My first ever lathe is a Myford

[Susquatch]

Now that you have a lathe, let us help you spend your money accessorizing it!

First and formost: QCTP (Quick Change Tool Post)

I must have asked him 30 times by now to measure the darn thing to see what size he needs. Not a peep back.

I'm guessing that he is sitting in a folding chair in the middle of the garage right now staring at his new toy......... Prolly totally overwhelmed, with a boinked look on his face, sipping on a glass of morning port (to improve the boink look) and murmuring something like: "What the F#$k did I get myself into now! And what in the world am I gunna do with this thing?"

It's either that or he is still staring cross-eyed at the first test in that Schlesinger book you gave him......

Poor soul.......... NOT!!!

 

[CWret]

staring at his new toy...

No - I’m taking a break for lunch.


Then back to:

staring at his new toy...

 

[Dan Dubeau]

The OXA size from little machine shop is what I run on my super 7. Perfect size for that lathe. I bought the toolpost with 5 tool holder combo, and made a few sticks of my own. I have zero complaints aside from the knurling post is pretty useless, and the set screws that come with are garbage, but that's pretty standard for import tooling. The toolpost is a wedge style, and nicely made.

 

[trevj]

Due to the server crash my one comment on this issue was lost. I tried to stay out of it, but I have to restate my post.

There is room for people to do things their way. Machinists seem to be particularly stubborn for some reason. I've known a toolmaker that never used one.

When I have introduced my simple height standard to several professional, experienced machinists, they all made one and began using it regularly. This included one that remarked he'd wished he would have started using one decades before.

Perhaps the greatest benefit is to newer machinists, as using a ruler or tailstock takes longer and is less accurate. But even experienced machinists can have a setup that they cannot take a facing cut on, and need to commission a new tool. Then they have to resort to the ruler or tailstock center, which is much slower.

Having a height standard is like having the perfect tool for a job, even if used only occasionally. You wouldn't throw out your waterpump pliers because your pipe wrench can 'do it all'... I certainly am not advocating that anyone should abandon other methods. Each method has its time and place.

I'll take umbrage to that part I bolded. The ruler pinched between the work and the tool, is neither slower, or less accurate.

While it suffers the same main issue (it draws in yet another tool to the game) as the dedicated gage, it also is transferable from machine to machine!

I have two lathes (three, if you count the WW Pattern watchmakers lathe), and worked in a shop where we had five different lathes, any of which we were expected to be quite able to stand in front of and make them work for us. While making dedicated gages for each was well within our capability, learning to walk without crutches, was the better choice, if you know what I am saying.

But, like I told yon hairy gent, do you! I will happily support my opinion as just as valid! As I said, I HAVE used one, and found it lacking.

 

[trevj]

Now that you have a lathe, let us help you spend your money accessorizing it!

First and formost: QCTP (Quick Change Tool Post)

Gotta say, getting (well, OK, I made mine) a QCTP on to my lathe was a HUGE step forward!

I made a clone, more or less, of a Tripan 111, which is a great post for a Myford sized lathe. When I still had my Emco Super 11, I had planned to put a Tripan 211 on that, as the holders from the 111 would fit it as well.

 

[Susquatch]

I'll take umbrage to that part I bolded.

I think you didn't mean to say that. Taking umbrage means that you feel upset or annoyed because you feel that someone has been rude or shown no respect to you.

I don't think that is what you meant because there would be no reason for you to feel that way.

The ruler pinched between the work and the tool, is neither slower, or less accurate.

I disagree with this. I have no issues with using the ruler. It works quite well. But not ALWAYS. In the case of work that has not yet been turn concentric, the ruler will not work. The height standard will.

In the case of work that requires a high or low tool, the ruler does not always work well either. The height standard is much more useful and marginally faster.

Although I used a ruler for years, I cannot say how accurate the ruler will always be. I think it depends somewhat on the relative tool geometry. A tool with a nose that has a dominant slope could easily overpower the round stock tangent forces.

What I can say is that the standard can easily be used to sub thou levels of precision and be absolutely accurate. Why? Because it is independent of the work. It is a pure reflection of the tool height to lathe center geometry.

Perhaps there are those who couldn't use one as well as I do because they lack sensitivity in their fingers. But I have not yet met this person.

