary blow gun, should keep the bearing 
rails clear(the bearings themselves are sealed, so no issues there)...but 
it is a concern, and i will just have to wait for the first job to test 
things out...the vertical template follower idea is to set up the "Z" axis 
on the same linear rail and bearings(uh-oh!..LOL!), have a dual cable set 
up go up and over to the backside of the axis and a counter weight on the 
backside set up so the router assembly "floats" vertically...the only 
problem i can see is how much of a counter weight will it take to offset 
the weight of the router and other stuff i have attached to the axis...but 
i do plan on swapping out the vertical rails on the "Z" axis for taller 
ones(left over leg supports), so that might allow some extra space for a 
proper counter balance...anyway, just another idea to play around with...i 
wonder if holtzapffel started out this way?...LOL!...thanks for the 
response... and thanks curtis...i certainly will continue to spend my kids 
inheritance on future mods...with the updates, of course...joe

On Friday, January 9, 2015 at 5:20:59 PM UTC-5, Curtis wrote:
>
> Hi Joe.
> I will Wait to see how it works out for you. But I do have to admit that 
> you mod. looks pretty nice. Good luck.
> C.A.G.
>
> --------------
> *From: *"'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills" <
> legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com >
> *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Sent: *Friday, January 9, 2015 1:58:42 PM
> *Subject: *linear bearing update...the good, the bad and the ugly
>
> progress to date:
> 1) "X" and "Y" axis' are done
> 2) "X" axis was not as simple as i had hoped...in retrospect, welding the 
> rails end to end to achieve the 16 ft. lengths i needed was not the best 
> idea, although it did save money on the purchase, i lost some of that 
> savings in the labor of filing the joints(total welding and filing time was 
> about 3 hours...total of 16 joints, 8 per 16 ft. length)...in hindsight, i 
> should have bought four 8 ft. pcs. and then deal with just one joint per 
> rail...cost of purchasing the longer pcs. probably about $300, cost of the 
> 22" pcs. i bought was about $100...there is a bit of a "clack-clack" noise 
> as the carriage rolls over the joint, but only if it is done with a bit of 
> speed...but not issues with the carriage doing it's job of keeping a tight 
> tolerance...a good test was when from one end of the machine, with a good 
> "push", the router carriage almost makes it to the other end(16 ft.)
> 3) i was a bit worried that if the front and back rails were not parallel, 
> the router carriage would bind and thus not roll as easy as it 
> should...legacy originally designed the carriage to be locked into the 
> front rail using the black "top hats"...on the back rail, the carriage just 
> "floats" in the rail on black slugs...with the linear bearing set up, both 
> front and back are locked into place...no room for a lot of error in the 
> rails being parallel...but all worked out well over the full length of the 
> bed...i believe i can attribute this to the base we made...due to it being 
> very rigid, straight and having no flex, the machine stays square and 
> parallel
> 4) the "Y" axis is really nice and a huge improvement than before...i can 
> see using a template will be much easier now...again, just a careful 
> layout, some drilling/milling and it was done...i still have to play with 
> the lead screw mounting on the right side of the carriage, but do not 
> anticipate any problems there...just extend the original mounting brackets
> 5) and some of the bad...the manufacturer suggests greasing the 
> rails...obviously that is not going to work, considering the dust 
> problem...i did have a conversation with them and explained that the 
> carriages would only be moving at a snails pace for the vast majority of 
> time...these slides are intended for heavy, rapidly moving loads (like 
> sliding doors) and thus, the grease requirement...and although i could not 
> get them to say it( CYA time!), they basically said under my conditions, it 
> would not be necessary to grease the rails...what they were concerned with 
> was the outside of the bearing w

Re: linear bearing update...the good, the bad and the ugly

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

okay...gavin got the ball rolling on an interesting concept, but bill's 
suggestion of using a tape ruler has a lot of potential, i believe...take 
two tape rulers and mount one on each end of a rail, upside down so the 
curvature of the blade "caps" the linear rail...i think they make 1" wide 
tapes and possibly 1 1/8"...as the carriage slides left and right, one tape 
retracts and the other pulls out, just as mike has suggested...mounting the 
tape housings should be easy...adjusting the spring tension is easy, i've 
done that often enough...about the only issue i can foresee is making sure 
the tape stays centered on the linear rail...i think i will definitely 
explore  this concept, but for the time being i will try a commercial dust 
collector( they are relatively cheap from grizzly) and see how that works 
out as i want a collector on the machine, regardless...great idea...thanks 
for the feedback guys...joe

On Friday, January 9, 2015 at 6:11:46 PM UTC-5, Gavin wrote:
>
> I am really impressed with how you are developing this enormous beast!
> To stop the dust build up in the rails, you could have a stiff-ish piece 
> of  rubber that covers the rails, I had thought of flexible magnetic strip,
> but I think you have said that the rails are aluminium.
> A strip, 2x the length of the rails plus some extra would be lifted out of 
> the way of the carriage by passing over a roller on the underside of the 
> carriage from the y-axis rails, and back onto itself. The trailing strip 
> would be un-rolled into place, and then the reverse would happen when the 
> carriage came back the other direction. (Perhaps I ought to 'patent' this 
> idea!?)
> The strip would be 'collected' on a lightly tensioned roller, enough to 
> wind in excess, but loose enough not to impede the carriage forward travel. 
> I think something like the winding's off a roller blind mechanism might 
> work.
> I can't recall what you have going on at ends of the rails to mount these 
> windings? 
>
> ​I hope you can understand this idea?
> I wont be too offended if you can think of why it wont work!
> Cheers
> Legacy Widow
>
>
>
>
>
> On 9 January 2015 at 18:58, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills <
> legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> progress to date:
>> 1) "X" and "Y" axis' are done
>> 2) "X" axis was not as simple as i had hoped...in retrospect, welding the 
>> rails end to end to achieve the 16 ft. lengths i needed was not the best 
>> idea, although it did save money on the purchase, i lost some of that 
>> savings in the labor of filing the joints(total welding and filing time was 
>> about 3 hours...total of 16 joints, 8 per 16 ft. length)...in hindsight, i 
>> should have bought four 8 ft. pcs. and then deal with just one joint per 
>> rail...cost of purchasing the longer pcs. probably about $300, cost of the 
>> 22" pcs. i bought was about $100...there is a bit of a "clack-clack" noise 
>> as the carriage rolls over the joint, but only if it is done with a bit of 
>> speed...but not issues with the carriage doing it's job of keeping a tight 
>> tolerance...a good test was when from one end of the machine, with a good 
>> "push", the router carriage almost makes it to the other end(16 ft.)
>> 3) i was a bit worried that if the front and back rails were not 
>> parallel, the router carriage would bind and thus not roll as easy as it 
>> should...legacy originally designed the carriage to be locked into the 
>> front rail using the black "top hats"...on the back rail, the carriage just 
>> "floats" in the rail on black slugs...with the linear bearing set up, both 
>> front and back are locked into place...no room for a lot of error in the 
>> rails being parallel...but all worked out well over the full length of the 
>> bed...i believe i can attribute this to the base we made...due to it being 
>> very rigid, straight and having no flex, the machine stays square and 
>> parallel
>> 4) the "Y" axis is really nice and a huge improvement than before...i can 
>> see using a template will be much easier now...again, just a careful 
>> layout, some drilling/milling and it was done...i still have to play with 
>> the lead screw mounting on the right side of the carriage, but do not 
>> anticipate any problems there...just extend the original mounting brackets
>> 5) and some of the bad...the manufacturer suggests greasing the 
>> rails...obviously that is not going to work, considering the dust 
>> problem...i did have a conversation with them and explained that the 
>

