Thread: TCT Inserts

Good, something else we could do at a shed meet... if we organise one! Now the weather is not a deterrent like it was last time.

Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest

Thanks George, but that's not what I was thinking:

- I have three spare 12mm ss bars and plenty of ferrules
- NeilS has no bar and no enthusiasm for metalwork
- you have no bars but you have the skills and the tools to drill and tap them and make handles (no need to make them for double sided bars).
- we all have our inserts to try: 14mm for me, 15mm for Neil and 17mm for you.

What about I mail bars and ferrules to you, you make three tools, keep one for your trouble, and mail one back to me and one to Neil?

Neil of course will buy us a beer when we have the next shed meet . Is anybody willing to host one, anyway, or the last one at my place was so awesome that nobody feels up to following that act?

Sorry for the late reply Frank.
I'm good mate, send me whatever you want with some info on whatever you would like to see done, no problem at all. Just a thought, would Neil be prepared to get me a 15.88mm or 16 mm stailess bar at just over 1' long, as exchange for doing his complete tool? I am not very keen in having to replace $100 +++ of special drill bits and special taps, just to do one hole, there is if they do not brake before the whole is finished, bugger me...! I would then do some other cutting tool on the other end to match the 16 mm HSS bar, like a super Bedan, or something else I would come up with.

Get the stuff up to me, I will take care of it from here.

Cheers
George

Originally Posted by Studley 2436

CCMT means
C = 80º square (oblong if you like)
C = 7º clearance angle on the front
M = tollerance class of the insert. I think at that size the tollerance is 0.05 mm on the inscribed circle, the thickness length of flank etc.
T = insert type. This one cuts on both sides of the face but not on the underside and has a countersunk screw.

Lots of info to get you going rssr.

It's called the sandvik coromant turning grades. I have a copy but at 500k for the PDF too big to post here.

Wouldn't you know it I can't find where I got it from Sandvik Coromant is a big company. Anyway if you want a copy say so and I will email it to you. It is two pages and explains what all the letters mean and so on.


Something I think you guys should consider is a tool like a TNMG. It is a triangle that has a neutral face. So it can be turned upside down to use the other side. So one insert has 6 sides to cut with. The thing with these though is they are designed to be used in a neutral holder which tips the cutting edge down a bit instead of being square.

Studley

Any pics Studley?

Cheers
RBTCO

Originally Posted by robutacion

Sorry for the late reply Frank.
I'm good mate, send me whatever you want with some info on whatever you would like to see done, no problem at all. Just a thought, would Neil be prepared to get me a 15.88mm or 16 mm stailess bar at just over 1' long, as exchange for doing his complete tool? I am not very keen in having to replace $100 +++ of special drill bits and special taps, just to do one hole, there is if they do not brake before the whole is finished, bugger me...! I would then do some other cutting tool on the other end to match the 16 mm HSS bar, like a super Bedan, or something else I would come up with.

Get the stuff up to me, I will take care of it from here.

Cheers
George

That's the reason I asked whether you thought that my 12mm bar would be sufficient to hold your 17mm insert, so I could give you one to finish your tool without mucking around with HSS. If you think you really need the 16mm one what I said does not make sense. I can't speak for Neil, sorry for meddling.

I take it that round inserts work for hollowing:

They do and can be quite useful

one thing I would like to experiment with is using a square one mounted at 45 degrees for hollowing cross grain. Should work like a spade drill, shouldn't it?

[/QUOTE]

Something like the pics below?

That's quite a complex tool, Hughie, thanks for showing. What I had in mind was extremely simple, just having a V recess instead of a __ recess in the square bar and screw the square insert at 45 degrees so that the cutting edge is a triangle instead of a square. Just as a spade drill bit, really.

Originally Posted by robutacion

Just a thought, would Neil be prepared to get me a 15.88mm or 16 mm stailess bar at just over 1' long, as exchange for doing his complete tool?

George and Frank - what an offer...

Bar or beer, I'm very happy to go either way so long as everyone is happy. I don't have enough expertise to comment on the merits of the 12mm vs 16mm SS bar for George's 17mm inserts, so just let me know if it's bar or beer (or both ).

