# A Project Quest



## Bill Gruby

That's correct, a quest, not a request.

 Mark F and myself have decided to do a project together. What we wish to do will be announced at a later date.

 Here is the quest, we are looking for some who can Plasma Cut parts for us. The largest part will come from sheet steel measuring 24x24 inches and .250 thick. Three parts are what we need. If this person is you contact me via PM.

 We will try to accomplish this project without outsourcing any where but on this Forum. Only the metal itself will have to come from outside.

 If there are any other  skills you think we might be able to utilize PM Mark or myself.

 "Billy G and Mark F"


----------



## f350ca

I'd be glad to help you out Bill, but cross border shipping will be a killer. If no one closer steps up let me know.

Greg


----------



## Mark_f

For me , it is an honor to do this project with Bill Gruby. I believe it will be a  great learning experience and hope everyone on this forum will join us in this adventure. I know many will find it interesting and hopefully everyone will gain some knowledge along the way.


----------



## Bill Gruby

f350ca said:


> I'd be glad to help you out Bill, but cross border shipping will be a killer. If no one closer steps up let me know.
> 
> Greg



 Thank you Greg. Mark and I have two choices in this, Plasma Cut or Water Cut. We will keep you in mind on the Plasma Cutting. As was said in the first post, we would like to keep all the work outsourcing kept on this Forum.

 Mark, the honor is mine, together we have over 90 years experience. I have 46 alone. This promises to be more than an adventure, It's a journey. I wouldn't have it any other way.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Bill Gruby

Go back to the year 2006, HSM magazine ran a build for a surface grinder for 3 issues . It started with May/June. Well folks it was a splendid piece of work but lacked a few fineries. One gent over at PM asked about building one and was tared and featherd and run out of Dodge on a rail. The mob over there really beat him up. Now it's time to show the X-SPURTS over there what real machinists can do.

I asked Mark a week or so ago if he wouldn't mind collaborating with me on this one.

Stand by people I have the redesign almost done. I will get the magazine prints and text to Mark this week. I will build a mock  of the new design from my prints and if all is as it should be Mark will get the redesign in a week after that.

The new design is bigger and in my opinion easier to build.

"Billy G and Mark"


----------



## kvt

This does sound like it will be a fun build to keep track of.


----------



## David S

At first blush I thought "neat mystery project".

After some reflection it sank in that here are two experienced machinists that, I don't think are geographically close, are bonding to take on a project that I am sure will be a great learning experience for all of us.

And somehow this re-enforced the inclusive mission of this site.  I just wish that with my limited experience I could be a part of the project.  To learn and more important to bond and make new friends.

Looking forward to it.

David


----------



## Mark_f

David S said:


> At first blush I thought "neat mystery project".
> 
> After some reflection it sank in that here are two experienced machinists that, I don't think are geographically close, are bonding to take on a project that I am sure will be a great learning experience for all of us.
> 
> And somehow this re-enforced the inclusive mission of this site.  I just wish that with my limited experience I could be a part of the project.  To learn and more important to bond and make new friends.
> 
> Looking forward to it.
> 
> David


Bill and I are about nine hours drive from each other. USPS will be our friend. I did not even hesitate to jump on this project when Bill called and asked me about it. I think it will be a great learning experience for EVERYONE and hope everyone regardless of experience will get involved somehow even if just to share an idea. One of you out there may see something Bill and I don't and we want your feedback and opinions. One of you out there may have a talent we need.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Mark and I live 450 miles from each other. With your post, David, you already are a part of it.

"Billy G"


----------



## rwm

Really neat idea guys. Watching with interest. I have always wondered about surface grinders since I have never owned or used one. What are they primarily used for? For what specific applications would I need one in my home shop? Let me know if you need a 15 amp ON/Of switch 
R


----------



## Billh50

Had to look up where Mark lives cause I go out to Marienville, PA evey 4th of July weekend for a pig roast. And that is 420 miles from me.


----------



## Bill Gruby

A surface grinder will find you grinding tools  precision dimension grinding, surface finish grinding,  grinding heat treated material without annealing,  and any number of things . It will become a go to tool in a hurry.

 "Billy G and Mark"


----------



## CraigB1960

Very interested in this.  A surface grinder is slanted to be my next purchase...but now.....I'm watching with eager anticipation!


----------



## brav65

I am excited to see what you guys build!  I am going to have to ignore this thread for a while as the suspense is killing me!  That way I can sit down and read through the thread top to bottom at one time.  Looking forward to it guys!


----------



## Bill Gruby

All members are welcomed to participate in this. All comments are welcomed, especially those that see what we don't.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Bill Gruby

Sorry Ralph, wish I could. The material in HSM is protected by copyright. The last thing in the world I want tro do is to start a rucus with them. In a few more days I should be able to let you see the new design.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Hawkeye

This will be interesting for sure. I was toying with the idea of converting my poor X2 CNC mill to a (very) small surface grinder. But, in the last couple of weeks, I realized that I would be able to restore and re-motor the little guy as a more powerful version of its former self.

It may be that I can adapt your design to something that will fit in my shop. Definitely watching.


----------



## Billh50

Mark,
I know I looked it up on mapquest. PLace I go is right off the main road in the center of Marienville. We usually ride the bikes in on Thursday and leave for home Sunday. This year I will be trucking my bike in because we have an evening wedding on Thursday and will be driving into Marienville at night. I will ride back with the guys and my wife will follow in the truck.


----------



## Bill Gruby

For now all posts are OK. Come Friday I will cull those that do not pertain to the build. It will then be moved to "Your Moderators at Work", and the build will begin Monday with the wooden mock-up to see parts fit-up. We will discuss each part at that time and why it was changed or added. All ideas for improvement will be acknowledged. None will go unanswered.

 "Billy G and Mark"


----------



## Bill Gruby

The motor for this project has to just be the right one. Right Diameter, Right shaft diameter, Right Rotation, etc.. Thanks to Jake Parker aka "jjfabricator' we have them. Thank you so much Jake. You saved us mucho looking.

 "Billy G and Mark"


----------



## Bartonius

I would be glad to help out with Plasma Cutting I am in Ohio about 50 miles from Mercer PA.  I have only Manual Plasma capability no CNC.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Bartonius said:


> I would be glad to help out with Plasma Cutting I am in Ohio about 50 miles from Mercer PA.  I have only Manual Plasma capability no CNC.




We have questions, Mark will be contacting you via PM.

Side note --Chuck size has changed from 4" X 7" to 5" X 10". The small addition will make a world of difference.

We will also be using a 8" wheel instead of the 6".

"Billy G and Mark"


----------



## Bill Gruby

Original article is on its way Mare. Tracking number 9505 5213 0342 6120 0001 38

 Hawkeye, I will be sending you the original article plus the revised design prints as soon as they are done.

 "Billy G"


----------



## atlas ten

I will be reading this thread as it unfolds. Interested in seeing how big it is. Surface grinders are not very common here used or in my budget so I may eventually build one. 
Jack

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Gruby

The whole machine will fit in a cube that measures 34" wide X 24' deep X 24" high. Motor to be 1HP - 3450 RPM Clockwise rotation. 7" Diameter Wheel.

 "Billy G and Mark"


----------



## Billh50

Sounds interesting. Will be watching unless there is something that I can do to help.


----------



## Bill Gruby

I will need your expertise on the CAD Prints Bill. That is if you are available and feel up to it. I will call this weekend.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Billh50

I can do that. I can also make a 3D model of anything if you need it.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Thank you Bill.

 "Billy G and Mark"


----------



## Hawkeye

That sounds like the perfect size for the home shop. This is getting exciting.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Ordered  a 5 X 10 Mag chuck yesterday with Mag Parallels and Mag Vee Blocks. Should be heer this week.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Mark_f

I ordered the same chuck.  It should arrive this coming week.


----------



## rwm

mark_f said:


> I ordered the same chuck.  It should arrive this coming week.


I assume you are building two machines simultaneously? Will there be any variation?
Robert


----------



## Bill Gruby

No variations at this point, both machines will be identical. There will be many changes from the original built in 2006. That design was good, but not good enough.

"Billy G and Mark"


----------



## ome

This build is amazing to me. 
Thank God I am a member, and I came by in time. 
I have missed out on previous projects, but this one, I will be right on.
Bill, I have a Sanford, I believe, which is hobbyist size.  Please let me know if you would like any tech info on it.  Quality made , but could use improvement, I am sure. 
I am sure u know of it.   I absolutely love it, and it does easily become your "go to" machine. 
I believe DavidS summed it up,
"And somehow this re-enforced the inclusive mission of this site. I just wish that with my limited experience I could be a part of the project. To learn and more important to bond and make new friends". 
As I too am a beginner, but have a keen eye and an obsessive mind that will never settle for mediocrity. 
The idea of two experienced machinists improving on a machine build, is very exciting. 
Bravo!!!
ome


----------



## Bill Gruby

Hello "ome"

 Does the "Sanford" have power feed on the table? If so I am extremely interested in seeing it.


Billy G"


----------



## Bill Gruby

I can draw anywhere, all I need is a 18" scale and a pencil. ROTFLMBO

 "Billy G"


----------



## ome

Bill Gruby said:


> Hello "ome"
> 
> Does the "Sanford" have power feed on the table? If so I am extremely interested in seeing it.
> 
> 
> Billy G"


Hi Bill,
No power feed, all manual. 
Please call me "Jon" , ome is the sound I hear all the time, lately , a bit loud. 
The only Sanskrit word some people know. 
Talk to you soon,
10am till ?  
Jon


----------



## Bill Gruby

I usually hit the sack at 9:00 PM.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Mark_f

Bill Gruby said:


> We have questions, Mark will be contacting you via PM.
> 
> Side note --Chuck size has changed from 4" X 7" to 5" X 10". The small addition will make a world of difference.
> 
> We will also be using a 8" wheel instead of the 6".
> 
> "Billy G and Mark"


Bill,
I don't know if you saw them, but Wholesale Tool Co. has surface  grinding wheels in 7" and 8" with a 1 1/4" hole for  a decent price. They are 1/2" wide.


----------



## Terrywerm

I've been following this one so far, and plan to do so through completion. This should be good!


----------



## Mark_f

Bill,
I got the article from HSM today. It looks interesting but I can see why you want to make some changes and improvements. I looked them over , but will study them more the next couple days.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Interesting, yes, Improvements, absolutely. When you read it all the bad points will jump fight out at you. LOL  The concept is a valid one, it just falls too short in quite a few places. The biggest design flaw is it's size. A 4X7 chuck doesn't cut it in my book.  The change to 5X10 chuck will triple its usage.

"Billy G"


----------



## Bill Gruby

Magnetic Chuck is here with the parallels and Vee Blocks. Just beautiful. Yes this is Billy G, something is amiss with my regular account. I had to get a new computer as the hard drive went this morning along with the MB. Once all that goes it is too expensive to rebuild.
 "Billy G"


----------



## Bill Gruby

All set now.

 "Billy G"


----------



## JimDawson

I had a chance to look over the original article.  At first glance, as you said, there are a few things that jump out that could be done differently/made better. 

The linear bearing rails don't seem the be the best system for a surface grinder.  The grit has a good chance of getting into the bearings and destroying them in short order.  Ball bearing V-rails would be a better choice IMHO.  Easy to clean, and allows the table to be lifted off for maintenance.

The main frame seems a bit light at 0.250 thick.  0.750 thick would be my choice, but I tend to overbuild (and I have forklifts) 

The table ''drive'' system seems to be a bit lacking, a more conventional system might work better.  A rack & pinion or a timing belt drive might be a better choice.

Powering the table was mentioned above, I would use a stepper motor and a cheap pulse generator to run it.  Provide a quick disconnect for the motor for manual use.  I designed a zero lash quick disconnect for a stepper that works very well.  I'll pass that along if you want to go that route.

I'll have more once I have had a chance to study the drawings for a bit.  Time to go make chips now.
.
.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Hi Jim:

 Still working on the Table system. Jury is still out. I like the V-Way. Table movement at this point is to be rack and pinion, 10 pitch

 Metal will be A36 1/2 inch thick.

 I would like to hear more on the power feed if you can spare the tine.

  "Billy G"


----------



## Bill Gruby

OK update for all -- Rack and pinion is here. Mag Chuck is here. Waiting on the motors but that will take a little more time. That is Marks' job. I know very little in that area.. Steel has been ordered. The steel is the biggest expense so far. We will not be cutting any corners on this project.

