-
Welcome back Guest! Did you know you can mentor other members here at H-M? If not, please check out our Relaunch of Hobby Machinist Mentoring Program!
Who needs more spindle bore?
- Thread starter MontanaLon
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2016
- Messages
- 1,953
You could have Youtube bragging rights for the largest. Then Abom will start a search for a bigger one.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2017
- Messages
- 2,138
I think the question should be "Who doesn't"?
.
.
Comparing the tube video to the lathe the opening in headstock looks to be where the motor bolts up too. And the tailstock probably got removed because of the weight looks bigger than the carriage. Think it’s odd that carriage is cantalivered off one way not both. Tailstock uses both.
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2019
- Messages
- 708
Or watch the neighborhood spin and the lights dim on the power meter.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2017
- Messages
- 2,138
Having worked (electrical) around shipyards and large steel mills, I don't feel intimidated by such a machine. To a hobbyist or job-shop machine operator, such a machine is enormous. But to make a propellor shaft for a aircraft carrier or battleship, it would be too small. Maybe for a cruiser or a tin can destroyer.
I happen to be knowledgable (somewhat) of ships. There is other large equipment in the world. Someone commented about oil field work. Then there are railroad locomotive engines. A 645 is not the largest that GM builds. 20 cylinders, 645 cu inches, per cylinder. The crankshaft for such an engine cannot be machined on a small (3 ft swing) machine. The limiting factor for railroad engines is the loading guage for railroads. And those are, by far, not the largest engines built. Marine engines outstrip them by as much as double and more. Then there are the "super-tankers" with one screw. What about them? Or cruise ships?
Then there's the roll shop for a rolling mill. They aren't that big swing, maybe 4 or 5 feet. But the length of the ways is enormous. Very often we are aware of such machines but without context to compare them to, don't realize the physical mass of such machines. Only when we walk up next to such a machine do we realize how big it actually is.
To have a machine with a bore big enough to hold my entire shop is almost beyond my comprehension. And I have seen such machines up close. All that can be done is to joke about having such a machine in the basement. I'd like a basement big enough to hold one. Never mind having such a machine.
.
I happen to be knowledgable (somewhat) of ships. There is other large equipment in the world. Someone commented about oil field work. Then there are railroad locomotive engines. A 645 is not the largest that GM builds. 20 cylinders, 645 cu inches, per cylinder. The crankshaft for such an engine cannot be machined on a small (3 ft swing) machine. The limiting factor for railroad engines is the loading guage for railroads. And those are, by far, not the largest engines built. Marine engines outstrip them by as much as double and more. Then there are the "super-tankers" with one screw. What about them? Or cruise ships?
Then there's the roll shop for a rolling mill. They aren't that big swing, maybe 4 or 5 feet. But the length of the ways is enormous. Very often we are aware of such machines but without context to compare them to, don't realize the physical mass of such machines. Only when we walk up next to such a machine do we realize how big it actually is.
To have a machine with a bore big enough to hold my entire shop is almost beyond my comprehension. And I have seen such machines up close. All that can be done is to joke about having such a machine in the basement. I'd like a basement big enough to hold one. Never mind having such a machine.
.
