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

Re: [multimachine] X out cold rolled!

Expand Messages
  • Carl McIver
    I had tossed out the idea of a pipe grinding lathe using a single large I beam (~6 x 9 ?) but wasn t sure I could get the diametrical (is this a word?)
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      I had tossed out the idea of a pipe grinding lathe using a single large I beam (~6" x 9"?) but wasn't sure I could get the
      diametrical (is this a word?) precision needed. I'm still pondering it, but the more I think about it, the following things come to
      mind:
      1. The spindle on the pipe grinding lathe could be the same spindle as the MM spindle.
      2. The actual headstock might be different, or with enough care, you could attach the beam directly to the MM, using the beam
      for the ways instead of the table top method currently used. How to square this perfectly still gets touchy, but the long length of
      it might actually make it easier. I haven't pondered that much, but I will be when I head off to bed soon! I also pondered two
      smaller I beams mounted on a much larger box beam (enough tack welds will hold great without warpage, I would think) which creates
      more torsional rigidity, and would hold the slide and grinder more stable to get the stability on the grinder needed.
      3. Once completed, this is an excellent lathe idea in its own right.
      4. The pipe I had in mind would be about 3", give or take an inch, and be about three or four feet long, so the lathe bed would
      have to be six feet long or so. To keep normal twist from handling to zero, this has to be a pretty damn heavy beam. Six foot of
      8" beam, 1/4" wall is 187 pounds, which according to what I pay at the surplus house, will be over a hundred bucks. For that kind
      of money just to make another machine, I fully expect to get even more use out of it considering how much I'd pay just to make tubes
      round and smooth.
      5. This could be an interesting "accessory" to the MM. Imagine making the MM a headstock, suspended off of the end of the beam,
      for a really long lathe, with adjustable swing.
      6. It's time for me to stop brainstorming and go to bed!

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "Pat Delany" <rigmatch@...>
      To: <multimachine@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 5:29 PM
      Subject: [multimachine] X out cold rolled!


      | I went to my favorite iron monger in Palestine Texas and he wanted
      | over $300 for a 1/2" x 6" by 12'(min purchase) piece of cold rolled!
      |
      | I now have an 8' piece of hot rolled that cost $45. I am not sure I
      | live on the same planet that I used to live on.
      |
      | Sanded smooth hot rolled will make a very nice new design bed/cross
      | slide combo thank you!
      |
      | Pat
      |
      |
      |
      |
      |
      | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      | Yahoo! Groups Links
      |
      | a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
      | http://groups.yahoo.com/group/multimachine/
      |
      | b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
      | multimachine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      |
      | c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
      |
      |
      |
    • Mark Stacey
      I assume you will have to make the I beam/s flat and with a acurate edge for the saddle carrying the grinder to avoid transfering the beam irregularities to
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 4, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        I assume you will have to make the I beam/s flat and with a acurate
        edge for the saddle carrying the grinder to avoid transfering the beam
        irregularities to the pipe. Will you scape or lap the top and edge?
        Cheers
        Mark Stacey
        www.cncprototyping.co.nz

