Does anyone still use lantern toolposts
Ignoramus14738
quick change toolpost like Aloris, would still have any reason to ever
need a lantern toolpost.
My feeling on this matter, without knowing too much, is that lantern
toolposts are obsolete and quick change is the way to go, and there is
never a reason to use these old style tools.
Would there be anyone who disagrees with this.
i
Pete C.
The only advantage I can see to the lantern style is cost.
Robert Swinney
posts.
Bob Swinney
"Ignoramus14738" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.14738.invalid> wrote in message
news:gY-dneXFHdvt1_XW...@giganews.com...
Snag
Small lathe , small part , sometimes that QCTP is just too damn big to do
the job . I have one about 3/4 finished (needs dovetails and piston bores) ,
but just don't feel the real need for it in most cases . Others who have
larger more rigid lathes may feel differently ...
--
Snag
Wards 94TLC2136
10 X 31
Jim Stewart
I don't even have a lantern toolpost and
I've never missed it.
John Martin
Yes. I disagree, and there will probably be many others.
The quick change toolposts are good. They are almost as rigid as a
one-piece tool block, and they are quicker and of course easy to
index. But there are times where you have to work in a tight area for
which they are simply too large. That's where the lantern toolpost
becomes necessary.
Use your lathe for a while. Eventually, you'll be glad you have the
lantern toolpost.
John Martin
Jim Wilkins
14738.invalid> wrote:
I've encountered a very few setups where the small size of the lantern
post helped.
I use a Multifix toolpost
http://picasaweb.google.com/KB1DAL/HomeMadeMachines#5107533382447691698
that allows the tool to rotate in 9 degree steps, almost as freely as
a lantern post. It lets me position a hand-ground HSS bit to both turn
a diameter and face a shoulder, using either a straight or an angled
Armstrong holder or directly in the QC block.
On my lathe there is a range of workpiece lengths where the carriage
doesn't have much travel between the head and tailstocks when the work
is held by both a collet and the tailstock center. The tailstock
spindle is a replacement and wobbles if extended out very far.
Typically on these small parts I need to lean in close with a
magnifier and don't want spinning chuck jaws nearby. I have 3" and 4"
Enco/HF/Sherline chucks but they aren't as precise or rigid as collets
and often don't let me move the work back and forth between the lathe
and an indexer in the mill. In these cases a lantern post would be
useful if I didn't have the Multifix.
I didn't show turning tool examples when Bob Lalonde asked because the
way I grind them doesn't work so well in a non-rotating Aloris type
tool post. They look like threading bits but blunter, 70 - 80 degrees
included angle. This shape doesn't requires much grinding from the
original square end, and is easy to resharpen. It's about the right
shape for a bent toolholder if you watch the angles.
Original Swiss Multifix tool posts are very expensive and Enco seems
to have discontinued them. I bought some extra Chinese (?) tool
holders from Tools4cheap
http://www.tools4cheap.net/proddetail.php?prod=40posa1
that fit fine and are well made. If they were priced more
competitively I think they would be popular.
I've wished I had the versatility of my home setup a few times when
running a CNC lathe with a Dorian toolpost and indexable carbide, but
always could do the job.
jsw
Too_Many_Tools
I agree with John.
There are times where the lantern post is used.
TMT
danmitch
Mostly, I use the Aloris BX style quick-change post for probably 98% of
my work. I sure would NOT want to go back to the lanturn post for most work.
However, I sometimes find myself having to work into odd corners or
recesses that cannot be easily reached with standard quick change
tooling. I've made special quick-change tool-holders for some of these
situations, but even then, the problem arises. It's often quicker to
switch to the lantern toolpost than make a new toolholder, or custom
grind a special tool bit for some oddball one-off application.
Note that I already have a HUGE collection of odd custom toolbits and
"Armstrong" style tool holders with various angles to choose from. Thus
some one of these is probably very close to what I need for any application.
