What's new
What's new

deluxe (?) indexing head

thanvg

Hot Rolled
Joined
Mar 3, 2015
Location
Greece
Hi to all,

asked a, fairly stupid, question in the general section (http://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...tely-machining-ribs-shaft-337562/#post3008465) regarding indexing; I need to index slots wider than the width of my tool, so good old indexing is not enough. Got the apparent answer that I need a universal (differential?) indexing head to do what I am after....

Of course, my deckel indexing head is not like this, I cannot rotate the spindle by predefined angle without disturbing the indexing. And, it is, also, not suited for mounting on a rotab, for emulating the differential indexing head. I'll use a monstrous reishauer direct indexing head I have the luck to own, mounted on the 380 mm rotab and get the work done. However, I would like to know what the 'deckel' approach to this problem would be, appart from mounting one rotab on top of another.

I have the vague idea that I've read here about a 'deluxe' indexing head, doing exactly this, can you confirm? Is it an ultra-rare tool?

Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Thanos
 
I just replied to your other thread in General, but don't think you need any universal table or rotab with the dividing head.

You should be able to make that with just a dividing head.

Gotteswinter does it with a shaper, so no helix involved in any way.

Any dividing head that has the divisions on it will work, doesn't need to be Deckel.

Deckel has a spiral attachment that will do a helix, and yes, it's a pretty rare bird and usually on the order of $3k-$5k in the U.S. for a complete one. Maybe you can find one cheaper in Greece. :) You could get an angle by using a rotary table, but that won't get the helix for you, it needs to spin while machining it, as the spiral attachment does. Maybe I'm missing what you want to do. The piece Gotteswinter shows has the ribs parallel to the bore.
 
I just replied to your other thread in General, but don't think you need any universal table or rotab with the dividing head.

You should be able to make that with just a dividing head.

Gotteswinter does it with a shaper, so no helix involved in any way.

Any dividing head that has the divisions on it will work, doesn't need to be Deckel.

Deckel has a spiral attachment that will do a helix, and yes, it's a pretty rare bird and usually on the order of $3k-$5k in the U.S. for a complete one. Maybe you can find one cheaper in Greece. :) You could get an angle by using a rotary table, but that won't get the helix for you, it needs to spin while machining it, as the spiral attachment does. Maybe I'm missing what you want to do. The piece Gotteswinter shows has the ribs parallel to the bore.

Hi traditional-tools thanks for the reply,

I may have not made myself perfectly clear, so I'll try to restate here:

Yes, ribs are parallel to the axis of the bore. But this is not my problem here. I am trying to do exactly what Stefan did on the mill. Assume horizontal milling, indexing head spindle axis vertical. Milling along the length of the shaft, just like Stefan did on the shaper. The thing is that Stefan did not care about the start and end of the ribs, that's why the rotation of the shaft was done without indexing, roughly with the degree wheel. He started by touching one side of the rib and finished by touching the other side of the next rib.

But I am interested in locating exactly the start and end of each rib. The idea is:
- mill the 'start' of each of the N ribs by indexing
- rotate the part enough so that the other side of the tool will go where the end of the next rib will be. Rotate either by a rotab below your indexing head or with the 'differential' indexing head.
- mill the 'end' of each of the N ribs by indexing (indexing was not harmed by the phase shift above)
- Since start and end are accurately machined, milled the 'in-between' with as many steps as you like to make the curve as smooth as possible.

Is there something I am missing in the above description?

This problem is very similar to the following two:
- Mill curved slots, EXACTLY indexed both for start and end, spanning specific circular angle (e.g. for female dogs in gearboxes), like in the draft here:

attachment.php


- Run an indexing job, as simple as drilling e.g. N equally spaced holes, BUT located exactly with respect to an existing feature on the part. E.g. drill (and counterbore) four holes on the face of a four-jaw in order to mount it on a face plate. Can't get simpler than this, mount on an indexing head and divide by four. Right, but where do you start? I mean, I would like to use and edge finder in the jaw slot, rotate the work accurately by the angle that I would have calculate based on the radius and the rest and THEN index for the final machining. Can't do this on a simple indexing head it seems to me....