Re: linear bearing update...the good, the bad and the ugly

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

well, this "cover the rail" idea has gotten my wheels turning...the linear 
rail has an overall width of 1 3/16"...i am temporarily guessing that the 
opening at the top of the rail is about 15/16"...tape rulers come in 1", 1 
1/8" and 1 1/4" widths, the better ones are made of stainless steel and 
they have a slight curvature to them...i am not in the shop till monday,so 
for now i do not have any thing to actually look at, but when the tape is 
upside down, the curvature of the blade seems well suited to the shape of 
the rail, working as a cap to cover the rail quite well...a holder for the 
tape canister itself, can be easily made to go on the end of the legacy 
aluminum rail...simply drop the tape into the holder and pull it out to 
meet the bearing carrier...drill and tap the end of the bearing carrier and 
attach the tab on the end of the tape...only need to work out how to keep 
the tape centered over the rail while not obstructing the travel of the 
bearing carriage...have a few ideas for that...also, build a "skirt" to 
surround the bearing carriages(removable for bearing adjustment, if needed) 
and there will be little, or possibly no, dust penetration into the 
rails...tape should last forever, as there will be much less use as for 
what the tape was originally intended for...i might be getting ahead of 
myself here, but this seems like an ideal solution to the problem...and, of 
course, this applies to the track and bearings i have chosen for my 
upgrade...not sure how well it would work with other types of linear 
bearings...i should be able to give this some attention on monday and will 
post additional comments then...joe

On Friday, January 9, 2015 at 1:58:42 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>
> progress to date:
> 1) "X" and "Y" axis' are done
> 2) "X" axis was not as simple as i had hoped...in retrospect, welding the 
> rails end to end to achieve the 16 ft. lengths i needed was not the best 
> idea, although it did save money on the purchase, i lost some of that 
> savings in the labor of filing the joints(total welding and filing time was 
> about 3 hours...total of 16 joints, 8 per 16 ft. length)...in hindsight, i 
> should have bought four 8 ft. pcs. and then deal with just one joint per 
> rail...cost of purchasing the longer pcs. probably about $300, cost of the 
> 22" pcs. i bought was about $100...there is a bit of a "clack-clack" noise 
> as the carriage rolls over the joint, but only if it is done with a bit of 
> speed...but not issues with the carriage doing it's job of keeping a tight 
> tolerance...a good test was when from one end of the machine, with a good 
> "push", the router carriage almost makes it to the other end(16 ft.)
> 3) i was a bit worried that if the front and back rails were not parallel, 
> the router carriage would bind and thus not roll as easy as it 
> should...legacy originally designed the carriage to be locked into the 
> front rail using the black "top hats"...on the back rail, the carriage just 
> "floats" in the rail on black slugs...with the linear bearing set up, both 
> front and back are locked into place...no room for a lot of error in the 
> rails being parallel...but all worked out well over the full length of the 
> bed...i believe i can attribute this to the base we made...due to it being 
> very rigid, straight and having no flex, the machine stays square and 
> parallel
> 4) the "Y" axis is really nice and a huge improvement than before...i can 
> see using a template will be much easier now...again, just a careful 
> layout, some drilling/milling and it was done...i still have to play with 
> the lead screw mounting on the right side of the carriage, but do not 
> anticipate any problems there...just extend the original mounting brackets
> 5) and some of the bad...the manufacturer suggests greasing the 
> rails...obviously that is not going to work, considering the dust 
> problem...i did have a conversation with them and explained that the 
> carriages would only be moving at a snails pace for the vast majority of 
> time...these slides are intended for heavy, rapidly moving loads (like 
> sliding doors) and thus, the grease requirement...and although i could not 
> get them to say it( CYA time!), they basically said under my conditions, it 
> would not be necessary to grease the rails...what they were concerned with 
> was the outside of the bearing wearing and i don't see that ever happening( 
> if it does happen, that means i made a ton of money!)...worse case 
> scenario, replace the carriages, if needed...and i certainly am not going 
> to worry about that in my lifetime, LOL!...total height sacrificed in doing 
> both axis' wound up to be 1 3/8" to 1 1/2", so no issues for me, not sure 
> if that would be a problem for others...the jury is still out on the dust 
> situation...the company says in their literature that they can make wipers 
> for these carriages, but it seems to be a custom thing, and most likely 
> would add enough to

Re: linear bearing update...the good, the bad and the ugly

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

another excellent suggestion, bill!...should be easy enough to do...and 
some of the better blades are mylar covered so dust should roll off easy 
enough...but the brush should clean any dust  that might linger...and since 
the tapes are spring loaded, there is no resistance put on the linear 
bearings( it would have been negligible, regardless)...things seem to be 
falling into place too easily on this idea...i just hope it goes together 
as easily as the theory is laying it out...thanks for the input...excellent 
group participation on this!...joe

On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 6:19:24 PM UTC-5, aussiman wrote:
>
>  One thing you might need to add just as an extra would be a little brush 
> or somthing at the tape measure itself to clean any dust off the tape as it 
> retracts  so the tape itself wont jam from excess  dust.. hope this tape 
> idea works
>
> Bill
>
>  
>
>  
>  
> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com ] 
> *Sent:* Sunday, 11 January 2015 5:59 AM
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: linear bearing update...the good, the bad and the ugly
>  
>  
>  
> well, this "cover the rail" idea has gotten my wheels turning...the linear 
> rail has an overall width of 1 3/16"...i am temporarily guessing that the 
> opening at the top of the rail is about 15/16"...tape rulers come in 1", 1 
> 1/8" and 1 1/4" widths, the better ones are made of stainless steel and 
> they have a slight curvature to them...i am not in the shop till monday,so 
> for now i do not have any thing to actually look at, but when the tape is 
> upside down, the curvature of the blade seems well suited to the shape of 
> the rail, working as a cap to cover the rail quite well...a holder for the 
> tape canister itself, can be easily made to go on the end of the legacy 
> aluminum rail...simply drop the tape into the holder and pull it out to 
> meet the bearing carrier...drill and tap the end of the bearing carrier and 
> attach the tab on the end of the tape...only need to work out how to keep 
> the tape centered over the rail while not obstructing the travel of the 
> bearing carriage...have a few ideas for that...also, build a "skirt" to 
> surround the bearing carriages(removable for bearing adjustment, if needed) 
> and there will be little, or possibly no, dust penetration into the 
> rails...tape should last forever, as there will be much less use as for 
> what the tape was originally intended for...i might be getting ahead of 
> myself here, but this seems like an ideal solution to the problem...and, of 
> course, this applies to the track and bearings i have chosen for my 
> upgrade...not sure how well it would work with other types of linear 
> bearings...i should be able to give this some attention on monday and will 
> post additional comments then...joe
>
> On Friday, January 9, 2015 at 1:58:42 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>  
> progress to date:
>  
> 1) "X" and "Y" axis' are done
>  
> 2) "X" axis was not as simple as i had hoped...in retrospect, welding the 
> rails end to end to achieve the 16 ft. lengths i needed was not the best 
> idea, although it did save money on the purchase, i lost some of that 
> savings in the labor of filing the joints(total welding and filing time was 
> about 3 hours...total of 16 joints, 8 per 16 ft. length)...in hindsight, i 
> should have bought four 8 ft. pcs. and then deal with just one joint per 
> rail...cost of purchasing the longer pcs. probably about $300, cost of the 
> 22" pcs. i bought was about $100...there is a bit of a "clack-clack" noise 
> as the carriage rolls over the joint, but only if it is done with a bit of 
> speed...but not issues with the carriage doing it's job of keeping a tight 
> tolerance...a good test was when from one end of the machine, with a good 
> "push", the router carriage almost makes it to the other end(16 ft.)
>  
> 3) i was a bit worried that if the front and back rails were not parallel, 
> the router carriage would bind and thus not roll as easy as it 
> should...legacy originally designed the carriage to be locked into the 
> front rail using the black "top hats"...on the back rail, the carriage just 
> "floats" in the rail on black slugs...with the linear bearing set up, both 
> front and back are locked into place...no room for a lot of error in the 
> rails being parallel...but all worked out well over the full length of the 
> bed...i believe i can attribute this to the base we made...due to it being 
> very rigid, straight and having no flex, the machine stays square and 
> parallel
>  
> 4) the "Y" axis is really nice and a huge improvement than before...i can 
> see using a template will be much easier now...again, just a careful 
> layout, some drilling/milling and it was done...i still have to play with 
> the lead screw mounting on the right side of the carriage, but do not 
> anticipate any problems there...just extend the original mounting bracket

Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

you still would not be able to connect the "Z" axis carriage to the linear 
rail and bearing...the supports would still be an obstacle

On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 10:28:19 AM UTC-5, yknotwood wrote:
>
> Why not move the vertical supports to the outside of the rails, leaving 
> the underside clear?
>
>  
>
> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com ] 
> *Sent:* Monday, January 05, 2015 4:37 AM
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy
>
>  
>
> well, got to the shop this morning and headed for the legacy before taking 
> off my coat!...LOL!...can't mount the slide on the underside of the "X" 
> axis rail...the vertical rail supports are in the way...they are every 3 
> ft. or so...but this idea would work on the other legacy's, providing there 
> is no support in the center of the machine...i think the 1000 models are 
> doable, and the 1200's perhaps...the 1800's are not doable as they have the 
> vertical support i am referring to...so it's a top mounted linear rail for 
> my machine and i will just have to deal with the dust...but in my 
> situations, the dust is very minimal as we use the legacy strictly for 
> decorative cuts...no turning, planing, etc. operations that would produce 
> large amounts of sawdust...with an adequate collector set up on the 
> machine, i am anticipating not having that big a problem with dust getting 
> into the rails...and as mentioned before, i will just have to diligent in 
> using a blow gun when operating the machine, as needed...for others using 
> the full capabilities of the legacy, the problem would most likely be more 
> of an issue...anyway, the mod continues...progress reports to 
> follow...thanks for the feedback...joe
>
> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:31:33 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>
> hi mike
>
>   that approach never crossed my mind! (and why this group is so 
> helpful when doing things like this)...i am not in the shop at this moment, 
> but i think it could work on the "X" axis...certainly would do an excellent 
> job of reducing or even eliminating the dust problem...the "Y" axis might 
> be difficult...setting the rails deeper might reduce the diameter capacity 
> of the machine...nut sure, but definitely worth looking into...certainly 
> will look at this first thing monday morning and post some thoughts...many 
> thanks mike
>
> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 12:00:00 PM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote:
>
> Joe
> I am wondering if there is any way you would be able to mount the track 
> under the rails.  This would take care of the sawdust catching problem as 
> well as allow you to get the carriage lowered to the exact position needed 
> for optimum use.  All that would be necessary would be to mount the rails 
> from the outer edge.  Then a big set of "C" brackets to mount the existing 
> carriage to.  Then connect that assembly to the linear carriage brackets in 
> the picture.  With the proper legs going down the the rollers, you would be 
> able to get the existing carriage to hunker down a bit closer to the work.  
> Or shorten the carriage "Y" rails and actually set the carriage deeper 
> between the rails.  Just a thought
>
> Mike
> OK
>
> On 1/2/2015 5:13 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills wrote:
>
> progress report...received a linear carriage recently that is to be used 
> with the rails i have chosen...did not want to take the plunge of buying a 
> quantity without being sure that it all would function to my needs, so i 
> opted for just the one piece...the carriage is made very well, tight 
> tolerances on the bearings and bolt holes, all bearings easily 
> adjustable...set up mock-ups of the mounting on the "X" axis and the "Y" 
> axis...the first photo shows the mounting set up for the "X" axis...this 
> worked out extremely well using the "T" slot nuts and button head allen 
> bolts( 1/4"-20), all from mcmaster...the carriage centers perfectly in the 
> rail...it will add 13/16" in height to the "Z" axis assembly, but i feel 
> that is minimal and certainly manageable...the second photo shows the 
> mounting on the "Y" axis...the flat plate is 1/8" X 1 1/2", drilled and 
> tapped( 1/4"-20) holes that line up to the holes in the linear rails...i 
> originally thought the rail would "cradle" into the legacy extruded 
> aluminum railing very easily, but it took a bit of tweaking for it to sit 
> the way it should...but it did work out and all is tight and 
> secure...again, the same button heads w

Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

if the linear rail is mounted on the underside of the legacy aluminum rail( 
and i am assuming the mounting is on the upper rail, not the bottom rail), 
you  would need an "L" shaped piece of metal to connect the "Y" axis 
carriage to the linear bearing carriages...these "L" pieces would then hit 
the vertical supports, even if they are thin, flat steel...this only 
applies to machines that have a vertical support in the center of the 
machine...i know 1800's have them and possibly 1200's...but any machine 
that does not have a center support, mounting the linear rail on the bottom 
of the legacy rail is doable...although, i don't see "dodging the bullet" 
if the "Y" axis is set up on bearings...i am really hoping the tape measure 
thing works out, as it will solve this problem...joe

On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 10:59:48 AM UTC-5, yknotwood wrote:
>
> Even if you use flat steel and flush mounted bolts?
>
>  
>
> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com ] 
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 11, 2015 9:36 AM
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy
>
>  
>
> you still would not be able to connect the "Z" axis carriage to the linear 
> rail and bearing...the supports would still be an obstacle
>
> On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 10:28:19 AM UTC-5, yknotwood wrote:
>
> Why not move the vertical supports to the outside of the rails, leaving 
> the underside clear?
>
>  
>
> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com] 
> *Sent:* Monday, January 05, 2015 4:37 AM
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy
>
>  
>
> well, got to the shop this morning and headed for the legacy before taking 
> off my coat!...LOL!...can't mount the slide on the underside of the "X" 
> axis rail...the vertical rail supports are in the way...they are every 3 
> ft. or so...but this idea would work on the other legacy's, providing there 
> is no support in the center of the machine...i think the 1000 models are 
> doable, and the 1200's perhaps...the 1800's are not doable as they have the 
> vertical support i am referring to...so it's a top mounted linear rail for 
> my machine and i will just have to deal with the dust...but in my 
> situations, the dust is very minimal as we use the legacy strictly for 
> decorative cuts...no turning, planing, etc. operations that would produce 
> large amounts of sawdust...with an adequate collector set up on the 
> machine, i am anticipating not having that big a problem with dust getting 
> into the rails...and as mentioned before, i will just have to diligent in 
> using a blow gun when operating the machine, as needed...for others using 
> the full capabilities of the legacy, the problem would most likely be more 
> of an issue...anyway, the mod continues...progress reports to 
> follow...thanks for the feedback...joe
>
> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:31:33 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>
> hi mike
>
>   that approach never crossed my mind! (and why this group is so 
> helpful when doing things like this)...i am not in the shop at this moment, 
> but i think it could work on the "X" axis...certainly would do an excellent 
> job of reducing or even eliminating the dust problem...the "Y" axis might 
> be difficult...setting the rails deeper might reduce the diameter capacity 
> of the machine...nut sure, but definitely worth looking into...certainly 
> will look at this first thing monday morning and post some thoughts...many 
> thanks mike
>
> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 12:00:00 PM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote:
>
> Joe
> I am wondering if there is any way you would be able to mount the track 
> under the rails.  This would take care of the sawdust catching problem as 
> well as allow you to get the carriage lowered to the exact position needed 
> for optimum use.  All that would be necessary would be to mount the rails 
> from the outer edge.  Then a big set of "C" brackets to mount the existing 
> carriage to.  Then connect that assembly to the linear carriage brackets in 
> the picture.  With the proper legs going down the the rollers, you would be 
> able to get the existing carriage to hunker down a bit closer to the work.  
> Or shorten the carriage "Y" rails and actually set the carriage deeper 
> between the rails.  Just a thought
>
> Mike
> OK
>
> On 1/2/2015 5:13 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills wrote:
>
> progress report...received a linear carriage recently that is to be used 
> 

Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

5 1:31:33 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>
> hi mike
>
>   that approach never crossed my mind! (and why this group is so 
> helpful when doing things like this)...i am not in the shop at this moment, 
> but i think it could work on the "X" axis...certainly would do an excellent 
> job of reducing or even eliminating the dust problem...the "Y" axis might 
> be difficult...setting the rails deeper might reduce the diameter capacity 
> of the machine...nut sure, but definitely worth looking into...certainly 
> will look at this first thing monday morning and post some thoughts...many 
> thanks mike
>
> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 12:00:00 PM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote:
>
> Joe
> I am wondering if there is any way you would be able to mount the track 
> under the rails.  This would take care of the sawdust catching problem as 
> well as allow you to get the carriage lowered to the exact position needed 
> for optimum use.  All that would be necessary would be to mount the rails 
> from the outer edge.  Then a big set of "C" brackets to mount the existing 
> carriage to.  Then connect that assembly to the linear carriage brackets in 
> the picture.  With the proper legs going down the the rollers, you would be 
> able to get the existing carriage to hunker down a bit closer to the work.  
> Or shorten the carriage "Y" rails and actually set the carriage deeper 
> between the rails.  Just a thought
>
> Mike
> OK
>
> On 1/2/2015 5:13 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills wrote:
>
> progress report...received a linear carriage recently that is to be used 
> with the rails i have chosen...did not want to take the plunge of buying a 
> quantity without being sure that it all would function to my needs, so i 
> opted for just the one piece...the carriage is made very well, tight 
> tolerances on the bearings and bolt holes, all bearings easily 
> adjustable...set up mock-ups of the mounting on the "X" axis and the "Y" 
> axis...the first photo shows the mounting set up for the "X" axis...this 
> worked out extremely well using the "T" slot nuts and button head allen 
> bolts( 1/4"-20), all from mcmaster...the carriage centers perfectly in the 
> rail...it will add 13/16" in height to the "Z" axis assembly, but i feel 
> that is minimal and certainly manageable...the second photo shows the 
> mounting on the "Y" axis...the flat plate is 1/8" X 1 1/2", drilled and 
> tapped( 1/4"-20) holes that line up to the holes in the linear rails...i 
> originally thought the rail would "cradle" into the legacy extruded 
> aluminum railing very easily, but it took a bit of tweaking for it to sit 
> the way it should...but it did work out and all is tight and 
> secure...again, the same button heads were used and there is no 
> interference with the linear slide passing over them. 
>
>  
>
> some other miscellaneous notes:
>
>  
>
> 1) when i passed the linear carriage through the track that i had welded 
> together(three, 22" pieces, two welded joints), there was a "bump"...so i 
> did a bit of filing and the bump was reduced to almost no bump at all...and 
> certainly not anything that would transfer through three axis' and the 
> router to then leave a mark on a workpiece...still might consider buying 
> the lengths i need and thus not have to do any filing, but there is some 
> finances saved by doing the joints...and i feel if i jig the pieces up 
> better than i did before, then weld, the filing would be little or perhaps 
> not even necessary
>
>  
>
> 2) yes, i did paint the rails, "legacy" red...from
>
>  this moment forward, this set up was a legacy option from back in the 
> day!...that's my story and i'm sticking to it!...LMAO!
>
>  
>
> 3) to the moderators of this page, please take note...i am just kidding in 
> regards to #2...LOL
>
>  
>
> well, now i wait for the rest of the carriages that i ordered...in the 
> meantime i will begin doing the welding...after that it will be just a 
> bunch of drilling, tapping and some assembly...and two axis' will be 
> completed...considering doing the "Z" axis...i can see doing some template 
> following using the "Z": axis, but only if a small, counter weight set up 
> can be done so the router assembly can "float" above the workpiece, while 
> the carriage follows a template on the up/down plane, NOT the front/back 
> plane...there are times we need to do work like this in our shop, but have 
> found a way to do it on our shaper...but i get very nervous when we do it 
> because it is a b

Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

in, flat steel...this only 
> applies to machines that have a vertical support in the center of the 
> machine...i know 1800's have them and possibly 1200's...but any machine 
> that does not have a center support, mounting the linear rail on the bottom 
> of the legacy rail is doable...although, i don't see "dodging the bullet" 
> if the "Y" axis is set up on bearings...i am really hoping the tape measure 
> thing works out, as it will solve this problem...joe
>
> On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 10:59:48 AM UTC-5, yknotwood wrote:
>
> Even if you use flat steel and flush mounted bolts?
>
>  
>
> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com [
> mailto:legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com ] 
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 11, 2015 9:36 AM
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy
>
>  
>
> you still would not be able to connect the "Z" axis carriage to the linear 
> rail and bearing...the supports would still be an obstacle
>
> On Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 10:28:19 AM UTC-5, yknotwood wrote:
>
> Why not move the vertical supports to the outside of the rails, leaving 
> the underside clear?
>
>  
>
> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com [
> mailto:legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com] 
> *Sent:* Monday, January 05, 2015 4:37 AM
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: linear bearing mod for a legacy
>
>  
>
> well, got to the shop this morning and headed for the legacy before taking 
> off my coat!...LOL!...can't mount the slide on the underside of the "X" 
> axis rail...the vertical rail supports are in the way...they are every 3 
> ft. or so...but this idea would work on the other legacy's, providing there 
> is no support in the center of the machine...i think the 1000 models are 
> doable, and the 1200's perhaps...the 1800's are not doable as they have the 
> vertical support i am referring to...so it's a top mounted linear rail for 
> my machine and i will just have to deal with the dust...but in my 
> situations, the dust is very minimal as we use the legacy strictly for 
> decorative cuts...no turning, planing, etc. operations that would produce 
> large amounts of sawdust...with an adequate collector set up on the 
> machine, i am anticipating not having that big a problem with dust getting 
> into the rails...and as mentioned before, i will just have to diligent in 
> using a blow gun when operating the machine, as needed...for others using 
> the full capabilities of the legacy, the problem would most likely be more 
> of an issue...anyway, the mod continues...progress reports to 
> follow...thanks for the feedback...joe
>
> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:31:33 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>
> hi mike
>
>   that approach never crossed my mind! (and why this group is so 
> helpful when doing things like this)...i am not in the shop at this moment, 
> but i think it could work on the "X" axis...certainly would do an excellent 
> job of reducing or even eliminating the dust problem...the "Y" axis might 
> be difficult...setting the rails deeper might reduce the diameter capacity 
> of the machine...nut sure, but definitely worth looking into...certainly 
> will look at this first thing monday morning and post some thoughts...many 
> thanks mike
>
> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 12:00:00 PM UTC-5, LILtwisted wrote:
>
> Joe
> I am wondering if there is any way you would be able to mount the track 
> under the rails.  This would take care of the sawdust catching problem as 
> well as allow you to get the carriage lowered to the exact position needed 
> for optimum use.  All that would be necessary would be to mount the rails 
> from the outer edge.  Then a big set of "C" brackets to mount the existing 
> carriage to.  Then connect that assembly to the linear carriage brackets in 
> the picture.  With the proper legs going down the the rollers, you would be 
> able to get the existing carriage to hunker down a bit closer to the work.  
> Or shorten the carriage "Y" rails and actually set the carriage deeper 
> between the rails.  Just a thought
>
> Mike
> OK
>
> On 1/2/2015 5:13 PM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills wrote:
>
> progress report...received a linear carriage recently that is to be used 
> with the rails i have chosen...did not want to take the plunge of buying a 
> quantity without being sure that it all would function to my needs, so i 
> opted for just the one piece...the carriage is made very well, tight 
> tolerances on the bearings and bolt holes, all bearings easily 
> adjustable...set up mock-ups of the mo

Re: split nut and lead screw upgrade

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

hi curtis,
 the part of the split nut that has the acme threads never 
binds up inside it's "casing"...i think the fact that it made of nylon 
helps quite a bit here...the tolerances are very tight...i put some masking 
tape around the split nut before welding it's surrounding pieces...very 
accurate stuff here!...LOL!...on the "X" axis, the nut slides up and down 
very easily and it is easily removable if it ever needs a tune-up or 
replacing...it's tolerances are so good that sometimes you need to move the 
carriage a bit or turn the lead screw ever so little just to engage the nut 
properly...i got "tagged" by the gods on the "Y" axis though...forgot to 
put the masking tape and due to the welds shrinking a bit as they cooled, 
the metal clamped down onto the split nut...managed to get the split nut 
out and with just a kiss on the sander, the split nut was working as it 
should...i always like seeing a row of brass pattern rosettes on a rose 
engine lathe...had the opportunity to see one once, in person...very cool 
stuff indeed...having something like that on a legacy mill is really 
interesting...if i ever started messing with that concept i would not get 
any work done for quite a while...LOL!...i sometimes wonder what other 
ideas,mods, attachments. etc. might be lurking out there in any members 
shop...all great stuff...thanks...joe