"Billy G and Mark"

 As soon as we get the camera set up in the new computer, pictures will follow.


----------



## JimDawson

The reason I suggest a stepper motor is that they are easy to set up and cheap, with lot's of low speed torque.  One of the problems with home brew power feeds is the start and stop at the end of travel.  If the motor is instantly reversed at the end of travel things get ugly in a hurry.  You want the table to decelerate smoothly to a stop before reversing direction and accelerating smoothly to speed again.

This is the ideal motion profile where the table reaches the set speed just before the wheel touches the work and starts the decel just after the wheel clears the work.


The Constant Velocity distance is set with table stops that hit a limit switch(s) 

I will play with the stepper pulse generator (about $10 from ebay) that I have here to see if I can get the motion profile to work correctly.  Right now it's pretty much on or off.  If that fails, there are other options I can look at.

It would be possible to accomplish this with a DC motor by simply turning it off, allowing it to coast to a stop, before reversing direction.  But there is still the issue of acceleration, so some provision would have to be provided for controlled acceleration.  Many DC controllers have this provision.

Here are a couple of pictures of the zero lash quick disconnect that I designed for a drive system.  This was designed so the machine operator could change out the plastic drum for different products very easily.  But it is also adaptable for many drive systems.




The drive consists of five 3/16 dowel pins that engage with the five reamed holes in the UHMW drum.  Due to the springiness of the UHMW, the reamed holes are slightly undersize but allow easy insertion of the dowel pins.  The motor mount slides on a dovetail that is tightened with the two thumb nuts below.



If the UHMW socket was anchored to the table drive shaft, it would drive it just fine.  The torque is not an issue, I built something like this many years ago that was 4 inch diameter and an inch thick out of UHMW for my boat drive shaft.  It transmitted 300 HP for years with no problem.
.
.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Thank you Jim, keep us posted and I will also work on it here.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Andre

For some reason I haven't been following this, till I saw the project was a surface grinder. Will it be benchtop or floor standing? May I ask why the 8" wheel was chosen over a 6" or 7"? A lot of Bridgeport brand grinders used a large wheel to work envelope ratio.

Very interested in what kind of spindle you guys are going to build.


----------



## rwm

Jet Skis use something similar. I assume the main reason for this is to compensate for any minor misalignment between the drive motor and the table feed?
Robert


----------



## JimDawson

rwm said:


> Jet Skis use something similar. I assume the main reason for this is to compensate for any minor misalignment between the drive motor and the table feed?
> Robert



Yes and no.  While it does compensate for minor misalignment, the primary reason for this design is to provide a zero lash, mechanical quick disconnect for manual operation.  If the motor was connected by a normal spring type coupling, you would have to loosen the grub screws and slide the coupling off of the shaft.  In the case of a surface grinder table drive, a standard Lovejoy coupling would work, but they are not zero lash.  This same design would work in applications requiring zero lash.  And besides, we are hobby machinists so why buy it when you can build it?


----------



## Bill Gruby

Andre, it will be large enough to be either a Bench top or Free standing Andre. As for the wheel size, it's a personal choice on the part of both builders. No special reason other than that.

 "Billy G and Mark"


----------



## Bill Gruby

Robert, misalignment is out of the question. The bottom line is, we are hoping to build a Precision Grinding  Machine.  It won't be state of the art but it will be damn close. LOL

"Billy G"


----------



## Tony Wells

Having trouble seeing the need for a zero/low lash coupling on the table drive. There won't be any cases where the table will need to stop in a precise location that I can think of. Normally, the table runs out from under the wheel some small but arbitrary position before reversing direction. 

And Bill, are you saying you are using a rack and pinion for the main table drive? I've thought about that on a few projects, but mentally can't get past the upward force by the engagement angle of the teeth. Unless the table is possibly constrained somehow or is just plain heavy enough to negate this effect. I've been under the impression that this is one reason that many of the smaller grinders use a belt drive there. No criticism intended, just sort of thinking out loud.


----------



## Bill Gruby

The Mag Chuck alone is close to 50 lbs. The rack at a 10 pitch 14.5 Pressure angle. This should be optimum  and have no problem staying on the pinion. The pinion will have 20 teeth.  At this point Tony, I believe we are OK, but that's not written in stone till I mock it up next week.

In the case for the rack lifting, you could install the rack with the teeth pointing up and the pinion on top. Pressure would then hold the table down.

Most all Surface Grinders have a rack and pinion for manual movement.

"Billy G"


----------



## Andre

An advantage to rack and pinion drive over tape, cable, or belt drives is the ability to lift the table off the machine. With other drives it can be a bugger to remove the table, and when replacing you have to make sure it's tensioned correctly. I imagine a rack and pinion would be a lot simpler to manufacture as well. It's what I plan to use on my shaper project, with a further gear reduction.


----------



## Mark_f

I checked my tracking number and my mag chuck should arrive on Monday.

Bill, Are we still going with the linear bearings on the table or undecided.

I kind of liked the idea of the rack on the bottom as I wondered about pressure up lifting slightly. Even as heavy as the table is with the chuck on it, I would think we would want to avoid the possibility of lifting at all. The linear bearings would be fine as long as they are covered well. The original design only covered the rear to protect them because the wheel rotation throws most trash out the back, but I would think they should have protection on both ends. In the original design he should have made that handle bracket a cover also.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Hold off on the Linear Bearings Mark. I am thinking about V-Ways and Turcite B. I will know by mid week. I want to see how Turcite B works under that much weight.  I'll call you tomorrow.

"Bill"


----------



## Billh50

Billy,
Will this help?


----------



## Bill Gruby

Thank you Bill. The chart will help. I saw it once and was going to look for it today. You saved me that chore.

 "Bill"


----------



## Billh50

Here it is in pdf also. just in case it is hard to read as a pic.


----------



## Billh50

You might also want to look at Rulon 142 also. From what I have read on the internet in several places they are basically the same as for uses.


----------



## JimDawson

Tony Wells said:


> Having trouble seeing the need for a zero/low lash coupling on the table drive. There won't be any cases where the table will need to stop in a precise location that I can think of. Normally, the table runs out from under the wheel some small but arbitrary position before reversing direction.
> 
> And Bill, are you saying you are using a rack and pinion for the main table drive? I've thought about that on a few projects, but mentally can't get past the upward force by the engagement angle of the teeth. Unless the table is possibly constrained somehow or is just plain heavy enough to negate this effect. I've been under the impression that this is one reason that many of the smaller grinders use a belt drive there. No criticism intended, just sort of thinking out loud.




Tony your are correct.  There is no need for a zero lash coupling on the table drive.  The primary reason I suggested the coupling I designed is for the quick disconnect functionality, zero lash is just a bonus in this case.

Years ago I spent (too) many hours cranking a 612 Boyar-Schultz that had a rack & pinion table drive.  And yes, if you got a little too aggressive with the hand crank, it was possible to lift the table with the rack & pinion.
.
.


----------



## Bill Gruby

To take some of the ability to get too aggressive in cranking I am proposing a spider type handle instead of a crank. It is my belief that using a spider will give you a smoother manual table movement using less torque. The decrease in power needed to manually move the table should keep the rack from lifting. Am I on the right track here.

 "Billy G"


----------



## JimDawson

I'm not exactly sure what you mean Bill.  The larger the crank, the more torque you are able to apply to the pinion.  The faster you accelerate the table, even by hand, the chances of lifting the table increase.  But it only takes a couple of minutes to learn how to crank any surface grinder and operate it smoothly.  The motion profile I posted above applies to hand cranked as well as motor powered.

One thing you need to consider is the motion that your arm will make when operating, you need to keep the motion in a comfortable range or you will wear yourself out in short order.


----------



## Bill Gruby

If you use a spider wit say four legs 12 inches long it will take less torque on the operators part to get the table moving. This less torque does translate to more torque at the rack but at the same time less to create more in our case is better in my opinion. Feel free to jump on this everyone. So far this is only a thought and can be easily changed to something better.

"Bill"


----------



## Mark_f

I believe you are on the right track bill. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if we go with the linear bearings, even though they have an opening on the bottom, aren't they still captured on the rod and this will keep the table from lifting as easy or any at all?


----------



## JimDawson

I have seen surface grinders with a crank as you describe, but I have never used one.  I think they were more production machines rather than tool room machines.  I suspect the gear ratio from the crank to table was pretty high so you could get a long stroke with minimum arm movement.  Just a guess.  I have also seen surface grinders with a lever to move the table.

Here is a picture of the type of ball bearing V-rail I spoke of earlier.


----------



## Mark_f

I believe the spider would be better than a hand wheel as I have seen on commercial grinders


----------



## Billh50

I would think that if the table has sufficient over travel the lifting would settle back down before getting to the part for grinding.


----------



## Bill Gruby

The Spider idea came from Grizzly. That price is without the Mag Chuck, add another $765, ouch. Jim, I need a link to those bearings please.

FYI --- 1 full turn of the pinion will move the rack 7.500 inches.

http://www.grizzly.com/products/6-x-12-Surface-Grinder-w-Stand/G5963

"Bill"


----------



## JimDawson

Here ya go 

Guide rails...
https://www.zoro.com/linear-guide-rails/c/7511/

Bearings......
https://www.zoro.com/linear-bearing-guide-components/c/7513/

http://www.vxb.com/V-Groove-Bearings-s/235.htm


----------



## Bill Gruby

Thank you.

"Bill"


----------



## 34_40

Not sure how I missed this thread for this long... but I'm here now!

On the table "lifting" from the thrust.  Would it be prudent (simple) to add a rail to each side to cancel out any lift?
I don't believe it would add much (if any) friction or effort as it should only be in contact in a change of direction for a brief moment.
Or I may be completely out of touch.. LOL..


----------



## John Hasler

JimDawson said:


> I have seen surface grinders with a crank as you describe, but I have never used one.  I think they were more production machines rather than tool room machines.  I suspect the gear ratio from the crank to table was pretty high so you could get a long stroke with minimum arm movement.  Just a guess.  I have also seen surface grinders with a lever to move the table.
> 
> Here is a picture of the type of ball bearing V-rail I spoke of earlier.
> 
> View attachment 128557


I can't see any way that any system involving axles and wheels is not going to be less precise than scraped v-ways.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Welcome all to the dark world of machine design.  This is why I invited the entire membership to this project.  Every opinion no matter how slight is helping. You are all helping to eliminate trial and error on the part of Mark and myself.  Thank you.

 "Bill and Mark"


----------



## John Hasler

34_40 said:


> Not sure how I missed this thread for this long... but I'm here now!
> 
> On the table "lifting" from the thrust.  Would it be prudent (simple) to add a rail to each side to cancel out any lift?
> I don't believe it would add much (if any) friction or effort as it should only be in contact in a change of direction for a brief moment.
> Or I may be completely out of touch.. LOL..


Problem is that your rail won't come into contact until the table has already lifted, even if only by a tenth.

It should be possible to design a rack and pinion system such that no lifting force occurs.  The price for that might be increased backlash, but that matters little here.  Perhaps use a roller-tooth pinion and only allow the rollers to contact the vertical parts of the rack teeth, or maybe just profile the teeth of both the rack and the pinion weirdly.


----------



## Bill Gruby

As Mark has already expressed. the use of open linear bearings and shafts will eliminate all but a very small amount of lift if it were to occur because the table is captured. I'm still not convinced this is our only option though.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Tony Wells

At the expense of added complexity, and hence cost.....

What about changing the orientation of the rack to a vertical primary axis? If there were a few tenths of side shift, the overall effect of machine accuracy would be less, since it is primary the vertical movement of the table, or "lift" as we are calling it would practically disappear. Then a spring loaded way of some sort, be it a vee way or some sort of linear bearing would nearly eliminate lift.

Just tossing it out there because it doesn't belong in the box.


----------



## Rick Leslie

I've followed both your guys' projects for a while and all have amazed me. The two of you collaborating on a project is awesome! I can't wait to see what you come up with.

Time for a question from the 'slow' group. Why not go with ball screws or a precision lead screw for the table drive? I'm sure it will make sense to me when explained (slowly) but I don't see it on my own.