And, sure, you can set a quick-change post at odd angles, but then
you've lost one of the advantages of even having a quick-chage post ...
repeatability after changing tools. After such a change you have to
reset the post, which wastes time.
You create the same problem when switching to the lantern post. So, it
becomes a question of whether it takes more time to realign the
toolpost, or custom grind some really odd toolbit.
I realize that there are some other more elaborate quick-change posts
that allow intermediate settings, and might solve some of this problem,
but that's not what I have.
Daniel Mitchell
Shop Supervisor
Physics & Engineering
Univ. of Michigan - Flint
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Ignoramus14738
Basically I have a set of size 0 toolpost and toolholders and I
thought that I did not need them. I even listed them on ebay.
Thanks to your feedback, I changed my mind, I will be canceling that
auction and I will keep them.
I can how see how a big bxa toolpost can get in the way.
i
Jon Elson
> I was just wondering if anyone who has a lathe capable of using a
> quick change toolpost like Aloris, would still have any reason to ever
> need a lantern toolpost.
>
one in a special case. While I had an Atlas lathe around, I kept
a lantern post, but only used it once every 5 years or so.
It DID give you the ability to adjust tool height independently from
tool angle, which is nice with the hand ground cutters.
> My feeling on this matter, without knowing too much, is that lantern
> toolposts are obsolete and quick change is the way to go, and there is
> never a reason to use these old style tools.
I can get what I want on the HSS bits, but you do have to grind the top
rake into the tool, which does take a couple minutes.
If you are going to use primarily carbide indexable tooling (your
surplus connections should make finding some suitable inserts pretty
easy) then the QC is the way to go. If you will be hand grinding HSS
(Mo Max or similar Tungsten-Cobalt tooling is really fine and very
available at flea markets, etc.) then you at least want a setup that
allows you to control the tool angle so you don't have to grind the tops
of all those cutters for top rake.
When I got the Sheldon, I looked on eBay for a month or two and bought a
lifetime supply of coated triangular carbide inserts for about a buck
apiece, and then bought a 5-piece holder set for that style.
Jon
Wes
>I was just wondering if anyone who has a lathe capable of using a
>quick change toolpost like Aloris, would still have any reason to ever
>need a lantern toolpost.
I really don't see why unless you had some holders and a post. If I did, I'd use them
when appropriate.
I have a genuine Aloris AXA on a spacer on my lathe. It came with it You want a BXA for
yours.
>
>My feeling on this matter, without knowing too much, is that lantern
>toolposts are obsolete and quick change is the way to go, and there is
>never a reason to use these old style tools.
Quick change is nice. Drop in a tool, do the job, drop in another.
I don't have a dro but from what I have gathered, you can set up multiple coordinates so
you can have each tool holder have it's own offsets.
If I had a dro, I'd set the compound at 29.5 and square up the post. If I needed to use
straight bit (C type) to cut a chamfer, I'd rotate the compound to what put the bit at 45
to the edge of my part. Then I'd put it back for all the other tools.
As you can gather, I'd love a dro for my lathe.
Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
Snag
There are probably going to be some used Shumatech DRO 350's on the market
in the next few months . They just had a major powerbuy of something like
600 of the new DRO 550's , and I'm bettin' at least some who are upgrading
are going to sell their 350's .
I just built mine , and for a home shop machinist it's just a swell unit .
Has multiple tool offsets , many other features I haven't learned to use yet
. www.shumatech.com will get you to the website to check out the specs .
FWIW , I'm well under 400 bucks for 3 axes on my RF45 clone . Including
scales , cables etc .
--
Snag
"90 FLHTCU "Strider"
'39 WLDD "PopCycle"
BS 132/SENS/DOF
Karl Townsend
>> Use your lathe for a while. Eventually, you'll be glad you have the
>> lantern toolpost.
>
>> John Martin
>I agree with John.
>There are times where the lantern post is used.
>TMT
Oh my gawd. I actually agree with TMT on something. Worse yet, Gunner may
agree too.
