# Need help with drill spindle!



## DH930 (Jul 31, 2020)

Hi everyone, I am restoring an old 1940s Walker Turner 900 drill press and I'm having issue with the spindle. I need some one in Calgary that is willing to help me with this. I am willing to pay with cash, beers or trade service for machine parts or tools. I live in Silver Spring NW. Anyone near me that have a metal lathe and would like to take on this small job? I need to mount the drill spindle on a metal lathe to remove the small bulge at both ends of the spindle. While on the lathe, I also need to check for the spindle straightness. It is a simple job but accuracy and precision is required in this job. I have included some photos to illustrate the problem. 
Thanks,
Dai


----------



## Janger (Jul 31, 2020)

Welcome DH. Looks like somebody has been hammering it?


----------



## DH930 (Jul 31, 2020)

Yes, it does and that can be a good news rather than the spindle is bent.


----------



## Crosche (Jul 31, 2020)

Hi Dai,

I live in Huntington Hills, so not too far from you. You are welcome to bring the spindle over some time and we can have a look at it.

Cheers,

Chad


----------



## DH930 (Jul 31, 2020)

Great Chad, I will pm you. Thanks.


----------



## YYCHM (Jul 31, 2020)

Hey Dai,

How about posting an image of the old 1940s Walker Turner 900 drill press.  I'm interested to see what it looks like.

Craig


----------



## DH930 (Jul 31, 2020)

Here are some photos of the drill press. Not all pieces are attached. I have painted and have assembled the drill to only find that it is wobbling, so I taken the drill spindle apart again. The motor is not original because I wanted to control the speed of the drill electronically. I got a 1HP 3 phase motor which I use a controller to convert to 1 phase and variable speed. I will attach the controller box to the drill and install a speed reader to calculate the actual speed of the spindle. 

I originally thought that the wobbling was due to the bearings fitting but after a closer look, it appeared that the spindle is a bit mangled. The old bearings were done and the replacement no longer available. The new bearing ID is .625" and the spindle OD is .620". In order to make up the differences, peoples have suggested to either use red locktite or to use primer painted on the spindle in the area where the beaings contact the spindle. It works pretty well until I have to disassembled them because of the wobble. I didn't wanted to use the locktite because how difficult it would be if I have to disassemble the spindle again. If anyone have better suggestion, I'm all ears.


----------



## PeterT (Jul 31, 2020)

You've done a nice job on the restoration & motor upgrade. Good luck on the spindle. So if I understand, you want the mushroom enlargement areas taken down? And then your second issue is fitting a 0.625" ID bearing to what is 0.620"OD shaft? Can you show the areas where the bearings will reside.

About the only idea I have is making a sleeve out of shim stock, so that would be say 0.002" thickness to give you just a bit of slide fit to work with. Brass would curve reasonably well over the shaft. Even if the shim ends were not in direct contact (like a small slit of clearance) I don think that would be too bad from load standpoint. Steel shim would be more like the native material but harder to bend. Anyways, this might get your fits much closer within the acceptable gap range of Loktite or retaining compound. I might even have shim in that size, I can check.


----------



## Tom O (Jul 31, 2020)

I've got a assortment of shim stock I can check too.


----------



## YYCHM (Jul 31, 2020)

Powder Coat it???


----------



## RobinHood (Jul 31, 2020)

Good job rebuilding the WT drill press - looks nice.

You could take a standard 6202 2RS (ID 15mm x OD 35mm x 11mm wide) deep groove ballbearing and open the bore to 15.75mm (0.620078”).


----------



## YotaBota (Jul 31, 2020)

I wonder about a bearing with the same O.D. but a bit bigger I.D. that would allow enough room for a press fit bushing. Either pressed into the bearing or onto the shaft.


----------



## PeterT (Jul 31, 2020)

I was wondering the same thing Rudy but I guessed it was N-Am machine, so then he might have a second problem of fitting 35mm (or whatever metric size) into what is probably the Imperial size CI housing. What is the best way to open up a bearing ID? I assumed very true running setup in lathe & toolpost grinder.... Do you have some simpler tricks?

I just rolled some 0.005" brass on .625 nylon bar stock as example. The general idea would be the band would be same width as bearing or maybe just a 1mm larger either side if that offers advantages. But then it might have to be a 2-stage process. 
1 - Locktite the shim onto the shaft using the bearing as the clamp tool
2 - Loctite the shim onto the bearing ID using the arbor as the tool
If the arbor needs to slide in without any step protrusion, then I guess 2 would be better. 
Never done this before so it could be totally sketch.


----------



## RobinHood (Jul 31, 2020)

Maybe Dai can chime in to correct / confirm. 

Info I saw regarding the W-T 900 DP spindle bearings was suggesting the OD was 35mm standard from factory.

It also stated that due to wartime shortages, W-T used whatever they could get their hands on and just modified the bearings to fit their machines. Hence my idea of a 6202.

Yes, dial the bearing in a 4J and tool post grind the ID. It would take a bit of time as just under 15thou per side needs to come out.

it‘s W-T item 30, PN 9D19E in this picture I believe - have not found a cross reference anywhere..






it might well be easier to go the shim / sleeve route....


----------



## DH930 (Aug 1, 2020)

Thank you for so many replies. I have included some documents and illustrations plus some of my own photos. I have included the specs for original bearings. The replacement bearings I have with OD matched perfectly but the ID required some shims or fixes. The pipe sleeve is fitted snug around the spindle spins freely inside the driver. The sleeve length is perfectly sized to hold the inner bearings in place inside the spindle driver part.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 1, 2020)

PeterT said:


> You've done a nice job on the restoration & motor upgrade. Good luck on the spindle. So if I understand, you want the mushroom enlargement areas taken down? And then your second issue is fitting a 0.625" ID bearing to what is 0.620"OD shaft? Can you show the areas where the bearings will reside.
> 
> About the only idea I have is making a sleeve out of shim stock, so that would be say 0.002" thickness to give you just a bit of slide fit to work with. Brass would curve reasonably well over the shaft. Even if the shim ends were not in direct contact (like a small slit of clearance) I don think that would be too bad from load standpoint. Steel shim would be more like the native material but harder to bend. Anyways, this might get your fits much closer within the acceptable gap range of Loktite or retaining compound. I might even have shim in that size, I can check.



Yes, you are correct. I wanted the bulge to be removed so that the chuck can fit snugly and centred to the spindle. As for the new bearings fitment issue, shim might works. Using loctite on the shim to spindle so that you can press the new bearings onto the spindle.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 1, 2020)

YYCHobbyMachinist said:


> Powder Coat it???


I don't powder coat would work though.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 1, 2020)

RobinHood said:


> Good job rebuilding the WT drill press - looks nice.
> 
> You could take a standard 6202 2RS (ID 15mm x OD 35mm x 11mm wide) deep groove ballbearing and open the bore to 15.75mm (0.620078”).


This would required precision work which I do not have the skill or the machine to do it. The OD would also have to be trimmed to 1.375". What I would love to have is someone to replicated the spindle so that the diameter is .625" from where the first bearing to the second bearing and then the pipe sleeves can be bore out just a tad to fit onto the new spindle. the rest of the spindle would have to be exact as original.

Correction: the outer diameter is 35mm so no need to trim it.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 1, 2020)

RobinHood said:


> Maybe Dai can chime in to correct / confirm.
> 
> Info I saw regarding the W-T 900 DP spindle bearings was suggesting the OD was 35mm standard from factory.
> 
> ...



You are correct. The OD is 35mm. During wartime, parts were difficult to come by so WT did have to use whatever parts that were available at the time. Your idea of using the metric bearing 6202 is a very good idea so if anyone can do the .75mm bore to bearings, is the winner! Who ever can do this, I can send the bearings to you including the original bearing for references and pay you for the labour/service and shipping cost back to me. Anyone?


----------



## PeterT (Aug 1, 2020)

In this picture, would the assembly go like:
- install left bearing
- install pipe sleeve
- install right bearing
- install spindle driver part over this assembly

- is the sleeve an actual part or something you are wanting to adapt?
- does the end of sleeve rest on the inner bearing rings but basically slides on arbor shaft?
- what bearing number is the 'new' bearing you were referring to? 5/8" = 0.625" maybe? And that comes in 35mm OD?

- any chance you could go to a 17mm ID x 35mm OD bearing?  Turning a ring with ~ .025" wall thickness (.620" ID x 0.669" OD x bearing width) is more do-able. Still a bit delicate but I think do-able. 

- the brass shim stock kit I have is 0.001, 0.0015, 0.002, 0.003, 0.004... 
So 0.002" would be likely thickness. It might work but it also might be a flaky solution.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 1, 2020)

I think I understand now. The bulge is at the end of the taper section that fits the mating chuck seat taper? Do you think the majority of surface (green arrow) is in good shape, it has the proper taper etc? The gouges are not pretty but wont affect fit as long as green area OD is still true (circular & correct taper). If the spindle was held in lathe & the red area was carefully taken down to conform to green area, but not removing any green area, you stand a better chance of fitting the chuck taper ID. Right now the enlarged red area is interfering with the taper so it probably bottoms out & the chuck can hinge on some angle.

Now if the spindle was hammered laterally so the taper section is bent off-axis, that's not easy to 'un-do'.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 1, 2020)

PeterT said:


> In this picture, would the assembly go like:
> - install left bearing
> - install pipe sleeve
> - install right bearing
> ...



The assembly order is as follow:
- install left bearing
- install pipe sleeve
- install spindle driver
- install right bearing

Q: is the sleeve an actual part or something you are wanting to adapt?
A: the sleeve is an actual part of the assembly and nothing is needed for this part. I was referring to if the spindle was to be replicated.
Q: does the end of sleeve rest on the inner bearing rings but basically slides on arbor shaft?
A: Yes, it does.
Q: what bearing number is the 'new' bearing you were referring to? 5/8" = 0.625" maybe? And that comes in 35mm OD?
A: The replacement bearing is 202SZZ3 with OD 35mm or 1.378", ID .625"

The bearings capped the driver so that the inner ring of the bearings fit tightly on the spindle while the outer ring of the bearings fit tightly on the driver's opening. The tail end of the driver has threaded opening and that is where you tighten up to hold the bearings/driver onto the spindle. There are other parts that attached to the tail end of the spindle where the pulley wheel integrate with the spindle and the drill head.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 1, 2020)

PeterT said:


> I think I understand now. The bulge is at the end of the taper section that fits the mating chuck seat taper? Do you think the majority of surface (green arrow) is in good shape, it has the proper taper etc? The gouges are not pretty but wont affect fit as long as green area OD is still true (circular & correct taper). If the spindle was held in lathe & the red area was carefully taken down to conform to green area, but not removing any green area, you stand a better chance of fitting the chuck taper ID. Right now the enlarged red area is interfering with the taper so it probably bottoms out & the chuck can hinge on some angle.
> 
> Now if the spindle was hammered laterally so the taper section is bent off-axis, that's not easy to 'un-do'.