So, I come back with my question:
- since the deckel indexing head does not fit nicely on the rotab, how did Deckel do this kind of work? Did they offer a 'differential' indexing head? Or rotab on a rotab was the answer to my question?

Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Thanos

ps. The 'deluxe' term I remembered was off this thread http://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...led-deckel-dividing-head-ebay-listing-316392/ in a description by Ross. Well, not exactly what I was describing....
 
Thanos:
Not sure i understand exactly the question. Correct me if i am wrong:
You intend to mill a spline along the length of a shaft. Your problem is that you need to widen the slot created by your cutter accurately. And to accomplish this you wish to rotate the part accurately
to change the point of contact where the cutter engages the slot , making the slot wider than the cutter.....

If this is correct you have several options if using the Deckel dividing head....
First off you often have several choices of which row of holes you choose to use to get the correct number of divisions in your circle....
Suggest you can choose the plate circle with the greatest number of holes that will work.....and you can effectively rotate the part a small amount by advancing a hole or two , moving the sector arms to the new plunger location
and then index for all the divisions of your part.....Since the dividing head is geared 40:1 A change of one hole on say the 58 hole circle will give a rotation change of .1552 degrees.

Just have to be careful to move for the change only in the forward direction (the direction you choose to rotate the part while indexing) so as to not induce backlash into the move.

Math works like this....40 turns of the hand crank = 1 rotation of the work...so every turn of the crank = 9 degrees of work rotation...to calculate the change via hole move
divide 9 by the number of holes you are using in the plate....

360/40= 9/58 (example) = .1551724*...rounded to .1552*....


Suggest that teh hole skip method coupled with small tool location changes to correct any small "miss" by the jump of a hole will give a cut that is pretty controllable and accurate and not induce errors of any significance...


Of course there is a second method if you own the "deluxe" dividing head offered by Deckel....
In my experience, the deluxe version is by far more common, so i suspect you have one. (don't think the "standard" version was sold much) .

The deluxe model can be identified by looking at the back end of the dividing head spindle.....If your head has 4 Allen head bolts in the rear plate that locates the degree indicating disc..then you have the deluxe
version.....
Unfortunately the deluxe version will not do what you want, exactly....there are some conditions.....
How it works is that the degree disc (0-360) also has index holes that allow rapid indexing...to do that you must disengage the worm (hand crank, its on an eccentric that when rotated comes free of the gear allowing the
dividing head spindle to rotate freely) Then use the plunger at the rear of the head to engage any of the 24 holes in the degree disc......This is rapid indexing so any number of divisions that are a multiple of 24 can be
done.....(2,3,4,6,8,12,or 24)
The Allens at the rear of the head clamp the degree disc to the dividing head spindle...when these bolts are loosened it allows you to rotate the spindle relative to the degree disc, so you can position the rotation of the spindle
relative to the rapid index holes.....So in reality you can move the position of the part's rotation, but only when you are using the rapid indexing setup.....

There also is a degree style hand wheel that one can use in place of the index plates , so with that setup any amount of rotation is possible....
In addition, you could also setup your job working between centers and driving the work with a dog....Its not difficult to make a dog that has a pair of screws that capture the driving pin on the dividing head face plate....a sort of
push pull arrangement...that would allow changing the rotation of the work by adjusting the screws..tightening one while loosening the opposite...would ti turn rotate the part as the dog is pushed or pulled via the screws.

Lots of ways to skin this cat...just have to think about it a bit....

Hope this make sense....

