Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 41 of 41

Thread: lathe test bar

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    7,775

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete F View Post
    ... not that it makes any difference, as the units indicated on co-axial indicators are just that; "units".
    Of course it matters, even if its "just a ball park". Unless you're saying there is no difference between "about a thou" and "about a 1/10th"

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete F View Post
    I don't believe they're calibrated in the same way as a DTI, which relies on a specific contact point length and angle (or corrections for the latter) to read correctly.
    For what its worth they are, if you can be bothered looking up the table.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete F View Post
    Quick tip BTW, increase the sensitivity of a probe by swapping a longer contact point, but then remember to swap it back or at least mark it, as the readings shown won't be accurate.
    What?

    Stuart

  2. # ADS
    Google Adsense Advertisement
    Join Date
    Always
    Location
    Advertising world
    Posts
    Many





     
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Thank you Stuart, I hadn't posted on the forum for a long time and thought I'd test the waters by again contributing. Your post was a great reminder as to why I stopped.

    While I'm loath to have "Google Experts" waste more of my time, here are two references to what I was referring to. The first from Blake, not that I'd expect they would know anything about co-axial indicators. Note the 5th paragraph ie co-axial indicators are centring devices and are NOT intended for measuring Blake Manufacturing Co.

    The Blake CO-AX INDICATOR is a centering device. It requires a reading of both sides of the bore or boss, in each axis, to arrive at the center. It's sole function is to find center. It is NEVER to be used as a measuring instrument.
    In other words use the numbers as "units" even though they may be marked in inches or millimeters, don't count on them being accurate.

    The end of this article deals with corrections to be made with using different contact point lengths. For what it's worth (ie 9/10ths of sweet FA as it was just a comment in passing) I meant to write shorter contact point but had longer on my mind as I'm buying some longer ones to increase their reach. I'm sure that error made somebody's day
    The Point Of Error-Free Measurements : Modern Machine Shop

    With that I've had some work cancelled so I'm off to put my nose back in front of a machine. Something I can highly recommend some do a little more of!

  4. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    7,775

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete F View Post
    Thank you Stuart, I hadn't posted on the forum for a long time and thought I'd test the waters by again contributing. Your post was a great reminder as to why I stopped.
    My pleasure, and here was I thinking I was playing nice.



    Quote Originally Posted by Pete F View Post
    While I'm loath to have "Google Experts" waste more of my time
    As always a nice little attack at anyone that questions one of your posts. I own one, do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete F View Post
    The first from Blake, not that I'd expect they would know anything about co-axial indicators.
    Oh I dont know, they might.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete F View Post
    Note the 5th paragraph ie co-axial indicators are centring devices and are NOT intended for measuring
    Who said anything about using it for anything other than a centering device?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete F View Post
    In other words use the numbers as "units" even though they may be marked in inches or millimeters, don't count on them being accurate.
    If you dont have at least a "ball park" of what the needle movement means then its a bit of a waste of time. You cant say whether the part is centered within 1mm, 0.01mm or 0.1mm. Now with the blake the greatest error is about 3 times the reading. But if you want the corrections, here they are to the nearest 0.00001"
    Blake Manufacturing Co.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pete F View Post
    The end of this article deals with corrections to be made with using different contact point lengths. For what it's worth (ie 9/10ths of sweet FA as it was just a comment in passing) I meant to write shorter contact point but had longer on my mind as I'm buying some longer ones to increase their reach. I'm sure that error made somebody's day
    The Point Of Error-Free Measurements : Modern Machine Shop
    Which is why I asked. Yes Swapping to a longer contact point decreases sensitivity, I notice you even picked up on it in the third edit of this post.

  5. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,340

    Default

    Whatever Stuart. You clearly have nothing better to do that hover over your computer and count how many times people edit their posts. That's your life to waste and your business.

    I thought I'd put up some posts that may help others here. I'm done, you win. I tried.

  6. #35
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    near Rockhampton
    Posts
    4,304

    Default

    I started writing a long essay on lathe alignment, but it all got far too complicated for me to explain... I know how to do it and why you do it but putting it into words that does not bore people senseless is not easy...

    So I will just say this...

    I have used a handful of lathes... No doubt many here have used a lot more then me... I have used clapped out machines and new machines...

    I have found that for 99% of what I do, when I need to turn something parallel, it is only for a very short distance, say for a bearing fit.. Might be 10mm long.. Seldom would have to turn something completely parallel more then 50mm

    I have also found when I need to work to high accuracy, I have to tweak the machine to get it there, even on the new ones.. A lathe is just not a very good machine design for making long non tapered cylinders, you seem to have so much working against you... They are a PITA to make them on...

    I have noticed in reading magazines and such some commentators go overboard saying my lathe can cut straight 0.00001mm in 300mm... Yea OK, it probably can... Now unclamp the tailstock, move the tailstock barrel to a different position, reclamp and show me your 0.00001mm... You will not see that sort of straightness again until you spend another two days of tweaking...

    Sit down and take a realistic look at what tolerances you require over what distance and go from there.. Level the lathe and take test cuts and adjust it to suit..

    Know that should something come along that requires some tighter tolerance then usual, keep in mind you will probably have to adjust something to get it done..

    There are a lot of traps out there, and remember turning between centres is not something to be left in the last century.. Do not be afraid to do it... Plenty of times I have chucked up a piece, centre drilled, put in the tailstock, turned it, remove the tailstock and "spring"... the workpiece springs to some new shape...