----------



## John Hasler

Tony Wells said:


> At the expense of added complexity, and hence cost.....
> 
> What about changing the orientation of the rack to a vertical primary axis? If there were a few tenths of side shift, the overall effect of machine accuracy would be less, since it is primary the vertical movement of the table, or "lift" as we are calling it would practically disappear. Then a spring loaded way of some sort, be it a vee way or some sort of linear bearing would nearly eliminate lift.
> 
> Just tossing it out there because it doesn't belong in the box.


Good idea.  It would require gearing, though.

My second suggestion would require making the rack and pinion, but would require no additional parts.  Just make the rack with straight-sided teeth, profile the pinion teeth to minimize lift, and allow some backlash.  If engagement is limited to the vertical faces of the rack teeth lift will be minimal.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Food for thought Tony. Always welcomed.

Valid point Rick. I need to think on that for a bit. Anyone else care to take a shot at Ricks' question?

 "Billy G"


----------



## Andre

I think the handle spider on Grizzly machines is done purely for cost considerations. 

Why not design a rack so it operates upside down? And use a second gear to correct for the backwards table feed.


----------



## Tony Wells

All right, how about this: Put the pinion _on top_ of the rack so if anything, it would add to the desired downforce? Again, more complex and probably expense. Plus redesigning the table to allow for additional length of the rack....etc.

Still thinking......



edit: good thought Andre


----------



## Andre




----------



## John Hasler

Tony Wells said:


> All right, how about this: Put the pinion _on top_ of the rack so if anything, it would add to the desired downforce? Again, more complex and probably expense. Plus redesigning the table to allow for additional length of the rack....etc.
> 
> Still thinking......
> 
> 
> 
> edit: good thought Andre


I thought that being able to lift the table off was a requirement.


----------



## Reuben Bailey

John Hasler said:


> I thought that being able to lift the table off was a requirement.


I would think that a way to either run the table "off the end" would be pretty easy to make, or else a way to disengage the pinion by sliding it "out" would be possible. A single bolt holding a stop in place to keep the table from being run to far by mistake for safety on the first idea. A retaining clip that is easily accessible to keep the pinion shaft from working itself out inadvertently for the second...


----------



## Tony Wells

I don't know about an actual requirement..........that's on the designers, lol..............but yes, it would sacrifice that. Personally I have not had many pressing needs to remove a SG table, and the work required that prompted the need far outweighed the inconvenience of stripping cables or whatever drive.

But, if that were a design requirement in this case, then some consideration might be made to make the driven section integral with the table and the drive easily removable in the case of table removal.


----------



## Bill Gruby

By the time everything is on the table we easily gone over 50 lbs.  Is the lift out really going to be that much of a problem? Just thinking out loud. LOL

 "Bill"


----------



## Tony Wells

In reality, probably not, Bill. But part of this project is to stimulate thinking and get people involved at least vicariously. I'm just throwing out what is going through my mind to hopefully encourage learning about the design process. Even on what may appear to be a simple mechanism such as a table that moves back and forth, once you start putting in place the theoretical desires vs practicality limits....the wheels start turning. At least I hope so. That's one thing I will enjoy on this thread. Of course, at some point, there will be less and less room for outside changes and things will bound by previous design decisions. But until then, I like the community concept of this project and seeing as many as possible put in their thoughts.

And to all you who think you aren't "good enough" or don't "know enough" I say "Hogwash!".  This is your rare opportunity to engage in some work that isn't often even available to you. Talk openly about your ideas. Ask"dumb" questions. How else can you grow? Take advantage of this, please.

*To Rick*, on the ballscrews. I'll tackle my own answer in another thread in more depth, perhaps, but offhand my decision would be against it based on overkill, the need for right angle gearing to be incorporated, same issue on easy table lift off, and expense.  My hands aren't working all that good right now due to an inflammation of my ulnar nerve where it passes through the cubital tunnel, plus my laptop keyboard (part of the cause of the nerve problem I suspect) is getting to be hit or miss on characters, requiring lots of re-typing. And I can't type in the first place.  I am taking meds for it, so if/when that helps, I will go into a verbose (bad habit of mine), long winded explanation. Meanwhile, hopefully someone else will also tackle your question. I'm glad you asked it.


----------



## John Hasler

Tony Wells said:


> I don't know about an actual requirement..........that's on the designers, lol..............but yes, it would sacrifice that. Personally I have not had many pressing needs to remove a SG table, and the work required that prompted the need far outweighed the inconvenience of stripping cables or whatever drive.
> 
> But, if that were a design requirement in this case, then some consideration might be made to make the driven section integral with the table and the drive easily removable in the case of table removal.


You could confine the rack with a guideway and have the table engage it via pins.  The pins could attached to either the table or the rack.


----------



## JimDawson

The only time I have seen the table lift is when aggressively reversing direction at the end of travel.  I think it's really not something to worry about.

Ball screws are great for accurate linear positioning, but as a reversing and relatively high speed drive system I think it would be a bit of a problem on a hand cranked machine.  Then there is the problem of keeping the grit out of the works, surface grinders are messy machines


----------



## Mark_f

Many of these ideas are good , some great,but we have to consider one other thing. We can't get to complicated on this because it not only increases cost considably, but over complicated systems pose a challenge to build. We need the simplest solution that will work the best, WITHOUT sacrificing quality. I am not convinced the lift will be a huge problem. Many surface grinders have a table that just sits on the ways, but they are also MUCH heavier than ours. All that said, I'm going to watch a bit and see what else we come up with. There is a lot of great thinking going on here.


----------



## John Hasler

mark_f said:


> Many of these ideas are good , some great,but we have to consider one other thing. We can't get to complicated on this because it not only increases cost considably, but over complicated systems pose a challenge to build. We need the simplest solution that will work the best, WITHOUT sacrificing quality. I am not convinced the lift will be a huge problem. Many surface grinders have a table that just sits on the ways, but they are also MUCH heavier than ours. All that said, I'm going to watch a bit and see what else we come up with. There is a lot of great thinking going on here.


Another loony idea: a chain drive.  A sprocket at each end of the base, one free-wheeling, the other driven by the crank.  The chain would be stretched around the sprockets with a plate in the middle with a pin to engage the table (or a hole for a pin on the bottom of the table).  The plate would slide on the base or ride just clear of it.    The chain and sprockets are cheap off-the-shelf parts (I'd salvage them from junk).  No lift and no precision work.  Could use toothed belt instead of chain.


----------



## Bill Gruby

I agree with Tony that some of you will miss out on a real opportunity here. As said we will listen to all and respect what they have to say. This is your project as much as it is ours. Every one of you knows something and we want to hear it.

 "Bill and Mark"


----------



## Tony Wells

Mark, nearly all design work is a compromise. At this point, early in the process, the idea is to explore. Once the resources are exhausted, the choice can be made to include or exclude what fits the actual requirements, but not necessarily fits the ideal(s). On this project, the final decision(s) rest with you and Bill. The rest of us are here just to give scent to possible other avenues.

John your idea isn't loony. I thought of it earlier myself. I have used many, many feet of chain in various drive systems. Usually just one way, to sync with conveyor systems for example. Or for elevation of different sections of machinery. It's worth considering here, I believe.


----------



## Mark_f

Tony Wells said:


> Mark, nearly all design work is a compromise. At this point, early in the process, the idea is to explore. Once the resources are exhausted, the choice can be made to include or exclude what fits the actual requirements, but not necessarily fits the ideal(s).


Tony ,
I totally agree with you. None of the ideas are out of the realm of possibility. I want to hear everyone's ideas. Then Bill and I can decide what course we want to take. The advantage to this great thinking pool is we can look at so many ideas and come up with the best solution as opposed to one person trying to think everything out.


----------



## MikeWi

I agree with the idea that all the weight if the table, vise and such will cause lift to be a non-issue, however, here's some ideas.

someone pointed out that a rail would not make contact soon enough.  I immediately think "gib" to myself.
rollers could be used instead of a rail.  Since these are in contact at all times, you should be able to set them for zero lift.
someone has already suggested putting the pinion above the rack.  The only good way to do this that I can see is for the rack to be on the outside edge of the table (pinion stays still right?) this should then take care of lift all on it's own as it will physically be holding the table down. Too much acceleration would try to lift the pinion up and force the table down into it's ways.  If the rack were underneath the edge of the table, you could have lifting issues, but the other way solves that.  
Speaking of that, why does the rack have to be orientated up or down?  Once again place it on the side of the table (in or out) but have the rack facing to the side.  Now any forces from the pinion are directed to the side instead of up or down.  The 90 degree change makes the drive a little more complicated though.


----------



## Billh50

It is hard to think about an improvement without even knowing the original design. The sprocket and chain idea gave me a thought but not sure how hard it would be to implement on the original design and any other changes that have already been decided.


----------



## Bill Gruby

You have a PM Bill.


----------



## Rick Leslie

Thanks for the replies to my question. I knew (but forgot) about the lift off requirement (or 'desire') but I was thinking more along the lines of zero backlash. Ball screws seem to be the most precision drive method. But you're right about SGs being messy and ball screws probably wouldn't be zero tolerance for very long. 

I think someone mentions a guide roller earlier. Maybe this could be put on the back side of the pinion somehow to negate the lift factor. More thinking aloud.


----------



## Bill Gruby

The rack location on any lighter duty Grinders I have seen is located under the table. The rack is on the non-movable part of the table assembly. The pinion on the movable part. Sound familiar? This puts the pinion on top. No lift.  This is the reason you need to lift the table off. We plan to put the rack on the front edge of the moving Mag Chuck. The lift off feature is not that important. This is why Open linear Bearings on round rails  is the preferred set-up at this time. Again, this is not written in stone.

"Bill and Mark"


----------



## Tony Wells

Bill, as I picture that in my mind, the issue is the same. The force generated, however minuscule it may be in reality, is the same no matter which is on top. I see that as the same, except now you are also lifting the spinner, shaft, and pinion along with the support bearings/blocks that the pinion shaft rides in. 

Maybe I'm imagining it wrong, but I can't see the difference in lifting forces with that arrangement. I'm studying on Johns suggestion regarding the exact tooth design to translate most of the force lengthwise and very little upward. I think backlash is immaterial in this application, so that should be used to your advantage if possible. I am beginning to see a sort of dovetail rack with a stem/ball shaped pinion gear so that as soon as it engages, it is actually pulling the table down. The only caveat being the ball must be smaller in diameter than the narrow opening of the dovetail pattern on the rack so the lift off can be effected.................still studying on it. Multiple simultaneous engagement during lift-off is the stopping point for me right now.


----------



## kvt

Ok.   since have no idea on how this was designed, and have not used anything similar to this since about 1977,  have just watched and learn.  But on some of the items I think there is ways to do things.  
1.   The rack and pinion.   One way to keep the lift out of it is to put the rack and pinion under the table and attach the table to the rack with pins.  Build a solid rack and Pinion that way any play is in it, and free from the table,  Use pins that can slide up and down through the ends of the Rack thus not transferring the lift to the table,  yet the table can be easily removed.   It does not have to be pins, it can be some sort of latching systems etc.  as long as it will allow the rack to move any up and down  without transfer to the table.   Almost like was being talked about with the chain drive system. 
My problem with the chain drive system,   is that at the end of the cutting stroke it may let the table go back if there is much slack in the chain.    Thus bumping against the wheel like it was trying to go the wrong direction.   Of course if you have to much play in the rack and pinion system you could have the same problems. but that can be set by tooth depth etc. 
 Just what I am thinking but it may not help as I do not know how the design has the current rack and pinion set up.   My idea may take a bit more work to put in.


----------



## Tony Wells

Hmm, Ken, use socket shoulder screws as pins, once the heads are turned down to below the pin diameter? Thread them into the bottom of the table. I like that. Let the rack float on the pins vertically but be held in place linearly. Might be a little unwieldy removing the table and realigning the pins coming back down, but there may be a slick solution to that too.


----------



## John Hasler

kvt said:


> Ok.   since have no idea on how this was designed, and have not used anything similar to this since about 1977,  have just watched and learn.  But on some of the items I think there is ways to do things.
> 1.   The rack and pinion.   One way to keep the lift out of it is to put the rack and pinion under the table and attach the table to the rack with pins.  Build a solid rack and Pinion that way any play is in it, and free from the table,  Use pins that can slide up and down through the ends of the Rack thus not transferring the lift to the table,  yet the table can be easily removed.   It does not have to be pins, it can be some sort of latching systems etc.  as long as it will allow the rack to move any up and down  without transfer to the table.   Almost like was being talked about with the chain drive system.
> My problem with the chain drive system,   is that at the end of the cutting stroke it may let the table go back if there is much slack in the chain.    Thus bumping against the wheel like it was trying to go the wrong direction.   Of course if you have to much play in the rack and pinion system you could have the same problems. but that can be set by tooth depth etc.
> Just what I am thinking but it may not help as I do not know how the design has the current rack and pinion set up.   My idea may take a bit more work to put in.