Thank you for that little illustration showing the bulge part. You are correct in regards to carefully shaving that off without touching the green part. The angle is correct and the chuck I have is brand new (NOS) of the correct chuck for this drill. The angle of the spindle and the ID of the chuck do matched perfectly. I don't believe that the spindle was hammered laterally because I put a straight edge to it and if looks perfect. This will all be confirmed once the spindle is on the lathe.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 1, 2020)

I just looked at the parts diagram that Rudy (RobinHood) posted and noticed that I've used the wrong description for the quill. The spindle driver which I used in all my previous posts is referring to the quill parts #27.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 1, 2020)

Reason I was asking about the sleeve is if you could go with a 17x35 bearing, then it would be much easier to turn a metal spacer ring on the lathe sized to fill the annular gap between bearing ID and shaft OD. (Like the shim business but thicker). It would be nominally .025" wall thickness which is quite thin but worth a shot IMO because it would solve all your issues. But the inner race of 17mm ID bearing will be a slightly different thickness than 15mm ID bearing & that might mean the end of the sleeve might interfere with the seal. But that would be relatively simple to turn down the end of the sleeve OD slightly to accommodate that.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 1, 2020)

PeterT said:


> Reason I was asking about the sleeve is if you could go with a 17x35 bearing, then it would be much easier to turn a metal spacer ring on the lathe sized to fill the annular gap between bearing ID and shaft OD. (Like the shim business but thicker). It would be nominally .025" wall thickness which is quite thin but worth a shot IMO because it would solve all your issues. But the inner race of 17mm ID bearing will be a slightly different thickness than 15mm ID bearing & that might mean the end of the sleeve might interfere with the seal. But that would be relatively simple to turn down the end of the sleeve OD slightly to accommodate that.


I guess using 17mm ID bearings could work just as long as the annular spacer ring is made out of steel and it is perfectly fit to make the bearings snugly fits on the spindle. The height should also matched with the bearins. You might onto something here.


----------



## RobinHood (Aug 2, 2020)

just went through your post again and saw the WT-33 service bulletin. From it, it appears someone has messed with the spindle before. The bearing seat is supposed to be 0.625 as per the document with a special SKF bearing with a 0.624” bore for a press fit. You state the actual bearing seat measurement is 0.620.






if the  0.620 bearing seat runs true to the spindle and is cylindrical for its length, I would use what Peter has suggested: 0.005” shim stock and a 6202/16-2RS (16x35x11) like this

https://www.qualitybearingsonline.c...bearings?_bc_fsnf=1&Inside+Diameter+(mm)=16mm

so your stack up will be 0.620+0.005 shim all the way around => 0.630”. 16mm is 0.6299”. That will give you a very light interference. Maybe put a bit of medium strength locktite for peace of mind. You can use all the original components and it should be at least equal to new.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 2, 2020)

Rudy, what do you make of that primer verbiage? Do they mean to build up the shaft OD? Or, as in Loctite surface primer (a catalyst actually) to activate the retaining compound? I wouldn't think regular paint primer could be counted on for a bearing surface, but what do I know.

The thing that kind of bugs me about the shim stock is getting the bearing over it. I was thinking like 0.0005: slip fit so you have some wiggle room & then the Loctite will make up the gap however it self aligns. But where best to apply the Loctite - between shim & shaft or between shim & bearing? If it was stuck on the shaft then a new bearing could go over without much fuss.

I'm going to check the shop again. Seems I have some aluminum adhesive tape. If that is right thickness, then it could be applied to shaft without initially fussing with bearing. Push bearing on, then trim excess with exacto knife. I just don't have a sense for how much lateral load the shim has to take. I mean even a steel bearing 'floating' in a Loctite filled annular gap to steel or CI hole isn't metal to metal for the entire diameter even though it may have a point contact somewhere around the rim.


----------



## YYCHM (Aug 2, 2020)

PeterT said:


> Rudy, what do you make of that primer verbiage?



When I read option 2, powder coating came to mind again.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 2, 2020)

Yes I think they mean build up the surface with primer. But notice its in 2 stages - mask, spray, cure, install bearing. Then repeat again for other bearing. I don't know much about powder coating but if it was done in 1 application (2 patches) then the lower bearing would have to get past the upper surface without scraping it. Otherwise it would need 2 separate applications like the primer bsiness & therefore individual oven cures.  Seems like a lot of effort & maybe expense. I've never heard of these 'paint' type buildups but I am certainly no expert either. Shim stock seems kind of flaky too but whatever works & is easiest.

I checked & have 2 kinds of adhesive metal tape, 0.0025" and 0.002" thickness. I'm not sure what the industrial application is. I'm pretty sure they are both aluminum. The 0.002" is 2" wide roll, kind of reminds me of heat proof ducting tape. I rolled it on some 5/8 stock & if you burnish it down it seems relatively flat & consistent. But I think the bearing would have to be a slide fit over it, either by design or warmed up, otherwise I think the race will basically just scrape the tape off. You are welcome to try some. 

I could machine a test collar for 17mm bearing idea just to see if it could be done (.025" wall thickness without distortion). If it works that would provide another option. A press fit would probably be the norm with steel bearing on steel shaft but with these 'sleeve' ideas, I'd be tempted to see if Loctite slip fit would allow you to get it in position & hold. 609 has a max gap fill of 0.005" (3000 psi strength). 680 is 0.015" (4000 psi).


----------



## DH930 (Aug 2, 2020)

Wow. Peter, you are amazing. You really taking this to task. I really appreciate you putting a lot of thought into this. It is a bit challenging since there is no perfect replacement bearings. Is there any places where you can send to have old bearings refinish like replacing ball bearings? I wonder how much would cost if such a service existed?
Rudy, the .624" in the document is referring to the dimension required for .625" bearings that I'm using. The primer suggestion is to build up the spindle shaft up to make up the .004" gap. The reason that it is in two stages is because you have to install the first bearing then the inner sleeve, then the quill, and then the second bearing. The bearings are tightly pressed into both side of the quill.


----------



## RobinHood (Aug 3, 2020)

I believe the primer is to “build up“ the shaft so that there is some interference and thus no sliding. Never heard of that process - they must have tried it out, so obviously it works.

we know that the spindle is 0.620. Dai already has replacement bearings with 0.625 IDs. I think the best route is the use 0.0025 shim stock at each bearing and locktite, if needed. My idea of using a 6202/16-2RS was assuming no 0.0025“ stock is available for purchase; only 0.005” one was. Using shim stock could be done in-house and the DP made operational relatively quickly.

following the original “special bearing size” as W-T used it route, is more $$s and takes time. If I were going to do it, I would try it on an old 15mm ID bearing first to see if I can open it up to 0.620”. Probably need to make a special fixture to hold the bearing during grinding. And the bearing should not heat up; there should be no grinding dust going in; after grinding the bearings need cleaning and re-packing.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 3, 2020)

Dai, you are welcome to try the shim stock method from materials I have. If we go with assumption 0.620 shaft and 0.625 bearing ID, the nominal thickness required would be 0.0025" 
I have a brass shim kit contains 0.001, 0.0015, 0.002, 0.003, 0.004... So 0.002 might work with slide fit & Loctite just depending on a bunch of variables you will only know my trying the fit. Theoretically a 0.001 and 0.0015 could be added together but I suspect will be fiddly positioning these thin bands & bearing on top. The 0.003" thickness might work (interference) but the trick is to not crumple the brass by installing the bearing over it, its literally paper thickness. Possibly you could warm the bearing & slide it into position, but I have only done this on open bearings (no urethane coated dust covers or grease inside). I checked KBC & seems like these are the standard brass thicknesses available, at least that they carry & no better metric solution.
https://www.kbctools.ca/products/pg...=j&facet=[["catname","catname","Brass Shim"]]

Alternately there is the aluminum tape I have in 0.002 and 0.0025 thickness. It has adhesive so would stick OK. But the material seems kind of fragile compared to brass so same bearing push-on issue. For that matter adhesive (Loctite if you were certain) could be used on the brass to pre-position a band on the shaft.

Sorry I don't have any experience with precision grinding bearings but I think it would be quite involved to do it right. I have a bit of amateur lapping experience but its typically a zero to 0.002"removal/finishing method. Taking off 0.015" from your 15mm ID bearing is way outside the lapping range, especially being hardened material.


----------



## Johnwa (Aug 3, 2020)

I have .001 and .002 steel shim stock.  I assume it’s a bit more rugged than brass.  Perhaps .001 with Peters .0015 brass on the inside.  You are welcome to a piece of either size.
loctime 641 is used for bearing fit ups but I haven’t found how much gap it will fill.

I’m surprised no one suggested building it up with spray welding.


----------



## Tom O (Aug 3, 2020)

Johnwa said:


> I have .001 and .002 steel shim stock.  I assume it’s a bit more rugged than brass.  Perhaps .001 with Peters .0015 brass on the inside.  You are welcome to a piece of either size.
> loctime 641 is used for bearing fit ups but I haven’t found how much gap it will fill.
> 
> I’m surprised no one suggested building it up with spray welding.


 I haven’t tried the spray welding kit out yet I’ll see if I can get my butt in gear on that.


----------



## YYCHM (Aug 3, 2020)

Johnwa said:


> I’m surprised no one suggested building it up with spray welding.



The thought had crossed my mind, but I couldn't remember what the process was called LOL.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 3, 2020)

What is spray well? I'm sorry, I'm pretty amateur compared to any of you guys.


----------



## YYCHM (Aug 3, 2020)

DH930 said:


> What is spray well? I'm sorry, I'm pretty amateur compared to any of you guys.



https://weldguru.com/spray-welding/


----------



## DH930 (Aug 3, 2020)

Holy smoke. That is much more complex than I could ever accomplice. I thought it was coming from a spray can. LOL


----------



## DH930 (Aug 3, 2020)

Tom O said:


> I haven’t tried the spray welding kit out yet I’ll see if I can get my butt in gear on that.