On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 4:21:17 PM UTC-5, Curtis wrote:
>
> Hello Joe
> Nice work, Sure looks Pretty! But one question, Is aligning up the threads 
> on the screw with the nut, Have you found any problem with the nut  being 
> wedged in like that? Just curious? ;-)
>  
> Joe my Rose follower has a lot of possibilitys. and I have a lot more 
> pictures of different patterns and gear pitches, that I have tried, some 
> are nice and others are ... But its all in the learing curve. (so to speak. 
> )
> Please keep up the  good work, I very much like seeing what you are doing.
> Have a good night.
> C.A.G.
>
> --
> *From: *"'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills" <
> legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com >
> *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Sent: *Friday, January 16, 2015 12:26:16 PM
> *Subject: *split nut and lead screw upgrade
>
> the inspiration for this upgrade came from the work jon preston did on his 
> machine...namely, encapsulating the split nut, therefore not allowing it to 
> twist or spin out of the original holder legacy provided...this was done on 
> the "X" axis split nut(photo #1) and the "Y" axis split nut(photo 
> #2)...basically just some 1/8" thick scraps from the shop, cut, fit and 
> weld...quick and easy...and i would like to comment on a previous response 
> regarding TIG welding...TIG welding steel is the simplest of all welding 
> processes...it almost like painting with a brush...i have a welding text 
> book that in the first paragraph of the TIG welding section, it states that 
> if you cannot TIG weld, welding is not for you...LOL!...it is that 
> simple...now, welding aluminum is a different animal...for the few times i 
> have tried, i failed miserably...luckily enough, we have never needed to 
> weld aluminum, whether it be for a job or an in-house machine mod or 
> jig...but TIG welding steel and brass for some 30 years, perhaps i would be 
> a bit better now but i am sure i would need a lot of practice if i wanted 
> to weld aluminum...point being, i would encourage anyone that is into 
> machinery, mods, jigs,etc. to buy even a simple harbor freight TIG welder 
> and have it in their shop...the detail welding that is possible, even with 
> very little experience, is incredible...nice precision welds, no splatter 
> to clean,easily burn through paint to do a weld...again, i strongly 
> recommend it 
>
> the other upgrade was to the "Y" axis leadscrew(photo #2)...first, had to 
> raise the position of the lead screw due to the addition of the 
> bearings...this made the bracket a bit "wobbly"...added a piece of flat bar 
> on edge to the bracket...then added a cross brace that sits on the aluminum 
> channel so the bracket cannot "cant" if a sufficient pressure is put on 
> it...this sometimes happened even before the bearings were added, usually 
> because the screws would come loose...then wanted to eliminate the pressed 
> fit bronze bushings, so a split collar was welded to the bracket(the bottom 
> half welded) and a 3/8" X 7/8" bearing set in place...the bearing even had 
> a retaining ring which worked perfectly to help keep it in place and 
> square...and encapsulated the split nut in a similar fashion as done on the 
> "X" axis...the "Y" axis movem

Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

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 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 from it, send an email 
to legacy-ornamental-mills+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

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 rece

Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

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...to

Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

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 

Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

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 i

Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

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 somethin

Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

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 

Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

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 
&

Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

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!, 
>>> 

Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

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 Lega

Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

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 leg

Re: gear carriage bearing upgrade

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

o 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 thr

Re: digital read out dro upgrade

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

curtis,
   i consider myself to be very fortunate to be at work and doing 
the "making a living" thing, while also being able to "play" with my 
machinery which is basically my hobby and something i enjoy doing...plus 
when we are busy with billable work for clients, i can simply delegate 
work, answer questions when necessary and yet have time during the day to 
mess around with the machinery...and even steal a guy to give me a hand 
occasionally...combine that with some OCB issues i have and you see the 
results...i've read your posts and have seen a video of your work and it is 
all impressive stuff...keep it coming...will do the same on the 
updates...joe

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 6:47:41 PM UTC-5, Curtis wrote:
>
> Nice Joe! 
> I very much like this one. I have been thinking of buying a DRO for a 
> while, but so far I just have not gotten around to doing so. Ive even been 
> also playing around with the idea of mounting a dial indicator on to my Z 
> axis, to make a poor man's version. But, There is so very little time in my 
> life to Play with all The neat things that I want to do, I must be put in 
> order, and One project at a time is what I am tring to live by,   You know 
> the Old saying,( at least its something that Ive heard all my life.)  YOU 
> Do one thing at a time, You do it very very well, And Then move on. ( for 
> me there is a matter of controversy on What it means to do your very 
> best... Is good, good enough? I think, I can do better... is a problem that 
> Im plagued with at time.)n;-)
>
> Sorry back to the topic.
> Joe Please let us know how it works out for you, and if there are any 
> problems with your set-up that you find, please let us know.
> Have a good night.
> C.A.G.
>
> --
> *From: *"'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills" <
> legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com >
> *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Sent: *Friday, January 23, 2015 4:03:29 PM
> *Subject: *digital read out   dro   upgrade
>
> ok guys,
>  this has to be the easiest add-on to date...a DRO i purchased 
> from ebay for the "Y" axis...cost seemed reasonable, $140.00 for the 24" 
> stainless model or $50.00 for the same piece but the bar is made of a 
> reinforced resin material instead of stainless...seems to be of a decent 
> quality...a lot of features...mm or inch...zeroing capability and a few 
> others that i still have to learn how to use...the best part though was the 
> set up which took about 30 minutes using some extra legacy, rail, screw 
> plates...drilled and tapped only one hole...quick and easy...first photo 
> shows the rail, second shows the DRO...and the DRO unit has a magnetic 
> back, if remote, off-bracket mounting is desired...they have all sizes up 
> to 36"... or possibly 48". i think...and no paint necessary!...LOL...just a 
> quick mod i thought i would share...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 from it, send an email 
to legacy-ornamental-mills+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Old LOM for sale in Milwaukee $600

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

hey mac!...i have one of these woodchucks...if this was closer, i would be 
all over this...care to venture a guess why?...LOL...joe

On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 9:19:53 PM UTC-5, Va Oak wrote:
>
> Maybe it's a Shanghi knock-off - with a couple of Legacy parts added for 
> good measure.  
> The frame is definitely NOT a-la-NY Joe!  WYYY too light weight - and 
> NOT long enuff!;-)
> Mac
> --
> --
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: Bill Bulkeley 
> Sent: Jan 23, 2015 8:53 PM 
> To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> Subject: RE: Old LOM for sale in Milwaukee $600 
>
>  Looks a bit woodchucky to me is but that part in the box with rollers on 
> it is that legacy?
>
> Bill
>
>  
>  
> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *
> Harvey
> *Sent:* Saturday, 24 January 2015 12:37 PM
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Old LOM for sale in Milwaukee $600
>  
>  
>  
> http://milwaukee.craigslist.org/tls/4852950454.html
>  
>  
>  
> I do not know what model it is.
>  
>  
>  
> Harvey
>  
>

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: New Owner of a Woodchuck MA - Need documentation

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

i would say it is a legacy piece as it is made to fit the woodchuck...when 
i first got the piece i thought that maybe someone had made it...but now 
that i see there are others out there that match it perfectly, i would 
guess that it is a legacy piece...wouldn't take much to make longer rollers 
on this piece to achieve a wider support...joe

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 8:55:03 AM UTC-5, aussiman wrote:
>
>  I have not seen that before does anyone know if it’s a legacy part or is 
> it from something else 
>
> Or is it a homemade thing. Being long it might be good for spirals the 
> genuine legacy thin stock support doesn’t work perfectly on coarser single 
> start barleys a longer support is much better 
>
> Bill
>
>  
>  
> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com ] 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 27 January 2015 12:22 AM
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Cc:* curtg...@wowway.com 
> *Subject:* Re: New Owner of a Woodchuck MA - Need documentation
>  
>  
>  
> thought i would help out with a couple of photos of that adjustable center 
> rest that fits the woodchuck...it has a 1 3/4" height adjustment...rollers 
> are 4" wide...mounts on the woodchuck bed rails, which are 6 1/2" 
> wide...piece is well made and riveted together...joe
>
> On Sunday, January 25, 2015 at 4:23:38 PM UTC-5, Curtis wrote:
>   
> Yes Roger the X 4 gear set was Awesome! I wasnt able to buy them but I did 
> see a set first hand, Pertty Cool stuff ! 
>  
> Thanks for the note, I all but forgot about that set. But I also know that 
> Legacy also use to sell a .5 gear set along with the standard,. 25 gear set 
> and X2 
>  
> C.A.G.
>  
>  
>  --
>  
> *From: *"Roger P" 
> *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
> *Sent: *Sunday, January 25, 2015 3:58:55 PM
> *Subject: *Re: New Owner of a Woodchuck MA - Need documentation
>  
>  
>   
> Hi Guys
>  
> Just to muddy the waters on Legacy Gears following on from Curtiss’s 
> comments below. The Legacy gears were all the same gauge of metal on Model 
> 900, 1200, 1800 and REVO. But Legacy also made a set called 4X which were 
> much heavier gauge of metal and they also had a much larger range of 
> ratios. They are like hens teeth to find except that Bill in Australia has 
> some burnt ones.
>  
> Cheers
> Euro Roger
>   
>  
>   
> *From:* CURTIS GEORGE
>  
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 25, 2015 7:06 PM
>  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
>  
> *Subject:* Re: New Owner of a Woodchuck MA - Need documentation
>   
>  
>
> Hay James.
>  
> I have two friends who own the WoodChuck , I have borrowed a few gears in 
> the past from one of them, those gears fit my 1000ex with no problems, (the 
> gears are fine tooth not the newer large tooth the Legacy used on the late 
> 90's version units.)
>  
> So I think when Mike gets back in town, you should be able to feel 
> confront- able knowing that you will be getting something that will work on 
> your old machine. 
>  
> Good luck.
>  
> C.A.G.
>  
>  
>  --
>  
> *From: *"James Fadenrecht" 
> *To: *legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
> *Sent: *Sunday, January 25, 2015 1:47:28 PM
> *Subject: *RE: New Owner of a Woodchuck MA - Need documentation
>  
>  
>  
> Thanks
>  
>  
>   --
>  
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 15:35:43 -0600
> From: legac...@iglide.net
> To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: New Owner of a Woodchuck MA - Need documentation
>  
>  
>  
> I will help you out the best I can when I get this back
>  
>  
>  
> On 1/24/2015 12:52 PM, James Fadenrecht wrote:
>  
>  I've been working with Legacy to get the woodchuck manual and the best 
> they could do is a copy of the orginal mode, not the MA.  I have that some 
> where.  I'm still working on the split nut for the main drive screw.  
> Legacy sent me a Delrin split nut for another model they thought may work.  
> Unfortunately I only received the split nut and nothing to hold it or mount 
> to the machine.  I've been trying piece together what this may look like so 
> I can fab one myself if necessary.  I would rather use on that is made for 
> te equipment.  Any thoughts?
>  
>  
>   --
>  
> Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 10:25:26 -0600
> From: legac...@iglide.net
> To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: New Owner of a Woodchuck MA - Need documentation
>  
>  
>  
> Looks like I will be able to get you a manual soon, Just bought the one 
> listed on Craigs List.  More to come.
> Mike
> OK
>  
> On 10/9/2014 9:48 PM, Tim Krause wrote:
>  
>  Do you have a photo?  I'm assuming a delrin nut.
>  
>  
>  
> -Tim
>  
>  
>  
>  - Original Message -
>  
> *From:* Okla Mike (Liltwisted)
>  
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com
>  
> *Sent:* Thursday, October 09, 2014 6:54 PM
>  
> *Subject:* Re: New Owner of a Woodchuck MA - Need documentation
>  
>  
>  
> Split nut on the main drive but not on the 

Re: enlarging turning capacity of a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

also considering a brace/gusset where the cross brace meets the vertical 
support...it would be shaped so as not to be in the way of the largest 
turning diameter, but be as large as possible...will determine if it is 
needed once the modified machine is completely reassembled...joe

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 8:54:09 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>
> starting a separate discussion  regarding enlarging the turning capacity 
> of my legacy, as i have decided to proceed with this project...although, i 
> am still a bit nervous about this mod...what you are looking at are the 
> prototypes of the vertical supports and the cross braces...the vertical 
> supports were easy enough...some 2" X 3". cold rolled steel is a very nice 
> match...the width is the same as the legacy piece, the depth about 3/16" 
> deeper than the legacy piece, but that does not matter... and leaving it a 
> full, rectangular tube will only make the whole support stronger...i cut 
> the legacy support in such a way that if i need to lengthen the vertical 
> slot(where the bed support brace attaches), i can always do that later once 
> i mock everything up...this work was a simple cut and weld procedure...the 
> cross brace was done in a similar fashion but i had to cut a section out of 
> the 2 X 3 tubing lengthwise and weld it back together again, so it matched 
> the width of the brace...a bit more work than the support, but it came out 
> well...everything goes back together as legacy originally intended it to 
> do...a bit relieved these two pieces came out as well as they did, but it 
> took more time than i anticipated and with many more pieces i have left to 
> do, this is going to be a longer project than i originally thought...any 
> and all comments welcome...and you all can save the "joe, you must be 
> crazy" comments, as i already know that!...thanks...joe...forgot to 
> mention...the photos are a before and after...and the added pieces of new 
> metal are 8" long each
>

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: enlarging turning capacity of a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

recently, as i was disassembling and "playing" with my machine, i noticed 
something that never dawned on me before...there seems to be not a single 
weld on the legacy whatsoever...i find this to be quite unique for a 
machine as complex as this is and a major accomplishment in engineering and 
design...not sure if it is andy, tracy or someone else's background that 
accomplished this(or perhaps a team effort)...but i certainly tip my hat to 
the craftsmanship that went into it...very well done and executed...must 
have taken an incredible amountjoe of hours to work it all out...i am 
taking a huge amount of time just to modify it, can't imagine how much time 
it took to make it originally...

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 9:02:08 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>
> also considering a brace/gusset where the cross brace meets the vertical 
> support...it would be shaped so as not to be in the way of the largest 
> turning diameter, but be as large as possible...will determine if it is 
> needed once the modified machine is completely reassembled...joe
>
> On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 8:54:09 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>>
>> starting a separate discussion  regarding enlarging the turning capacity 
>> of my legacy, as i have decided to proceed with this project...although, i 
>> am still a bit nervous about this mod...what you are looking at are the 
>> prototypes of the vertical supports and the cross braces...the vertical 
>> supports were easy enough...some 2" X 3". cold rolled steel is a very nice 
>> match...the width is the same as the legacy piece, the depth about 3/16" 
>> deeper than the legacy piece, but that does not matter... and leaving it a 
>> full, rectangular tube will only make the whole support stronger...i cut 
>> the legacy support in such a way that if i need to lengthen the vertical 
>> slot(where the bed support brace attaches), i can always do that later once 
>> i mock everything up...this work was a simple cut and weld procedure...the 
>> cross brace was done in a similar fashion but i had to cut a section out of 
>> the 2 X 3 tubing lengthwise and weld it back together again, so it matched 
>> the width of the brace...a bit more work than the support, but it came out 
>> well...everything goes back together as legacy originally intended it to 
>> do...a bit relieved these two pieces came out as well as they did, but it 
>> took more time than i anticipated and with many more pieces i have left to 
>> do, this is going to be a longer project than i originally thought...any 
>> and all comments welcome...and you all can save the "joe, you must be 
>> crazy" comments, as i already know that!...thanks...joe...forgot to 
>> mention...the photos are a before and after...and the added pieces of new 
>> metal are 8" long each
>>
>