    I am only self taught, so take the above at your own risk...
    Light red, the colour of choice for the discerning man.

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Adelaide
    Age
    59
    Posts
    3,149

    Default

    Getting back to the original topic, attached is a PDF from Schlesinger where he discusses test bars. As he points out (and as Phil - Machtool - agrees (so it must be right)) a proper test bar should be hollow otherwise it will droop under self weight.
    A centreless ground bar may do in a pinch but as has already been mentioned there are issues with that due to how it is produced.
    schlesinger.jpgschlesinger.pdf

    Michael

    (PS - my test bar is solid but one day...)

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Victoria, Australia
    Age
    74
    Posts
    6,132

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael G View Post
    Getting back to the original topic, attached is a PDF from Schlesinger where he discusses test bars. As he points out (and as Phil - Machtool - agrees (so it must be right)) a proper test bar should be hollow otherwise it will droop under self weight.
    A centreless ground bar may do in a pinch but as has already been mentioned there are issues with that due to how it is produced.
    schlesinger.jpgschlesinger.pdf

    Michael

    (PS - my test bar is solid but one day...)
    No idea how good they are, Lathe Alignment Test Bars

    I'm not in the market for one at present, but then again, I'm not rebuilding any lathes at the moment...

    Ray

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael G View Post
    Getting back to the original topic, attached is a PDF from Schlesinger where he discusses test bars. As he points out (and as Phil - Machtool - agrees (so it must be right)) a proper test bar should be hollow otherwise it will droop under self weight.
    A centreless ground bar may do in a pinch but as has already been mentioned there are issues with that due to how it is produced.
    schlesinger.jpgschlesinger.pdf

    Michael

    (PS - my test bar is solid but one day...)
    Michael,

    I personally believe it is a matter of scale. Georg Schlesinger lists test bars from MT 15 down to MT 2. Now I like to think, that the smaller test bars like MT2 to MT4 do not really need to be hollow.

    The low cost China made test bars ($60 to $150 for MT2...4) that are offered for home shop use are definitely just plain steel. I do not think that anyone could justify the expense of a hollow test bar just for home shop use. Such test bar is typically only needed once when repairing or restoring a lathe or mill, to properly re-assemble. Thereafter it may be used once or twice a year, but only for convenience - there are other ways to verify accuracy that do not require ownership of a test bar.

    Of course some people reading this own much larger machines, and will see this differently.

  10. #39
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne
    Age
    68
    Posts
    1,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Michael G View Post
    Getting back to the original topic, attached is a PDF from Schlesinger where he discusses test bars. As he points out (and as Phil - Machtool - agrees (so it must be right)) a proper test bar should be hollow otherwise it will droop under self weight.
    A centreless ground bar may do in a pinch but as has already been mentioned there are issues with that due to how it is produced.
    schlesinger.jpgschlesinger.pdf

    Michael

    (PS - my test bar is solid but one day...)

    Michael,

    I personally believe it is a matter of scale. Georg Schlesinger lists test bars from MT 15 down to MT 2. Now I like to think, that the smaller test bars like MT2 to MT4 do not really need to be hollow.

    The low cost China made test bars ($60 to $150 for MT2...4) that are offered for home shop use are definitely just plain steel. I do not think that anyone could justify the expense of a hollow test bar just for home shop use. Such test bar is typically only needed once when repairing or restoring a lathe or mill, to properly re-assemble. Thereafter it may be used once or twice a year, but only for convenience - there are other ways to verify accuracy that do not require ownership of a test bar.

    Of course some people reading this own much larger machines, and will see this differently.

  11. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Far West Wimmera
    Age
    63
    Posts
    2,765

    Default

    Is the world as we know it, changing in ways we cannot comprehend. Chris just put up 2 copies of the one post. This happened to me yesterday I think it was. Then it starts to get weird. Yesterday I made a phone call to my wife, who was at home when my phone was sitting in my shirt pocket at work, untouched. Even weirder. Last Friday I got a phone call from my wife's mobile phone. It was at the time, in her handbag, turned off, at home in a mobile non-sevice area. I know she was at home because I was talking to her about this on the land line. Someone is playing with my mind!

    The low cost China made test bars ($60 to $150 for MT2...4) that are offered for home shop use are definitely just plain steel. I do not think that anyone could justify the expense of a hollow test bar just for home shop use. Such test bar is typically only needed once when repairing or restoring a lathe or mill, to properly re-assemble. Thereafter it may be used once or twice a year, but only for convenience - there are other ways to verify accuracy that do not require ownership of a test bar.

    Of course some people reading this own much larger machines, and will see this differently.
    My feeling at this time is to wait and see whether I ever need a test bar. .RC.'s comments make sense. Along similar lines to my opening tirade, I typed a longish post yesterday on my phone, in between running around work doing stuff. It disappeared into the ether (ciber ether). This is basically what I said.

    Dean

  12. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    521

    Default

    I wonder if ground linear rods are any good as cheaper test bars to check headstock/chuck alignment? I noticed some on ebay a few days ago with runout about the same as cheap lathe test bars. They are a lot cheaper than test bars - but no morse taper. I figured these could be a reference point?
    SF25 600mm 25mm Hardened Round Shaft Linear Rail ROD Slide Bearing CNC Router | eBay

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 25th March 2009, 12:19 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •