Only the clamp down in between t slots, but who ever said advertising is accurate? ;-)
L7
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Largest Manufacturing Technology Community on the Web
Stay Connected:
Placement and overhang of Deckel model 6017 380mm rotary table
- Thread starter ballen
- Start date
- Replies 95
- Views 8,040
Only the clamp down in between t slots, but who ever said advertising is accurate? ;-)
L7
Erik
Hot Rolled
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Location
- Denmark, Scandinavia, Europe
Hi Tien.
Your table has the round ends and can turn all the way - on a FP3! The square table can not AFAIK.
And the FP3 has a thicker "apron" (vertical table block) than the FP2 - more space in front of the column.
So, no matter what vintage of the FP2, none of the tables will turn all the way...
I shouldn't have mentioned the vintage of my FP2 as it doesn't matter here.
I was very close to snatching a Hermle universal table, but someone else wanted it. I will not destroy a like-new FP3 table....
Cheers
Erik
Your table has the round ends and can turn all the way - on a FP3! The square table can not AFAIK.
And the FP3 has a thicker "apron" (vertical table block) than the FP2 - more space in front of the column.
So, no matter what vintage of the FP2, none of the tables will turn all the way...
I shouldn't have mentioned the vintage of my FP2 as it doesn't matter here.
I was very close to snatching a Hermle universal table, but someone else wanted it. I will not destroy a like-new FP3 table....
Cheers
Erik
ballen
Diamond
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Location
- Garbsen, Germany
OK, so it's not my imagination. This supports the theory that there was in fact no product, just the idea to have one. Hence the lack of a part number. After all, if the product did exist, they would have at least used a photo of it rather than the wrong part, no?
ballen
Diamond
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Location
- Garbsen, Germany
Hi Erik,
I've forgotten what a good eye you have for details!
I did not realize this. So to be sure I understand, the offset between the vertical ways and the front of the vertical table is larger on an FP3 than on an FP2? So a table which can 360 on the FP3 might interfere on the FP2?
I'm thinking that a Hermle table would be better if it can 360 without interference on my FP2. Do you know if it will do that? I see that it was available in three versions, one with a round table, one with a 600x320 table, and one with a 650 x 395 table. Obviously the first of these will not interfere on an FP2. Do you know about the second or third? Will they clear or will they interfere?
Cheers,
Bruce
I've forgotten what a good eye you have for details!
I did not realize this. So to be sure I understand, the offset between the vertical ways and the front of the vertical table is larger on an FP3 than on an FP2? So a table which can 360 on the FP3 might interfere on the FP2?
I'm thinking that a Hermle table would be better if it can 360 without interference on my FP2. Do you know if it will do that? I see that it was available in three versions, one with a round table, one with a 600x320 table, and one with a 650 x 395 table. Obviously the first of these will not interfere on an FP2. Do you know about the second or third? Will they clear or will they interfere?
Cheers,
Bruce
155 mm (FP2) VS 173 mm (FP3) Bruce if I am not mistaken...
I didn't mean to use an angle grinder !
The ability to rotate the top plate is a very desirable feature of the universal table to me, so it would make your table just useable to its full potential.
And if the table doesn't fit your machine, why not machining some kind of "spacer" that you could bolt between the table and the x-carriage ? Seems like a 20mm thick cast iron plate is all it would take...
Or selling it and get the real thing ?
ballen
Diamond
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Location
- Garbsen, Germany
Here's some evidence that it did exist -- it did have a part number -- this is from a 1986 Deckel catalog:
Translation from German:
Riser Plate for Rotary Table 6017
For the 6017 Rotary Table the worm drive axis is located beneath the mounting plane. Therefore the dividing handle and plates must lie outside the table area to which the Rotary Table is clamped. With the help of the Riser Plate one can place the Rotary Table in any desired area inside of the clamping surface. Contact area 210 x 390mm, T-groove width 12 and 14mm.
Last edited:
Erik
Hot Rolled
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Location
- Denmark, Scandinavia, Europe
Hi Tien.
I think the swivelling FP3 table is already quite heavy on the z-ways as is
and making a spacer, while it would work well, would make it harder on the ways.
