The Shop > Tools
Rear parting toolpost
appletree:
Thanks for the replies, I am afraid that i think if you were to draw the front and rear mounted parting setups out cold on paper they are the same. I fully appreciate, particularly on a lightly constructed lathe the rear position has practical advantages. I always spend time to tool grinding, setting up and use power cross travel, and have no problems, the one time I tried a carbide inserted tool it ripped the tip out and wrecked the holder.
Tool rigidity and lack of “play” in any type of lathe work is worth striving to achieve. Given that my Raglan 5 inch was not designed to accept a qctp (along with many other lathes) I am now tending to use the standard single toolpost supplied with the lathe, this avoids overhang past the end of the topslide, concentrates the forces where they were designed to be, reducing leverage and bending forces. I figure I am not in mass production nor trying to make money, I can afford a bit of time for tool setting.
awemawson:
Appletree, if my memory serves, and it may not !, the late and much lamented John Stevenson from you home town of Nottingham (well Long Eaton) wrote quite an extensive treatise on this subject on this very forum some years ago.Worth searching for iirc
appletree:
Started looking for John’s post, drawing a blank so far, will resume tomorrow, thanks for the lead phil
vtsteam:
Here ya go:
(not John Stevenson)
chipenter:
On the clubs Colchester Master parting off was impossible due to the were on the compound , the front dovetail was worn under the tool post , with a dig in you could see the tool post move forward and snap the the blade , dismantling and blueing showed that it had worn on the front end by 5 or 6 thaw twisting the compound under pressure , two days of scaping has improved the rigidity enabeling parting off .
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version