There's no reason for there to be any slack in the chain.   Also, as I mentioned, you could use a timing belt rather than a chain: same principle.


----------



## Andre

Has any thought been considered towards cable drive? All you need is a cable mounted at both ends, and the "pinion gear" used on the rack and pinion setup would just be a shaft with a cross hole. No table lift, very simple, and 1/8" braided steel cable has a very high tensile strength and is dirt cheap.


----------



## chips&more

Guys, I have the little Sanford bench top surface grinder with a 4X6 mag chuck. The whole table and chuck maybe weights 30lbs and it is rack and pinion drive and has some backlash. The table does not lift during use. My grinder can hold 0.0002” corner to corner. I would design your grinder with more concern over the grinding swarf getting into moving parts than the table lifting. The manufacture recommends taking the table off every week to clean the bed. I think a linear bearing translation system would be grinding grit problematic. Just my 3cents…Dave.


----------



## John Hasler

Tony Wells said:


> Hmm, Ken, use socket shoulder screws as pins, once the heads are turned down to below the pin diameter? Thread them into the bottom of the table. I like that. Let the rack float on the pins vertically but be held in place linearly. Might be a little unwieldy removing the table and realigning the pins coming back down, but there may be a slick solution to that too.


That's pretty much what I suggested above in #93.  I like the timing belt better, though.


----------



## Mark_f

With the proper covers, I don't necessarily see grit as a problem. I have seen grinders used for years without the need to tear apart and clean, but there were good covers on the table. just my opinion.


----------



## Tony Wells

I have a little floor model Republic that has a belt drive. The small metal (Zamak I suspect) piece that links it to the table has broken from unknown causes. It came to me that way. It's on my "things to be fixed" list. The table runs on plain vee ways, as I recall. Haven't looked at it in a while.


John, you certainly did. I guess it didn't sink in at the time. Apologies.


----------



## uncle harry

Bill Gruby said:


> The Spider idea came from Grizzly. That price is without the Mag Chuck, add another $765, ouch. Jim, I need a link to those bearings please.
> 
> FYI --- 1 full turn of the pinion will move the rack 7.500 inches.
> 
> http://www.grizzly.com/products/6-x-12-Surface-Grinder-w-Stand/G5963
> 
> "Bill"



Another source for guide rails & wheels is Bishop-Wisecarver.  They "google up" readily.


----------



## T Bredehoft

Back on the manual movement, I used to run an Abrasive 1 1/2 grinder, pure manual, it had a large table wheel, somewhere between 18 and 24 inches in diameter. one rev of the wheel was more than the length of the magnet.  If you were grinding something short, you positioned the wheel so that swinging it back and forth, handle at the bottom, a couple of inches would grind your work. So easy to move, When I changed jobs, lost the use of the 1 1/2, and had to hand crank a 6" wheel, it was a LOT of work, relatively speaking. If you can work out a large table wheel, it's almost as easy to grind as watching a motor driven table, and you pay more attention to the work. 
I, too, am watching this project. I don't (yet) need a grinder, but might talk myself into one if this is doable.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Welcome all. My manners are slipping. With Mark and myself included there are 25 members on board. Very impressive. Time to start keeping a log. LOL  Thank you, hope to be able to welcome many more.

"Billy G"


----------



## T Bredehoft

I think in regards to the issue 'lifting upon reverse."  The wheel will be off the work when reversing takes place, the table/magnet/work will not 'float' but will come back down immediately.  Also, backlash/slop is a non starter. It doesn't enter into consideration. The only place it might have an effect is if the head is jerky and the wheel drops unexpectedly after sticking. This can be overcome with a counterweight.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Prints should start to be posted near the end of next week.  We are getting close now.

Mark and I have decided, after looking at all the options, that the simplest for us is the Rack and Pinion. Thank you all for an interesting and enlightening conversation . Please continue the drive discussion if you need more or have more info. There is no set time to finish any discussion. 

 We are now exploring the movement itself. So far there are three options, #1 Plain V-ways, #2 Open linear bearings and 3  V-guide bearings. Any more suggestions out there. Don't be shy now, we will listen to all suggestions. There are many ways to do this and we don't know them all, so jump right in.

"Bill and Mark"


----------



## Andre

What kind of linear bearing rails are in consideration? Fully supported round, or the more robust "track" type?

Something like a double inverted V way would be interesting.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Fully supported round Andre. My choice at this time is the inverted V track. I have bearings on the way, should be here Friday. Again, nothing is written in stone.

 "Bill and Mark"


----------



## Andre

Regardless of what you choose, I would think any of the above designs could work well if planned out and tweaked properly. Linear bearings have really opened up possibilities for the home shop user to build the machines they would need.


----------



## T Bredehoft

Should you consider linear bearings, they are available sealed, both end and side.  I've not seen specs on how well sealed they are, however.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Transfer Bearings from a conveyer is also an option.

 "Bill and Mark"


----------



## Andre

Out of curiosity, what kind of precision are you looking for out of the grinder? As flat as possible or do you have a set standard for flatness?


----------



## Bill Gruby

That's a tough one to answer Andre. It would take the sum of all component tolerances averaged and then go even tighter. Grizzly claims .0005 or closer . The final precision would be in how well you can hold the tolerances.

 "Bill"


----------



## Mark_f

Andre said:


> Out of curiosity, what kind of precision are you looking for out of the grinder? As flat as possible or do you have a set standard for flatness?


Bil is correct. Error accumulates, so the tighter we keep ALL tolerances, the better the accuracy.


----------



## John Hasler

Bill Gruby said:


> My choice at this time is the inverted V track.


Explain?  The only inverted V-track I'm familiar with is used for sliding stall doors.


----------



## Bill Gruby

The V in the way looks just like its written. The apex is at the bottom. It utilizes the outermost running sides of the bearing..

 "Bill"


----------



## Bill Gruby

This is the type of bearing. The OD is shaped like a "W". The outer edges are what ride in the way.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RM2-2RS-3-8...hash=item1e7e0166e9:m:mtycS5gWYDl7oSsUSPQhJ4A

 "Bill"


----------



## Andre

What kind of bearings are those? On the inside that is. Can they take axial play without deflection?

If they are standard deep groove radial can you give them some negative camber (like what "damaged-in-the-head" people do to import car wheels) to give the affect of angular contact bearings? Turning some of the axial movement into radial loads. If you ever wanted to sidewheel parts or use a cup wheel on the face that is.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Andre, they are just a picture to show the profile. The ones we are getting  are designed for our usage.  No modification is necessary. The ones I am getting can carry a 400 lb. load.

"Bill"


----------



## Bill Gruby

QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL PLEASE

 What is the largest piece in height (thickness) would you think we would grind at home? I want to finalize the upright frame prints this weekend. I need to figure their height. I will average all the inputs by all of you and go with the average. Thank you.

 "Bill"


----------



## JimDawson

Consider a setup where you are using a sine-vice with a somewhat tall part in it.  Most grinders have a height capacity that is roughly equal to the x axis travel.  Most times I am grinding stuff that is <4 inches tall, but it's nice to have the capacity if you need it.  So I guess on that grinder I would want at least 10 inches above the chuck.


----------



## Billh50

Largest piece I would grind would be something in my square to square up. So I would say 6" - 8" should be ok. but more is always good.


----------



## T Bredehoft

I can't imagine grinding something that is 8" above the magnet/chuck. Not on a hand operated hobby grinder. Given a sine bar and work on it, maybe 5 ", over the magnet. 

But how about this, T-slots in the base for securing work, instead of the magnet, for 'odd shaped' work? Just planning ahead.


----------



## MikeWi

the sine table or even some other fixture is a very good point IMHO.  Not enough real world experience to suggest a height though.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Bearings are in the mail Mark. Maybe Monday. T# 9500 1213 0342 6133 0000 23

 "Bill"


----------



## Bill Gruby

Picture post test


----------



## Andre

Most things I grind are under an inch, but once you throw a sine plate on there it really climbs. I think my sine plate is 2+" alone.

EDIT: Have a look at this setup: https://www.instagram.com/p/BE6QJWiRxUG/?taken-by=chiefbub&hl=en


----------



## kvt

Bill the post looks fine but the bright light glare kills most of the picture.   Not sure if it was a light behind you or a flash. 
But that is what is being built  Nice.  That might fit in my shop,


----------



## Bill Gruby

Yes, the flash killed the pic. It was only done to try to post a pic. I  just added the file to the new computer. They will be better from here to the end of this project.

 "Bill"


----------



## Reuben Bailey

Bill Gruby said:


> QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL PLEASE
> 
> What is the largest piece in height (thickness) would you think we would grind at home? I want to finalize the upright frame prints this weekend. I need to figure their height. I will average all the inputs by all of you and go with the average. Thank you.
> 
> "Bill"


I have absolutely zero experience to base anything on, but more capacity is generally better in my book. I would say 10-12" between a brand new wheel and the chuck surface would be pretty good allowance for a part and any required fixture/s.


----------



## ome

I would say , based on my little 6" sanford, 
10"- 12" would be awesome. 
Will you be using hardened ways?
ome


----------



## Mark_f

Bill Gruby said:


> Bearings are in the mail Mark. Maybe Monday. T# 9500 1213 0342 6133 0000 23
> 
> "Bill"


Thanks Bill, I'll watch for them.


----------



## Mark_f

I think 6" is high enough. I get a little skittish stacking things much higher. I have had a setup move on me once. threw all the parts and setup out the back and the 12" wheel exploded right in front of me. I wouldn't go near that machine for three months and needed new underwear.

A little higher would be nice just to be able to get the wheel out of the way.


----------



## Billh50

Mark,
I know that feeling. I had about 50 pieces on a blanchard grinder once when the magnet let go. It sounded like a machine gun going off when all the parts flew into the guards. I just hit the floor until the noise stopped.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Tuesday I get another cast on my leg. The new one is supposed to give me more mobility. If it does we will start rolling on this project again. Sorry for the delay.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Rick Leslie

OK, not project related, but *"cast"*? I must have missed something. I hope all is well.


----------



## Bill Gruby

I broke my right ankle a while back. Needed 4 pins the reset it. It is far from healed but mending OK. Will know more Tuesday.

 "Billy G"


----------



## kvt

Bill one of the nice things depending on software on the computer you can clean up the pic, and rotate then as needed etc.  
Hope all goes well on Tuesday.   I know how broken bones can be.   Last time I broke my foot they put me in a wheel chair.  
Project,   I have not used a surface grinder like this but I would say 10 to 12 clearance,   One that lets you get parts in and out, and raise it up to change wheels as needed without removing the work if needed.


----------



## Rick Leslie

Hope it's good news on Tuesday. My wife had surgery on her foot last year and we learned two things: 1) she doesn't need to be anywhere near crutches and 2) I'm a poor nurse (and the cause of her crutch difficulties).


----------



## Mark_f

I got the bearings today , Bill. Thanks, they look great.


----------



## 34_40

Thanks to you both  Mark and Bill..  for including us newbs.

Bill, hope you're on the mend quickly.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Upright Frame print for the Water Jet Cutter.


----------



## dlane

.?


----------



## Bill Gruby

I can't answer a question mark


----------



## Mark_f

Bill Gruby said:


> Upright Frame print for the Water Jet Cutter.
> 
> View attachment 129202


Now that is a print I can work with


----------



## Bill Gruby

That print you won't get Mark unless you want one. It is only the basic outline for the cutter. There are a few things missing that he will not need.

"Billy G"


----------



## Mark_f

Bill Gruby said:


> That print you won't get Mark unless you want one. It is only the basic outline for the cutter. There are a few things missing that he will not need.
> 
> "Billy G"


Yea, we probably have to put a lot of holes in it.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Probably 20 holes plus wiring holes.

 "Billy G"


----------



## JimDawson

Hmmmm, Swiss cheese


----------



## JimDawson

Bill Gruby said:


> Upright Frame print for the Water Jet Cutter.




Never seen a DXF file that looked like that.