Hey Tom, would you like to test it out on my spindle?


----------



## DH930 (Aug 3, 2020)

Johnwa said:


> I have .001 and .002 steel shim stock.  I assume it’s a bit more rugged than brass.  Perhaps .001 with Peters .0015 brass on the inside.  You are welcome to a piece of either size.
> loctime 641 is used for bearing fit ups but I haven’t found how much gap it will fill.
> 
> I’m surprised no one suggested building it up with spray welding.


.002 steel shim stock might be the ticket here. I can locktite to the shim the bearing and then press fit onto the spindle.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 3, 2020)

Dai, do you have 60-deg center drill holes on one or both ends of the spindle? ie. something that the shaft could be located relative to its original center axis in a lathe? The hole would look like made from this kind of drill profile. At least one center (for tailstock) would come in handy when the time comes to deal with your bump, but also I had a thought. If the shim was oversize, it could be turned/finished down to desired diameter as long as it was well bonded to the shaft. Well... brass could be turned, but steel shim would be challenging because I think its typically hardened. Now if the shaft had a bit of wobble in the bearing area then that would defeats the purpose because it would cut eccentric. Personally I think finding the right shim is just easier solution to try first so no need to make it more complicated yet. But I'm curious about this bonding business now. I will do a little experiment.


----------



## Johnwa (Aug 3, 2020)

@DH930 I’m leaving town tomorrow and will be back late Friday.  Would you like some before them?


----------



## YotaBota (Aug 3, 2020)

I saw somewhere that knurling was used to bump the shaft diameter but I don't know if it would be enough or work in this case.


----------



## RobinHood (Aug 3, 2020)

i have used knurling before - only good for about 1-2thou (4 total on the OD).

i think one of the pictures shows a center. The ends have been hammered (the bulges Dai wants removed). The centres are probably in need of a re-cut.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 3, 2020)

PeterT said:


> Dai, do you have 60-deg center drill holes on one or both ends of the spindle? ie. something that the shaft could be located relative to its original center axis in a lathe? The hole would look like made from this kind of drill profile. At least one center (for tailstock) would come in handy when the time comes to deal with your bump, but also I had a thought. If the shim was oversize, it could be turned/finished down to desired diameter as long as it was well bonded to the shaft. Well... brass could be turned, but steel shim would be challenging because I think its typically hardened. Now if the shaft had a bit of wobble in the bearing area then that would defeats the purpose because it would cut eccentric. Personally I think finding the right shim is just easier solution to try first so no need to make it more complicated yet. But I'm curious about this bonding business now. I will do a little experiment.


No, there is no hole on either side of the spindle. I think you are right about finding the right shim first before we go crazy on it. Beside, my measurement maybe off so when Chad put the spindle on his lathe, he could double check the diameter of the spindle.
Edit: My bad, there is a hole on the tail side of the spindle.
Edit #2: I just checked the spindle and it does have centre holes on both side. LOL


----------



## DH930 (Aug 3, 2020)

Johnwa said:


> @DH930 I’m leaving town tomorrow and will be back late Friday.  Would you like some before them?


I can wait until you are back in town. I'm in no hurry but do like to get this figured out before winter arrives. Thank you!


----------



## YotaBota (Aug 3, 2020)

I didn't know if the knurl would tighten up the shaft to the bearing but it was worth a try.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 3, 2020)

YotaBota said:


> I didn't know if the knurl would tighten up the shaft to the bearing but it was worth a try.


How easy is it to produce a knurl? Would it get flatten when the pressure from the torque of the spindle over time?


----------



## YotaBota (Aug 3, 2020)

The knurl isn't difficult to produce and I'm not sure if it would flatten out over time. Some one with more time in than me may be able to answer flattening out question.


----------



## Tom O (Aug 3, 2020)

DH930 said:


> Hey Tom, would you like to test it out on my spindle?


I’ll try on some metal i have here it should go ok though.


----------



## Chicken lights (Aug 4, 2020)

YotaBota said:


> The knurl isn't difficult to produce and I'm not sure if it would flatten out over time. Some one with more time in than me may be able to answer flattening out question.


It doesn’t even have to be a knurl 
One old trick with a worn part was to take a centre punch and just add a few dimples to the shaft to raise up some meat. Add some green loctite and tap the bearing into place 

If the bearing isn’t spinning on the shaft there’s no reason why the dimples won’t last for a long time


----------



## DH930 (Aug 4, 2020)

Chicken lights said:


> It doesn’t even have to be a knurl
> One old trick with a worn part was to take a centre punch and just add a few dimples to the shaft to raise up some meat. Add some green loctite and tap the bearing into place
> 
> If the bearing isn’t spinning on the shaft there’s no reason why the dimples won’t last for a long time


My only concern about this is the bearing won't be true to the centre of the spindle.


----------



## Tom O (Aug 4, 2020)

Chicken lights said:


> It doesn’t even have to be a knurl
> One old trick with a worn part was to take a centre punch and just add a few dimples to the shaft to raise up some meat. Add some green loctite and tap the bearing into place
> 
> If the bearing isn’t spinning on the shaft there’s no reason why the dimples won’t last for a long time



I’ve used that on a auto advance shaft on my Norton years ago the play would change the timing So it would kick back when starting it and the shop I bought it from was baffled It worked great till a replacement arrive.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 5, 2020)

Well my first little experiment was a fail. I turned a blank of regular 1018 steel & attempted to Loctite a 0.5" wide strip of 0.005" brass shim on the OD with retaining compound. I wrapped it tightly with tape to conform. That part went well. But next day (cured) the brass basically popped off but the glue was fully cured hard on the steel. It had to be re-machined off. Both surfaces were clean & wiped with non-oil spirits. This was #680 0.015" gap fill. I know this stuff works reliably & predictably steel on steel. And I also discovered it locks up extra fast bronze and aluminum. I guess I haven' had much experience with brass but wasn't expecting any surprises. If push comes to shove there is always epoxy but I was tryng the so called obvious solution first. I'll upload some pics when I get to them. Tonight I tried again with Loctite primer/accelerator on the brass & a different #PN on another strip.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 5, 2020)

Thanks for your time experimenting the brass shim. I wonder if the brass shim is loctite to the bearing ID rather than on the shaft but this method would have to press the bearing onto the shaft and hope that the brass shim won't come out.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 5, 2020)

That could be an option too but the issue I want to solve is bonding the brass to steel, be it the bearing or the shaft. Didn’t think it would be a problem. I’ll know more tomorrow. BTW curling the brass around a rod & using tape to assist was ok, I even pre curled it a bit. Steel might be stiffer yet. But I think conforming it to an ID would be a bit more fiddling unless the shaft fit just right to kind of press & hold into position till the glue set. TBC


----------



## Brent H (Aug 6, 2020)

@DH930 : You can try Loctite 660 - Press fit repair - Fills gaps on shafts up to 0.5 mm


----------



## PeterT (Aug 6, 2020)

Brent, have you tried 660 specifically with brass & steel? I ran out of time yesterday but I did find Google references to brass being an odd duck & not bonding well, or at least the same as typical steel to steel. Like I mentioned, the glue was completely cured & bonded to the steel but basically no bond to the brass side. The Loctite cross reference charts seem to be indicating use of primer and or other products like 'purple'. I'll see tonight what my results using red & 680 with primer look like tonight. #680 has 0.015" gap so I'm thinking helpful under normal circumstances, but maybe not the important parameter when it comes to brass at least. Who knew.


----------



## Tom O (Aug 6, 2020)

Would it be possible to machine a interference fit that is shrunk on the shaft then turn it to size. I think it would work ok they say it’s permanent.


----------



## Brent H (Aug 6, 2020)

@PeterT  : I machined a bore into steel for a bronze bushing that I got just a bit larger than the fit I wanted.  I used that stuff to take up the difference in the bore- cleaned both parts with acetone, applied the 660 and then slid them together - but did not push the bushing all in, was going to set the piece on a flat surface to ensure the surfaces were true - flipped the piece over and  - nope the bushing was stuck fast and would not budge, had to machine off the 1/16" of stick out I had left.  Made a super tight joint.

If the bearing in question is riding on the end of the shaft and you can turn it to reduce the diameter for a sleeve then the sleeve should work fine - add some red loctite for added security and re-machine to 0.625 and then press on the bearing.  If the wear area is in the middle of the shaft and no way to sleeve it then you could spray weld.  Is there any reason not to make a new shaft?  Is there any special details that prevent this? - I will read the total post and see what we are discussing - LOL


----------



## PeterT (Aug 6, 2020)

Ya like I mentioned somewhere above bronze and aluminum combination set off the Loctite in my engine head unexpectedly fast vs steel on steel. But here I am talking brass shim and steel shaft, seems like the glue is offstandish to brass. I’ll check my different glue recipie tonight & report back


----------



## Brent H (Aug 6, 2020)

Looks like the spindle is a long rod with the only complication being the spline end - How long is it?  probably mill-able ?  taper end like a J33 or something for the chuck?


----------



## PeterT (Aug 6, 2020)

So here are some pictures to ponder. My second attempt using red 'permanent' Loctite and also #680 Loctite, both with primer/promoter resulted in the exact same thing. The adhesive is cured 100% hard on the 1018 steel but the brass shim is like a natural releasing agent. Just pops off when the tape is removed. I've never really tried this before but certainly wasn't expecting this.
Brass is about 56% copper + 38% zinc. Bronze is about 85% copper 10% tin (both vary by alloy). Maybe its the zinc? All I know is C544 bronze Loctites very aggressively in aluminum. Kind of caught me off guard compared to working time steel on steel. Either 'brass' shim stock is something funky which I doubt or there is something about brass. Who here has Loctited brass?