Machining the ends would be a great solution, if I really needed the capability;
I just can't make myself destroy nice Deckelstuff - call me chicken...
I like the last option the best!! A 2037 would be nice, although a Mikron or Hermle
with the largest tabletop that will fit would be awesome. But I don't use the FP2 that much ATM.
Cheers
Erik
I think the swivelling FP3 table is already quite heavy on the z-ways as is
and making a spacer, while it would work well, would make it harder on the ways.
Machining the ends would be a great solution, if I really needed the capability;
I just can't make myself destroy nice Deckelstuff - call me chicken...
I like the last option the best!! A 2037 would be nice, although a Mikron or Hermle
with the largest tabletop that will fit would be awesome. But I don't use the FP2 that much ATM.
Cheers
Erik
Last edited:
ballen
Diamond
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Location
- Garbsen, Germany
I can confirm the 155mm when there are no bellows in place, and 140mm with the "old style" cloth bellows. With the modern armoured bellows it is probaby 130-135mm, but I can't measure this so it's just a guess.
ballen
Diamond
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Location
- Garbsen, Germany
I admit that weight is one of the reasons why I gave up the idea of using a big Deckel 2038 table on my FP3. But iirc, that model was yet 30/40kg heavier than the Hermle and there were other reasons.
Now if your concern is about preserving the ways of your machine over time, think about that : how much spindle time does your FP2 have a year actually ?
Probably not much more than a few hours.
I've often been thinking that it would be a good idea to rest the table on a stay of some sort during the rest of time, wich is plain downtime, because I have the feeling that if vertical ways must suffer from excess weight, it will rather be from the permanent 24/7 action of gravity, rather than from overload during actual work (for machines like ours, in a homeshop environment at least)...
So peace of mind may be as easy to find, as to rest your table on some kind of post shore whenever you don't use your machine (not forgetting the appropriate "remove before flight" red tag !)...
Now if your concern is about preserving the ways of your machine over time, think about that : how much spindle time does your FP2 have a year actually ?
Probably not much more than a few hours.
I've often been thinking that it would be a good idea to rest the table on a stay of some sort during the rest of time, wich is plain downtime, because I have the feeling that if vertical ways must suffer from excess weight, it will rather be from the permanent 24/7 action of gravity, rather than from overload during actual work (for machines like ours, in a homeshop environment at least)...
So peace of mind may be as easy to find, as to rest your table on some kind of post shore whenever you don't use your machine (not forgetting the appropriate "remove before flight" red tag !)...
Erik
Hot Rolled
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2004
- Location
- Denmark, Scandinavia, Europe
Ouch, is the Hermle really 200 kg??
I read 150 kg for an FP2 somewhere - AFAIR.
A 2037 being just 113 kg, just makes me want one more...
I would have to cut a lot away - remember, I am already short of some distance.
And I have the square one of these two:
No way I would do that.
But you are correct - if I had to earn a living with the FP2, I would have done it.
Cheers
Erik
I read 150 kg for an FP2 somewhere - AFAIR.
A 2037 being just 113 kg, just makes me want one more...
I would have to cut a lot away - remember, I am already short of some distance.
And I have the square one of these two:
No way I would do that.
But you are correct - if I had to earn a living with the FP2, I would have done it.
Cheers
Erik
ballen
Diamond
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Location
- Garbsen, Germany
Yes, 200kg in the version 14.1 that does not have a worm-screw dividing head (just 48 index positions) and 210 kg for versions 14.2 and 14.3 that have the worm-screw in addition to the 48 index positions.
I would be interested in a reference for that. The manual for my FP2 does not give any weight limits in the specs, so I'd like to know what you found. I do have a memory of seeing a 150kg limit for the large horizontal table, which together with the table itself (50kg) suggests a mass limit of 200kg for the FP2 vertical table.
Yeah, that seems to be the main advantage over the Hermle table. Plus it looks nicer!
ballen
Diamond
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Location
- Garbsen, Germany
ballen
Diamond
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Location
- Garbsen, Germany
OK, I found this in an FP2 brochure. It's not for my machine (1964) but from about a decade later, as far as I can tell:
Going from the top left:
Large 90-degree table: weight 60kg, allowed load max 300kg
Fixed 90-degree table: weight 58kg, allowed load max 300kg
Tilting table: weight 60kg, allowed load 200kg
Tilt and turn table: weight 130kg, allowed load 300kg
Tilting dividing table: weight 105kg, allowed load 100kg
So this would suggest that a 210kg table plus up to 220kg of additional load should be OK for that model FP2.
