Tecnico’s First Mill

Susquatch

Ultra Member
Moderator
Premium Member
The X axis play comes out at .035 and the Y is .020 and even through the travel so more reason to be pleased.

If the wear is even across the length of the screw, chances are that you can tighten the nut a wee bit to remove a lot of that too. That's what happened on my Hartford. Just be careful not to over do it. A little backlash isn't a big deal as long as you know it's there and know how to work with it.

If you overdo it, you can accidentally accelerate the wear.
 

Tecnico

(Dave)
If the wear is even across the length of the screw, chances are that you can tighten the nut a wee bit to remove a lot of that too. That's what happened on my Hartford. Just be careful not to over do it. A little backlash isn't a big deal as long as you know it's there and know how to work with it.

If you overdo it, you can accidentally accelerate the wear.

That's one thing that's still on my to do list, I have to make up a special tool though. If you didn't know, the Long Chang/First (& Sharp etc.) back lash adjuster/lock nut is not like a BP, you need the special tool to turn the adjuster sleeve and the ring lock nuts - see the lock nut image below.
0901d19680cb9349.png


Tool designed but not yet built.

Interesting to note that the leadscrews seem to be wearing very evenly (if at all?), probably because the nuts are part of the one-shot oiling circuit so they are regularly lubricated vs. what I have read about (some?) BPs that rely on splash/drip coming off of other parts (if I read correctly).

Making the adjustments is on the to do list but not at the top. The rest of the story? I got zinged a few days ago, my S.O. is a sharp one, she recently pointed out that I seem to be using the mill to make things to go with the mill and not other projects LOL! She encourages my play but sometimes those little zingers pop out! :oops:

At least I fixed the ice maker yesterday. :D

D:cool:
 
Last edited:

Susquatch

Ultra Member
Moderator
Premium Member
That's one thing that's still on my to do list, I have to make up a special tool though. If you didn't know, the Long Chang/First (& Sharp etc.) back lash adjuster/lock nut is not like a BP, you need the special tool to turn the adjuster sleeve and the ring lock nuts - see the lock nut image below.
0901d19680cb9349.png


Tool designed but not yet built.

Interesting to note that the leadscrews seem to be wearing very evenly (if at all?), probably because the nuts are part of the one-shot oiling circuit so they are regularly lubricated vs. what I have read about (some?) BPs that rely on splash/drip coming off of other parts (if I read correctly).

Making the adjustments is on the to do list but not at the top. The rest of the story? I got zinged a few days ago, my S.O. is a sharp one, she recently pointed out that I seem to be using the mill to make things to go with the mill and not other projects LOL! She encourages my play but sometimes those little zingers pop out! :oops:

At least I fixed the ice maker yesterday. :D

D:cool:

Ya, I didn't know that. Dipsticks!

I'd guess your screws are not worn at all and it's all in the nuts.

If I had that problem making a special wrench for that, it might not happen. At least yours are on your to do list.

If my CFO ever figured that out they might be adding Yeti's to the critically endangered list.
 

Tecnico

(Dave)
Endangered Yeti, LOL!

Dipsticks? Maybe for not making a piece by piece copy of a BP but on the other hand from what I've seen in BP documents the LC way might be better except for the tool. In the small details it generally looks like they kept the interface/form factor of the BP but made small common sense mods for their production. There are quirks in there, the M6 R8 key is one. I was expecting to find the same oddball BP set screw pair but the First/LC parts are common off the shelf parts except they're metric. The socket head cap screws holding the rear chip protector mat on the column are 1/4-20 but the head hex is metric - seriously! I've learned to not assume what I'm going to find for fasteners when I put a wrench on this thing! I'd still rather deal with the mix of metric and imperial in this machine than the unobtainum BSF/Whitworth fasteners in my Brit. Myford lathe!

Anyhow, you can probably buy a tool from Sharp, (they supply one with each new mill) don't know the price nor have I seen anything but a line drawing so I can't really say how good the tool is but it doesn't look convincing to me so with all that I'll go ahead and make my own version.

I'm not too worried about the teasing mill zingers, if it's going to be anything like the lathe there is going to be a steady stream of "I fixed that/made that using the mill". It looks good when it's a Christmas present or fixing something around the house or a McGuyvered special tool for fixing her car! It's all in good sport.:)

D:cool:
 

Susquatch

Ultra Member
Moderator
Premium Member
Endangered Yeti, LOL!

