Thanks: 0
Likes: 0
Needs Pictures: 0
Picture(s) thanks: 0
Results 46 to 60 of 67
Thread: chuck troubles
-
18th July 2012, 04:43 PM #46.
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Perth
- Posts
- 27,796
Sure, I know what you mean, but the laws of simple geometry and physics still apply to slightly out of round, or very sightly out of round stock. The effect just gets smaller but it never disappears.
The effect (angles) is magnified with bigger stock, my guess is that the experienced machinists get to deal more often with bigger stock sizes and extrapolate that back to stock sizes where it is likely to be less relevant as the chuck can really crunch down and hold smaller stock easier then bigger stuff.
My limited experience is the stock doesn't have to be that out of round, combine this with a bit of scale and an imperfection or two, and perhaps a worn or out of whack 3 jaw then struggles to hold the piece against a heavy cut.
As for book learning v practical - if we relied on direct practical experience none of of us would know much about anything.
-
18th July 2012 04:43 PM # ADSGoogle Adsense Advertisement
- Join Date
- Always
- Location
- Advertising world
- Posts
- Many
-
18th July 2012, 05:42 PM #47Distracted Member
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Location
- Lower Lakes SA
- Age
- 58
- Posts
- 2,557
Well that's dead interesting Bob. So the amount of force changes because the direction changes. Physics huh? Thanks again for taking the time to explain and draw it. But what it means in practical terms is another question I guess. I mean even ground stock has a roundness tolerance. How fussy is too fussy? (That's a rhetorical question.)
-
18th July 2012, 05:45 PM #48GOLD MEMBER
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
- Location
- sydney
- Age
- 64
- Posts
- 3,566
I made that comment and have no regretts with it.
What becomes the bigger concern and not necessarlly with this particular post but a lot of posts in general is that people will read Theroy books and Practical books believing that they are the be all and end all,when really one is just theroy and the other practical mainly based on each authors machining experiences.
Trade manuals and journals I believe are different.
Where a lot of problem arises from the practical books is that I believe that a certain amount of prior knowledge is exspected of the reader.
At times you just have to read some of the questions being asked and the refferences being quoted to see that they dont explain everything for the begginer,but as I have been informed before you shouldnt dumb things down for someone with no knowledge.
-
18th July 2012, 06:52 PM #49.
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Perth
- Posts
- 27,796
The force changes are directly proportional to the cosine of the applied angle of the force.
For example; if the out of round leads to a 1º change in the vertical application of the force the % loss in the perpendicular force lost is 0.02%. Even a 5º deviation only leads to a 0.4% loss in vertical force. I think the real devil is not the loss in the vertical force but the generation of those side ways forces since they are what contribute to the piece walking out of the chuck.
-
18th July 2012, 08:58 PM #50
I am really at a loss knowing where the book learning came into this discussion except of course for the following quote from Pipeclay.
As asked what machining background do you have or is it book related.
Bob your post #40 is exactly what I was wanting when I asked for an explanation. When you say
I think the real devil is not the loss in the vertical force but the generation of those side ways forces since they are what contribute to the piece walking out of the chuck.
Because the chuck jaws are constrained it effectively means the chuck ends up applying, and the piece ends experiencing the sideways force.
Your post showing the vectors of vertical and sideways force must have passed mine on the web. I missed it until I was checking back just now
By the way Bob you were concerned about the height of your lathe which led to numerous creative suggestions to remedy. I have just finished moving my new lathe from the trailer onto a block and timber stack in the implement shed which is 700mm high. I have done this so I can just roll it straight back on to the trailer when I have the slab ready for it.
Dean
-
19th July 2012, 06:25 AM #51Distracted Member
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Location
- Lower Lakes SA
- Age
- 58
- Posts
- 2,557
So these deflected forces. Will they also occur in a 4 jaw independent chuck on less than perfectly round stock?
And are those forces of such a magnitude to conceivably damage a chuck? That may be a 'piece of string' question but it seems worth considering, since that was the claim that started this debate.
-
19th July 2012, 09:46 AM #52.
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Perth
- Posts
- 27,796
I would say so. However having an extra jaw helps apply more force all round and the independence of the 4 jaws means more radial force can probably be applied. I would have to think about it some more and draw a few diagrams.