I once mounted a lantern on a large steel bar bolted to the carriage and had
the tool six inches past the end of the lathe. The part was held in in a
steady rest right at the end of the lathe (plus chuck on other end of
course. So I turned a part longer than the lathe. Rare use, of course, but
try that any other way.
Karl
DoN. Nichols
> I was just wondering if anyone who has a lathe capable of using a
> quick change toolpost like Aloris, would still have any reason to ever
> need a lantern toolpost.
My Clausing came without a toolpost, and I put a turret toolpost
which I had on it for a short while, while I ordered a Phase-II Series
200 (pretty much the same as an Aloris BXA), and have never used the
turret toolpost since.
I've seen used lantern toolposts, and never bought them (either
on eBay or in surplus tool piles), even though I could have gotten them
quite inexpensively. (Of course, if I did, I would also have to get
several Armstrong style tool holders which would be (these days) almost
as expensive as the Phase-II.)
I *do* have the lantern style toolpost for my old
Atlas/Craftsman 6x18" lathe -- because when I was using it, I could not
find a properly sized quick-change toolpost.
And the 7" Rockwell/Delta shaper has a lantern style toolpost
too, but that kind does not have tilt built into it, and the tools which
I have for the shaper are appropriate for the holder. It has the
advantage of not adding as much weight to the "clapper box" as any
quick-change toolpost would, and also I don't need to change tools
frequently on the shaper.
> My feeling on this matter, without knowing too much, is that lantern
> toolposts are obsolete and quick change is the way to go, and there is
> never a reason to use these old style tools.
Not on a lathe for which a good quick-change toolpost is
available, at least. On the shaper, it is what works, and the
quick-change is not needed.
> Would there be anyone who disagrees with this.
I do not -- with the (non-lathe) caveats above.
Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnic...@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
DoN. Nichols
> Ignoramus14738 wrote:
>> I was just wondering if anyone who has a lathe capable of using a
>> quick change toolpost like Aloris, would still have any reason to ever
>> need a lantern toolpost.
>>
>> My feeling on this matter, without knowing too much, is that lantern
>> toolposts are obsolete and quick change is the way to go, and there is
>> never a reason to use these old style tools.
>>
>> Would there be anyone who disagrees with this.
>>
>> i
> I disagree.
>
> Mostly, I use the Aloris BX style quick-change post for probably 98% of
> my work. I sure would NOT want to go back to the lanturn post for most work.
>
> However, I sometimes find myself having to work into odd corners or
> recesses that cannot be easily reached with standard quick change
> tooling. I've made special quick-change tool-holders for some of these
> situations, but even then, the problem arises. It's often quicker to
> switch to the lantern toolpost than make a new toolholder, or custom
> grind a special tool bit for some oddball one-off application.
There are some Aloris holders which might make a difference, if
you are willing to work with insert tooling.
First -- consider the following toolpost:
<http://www.aloris.com/index.php/pages/Qualified%20Super%20Precision.html>
which has *three* dovetails instead of two allowing work closer to a fat
live center in the tailstock.
Then look at:
<http://www.aloris.com/index.php/pages/Shank%20Type.html>
and scroll down to the description for the #13 and #13L which allows a
longer reach without sacrificing as much rigidity as a extended tool
shank would sacrifice.
For general use, I like the #16N:
<http://www.aloris.com/index.php/pages/Aloris%20Catalog.html>
click on the: "Combination Carbide Insert Cutting Tools with Adjustibale
chipbreaker"
Add in the ones on this page:
<http://www.aloris.com/index.php/pages/Mini%20Swivel.html>
or
Go back to the:
<http://www.aloris.com/index.php/pages/Aloris%20Catalog.html>
and clock on the "Universal Tool Holders, Quick Change #20, #22, #30" to
see ones where the tip can be adjusted to many angles at 15 degree
intervals.
> Note that I already have a HUGE collection of odd custom toolbits and
> "Armstrong" style tool holders with various angles to choose from. Thus
> some one of these is probably very close to what I need for any application.