        --- In multimachine@yahoogroups.com, "Carl McIver" <cmciver@m...> wrote:
        > I had tossed out the idea of a pipe grinding lathe using a
        single large I beam (~6" x 9"?) but wasn't sure I could get the
        > diametrical (is this a word?) precision needed. I'm still pondering
        it, but the more I think about it, the following things come to
        > mind:
        > 1. The spindle on the pipe grinding lathe could be the same
        spindle as the MM spindle.
        > 2. The actual headstock might be different, or with enough care,
        you could attach the beam directly to the MM, using the beam
        > for the ways instead of the table top method currently used. How to
        square this perfectly still gets touchy, but the long length of
        > it might actually make it easier. I haven't pondered that much, but
        I will be when I head off to bed soon! I also pondered two
        > smaller I beams mounted on a much larger box beam (enough tack welds
        will hold great without warpage, I would think) which creates
        > more torsional rigidity, and would hold the slide and grinder more
        stable to get the stability on the grinder needed.
        > 3. Once completed, this is an excellent lathe idea in its own right.
        > 4. The pipe I had in mind would be about 3", give or take an
        inch, and be about three or four feet long, so the lathe bed would
        > have to be six feet long or so. To keep normal twist from handling
        to zero, this has to be a pretty damn heavy beam. Six foot of
        > 8" beam, 1/4" wall is 187 pounds, which according to what I pay at
        the surplus house, will be over a hundred bucks. For that kind
        > of money just to make another machine, I fully expect to get even
        more use out of it considering how much I'd pay just to make tubes
        > round and smooth.
        > 5. This could be an interesting "accessory" to the MM. Imagine
        making the MM a headstock, suspended off of the end of the beam,
        > for a really long lathe, with adjustable swing.
        > 6. It's time for me to stop brainstorming and go to bed!
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: "Pat Delany" <rigmatch@y...>
        > To: <multimachine@yahoogroups.com>
        > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2005 5:29 PM
        > Subject: [multimachine] X out cold rolled!
        >
        >
        > | I went to my favorite iron monger in Palestine Texas and he wanted
        > | over $300 for a 1/2" x 6" by 12'(min purchase) piece of cold rolled!
        > |
        > | I now have an 8' piece of hot rolled that cost $45. I am not sure I
        > | live on the same planet that I used to live on.
        > |
        > | Sanded smooth hot rolled will make a very nice new design bed/cross
        > | slide combo thank you!
        > |
        > | Pat
        >
      • Carl McIver
        I assume I ll have to cross that bridge when I get to it. Two beams came up when I was pondering a surface to face one with (using two beams against each
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 4, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          I assume I'll have to cross that bridge when I get to it. Two beams came up when I was pondering a surface to face one with
          (using two beams against each other ought to do pretty good, in addition to a flat surface described shortly) and if I do one using
          another, I might as well be doing two. A two beam bed is likely better than one, and lighter, too. Using another straightedge or
          flat surface (scrap/rejects from granite and stone countertops, possibly) I'd have to set up the two beams upside down on the
          surface for square, then attach the square tube to the beam bottoms. At least that's what I had in mind, anyway! I saw something
          the other day where a fellow stuck a piece of sandpaper to his surface plate (granite countertop, IIRC) for smoothing something,
          which I thought was a good idea. I wonder if an extruded countertop would be as flat, because they're pretty rigid already. Not
          cheap, either. I'll be buying some soon, and an eight foot counter was around eighty bucks.
          The things that came to me last night were two new issues. One being a way to attach solidly and squarely the beam/tube to the
          table of the MM, and at what point will the centerline of the spindle be too close to the newly made bed. Since the thing is
          movable up and down, the tailstock will need some way to follow the changing centerline up and down and still be solidly attached at
          the same time. I have some ideas, but in order to be comfortable with them I have to flesh them out on paper and I haven't had a
          chance yet today.

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Mark Stacey" <pav@...>
          To: <multimachine@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2005 1:23 PM
          Subject: [multimachine] Re: X out cold rolled!


          | I assume you will have to make the I beam/s flat and with a acurate
          | edge for the saddle carrying the grinder to avoid transfering the beam
          | irregularities to the pipe. Will you scape or lap the top and edge?
          | Cheers
          | Mark Stacey
          | www.cncprototyping.co.nz
          |
          | --- In multimachine@yahoogroups.com, "Carl McIver" <cmciver@m...> wrote:
          | > I had tossed out the idea of a pipe grinding lathe using a
          | single large I beam (~6" x 9"?) but wasn't sure I could get the
          | > diametrical (is this a word?) precision needed. I'm still pondering
          | it, but the more I think about it, the following things come to
          | > mind:
          | > 1. The spindle on the pipe grinding lathe could be the same
          | spindle as the MM spindle.
          | > 2. The actual headstock might be different, or with enough care,
          | you could attach the beam directly to the MM, using the beam
          | > for the ways instead of the table top method currently used. How to
          | square this perfectly still gets touchy, but the long length of
          | > it might actually make it easier. I haven't pondered that much, but
          | I will be when I head off to bed soon! I also pondered two
          | > smaller I beams mounted on a much larger box beam (enough tack welds
          | will hold great without warpage, I would think) which creates
          | > more torsional rigidity, and would hold the slide and grinder more
          | stable to get the stability on the grinder needed.
          | > 3. Once completed, this is an excellent lathe idea in its own right.
          | > 4. The pipe I had in mind would be about 3", give or take an
          | inch, and be about three or four feet long, so the lathe bed would
          | > have to be six feet long or so. To keep normal twist from handling
          | to zero, this has to be a pretty damn heavy beam. Six foot of
          | > 8" beam, 1/4" wall is 187 pounds, which according to what I pay at
          | the surplus house, will be over a hundred bucks. For that kind
          | > of money just to make another machine, I fully expect to get even
          | more use out of it considering how much I'd pay just to make tubes
          | > round and smooth.
          | > 5. This could be an interesting "accessory" to the MM. Imagine
          | making the MM a headstock, suspended off of the end of the beam,
          | > for a really long lathe, with adjustable swing.
          | > 6. It's time for me to stop brainstorming and go to bed!
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.