And are those forces of such a magnitude to conceivably damage a chuck? That may be a 'piece of string' question but it seems worth considering, since that was the claim that started this debate.
The chuck jaws being constrains always applies a radial or vertical forces but if the surface is not absolutely perpendicular to these forces the surface will experience sideways force. This will in turn apply a back force in a sideways direction to the jaws. Bearing in mind what I said about wear above the sideways forces on the jaws are not an immediate problem, it's the sideways forces on the pieces that may lead to the piece turning or walking out of a chuck.
Up until this thread I had not thought about this issue and it was only after I started drawing some diagrams and thinking things through that convinced myself of this possibility and now that I have convinced myself of it I will be more careful with my 3 jaw chucks.
-
20th July 2012, 09:30 PM #53Distracted Member
- Join Date
- May 2010
- Location
- Lower Lakes SA
- Age
- 58
- Posts
- 2,557
So Andre. Sorry about the distraction. Maybe should have split that off.
Anyway what's the verdict with the backplate, skim it? I would. As long as it's mating perfectly to the spindle.
-
20th July 2012, 11:02 PM #54
I would too as it seems much easier than making a new backplate or cheaper than buying one, that is provided there is enough material available.
Dean
-
20th July 2012, 11:54 PM #55
I have an apology to make Bob. I was talking about the wrong Bob.
Too many Bob's.
Regarding your post #49
For example; if the out of round leads to a 1º change in the vertical application of the force the % loss in the perpendicular force lost is 0.02%. Even a 5º deviation only leads to a 0.4% loss in vertical force. I think the real devil is not the loss in the vertical force but the generation of those side ways forces since they are what contribute to the piece walking out of the chuck.
Up until this thread I had not thought about this issue and it was only after I started drawing some diagrams and thinking things through that convinced myself of this possibility and now that I have convinced myself of it I will be more careful with my 3 jaw chucks.
I can certainly understand you being concerned but from my point of view, as my chucks are large and solid and nowhere near new I would have to have more concrete evidence before I seriously changed my methods. I have researched this issue on the net and have not found any reference to it. I am now trying to think of some more terms to search for. If this is such an issue surely somebody could point to some online evidence. The only thing I have found of any interest is a suggestion to rotate the stock while tightening it.
Dean
-
20th July 2012, 11:57 PM #56future machinist
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- nowra
- Posts
- 1,361
I had a look there's not enough meat left to drill more holes so I faced it to suit my 4 inch 3 jaw I will have a go at making one soon.
BETTER TO HAVE TOOLS YOU DON'T NEED THAN TO NEED TOOLS YOU DON'T HAVE
Andre
-
21st July 2012, 10:27 AM #57
What would this do to the chuck
Attachment 216481
Some serious side forces there I would think.
Dean
-
21st July 2012, 02:46 PM #58SENIOR MEMBER
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
- Location
- Ballarat
- Age
- 65
- Posts
- 2,659
Hi Dean,
I reckon the only forces involved there are the ones compelling me to buy a 4 jaw chuck lol.
Yours in jest,
Phil
-
21st July 2012, 07:45 PM #591915 17"x50" LeBlond heavy duty Lathe, 24" Queen city shaper, 1970's G Vernier FV.3.TO Universal Mill, 1958 Blohm HFS 6 surface grinder, 1942 Rivett 715 Lathe, 14"x40" Antrac Lathe, Startrite H225 Bandsaw, 1949 Hercus Camelback Drill press, 1947 Holbrook C10 Lathe.
-
21st July 2012, 07:58 PM #60
How many lathes are sold without a 4 jaw? I am guessing mostly (all) would be hobby type?
Definitely would be a compelling force in this case LOL.
Dean
Similar Threads
-
2 pack troubles
By old_picker in forum FINISHINGReplies: 8Last Post: 8th October 2011, 01:22 AM -
Turret Troubles
By Anorak Bob in forum METALWORK FORUMReplies: 38Last Post: 11th July 2011, 08:46 PM -
Gearbox troubles
By bitza500 in forum THE HERCUS AREAReplies: 1Last Post: 6th January 2009, 04:51 AM -
Makita Cut Off Saw Troubles
By under thumb in forum METALWORK FORUMReplies: 13Last Post: 29th June 2007, 05:08 PM