----------



## Tony Wells

Just remember, waterjet, like plasma and oxy-fuel cutting all have a tendency to leave a cut that is not truly perpendicular to the surface. On a long straight cut, with both ends in the air (off the end of the material) it's not generally a factor, but cutting inside corners, you will see the compensation the control makes for this. It's not too different from an end mill. When a corner is approached, the feed decels and allows the cut at the "bottom" of the material to "catch up" with the top. The bottom always lags behind. End mills bend, these other methods.....well....I won't get into all the technical reasons, but it does. Anyway, the best you can get is a little bit of a conical effect on inside corners. Sometimes it's not much on thinner material, but the thicker it is, the more the effect can be seen.

I'm guessing that either you know that and are leaving stock for machining, or designing around the WJ cuts to avoid needing a high precision surface on the edges. There will automatically be a radius in the corners, so unless the jet diameter isn't large enough, let it rip!


----------



## Bill Gruby

Plus .040 to all edges Tony. The long inside edges with the little 1 inch X .5 inch notch for table infeed over-run, are where the ways attach. The sides and ways will be assembled then pinned together to be milled square.

"Bill"


----------



## Tony Wells

Roger that, Bill. Just thinking ahead. And making sure you were.


----------



## Bill Gruby

JimDawson said:


> Never seen a DXF file that looked like that.




 PDRD File Jim.  

 "Bill"


----------



## Bill Gruby

12 inches wide at the ways, 19 inches deep and 24 inches high. The wood mock up of the frame is done. Man it's nice to be back in the shop, even if it's not more than 2 hours a day. It's good to go Mark. I will get with Bill and get the prints for the frame done ASAP.

 "Bill"


----------



## Mark_f

Bill Gruby said:


> 12 inches wide at the ways, 19 inches deep and 24 inches high. The wood mock up of the frame is done. Man it's nice to be back in the shop, even if it's not more than 2 hours a day. It's good to go Mark. I will get with Bill and get the prints for the frame done ASAP.
> 
> "Bill"
> 
> View attachment 129270



That looks great bill. It will be nice to get started on this project. 

Bill,
I found part of a manual For the Boyer Schultz six twelve deluxe surface grinder my friend has. It shows most of the construction. I know we have settled most of the issues but I will email you this manual just for giggles and grins to see if it has any info you can use. 

I don't want to open this can of worms again cause we beat it up pretty good, but I looked at his table. the rack mounts to the side or bottom edge of the table, teeth pointing down. the pinion is about an inch to inch and a half diameter. the shaft for the pinion goes through about a six to eight inch long housing with a bearing  in each end. There is no way the pinion can affect the rack for any lift or anything as it cannot move except to turn. the hand wheel is about 8 inches across which gives good travel at half a turn. the hand wheel also pulls out to disengage the pinion if needed. ( there was a hydraulic table drive accessory offered)

I looked at the elevation screw. It is at least 5/8" diameter. It is located close to center, next to the spindle. I think this was to somewhat equalize the weight distribution from side to side. It is driven with a  set of miter gears that are setting on needle thrust bearings and have and adjustable load to remove any back lash. the screw can be raised or lowered slightly with this adjustment to preload the gears as needed. The six inch diameter hand wheel is marked in .0005" increments. The screw is also only captured at the top I believe. This is adjustable also to set the preload and eliminate any back lash.

The wheel mounting is a tapered shaft with an arbor that fits on it and held with an nut in the center. the complete arbor gets pulled off and is made for wheels with an 1 1/4 hole. there is a balance system on the rear of this arbor. You put a wheel on and balance the whole assembly , then put  it back on the shaft.

I looked at the table mounting also. they used a V way on the front and just a flat way on the other side. The table just sets on the grinder base. I believe this is done so there is only one registering way . They didn't have to worry about lining up two ways perfectly parallel.

Watch your email for these drawings.


----------



## Billh50

Bill,
Looks good so far.

Mark,
That rack and pinion is what I was thinking about. The pinion would have either move in and out with the table or the  handle and all with the table. I was thinking a pinion with a key on a shaft that had a key way along it so the pinion could slide using a fork mounted to the table.


----------



## Bill Gruby

The table itself only moves on one axis, the y axis. The Mag chuck  moves independently from the table on the X Axis.  The rack is mounted to the front of the Mag chuck. The pinion to the table. Thus the Mag chuck is independent of the table.

"Bill"


----------



## Billh50

ok so you mean the handle that turns the pinion moves in and out with the table.


----------



## Billh50

Bill your right...been awhile had to look at a surface grinder to refresh my memory


----------



## Bill Gruby

Yes Bill.

 "Bill"


----------



## Billh50

I was thinking about the old Reids. The handle didn't move with the table on those. But most do.


----------



## Mark_f

The handle is on the saddle and moves with the table on the Boyer Shultz.  The rack is on the bottom of the table. The pinion under the rack. I didn't understand about the mag chuck. It merely mounts on the table.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Motor and Spindle mount mock up will be done tomorrow Mark. Should have the whole mock up done by Monday wake up. I making up for lost time. Kinda sore right now so I'm calling it a day.

 "Bill"


----------



## Bill Gruby

Tentative Spindle Housing Mark. Sending you one via snail mail. Yours will be dimensioned. I will leave the Spindle design up to you. Use the Lovejoy Coupling we discussed if you can. Feel free to make it larger in places. Bearings are up to you. Have fun. Just sent Mark. Delivery Date, Tuesday 5/24

"Bill"


----------



## Bill Gruby

Time for the rest of you to put on the thinking caps. While I told Mark the bearings were his choice what would you suggest and why. Anything goes here. The motor is a 3/4 HP turning 3450 RPM.

 Also, earlier in this thread there was a comment not to use the Lovejoy Coupling. Your thoughts on this also. Please add your reasons fore or against this Coupling.

"Bill"


----------



## Rick Leslie

The only concern I can think of with the Lovejoy coupling is the backlash, or slop, in the connection. But this is a common coupling in CNC equipment, so my concerns are probably unfounded.


----------



## Tony Wells

That's a pretty wide open task, Bill. Only about 175 questions arise when making the optimum bearing selection.


----------



## Bill Gruby

You are right Tony, it's open to all so they could learn more about bearings and their application. Go for it fellas, class is in session.

"Bill"


----------



## JimDawson

If you are talking about a Lovejoy coupling for the motor/spindle, I would think that would be a good choice.  It is loaded primarily in one direction so backlash is not an issue.  An advantage also is that the resilient spider will help damp some of the high frequency vibrations from the motor that might affect surface finish.

As far as spindle bearings, that's a tough one.  I'm thinking precision angular contact.  Maybe preloaded doubles on both ends of the housing? 
.
.


----------



## John Hasler

JimDawson said:


> I'm thinking precision angular contact. Maybe preloaded doubles on both ends of the housing?


Is there enough axial loading to justify that?


----------



## Bill Gruby

Two types of bearings are under consideration. Matched Double Row Angular Ball Bearings as Jim said and Matched precision Tapered Roller Bearings. You fellas take it from there. I am going to sit this question out unless needed.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Bill Gruby

If terms like Radial Play, End Play, Loading etc. are used, would it be possible for those using the term give a brief description for the very new. I worked in a bearing plant for 32 years, I have no problem understanding but there may be those that don't. There are a lot of people that buy the wrong bearing for a job, only because they don't understand the basics. We have a unique chance here to teach and learn. Thank you.

"Bill"


----------



## Bill Gruby

For starters:

Types of loads --- Radial,  Axial, Co-Axial and Thrust are the ones of concern here.

Angular Contact Bearing --- A type of Ball Bearing whose internal clearances and ball race location results in a definite contact angle between the races and the balls when the bearing is in use.

Thrust Bearing --- A bearing that distributes its load parallel to the shaft, usually used to reduce end play.

That's just a couple , LOL, the Angular Contact is what we are looking at.

  "Bill"


----------



## T Bredehoft

Rick Leslie said:


> The only concern I can think of with the Lovejoy coupling is the backlash, or slop, in the connection. But this is a common coupling in CNC equipment, so my concerns are probably unfounded.



Spindle direction is constant, is backlash a concern?


----------



## Bill Gruby

Backlash is there, yes, but because the spindle direction is always clockwise and does not reverse it is of little if any concern.


----------



## Mark_f

It has been my experience using a love joy coupling, there was no backlash as the spider fits pretty snug to the coupling halves. but it should not be a concern in this application as we run one direction only.


----------



## Mark_f

Bill,
I have located two LoveJoy couplings. They are L075 series  which I like for size, one side is 5/8" I.D. to fit the motor and the other side is 3/4" I.D for the spindle. and a Buna spider. There is also a urethane spider but I like the Buna rubber better. We can get a bigger bore for the spindle side if needed but we can make the end for mounting any size we want. These are steel instead of sintered iron. They are rated for 4 1/2 horsepower load at 3450 RPM. They are $30 apiece which I also thought was reasonable. What do you think about them.

Are there any other suggestions out there about the couplings?


----------



## Bill Gruby

That's what we want Mark. There should be plenty of room in the Spindle Housing to inset most of that.  I am sending you 3 sets of bearings. 1 set single row angular, 1 set double row angular and 1 set tapered roller bearings.

 "Bill"


----------



## Mark_f

Bill,

First question: Do we want to get these couplings now ? we can make the spindle end 3/4" for mounting.

Second Question: Do we want to make a standard grinding spindle with a taper on the end to mount the arbor or make the spindle all one piece and machine the end for the wheel?

If we make the taper then we could make an arbor with balance weights on the rear. And seeing the price of a ready made arbor.........I say we can make the arbor and the balance system.



	

		
			
		

		
	
    This is a representation of a simple arbor with no balance system.





	

		
			
		

		
	
This is a representation of an arbor with a shroud to cover the spindle nose to keep crap out.




	

		
			
		

		
	
This is a representation of one with a balance weight groove.......This one gets my vote 


The other option is to machine the end of the spindle to accept a wheel. Simpler but no balance feature.

ANYONE GOT ANY OPINIONS HERE?


----------



## T Bredehoft

Given the possibilities, I'd go with the balance system. An out-of-balance wheel is useless. If  it can be balanced, it can be used.


----------



## rwm

OK I'll bite. How often are wheels out of balance from the manufacturer? If it was significantly out of balance how difficult would it be to correct? Would it require dynamic balancing like a car wheel?
Robert


----------



## JimDawson

rwm said:


> OK I'll bite. How often are wheels out of balance from the manufacturer? If it was significantly out of balance how difficult would it be to correct? Would it require dynamic balancing like a car wheel?
> Robert



Good wheels are normally pretty good.  But there is always some small out of balance. Having the balance weights in the hub allows you to correct for minor imperfections and the machine will operate smoother.

A significantly out of balance wheel should never make it out of QA at the factory.  If one were to make it into the supply chain it should not be used and returned to the vendor or preferably just destroyed.


----------



## rwm

What did we decide on the bearings? I know there won't be much axial load on the spindle but can't we just over-design it. Matched pairs or angular contact bearings? Is there a downside?
As a point of discussion- when would you want to use ceramic bearings? I see them on eBay now cheap.
R


----------



## Bill Gruby

Bearings are still under discussion. The topic is still open. Mark and I are leaning toward Angular but it is not written in stone yet. Ceramic bearings are usually used in high heat applications if memory serves me correctly. Also in extreme heat, Stellite is used. We made them for the Space Shuttle. They could not turn when installed. They only loosened up under the extreme heat of re-entry. They were in the Gyros. If they moved at the factory they were no good and scraped.

"Bill"


----------



## Billh50

All but one of the 6 x 12 surface grinders I ran through the years did not have a balance system on them. They all used the simple arbor except that one.


----------



## Mark_f

NO wheel is perfectly balanced when made. Most are pretty close. The balance weights allow you to make it better. The weight system is simple and easy to make. The arbor is the difficult part to make but not bad for for someone with threading experience. The balance weights are three small movable weights on the rear or front of the arbor and provide static balancing  much like a car wheel.

As for the bearings, there is no downside to "over engineering" them. We want to use bearings that are easily obtainable and reasonable cost as maybe others will want to build this project once they see it can be done reasonably. The bearing use design needs to be decided. Whether we use angular contact or taper roller bearings, they must be installed correctly. The Broadley spindle system uses Bellville washers stacked to provide preload to of around 10 pounds to the bearings and keeps the preload constant as heat goes up by allowing for expansion. the other method is precision ground spacer between bearings to provide the correct preload. this method is less forgiving in building because the spacer must be very accurate. Just a few thousandths too long and everything will get hot and probably ruin the bearings. A few thousandths too short and the bearings will be too loose which will affect the grinding finish. I have built both kinds of spindles and I know which one I prefer, but I would like to hear from the rest of you on this.