Cheers Ross
 
I think you are over complicating this. If I understand correctly, some of the movement which you seem to think needs to come from rotation, actually will be an offset of the mill's table (in the Z axis???).
You would start with the cutter over the center line of the part, with the cutter over the center of the first rib. Then off set the table 1/2 the width of the rib, plus 1/2 the width of the cutter. This will put the edge of the cutter on the side of the first rib, creating a square shoulder on the rib. Then index around cutting that side of each rib. A second op is needed to cut the opposite side of each rib. After all the ribs are cut, you can index around in small increments to remove the extra material between the ribs. A cutter with the radius of the part ground on it will make this quicker and will eliminate the flats produced by using a flat faced cutter.
 
But I am interested in locating exactly the start and end of each rib.

But you are using a dividing head. As Ross suggests, using the highest division will get you the closest. I really don't think this will be a problem, your resolution will be a division of 40 and the index you pick. You're already getting 40 revs on an index head, and then the number of holes for the index you select.

What exactly is this bushing with splines on it for ? Maybe if you simply state that, it would make more sense. Sounds like you're seeking more accuracy than you need.

You might be best using 1um scales on a DRO. *gd&r* (<foghorn leghorn voice>I say that's a joke son!</foghorn leghorn voice>)
 
After all the ribs are cut, you can index around in small increments to remove the extra material between the ribs. .


Unclear here as to what he is making...a drawing or the old part photo would be nice...Not sure if he is making straight sided splines or ?????
Derek"s method described above is correct for a standard (non involute) straight sided spline. Cutting this type of spline and rotating the part to get or correct dimensions is incorrect as
it changes the geometry of the land face....straight spline land faces are made to be parallel, not radial to the center of the part.....
But you have to be careful here..Straight sided automotive splines in specific older designs often are made to locate using the minor diameter on the shaft so the base of the cut needs to be shaped to agree with the mating part.
 
To accurately make that part...teh method described above by Derek is the way to make this part and absolutely no micro rotation of the part is needed or wanted.....

Can run this either horizontal or vertical....Grip the body on the OD. using the chuck if possible or a collet on the shoulder just ahead of the hex for turning...
If held via the chuck no tail stock is needed
Anyhow align the part so that it is running true with the "X" axis, and has minimal runout on the OD.

Set the part so that the spindle is on center with the center of the part rotation using the "Y" or "Z" axis depending on if you go vertical or horizontal...
Select a good end mill, you want something relatively small in diameter so that it will fit between teh opposite tooth of the part as you are cutting and to not need to go too deep past the tooth depth in order to
make the side flat.

If the tooth is 6mm wide you simply need to move the spindle from the centered position by 3mm and 1/2 the diameter of your tool....then cut one side of all the teeth....
indexing each, then cutting ....Personally i would work up to the final dimension ...originally moving further than the finished calculated position...Finish all one side of all 10 teeth.
Then move the spindle to the opposite side and work to the same offset only on the opposite side of the part centerline.....
As you approach the finished width of the teeth (as measured) finish to size simply by continuing to cut by moving the spindle closer to the center till the final size is reached....
If you carefully cut the first side, you can finish to size on the second side...a small difference between the exact cutting position on each side will not affect the part.....

Also...this is a tool and you should not strive to make it fit too tight in the drive notches of the nut....give it some clearance, won't hurt the function and will make your life easier....

For 10 divisions on your dividing head...the indexing is 4 turns in any hole circle...Formula is : N= number of divisions. T= Turns of the crank
Given a 40:1 ratio in the head (pretty standard)
Then...40/N = T Or 40/10 = 4 that is 4 full turns on any hole circle.

A final note. its good to be aware of accuracy and strive for quality work, but gilding the lilly is costly and often the results are less than expected....this is not a part that demands micron accuracy...Remember to not make it fit too tight on the teeth...if it does not fit easily once you take the part off the machine,giving it more clearance later is much harder.....

Cheers Ross
 
Hi to all,

tried to edit my post on the phone and end up deleting it. I had the browser open on the laptop though, so here it is. This come BEFORE last post by Ross:

Hi to all and thanks for spending the time to participate to this discussion:

Thanos:
Not sure i understand exactly the question. Correct me if i am wrong:
You intend to mill a spline along the length of a shaft. Your problem is that you need to widen the slot created by your cutter accurately. And to accomplish this you wish to rotate the part accurately
to change the point of contact where the cutter engages the slot , making the slot wider than the cutter...
......
.
.
.
Lots of ways to skin this cat...just have to think about it a bit....