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: enlarging turning capacity of a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

and in the "oops, i didn't think of that" department...did not consider 
that enlarging the turning capacity of the machine would also increase the 
height of the machine...too embarrassed to say what the height to the "Y" 
axis cross rail will be, but rest assured it is up there!...have a few 
ideas to address this, but any one of them is a big PITA!...stay 
tuned...just thought i would get that out there before anyone else brought 
it up...on another note, if ever i need to, i figure i can always lay some 
blankets between the rails and make a bed if ever i am in the proverbial 
dog house!...joe

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 9:12:24 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>
> recently, as i was disassembling and "playing" with my machine, i noticed 
> something that never dawned on me before...there seems to be not a single 
> weld on the legacy whatsoever...i find this to be quite unique for a 
> machine as complex as this is and a major accomplishment in engineering and 
> design...not sure if it is andy, tracy or someone else's background that 
> accomplished this(or perhaps a team effort)...but i certainly tip my hat to 
> the craftsmanship that went into it...very well done and executed...must 
> have taken an incredible amountjoe of hours to work it all out...i am 
> taking a huge amount of time just to modify it, can't imagine how much time 
> it took to make it originally...
>
> On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 9:02:08 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>>
>> also considering a brace/gusset where the cross brace meets the vertical 
>> support...it would be shaped so as not to be in the way of the largest 
>> turning diameter, but be as large as possible...will determine if it is 
>> needed once the modified machine is completely reassembled...joe
>>
>> On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 8:54:09 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>>>
>>> starting a separate discussion  regarding enlarging the turning capacity 
>>> of my legacy, as i have decided to proceed with this project...although, i 
>>> am still a bit nervous about this mod...what you are looking at are the 
>>> prototypes of the vertical supports and the cross braces...the vertical 
>>> supports were easy enough...some 2" X 3". cold rolled steel is a very nice 
>>> match...the width is the same as the legacy piece, the depth about 3/16" 
>>> deeper than the legacy piece, but that does not matter... and leaving it a 
>>> full, rectangular tube will only make the whole support stronger...i cut 
>>> the legacy support in such a way that if i need to lengthen the vertical 
>>> slot(where the bed support brace attaches), i can always do that later once 
>>> i mock everything up...this work was a simple cut and weld procedure...the 
>>> cross brace was done in a similar fashion but i had to cut a section out of 
>>> the 2 X 3 tubing lengthwise and weld it back together again, so it matched 
>>> the width of the brace...a bit more work than the support, but it came out 
>>> well...everything goes back together as legacy originally intended it to 
>>> do...a bit relieved these two pieces came out as well as they did, but it 
>>> took more time than i anticipated and with many more pieces i have left to 
>>> do, this is going to be a longer project than i originally thought...any 
>>> and all comments welcome...and you all can save the "joe, you must be 
>>> crazy" comments, as i already know that!...thanks...joe...forgot to 
>>> mention...the photos are a before and after...and the added pieces of new 
>>> metal are 8" long each
>>>
>>

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: enlarging turning capacity of a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

ok, that was just the first salvo...i am expecting quite a bit more...it's 
all good though...keep 'em coming!...joe...LOL!

On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 9:22:19 PM UTC-5, Va Oak wrote:
>
> Joe,
>
> After your latest comments about there being no welds on the LOM - I take 
> back my comment that I suspect you used to work there.  If you had - LOTS 
> of the Mill would have been welded - you LOVE welding - and do it well!  
>  
> I'll bet you even have welded steel door frames throughout your house - 
> "just because".  And you probably have 8 foot tall by 4 foot wide door 
> frames - "bigger is better"!  ;-)
>
> Mac
> --
> --------------
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills 
> Sent: Jan 26, 2015 9:12 PM 
> To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> Subject: Re: enlarging turning capacity of a legacy 
>
> recently, as i was disassembling and "playing" with my machine, i noticed 
> something that never dawned on me before...there seems to be not a single 
> weld on the legacy whatsoever...i find this to be quite unique for a 
> machine as complex as this is and a major accomplishment in engineering and 
> design...not sure if it is andy, tracy or someone else's background that 
> accomplished this(or perhaps a team effort)...but i certainly tip my hat to 
> the craftsmanship that went into it...very well done and executed...must 
> have taken an incredible amountjoe of hours to work it all out...i am 
> taking a huge amount of time just to modify it, can't imagine how much time 
> it took to make it originally...
>
> On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 9:02:08 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>>
>> also considering a brace/gusset where the cross brace meets the vertical 
>> support...it would be shaped so as not to be in the way of the largest 
>> turning diameter, but be as large as possible...will determine if it is 
>> needed once the modified machine is completely reassembled...joe
>>
>> On Monday, January 26, 2015 at 8:54:09 PM UTC-5, joe biunno wrote:
>>>
>>> starting a separate discussion  regarding enlarging the turning capacity 
>>> of my legacy, as i have decided to proceed with this project...although, i 
>>> am still a bit nervous about this mod...what you are looking at are the 
>>> prototypes of the vertical supports and the cross braces...the vertical 
>>> supports were easy enough...some 2" X 3". cold rolled steel is a very nice 
>>> match...the width is the same as the legacy piece, the depth about 3/16" 
>>> deeper than the legacy piece, but that does not matter... and leaving it a 
>>> full, rectangular tube will only make the whole support stronger...i cut 
>>> the legacy support in such a way that if i need to lengthen the vertical 
>>> slot(where the bed support brace attaches), i can always do that later once 
>>> i mock everything up...this work was a simple cut and weld procedure...the 
>>> cross brace was done in a similar fashion but i had to cut a section out of 
>>> the 2 X 3 tubing lengthwise and weld it back together again, so it matched 
>>> the width of the brace...a bit more work than the support, but it came out 
>>> well...everything goes back together as legacy originally intended it to 
>>> do...a bit relieved these two pieces came out as well as they did, but it 
>>> took more time than i anticipated and with many more pieces i have left to 
>>> do, this is going to be a longer project than i originally thought...any 
>>> and all comments welcome...and you all can save the "joe, you must be 
>>> crazy" comments, as i already know that!...thanks...joe...forgot to 
>>> mention...the photos are a before and after...and the added pieces of new 
>>> metal are 8" long each
>>>
>>  

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: enlarging turning capacity of a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

hey mac,
  you are correct...generally, the largest pole we do is 3" in 
diameter...but we also make furniture...and i can see( and have made in the 
past) a turned and fluted column for a center pedestal table...and we have 
done the type where the column splits in half when the table opens for 
leaves, with a support leg hiding in the center of the column...we 
currently have estimated to make a fluted column 96" long, with a 16" to 
18" taper, split in two as it needs to cover an 8" X 8" steel I beam in the 
client's family room...so there is an occasional use for an enlarged 
machine...rare as it may be...the other side of the coin is that i enjoy 
doing things like this...the bigger the challenge, the better the reward, 
so to speak...legacy was close to the spec's of my 
hopefully-to-be-completed machine when they produced the 2000...i just took 
it a little bit further...anyway, this mod is going to be some ride!...joe