I understand and can easily do the math you referred to in an earlier post. I love math. Math is a wonderful tool. It's also easily abused just like statistics. When the math says it doesn't make much difference, I conclude that the mathematician is either a purist who doesn't understand the practical realities of his calculations or he is a manipulator who uses complicated math to prove a point - the same way so many statisticians do. The real answer to the math in this case is a little more along the lines of - it depends on the real question! The results depend on the diameter, the material, and the tool and therefore there is no one answer.

While it suffers the same main issue (it draws in yet another tool to the game) as the dedicated gage, it also is transferable from machine to machine!I have two lathes (three, if you count the WW Pattern watchmakers lathe), and worked in a shop where we had five different lathes, any of which we were expected to be quite able to stand in front of and make them work for us. While making dedicated gages for each was well within our capability, learning to walk without crutches, was the better choice, if you know what I am saying.

Our discussion has drifted a bit from a height gauge being a waste of time to being too specific machine dependant.

I can agree with you that they do get dedicated to one machine. If that is the sole criteria, then your point is taken.

However I have lots of tools that get dedicated to a particular machine. Perhaps the best example is Allen wrenches. I tend to buy extra sets specifically so I can take them apart and dedicate a given wrench to a given machine and I put them all in a wooden block that stays with each machine. If I don't do that, then I end up losing the key as it wanders from job to machine to machine. I don't have two lathes with QCTPosts, but if I did, each would have its own tool holders. I'll be damned if I'm gunna constantly be changing tool heights as I swapped tool holders from machine to machine. In this way, I would also have multiple height standards - one for each machine. And it wouldn't bother me one iota that I did. I would simply consider the height standard to be a part of the machine it goes with and each one would live with its respective machine.

But, like I told yon hairy gent, do you! I will happily support my opinion as just as valid!

Absolutely agreed. You do you Trev, and sadly, I'll do me!

As I said, I HAVE used one, and found it lacking.

This is the part that worries me. How do I know you used it properly? How do I know you made it properly?

Your conclusion is sooooo contrary to my experience. The first time I saw one used, I fell in love. Every guy I have ever shown one to also fell in love. That includes both hobbiests and pros.

You are the single and only outlier that I know. If I read @Dabbler's post, his experience with others is similar. Yet you are very passionate about your feelings against it. So passionate that I can't help but feel we are debating two different things. Call it my intuition or call it my foolish unwillingness to give up on you.

You didn't want me to waste my time making a video for you. But please do me a favour and watch Joe Pies video on this. I didn't use his method to make mine, but his points on using it are bang on if not perhaps even understated. I'm not a fan of Joe Pie, he is bit too pedantic for my taste. But it would be very hard to argue about how skilled he is as a machinist.

Here is his video on making a standard.

If you don't want to watch him making one or his discussion about proper height setting, just fast forward to the use of the tool at 6:20.

To be honest, I like the way he made his better than the way I made mine, but both his and mine could be significantly improved by making the length of the standard adjustable. I've also seen standards that incorporated a magnet in the base. I dunno if I like the magnet though.

Joe focusses on the merits of being exactly on center. We both know that isn't always true. But for the purpose of describing the tool, how its made, and how it is used, his video is as good as any.

Hopefully you find some value in the video. Hopefully you can also see beyond Joe's focus and also see how easy it is to offset the tool high or low.

If not, I've truly tried my best. You do you and I'll keep bein the ugly hairy guy.....

 

[CWret]

As I previously said - this Susq/ trevj debate has been both interesting and educational- tks guys.

I definitely will be making a height gage. As I also said earlier, I have used the pinched straight edge and will keep that in my back pocket, the height gage will be another option.

Funny that you said:

could be significantly improved by making the length of the standard adjustable. I've also seen standards that incorporated a magnet in the base.

First- I have a spare indicator magnet, it has a threaded hole on top and I intend to use that to attach the height gage
Second- i have a few large dia fine thread bolts and i was planning to use (with a double locking nut) to make the gage height adjustable.

 

[Susquatch]

I have a spare indicator magnet, it has a threaded hole on top and I intend to use that to attach the height gage

I dunno about the magnet...... I just dunno. Too much hair on it - says the hairy guy....

Magnetizing ways, attracting swarf, swarf between the way and the standard, etc etc. This isn't a slam dunk to me.

Second- i have a few large dia fine thread bolts and i was planning to use (with a double locking nut) to make the gage height adjustable.

If you can, find a way to turn the halves of the standard into a micrometer drum with marks on it so you can record the setting and or easily dial in an offset......