Hope this make sense....

Cheers Ross

Hi Ross,

thanks for the advice. However, I am still not 'satisfied' regarding the 'proper' way to do this:
- Using the skip-some-holes option will practically work but the 0.15 degree step is no match for the minutes or second of degree resolution of rotating devices (e.g. a good rotab). So, I assume, if the accuracy is required, this is not the way to achieve it.
- Same applies to the rough, by-hand, rotation of the spindle with respect to the plunge direct indexing plate for the 'deluxe' indexing head.
- Same think again for the dog set screws when working between centers, cannot allow for an accurate rotation.

I think you are over complicating this. If I understand correctly, some of the movement which you seem to think needs to come from rotation, actually will be an offset of the mill's table (in the Z axis???).
You would start with the cutter over the center line of the part, with the cutter over the center of the first rib. Then off set the table 1/2 the width of the rib, plus 1/2 the width of the cutter. This will put the edge of the cutter on the side of the first rib, creating a square shoulder on the rib. Then index around cutting that side of each rib. A second op is needed to cut the opposite side of each rib. After all the ribs are cut, you can index around in small increments to remove the extra material between the ribs. A cutter with the radius of the part ground on it will make this quicker and will eliminate the flats produced by using a flat faced cutter.

Hi Derek,

the whole discussion is how to move to the 'second op' you are mentioning above...

But you are using a dividing head. As Ross suggests, using the highest division will get you the closest. I really don't think this will be a problem, your resolution will be a division of 40 and the index you pick. You're already getting 40 revs on an index head, and then the number of holes for the index you select.

What exactly is this bushing with splines on it for ? Maybe if you simply state that, it would make more sense. Sounds like you're seeking more accuracy than you need.

You might be best using 1um scales on a DRO. *gd&r* (<foghorn leghorn voice>I say that's a joke son!</foghorn leghorn voice>)

Hi traditional-tools,

well, if the 'closest' was not close enough?

As I have stated in my original post, this is a theoretical discussion, investigating the proper way to run this operation. In real life, I already set the part on the indexing head, milled the right side of each slot (divided by 10), moved a couple of slots and milled the other side of the slot, again deviding by 10. I did not even need to switch to the 58-hole plate, the 49 one I had on worked fine. My initial plan was to use a reishauer direct indexing head on top of the deckel rotab, but the damn thing did not have 10-fold indexing plate...

Stating again that for this (or, most probably, for the majority of the work I'll have to do) the approximate methods discussed already will suffice. But I feel that the correct way would be the indexing head on a rotab setup and would like to see your thoughts on how Deckel suggested that this should be done with their tools.

For your reference, here is the part I am trying to replicate:

attachment.php


It is a special spanner for removing a nut on the bevel box on the r1200 bmw motorcycles. 10 teeth, 6 mm each in width in 59 mm major OD (measured at teeth OD) and 55 mm minor diameter (at tooth base).

Best regards,
Thanos
 
To accurately make that part...teh method described above by Derek is the way to make this part and absolutely no micro rotation of the part is needed or wanted.....

Can run this either horizontal or vertical....Grip the body on the OD. using the chuck if possible or a collet on the shoulder just ahead of the hex for turning...
If held via the chuck no tail stock is needed
Anyhow align the part so that it is running true with the "X" axis, and has minimal runout on the OD.

Set the part so that the spindle is on center with the center of the part rotation using the "Y" or "Z" axis depending on if you go vertical or horizontal...
Select a good end mill, you want something relatively small in diameter so that it will fit between teh opposite tooth of the part as you are cutting and to not need to go too deep past the tooth depth in order to
make the side flat.