Also, what does everyone think about how many bearings. single bearing in each end, matched pair in the wheel end and single bearing in the rear, matched pair in both ends? my thought is single bearing in each end. It is easier and this spindle is fairly short so pairs will probably be too close together. 

This is your chance to express your opinion and help decide on all the critical pieces of making a fairly large project, so lets hear some opinions.


----------



## Mark_f

Bill, if the bore on the bearings you sent me is larger than .750 ( I hope they are). we can order the couplings if you want. The taper at the end of the spindle , if we go that route is about 1.000" on the large end.


----------



## Mark_f

Another topic for discussion is the seals on the spindle ends. Do you all think we should use rubber oil seals or a labyrinth seal? Rubber seals are much easier but put a drag on the spindle and create more heat, while the labyrinth seal is more difficult to machine but creates no drag or heat. Are there any other seal options? I have done both types and have a preference , but would like to hear ALL options and opinions.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Double Row Angular in the noes and Single Row Angular at the rear. The bearings I am sending you Mark, all have a 1.000 Bore.

 Let's briefly talk about Preload and why it's needed. The preload on the bearings is to minimize shaft deflection under load. It will be extremely minimal if we go with the Double Row bearing up front. Before someone jumps in with a comment about no deflection will occur, it is always there. There are only two was to minimize it, one use a specifically designed bearing. Too expensive. Two use preload. 

 "Bill"


----------



## Mark_f

I agree with that ,Bill. Is the double row have the rows opposing or do they face the same way ( if they are angular contact) or are you speaking of putting a pair in the front ( face to face) so they preload themselves when clamped together in the nose.


----------



## Bill Gruby

The double row bearing has the contact angles facing each other. Sort of an "X" arrangement in the center of the bearing. This places the angular contact opposing each other making a more rigid contact resulting in less deflection and requiring less preload.

This is how it works, the downward force on the wheel creates the opposite on the shaft. The deflection is upward. The upward force causes the front balls toward the center and the rear balls aleo go toward the center. These two forces are actually opposite if each other front to the rear, rear to the front. These two opposing forces stabilize the shaft requiring much less preload.

 There are standards and formulas for figuring the exact preload needed for a specific application. This would be a subject for another thread on bearing fundamentals. If you can find a set the "New  Departure Handbook" Vols. 1 & 2 will be a great help and go a long way in explaning bearings and their applications.

"Bill"


----------



## rwm

Generically, if you buy a set of "ground matched" bearings and use them in a pair with the correct orientation will the preload be set automatically?
R


----------



## Bill Gruby

No, it must still be calculated Radial bearings are normally what you are referring to. Angular Contact are a whole different animal.

 "Bill"


----------



## John Hasler

mark_f said:


> Another topic for discussion is the seals on the spindle ends. Do you all think we should use rubber oil seals or a labyrinth seal? Rubber seals are much easier but put a drag on the spindle and create more heat, while the labyrinth seal is more difficult to machine but creates no drag or heat. Are there any other seal options? I have done both types and have a preference , but would like to hear ALL options and opinions.


Wouldn't the rubber provide better protection against fine abrasive dust?  Maybe rubber on the front, labyrinth on the back?


----------



## John Hasler

rwm said:


> Generically, if you buy a set of "ground matched" bearings and use them in a pair with the correct orientation will the preload be set automatically?
> R


That's my understanding, but I've never done it.


----------



## John Hasler

Bill Gruby said:


> No, it must still be calculated Radial bearings are normally what you are referring to. Angular Contact are a whole different animal.
> 
> "Bill"


http://machinedesign.com/basics-design/angular-contact-bearings

http://www.skf.com/us/products/bear...nsiderations/bearing_preload/actbb/index.html


----------



## Mark_f

John Hasler said:


> Wouldn't the rubber provide better protection against fine abrasive dust?  Maybe rubber on the front, labyrinth on the back?


Actually , I don't think so. The labyrinth seal is A small gap and there are several grooves in a row. The oil provides a seal between the housing and the shaft between the grooves. they are very good at keeping junk out with no resistance turning. On a 3450 rpm shaft you need the rubber seals with springs and they put extra pressure on the shaft creating more heat.They are both good seal systems. I have used both on projects and they both work good. I can tell the difference turning the shaft with the rubber seal, it adds a good bit of resistance. another option is an o ring in the end cap that is the same ID as the shaft. this has less resistance.


----------



## extropic

It seems to me that building a spindle capable of precision grinding is a very high expectation of any amateur machinist. I wonder if there are any spindles commercially available, within an acceptable budget, that will meet the need? Alternatively, you might consider designing your Z axis to mount a conventional bench grinder to use as your motor/spindle. A good quality bench grinder would probably serve as well as a home built spindle. The Z axis motion could be a pivoting mount rather than linear travel.

If you insist on rolling-yer-own spindle, my vote would be for, at the wheel end, a duplex pair of angular contact back-to-back bearings, separated by as much length as the loads/package size/budget will allow and employing springs for preload/thermal compensation (as shown in the SKF link, Fig. 2, provided by John Hasler). Depending on the loads/package size/budget, I would use an additional radial bearing at the drive end of the arbor.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Seem that I have added some confusion here. "rwm" is correct in his statement on the preload being automatic. My bad here. I was referring to the preload that must be calculated for the rear bearing. It is not automatic as it is only a single bearing. My apologies gentleman. You guys are right on top of this. Kudos.

 "Bill"


----------



## JimDawson

extropic said:


> It seems to me that building a spindle capable of precision grinding is a very high expectation of any amateur machinist.



For an ''amateur machinist'' it might be, but we're not really talking amateurs here.


----------



## Andre

Spindles are not difficult to make for those who have experience working with metal and machine tools. Not overshooting a diameter, now that can get you! 

It's surprising easy to turn a precision diameter, for say the spindle shaft. Turn to a thou oversize, then take a fine single cut pillar file and lightly dress the surface. Spindle should be turning at a medium speed (maybe 600 rpm) and make sure the par turns several rotations in the single stroke of a file. Measure with a micrometer occasionally to make sure the spindle isnt becoming oval in cross section or tapered. You can almost hold a tenth by filing and polishing. You can also polish after filing with oilstones for a flatter surface. 

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk


----------



## Bill Gruby

With all due respect an amateur machinist should have no problem building a spindle to precision. Expectations are the shortfall of the mind.  The book --" Spindles" by Harprit Sandhu is the one to go to. There are no less than 9 precision spindles in it for the Amateur Machinist to build. It is Workshop Practice Series #27.

 "Bill"


----------



## extropic

JimDawson said:


> For an ''amateur machinist'' it might be, but we're not really talking amateurs here.



I must have assumed that the design/build was directed at facilitating hobbyist machinist's access to a home built surface grinder. A design appropriate for highly experienced/capable machinists is another matter.


----------



## extropic

Bill, Thanks for the reference to "Spindles". I'll take a look at it.


----------



## ome

Bill Gruby said:


> I broke my right ankle a while back. Needed 4 pins the reset it. It is far from healed but mending OK. Will know more Tuesday.
> 
> "Billy G"


Sorry to hear that Bill, that can slow one down for sure, but sometimes not a bad thing. 
Sending prayers for a total recovery
ome


----------



## Mark_f

First of all here , we need to clear up that ANYONE can build this grinder. Yes is is a large project, but if you look at each individual piece it is not so complicated. This is a project that can be built with the equipment most of us have. Being an amateur or professional does not really matter. Also, Building a precision spindle is not difficult in a home hobbyist setting. I have built several and they seem to work fine. It is just making close tolerance parts but if you go into thinking you can't do it ......then you can't.  That is MY opinion.

Bill and I have discussed this very topic and respectfully disagree with any statements that the hobbyist machinist cannot build this project. The spindle is not that big a deal. anyone can build one if they simply pay attention to detail and follow the prints or instructions. Yes, it may require educating yourself a little if you have no experience at all, but if you can read you can certainly do this. This project WILL provide some education for many and hopefully inspire you to tackle some projects you may find intimidating at the moment. that is the purpose of inviting EVERYONE to participate in this build. TO EDUCATE and INSPIRE! We invite your questions, discussions, and suggestions, HOWEVER, we  would like negativity to be avoided. Lets have fun with this and learn.


Mark F. & Bill G.


----------



## ome

mark_f said:


> Another topic for discussion is the seals on the spindle ends. Do you all think we should use rubber oil seals or a labyrinth seal? Rubber seals are much easier but put a drag on the spindle and create more heat, while the labyrinth seal is more difficult to machine but creates no drag or heat. Are there any other seal options? I have done both types and have a preference , but would like to hear ALL options and opinions.





JimDawson said:


> For an ''amateur machinist'' it might be, but we're not really talking amateurs here.


I am an amateur, but please don't let that stop you, I will just have to catch up.


----------



## John Hasler

ome said:


> I am an amateur, but please don't let that stop you, I will just have to catch up.


"Amateur" just means that you do it because you like it and don't try to make a living from it.  You can be both an amateur and an expert.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Let's stop with the what we are. It is the intent, with the help of this build, to show that all of you, regardless of experience, have the capability to build this Grinder. If that capability is hidden, then Mark and I, with the help of the other pros, will help you find it. Case closed.

 "Bill & Mark"


----------



## john.oliver35

Bill Gruby said:


> Double Row Angular in the noes and Single Row Angular at the rear. The bearings I am sending you Mark, all have a 1.000 Bore.
> 
> Let's briefly talk about Preload and why it's needed. The preload on the bearings is to minimize shaft deflection under load. It will be extremely minimal if we go with the Double Row bearing up front. Before someone jumps in with a comment about no deflection will occur, it is always there. There are only two was to minimize it, one use a specifically designed bearing. Too expensive. Two use preload.
> 
> "Bill"



Bill - Do you have the part numbers of the bearings you selected?  I'd love to see what you chose.


----------



## Bill Gruby

I have bearings here of all types. The Angular Contact Bearings Mark wants are as follows:

Double Row ---- NDH 5205

Single Row ---- NDH 20205

You will have to cross match another manufacturer for their number as NDH no longer makes bearings. They closed the doors of the major bearing plant on January 21, 1995. All different sizes went home with me. LOL

"Bill"


----------



## f350ca

Will the matched pair compensate for thermal changes? The spring loaded single row do a great job of that. 
If you go with the matched set at the wheel end of the spindle would you not be better with a regular deep groove bearing on the pulley end and let it float to compensate for thermal expansion.
Can you load a single angular contact bearing against a double set?

Greg


----------



## extropic

The 5205 bearings a double row angular contact bearing. The preload is factory set.

The 20205 is a single row spherical roller bearing also called a barrel roller bearing. 
From Wikipedia:  snip "Most spherical roller bearings are designed with two rows of rollers, allowing them to take very heavy radial loads and heavy axial loads.
There are also designs with one row of rollers, suitable for lower radial loads and virtually no axial load.
These are also called "barrel roller bearings" or "Tonnenlager" and are typically available in the 202- and 203-series."

Both bearings are metric series with 25mm bores.


----------



## ome

mark_f said:


> Bill,
> 
> First question: Do we want to get these couplings now ? we can make the spindle end 3/4" for mounting.
> 
> Second Question: Do we want to make a standard grinding spindle with a taper on the end to mount the arbor or make the spindle all one piece and machine the end for the wheel?
> 
> If we make the taper then we could make an arbor with balance weights on the rear. And seeing the price of a ready made arbor.........I say we can make the arbor and the balance system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a representation of a simple arbor with no balance system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a representation of an arbor with a shroud to cover the spindle nose to keep crap out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a representation of one with a balance weight groove.......This one gets my vote
> 
> 
> The other option is to machine the end of the spindle to accept a wheel. Simpler but no balance feature.
> 
> ANYONE GOT ANY OPINIONS HERE?


I say we go with the balanced weight groove.