The existing collection of Armstrong style tool holders makes a
difference. The only ones which I have are for the little
Atlas/Craftsman 6x18" lathe.
> And, sure, you can set a quick-change post at odd angles, but then
> you've lost one of the advantages of even having a quick-chage post ...
> repeatability after changing tools. After such a change you have to
> reset the post, which wastes time.
While with the #20, #22, or #30 insert holding tools, you can
maintain the indexing, thus saving time.
> You create the same problem when switching to the lantern post. So, it
> becomes a question of whether it takes more time to realign the
> toolpost, or custom grind some really odd toolbit.
And with HSS tools, and the proper Armstrong type holders, you
can use this collection more easily.
> I realize that there are some other more elaborate quick-change posts
> that allow intermediate settings, and might solve some of this problem,
> but that's not what I have.
Also -- some more elaborate tool holders for the simple Aloris
style quick-change toolpost -- as shown above.
Bob Engelhardt
>...
> For general use, I like the #16N:
>
> <http://www.aloris.com/index.php/pages/Aloris%20Catalog.html>
Yikes! Toolholder $181, chipbreaker 2 x $24 (R & L), carbide shim $7,
carbide inset $6.50 (min order 10): $242.50 (1 shim, 1 insert).
Too rich for me,
Bob
danmitch
I'll agree with most of what Don states above, with the following
observations ...
My toolpost is a Phase-II "BXA" sized dovetail post. It is completely
satisfactory on the Rockwell 14" lathe I have at the university. I have
a similar "AXA" size post on my Logan 10" at home.
Yes, I have lantern toolposts and extensive sets of Armstrong-style tool
holders and bits for both lathes at both locations. This *IS* important
for my original argument. For most of my odd jobs I will already have
some tool/holder combination that is close to what I need. Perhaps only
some minor regrind is necessary, if that.
Without the above collection of tooling, in most cases the work could be
done by setting the quick-change toolpost to some odd angle and
custom-grinding some weird toolbit (this can take considerable time, and
may require a non-common toolbit (extra long, etc.). Switching to the
lantern post and existing tooling is often much quicker.
Basically, there's not much if anything that CAN'T be done with either
style post. The advantages of the quick change are: 1) rapid changing of
tools without having to set angles and heights. 2) Repeatability of
settings when changing tools. HOWEVER, when the work won't allow these
things (easily), then the more versatile (if troublesome) lantern post
may be the answer.
Some of the specialized Aloris toolholders Don mentions would certainly
assist in solving some problems. Sadly, the Aloris items are fairly
expensive, and our department budget usually requires a cheap, of time
consuming, solution. We're often "long on time and short on money".
Phase-II doesn't offer nearly the variety in low-cost toolholders. I've
made a few special holders for the Phase-II post (that hold tool bits at
odd angles) that are useful.
Some of the work I need to do involves machining (often INSIDE) complex
shaped existing vacuum fittings and chambers and such. Cutting
additional O-ring grooves or adding/altering ports are such
applications. These structures are fabrications, customized for various
research applications, and often have odd protrusions either inside or
outside. Often these things are not well planned, but just 'grow' as the
project develops. New ports are added, or fittings silver-soldered on.
Old ports get plugged (not always neatly). THEN somebody wants further
modifications. Just getting into the thing, or around the obstructions,
is usualy the problem.
Tooling to do this often requires a long reach and strange angles.
Sometimes a boring bar, sometimes used as an EXTERNAL toolholder, is the
answer. Sometimes a lantern post is the solution. In either case, a long
reach is often needed, with corresponding lack of rigidity. Light cuts
with sharp tools are a necessity. As is often the case, one spends 95%
of the time on the setup, and 5% making the cut.
Such problems rarely arise when making new items.