----------



## DH930 (Aug 6, 2020)

Brent H said:


> @PeterT  : I machined a bore into steel for a bronze bushing that I got just a bit larger than the fit I wanted.  I used that stuff to take up the difference in the bore- cleaned both parts with acetone, applied the 660 and then slid them together - but did not push the bushing all in, was going to set the piece on a flat surface to ensure the surfaces were true - flipped the piece over and  - nope the bushing was stuck fast and would not budge, had to machine off the 1/16" of stick out I had left.  Made a super tight joint.
> 
> If the bearing in question is riding on the end of the shaft and you can turn it to reduce the diameter for a sleeve then the sleeve should work fine - add some red loctite for added security and re-machine to 0.625 and then press on the bearing.  If the wear area is in the middle of the shaft and no way to sleeve it then you could spray weld.  Is there any reason not to make a new shaft?  Is there any special details that prevent this? - I will read the total post and see what we are discussing - LOL


Ideally, the shaft would be remake with larger OD to take the new bearings. The tail end, however, must follow exactly to the original shape and OD because this is the critical integration to the spindle pulley. I just thought that this is way too much for me to be asking for help here. If anyone wants to take on this challenge, I will be all in for sure. LOL 

If I have the machine to do this, I would be all over it.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 6, 2020)

Brent H said:


> Looks like the spindle is a long rod with the only complication being the spline end - How long is it?  probably mill-able ?  taper end like a J33 or something for the chuck?


The shaft is 17.5" long. The head is pressed on to the shaft where quill sits so that part can be removed and then re-pressed onto the new shaft. The chuck end of the shaft is tapered to receive the chuck.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 6, 2020)

PeterT said:


> So here are some pictures to ponder. My second attempt using red 'permanent' Loctite and also #680 Loctite, both with primer/promoter resulted in the exact same thing. The adhesive is cured 100% hard on the 1018 steel but the brass shim is like a natural releasing agent. Just pops off when the tape is removed. I've never really tried this before but certainly wasn't expecting this.
> Brass is about 56% copper + 38% zinc. Bronze is about 85% copper 10% tin (both vary by alloy). Maybe its the zinc? All I know is C544 bronze Loctites very aggressively in aluminum. Kind of caught me off guard compared to working time steel on steel. Either 'brass' shim stock is something funky which I doubt or there is something about brass. Who here has Loctited brass?


Fascinating Peter. Would it be possible to use crazy glue?  
I think spray well have huge potential here. If we do that and then machine it down on the lathe to the .625" diameter so that it will take on the new bearings.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 6, 2020)

Crazy glue is CA (cyanoacrylate) which is a close cousin of Loctite. It 'should' work but that's what I said about Loctite haha. I'm pretty sure there is an adhesive out there, people glue brass to wood & other substrates. I used to use rubberized toughened CA for hard to bond materials but its expired. I have some high end double stick film & arsenal of epoxies too. I'll do some more messing around. If it wasn't for this unexpected road bump I was hoping to show a pretty picture 0.005" brass turned down to fractional thickness... BUT STUCK TO THE STEEL! lol


----------



## Tom O (Aug 7, 2020)

I was just wondering if it could be built up with a copper bath or electroplating. 
Any thoughts? Or covered with liquid steel and turned to size.


----------



## Brent H (Aug 7, 2020)

one additional solution:

Swap the bearings out for 6003-2RS C3 fit bearings and shrink fit on two sleeves and then turn the shrink fits to 17 mm OD.  Might involve boring out the bearing spacer so it goes over the 17 mm.  I was looking to see if they have a 19 mm bearing ID with 35 mm OD and they do not, it would have been a much easier install if the two bearings had different ID's.

Making a new shaft may be easier?


----------



## PeterT (Aug 7, 2020)

Brent, have a look at the little spreadsheet pic I attached in post#19. I think 6003-2RS is a 17mm ID, which is the last row requiring a ~.025" wall thickness collar, however it is accomplished.
Thinking about this some more, it might be easier to bond the (oversize) collars on the spindle & turn it down insitu to 17mm (to fit bearing ID) as opposed to my suggestion of turning a finished collar. In any event both plans would require him buying 17x35mm bearings. He wanted to first try his 0.625"x35mm bearings which he has. But 0.625" requires a 0.0025" annular increase in shaft diameter. And its that fussy thin dimension what got down the shim stock rabbit hole (or primer/paint/coating/whatever... something very thin).

On the weekend I will turn a test collar. If that's straighforward (given very thin wall thickness) then 17x35mm bearings may be the best option.

Last night I tried bonding plain C360 brass to the same steel mandrel. I'll know for certain tonight but it seemed to be setting up 'normally' so I'm starting to suspect something is odd abut brass shim stock.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 7, 2020)

PeterT said:


> Brent, have a look at the little spreadsheet pic I attached in post#19. I think 6003-2RS is a 17mm ID, which is the last row requiring a ~.025" wall thickness collar, however it is accomplished.
> Thinking about this some more, it might be easier to bond the (oversize) collars on the spindle & turn it down insitu to 17mm (to fit bearing ID) as opposed to my suggestion of turning a finished collar. In any event both plans would require him buying 17x35mm bearings. He wanted to first try his 0.625"x35mm bearings which he has. But 0.625" requires a 0.0025" annular increase in shaft diameter. And its that fussy thin dimension what got down the shim stock rabbit hole (or primer/paint/coating/whatever... something very thin).
> 
> On the weekend I will turn a test collar. If that's straighforward (given very thin wall thickness) then 15x35mm bearings may be the best option.
> ...


I'm not concerned with buying new bearings or cost for having a new shaft recreated. My concern with 17x35mm bearings is that there is a sleeve that goes between the two bearings and this sleeve goes inside the quill. The sleeve ID is 0.625" and OD is 0.75". It is this sleeve that drive out the second bearing when you pound on the quill during disassembly. With the bearings 17mm, the sleeve ID would have to open up a bit so that it can slip over the location where the second bearing goes. Fixing one opens up another problem that have to be addressed. Although the inner sleeve is an easy fix really.


----------



## Brent H (Aug 7, 2020)

@DH930 it would probably be easiest, most accurate etc  to make a new shaft to the over diameter and allow you the use of standard bearings.  If the original shaft is a straight 0.620 diameter you can purchase say a 24" piece of higher tolerance cold rolled or something like 4140 in a 0.625" size and then it would be a matter of just adding the splines and the taper for the chuck.  Perhaps one of the guys in Calgary could do the job?  The splines can be done with a regular end mill or a slitting saw cutter of the correct width on the mill.  The shaft being only 17.5" long should be able to fit a few of the mills the guys have


----------



## PeterT (Aug 7, 2020)

Yes, that's why I was asking those questions about the sleeve. Sketches show 2 configurations. v1 is with the band same nominal width as the bearing. v2 is a wider band that gives more latitude placing the bearing but now the sleeve would have to be relieved by the same .025" (.050" diameter) so that the ends make contact with the inner bearing race. It would be easy to bore out the sleeve on a lathe, but it might be irreversible to the original bearing size depending on dimensions so you might be 'committed'. I guess I hadn't realized the spacer was used to drive the bearings? I just assumed it was a lightly loaded spacer between the bearings. Making a spacer seems easier than a new spindle but maybe a bit more info required.

- what is the spacer length?
- is it just a loose sliding fit on the shaft or somewhat precise?
- any idea what is the diameter of the inner race of the .625" ID bearing you have (purple arrow)


----------



## PeterT (Aug 7, 2020)

Sorry to plug up the thread with metal bonding trivia but this was bugging me. I tried a scrap of regular C360 brass to the same 1018 steel blank with #680 retainer, no primer. That's the round slug. Also tried regular red LT on 6061 aluminum (corner scraps). This is more like what I was expecting. It held well enough to turn it down thin without failing the adhesive. Its not a lot of force under cutting but it certainly didn't fall off like the brass shim did. Both lifted with an Exacto blade, the #680 held a little firmer. 

I think brass doesn't adhere with Loctite the way steel does, but this wasn't a super finish or anything either. If it wasn't for the sleeve issues discussed in previous post, I think bonding steel to steel would otherwise be a viable solution to this kind of problem.

Back to strategy. Turning a .025" wt collar might be feasible, I'll try. But Googling shows that a light spray coat is about .001" thick. So a dust of primer like the manual suggested on the 0.625" ID bearing might be worth a shot given there is no irreversible damage (other than maybe stressing the bearings off again if its a fail). The question is how strong is paint adhesion? Or does it really matter? Maybe the matte finish & retainer is all it needs to stick the inner race to the shaft & its bound to be pretty concentric. I know rattle can primer might not be as permanent as catalyzed auto primer, but I've had to grind off hardware store Tremclad paint on bare steel & it seemed pretty stuck. Maybe a Tremclad (made for metal) primer worth a shot?


----------



## YYCHM (Aug 7, 2020)

Powder coat...….

That stuff really adheres.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 7, 2020)

This has been a really good discussion so far. I want to thank you everyone gave input into this problem. The primer I had worked well on the bearings but it wasn't as solid as I wanted. If anyone would want to replicate the shaft for me, I can pay up to $200 for the spindle work. Any more than, I will have to use a primer and call it a day. LOL

Thank you Peter for doing all the testings on the loctite and brass shims.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 7, 2020)

YYCHobbyMachinist said:


> Powder coat...….
> 
> That stuff really adheres.


LOL. Powder coat might be the ticket. I don't know how to powder coat. Can you powder coat just only 2 strips on the spindle?


----------



## PeterT (Aug 7, 2020)

I believe they can mask off areas like regular paint process. They hang the part on a conductive hook, apply a voltage, the powder is sprayed & adheres to the exposed metal. Then the part is baked. That fusing is what gives some of the toughness. But I have no idea what typical thickness is. I think it could be sanded if oversize. But as we discussed before, applying 2 stripes for 2 bearings seems wrong because one bearing will scrape over the other powder coat surface.Where as rattle can is spray one area, apply bearing, spray 2nd area, install sleeve & second bearing... if I understand the assembly correct.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 8, 2020)

PeterT said:


> I believe they can mask off areas like regular paint process. They hang the part on a conductive hook, apply a voltage, the powder is sprayed & adheres to the exposed metal. Then the part is baked. That fusing is what gives some of the toughness. But I have no idea what typical thickness is. I think it could be sanded if oversize. But as we discussed before, applying 2 stripes for 2 bearings seems wrong because one bearing will scrape over the other powder coat surface.Where as rattle can is spray one area, apply bearing, spray 2nd area, install sleeve & second bearing... if I understand the assembly correct.


That is the correct procedure to install the bearings with primer method. If the spindle shaft was to replicated, I would have the section in the two bearings to be at 0.625" in diametre. The rest of the shaft will be identical to original. Then, I will have the in between sleeve to be bored out just a hair so that it can easily slips onto the new shaft. That is the ideal path. Is there anyone on here or out there would like to take on this project? I do not have the tool to do this but if someone would like to take on this challenge, I am willing to pay for your service. I will send the original parts to that person so that everything can be view for replication.