If the tooth is 6mm wide you simply need to move the spindle from the centered position by 3mm and 1/2 the diameter of your tool....then cut one side of all the teeth....
indexing each, then cutting ....Personally i would work up to the final dimension ...originally moving further than the finished calculated position...Finish all one side of all 10 teeth.
Then move the spindle to the opposite side and work to the same offset only on the opposite side of the part centerline.....
As you approach the finished width of the teeth (as measured) finish to size simply by continuing to cut by moving the spindle closer to the center till the final size is reached....
If you carefully cut the first side, you can finish to size on the second side...a small difference between the exact cutting position on each side will not affect the part.....

Also...this is a tool and you should not strive to make it fit too tight in the drive notches of the nut....give it some clearance, won't hurt the function and will make your life easier....

For 10 divisions on your dividing head...the indexing is 4 turns in any hole circle...Formula is : N= number of divisions. T= Turns of the crank
Given a 40:1 ratio in the head (pretty standard)
Then...40/N = T Or 40/10 = 4 that is 4 full turns on any hole circle.

A final note. its good to be aware of accuracy and strive for quality work, but gilding the lilly is costly and often the results are less than expected....this is not a part that demands micron accuracy...Remember to not make it fit too tight on the teeth...if it does not fit easily once you take the part off the machine,giving it more clearance later is much harder.....

Cheers Ross

Hi Ross,

thanks for the reply.

Understood, the method you and Derek explained is clear to me.

Thing is, like I've mentioned before, that the whole discussion was not on making the specific part, which, indeed has no strict specs in terms of accuracy.
I wanted to know, theoretically, how can one tackle a job that requires indexing for two features that are some specific phase shift appart. Purely theoretical, a discussion on techniques. So, I would like to insist and ask for insight on the specific points/examples:

1. Please have a look at the draft sketch I attached a couple of posts above. Let's assume that the part requires milling slots, as seen in the sketch, each spanning exactly, lets say 12 10' 32" degrees. I understand how to make the start of the three slots, divide by three on a rotab. I also understand how to make the one slot as well: remove the dividing plates, install the degree wheel, zero and count your angle. But I cannot understand how to make the other two ones UNLESS one combines a dividing tool with a degree-based rotating tool.

2. Please have a look at this example, the external lap holder by American Laps http://www.americanlap.com/External Laps.htm . This can serve as an example to make my second point. Let's assume that one needs to make this part specifically drill the holes. Let's assume also, as an example only, that some features of the part (e.g. the slot) exist before our indexing operation, so our initial setup MUST take into account these existing features. What would make sense to me is mount the part in the indexing device on the chuck, lock the indexer, have a way to rotate the part ACCURATELY in order to locate it as desires with respect to the existing features, lock the rotation and start indexing in order to drill. Again, an independent way to introduce a phase shift of the spindle with respect to the indexer is required. (part shown as an exersise/example only, of course there is no need for such accuracy here again).

3. In our actual part, again as an exersise, assume that the sides of the ribs needed to be radial (imagine it blown up and the ribs being huge, something like this
attachment.php
). In this case, of course, the latteral translation method that Derek/Ross described will not provide the desired result, there has to be rotation in order to mill the other side of the slot. In fact, due to the tool not being infinetely small in diameter there has to be BOTH rotation (by theta, in order to brind slot side 2 where side 1 was) and lateral translation of the tool (equal to its diameter, from location '1' to location '2') in order to make both sides of the slot radial.

Please consider the above examples and, if you have the patience to invest some thought, please provide some insight.

I need to restate here that this is a theoretical discussion, discussion of principles. We all cut corners all day, but the best way to cut corners is to be familiar with the proper way to do stuff. It is better to own the right method and simplify on this as per the requirements than being familiar only with approximate methods that cannot be enhanced in accuracy when it will be needed to do so.

Also, being kind of familiar with the specs of the Deckel machines (and the obsession of their users... :) ) and the multitude of attachements that allow precision machining in most occasions I would be surprised if they had not provided a tool to do what I am asking here. Even if you consider the simplest of my examples above, no 1 or 2, I can't imagine Deckel tooling system not having respective provision.

