Acier F5 Vertical Table in Use
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Redwood City, CA USA
    Posts
    5,327
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    248
    Likes (Received)
    1195

    Default Acier F5 Vertical Table in Use

    I have the vertical table accessory that fits my F4 and F5. I have rarely used it, but recently had a good opportunity when boring the cylinder on a 1/2-scale Olds hit-and-miss engine. The neat things about the table are that its mounting is highly repeatable and its top edge is parallel to the machine's X travel. This means that work can be mounted on the table sitting flat on a bench while using the top edge as a reference. The pictures tell the story.
    img_4115.jpgimg_4116.jpgimg_4118.jpgimg_4165.jpgimg_4176.jpg

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Country
    CANADA
    State/Province
    Ontario
    Posts
    1,303
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    167
    Likes (Received)
    159

    Default

    I want one !!

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Redwood City, CA USA
    Posts
    5,327
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    248
    Likes (Received)
    1195

    Default

    The vertical table is not much good on an F4 because the Y axis reach is too small.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Country
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    142
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    45

    Default

    Very jealous. Making some.kind of vertical table is on my todo list. Thanks for the motivation.

    Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Redwood City, CA USA
    Posts
    5,327
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    248
    Likes (Received)
    1195

    Default

    Greub will sell you one from Switzerland. I have no idea about price, and think it depends on the phase of the moon with them.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Country
    AUSTRALIA
    Posts
    142
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1
    Likes (Received)
    45

    Default

    Yeah being where I am out in the boonies its easier to just get a local foundry to cast a block and just machine it. If I had a job that needed the low table I would spring for getting the real deal though. Maybe one day.

    Sent from my SM-G973F using Tapatalk

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    GERMANY
    Posts
    3,677
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2463
    Likes (Received)
    1485

    Default

    Hi Rich,

    Quote Originally Posted by rklopp View Post
    The pictures tell the story.
    I can't see your pictures as well as I would like, because they are so small. For a while, I had the same problem with the pictures that I uploaded here, but I was eventually told how to solve it. Here is an example. This is the "raw" picture jpeg file, which is 1.9MB:



    If I first reduce the size of the file (exporting it on my mac as a reduced quality jpeg of 0.5MB) BEFORE uploading it to PM:



    Bottom line: before you upload a photo to PM, reduce the quality/file size to about 500kB. Paradoxically, that makes it larger and easier to see here.

    Cheers,
    Bruce

    PS: photo shows the spacer block for a Deckel 6017 rotary table. When I bought this, I discovered that the casting had never been finished machined. The T-slots were about 11.7mm wide. Here I am widening them to 12mm.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Country
    SWITZERLAND
    Posts
    1,147
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    147
    Likes (Received)
    463

    Default

    Love you for doing that. Now you can attach tools directly to the spindle and go horizontally for all it’s worth. In today’s VM craze this soothes my soul. Frankly, I hate long Y axis milling machine tables (my back) and I despise to mill lots. Total misunderstanding of manufacturing by all those who do not prepare cast blanks that need much less hogging off. Some Aciera, Schäublin, and Sixis milling machines have cast steel main frames. That’s high tech.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Redwood City, CA USA
    Posts
    5,327
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    248
    Likes (Received)
    1195

    Default

    Seeing if this shows up with higher resolution. Nope.
    img_4115.jpg
    How about this?
    img_4115.jpg

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    GERMANY
    Posts
    3,677
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2463
    Likes (Received)
    1485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rklopp View Post
    Seeing if this shows up with higher resolution. Nope.
    Thanks for trying. My only experience is with a mac. What I've found is that if I reduce the JPG quality to make the photo size no larger than about 500kB, then it's displayed large here.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Redwood City, CA USA
    Posts
    5,327
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    248
    Likes (Received)
    1195

    Default Acier F5 Vertical Table in Use

    img_4115.jpgimg_4116.jpgimg_4118.jpgimg_4165.jpgimg_4176.jpg



    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk. Maybe posting vis Tapatalk is better. It’s easier because the photos are on the phone anyway.
    Last edited by rklopp; 06-05-2021 at 10:47 PM.

  12. Likes lucky7, DJ2 liked this post
  13. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Salinas, CA USA
    Posts
    4,838
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    538
    Likes (Received)
    446

    Default

    Rich, if you want the images to show up big, just change the filenames. I.e. if the filename ends .jpeg it will show up small, but if it ends .jpg it will be large. This is all due to a config file that is part of the BBS software in use.

  14. Likes ballen, Colt45 liked this post
  15. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Redwood City, CA USA
    Posts
    5,327
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    248
    Likes (Received)
    1195

    Default

    I used Dave's instruction to change jpeg to jpg in post #11, and it worked. I would never have guessed. How did he know that?

  16. Likes ballen, rimcanyon liked this post
  17. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    20,791
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    12199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rklopp View Post
    I used Dave's instruction to change jpeg to jpg in post #11, and it worked. I would never have guessed. How did he know that?
    The usual answer. "It's PM, dammit!"