----------



## Dabbler (Aug 8, 2020)

@PeterT on the aluminum versus  brass thing....  I have successfully used the aluminum found on President's Choice Lasagna (the large size) lids.  It is a very consistent .003.  If you wrap it around your steel shank and loctite it to the shaft, and then use loctite the bearing on the shaft + aluminum, it will easily fill a .004 gap.  2 rounds will fill .006, etc...


----------



## PeterT (Aug 8, 2020)

Yes I've had good results turning aluminum CA glued to steel mandrel too. I have some (pop can) shim I keep handy & suspect it might be similar thickness. I'll try that test too. Thanks!


----------



## YotaBota (Aug 8, 2020)

I did a little experiment over the last couple of days, sorry no pictures. I used a piece of .625 rod, knurled it to rough up the surface and then coated it with JB Weld as a build up. The knurl added about .002 to the overall diameter and then there was another .010 of JB. I turned the JB down to .630 and it seemed to be pretty solid and may be worth a try. A fine thread pass may work better as a rough up since the knurl didn't leave a real rough surface.
Anyone know if Devcon is any stronger than JB?
Was spray welding mentioned? I watched Abom spray welding, that might be another option if anyone has the equipment


----------



## PeterT (Aug 8, 2020)

I've got the spindle components in my shop now. Don't want to jinx it but its proceeding well. Pics are in the camera.
I got it mounted between centers & did a cursory runout down the lentth. Not too bad but will revisit this again. I think the center dimples are influencing the readings, maybe by some of the end hammering because its out max 0.004" but the high its relatively constant all the down the length vs a bow (as though the centers were off slightly). 

I've got the slightly trumpeted enlarged end dealt with on the fluted end, the bearing get past it now & slide free to their homes. Just working on the similarly enlarged chuck seat end now. I'm convinced that was his biggest runout contributer seen on the chuck. You can feel the enlarged end make contact with the chuck seat at some point of entry & then it hinges on this high point. So its highly unlikely to be seating by the taper.

The other thing I found is the shaft is a bit oblonged in bearing area. Not quite sure if its like elliptical or I'm picking up a slight flat section. Knurling could work. The lower bearing is seated right adjacent to a step, so not sure if my scissor (clamp style) knurl arm can clear this to make a complete pattern on the seat area. Ideally it would be nice to have excess material bonded on the shaft without caring about OD so that it can be turned down a) to become circular b) correct dimension. Ideally without any permanent alteration to the shaft. That's a few steps away & I have some ideas to test on scrap, but anyways heading in the right direction.


----------



## Tom O (Aug 9, 2020)

I still haven't tried the spray weld I'm a little leary of warping the shaft, lately i've been working on my bathroom with a new toilet that needed a sub floor that needed new waste pipes so I can lay the new tiles! Im near the bottom of the slide now the new pipes are in on to the tiles.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 9, 2020)

It was a pleasure meeting Peter yesterday. I dropped off everything that touched the spindle (minus drill head) to Peter so that he can see how all the pieces works together. I want to thanks Peter for taking so much of his time helping me out on this project.


----------



## Johnwa (Aug 9, 2020)

I’m back in town if you want some of my steel shim material.
If the bearing area is reasonably round the 0.002 shim would give you 0.624 OD.  The shim would be a nice slip fit between the bearing and shaft.  Loctite would be added after assembly.  Capillary action would pull it in and lock everything into place.  Loctite 641 is recommended for that purpose.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 9, 2020)

Johnwa said:


> I’m back in town if you want some of my steel shim material.
> If the bearing area is reasonably round the 0.002 shim would give you 0.624 OD.  The shim would be a nice slip fit between the bearing and shaft.  Loctite would be added after assembly.  Capillary action would pull it in and lock everything into place.  Loctite 641 is recommended for that purpose.


Thanks John. I will leave this to Peter. Peter is the quarterback for this project now. If he needs the steel shims I will come by and pick it up from you. Thanks again!


----------



## PeterT (Aug 9, 2020)

Thanks John. If its not destructive to your shim, can you wrap it on something like 5/8 stock & just give me a feel description of how much it resists conforming?
Reason I ask is I have some steel, happens to be 0.005" so too thick for this application. But it is significantly stiffer than the brass of same 0.005" thickness. I was able to pre curl the brass so it was already 90% conformed to the diameter but I thought  I might have even more difficulty keeping he steel from self-debonding under its own spring force so to speak. But I'm not sure what my steel stuff was, seems more like feeler gauge stock (stiff).

Tape wrapping the shim seemed like the logical easy method to radially clamp it so it bonds to the shaft.  Or at least stays put so the bearing can slide over it without disturbing it.

Another option might be pushing the shim in from the side if it was an overall slip fit but I think it might be a bit of gooey finger juggling act because other parts of teh asssembly come immediately after that. Kind of hard to explain without pictures but the top bearing is a bit floaty in position until the spacer tube & quill body come into the picture & the whole assembly then aligned.


----------



## Johnwa (Aug 9, 2020)

@PeterT it wraps pretty easily but springs back to about 1.5” OD. I’m sure tape would easily hold it in place.  I have most of a 100” roll left so I can easily part with some of it.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 10, 2020)

Some progress pictures. I put the spindle between centers & just wanted to get an overall feel for what we were dealing with. I saw about 0.004" max runout but as I  progressed down the length in steps I noticed it was basically the same amount of deflection & same clock position of shaft. So I think (hope) the centers were influencing the reading. Because both ends were hammered on a bit, this could have easily explained things. I'll revisit this but so far so good.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 10, 2020)

Issue 1 was the easiest to deal with. The spline end was mushroom capped a bit from some tappety-taps. Dai agreed that could be taken down with no adverse effect to the rest of the assembly. You can see the upturn with light & straight edge. I masked off about 0.5" away & used that as a protection guide, first stoning, eventually just easier in the lathe. Really it could be chamfered but anyways bearings go on now without resistance.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 10, 2020)

Issue 2 is the chuck side tapered arbor. His chuck is brand new but I could immediately envision what was happening. A similar mushroom cap end profile, so the chuck basically hinges on this high point at a certain amount of insertion. I think when he assumed it was seated, it was just stuck at some odd angle & could not get proper contact with the taper. I chucked the spindle in my lathe & measured runout at different steps. It was ~ 0.002" which is pretty darn good for an elderly machine. (Yes this is my 3-jaw but it magically dials in under 0.001" on a gage pin if I mount it in a specific orientation. Bison Woot-woot! LOL).

But here I wanted to be extra careful not to pooch what I assumed to be 90% good seating area. The uplifted end was maybe .005-.010" high & irregular but kind of hard to tell how much inboard of that may have been influenced (meaning bulged or bent or distorted). I taped off on side of my fine file to act as a non-contact strip & then just carefully started to take down the lip using the blue as guide.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 10, 2020)

At a certain point I started Sharpie coloring the surface & gently inserting the chuck, give it a slight rotation & then look for rub. Some of the body was chowdered up a bit. I'm not concerned by the small negative gouges but there was just a bit of cleanup required on the surface itself with positive burrs. Just careful stoning but not much at all. Took some TLC but now a nice socket fit.


----------



## YYCHM (Aug 10, 2020)

What are you using for blueing?


----------



## PeterT (Aug 10, 2020)

Then I noticed the chuck had a few scrapes inside its taper, probably from the original assembly where he noticed the bad runout. I was reluctant to use lapping compound but when I did my engine liners I remembered how long it took to make 0.0002" go away so I decided #600 wasn't going to do anything bad with some gentle hand turns. It was a nice even matte finish which cleaned up nice & now the chuck felt really solid.

Now to the test. Sad face warning. I gripped a pin & it was running out ~ 0.010". The jaws looked ok. I tried different diameter pins, tried different clock positions of chuck, same number. I removed the chuck & re-read the taper. Now its under 0.002" closer to 0.001". That part seems fine. Hmmmm


----------



## PeterT (Aug 10, 2020)

Then I reversed the chuck with the pin gripped & saw the same 0.010" runout. So my conclusion right now is the chuck seat has the correct taper but is out. I tried the same reorientation & the high is always in the same clock position. It says Jacobs but... Dai we need to discuss options. I couldn't tell the taper 33 maybe? It would be nice if we had a known good chuck to just plop on. I've had this myself buying a brand name dud, it happens. Idont want to say this with 100% certainty but seems to be pointing to this. The good news is the spindle is in great shape as far as I  can tell.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 10, 2020)

Now that the bearings are able to go in position I started to get a feel for the shim business. Here is what I observed. The bearings have a bit of wiggle but didnt strike me as horrible. The lower one was maybe 1mm forth & back out at the edge. Not steady as you would prefer, but that bearing gets butted up against a ledge on the spindle so wont wiggle anyways. (I know that doesnt yield concentricity though). The upper bearing fits a bit tighter.

RH pic - here I can just squeeze the corner of a 0.001" shim stock in between inner race & shaft but not another one on the other side. I don't have a ton of experience here but the quill body is so meaty & has bearing seats on either side... I'm wondering if this is in the range of retaining Loctite? My thought is when Dai saw the wacky runout on his assembly trial it was 99% attributable to the misfit chuck end & he likely assumed the bearing fit was the culprit? I'm going to dry install the components & see spindle play just rotating the shaft & DTI measuring the seat (with quill body held in my vise or something). What do you guys think?


----------



## PeterT (Aug 10, 2020)

YYCHobbyMachinist said:


> What are you using for blueing?



The dark blue is just Dykem layout blue so I can see the contrast of the end metal being removed. I was anal about preserving the good surface so not even rubbing off the Dykem with the tape protection. The light blue & black is Sharpie felt pen, it picks up & highlights any rub-off when the surfaces are getting close to correct. I have Prussian blue too but in this application its easy to get false reads because its kind of greasy smeary. Maybe just me but I think its better suited to larger areas & with just a little bit of contact rub-off like you see on flat surfaces & granite plates etc.


----------



## Tom O (Aug 10, 2020)

It sounds like the Locktite should work ok.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 11, 2020)

PeterT said:


> Then I reversed the chuck with the pin gripped & saw the same 0.010" runout. So my conclusion right now is the chuck seat has the correct taper but is out. I tried the same reorientation & the high is always in the same clock position. It says Jacobs but... Dai we need to discuss options. I couldn't tell the taper 33 maybe? It would be nice if we had a known good chuck to just plop on. I've had this myself buying a brand name dud, it happens. Idont want to say this with 100% certainty but seems to be pointing to this. The good news is the spindle is in great shape as far as I  can tell.