Dan Mitchell
============
David Billington
when I did metal shop in junior high when I was 12- 13 and have only
used lantern tool posts in the US. Been living in the UK since 1982 and
the lantern types always seemed a PITA and have never needed one for
anything I've done in the last 28 years. Apart from indexing 4 way
toolposts that needed shimming I've almost always used Dickson type
toolposts in the UK or IIRC the Swiss type fitted to some UK Hardinges
which have a similar height adjustment. Both my current lathes have
Dickson or Bison knock off toolposts.
The main odd ball toolpost attachment I've run across was a local
machinist that had a Bridgeport M head fitted to the cross-slide of his
lathe. He had the head and had a requirement for a helical passage on a
hydraulic heat exchanger. The heat exchanger comprised a heavy wall tube
with one fluid flowing down the centre and another in the helical outer
passage, it had a shaeth. He used a lathe about 20" - 24" IIRC and
mounted the Bridgeport M head on the carriage and then did thread
cutting as normal, with a very coarse pitch, but with a milling head
doing the cutting. Impressive and worked a treat.
Ed Huntress
"David Billington" <d...@djbillington.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4b6a027c$0$2476$db0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
When I was involved with a machine shop, back in '73 - '78, we mounted a
Bridgeport J head, vertically, onto the bed of our Sheldon 1710H NC lathe.
We rigged a table on the cross-slide and used it to mill batches of parts,
24 in a setup, IIRC, under control of the Bendix 5 NC. Programming was an
interesting trick. <g> But it worked very well, and I wrote an article about
it for _NC Shopowner_ magazine.
We couldn't afford a CNC mill yet. That came a couple of years later.
--
Ed Huntress
David Billington
Shame you don't, or haven't, posted pictures, that would be interesting
to see.
This chap, it was his shop, unfortunately had a bit of a distrust of
things electrickery and had no DROs on any tools, he had a couple of
mills that would have benefited from them. When he was attending one of
my neighbours party, old friends from Stottert & Pitt, he popped round
to check out the Sony DRO reading on my BP against the dials, spot on,
but he had a distrust, a real shame.He was claimed prematurely by
cancer. He specialised in spline cutting, keyways, gears. He ran a
number of Fellows gear shapers. His only foray into CNC that I'm aware
of was the acquisition of an old CNC Beaver mill with Fanuc control and
4th axis that was used to do an order for prime number master gears. I
think he knew his stuff but in that case he was hoping for help from
his computer literate son that helped but didn't want to take on the
business.
Martin H. Eastburn
Nothing like using Armstrong (who makes lanterns and holder to this day)
tool holder to cut plastic and stuff that needs a sharp edge.
Lanterns can be purchased from MSCdirect and other tool suppliers.
IIRC, Armstrong sells direct themselves.
Martin
DoN. Nichols
The BXA-16N Tool holder *comes* with everything but the
inserts, which you want to select for your own needs. Those prices
apply if you have to buy replacements because you have damaged them
somehow. So far, several years and no damage to anything but an insert
or two, which are expendables anyway.
> Too rich for me,
Granted -- the $181.00 is not cheap -- and it cost less when I
bought mine from MSC.
Hmm ... their (MSC's) price is currently $200.00 --
significantly more than I paid for mine. And I haunted eBay for a while
looking for one, but dropped out whenever a used one came within about
15% of the MSC *new* price (and they usually closed *above* the new
price), so I decided that the new price was what I was going to have to
pay.
Consider that it takes the place of *two* normal holders.
I have not regretted the purchase, as it is used more than any
other tool (being good for both facing and turning with one holder).
The extended holder (BXA-13) usually holds the insert threading tool.
And that one is only $101.00.
What size of lathe are you running? AXA are somewhat less
expensive, and if smaller than an AXA will fit, you can't find the
special tools anyway.
Oh yes -- can you *find* the Armstrong type tool holders new
these days? If so -- what do *they* cost?
DoN. Nichols
> DoN. Nichols wrote:
>
>> On 2010-02-02, danmitch <danm...@umflint.edu> wrote:
[ ... ]
>> There are some Aloris holders which might make a difference, if
>> you are willing to work with insert tooling.