On Tuesday, January 27, 2015 at 12:07:18 AM UTC-5, Va Oak wrote:
>
> Joe,
> As I read Bill's comments - I got to thinking:  Months ago you told us 
> your business was essentially making "custom drapery rods".  
> In MY mind, drapery rods are no bigger around than maybe THREE INCHES - 
> MAXIMUM!!  Yes - some may be 16 feet LONG - but NOT 16" in diameter.
> Are you now producing them for "The Giant's Castle" from "Jack and the 
> Beanstalk" or perhaps a "Gulliver-esque" theme park?
> I'm beginning to think that you are going to try to land a contract to 
> replace the huge columns on The White House.  ;-)
>
> On a serious note:  Why this apparent change in direction of your business 
> model?
>
> I gotta admit - you keep us both educated AND entertained.
> Thanks for the continuing updates - I do enjoy & appreciate them.
> Mac
> --
> --
>
> -Original Message- 
> From: Bill Bulkeley 
> Sent: Jan 26, 2015 11:24 PM 
> To: legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  
> Subject: RE: enlarging turning capacity of a legacy 
>
>  Very nice i will be interested to see if the gear linkages will still 
>  reach to fit all the gears when finished
>
> This will really extend the size of work you will be able to do
>
> Bill
>
>  
>  
> *From:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com ] 
> *Sent:* Tuesday, 27 January 2015 12:54 PM
> *To:* legacy-orna...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* enlarging turning capacity of a legacy
>  
>  
>  
> starting a separate discussion  regarding enlarging the turning capacity 
> of my legacy, as i have decided to proceed with this project...although, i 
> am still a bit nervous about this mod...what you are looking at are the 
> prototypes of the vertical supports and the cross braces...the vertical 
> supports were easy enough...some 2" X 3". cold rolled steel is a very nice 
> match...the width is the same as the legacy piece, the depth about 3/16" 
> deeper than the legacy piece, but that does not matter... and leaving it a 
> full, rectangular tube will only make the whole support stronger...i cut 
> the legacy support in such a way that if i need to lengthen the vertical 
> slot(where the bed support brace attaches), i can always do that later once 
> i mock everything up...this work was a simple cut and weld procedure...the 
> cross brace was done in a similar fashion but i had to cut a section out of 
> the 2 X 3 tubing lengthwise and weld it back together again, so it matched 
> the width of the brace...a bit more work than the support, but it came out 
> well...everything goes back together as legacy originally intended it to 
> do...a bit relieved these two pieces came out as well as they did, but it 
> took more time than i anticipated and with many more pieces i have left to 
> do, this is going to be a longer project than i originally thought...any 
> and all comments welcome...and you all can save the "joe, you must be 
> crazy" comments, as i already know that!...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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: enlarging turning capacity of a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

tim,
 haven't lengthened the slot that the bed support bracket slides 
in...not yet, anyway...wasn't sure if it was going to be necessary...some 
preliminary calculations said maybe not, but now that the prototype is 
done, i see that the slot needs to be lengthened about 3"...but that is why 
i cut the original legacy support where i did...it will allow me to 
lengthen the slot certainly more than would be necessary, even after the 
pieces are welded together...and the machine will be enlarged by 8" 
+/-...i'm not sure i know how to trim the posts...are you referring to the 
fact that with every reply, previous replies are posted with it?...i agree, 
that is annoying...i'll experiment a bit to correct that, but not sure how 
to do it...can i go back to previous replies and edit them to not include 
to extra posts?...clean things up a bit, so to speak...thanks for the 
reply...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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: enlarging turning capacity of a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

tim, figured out how to clean up the posts...thanks for the suggestion...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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: enlarging turning capacity of a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

bill,
  not sure about the gear train reaching...i am increasing the machine 
by 8", but that gets cut in half to 4" since the gear train works from the 
center line out to the lead screw...but i have worked out what i need to do 
if it needs to be lengthened...and i have all the necessary gears and parts 
to do it as leftovers from the second machine used for the original 
extension...but hoping that work will not be necessary as this mod will be 
taking more time than i expected...we'll see how it goes...thanks for the 
reply...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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: enlarging turning capacity of a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

tim,
 can you be a bit more specific when you say"changing the formula"?...i 
do understand that if i complete the mod and i am turning a 16" diameter 
piece, how the rate of feed from the lead screw will be much different than 
if i was turning a 4" diameter piece...but are there other surprises in 
store for me?...my intentions for doing this work is to be able to turn 
large diameter pieces and also possibly flute and/or reed them as 
well...can't imagine ever doing a twist on a 16" piece, unless i start 
doing some artistic work, which is also something i have 
considered...otherwise, i just raise the bed to a position of what it is 
now and use the machine as i have been currently using it...and i do intend 
to widen the tailstock,headstock and the bed risers(and anything else, if 
necessary) to achieve the 18"+/-  capacity...a lot of work, for sure...i 
 started with the easy stuff, like the vertical supports, and that is 
turning out to be more than i anticipated...the worst is yet to come and 
that is why i still feel a bit nervous in doing all of this...but i have 
made a commitment, so onward we go!...thanks for your input, it is 
appreciated...joe...p.s. i went back to my posts and "cleaned" them up a 
bit...it seems to have worked, but that is on my end...are you saying that 
when anyone clicks on a comment, they are still going to see the other 
posts as well?...that stinks...sorry


 
>  
>
>
>

-- 
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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: enlarging turning capacity of a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

tim,
  i calculated things as follows...the machine currently is capable of 
11 5/8", inside of the bed rails...i am shooting for 18" so i thought 6 
1/2" should get me there...but when you are doing an 18" piece, your rough 
glue up will be bigger, of course...so i did want a bit more...so i went 
for 8" pieces(nice round number) that wound up to be 7 13/16", after 
squaring of the ends on a sanding machine...so my finished, exact, maximum 
diameter size will be(drum roll please...LOL) 19 7/16"  between the bed 
rails...did consider raising the "Y" carriage but i would still need to do 
the work i am doing now, so i wanted to keep it simple and avoid any 
additional work(did i really just say that?)...currently the distance 
between the headstock center and the lead screw center is 10 5/8" +/-...add 
half of the 7 13/16" and the new dimension is 14 1/2" +/-, just like you 
said...the idler gear on the legacy gear train is 2 9/16" in diameter...i 
have an extra from my donor machine and an added plus that it is already 
set up on a piece of the gear train "U" channel...stole the matching 2 
9/16" gear from the extra set of pitch gears(didn't like doing that!), i 
have, adding the small ball bearing to it and hopefully this will work to 
compensate for the added length to the gear train...so the line up would 
be-pitch gear on lead screw,current idler gear(with the large washers on 
it),the new pitch gear(no washers),new idler gear(with washers), then the 
gear that goes on the 3/8" pin at the center of the gear carriage...i am 
about 1 1/4" longer than i need be, but i hope the adjustments in the gear 
train will compensate for this...figured i had to add two gears so there 
would be no chance of any gear slipping off another gear, so long as those 
double washers do their job...reversing a spiral still remains the same, 
just take out the first idler and put in the reverse gear set up...it all 
sounds good in theory and on paper but making it happen is going to be a 
big job...thanks for taking the time to respond and encouragement...i need 
it!...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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: enlarging turning capacity of a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

bill,
 i don't anticipate doing spirals on a big piece but that does not mean 
i won't ever have a need to do them...i would like to keep my options 
open...and build another 16 ft. mill?...i don't think so...this is a one 
and done machine for me...and i will admit, to do an 18" column 15 ft. long 
might not work on this equipment...but a 16" piece, 9 ft. long is certainly 
doable with no major concerns...legacy's model 2000 could do 13" by 11 ft. 
with no issues...and to be honest, the headaches are already 
here...LOL...but i will do what is necessary to solve them, one at 
time...this project was thought out over a considerable amount of time... 
 i did miss a few issues here and there, but nothing that caused me to 
consider abandoning the work...not yet!...so we continue...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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: enlarging turning capacity of a legacy

['joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills]

hey curtis!
thanks for the compliment...in regards to the rail for the 
"Y" axis, it will not be a set up as shown in the photos...the linear 
bearings currently on my "Y" axis is set up for the legacy rail, so 
switching rails at this point is something i do not want to deal with...i 
will be splicing only two pieces of rail together to achieve the length i 
need...the linear rail should do a sufficient job of supporting the "Z" 
carriage and keeping the two pieces together...and i do have a plan for 
additional strength if needed...a piece of 1 1/2" X 1/8" steel on the 
underside of the rail, which is what is on the top of the rail...then there 
is the rigidity of the linear rail itself...between the three, i feel 
confident the rail will not be an issue...i have seen the 80/20 web site 
and it is good stuff, but i am going to stick with the legacy material , at 
least for now...believe it or not, don't have any need for additional rail 
for any future mod that might currently be on the back burner...but i will 
take a more in depth look into the 80/20 stuff...thanks for the input...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-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.