My goodness Peter, you have done so much, and the time you have taken to documenting this project is fantastic. Thank you so much!

As for the (bad) chuck, That chuck is a new old stock which was spec for the drill originally. Is there a way to fix that 0.010" runout? Or, perhaps we should find a more modern chuck that have the same mounting feature. I'm not married to that chuck at all. I don't know what option is out there for me. Perhaps someone on here may have some ideas to contribute.

As for the bearings mounting issue, if loctite is the best solution at the end of the day, then we will do just that. I want to reserve that method to last resort because if I have to disassemble the drill again later, the loctite method maybe difficult to remove the bearings.

Thanks again Peter for your efforts so far in this project!


----------



## Brent H (Aug 11, 2020)

@PeterT : Loctite 648 (bearing retainer) should work very well and has up to a 0.006 gap fill.  I would suggest that @DH930 perform all the work required and then use the compound for the final assembly.  If all goes well it will never be apart again.

@PeterT great work on cleaning up the imperfections.  I may have a chuck kicking around but sadly I am way way far away from the action.  Here is a link to the taper charts:  http://www.jacobschuck.com/MagentoShare/media/documents/jacobs-technical-information.pdf


----------



## DH930 (Aug 11, 2020)

Brent H said:


> @PeterT : Loctite 648 (bearing retainer) should work very well and has up to a 0.006 gap fill.  I would suggest that @DH930 perform all the work required and then use the compound for the final assembly.  If all goes well it will never be apart again.
> 
> @PeterT great work on cleaning up the imperfections.  I may have a chuck kicking around but sadly I am way way far away from the action.  Here is a link to the taper charts:  http://www.jacobschuck.com/MagentoShare/media/documents/jacobs-technical-information.pdf


If I have to remove the bearings in the future for any reason at all, is loctite 648 bearing retainer can be removed? I have no experience in removing bearings that have been held by loctite.


----------



## Crosche (Aug 11, 2020)

Just out of curiosity, would it be possible to use silver solder to build up the areas where the bearings mount and then machine away the excess? Or would the application of heat warp the shaft? 

Cheers,

Chad


----------



## YYCHM (Aug 11, 2020)

DH930 said:


> If I have to remove the bearings in the future for any reason at all, is loctite 648 bearing retainer can be removed? I have no experience in removing bearings that have been held by loctite.



For disassembly of the *Loctite 648* material use heat approximately 250 degrees Celsius and the material will disassemble. Cured material can be removed by soaking it in a *Loctite* Solvent and using a wire brush.


----------



## RobinHood (Aug 11, 2020)

Maybe the chuck needs to be re-assembled? Perhaps old preservative material is stuck in it. Regrind the chuck jaws (when it is assembled onto the spindle) in it’s own bearings?


----------



## PeterT (Aug 11, 2020)

From what I can tell, the chuck is out ~0.010" meaning how the jaws are aligning to a pin relative to conical arbor seat axis. When I look at the jaws they seem in good shape as one would expect from new but you can see one set is maybe a hair open more than the other. 10 thou isn't a lot but I think your spindle is already more accurate, in the order of 2 thou. So it would kind of be a shame for the chuck to be the weak link in the chain. You have a VFD & can probably spin decent rpms. That is normally an enviable recipe for accurately drilling small diameter holes. But not with this kind of runout. For example consider a 1/32" drill = 0.031" diameter, the runout rpresents 0.010/.031=32% of the drill diameter vs 6% with a (theoretically perfect) alternate chuck & only spindle runout. A woodworker may not care but too much for an accurate machine.

If you can determine the taper number you bought, maybe one of us as a known decent chuck to plop on just to test before committing to buy another. Possibly you could increase the capacity of the chuck and/or consider a keyless unless you like the key style for nostalgia. I was going to take the chuck off my drill press which I know is pretty good, but I couldn't find my drift set.

But I will try a dry assembly just using bearing/spindle/quill/components & see what the runout is looking like on the arbour because right now I am only looking at the spindle in isolation. In this particular case I'm a little bit apprehensive of Loctite too because we don't want to tappety-tap things anymore. But I think heat would break the bond, at least that has been my experience. I think we want gap fill but just enough strength to hold the race in position.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 11, 2020)

Crosche said:


> Just out of curiosity, would it be possible to use silver solder to build up the areas where the bearings mount and then machine away the excess? Or would the application of heat warp the shaft?



I'd personally be reluctant to introduce heat just because its so hard to control the even application of the torch & potentially mess up what seems to be good spindle runout. Thats why I want to test assemble the quill now. Who knows, sometimes little tolerances collect & cancel to work in our favor (or it could go the other way but visually the quill bearing seats look great). Primer is looking like a worthwhile option IMO if we are dealing with say 0.0015" annular gap & want them snug.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 11, 2020)

Is it possible to apply epoxy glue and then turn it down to the diameter on the lathe once it is cured? This way the bearings sit centred to the spindle. If not epoxy glue, perhaps some substance that can be applied on the spindle and then turns to proper diameter.


----------



## YYCHM (Aug 11, 2020)

DH930 said:


> Is it possible to apply epoxy glue and then turn it down to the diameter on the lathe once it is cured? This way the bearings sit centred to the spindle. If not epoxy glue, perhaps some substance that can be applied on the spindle and then turns to proper diameter.



Spray Weld.


----------



## Tom O (Aug 11, 2020)

With the spray welding your dealing with the heat again up around 400 degrees so. Silver solder would be a better choice out of the two, I would think on the other hand knurling is a tried and true Solution you could even coat it with JB weld before turning to size.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 12, 2020)

I reconfirmed that I can only get 0.001" shim into one half of the bearing ID, not the full circumference. So I just picked a spot on the spindle & assembled with half shims on that side to at least remove the bearing/shaft play & see what the entire assembly gives me. If it was more than I measured in the lathe, then I would phase the shims opposite. If I got lucky & they cancelled then remember this position. 

The assembly sequence goes lower bearing on spindle, separation tube, quill body which engages lower bearing on a seat, upper bearing which engages quill body bearing seat, a threaded part that seats on the outer race screw, a tapered collar with set screws which prevents the spindle from sliding through the bearings. More on this later.

I got roughly the same 0.002" runout on the arbor with the quill held stationary in a vise.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 12, 2020)

Then without disturbing the setup I put the chuck on the arbor end with an accurate pin, got the same +0.010" added runout seen in the lathe. So not great news but at least consistent. I put the DTI on the chuck nose just for the heck of it. It runs out about 0.004-0.005" so possibly suggesting the jaws but I don't trust the body OD is indicative of the seat & certainly not the jaws. So we have a pretty good arbor surface but the chuck is a separate issue.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 12, 2020)

Very nice work Peter. Love what you are doing. Thank you so much for doing the work and documenting the investigation. At least we know that the spindle and the quill is in good shape. I don't know which chuck I should get to replaced that one.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 12, 2020)

I'm trying an experiment tonight. I am painting a stripe of CA glue on my steel shaft. Its just a turned finish but I just want to see if I can build it up say 0.002" by painting a layer on & then just give it a slight sand on the lathe to take it down to mimic the ever-so-slight amount needed to remove all play. And to see that its a decent bond. Think nail polish treatment. All the coating really needs to do is suspend the bearing centrally until the assembly comes together. Loctite could be wicked in either inner race if desired, but I'm becoming less convinced it even needs it.

I'm starting to wonder about the real purpose of that inner tube. I think maybe a spacer between the inner races, then the top screw fitting act against the upper bearing outer race (only) so like a rudimentary bearing play eliminator? I'll have to study the schematic again.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 12, 2020)

Dai, if I can find my dang chuck removal wedges (they are somewhere) we might be lucky & I have same taper chuck in my drill press. Do you happen to know your taper number?


----------



## DH930 (Aug 12, 2020)

PeterT said:


> Dai, if I can find my dang chuck removal wedges (they are somewhere) we might be lucky & I have same taper chuck in my drill press. Do you happen to know your taper number?


No, I don't remember the taper number on that chuck. I will have to look up the parts number charts on schematic.


----------



## YYCHM (Aug 12, 2020)

PeterT said:


> Dai, if I can find my dang chuck removal wedges (they are somewhere) we might be lucky & I have same taper chuck in my drill press. Do you happen to know your taper number?



I have a set of #2 tapers, if that helps.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 12, 2020)

PeterT said:


> I'm trying an experiment tonight. I am painting a stripe of CA glue on my steel shaft. Its just a turned finish but I just want to see if I can build it up say 0.002" by painting a layer on & then just give it a slight sand on the lathe to take it down to mimic the ever-so-slight amount needed to remove all play. And to see that its a decent bond. Think nail polish treatment. All the coating really needs to do is suspend the bearing centrally until the assembly comes together. Loctite could be wicked in either inner race if desired, but I'm becoming less convinced it even needs it.
> 
> I'm starting to wonder about the real purpose of that inner tube. I think maybe a spacer between the inner races, then the top screw fitting act against the upper bearing outer race (only) so like a rudimentary bearing play eliminator? I'll have to study the schematic again.


Yeah, I didn't understand the relationship of the in between sleeve either. They should have kept the quill hole at slightly larger than .625" with crown on both side to hold the bearings. I think that one might be a bad design.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 12, 2020)

See #5 post in this link which he said exactly what you find Peter.

https://www.practicalmachinist.com/...walker-turner-drill-press-restoration-319126/


----------



## PeterT (Aug 12, 2020)

Any chance the documentation corresponding to your model number specifies the taper or you still have the chuck box/order details?
I can measure the arbor & probably figure it out, just wondering out loud. 
What is the chuck typical jaw opening for this drill?


----------



## RobinHood (Aug 13, 2020)

From the manual on Vintage Machinery dot Org, the chuck is a #6A Jacobs. The male taper on the spindle is a #33 Jacobs Taper. (File is too large to attach here).

Great work Peter.

Did you have a chance to measure the spindle and confirm the 0.620” OD for the bearing seat areas? Using a 0.625 ID bearing, there should be a way to get 1 thou shims all the way around the shaft. It would still leave a sloppy fit. 3 thou theoretically. More like 2 thou with for a 1 thou sliding fit.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 13, 2020)

RobinHood said:


> From the manual on Vintage Machinery dot Org, the chuck is a #6A Jacobs. The male taper on the spindle is a #33 Jacobs Taper. (File is too large to attach here).
> 
> Great work Peter.
> 
> Did you have a chance to measure the spindle and confirm the 0.620” OD for the bearing seat areas? Using a 0.625 ID bearing, there should be a way to get 1 thou shims all the way around the shaft. It would still leave a sloppy fit. 3 thou theoretically. More like 2 thou with for a 1 thou sliding fit.