Nah, scratch that. Just make a regular standard first to get experience and gain skills, and then use your lathe for a while. You can always make a better standard later.

 

[CWret]

The OXA size from little machine shop is what I run on my super 7. Perfect size for that lathe.

Thanks @Dan Dubeau - that confirmed what i thought was the right size for this small lathe.
The chart (below) also confirmed that OXA is a match for the Myford. Which is too bad since Susq had offered me one but it is too big. Just like him.

Previously Susq asked for info about the measurement between top of compound and center or spindle. As seen in below pic, it is 2 1/16”. (thats a 1/16” drill bit in the chuck)


Here’s the home-made QCTP that my lathe came with. Here it is with a 1/2” cemented carbide cutter. Both the cutter and live center are very closed but not touching the 1/16” drill bit held it the chuck.
Ooops - Forum says the pic is too big of a file. - I’ll have to retry the taking pics with less resolution
Well it will let me attach the below pic. This is with a 3/8” cutter close but not touching the 1/16 drill bit


(Had some more pics - but can’t attach, guess you get the point anyhow without more pics)

 

[thestelster]

Here’s the home-made QCTP that my lathe came with.

What?? In your first picture it shows a 4-position square toolpost.

 

[jorogi]

I think you didn't mean to say that. Taking umbrage means that you feel upset or annoyed because you feel that someone has been rude or shown no respect to you.

I don't think that is what you meant because there would be no reason for you to feel that way.



I disagree with this. I have no issues with using the ruler. It works quite well. But not ALWAYS. In the case of work that has not yet been turn concentric, the ruler will not work. The height standard will.

In the case of work that requires a high or low tool, the ruler does not always work well either. The height standard is much more useful and marginally faster.

Although I used a ruler for years, I cannot say how accurate the ruler will always be. I think it depends somewhat on the relative tool geometry. A tool with a nose that has a dominant slope could easily overpower the round stock tangent forces.

What I can say is that the standard can easily be used to sub thou levels of precision and be absolutely accurate. Why? Because it is independent of the work. It is a pure reflection of the tool height to lathe center geometry.

Perhaps there are those who couldn't use one as well as I do because they lack sensitivity in their fingers. But I have not yet met this person.

I understand and can easily do the math you referred to in an earlier post. I love math. Math is a wonderful tool. It's also easily abused just like statistics. When the math says it doesn't make much difference, I conclude that the mathematician is either a purist who doesn't understand the practical realities of his calculations or he is a manipulator who uses complicated math to prove a point - the same way so many statisticians do. The real answer to the math in this case is a little more along the lines of - it depends on the real question! The results depend on the diameter, the material, and the tool and therefore there is no one answer.



Our discussion has drifted a bit from a height gauge being a waste of time to being too specific machine dependant.

I can agree with you that they do get dedicated to one machine. If that is the sole criteria, then your point is taken.

However I have lots of tools that get dedicated to a particular machine. Perhaps the best example is Allen wrenches. I tend to buy extra sets specifically so I can take them apart and dedicate a given wrench to a given machine and I put them all in a wooden block that stays with each machine. If I don't do that, then I end up losing the key as it wanders from job to machine to machine. I don't have two lathes with QCTPosts, but if I did, each would have its own tool holders. I'll be damned if I'm gunna constantly be changing tool heights as I swapped tool holders from machine to machine. In this way, I would also have multiple height standards - one for each machine. And it wouldn't bother me one iota that I did. I would simply consider the height standard to be a part of the machine it goes with and each one would live with its respective machine.



Absolutely agreed. You do you Trev, and sadly, I'll do me!



This is the part that worries me. How do I know you used it properly? How do I know you made it properly?

Your conclusion is sooooo contrary to my experience. The first time I saw one used, I fell in love. Every guy I have ever shown one to also fell in love. That includes both hobbiests and pros.

You are the single and only outlier that I know. If I read @Dabbler's post, his experience with others is similar. Yet you are very passionate about your feelings against it. So passionate that I can't help but feel we are debating two different things. Call it my intuition or call it my foolish unwillingness to give up on you.

You didn't want me to waste my time making a video for you. But please do me a favour and watch Joe Pies video on this. I didn't use his method to make mine, but his points on using it are bang on if not perhaps even understated. I'm not a fan of Joe Pie, he is bit too pedantic for my taste. But it would be very hard to argue about how skilled he is as a machinist.