Thanks
Thanos
 
Last edited:
well, if the 'closest' was not close enough?

I can't see that happening for a nut spanner. I think you could do it with a dividing head and an end mill. The square sections are what will take the most stress, use pre-hard for that to be safe.

As I have stated in my original post, this is a theoretical discussion, investigating the proper way to run this operation.

Understood, not trying to stifle you in any way, I enjoy having a discussion. This is not a precision part, IMO, although you don't want it to be too sloppy, it doesn't sound like a tool that will be used often. Reminds me of some of my "Fritz Tools". That's what I call the special tools needed to work on a Porsche. Porsche sells most of them, but I just make my own. They pop up more often than one would expect and pay for themselves with a single use, so if you get a 2nd use for them it's icing on the cake, so to speak. I don't like to work on my Porsche too much, sometimes better to pay someone. ;)

Stating again that for this (or, most probably, for the majority of the work I'll have to do) the approximate methods discussed already will suffice. But I feel that the correct way would be the indexing head on a rotab setup and would like to see your thoughts on how Deckel suggested that this should be done with their tools.

I had to go look...you're the guy that got the fp2 with a crap load of tooling.

I'd use your nice selection of collets to hold end mills, in the vertical spindle.

I would mount the piece in a horizontal dividing head. Or if you have the vertical index attachment, that would work also. Since I have a dividing head that can be used horizontally, I would use it with the vertical head. I think you can get plenty accurate using the mill like that.

If I was using the vertical index attachment I might use the horizontal spindle. That would work also. In that case use your collet bar in the vert attachment with a collet that would hold the part. I would leave the small end round until the final work and then mill it square, but if you leave it round you can hold it in a collet. You can hold a square in a round collet, it will just have less area to hold. Or in your case you might even have a square collet with that crap load of tooling you got...The world's your oyster, and many ways to make the part! :)

The vertical attachment can be mounted on the table in horizontal, but it's bulky. I have used it like that in the past to make some lathe chuck keys. I don't like using it on the table, it's quite heavy. If you have a hoist (which I don't) or a strong back, the vert. attachment is slick on the table mount. :cheers:

All that said, maybe not how someone else would do it, but I can adapt to new ways when shown my faults. ;)

You could be pretty far off on that and it would still work. Ideally you want a nice fit so there's little slop, but I don't think it's rocket science.:nono:

Cheers,
Alan
 
Hi Alan,

thanks for the reply and the advice,

well, as I said before, it's all for the sake of discussion. The actual part is half done, using the 'move-some-index-holes' method to move to the other side of each slot.

The thing is, since you spent that much effort on this, I can't escape showing the finished part to you but the finish is not up to the subforum's or the thread's standards... I opted to use carbide tooling on the lathe for this part, apparently not a nice choice, and got crap finish. Should have stuck with a freshly sharpened HSS bit. I may focus the camera on the slots though, carbide end mill did not have any problems there...:)

Yeap, this tool will not be used very often, but it will need to withstand 200 Nm torque (crazy BMW guys...). I should have used prehard, I only used CK60 (1060 in the US). Could, probably, do some heat treating to be sure.

No, I am afraid no square collet....(is this crap-load-of-tooling? I know many guys here that have scored full Deckel cabinets along with their machines...:) )

I am not sure what you mean with the 'vertical attachment' term, I guess the Deckel indexing head. Actually I did mount it on the table, spindle horizontal along the X axis. Was easier for me to carry it this way instead of removing the table...Yes, no hoist for me either and not so strong a back, need a friend to remove the table....

Best regards,
Thanos
 
thanks for the reply and the advice,

No problem, but you really need advice from folks like Ross. He might have another way that will work better and be easier.

well, as I said before, it's all for the sake of discussion. The actual part is half done, using the 'move-some-index-holes' method to move to the other side of each slot.

Indeed, and it sounds like you're half way there.