Ross has pointed out that the way/gib systems on the FP2 were modified over its lifetime, so I'm not sure if/how that applies to my earlier model.
It's awfully easy to build up quite a bit of weight. Two 125mm (5") hydraulic vises and mounting plates are already another 80kg.
PS: I think I'll do an experiment. I'll put 140kg of stuff onto my (60kg) mill table, and see how X and Z feel. It's not very "scientific" but it's easy to do and could be informative.
Going from the top left:
Large 90-degree table: weight 60kg, allowed load max 300kg
Fixed 90-degree table: weight 58kg, allowed load max 300kg
Tilting table: weight 60kg, allowed load 200kg
Tilt and turn table: weight 130kg, allowed load 300kg
Tilting dividing table: weight 105kg, allowed load 100kg
So this would suggest that a 210kg table plus up to 220kg of additional load should be OK for that model FP2.
Ross has pointed out that the way/gib systems on the FP2 were modified over its lifetime, so I'm not sure if/how that applies to my earlier model.
It's awfully easy to build up quite a bit of weight. Two 125mm (5") hydraulic vises and mounting plates are already another 80kg.
PS: I think I'll do an experiment. I'll put 140kg of stuff onto my (60kg) mill table, and see how X and Z feel. It's not very "scientific" but it's easy to do and could be informative.
I think this has been discussed earlier (when you were to machine something on your grinder table Bruce? not sure)
A quick look on an FP2 brochure suggests:
large angular table:
weight 60 kgr (as if
)max load 300 kgr
fixed angular table
weight 58 kgr (I need to weight this)
max load 300 kgr
full range swivelling table (2231)
weight 130 kgr
max load 300 kgr!!
Regarding Tien's comment on resting a heavy table when the machine is not in use, I am not sure there is any actual wear from the static condition. I think the problems start when you start lifting (and rapiding) a heavy carriage system up and down....
In any case, totally intuitively, I don't feel nice when my Z handwheel becomes heavy whenever I have mounted a heavy part on the table (worse when the 6017 rotab is on). So, I wouldn't feel confortable as well using a very heavy table constantly on the machine. But specwise, I don't think it cares...
BR,
Thanos
AlfaGTA
Diamond
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2002
- Location
- Benicia California USA
Don't think it is simply a matter of weight,
I agree with Thanos above in that within reason i do not believe static weight has any appreciable effect on wear of the machine.....
Its when things start moving that heavier results in higher wear...But its not that simple...
Also have to consider where the weight is positioned relative to the screw and vertical ways.
High weight , but mounted close to the vertical ways IMO is easier on the machine than somewhat lesser weight that overhangs further from the vertical ways....
Here the rather compact 2037 may be better as to wear than the full sized rigid table (2210) table.
Wear issues are of course on the screw and nut along with the bevel gears and thrust bearings on that screw.
Further there is a wedge effect trying to tilt the table forward, making the lower end of the box way faces on the vertical slide wear , along with the upper faces of the rear keeper plate gibs.
Also there is the "twist" of the "X" slide trying to turn under the overhung weight of the table and work.....making the top "X" slide keeper gib wear accelerate as well.....
The tendency to fall forward by the table and its flex will accelerate the screw and nut wear through imperfect alignment....All in all weight that is closer to the screw is best, and of course less is better.
Its all a compromise at getting what you need done. I love the universal tables, but in reality for the manual machines, having a rigid table or perhaps the 2231 table is best, then fitting of the rotary table only when needed.
That is how i have my FP3 fitted out with the 2231 (like TNB) Works well for my use, but feels a bit heavy on the hand wheel compares to my FP2.
Cheers Ross
I agree with Thanos above in that within reason i do not believe static weight has any appreciable effect on wear of the machine.....
Its when things start moving that heavier results in higher wear...But its not that simple...