----------



## ome

rwm said:


> What did we decide on the bearings? I know there won't be much axial load on the spindle but can't we just over-design it. Matched pairs or angular contact bearings? Is there a downside?
> As a point of discussion- when would you want to use ceramic bearings? I see them on eBay now cheap.
> R


I would go for the matched pairs of double row angular , if that is practical


----------



## ome

mark_f said:


> Actually , I don't think so. The labyrinth seal is A small gap and there are several grooves in a row. The oil provides a seal between the housing and the shaft between the grooves. they are very good at keeping junk out with no resistance turning. On a 3450 rpm shaft you need the rubber seals with springs and they put extra pressure on the shaft creating more heat.They are both good seal systems. I have used both on projects and they both work good. I can tell the difference turning the shaft with the rubber seal, it adds a good bit of resistance. another option is an o ring in the end cap that is the same ID as the shaft. this has less resistance.


I like the idea of an "O" ring.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Bore size on both bearings is .9843 .

 "Bill"


----------



## Billh50

Billy,
I found that book on spindles very interesting. It makes spindles seem easy enough to build. Explains a lot of stuff in simple terms as well.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Anything and everything you wish to know about bearings. This gets technical.

http://www.timken.com/en-us/product...ngs-for-machine-tool-applications-catalog.pdf

"Bill"


----------



## rwm

Bad link 
R


----------



## barnett

Wow, some of this is over my head, but i'm going to be watching !!


----------



## Bill Gruby

Try this one. It's for students. Use the menu at the left to find the info you want.

http://www.timken.com/AntiFriction/player.html

 "Bill"


----------



## John Hasler

rwm said:


> Bad link
> R


All Timken catalogs:
http://www.timken.com/EN-US/PRODUCTS/Pages/CompleteCatalogLibrary.aspx
Timken engineering manual:
http://www.timken.com/en-US/products/Documents/Timken-Metals-Engineering-Manual.pdf
Timken machine tool stuff:
http://www.timken.com/EN-US/SOLUTIONS/MACHINETOOLS/Pages/products.aspx


----------



## Mark_f

OK, everyone...... here is the spindle design for the surface grinder.



Mark & Bill G.

View attachment 129760


----------



## Mark_f

Bill,

   I shipped your motor to you today. I test ran it and set the direction.

It shipped by Fedex ..... tracking number   677086729273


----------



## Bill Gruby

Thank you Mark. I'm glad now that I OK'd the 6 inch spindle and not the shorter 5 inch one.


----------



## ome

mark_f said:


> OK, everyone...... here is the spindle design for the surface grinder.
> View attachment 129722
> 
> 
> Mark & Bill G.


Lookin good Mark!


----------



## Andre

I apologize if I have skipped something, but what motor do you plant to use? DC, 3ph?


----------



## Mark_f

Andre said:


> I apologize if I have skipped something, but what motor do you plant to use? DC, 3ph?


56C frame 3450 rpm, single phase


----------



## Andre

mark_f said:


> 56C frame 3450 rpm, single phase



Thanks for the reply

I have heard single phase motors can leave a slightly rippled finish because of their on/off switching between the phases, whereas 3ph motors deliver near constant power delivery. Would this be something to keep in mind for the project?

Maybe the motor could be mounted with rubber washers and shaft coupler? Every single phase motor I've seen or used vibrates a little, and everything helps when grinding.


----------



## John Hasler

Andre said:


> Thanks for the reply
> 
> I have heard single phase motors can leave a slightly rippled finish because of their on/off switching between the phases, whereas 3ph motors deliver near constant power delivery. Would this be something to keep in mind for the project?
> 
> Maybe the motor could be mounted with rubber washers and shaft coupler? Every single phase motor I've seen or used vibrates a little, and everything helps when grinding.


Not on/off switching, but sinusoidally varying torque.   A DC motor would be ideal.  They are using a Lovejoy coupling.


----------



## Rick Leslie

Bill Gruby said:


> Backlash is there, yes, but because the spindle direction is always clockwise and does not reverse it is of little if any concern.



Duh. OK, blonde moment. Or more like salt & pepper moment. For some reason my feeble mind was placing the coupling on the X or Y axis. Backlash wouldn't be a problem on the spindle as you guys have said.


----------



## Reuben Bailey

mark_f said:


> OK, everyone...... here is the spindle design for the surface grinder.
> View attachment 129722
> 
> 
> Mark & Bill G.


Am I being blind, or does the design not show a seal of any sort? Has the decision been made about how the bearings will be sealed?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Mark_f

Reuben Bailey said:


> Am I being blind, or does the design not show a seal of any sort? Has the decision been made about how the bearings will be sealed?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


the bearings are sealed and the arbor will cover the spindle nose , so additional seals are not needed.


----------



## Mark_f

Andre said:


> Thanks for the reply
> 
> I have heard single phase motors can leave a slightly rippled finish because of their on/off switching between the phases, whereas 3ph motors deliver near constant power delivery. Would this be something to keep in mind for the project?
> 
> Maybe the motor could be mounted with rubber washers and shaft coupler? Every single phase motor I've seen or used vibrates a little, and everything helps when grinding.


 I do not foresee the motor causing any problems from vibrations.


----------



## John Hasler

mark_f said:


> OK, everyone...... here is the spindle design for the surface grinder.
> View attachment 129722
> 
> 
> Mark & Bill G.


I think I can make out the Belleville washers, but how is the preload being applied to the back bearing?


----------



## Reuben Bailey

mark_f said:


> the bearings are sealed and the arbor will cover the spindle nose , so additional seals are not needed.


Thanks, Mark.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Billh50

Things are starting to get interesting here.


----------



## Bill Gruby

We like to prolong the agony Bill. ROTFLMBO

 "Bill"


----------



## Mark_f

John Hasler said:


> I think I can make out the Belleville washers, but how is the preload being applied to the back bearing?



I have revised the drawing and made a change. I think that will answer your question.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Preload to the rear bearing will happen when the rear nut pushes the bearing forward against the Belleville washers and spacer. Front preload is preset.

 "Bill"


----------



## Billh50

Not to be too picky here. But if I am looking at the post of the spindle. Is the rear bearing drawn backwards ? It looks to me like the belleville washers would release the load unless the bearing was turned around.


----------



## Bill Gruby

No, it is pushed forward by a manufactured preload nut. They are made for this specific purpose. There is a revised drawing that addresses this.

 "Bill"


----------



## Billh50

I understand that but I was looking at the ball races and they looked like they would loosen the ball instead. guess it is me though.


----------



## John Hasler

Billh50 said:


> I understand that but I was looking at the ball races and they looked like they would loosen the ball instead. guess it is me though.


It's not you.


----------



## Billh50

thank god....I can cancel the optometrist visit then


----------



## John Hasler

extropic said:


> Mark & Bill,
> 
> No doubt, you teachers are not confused by the facts. However, students tend to be confused when the graphics don't match the words.
> Can you please correct/clarify the following inconsistencies?
> 
> The design posted shows the lines of force in the wrong orientation for a 5205 double row angular contact bearing.
> The design posted shows the single row angular contact bearing being UNloaded by the spring washers (not preloaded).
> The single row angular contact bearing shown isn't a 20205 single row spherical roller bearing as specified in the post following #223.


The lighter lines seem to be correct as lines of force for all the bearings.  I agree that the dark lines on the front bearings seem wrong for lines of force there.  The rear bearing still looks backwards to me.


----------



## Billh50

The double row did not concern me too much as they are preloaded. I just wanted to make sure no one was putting the single one in backwards.


----------



## Bill Gruby

You may discuss this at will but, be assured we know they are wrong. A new print will straighten it out. I believe I pointed that out a few posts back right after you asked Bill. Post #256, last sentence. I have an extreme distaste for fault finding after it has already been found by us and stated as such. Mark and I do not claim to be experts, we make mistakes.


----------



## Mark_f

I used a generic symbol for the bearing. It may appear wrong in the computer drawing but I mistakenly took for granted anyone using the bearing knew which direction to put it in. From now on I will use Very generic symbols so as not to confuse anyone. You are correct the drawing is wrong but that was the only symbol I had and we noticed it. ( I guess everyone else did too).


----------



## Bill Gruby

Here you go. Let me don my flame suit first.

Before edit


After edit



"Bill"


----------



## Mark_f

Billh50 said:


> The double row did not concern me too much as they are preloaded. I just wanted to make sure no one was putting the single one in backwards.


Once again,  I, ME, MYSELF used generic bearing symbols to draw the print. These were the symbols I had. I mistakenly assumed anyone using a bearing would know how to put it in. Everyone got so hung up on the bearing symbols they didn't even notice the real problem. I had left the front cap  that captures the assembly off the drawing. I revised it and posted I revised it and everyone was too busy flapping about a symbol to even notice. I, ME, MYSELF went back to the original drawing post and turned the symbol around. Billh50, you asked a question and that is fine. you are paying attention. You asked and was answered. I'm glad you are observant. As for the rest of the flap, If you have any smart comments about my print or me, make them in a PM. If you have a question, ask it here.

This spindle is not built yet and I , ME, chose the bearing symbols to be able to draw the print. the bearing numbers may change. they are not written in stone. Once the actual bearings are in my hand and I know they are what I will use, I WILL revise the print again.


----------



## chips&more

Your spindle design is very similar to a Levin ball bearing type headstock, for example. I have seen the matched angular contact bearings for the front. But in the back I typical see a standard deep groove bearing and not another angular contact bearing with a Belleville washer set-up. What I see is a deep groove bearing in the back that kinda floats and the matched angular in the front are held in fast at their OD race with a face plate. And the locking nut at the back of the spindle holds/secures all the parts onto the spindle. The nut in the back does not adjust preload, that is done with the matched pair of angular bearings.

Also my surface grinder has a felt seal at the front to prevent crap from getting to the bearings. It’s just a groove cut into the front of the spindle nose housing and a washer like piece of felt (not rubber) made to fit the groove and just rides the OD of the spindle…Dave.


----------



## Mark_f

chips&more said:


> Your spindle design is very similar to a Levin ball bearing type headstock, for example. I have seen the matched angular contact bearings for the front. But in the back I typical see a standard deep groove bearing and not another angular contact bearing with a Belleville washer set-up. What I see is a deep groove bearing in the back that kinda floats and the matched angular in the front are held in fast at their OD race with a face plate. And the locking nut at the back of the spindle holds/secures all the parts onto the spindle. The nut in the back does not adjust preload, that is done with the matched pair of angular bearings.
> 
> Also my surface grinder has a felt seal at the front to prevent crap from getting to the bearings. It’s just a groove cut into the front of the spindle nose housing and a washer like piece of felt (not rubber) made to fit the groove and just rides the OD of the spindle…Dave.



you are correct in what you say. There are many ways to build a spindle. This was mine and Bill's first choice. There may be changes to this spindle , but they will be minor. Such as the rear bearing, and I had thought about the felt seal and still may use it although it isn't really needed with the design I want to use. We shall see. Thank you for the information and thoughts.


----------



## ome

Sorry If I missed something, but how similar is this build to the small Sanford?
I own one with manual feed, and would be happy to post any pics.


----------



## Bill Gruby

John,

I am not familiar with that machine so I am sorry I have no answer. Maybe someone else can. Keep watching.


"Bill"


----------



## Billh50

I do have to apologize if I started something. My only concern was that someone with either no or very little experience with bearings might put the bearing in wrong. Only because we do have many people who are new to this type of hobby. Next time I will keep my comments like that to PM's.


----------



## Mark_f

Billh50 said:


> I do have to apologize if I started something. My only concern was that someone with either no or very little experience with bearings might put the bearing in wrong. Only because we do have many people who are new to this type of hobby. Next time I will keep my comments like that to PM's.



Bill, 

Thank you . You did not start anything. You are observant and that shows me you are paying attention. I sometimes take some knowledge for granted. I will try to be more cautious for the inexperienced.


----------



## Bill Gruby

No apology necessary Bill, you did not start anything. You had a legitimate question and Mark fixed it. We had already known it was wrong and needed to be revised. All is taken care of.  Time to move on with this project. My motor arrived just now, I'm almost ready to start


----------



## Bill Gruby

Yes we are still progressing on this project. In about a week all the parts and materials should be here. At that time I will start sending what needs to go to Mark. We will begin construction ant the same time. Thanks for your patience.

 "Bill & Mark"


----------



## wrmiller

A big thanks from me to you guys for doing these projects you do.

If I make it that far, I look forward to the day (hopefully days) when I can actually spend more than a few minutes or hours trying to accomplish something in the shop. Very jealous of you two.    

(living vicariously through others for the time being...)