>>
>> First -- consider the following toolpost:
>>
>> <http://www.aloris.com/index.php/pages/Qualified%20Super%20Precision.html>
>>
>> which has *three* dovetails instead of two allowing work closer to a fat
>> live center in the tailstock.
>>
[ ... ]
>>>Note that I already have a HUGE collection of odd custom toolbits and
>>>"Armstrong" style tool holders with various angles to choose from. Thus
>>>some one of these is probably very close to what I need for any application.
>>
>>
>> The existing collection of Armstrong style tool holders makes a
>> difference. The only ones which I have are for the little
>> Atlas/Craftsman 6x18" lathe.
[ ... ]
>>>I realize that there are some other more elaborate quick-change posts
>>>that allow intermediate settings, and might solve some of this problem,
>>>but that's not what I have.
>>
>>
>> Also -- some more elaborate tool holders for the simple Aloris
>> style quick-change toolpost -- as shown above.
[ ... ]
> I'll agree with most of what Don states above, with the following
> observations ...
>
> My toolpost is a Phase-II "BXA" sized dovetail post.
As is mine -- the wedge style, FWIW. The reason that I
explicitly mention the Aloris toolpost is to call attention to the one
with three dovetails, to increase the flexability. This I would like to
have, but probably can't afford as a hobby machinist.
But all of the exiting tool holders which I pointed out will
work nicely on my Phase-II Series 200 (their designation for BXA).
> It is completely
> satisfactory on the Rockwell 14" lathe I have at the university. I have
> a similar "AXA" size post on my Logan 10" at home.
O.K.
> Yes, I have lantern toolposts and extensive sets of Armstrong-style tool
> holders and bits for both lathes at both locations. This *IS* important
> for my original argument. For most of my odd jobs I will already have
> some tool/holder combination that is close to what I need. Perhaps only
> some minor regrind is necessary, if that.
>
> Without the above collection of tooling, in most cases the work could be
> done by setting the quick-change toolpost to some odd angle and
> custom-grinding some weird toolbit (this can take considerable time, and
> may require a non-common toolbit (extra long, etc.). Switching to the
> lantern post and existing tooling is often much quicker.
O.K.
[ ... ]
> Some of the specialized Aloris toolholders Don mentions would certainly
> assist in solving some problems. Sadly, the Aloris items are fairly
> expensive, and our department budget usually requires a cheap, of time
> consuming, solution. We're often "long on time and short on money".
> Phase-II doesn't offer nearly the variety in low-cost toolholders. I've
> made a few special holders for the Phase-II post (that hold tool bits at
> odd angles) that are useful.
O.K. I've seen holders for other systems which hold the tools
at strange angles.
> Some of the work I need to do involves machining (often INSIDE) complex
> shaped existing vacuum fittings and chambers and such.
So -- not only are the workpieces strange in shape, but also
usually stainless steel to survive the bakeout prior to high vacuum
work.
> Cutting
> additional O-ring grooves or adding/altering ports are such
> applications. These structures are fabrications, customized for various
> research applications, and often have odd protrusions either inside or
> outside. Often these things are not well planned, but just 'grow' as the
> project develops. New ports are added, or fittings silver-soldered on.
> Old ports get plugged (not always neatly). THEN somebody wants further
> modifications. Just getting into the thing, or around the obstructions,
> is usualy the problem.
O.K. This is something which calls for using whatever will
work, and not a problem which I normally encounter.
> Tooling to do this often requires a long reach and strange angles.
> Sometimes a boring bar, sometimes used as an EXTERNAL toolholder, is the
> answer.
O.K. The Aloris style boring bar holders can be a good start on
this, with the lantern style toolholder at the end of the bar.
> Sometimes a lantern post is the solution. In either case, a long
> reach is often needed, with corresponding lack of rigidity. Light cuts
> with sharp tools are a necessity. As is often the case, one spends 95%
> of the time on the setup, and 5% making the cut.
