My wife will hate you all....LOL

Find deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
Home Model Engine Machinist Forum

Help Support Home Model Engine Machinist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
360 brass or 12l14 steel as well as 6061 aluminum should cut with ease.

You are right that the 109 will need a bit more coaxing than some other machines . People have done nice work on them .

speeds and feeds are the same for every machine but depth of cut will need to be light on a small machine.

not cutting sounds like the tool is rubbing rather than cutting.
Tin
 
Tin Falcon said:
360 brass or 12l14 steel as well as 6061 aluminum should cut with ease.

You are right that the 109 will need a bit more coaxing than some other machines . People have done nice work on them .

speeds and feeds are the same for every machine but depth of cut will need to be light on a small machine.

not cutting sounds like the tool is rubbing rather than cutting.
Tin
Click to expand...

That describes it well...rubbing or scraping, not cutting.

I did receive my new 1/2-20 Jacobs chuck and a new MT#0. VERY TIGHT, and working great. At least I have a lateral drill press.
Also received my quick change tool set up and parting tool. Looks great.

I may try to get a photo of the tooling that I have...It may be old, it may be cheap junk. Working thru building this into a usable machine. Time is not an issue. Small cuts are expected. Just need function and form.

;) Thanks for chiming in...again.

Luke
 
Hi Luke

I think Tin will probably agree with me.

There are two likely culprits for this

It's as blunt as Old Harry or missground. both easily sorted, just ask!

There are many tool grinding masters on here, well better than me, they know the tool angles and shapes for everything from Lead to Titanium

Or it's a bit too high, as Tin said "at or slightly below centre (sorry British spelling) height."

There is a " quick and dirty " way of finding out, not entirely accurate but it will give you a rough idea.

put a steel rule (or any straight piece of steel if you don't want to risk your rule) vertically against the job then gently offer up the toolpost against it
if the rule is vertical viewed from tailstock end you are on center height, if it points towards the job (away from you) you are too high, and too low if points towards you .

BTW old and cheap is not always junk, I have a Moore and Wright Micrometer that I still use, I picked it up at a junk sale 20 years ago for a pound (about 75 cents I guess) it's spot on accurate and does the job. (I've got a calibration cert for it but it's long, slightly dodgy, story).

Regards Mark
 
Last edited:
skyline1 said:
Hi Luke

I think Tin will probably agree with me.

There are two likely culprits for this

It's as blunt as Old Harry or missground. both easily sorted, just ask!

There are many tool grinding masters on here, well better than me, they know the tool angles and shapes for everything from Lead to Titanium

Or it's a bit too high, as Tin said "at or slightly below centre (sorry British spelling) height."

There is a " quick and dirty " way of finding out, not entirely accurate but it will give you a rough idea.

put a steel rule (or any straight piece of steel if you don't want to risk your rule) vertically against the job then gently offer up the toolpost against it
if the rule is vertical viewed from tailstock end you are on center height, if it points towards the job (away from you) you are too high, and too low if points towards you .

BTW old and cheap is not always junk, I have a Moore and Wright Micrometer that I still use, I picked it up at a junk sale 20 years ago for a pound (about 75 cents I guess) it's spot on accurate and does the job. (I've got a calibration cert for it but it's long, slightly dodgy, story).

Regards Mark
Click to expand...

Awesome advice...I will sort it out as you described, and share the results. Most likely I'm too high, I think.
-L
 
The tool bit can make or break the function of the lathe.
also keep in mind bits made for Armstrong tool holders and ones for quick change tool posts the back rack is different as the Armstrong holders had back rake built in . I have seen qc holders with built in back rake but they are rare.
Tin
 
Tin Falcon said:
The tool bit can make or break the function of the lathe.
also keep in mind bits made for Armstrong tool holders and ones for quick change tool posts the back rack is different as the Armstrong holders had back rake built in . I have seen qc holders with built in back rake but they are rare.
Tin
Click to expand...

OKAY...I have a new quick change set up. 1/4" recess.
Direct me to a link or otherwise to order some bits.
I understand the angle of the Armstrong, versus the straight.

The bits now are straight, and not in a tool holder...just in the lantern part of the tool holder. It's like I don't have all the pieces as it was purchased.
perhaps the previous owner didnt know either. These bits are the carbide tip indexable type. Look like less that 20 bucks for the lot of them. They are straight in, as perhaps they would work with in conjunction with an Armstrong type tool holder. ????