The thing is, since you spent that much effort on this, I can't escape showing the finished part to you but the finish is not up to the subforum's or the thread's standards...

I don't know about that, the main thing is to get it done. No matter how you do that, and no matter what the part looks like, the main thing is that it functions. Your work will get better with time, be patient. Also, the Deckel requires you wrap your head around how it works and they require different thinking than a Bridgeport style mill as an example.

I opted to use carbide tooling on the lathe for this part, apparently not a nice choice, and got crap finish. Should have stuck with a freshly sharpened HSS bit. I may focus the camera on the slots though, carbide end mill did not have any problems there...:)

Do you mean for the lathe work? There was a fair amount of turning to get the part ready for the mill. Carbide tooling needs to spin fast, and it doesn't like taking small cuts, so make sure you have plenty of feed/cut as well as speed.

Yeap, this tool will not be used very often, but it will need to withstand 200 Nm torque (crazy BMW guys...).

I can't for the life of me see 200nm torque on a nut like that, but I could be wrong. I'm sure they spec it out to make sure it would withstand the strongest of the impact wrenches, but I have never seen any nuts on an engine that tight. Important to use the impact wrench as intended, in small spurts rather than like a machine gun, which usually does little on a very tight nut.

I should have used prehard, I only used CK60 (1060 in the US). Could, probably, do some heat treating to be sure.

I wouldn't worry about it, mild steel should be ok for that purpose. That could also be part of your finish problem, often picky about cutter and type of steel being used. HSS will allow you to feed/spin slower, as well as take much lighter cuts. With HSS you can easily take .002"-.003" and get a nice finish. Not true with carbide.

No, I am afraid no square collet....(is this crap-load-of-tooling? I know many guys here that have scored full Deckel cabinets along with their machines...:) )

Yes, there are people that get cabinets filled, and I know someone that got an FP2 with a couple cabinets of tooling for a song, it does happen. Not to me though...:bawling: You got a fair bit of kit with your purchase! Nice set of collets and end mill holders. You have an nice base to work with. I'm not really complaining, I have what I need for the most part, but you've scored a nice FP2 with a fair bit of kit, and that's all good, IMO. :cheers:

I am not sure what you mean with the 'vertical attachment' term, I guess the Deckel indexing head. Actually I did mount it on the table, spindle horizontal along the X axis. Was easier for me to carry it this way instead of removing the table...Yes, no hoist for me either and not so strong a back, need a friend to remove the table....

One of the attachments that Deckel made is really a nice piece, it's the vertical index attachment. It is essentially a dividing head that can mount on the table mount and allow indexing. It has 3 index plates that go with it. Let me post a pic so we're on the same page. Here's a pic, there's an additional overarm that slides on where that black bakelite cover is mounted.

NOTE: this is the FP1 tooling, your FP2 is similar.

img90.gif


Here's one with the overarm on it. In this configuration it was intended to cut splines on a shaft. You don't need the overarm support for what you're doing, that is if you have the vertical attachment and if you use it. This will mount on the table in horizontal but leaves very little travel and is very bulky, as I mentioned. I have a small 6" Ellis dividiing head with tailstock, it's a perfect size for what I need on my FP1.

img99.jpg


Cheers,
Alan
 
Hi Alan,

thanks for the reply.

Well, exactly, mild steel is picky regarding tooling, at least on my lathe. If finish was an issue I would have tried the stupid carbide tool on a sample part and would have discarded it for a sharp HSS tool. My small lathe has RPM limitations and certainly hates fast feeds...I like to try for best finish, even when it is not crucial, as a form of practice. We'll make an exception here :)

Have to look at the bike's manual again, but I think that it is indeed a 200 Nm ring nut. I 'finished' the tool and did a test fit, fits great with minimum float so I'll hope it'll handle the Nms...

Regarding the deckel indexing head, yes, I am kind of familiar with it :) (it was the term 'vertical attachement' that got me wondering). Here it is in use for the particular part (held in a pressed-in arbor).

attachment.php


Will make a plate tomorrow, so that I can hold the part and undo (or try to at least) the nut. I'll post success pictures of the tool it is makes it or disaster pics of the tool and nut if it doesn't!

