On 5/5/2014 2:48 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
But its certainly better advice now, having lived with it, sitting on that
mdf in 2 locations now and never getting a straight turn out of it. I have
looked carefully at where the headstock is sitting on the bed, and can't
see any evidence of debris
On Tuesday 06 May 2014 08:00:29 Gregg Eshelman did opine:
On 5/5/2014 2:48 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
But its certainly better advice now, having lived with it, sitting on
that mdf in 2 locations now and never getting a straight turn out of
it. I have looked carefully at where the headstock
On 5 May 2014 23:49, Steve Blackmore st...@pilotltd.net wrote:
MDF and just two bolts - no wonder it turns tapered :) Needs to be
bolted down to something rigid enough to enable you to pull the twist
out of the bed.
This does, of course, go against all the standard tenets of lathe
design. Not
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 9:45 AM, andy pugh bodge...@gmail.com wrote:
This does, of course, go against all the standard tenets of lathe
design. Not unexpected for machines not manufactured with any
consideration of lathe design, perhaps.
My Rivett sits on two inset ball-bearings at the
On 6 May 2014 15:57, Eric Keller eekel...@psu.edu wrote:
I think the classical approach to machine design was to make the mounting
to the base flat and provide for leveling. A lathe is a compliant
structure, so a kinematic mount doesn't seem like it would be as effective
as one might like
On Tuesday 06 May 2014 11:28:17 andy pugh did opine:
On 5 May 2014 23:49, Steve Blackmore st...@pilotltd.net wrote:
MDF and just two bolts - no wonder it turns tapered :) Needs to be
bolted down to something rigid enough to enable you to pull the twist
out of the bed.
This does, of
On 05/06/2014 08:22 AM, andy pugh wrote:
On 6 May 2014 15:57, Eric Keller eekel...@psu.edu wrote:
I think the classical approach to machine design was to make the mounting
to the base flat and provide for leveling. A lathe is a compliant
structure, so a kinematic mount doesn't seem like it
You'd be surprised what a standard machinist level can do for you. I have a
Starrett master precision level as well as a ~6 inch Lufkin basic machinist
level without any graduations except the center. Honestly, I can get about the
same level out of both of them, if you have a good eye for
On Tuesday 06 May 2014 12:33:44 Steve Cranage did opine:
You'd be surprised what a standard machinist level can do for you. I
have a Starrett master precision level as well as a ~6 inch Lufkin
basic machinist level without any graduations except the center.
Honestly, I can get about the same
Trying to run this on a machine whose machine unit is inch.
%
g7g21 (disameter mode,g21mm mode)
s500
(#_tp_mm = 1.00)
#_tpmm= 1.00 ( a 1.0 mm thread )
#_pitch = [1.000 / #_tpmm]
(debug,pitch=#_pitch)
( set threads OD )
#_thread_OD = 8.9500 ( Make
On Tuesday 06 May 2014 21:21:45 Gene Heskett did opine:
Trying to run this on a machine whose machine unit is inch.
%
g7g21 (disameter mode,g21mm mode)
s500
(#_tp_mm= 1.00)
#_tpmm = 1.00 ( a 1.0 mm thread )
#_pitch = [1.000 / #_tpmm]
(debug,pitch=#_pitch)
I agree here.
Connect to a solid base causing the base to become a part of the machine.
Don't disparage the Chinese machines. My experience is as follows.
Machine is a Mighty Viper 5BC bridge mill.
She Hong in Taiwan built the machine. Mighty imported the machine without a
control. Mighty
On Wednesday 07 May 2014 00:02:39 Gene Heskett did opine:
On Tuesday 06 May 2014 12:33:44 Steve Cranage did opine:
You'd be surprised what a standard machinist level can do for you. I
have a Starrett master precision level as well as a ~6 inch Lufkin
basic machinist level without any
13 matches
Mail list logo