    EG: Somebody who knew something told the rest of we chik'ns.

    Damned good job we ain't a pack of thugee thieves.

    Habitually ratting out the secrets of the tribe could land the lot of us in jail.


  18. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,691
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    656
    Likes (Received)
    658

    Default

    Always interested in pics of interesting work. Thanks for taking the time to enlarge.

    L7

  19. Likes ballen liked this post
  20. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Benicia California USA
    Posts
    8,805
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2322
    Likes (Received)
    3210

    Default

    Rich:
    Was there a reason you did not just use the Horizontal with the standard table?

    Cheers Ross

  21. #17
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    20,791
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    12199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlfaGTA View Post
    Rich:
    Was there a reason you did not just use the Horizontal with the standard table?

    Cheers Ross
    This shot, from his first post, was the actual part that triggered the use.

    https://www.practicalmachinist.com/v...e-img_4118.jpg

    It illustrates the challenge of not enough travel to even get a useful setup when arranged horizontally.

    Even if the swept area of the bore might not need anyhere near as much travel, one has to be able to get tooling "into it" past the "approach barriers".

    Not the ONLY way.

    Just a workable one made easier by a table option few of the rest of us with "conventional mills" have any handy counterpart to.

    Surely "we have our ways..." but they can be a tad "awkward"?

  22. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Redwood City, CA USA
    Posts
    5,327
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    248
    Likes (Received)
    1195

    Default

    Ross

    I looked at horizontal boring, but it presented problems. I first looked at using the overarm to support the outer end of the boring bar. Due to work features in the way, the bare length of boring bar would have needed to be nearly double the length of the whole engine, and my overarm, long as it is, would still have been too short. Even using a cantilevered bar like I did, the work would have had to overhand the front of the tilting table in order to be able to back the boring bar out of the hole. I don't have those fancy T-slotted parallels like you can borrow from your Berco to support overhung work. I suppose I could have used the big fixed table that I have, but it has a bit of droop* and is a hassle to install.

    The vertical method worked a treat, as you see. The Z travel is long and gave plenty of clearance to back the bar out of the hole to take a measurement. The method also had the advantage of allowing the chips to just fall out of the hole, so no issues with chip clearance.

    Rich

    *Not that droop would matter much. Unless I shimmed the base, it would result in a tiny amount of "desaxe," or the cylinder axis not quite parallel to the base bottom. I am using the base bottom as a reference surface, and even scraped it to good bearing before I started machining.

    Quote Originally Posted by AlfaGTA View Post
    Rich:
    Was there a reason you did not just use the Horizontal with the standard table?

    Cheers Ross

  23. Likes AlfaGTA liked this post
  24. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    20,791
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    12199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rklopp View Post
    Ross

    I looked at horizontal boring, but it presented problems. I first looked at using the overarm to support the outer end of the boring bar. Due to work features in the way, the bare length of boring bar would have needed to be nearly double the length of the whole engine, and my overarm, long as it is, would still have been too short. Even using a cantilevered bar like I did, the work would have had to overhand the front of the tilting table in order to be able to back the boring bar out of the hole. I don't have those fancy T-slotted parallels like you can borrow from your Berco to support overhung work. I suppose I could have used the big fixed table that I have, but it has a bit of droop* and is a hassle to install.

    The vertical method worked a treat, as you see. The Z travel is long and gave plenty of clearance to back the bar out of the hole to take a measurement. The method also had the advantage of allowing the chips to just fall out of the hole, so no issues with chip clearance.

    Rich

    *Not that droop would matter much. Unless I shimmed the base, it would result in a tiny amount of "desaxe," or the cylinder axis not quite parallel to the base bottom. I am using the base bottom as a reference surface, and even scraped it to good bearing before I started machining.
    +1 Your overall results are probably BETTER than factory-new!

    I cannot as easily "get there from here" even on the Quartet H & V combo mill with the K&T all-angle head on the Horizontal spindle.

    It has roughly twice the mass of a BirdPort, (5205 Avoir) has seriously stouter build all-over, but.. but.. but ... has a tad LESS traverse, each axis, than the Bee Pee ...in keeping with that extra rigidity, wider support basis, for stiffer working and high resistance to wear or table sag.

    I'm au fait with that compromise, but still..

    TANSTAAFL

  25. #20
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Redwood City, CA USA
    Posts
    5,327
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    248
    Likes (Received)
    1195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    +1 Your overall results are probably BETTER than factory-new!
    That kind of goes without saying for hit-and-miss engines from the 1900-1915 era. A lot of them were cheaply and crudely built. The Olds (Seager-Olds) 1-1/2 HP apparently was a last-gasp effort to stay in business. The fact that the base, cylinder, and hopper were all one piece, and the main bearing splits are aligned in the direction of loading instead of ninety degrees to it, suggests cheapness. Similar Associated brand engines apparently were shipped from Iowa to England by the shipload. The English viewed them similar to the way we might view a lawnmower engine made in India today.


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

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