Also have to consider where the weight is positioned relative to the screw and vertical ways.
High weight , but mounted close to the vertical ways IMO is easier on the machine than somewhat lesser weight that overhangs further from the vertical ways....
Here the rather compact 2037 may be better as to wear than the full sized rigid table (2210) table.
Wear issues are of course on the screw and nut along with the bevel gears and thrust bearings on that screw.
Further there is a wedge effect trying to tilt the table forward, making the lower end of the box way faces on the vertical slide wear , along with the upper faces of the rear keeper plate gibs.
Also there is the "twist" of the "X" slide trying to turn under the overhung weight of the table and work.....making the top "X" slide keeper gib wear accelerate as well.....
The tendency to fall forward by the table and its flex will accelerate the screw and nut wear through imperfect alignment....All in all weight that is closer to the screw is best, and of course less is better.
Its all a compromise at getting what you need done. I love the universal tables, but in reality for the manual machines, having a rigid table or perhaps the 2231 table is best, then fitting of the rotary table only when needed.
That is how i have my FP3 fitted out with the 2231 (like TNB) Works well for my use, but feels a bit heavy on the hand wheel compares to my FP2.
Cheers Ross
ballen
Diamond
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2011
- Location
- Garbsen, Germany
Hi All,
Yes, I agree that the static weight alone is not an issue. The forces are not large enough to permanently deform the cast iron or the other mechanical parts. I'm also not so concerned about the extra forces on the screw, nut and gearing. Sure, these will wear out faster. But on the Z I don't need a low-play nut and screw, because the DRO tells me the position, and gravity removes any backlash.
What I am concerned about is the excess wear that Ross describes. Key points are the lower end of the support and box way and the upper end of the backing plate and reverse box way. If the pressure is too great it will break the oil film and wear quickly. I'm also concerned about the twist on X when several hundred kg are cantilevered out at the end of the travel. That's rough on the top backing plates, and probably not so great for precision either.
I've been offered what looks like a very nice Hermle 14.2 table, so have to come to some decision about this in the next days. The very first step, I'm going to pile some weight on the horizontal table of the FP2 and see how it feels to drive around with an additional 150kg on there.
Cheers,
Bruce
PS: HAPPY NEW YEAR!!
Yes, I agree that the static weight alone is not an issue. The forces are not large enough to permanently deform the cast iron or the other mechanical parts. I'm also not so concerned about the extra forces on the screw, nut and gearing. Sure, these will wear out faster. But on the Z I don't need a low-play nut and screw, because the DRO tells me the position, and gravity removes any backlash.
What I am concerned about is the excess wear that Ross describes. Key points are the lower end of the support and box way and the upper end of the backing plate and reverse box way. If the pressure is too great it will break the oil film and wear quickly. I'm also concerned about the twist on X when several hundred kg are cantilevered out at the end of the travel. That's rough on the top backing plates, and probably not so great for precision either.
I've been offered what looks like a very nice Hermle 14.2 table, so have to come to some decision about this in the next days. The very first step, I'm going to pile some weight on the horizontal table of the FP2 and see how it feels to drive around with an additional 150kg on there.
Cheers,
Bruce
PS: HAPPY NEW YEAR!!
Last edited:
rimcanyon
Diamond
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2002
- Location
- Salinas, CA USA
I did some checking on the sizes available of Dura-Bar. There is one size that would make an excellent sub-table for a Deckel Rotary Table: 2.5" x 8.25". It comes in 72" lengths, which would yield (5) 14" long pieces. The base of the rotary table is a little bit less than 8"x12", so an 8x14 sub-table would work fine. The 2.5" height would also be enough to raise the handles and index plate above the surface of the mill table, and the top of the rotary table would end up 6.5" above the mill table. That also means that on an FP2NC, the top of the rotary table would be about 3" above the center-line of the horizontal spindle with the table at the top raised as far as it will go. Which is good, it would allow a reasonable size cutter below the bottom of something on the rotary table (a limitation I ran into earlier this week using 4" parallels).
If anyone else would be interested in going in on a purchase let me know.
-Dave
If anyone else would be interested in going in on a purchase let me know.
-Dave
Similar threads