Understood.
> Such problems rarely arise when making new items.
Which is what I normally do -- so your case is extreme, but may
apply for others here too.
Since I don't have the collection of Armstrong type holders,
going to the toolpost would represent a significant expense for me, just
to get the holders. And that is money which I would rather put into
getting one of the adjustable angle Aloris insert holders.
Ignoramus26563
On the one hand, you can have this turning and facing holder, or its
knockoff ($70 on ebay).
On the other hand, you can have a regulr toolholder and insert
indexable lathe bits in it.
Would you say, as it seems, that the former is somehow better? Why?
Just because it is more rigid?
i
Glenn Lyford
> tool holder to cut plastic and stuff that needs a sharp edge.
> IIRC, Armstrong sells direct themselves.
http://www.armstrongtools.com/ECommerce/Category.aspx
and scroll down the left navigation to "workholding" (yes, I know it's
toolholding, but that seems to be where they've lumped it in).
I seem to recall paging through an Allen Tool catalog that listed a
bunch of this style toolholder as well, but in searching for them, I
found they were part of the Danaher group along with Armstrong, so I
guess that comes as no surprise.
--Glenn Lyford
Jim Wilkins
> On 2010-02-03, danmitch <danmi...@umflint.edu> wrote:
> ...
> O.K. I've seen holders for other systems which hold the tools
> DoN.
AFAIK this is the complete set of tool holders for the Swiss system:
http://www.top-maschinen.de/spannwerkzeuge/multifix-stahlhalter/produktinfo-multifix/index.htm
I've never seen dedicated carbide insert holders, nor any of the other
variations the Aloris system provides, like drill chucks.
jsw
Ed Huntress
I don't post pictures because I don't have many that are interesting. Also,
I've never done it, and don't want to learn how. <g>
The NC Shopowner article didn't make it through my Great Purge of a couple
of years ago, I'm afraid. However, I have some snapshots of the setup that I
took at the time, when I was thinking about writing an article, which show
how the head was mounted (it was on the tailstock, not the bed -- memory is
failing me), and a bit of the milling operation. If you're interested, send
me an e-mail with your address and you can take a look at them -- or post a
couple, if you're so inclined.
Remove the "3" for my real e-mail address:
--
Ed Huntress
hunt...@optonline.net
Wes
I have an Aloris AXA post, a bit small for my lathe but it came with the deal. The only
Genuine Aloris I've bought for it is their rather neat threading tool holder. That was
worth buying.
For the rest, try CDCO.
DoN. Nichols
> DoN, I am very curious.
>
> On the one hand, you can have this turning and facing holder, or its
> knockoff ($70 on ebay).
*Is* there a knockoff of this on eBay now? I've seen some which
sort of look like it, but present the inserts corner first instead of
one edge first in the direction of cutting. Those, I would not have, at
least not as my regular tool -- though it might be nice for beveling and
chamfering edges -- assuming that it uses the same negative rake inserts
with the chipbreaker groove to make it effectively a positive rake cut.
> On the other hand, you can have a regulr toolholder and insert
> indexable lathe bits in it.
Two regular toolholders, and two insert holders and inserts.
*Good* insert holders (those with negative rake and support ships) are
expensive too. I've worked that way, and I far prefer the BXA-16N
double insert holder.
> Would you say, as it seems, that the former is somehow better? Why?
> Just because it is more rigid?
It is noticeably more rigid than an insert holder in a standard
holder.
It takes the place of two holders with tools.
I only have to have that one holder and a parting holder for
most turning that I do. Another holder for threading inserts.
(And of course other things like the dovetailed scissors style
knurling tool, and other things -- but mostly it is just the
BXA-16N and the parting tool swapping places in the tray on top
of the headstock. The others are in a drawer to my right.
Oh yes -- also one holder has a smaller shank tool holding a
small diamond insert holder ground (and *not* TiN coated) to
produce a very sharp edge for final finish when needed.