Dipsticks? Maybe for not making a piece by piece copy of a BP but on the other hand from what I've seen in BP documents the LC way might be better except for the tool. In the small details it generally looks like they kept the interface/form factor of the BP but made small common sense mods for their production. There are quirks in there, the M6 R8 key is one. I was expecting to find the same oddball BP set screw pair but the First/LC parts are common off the shelf parts except they're metric. The socket head cap screws holding the rear chip protector mat on the column are 1/4-20 but the head hex is metric - seriously! I've learned to not assume what I'm going to find for fasteners when I put a wrench on this thing! I'd still rather deal with the mix of metric and imperial in this machine than the unobtainum BSF/Whitworth fasteners in my Brit. Myford lathe!

Anyhow, you can probably buy a tool from Sharp, (they supply one with each new mill) don't know the price nor have I seen anything but a line drawing so I can't really say how good the tool is but it doesn't look convincing to me so with all that I'll go ahead and make my own version.

I'm not too worried about the teasing mill zingers, if it's going to be anything like the lathe there is going to be a steady stream of "I fixed that/made that using the mill". It looks good when it's a Christmas present or fixing something around the house or a McGuyvered special tool for fixing her car! It's all in good sport.:)

D:cool:

I have no delusions about how much better the First is. It's an awesome machine.

I was just expressing my frustration at the need for any special tools in any machine!

I spent a career in the auto industry. Hence the term dipstick! Nothing used to irritate me more than all the special tools the auto companies made their dealers buy. How is the average mechanic supposed to afford all that? And how about the car owner? Make the parts so they are easily serviced for Pete sake!

Anyway, I think you have an absolutely awesome machine. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
 

Tecnico

(Dave)
I have no delusions about how much better the First is. It's an awesome machine.

I was just expressing my frustration at the need for any special tools in any machine!

I spent a career in the auto industry. Hence the term dipstick! Nothing used to irritate me more than all the special tools the auto companies made their dealers buy. How is the average mechanic supposed to afford all that? And how about the car owner? Make the parts so they are easily serviced for Pete sake!

Anyway, I think you have an absolutely awesome machine. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.
@Susquatch No worries, I didn't interpret your comments to mean that the machine was not as good, it was more that the maker would go and change things so it was different from the machine that they were copying and making service/parts supply different from the original. That said, if they were going to change it IMHO they didn't do badly on some of the details. The imperial fastener with metric hex drive is odd though!

I agree 100% on the "special tools" and serviceability of some cars, what were they thinking? Not the consumer. I sat in a meeting where electro-mechanical integration was being discussed and the push was to integrate the engine ECU in a non-servicable assembly with the throttle body - because it lowered the initial cost of manufacture. I inquired about the service scenario when the throttle body (servo/shaft/pot etc.) failed/wore out and the answer was that it would be covered during warranty and after that was out of scope = customer pays. I understand the thought process but in my mind leaving a serviceability path available will pay dividends.

I think that's why I enjoy fixing things that have been built to cost/throw away vs. quality like the two LCD monitors I'm using with my desktop, it's kind of like thumbing my nose at the bean counters. They were about to be recycled when I scooped them up and for less than $10.00 investment (failed capacitors) they're good as new. It just rubs me the wrong way to see the waste of throwing things away vs repair but that's not today's economy/culture.

D:cool:
 

Dabbler

Ultra Member
@technico I sorta see why the 1/4-20 with a metric head. On any machine you try to minimize the tool numbers for a variety of reasons. I've gone to the trouble to modify fasteners and make new ones just to reduce the tool set by one. [edit] The metric head prolly matched other fasteners on the lathe...

The nonsense is the thread: perhaps it was to blindly copy the holes of the original, and they just kept doing it that way. I dunno.
 
Last edited:

Tecnico

(Dave)
@technico I sorta see why the 1/4-20 with a metric head. On any machine you try to minimize the tool numbers for a variety of reasons. I've gone to the trouble to modify fasteners and make new ones just to reduce the tool set by one. [edit] The metric head prolly matched other fasteners on the lathe...

The nonsense is the thread: perhaps it was to blindly copy the holes of the original, and they just kept doing it that way. I dunno.
I get what you mean about minimizing interface tools, the flip side is that the 1/4-20/metric hex breaks the rules about non-standard fasteners when it's just not needed. I can argue the 1/4-20 makes sense because it's the same as a BP and that's what a maintainer would expect to find on a cloned BP. Less chance of messing up the threads by trying a metric in the hole by mistake.

I'm not complaining, I replaced them with longer STD 1/4-20 SHCS to enable me to add a lamp bracket held by the same fasteners. I would have left them if I wasn't adding the bracket. I did change out the smaller M2.5s that hold the rubber sheet in the support strips with #4-40 though since I had those on hand in a longer length and not the metrics plus it makes everything on that end all imperial.

D:cool:
 
Top