A tip of the hat and thanks to a few people who gave me some pointers on machining graphite for the pistons. Specifically, that a Surface Feet Per Mminute of 100 seemed to work just right, and multiple who advised about the evils of graphite dust, its mess and its abrasiveness, and an advisory to work it with carbide tools at zero rake angle, i.e. with a scraping rather than a cutting action, and health concerns about breathing the dust. With respect to graphite dust control I have attached a couple of pictures of my Jury-Rigged vacuum cleaner adapter which was powered by my Shop Vac, "bucket vac" (great little vacuum) This was a quick adaptation and I was not able to do drilling with the tail stock with it in place but that amounted to one small 0.120 hole which did not produce a lot of dust. For the facing, turning, boring, and parting I could witness the dust streaming off the cutter and part straight into the vacuum hose. The way the end of the vacuum hose fit into the wooden support allowed me to push the end fitting as close to the work piece as I cared to. What little dust did escape was handled by precoating important surfaces with oil and then wiping up the dust trapped in the oil afterwards. Each time a tool was changed, it was sprayed with oil and then blown off with the air hose into the trash can. A final cleaning of the lathe was carried out by spraying the surfaces with oil and then wiping them. Oil is the best cleaner as it will float and suspend abrasive particles so they are wiped away with the oil. A very minimal mess was created although it is probably now time to replace the filter in the vacuum. I washed out the vacuum hoses and there was some contamination but not much. 100 SFPM worked great. The material was very easy to get to precise dimensions and I think this was aided by the rigidity of the material. The cuts came out to the exact amount set on the dial far more precisely than I usually experience with metal in similar setups. The only problem I ran into occurred when parting the pieces off. When the diameter of the parting cut got down to about a quarter inch, the part simply broke off leaving a slight depression in the surface of the part. I think that this might be partly related to a requirement for the parting tool to be more precisely perpendicular to the part axis than is required for metals, and a parting tool with a wider tip than shank would probably have avoided any problem. However the slight depression where the part broke off was not a major problem to correct but if it were then one should probably part off the work piece with some extra material and then face it off to suit.