Thanks for the chuck info. I was searching for the info and also searching for the original box last night. I can't believe that I would have discarded the box. I bought the chuck on Ebay from a fella in UK couple years ago. The chuck was NOS.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 13, 2020)

I looked into my purchase history on Ebay and found the chuck. It is #6A. 

Jacobs # 6A Drill Chuck/Key, JT33 Mount, 0-1/2" Capacity


----------



## PeterT (Aug 13, 2020)

RobinHood said:


> Did you have a chance to measure the spindle and confirm the 0.620” OD for the bearing seat areas? Using a 0.625 ID bearing, there should be a way to get 1 thou shims all the way around the shaft. It would still leave a sloppy fit. 3 thou theoretically. More like 2 thou with for a 1 thou sliding fit.



I think the 0.620 came from Dai originally. He didn't say if it was mic'd or calipered, he can chime in. But maybe the best he could do with the tools he had. I measured the shaft with my good mic & like I was saying kind of varies a bit depending on the orientation, but on average seemed a bigger than 0.620. I'll check my notes. The spindle body has been cleaned up a bit so there are some micro flats here & there which may influence a particular region between the anvils measuring across the diameter in a certain orientation.

But the takeaway point is I can only push a 0.001" shim in from one side of the inner race to shaft & obviously the other side of bearing is in tangent contact with the shaft. If I cut a shim of about 1/3 the diameter it fits in. if I cut it to say 1/2 the diameter its already tightening up on the shim ends & easy to curl getting in. If I try to make a full diameter shim loop around the shaft (0.001 shim = 0.002 diametric difference) the bearing wont go on at all. So I think the real annular gap is maybe more like 0.0007... 0.0008" just as a guess. Which in my mind puts the situation in the range of some kind of shaft 'coating' just to get the bearing centered with no play. I didn't measure the bearing IDs but assume they are pretty accurate & what we have to work with anyways.

What was trying to say a couple posts above is - maybe I could find the happy position for the shim on one preferential side to minimize runout as much as possible. But the random position I chose just for a looksee gave me  0.002 DTI deflection. That still pretty decent. But I'm not quite sure the quill/bearing/shaft assembly can be put together as a sub-assembly like this & installed into the rest of the drill body.  Dai can elaborate. But this particular chuck is adding 0.010" to whatever we achieve so that's the dominant issue. 

So I think we are getting closer. Just need to figure out an easy to apply 'gap-goop' that will preserve the spindle runout & take up slack. By guess is an even coating will achieve something close to 0.002"


----------



## PeterT (Aug 13, 2020)

DH930 said:


> I looked into my purchase history on Ebay and found the chuck. It is #6A.
> Jacobs # 6A Drill Chuck/Key, JT33 Mount, 0-1/2" Capacity



I'll check tonight. Thought I tried my 1/2" dowel pin & it was too large so guessed 3/8 capacity. Anyways Jacobs makes a lot of different models & they have varied over the years & been outsourcing for a while. For example some of these medium grade are showing 0.004" runout catalog spec. That whole subject is a discussion unto itself IMO but I know when you start getting into precision range (0.001) the cost goes up pretty dramatically. But I also know there are some good Asian chucks that are decent. Thats why I was asking if you were married to Jacobs for nostalia or just wanted a good chuck. (I am personally fond of keyless). And Rudy makes a good point that maybe the existing chuck can be rebuilt, but not anything I've attempted.

I have a similar issue on my to-do list with a mini 'precision' chuck that is a runout POS. But the jaws close nice. I've been thinking of creative ways to modify it to give me something equivalent to SetTrue adjustability like a big lathe chuck & use epoxy to lock it home. But seems like a misguided plan. Better to reverse hold a pin it & attempt to regrind the seat. The issue is there just isn't much taper material to work with assuming it has to fit a standard arbor.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 13, 2020)

PeterT said:


> I think the 0.620 came from Dai originally. He didn't say if it was mic'd or calipered, he can chime in. But maybe the best he could do with the tools he had. I measured the shaft with my good mic & like I was saying kind of varies a bit depending on the orientation, but on average seemed a bigger than 0.620. I'll check my notes. The spindle body has been cleaned up a bit so there are some micro flats here & there which may influence a particular region between the anvils measuring across the diameter in a certain orientation.
> 
> But the takeaway point is I can only push a 0.001" shim in from one side of the inner race to shaft & obviously the other side of bearing is in tangent contact with the shaft. If I cut a shim of about 1/3 the diameter it fits in. if I cut it to say 1/2 the diameter its already tightening up on the shim ends & easy to curl getting in. If I try to make a full diameter shim loop around the shaft (0.001 shim = 0.002 diametric difference) the bearing wont go on at all. So I think the real annular gap is maybe more like 0.0007... 0.0008" just as a guess. Which in my mind puts the situation in the range of some kind of shaft 'coating' just to get the bearing centered with no play. I didn't measure the bearing IDs but assume they are pretty accurate & what we have to work with anyways.
> 
> ...



The tool I used was a caliber and I am with Peter that it is a smidgens bigger than .620".

Peter, yes you can assemble the quill/spindle unit all put together up to the lock collar. Even the chuck can be installed on the spindle prior to installation to the drill head. In short answer, the bearings can be installed securely to the spindle and the quill and locked in place.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 13, 2020)

Is this the right chuck and is it a good one to get?

http://www.jacobschuck.com/jacobs-chuck-9682d-jkp-130-j33-high-precision-keyless-13mm-chuck.html


----------



## PeterT (Aug 13, 2020)

Yes that's a good one for sure but going to be spendy. Not sure if same model number but in this order of $ magnitude. 
https://www.kbctools.ca/products/search/?Keyword=precision drill chuck

The Taiwan? keyless model one I got for my mill was very accurate & reasonably priced, but that was a while ago. Sometimes its just luck I feel with the offshore stuff, but when I got a similar model for my lathe tailstock, it was again good. I hate endorsing things just in case they vary. It might be worth going through a dealer so if its an obvious issue compared to spec, you have some exchange recourse.

Mine looks conspicuously like GS (its marketed under different labels). I have some other GS tooling & its decent value. SOWA is a retailer but you can get through Calgary via DMH & Thomas Skinner I believe.
http://www.sowatool.com/Product/8/312/1338

Looks like they sell Rohm & Jacobs too, but always pays to shop around. KBC is flat fee 9$ to your door or whatever the current rate is.
http://www.sowatool.com/Catalogue/8/312?Category=Drill+Chucks&Drill+Chuck+Type=Keyless+Chucks

I'll do some digging


----------



## DH930 (Aug 13, 2020)

PeterT said:


> Yes that's a good one for sure but going to be spendy. Not sure if same model number but in this order of $ magnitude.
> https://www.kbctools.ca/products/search/?Keyword=precision drill chuck
> 
> The Taiwan? keyless model one I got for my mill was very accurate & reasonably priced, but that was a while ago. Sometimes its just luck I feel with the offshore stuff, but when I got a similar model for my lathe tailstock, it was again good. I hate endorsing things just in case they vary. It might be worth going through a dealer so if its an obvious issue compared to spec, you have some exchange recourse.
> ...


Thanks Peter. I have been doing research on chuck today and found out a lot of info. Albrecht is another top-end brand. Many peoples love that chuck for precision.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 15, 2020)

I tried the primer trick. The shaft OD on the lower bearing area was nominally 0.6223" For reference the bearing ID is 0.6242-0.6245 according to my mics.
By adding a single coat of primer the OD goes to 0.6243-0.6246". It took away all the play. I assembled the spindle fully just to take some more measurements. When I disassembled & pulled the bearing off it shows the rub off in one area & shiny in another. This could be bit of eccentricity on the shaft assuming the bearing is ground pretty accurate.

The primer method is interesting but my preference would be a more hard surface mechanical solution. If one were to use the primer as kind of gap filling tool with the intent of wicking in retainer than it might be OK. This particular assembly doesn't lend itself to that IMO because after the lower is bearing goes on, the spacer tube & quill & upper bearing has to go on. Which means one has to spray the upper band in, masking off etc. Yellow pencil tip shows the upper bearing seat on the quill body.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 15, 2020)

Now that I have more confidence on how much annular gap we are dealing with & the variation, I think the best solution is using 0.001" shim stock like so & just skip the Loctite. The way the parts go together the shims completely removes radial & axial bearing play. I think the shims just need to be spotted into position during assembly & cant really go anywhere once the assembly is tightened up. So it still gives a lets call it 80% constant annular gap because they are mostly still on either side of the shaft, just spaced out a bit just as they find the natural low. If I took some material (light sanding) off the shaft I could get a full annular ring of shim, that's another option. I almost prefer the 2 segments as-is when its disassembled, they dislodge a bit easier. The shims get kind of crumpled & damaged each disassembly which is no big deal. They are expendable. But I think they might jam up requiring some extra tapping effort. This assembly got me within 0.0010 - 0.0015" on the taper end, so quite good.