DoN. Nichols
> On Feb 3, 11:14�pm, "DoN. Nichols" <dnich...@d-and-d.com> wrote:
>> On 2010-02-03, danmitch <danmi...@umflint.edu> wrote:
>> ...
>> � � � � O.K. �I've seen holders for other systems which hold the tools
>> at strange angles....
>> � � � � � � � � DoN.
>
> AFAIK this is the complete set of tool holders for the Swiss system:
> http://www.top-maschinen.de/spannwerkzeuge/multifix-stahlhalter/produktinfo-multifix/index.htm
O.K. But this does not need holders with strange angles, because
the holder itself can be indexed in 9 degree increments.
What I was talking about was a holder for another system similar
to the Dickensen (I'm sure that I don't have that spelled right) system,
but not quite it. The holder, instead of holding the tool shank
parallel to a line tangent to the ways on the post holds the shank at
about a 30 degree angle to the tangent line. I forget the brand, but I
wound up with a holder for that system when I thought that I was bidding
on a holder for the Emco-Maier smaller Dickensen. Hmm ... it was
probably "Enco" that I confused. Anyway -- I exchanged it for one of the
right type that someone else had which did not fit *his* toolpost. :-)
> I've never seen dedicated carbide insert holders, nor any of the other
> variations the Aloris system provides, like drill chucks.
The drill chucks, and the Morse taper holders can be useful when
you are doing a lot of on-axis peck drilling when you need to do a lot
of pulling the bit back out to clear chips. Use the power feed,
disengage the feed, crank back with the carriage handwheel, tap to drop
chips, crank back in until the tip contacts, and re-engage the power
feed. A *lot* quicker than cranking on the handwheel for the tailstock,
but if you have a lever-feed tailstock, or a bed turret, it is not as
useful.
Come to think of it -- I also have a three-jaw cut knurling tool
on a Morse Taper shank which goes nicely in the Morse taper tool holder.
(A lot of things from eBay auctions -- certainly not bought at new
prices. :-)
Gunner Asch
<jmart...@aol.com> wrote:
>On Feb 2, 10:53�am, Ignoramus14738 <ignoramus14...@NOSPAM.
>14738.invalid> wrote:
>> I was just wondering if anyone who has a lathe capable of using a
>> quick change toolpost like Aloris, would still have any reason to ever
>> need a lantern toolpost.
>>
>> My feeling on this matter, without knowing too much, is that lantern
>> toolposts are obsolete and quick change is the way to go, and there is
>> never a reason to use these old style tools.
>>
>> Would there be anyone who disagrees with this.
>>
>> i
>
>Yes. I disagree, and there will probably be many others.
>
>The quick change toolposts are good. They are almost as rigid as a
>one-piece tool block, and they are quicker and of course easy to
>index. But there are times where you have to work in a tight area for
>which they are simply too large. That's where the lantern toolpost
>becomes necessary.
>
>Use your lathe for a while. Eventually, you'll be glad you have the
>lantern toolpost.
>
>John Martin
And I agree. In fact...while a KDK lives MOST of the time on the
Hardinge HLV-H..I keep both a lantern and a small Hardinge turret tool
holder in the side cabinet. There are just enough times I need to work
either up next to the collet..or actually behind it, to use both of
them.
Gunner
Whenever a Liberal utters the term "Common Sense approach"....grab your
wallet, your ass, and your guns because the sombitch is about to do
something damned nasty to all three of them.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
http://www.kdktools.com/index.htm
Gunner Asch
Very very cool!!
Ive been working on some Okuma LN6s with a 20" spindle Bore..<G>
and cutting specialty oilfield threads with BIG thread inserts. Flat
threads..Butruss type threads and that would work a treat!!
Gunner
Gunner Asch
I have some..some lantern tool posts, bases and rockers if anyone needs
anything. Ill check stock next weekend when I get back..if I get back
within 2 weeks again.