George - no need to turn a handle for me, that's something I can do!

Sorry I can't offer my current shed for the next Adelaide shed meet, had to move my current lathe out last night to fit in my new lathe... just not enough room for two lathes let alone a half dozen extra bodies, BUT when I finally get my new shed I'll be throwing a shed warming and you will all be invited.

Neil

Ok, sorry for hijacking this thread, we'll be good boys now. Neil, George, Studley, we can sort ourselves out by PM and come back to this thread later to show our technological breakthroughs. Or pics of boozing people...

Originally Posted by Frank&Earnest

That's the reason I asked whether you thought that my 12mm bar would be sufficient to hold your 17mm insert, so I could give you one to finish your tool without mucking around with HSS. If you think you really need the 16mm one what I said does not make sense. I can't speak for Neil, sorry for meddling.

Just before we go into "underground" mode, I believe reasonable to answer your question, providing some technical explanation of why I believe the 12mm bar wouldn't be ideal for the 17mm inserts. Some of my comments are the result also of testing the 12 & 14mm inserts on the 12mm bar and the 15mm on the 16mm bar, and this what I think;

1- The insert base should be seated on a surface equal or just under, and on the 17 mm, the measurement is 14.3mm.
2- when using a narrow bar on a wide insert, the lateral (running) cuts can make the bar to twist (turn) toward the cutting direction as the gravity pivot (balance point) becomes unstable and the whole tool will twist down as soon as the flat bar face lifts and turns into its edge by the forces of the cutting tip (insert) working on the timber, so basically, the closer the edges of the bar running on the tool rest are from the edges of the cutting edge, the more stable the tool will be.
3- The bigger bar (heavier bar) will provide a better balance to the whole tool. The extra weight and the extra strength of the 16mm Vs 12mm bar, was well noticed on my tests made with the 14mm insert on the 12mm bar and the 15mm insert on the 16mm bar. Identical handles on both tools, same piece of wood used for testing all inserts (old gum, hard as rock, making the tungsten blades of the drop saw smoke, and leaving black burning marks on the cut surface). Ok, maybe the blade was not 100% sharp but you got the idea, huh?
4- Both handles are bedded with anti-vibration grout, and was quite noticeable the extra vibration and the lack of stability on the small tool when put into deep and side cutting. The extra weight of the 16mm bar could be put into good use by, making the tool a little longer, with an extra 2" on the cutting side (bar out of the handle) and another 4" inserted into the handle to counterbalance more evenly. The handle in this case could have another 3" to 4" of length, and if the handle is made with the same design as mine, the hand grip on the back of the handle, should maintain its dimensions and location. There would be no great need for extra handle thickness, as the ones made are strong and thick enough!

This is what I think, others are allowed to disagree, or have different oppinions, I'm OK with it!

Cheers
RBTCO

Hey guys,
We have already done the work for you. Any insert other than ours should not be used to evaluate the performance of our tools. All inserts are not the same!!

When looking at carbide inserts there are MANY factors to consider- bevel angle, composition grade (cobalt to tungsten ratio), micro grain size, thickness, hole size....

We spent nearly a year, and who knows how many hours, working with carbide vendors from all over the world to narrow all these choices down to the best possible combination for the Ci1 Easy Rougher and Ci2 Easy Rougher Mini

Craig Jackson
Owner Easy Wood Tools

Originally Posted by Craig Jackson

Hey guys,
We have already done the work for you. Any insert other than ours should not be used to evaluate the performance of our tools. All inserts are not the same!!

When looking at carbide inserts there are MANY factors to consider- bevel angle, composition grade (cobalt to tungsten ratio), micro grain size, thickness, hole size....

We spent nearly a year, and who knows how many hours, working with carbide vendors from all over the world to narrow all these choices down to the best possible combination for the Ci1 Easy Rougher and Ci2 Easy Rougher Mini

Craig Jackson
Owner Easy Wood Tools

Hi Craig,

I totally agree with your statement, there are many types of inserts, shapes, cutting edges, metals composition, etc, etc,. and thank you for visiting this forum once again!