I could assemble this way with brass & call it good. But I think the steel shim John has might be better to try only because its hopefully a tougher material. The brass is quite fragile & folds up easy just trying to insert whereas steel may allow something like a full annular ring if I take the shaft down just a smidge. The steel material might offer another advantage, maybe a drop of Loctite on the shim would keep it stuck but still release with no effort, whereas I think I'm convinced the brass just does not like to bond very well.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 15, 2020)

Here is the set screw collar which prevents the shaft from sliding within the bearing races. It was a bit distorted & you can see prior bite marks on the shaft & skid mark coincident with raised burr. I stoned down the shaft & chamfered the collar threaded edge with diamond ball. Then subsequently cleaned up the collar ID. Its an easy sliding fit on the shaft now but my I took it just a bit further with emery & now the collar can go over top the extended shim from the bearing & set screw bite down on that & protect the shaft.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 15, 2020)

Here are the chuck pics, Dai. It is 1/2" capacity according tho this so maybe my pin was pushing the limits. Now that I have some more play eliminated total runout is maybe 0.008-0.009". Not sure what you were intending to do with the drill accuracy wise, but personally might be worth assembling as-is, measure runout with everything assembled. If its ok for your purposes, live with it. Or if you want to upgrade one day, it should be easy to remove & mount another completely independent of the 'upstairs' components. I forgot to mention I dont have a key that size so I could only hand tightened on my edge finder, so maybe not super tight. Some people have claimed their chuck 'break in' & improve a bit but who knows.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 15, 2020)

Wow Peter, you have done so much to investigate the best possible solution to the bearings mounting method. I really appreciate this. I think the steel shim is probably the best solution to this and I completely trust you to choose whichever method you think is best, either 2 halfs or one continuous shim. As for the chuck, I have bought an Albrecht chuck from the US for $300CAD. My intent for this drill is to be my main drill and I want to be as accurate as it can be. The chuck is being sent to my friend in Chicago and then he will ship it to me later. The chuck is still 3-5 weeks away from now. Peter, if you would like, you can hold on to that until I have the Albrecht chuck so that you can measure it with spindle. Since you have spent so much time with this that I thought you might be interested to see this to the final step, with the chuck mounted. Let me know what you preferred to do. 
I want to thank you for your efforts that is beyond my expectation. I will make sure you will be rewarded in the end.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 15, 2020)

Nice chuck. Sure no problem. I've learned a lot through this project too.

I meant to comment on CA glue - my test on my scrap steel shaft. On the plus side
- it actually forms a pretty tough buildup coating that has more adhesion than primer & thicker than primer
- I think it could be completely removed with solvent or CA de-bonder so it wouldn't be destructive to the metal
- it cures quick so the treatment could be done in several minutes vs waiting for primer or paint to cure

On the minus side
- getting it even is kind of a feel thing. I just q-tipped a single layer, let it flash, then another
- sanding makes the surface smoother & flatter but because its clear, kind of hard to see whats going on
- still a bit of jerry rig solution, but in certain applications OK maybe


----------



## PeterT (Aug 21, 2020)

Dai bought a variety pack of steel shim from Amazon to cover the bases. Maybe he has plans to buy a lathe or some other restoration project next lol. (Thanks for the shim offer Johnwa, we will find a use for that!).

The steel is a bit firmer than brass but its still a pretty delicate 'foil' in the 0.001" thickness. If you push it with your thumbnail & the entry too firm, it will crumple. I found it was better to position on a slight angle, get the bearing started on a corner & kind of work it on. The material can be cut with a new blade or scissors. I wanted to do the assembly with no adhesive if possible. I'll do some bond testing separately on my scrap shaft because I'm still curious about steel vs. brass. The assembly is pretty straightforward but the upper (second) bearing is a bit fiddly because at this point the bearing OD is being contained by the quill ID seat & its about an inch deep in the quill, so getting the shim slid into the ID in is a bit constrained. The trick at this point is get the shim in but not allow the first (lower) bearing move on the shaft or it will lose its shim & back to square 1. This is where pre-bonding the shim would be ideal. I also put a separate ring of shim stock under the  set screws of the race collar so it wouldn't mar the shaft.

Anyways all back together. There is no play axially or radially now. I consistently measure 0.001" runout at the wide part of arbor cone and 0.0015" near the tip. So if the new chuck is reasonably accurate this will be awesome. I tested the old chuck again for old times sake & get the same +0.008" runout on a chucked pin. I get the same runout value on the chuck body no matter how I mount it. If I nearly close the jaws I can can see some gap discrepancy. I'm not sure if this is a valid test or which is the predominant culprit. But my 'good' chucks jaws mate up very close together & the nose body is within a thou of the pin.


----------



## DH930 (Aug 21, 2020)

Very nice work Peter. You have gone beyond just helping me out here. I truly humbled at your patience, and your dedication to exploring the best possible solutions. I am surprise to see the photo of the Jacob chuck's jaw being so far off. And, I thought that Jacob makes good chucks. Anyway, the new replacement chuck should be here in two weeks. I will drop off the new Albrecht chuck for you to see, and for you to do your testings.
You are correct that there will be a lathe in my future. Now that I belong to this awesome forum, I will be tapping into this community for recommendations when I'm ready to buy one. I love old machines so I'm not sure if an old lathe is a good choice.


----------



## Tom O (Aug 22, 2020)

And now for something completely different! 
Just found these while browsing.

https://www.euro-bearings.com/tol1.htm


----------



## Brent H (Aug 22, 2020)

@Tom O : we used those before for a fan housing that the bearing spun in - outside bearing diameter and had to machine the housing bore to accommodate the ring.  I did not think they were available for an inside diameter shaft press fit - I think you would need to machine the shaft for the ring to be fitted.....not really my cup of tea for a press fit ID repair


----------



## Tom O (Aug 22, 2020)

It’s hard to say I’d think that being steel they would be strong enough, the use would have to be taken into consideration for loads but a drill has no real side loads.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 22, 2020)

That's interesting. I'm not sure if I'm interpreting the sizing chart correctly but the ID/OD (d vs D) difference is nominally 1mm different. A bit thinner in the small diameter range, a bit bigger in the larger ones. So nominal 1mm = 0.039", so 1/2 thickness (=the annular gap) would be about 0.020". This drill application required only 0.001" shim.  

So this system might require you to select a next bigger bearing maybe? We chatted about that early on in the post with the possibility of going up to 17mm bearing (0.669" ID) & machining a sleeve.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 28, 2020)

The last thing I wanted to try was the same Loctite retainer on the carbon steel shim on my 1018 scrap. Same result, peeled off just as easily as the brass. You can see the green stripe within the red felt pen lines where its entirely cured but just no gription.

Then I tried medium viscosity CA glue (between the blue lines). It stuck better but not anything like what I would call a permanent bond. It would probably stay put if you were sliding a loose fit bearing over it but I'm not sure how much shear stress it would take before failing

Very strange. I don't know what to say about this anymore. I know CA like a bit of porosity. But makes me wonder how bearings can stay so firmly stuck to a shaft with normal Loctite retainer where you sometimes have to beat them or torch heat to remove. Maybe its purely better strength in shear (like pushing a bearing off along a shaft or machining a part bonded to an arbor face) vs tensile strength (peeling back a thin stock). Interestingly the 'glue' is always fully cured to the shaft but not to the shim stock, I need to talk to a Loctite engineer, this will follow me to my grave LOL!


----------



## YYCHM (Aug 28, 2020)

I've never had any luck using Red Loctite.  Gave up on it.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 28, 2020)

I've used quite a few Loctite flavors, mostly on fasteners but also bearings & bushings. Never an issue. But this shim thing is just perplexing. I do know that it can loose its potency over time, i am guilty of that. So now I date the bottle with a marker.


----------



## YYCHM (Aug 28, 2020)

PeterT said:


> I've used quite a few Loctite flavors, mostly on fasteners but also bearings & bushings. Never an issue. But this shim thing is just perplexing.



How do you know it's actually done something on a bearing or bushing unless you have tried to remove it?

I've used blue to keep screws from coming loose and that works, but red as a permanent solution no.


----------



## PeterT (Aug 28, 2020)

The blue & red I typically use on fasteners for removable & 'more permanent' bond. For bearings I typically use retainers like 609, 680... depending on the annular gap & other variables. I've done some tests of certain parts & it required vise pressure to fail. I've also had main bearings stuck pretty firm to model engine crankshafts for example & the only recourse was heat or in a few extreme cases dremelling a slot through the race & laterally cracking it open with a screwdriver blade. best to consult the product literature, but its almost overwhelming.


----------



## YYCHM (Aug 28, 2020)

609, 680 ?  Never seen anything labeled that on a shelf.  Where do you source that stuff from?


----------



## PeterT (Aug 28, 2020)

retaining compound
https://www.kbctools.ca/products/search/loctite?v=j&facet=[["catname","catname","Retaining Compound"]]

https://www.amazon.ca/s?k=loctite+680&ref=nb_sb_noss_1

Loctite products general
https://www.kbctools.ca/products/search/loctite


----------



## PeterT (Sep 16, 2020)

A few more pics to log. I tried regular JB Weld with both brass & steel. It seemed to hold a bit better than Loctite or CA. I was able to turn it down to basically nothing. So might be a cheesy but still viable method to 'build up' worn or mismatched shaft thickness to a bearing ID.

But again, once I lifted up an edge I could peel back the shim without a lot of effort. So I think the 'peeling back' action is putting very high equivalent tensile stress localized on a teeny pencil line thickness at the leading edge line of adhesive. Once it lifts (fails), it perpetuates along the joint with minimal effort. I don't think its related to the material itself at all, but purely to this effect. A rigid bearing or collar could never be peeled back like this which is why we don't see it in real life. It needs to be pushed off axially, therefore the entire bonded surface area is resisting and in shear mode vs tensile, which is more favorable to the adhesive. At least that's my armchair engineering notion.


----------



## Tom O (Sep 16, 2020)

The only other choice would have been to undercut then build it up to machine Giving it the thickness needed.


----------



## historicalarms (Sep 17, 2020)

Man, I used red Locktite on a combine wobble box tapered shaft joint one time that the original key way had hammered loose on. Goo'd'er up with "red", sucked it tight as we could and went for supper to let it cure before use...  we used that combine 5 more years and the neighbor bought it from us and used it 8 more years before retiring it...and that wobble shaft never came loose


----------



## YYCHM (Oct 29, 2020)

Where is this project at?  Still waiting for the new chuck?


----------



## PeterT (Oct 30, 2020)

Dai can chime in but he picked up the spindle back in Aug when I assembled spindle with the steel shim stock. We tested the nice chuck he got with the assembly mounted in mill vise. Unfortunately it wasn't quite as good as the taper runout itself (which is kind of the hit & miss experience I have had with chucks at the best of times). But hopefully it will still make for a nice, accurate restored machine. He had some more work to do to complete the assembly so I haven't heard myself.


----------



## DH930 (Oct 30, 2020)

Sorry guys, I have been working flat out because I got a new job. LOL

The project is almost done. I needed to mount the controller to the drill press and installing the speed reader to the spindle wheel. Peter did an outstanding job on the spindle. The new chuck shows similar run out on Peter lathe but I haven't done any measuring since installed to the drill body. I probably won't be working on it until Christmas break now because I am anticipating a very busy period at work.


----------



## YYCHM (Oct 30, 2020)

DH930 said:


> I needed to mount the controller to the drill press and installing the speed reader to the spindle wheel.



???  So now you have to tell us what the ultimate plan is for this reconstruction??


----------