Ross, the back of my indexing head has a spanner nut and a set screw, did not see any four-allen screws. So, it seems I have the ultra rare non-deluxe indexing head?? Yeah, lucky me!! :P

BR,
Thanos
 
Well, exactly, mild steel is picky regarding tooling, at least on my lathe. If finish was an issue I would have tried the stupid carbide tool on a sample part and would have discarded it for a sharp HSS tool. My small lathe has RPM limitations and certainly hates fast feeds...I like to try for best finish, even when it is not crucial, as a form of practice. We'll make an exception here :)

Simple, don't use carbide on your lathe, or if you do make sure you get something with positive rake. Most carbide tool holders are designed with negative rake to work with high powered machines. What you describe is not that type of machine. Some places, such as latheinserts.com will list it as Hobby kits, but it is just a toolholder with positive rake. The other option is to use HSS, more fitting for your machine. Here's an example of a 5/8" toolholder with positive rake, and BTW if you look on that page it says "DESIGNED FOR BENCH TOP AND TOOLROOM LATHES". My toolroom lathe would not be considered a hobby lathe, yet it does cut well with positive rake.

tools tooling for hobby lathes

Regarding the deckel indexing head, yes, I am kind of familiar with it :) (it was the term 'vertical attachement' that got me wondering). Here it is in use for the particular part (held in a pressed-in arbor).

Deckel had other tooling that provided indexing and/or rotary table features. This was designed to be mounted on the vertical table mount. The way you have it is how I despise using it due to weight, moving it around, and small work area left on my FP1. You have more space on your X with the FP2, so that might not be an issue. I don't know all of the Deckel tooling or what they made vs. re-selling from another vendor, but most all of it was quality tooling, AFAIK, and there are multiple pieces of tooling that do indexing.

Cheers,
Alan
 
You could take a look at the Tangential toolholder from eccentric engineering in Australia.
It's also sold from the UK (a sister). The Crobalt HSS-like bit is also great - tough as carbide,
but is very easily handled. Even though I have a lathe that can use carbide inserts well,
I simply love this toolholder. Very cheap in use and it's easy to sharpen HSS or Crobalt.

Cheers
Erik
 
Hi Alan, Erik,

thanks for the advice. Alan, yes, I was using a CCMT tool in a holder like this. Maybe the tool was dull, maybe too large a radius for my machine, maybe speeds/feeds not correct. Will sort it out....

I am mostly using 12.5% Co HSS blanks Erik, and I am very happy with those. Still need to build a tangential toolholder, somewhere high in the to-do list....

BR,
Thanos
 
I was using a CCMT tool in a holder like this.

What about the rake? Can you see negative rake on the tool holder? Negative rake creates more tearing that cutting. If you don't have the power to use that type of tooling it will leave a horrible finish. HSS is always safe, because the way it's ground puts a positive rake on the tool bit. The cutting edge won't last on the HSS if the tool bit has a negative rake.
 
What about the rake? Can you see negative rake on the tool holder? Negative rake creates more tearing that cutting. If you don't have the power to use that type of tooling it will leave a horrible finish. HSS is always safe, because the way it's ground puts a positive rake on the tool bit. The cutting edge won't last on the HSS if the tool bit has a negative rake.

Hi Alan,

I think this holder (which is like mine) has a neutral rake itself and the helpful positive take is provided by the ccmt insert itself, but don't take my word as granted....

Br,
Thanos
 
Hi Thanos.

I can see you are using a long 20 mm collet in an adapter.
Problem is, you may have a problem getting the adapter out...
You should find a threaded adapter with a nut to pull it out.

Cheers
Erik

PS: I sold my 20mm collet set after I saw they couldn't grip an end mill very well.
And I had already earlier invested in some OZ collets, ER collets and Weldon (side screw) holders.
 








 
Back
Top