Those of us that got enthusiastic about this type tool of yours, and are trying to putting something together that works based on the sames principals, as a more economical option than your original, are doing so using whatever materials they have available or can source at a good price, and then off-course is the design and quality of the inserts and how the hole tool was put together. The learning process of tool making among Woodturners is quite common, and has a long story. I believe, some of these home made tools will not work, some will out-run & out-perform the original(s).

We have so far sourced various inserts from different origins, including I believe, the source of yours (a few post back). Some of us are testing one type one size and others like myself have made double ended shafts to accommodate same size inserts, (different radius) and double end shafts to fit one insert size on each end. We're working on 12, 14, 15 & 17 mm inserts, with different size, profile and strength shafts and handles. Some are being finished and some reviews of what they done are start coming out.

I have no doubt in my mind, that you done all this work (testing) and experimenting already, reason why your tool(s) have been on the market for some time, on the other hand your invention design has been discussed constantly here, and in the end of the day, I am almost certain that many turners, after some attempts and stuff-ups, will end-up buying the original tool to save them the trouble. Now, and with this said, You can not blame some of us, for using the idea and make our own for a fraction of the price, I mean, it is very possible to have a complete tool (inclueding chip deflector) made, with one single insert for under AU$30, compared with the AU$200+ for the original Ci1.

I don't believe that, those making these tools are NOT going to blame the Ci1 if theirs don't work, on the other hand, the more people do it with good quality inserts and some consideration on how this tool should be made (put together), the more chances I believe you have to sell yours (the originals), many people doesn't care about cost but rather in the opinion and effectiveness of this tool used by either those with the Ci1 - Ci2 and the well made non original ones.

In the end, I hope everyone will be winners, going the one way or the other.

Cheers
RBTCO

RBTCO,
I do admit that the trial and errort stuff is what I went through, and we all do, in order to get all the details perfected for what ever we might be working on. The only reason I spent all the time to develop these tools, instead of doing my real hobby of making and selling bowls, is to fill my own needs at first and then I realized every woodturner could benifit from this new aproach. If I had already found a tool like this on the market, I would have not went through all the trouble and THOUSANDS of dollars.
I do NOT want to come accross like I am against the efforts being made to copy our design and principles. Who knows, you guys may come up with a tool I need.
In the end, I am just concerned that new veiwers to the topic will confuse pictures of copy attempts and performance with the original.
Craig

Hi Craig, et al

It might be useful for anyone who came in late on this thread to know how we got to this point. I feel I should explain this a little as the thread started under my name.

Sometime back forum member Cliff Rogers began the thread Ci1 Easy Rougher Review by Cliff. In all good faith Cliff undertook to review the tool and to let us know how it went. As the review proceeded many of us became intrigued but at the same time our A$ began to dive. What had been perhaps an option for some of us 'down under' suddenly moved beyond our reach and naturally some of us began to think of how we could solve this problem, as we tend to do here, I being one of them.

Cliff felt uncomfortable with this drift in his 'review' thread and rightly asked for this separate thread to be created. So, if you would like to follow the original review go to the above thread. From my recollections, the review(s) from a number of 'senior' members of this forum were positive, other than the A$ exchange rate issue for us Australians.

Other relevant threads on the Ci1 and Ci2 here:

Ci1 Easy Rougher - started by Craig Jackson himself from Easy Wood Tools
A Little Ci1 Drama in the Dungeon - started by Stu in Tokyo
Ci2 Mini Review - started by Stu in Tokyo
Ci! Rougher road test on spindles - started by , our Senior Administrator
'New' tool ??!!??!! - started by TTIT
TCT tip tools etc - started by hughie
Tassie Oak Burl Platter - started by Cliff Rogers


Neil

Originally Posted by Craig Jackson

.... I do NOT want to come accross like I am against the efforts being made to copy our design and principles. Who knows, you guys may come up with a tool I need.....

Geeze.... Maybe I misinterpreted your PM.