Here is his video on making a standard.

If you don't want to watch him making one or his discussion about proper height setting, just fast forward to the use of the tool at 6:20.

To be honest, I like the way he made his better than the way I made mine, but both his and mine could be significantly improved by making the length of the standard adjustable. I've also seen standards that incorporated a magnet in the base. I dunno if I like the magnet though.

Joe focusses on the merits of being exactly on center. We both know that isn't always true. But for the purpose of describing the tool, how its made, and how it is used, his video is as good as any.

Hopefully you find some value in the video. Hopefully you can also see beyond Joe's focus and also see how easy it is to offset the tool high or low.

If not, I've truly tried my best. You do you and I'll keep bein the ugly hairy guy.....

Okay, what have you done with the real Sus ? Referencing a YouTube video, as if.

 

[Susquatch]

Had some more pics - but can’t attach, guess you get the point anyhow without more pics

You can simply resize them anytime on your phone after you take the photo. No need to change the camera resolution. I generally set my phone for high resolution and then resize them as needed.

 

[trlvn]

What?? In your first picture it shows a 4-position square toolpost.

I was out to visit yesterday and he does indeed have a user-made 'quick-change' toolpost. Two, in fact. You can see them in the picture with all the chucks and other loot.

They are a super simple design where the dovetails squeeze against the tool holder via a single SHCS. There is a pin that serves as a pivot. We speculated that the maker may not have been entirely happy with the fit of his first attempt. Also, it was a bit weird that the three toolholders are all subtly different from each other. The one appears to be sized for 12mm shank tools and is therefore just a hair too small for 1/2" shanks. Its brother looks the same size, at a glance, but _does_ fit a 1/2" shank tool.

BTW, I think the machine is in outstanding condition. I've seen a few Atlas lathes with flat ways and they all had wear that you could see or feel. IOW noticeable wear. This Myford is miles better than that!

cwret plans to reorganize his shop pretty significantly to fit in the new addition. I admire his restraint in not just jumping in and making a bunch of chips!!

Craig
His wife is a hoot, too. With pretty much a straight face, she asked me where my trailer was and when I'd be taking away all these dirty old machines!!

Then she gave me fresh rhubarb and now I'm thinking that maybe I should just listen to her rather than her hubby.

 

[CWret]

Trying again, re-did pic with a changed camera (iPhone) setting.
Here’s my QCTP that came with the lathe. Live center and 3/8” cutter are not touching the 1/16” drill bit in the chuck. Pretty easy to adjust the home made QCTP, it works well.


Well it let me attach 2 of the 3 pictures - so this is best i can do.

Yes Stell - it also came with a 4 position sq post - as seen in earlier pics.

In your first picture it shows a 4-position square toolpost.

 

[CWret]

I'm thinking that maybe I should just listen to her rather than her hubby.

You got that right!

 

[CWret]

PS - cutter in above picture was a gift from Trlvn. Pretty good swap for a bit of wife’s rubarb.

 

[trevj]

I think you didn't mean to say that. Taking umbrage means that you feel upset or annoyed because you feel that someone has been rude or shown no respect to you.

I don't think that is what you meant because there would be no reason for you to feel that way.



I disagree with this. I have no issues with using the ruler. It works quite well. But not ALWAYS. In the case of work that has not yet been turn concentric, the ruler will not work. The height standard will.

In the case of work that requires a high or low tool, the ruler does not always work well either. The height standard is much more useful and marginally faster.

Although I used a ruler for years, I cannot say how accurate the ruler will always be. I think it depends somewhat on the relative tool geometry. A tool with a nose that has a dominant slope could easily overpower the round stock tangent forces.

What I can say is that the standard can easily be used to sub thou levels of precision and be absolutely accurate. Why? Because it is independent of the work. It is a pure reflection of the tool height to lathe center geometry.

Perhaps there are those who couldn't use one as well as I do because they lack sensitivity in their fingers. But I have not yet met this person.

I understand and can easily do the math you referred to in an earlier post. I love math. Math is a wonderful tool. It's also easily abused just like statistics. When the math says it doesn't make much difference, I conclude that the mathematician is either a purist who doesn't understand the practical realities of his calculations or he is a manipulator who uses complicated math to prove a point - the same way so many statisticians do. The real answer to the math in this case is a little more along the lines of - it depends on the real question! The results depend on the diameter, the material, and the tool and therefore there is no one answer.