I feel progress creeping up on me.
For a picture of the quick change see the 109 thread.

-Luke
 
OK relax breath. first of all the 109 to my knowledge never had tools holders they may have been an option.

Forget the Armstrong .
carbide is a different animal and needs no back rake brass is fine with no side rake either. you do need . side and front angle and relief.
the first two pdf i linked to are the correct geometry for a QCTP.


Tin
 
So I need to purchase solid 1/4 x 3/8 HSS stock, and cut my bits from it?
I also have the old 'How to run a lathe' book, and a few others now.
They compliment the forum's info as well, as far as sharpening technique.
-Luke
>>>>>Heading out to the shop.
 
for a 109 1/4 square blanks are fine or 5/16 if you like. 3/8 will work but not really needed for a small lathe.
Tin
 
I'm going to re-start from the ground up, as I would a motorcycle restoration...fixing and mending as I go. Eliminate all bad possible vibes...and be happy and positive about my new purchase. She may not be much, but with your help, I know it will be to best standards available.

The bed, she is nice. minor wear. no big nicks or markings.

lathe bed.jpg
 
As far as the motor/pulleys...
I have a 1/4 horse 1725 rpm Leland electric motor. Smooth and quiet.
It has a 4 stack pulley mounted to the shaft, as follows:
1",1.25",1.75",2.25"
(It looks like the smallest was never used.)

An odd thing happened (when it was mounted on the original plate it came with) when measuring the run out of the drive chuck,
I could alter the reading by pushing downward on the belt as I turned it by hand.
With zero pressure it would read about .010 out, with slight down pressure it would push to .020.
When running, the needle would fan erratically at .020+
Was the plate flexing? Is this a normal variant?
Will anchoring properly to a heavy steel plate table aid in eliminating this??
Motor adequate?
Pulley combo OKAy??
The shaft is supposedly new, and run out isn't bad at the collar, but at the chuck it gains quite a bit.
Thoughts??
 
Hi Luke

The bed looks really sound a few close ups would be nice

¼ H.P. should be powerful enough for a small lathe, my Myford has a ½ H.P. which is well powerful enough even though mine is a little bigger see A History Of The ML7

1725 R.P.M. is a four pole motor at U.S. frequency of 60 Hz (ours are 1475 ish at 50 Hz) you should have enough torque at slow speed (Brit bikes again lots of bottom end grunt )

The main problem with single phase motors is starting 'em up, my ½ H.P. puts a fair blip on the mains for ¼ second or so when it's starting.

1" to 2 ¼ what size is the driven (headstock) pulley? with an identical opposite (driven) pulley with four step settings you would get ratios from 1 to 2..25 (max speed about 3900 R.P.M) to 2.25 to 1 (min speed about 780 R.P.M.) I think this might be a little fast

With regard to your headstock runout it sounds like your headstock bearings might need to be tightened a little bit.

I'm not sure about the arrangement on an Atlas 109, but on mine it was simply a question of re-shimming it (1 thou less ) and then re- bedding them, lots and lots of oil with some graphite in it put the 3 jaw on and turn it by hand back and forth until it stops binding.

I'm probably teaching my granny to suck eggs here if you've owned a few B.S.A.s and Triumphs you know the routine already

3 jaw chucks are not that accurate if you can get less than about 3 thou' runout from a piece held in the three jaw you are doing well, it usually doesn't matter 'cos you are turning from a common centre (Eng again) so everything turns concentric to itself.

I have nothing against Hondas (My first bikes were both Hondas) or Japanese bikes in general, they are relentlessly reliable and get you to work almost always in all weathers.But,,,,,,

Brit bikes, yes they are like Harleys in a way ( probably more power from a smaller motor). just something a bit special about them "cantankerous" as you put it .

A Rolls Royce. A Vincent Black Shadow. An Electraglide,I have ridden in or on all three and loved each in a different way.

Pick your fav or perhaps you have one of your own P.M. me if want to.

so post some pics of the lathe buildup (you can post 'em directly BTW just inc 'em in the post)



Regards to you and your Good Lady

(hope she doesn't hate us TOO much)

Mark
 
Last edited:
Thanks Skyline,,,I'll reply later, when I have more time.
-Luke
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Cedge
Ya gotta love the engine community, big and small
Replies
12
Views
5K
bearcar1
B

Latest posts

Back
Top