Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

63670Re: [atlas_craftsman] Re: Update on the lathe 109

Expand Messages
  • jerdal@sbcglobal.net
    Jun 1, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Silly silly....

      Who said work from a 109 had to be bad because of the source? Someone is
      putting words in my mouth..... perhaps projecting their OWN feelings about
      the machine onto me.... Which same I do not appreciate a great deal......

      My point is that working with a 109 has so many un-necessary limitations due
      to the basic design of the machine that it is a royal pain..... Size is
      obviously an issue which is inherent, we won't blame it for it's size... a
      machine is or is not a 3" (6") machine. But, other things, such as the tiny
      0.5" size of spindle, the lack of any dials, and the uselessness of a dial
      if you DID put one on, the extreme noise from teh back gears, the severe
      limits on depth of cut, wear from poor geometric layout and lack of wipers,
      etc, etc, etc are quite limiting.

      The design choice of a 24 tpi (non-integer feed per turn) crossfeed, when 20
      tpi was a sensible alternate, is really the worst..... it is hard to
      change, and completely defeats the idea of a dial. I put a dial on mine,
      made on the 109, at that, but could not get around that 0.0416666 advance
      per dial turn... after a while of figuring out how many turns and divisions
      made 78 thous, or the like, I was just fed up. Changing the tpi was not
      something I wanted to do just then, although it could probably be done by
      boring and sleeving.

      Yes, each "complaint or quibble" could be laboriously fixed......several
      dials, new crossfeed and compound screws, etc, etc, but it seems like a
      lot of work to sink into a machine that does not pay it back easily. I
      opted to sell mine, and even then, I had to tell several folks that I
      wouldn't sell it to them, because it would not do what they wanted.

      The basic machine is limited, but usable. I had one, and I made it do
      things that a 109 cannot do. I early-on made it a follow rest, and that
      one thing improved operations a ton. That and throwing the lantern toolpost
      into a corner, using a shop-made block toolpost instead.... LARGE
      improvement from those.

      But I'd rather use a larger 10" machine for most things, and my $25 Boley
      watchmaker's lathe for small stuff.. BTW, the cost to me of the Logan, with
      accessories, was within $40 of the highest cost I had (up to then) seen a
      109 sell for..... and I have since seen a Logan sell much cheaper, and a 109
      for more. So the cost differential is definitely not prohibitive.

      Use whatever you like.

      BTW, a hair shirt is an uncomfortable and scratchy sort of clothing,......
      another version of "sackcloth and ashes" as self-imposed punishment for
      sins..... and thus strangely relevant here....

      JT


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Dean" <deanw@...>
      To: <atlas_craftsman@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2010 8:26 PM
      Subject: [atlas_craftsman] Re: Update on the lathe 109



      > If what a guy has is a 109, that's what he's got, and he's a long way
      > ahead of a guy with no lathe at all. I never heard anyone say my work was
      > poor because I used one, and I didn't blame the machine for my short
      > comings. If you see crummy work from my shop, it's my fault, whatever
      > machine I used.
      >
      > Dean
    • Show all 18 messages in this topic