RE: [mill_drill] Covering up ball oiler ports
Mounting front or back each has its limitations. But both will cover an oiler port—that is what I am trying to assess and compensate for.
On my RF-45 clone I mounted the scale on the front due to the lost of travel and the interference between the way covers and swarf.
I also mounted a 90-degree angle iron over the scale for protection - it woks very well. As to the end-limit stops, I have not reinstalled them.
--- On Wed, 5/1/13, svsequoia_pdx <k7cej@...> wrote:
I am in the process of installing Ditron glass scales on my RF-45 clone nill-drill. The obvious place to mount the long x-axis scale is on the back side of the table, with the optical head bolted to the Y-axis saddle. Unfortunately, the scale completely covers the ball oiler port on the back side for the x-axis motion. Spacing the scale off the table is a non-starter, since it already eats up an inch of the y motion by limiting travel back to the square column.
How much of an issue is not being able to use the back ball oiler port?
I can manually brush some way oil on the underside of the ways periodically--will that be good enough?
- GDay Craig,
Mounting the scale on the front allows you to space the scale away from
the table. On my front mounted scale I have a 10mm gap between the scale
and table which is ample for adding a 90deg adapter for the ball oiler.
The adapter could easily be made from 3/8" x 3/4" mild steel stock with
intersecting holes drilled in the appropriate faces. A small mild steel
tube turned from an old bolt or similar, would be inserted into the ball
oiler hole with an appropriate sealer to prevent leaking and the small
block would then be pressed over the tube and secured in place with a
couple of 4-40 countersunk screws or similar.
If you are able to remove the original ball oiler without damage, then
you can reuse it in the adapter. If not then a simple set screw (grub
screw) or even a small thumb screw could be used although that would be
This block could also be used as the stop point for the T-slot stops.
Craig E. Johnston wrote:
> Mounting front or back each has its limitations. But both will cover an
> oiler port—that is what I am trying to assess and compensate for.