Our discussion has drifted a bit from a height gauge being a waste of time to being too specific machine dependant.

I can agree with you that they do get dedicated to one machine. If that is the sole criteria, then your point is taken.

However I have lots of tools that get dedicated to a particular machine. Perhaps the best example is Allen wrenches. I tend to buy extra sets specifically so I can take them apart and dedicate a given wrench to a given machine and I put them all in a wooden block that stays with each machine. If I don't do that, then I end up losing the key as it wanders from job to machine to machine. I don't have two lathes with QCTPosts, but if I did, each would have its own tool holders. I'll be damned if I'm gunna constantly be changing tool heights as I swapped tool holders from machine to machine. In this way, I would also have multiple height standards - one for each machine. And it wouldn't bother me one iota that I did. I would simply consider the height standard to be a part of the machine it goes with and each one would live with its respective machine.



Absolutely agreed. You do you Trev, and sadly, I'll do me!



This is the part that worries me. How do I know you used it properly? How do I know you made it properly?

Your conclusion is sooooo contrary to my experience. The first time I saw one used, I fell in love. Every guy I have ever shown one to also fell in love. That includes both hobbiests and pros.

You are the single and only outlier that I know. If I read @Dabbler's post, his experience with others is similar. Yet you are very passionate about your feelings against it. So passionate that I can't help but feel we are debating two different things. Call it my intuition or call it my foolish unwillingness to give up on you.

You didn't want me to waste my time making a video for you. But please do me a favour and watch Joe Pies video on this. I didn't use his method to make mine, but his points on using it are bang on if not perhaps even understated. I'm not a fan of Joe Pie, he is bit too pedantic for my taste. But it would be very hard to argue about how skilled he is as a machinist.

Here is his video on making a standard.

If you don't want to watch him making one or his discussion about proper height setting, just fast forward to the use of the tool at 6:20.

To be honest, I like the way he made his better than the way I made mine, but both his and mine could be significantly improved by making the length of the standard adjustable. I've also seen standards that incorporated a magnet in the base. I dunno if I like the magnet though.

Joe focusses on the merits of being exactly on center. We both know that isn't always true. But for the purpose of describing the tool, how its made, and how it is used, his video is as good as any.

Hopefully you find some value in the video. Hopefully you can also see beyond Joe's focus and also see how easy it is to offset the tool high or low.

If not, I've truly tried my best. You do you and I'll keep bein the ugly hairy guy.....

Nah. I'm not going 'nuclear Option' for Umbrage. I am saying that I disagree with the point referenced.

I made the gages that I used. One was a simple finger cut from flat stock, the other was closer to Joe Pi's bar. Mine had two planar surfaces, doglegged, so you could reference the plane at center height, from either below or above (useful enough for a rear cutoff tool...if you were not capable of simply reading the results and acting on them...) In use, they were not appreciably faster that setting by eye and such. Tweaks are easy, between passes IF they are needed. And then I found I was adjusting up or down as required anyway, effectively making any time spent getting the tool tip 'just right', wasted. And that is the crux, for me.
Much like my amusement at people's faith that if only they had a really expensive level, their lathe or mill would automatically cut 'right' instead of what it was doing... But still not understanding why their "Perfectly Level" lathe is cutting a pronounced taper... I figure the guys that want to use a gage can do what they please, I just don't buy in at all, largely based on my own experiences.

Now, if you want to talk about a setting standard gage, I am VERY fond of using an adjustable one for setting the offset between a tool and cutter grinder and the center of the wheel, to get the correct relief angle! But that's a very different topic.

Machinist's a cranky lot? Nah. Couldn't be. I have not thrown a hammer at anyone in years now! LOL!

 

[Susquatch]

Previously Susq asked for info about the measurement between top of compound and center or spindle. As seen in below pic, it is 2 1/16”.

Something is wrong Craig. That's an awful tall difference. Any chance you measured from the top of the cross-slide instead of the top of the compound?

 

[Susquatch]

Okay, what have you done with the real Sus ? Referencing a YouTube video, as if.

Better enjoy it while you can. Ain't gunna happen again for anybody else but @trevj

 

[CWret]

Yep - inexperience shining through, i see that i measured the wrong critical dimension.
Top of cross slide to the spindle center line (C/L) is 2 1/16” as stated above. The critical dimension - the top of compound to C/L is 21/32”.