----------



## brav65

Thanks guys, this project is so interesting to watch.  I read each post and then spend time looking at the drawings to understand what you are all talking about.  I can only aspire to have the knowledge and understanding of these concepts that you all have.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Mark,

   With all part sizes added in we can raise an 8 inch wheel from 0 to 8 inches above the mag chuck. I think that will be enough for Home Machinist use. If a builder were to want more height the tower would have to be raised accordingly. As we sit we have 1 inch  leeway at the top.

 "Bill"


----------



## Mark_f

Bill Gruby said:


> Mark,
> 
> With all part sizes added in we can raise an 8 inch wheel from 0 to 8 inches above the mag chuck. I think that will be enough for Home Machinist use. If a builder were to want more height the tower would have to be raised accordingly. As we sit we have 1 inch  leeway at the top.
> 
> "Bill"


Sounds good to me.

I made a few corrections in all the spindle prints I sent you. The ones I sent you were simply for you to get an idea from anyway. I will be making a mock up of the spindle with the taper to get the actual dimension. I will send you final prints when I get the mock up parts made.


----------



## ome

That is an awesome amount of room to have above the chuck to the 8" wheel. 
Now that is what I call a great surface grinder !
This is a wonderful idea. 
Thanks for including us "hobbyists"


----------



## Andre

My surface grinder has a two speed vertical lift for the head. With a .0001" downfeed scale and if you pull the wheel outwards you can increase feed 4x for rapid traverses. If Mark or Bill would be interested I can either find a schematic or try and take my machine apart a little to take pictures of the design for construction on your grinders.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Thank you for the offer Andre. The drive is already figured out. Chain drive on two lead screws. We will have the same downfeed as yours.

 "Bill"


----------



## Mark_f

This is a DRAFT of the spindle. The dimensions are all calculated so some may be incorrect. As soon as I have the steel in my hands, I will make the body and spindle shaft. any errors found will be corrected at that time and these prints updated. If you have any questions, ask. if you see something you don't understand , ask. If you see an error, let me know and if needed I will correct it. There are a few dimensions missing because I am not sure of them yet. I am going to machine a mock  up of the taper to get the actual dimensions needed.


----------



## Mark_f

ome said:


> That is an awesome amount of room to have above the chuck to the 8" wheel.
> Now that is what I call a great surface grinder !
> This is a wonderful idea.
> Thanks for including us "hobbyists"


 
You are welcome. That was the idea here. The joint project was selected and done here for the purpose of including all the members possible in some capacity as a learning experience for many and hopefully instill the confidence in some to build a project, no matter how simple or complex, but realize the steps that it takes and that anyone can build something useful to themselves. This is an opportunity for us to pass some of our knowledge to others.


----------



## rwm

I'm still trying to figure out what the original issue was with the first spindle drawing in post 237. Is there still an error in that or has it been updated? I feel there is a lot to learn from seeing something drawn the wrong way and understanding why. Bearings are still a knowledge gap for me. 
This is looking super so far. I can't wait to see the spindle in progress!
Robert


----------



## Mark_f

rwm said:


> I'm still trying to figure out what the original issue was with the first spindle drawing in post 237. Is there still an error in that or has it been updated? I feel there is a lot to learn from seeing something drawn the wrong way and understanding why. Bearings are still a knowledge gap for me.
> This is looking super so far. I can't wait to see the spindle in progress!
> Robert


No, the drawing was updated.


----------



## Mark_f

I was asked a question about the taper in the spindle not being standard. I have it stated as 15 degrees while in actuality it is 3IPF (inches per foot) which is very slightly less than 15 degrees. We will be using 3 IPF. When I first drew the print I picked up the 15 degrees from the catalog. They refer to it as 15 but in fine print it does say 3 IPF. This will be corrected in the final print set.


----------



## Mark_f

A few of you are very observant and found a couple dimensions that need corrected. This is good because there is a lot of info here and I spent many hours calculating it. 
 I know there may be a few errors , so if you spot any , just asked about it. if it is wrong, it will be corrected. this is part of building a project and the larger the project the more difficult it can get. You draw a print and usually correct it MANY times before actually making the part. By posting the drafts , you all get the opportunity to help with this phase of the project. I really don't want to hold the information back until it it positively correct and post it at the last minute, as you would miss this part of the process of building something. That is why there are several drafts when making something. 

Thank you all for assisting in this phase.


----------



## Bill Gruby

You have all heard the phrase  ---- It only takes one bad apple. With that said, this is an open build. All are welcomed to participate. Mark and I wish it to stay that way. Just because something has been envisioned does not make it written in stone. We have taken the blinders off and wish to hear all. That does not mean that Mark and I will sit here twiddli9ng our thumbs while someone tries to derail this project. It has happened once already and will not happen again. We reserve the right to delete anything that looks like that. Please allow us and the rest of the membership to proceed with this project without further flack.

_NOW _-- for all of our helpers both new and old, feel free to post any question that pertains to the build or even an off comment if you wish. If it even looks like someone is going to put you down it will be dealt with immediately if not sooner. I will personally see to it.  Jump on in everybody, I just cleaned the pool. There will be no more nonsense. This is an equal playing field. It's your playing field. Feel free to use it anytime you wish.

"Bill and Mark"


----------



## Mark_f

Bill G. 

I got the Lovejoy couplings today. I will be sending one to you after I get the Bellville washers and lock nuts . That way I can send one package.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Oak-A-Dee , Lok-A-Dee, Mark.


----------



## Billh50

Well I am always better at finding someone else's mistake than I am of finding my own. I think it is because when we do our own stuff and make a mistake we tend to do the same mistake again sometimes. So may not always see it right away.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Still here folks. Parts are enroute to Mark and from Mark to me. We have no control over this. Sorry for the delays.

 "Bill and Mark"


----------



## wrmiller

It's all good Bill. I'm enjoying the ride.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Mark,

 I confirmed that the A36 steel is at the Water Cutters Shop. I will go over with him what we want tomorrow. With his present schedule it will be two weeks to get it done. I will check them when finished and if OK will ship them to you and bring mine home. I am sticking with + .040 for the cut.

 "Bill"


----------



## Mark_f

Bill Gruby said:


> Mark,
> 
> I confirmed that the A36 steel is at the Water Cutters Shop. I will go over with him what we want tomorrow. With his present schedule it will be two weeks to get it done. I will check them when finished and if OK will ship them to you and bring mine home. I am sticking with + .040 for the cut.
> 
> "Bill"


Sounds good, Bill. I will send the coupling and washers to you as soon as the washers arrive.


----------



## Mark_f

These are hopefully the last drafts for the spindle. I found some more calculation errors and changed the length of the taper. I have spent many hours calculating, checking, and rechecking these dimensions. It is easy to make a mistake. This is actually my fourth draft of these prints. This is all part of the process designing a project and making it. There are a lot of dimensions on here. changing one can affect six others. Personally, I won't be able to swear they are 100% correct until I actually build the spindle.       ( But, then, I usually build and make the print for what I build. But this project is complex enough, that is not possible.)




I plan to machine these parts as a trial to make sure they are correct. If there are any questions, please ask. hopefully there are no more errors, but I don't know that for sure.


----------



## JimDawson

That looks like a lot of work!  Nice drawings Mark!


----------



## Bill Gruby

Two things Mark, are the .984-16 threads (on the wheel arbor print) for removal of the wheel arbor from the spindle and what are the weight groove dimensions?

 "Bill"


----------



## Billh50

Most ( if not all ) wheel arbors have that .984 - 16 thread for the arbor removal tool. That way a person can have multiple wheels set up on arbors for quick exchange. I still have one of the tools for removing the arbors on the surface grinders.


----------



## Mark_f

Bill Gruby said:


> Two things Mark, are the .984-16 threads (on the wheel arbor print) for removal of the wheel arbor from the spindle and what are the weight groove dimensions?
> 
> "Bill"


Both Bills are correct. I used the standard thread so you can buy the tool or as I will do ..... Make it.

The balance groove dimensions are missing because I am trying to get a price on the weight set as I can't figure a way to make them.....yet. If they are inexpensive . I will buy them. If not ....  I really don't have a back up plan . I have found a couple designs of weights , I'm still working on how to make them . I will make a sketch of the weight and maybe someone on here will have an idea.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Thank you Mark and Bill for answering the thread question. See guys, even I ask when not 199% sure.

"Bill"

PS  Bill, I enlarged your avatar but had to restore it to your size as my dogs would not stop barking ROTFLMAO


----------



## Billh50

Bill,
are you trying to tell me something ?


----------



## Bill Gruby

Nope, not me but you might want to discuss it with my dogs. 

 "Bill"


----------



## Mark_f

Ok...... I have the information for the balance weights. I will make a basic drawing and post it. They are complex little things for what they are, but won't be difficult to make. I will put the groove dimensions on the print for the weights. the prints get cluttered with all the dimensions. ..... Oh.... this may take a day or two.


----------



## MikeWi

mark_f said:


> Both Bills are correct. I used the standard thread so you can buy the tool or as I will do ..... Make it.
> 
> The balance groove dimensions are missing because I am trying to get a price on the weight set as I can't figure a way to make them.....yet. If they are inexpensive . I will buy them. If not ....  I really don't have a back up plan . I have found a couple designs of weights , I'm still working on how to make them . I will make a sketch of the weight and maybe someone on here will have an idea.


There's an old thread by Ray C (miss that guy) that discusses this.  Might help?
http://www.hobby-machinist.com/threads/balanced-grinder-hubs.16950/


----------



## Mark_f

MikeWi said:


> There's an old thread by Ray C (miss that guy) that discusses this.  Might help?
> http://www.hobby-machinist.com/threads/balanced-grinder-hubs.16950/



Thanks for the link. There was a lot of good info there. There also seems to be an ongoing feud on several forums  and discussion on this one ( in some old threads), that the balancing is totally unnecessary on wheels 7" and under. ( we are using an 8" wheel I think). But, it seems there are differing opinions from even the grinder manufacturers on this. That being said, I think it will be a matter of preference whether to include the balance feature on this grinder and is a simple matter of you make the groove and weights .... or you don't. I however .. lean towards balancing is a good option and intend to make the balance system.


----------



## Andre

Balance the wheel!!!!! Finishes improve dramatically.....


----------



## Bill Gruby

Dressing the wheel is faster also.

 "Bill"


----------



## MikeWi

Bill Gruby said:


> Dressing the wheel is faster also.
> "Bill"


Good point,  which raises a question for me since I know nothing about this; If you balance the wheel before using it, and then dress it, It becomes concentric with the spindle, but now what happens to the balance?  If you're removing a significant amount of material to produce a beveled edge as I've seen demonstrated, it seems like this could cause an issue.  I always assumed balancing made sense before now...


----------



## Mark_f

MikeWi said:


> Good point,  which raises a question for me since I know nothing about this; If you balance the wheel before using it, and then dress it, It becomes concentric with the spindle, but now what happens to the balance?  If you're removing a significant amount of material to produce a beveled edge as I've seen demonstrated, it seems like this could cause an issue.  I always assumed balancing made sense before now...


Ideally you balance the wheel , then true the OD, then balance it again. This is more time consuming but gives optimum results.


----------



## Mark_f

Here are two drafts for balancing weights.  THESE ARE ONLY DRAFTS to demonstrate the methods



	

		
			
		

		
	
 This is the most popular design I have found, but also the most difficult to make in my opinion. ( I see why they get $800 - $1000 for an arbor now ). I saw a guy make some of these on the web ( wish I would have saved the post). You make a ring that just slips into the arbor groove. the tapped hole gets a grub screw that pushes a ball bearing against the side of the groove to secure the weight. There would be a slight dish in the one side of the groove for the ball bearing to lock into. To me this one is a complicated little doo dad. I like the next one better.



	

		
			
		

		
	
 This system seems easier to me. There are two rings that hand press into one another, the outer and inner edges are tapered to match the taper in the arbor groove. The ring is divided into 6 or 8 parts and a hole is drilled and tapped in each segment BEFORE the segments are cut apart. The two halves are put in the arbor groove and then a grub screw tightens it in place by lifting the weight slightly when screwed in. As I said, I think this would be easier to machine and make.

THESE ARE ONLY DRAFTS

Opinions and comments appreciated.


----------



## Andre

I always thought this method of eccentric weights was interesting, although I've never tried it. I use the gap in the center of my lathe bed as a balancing tool. 

http://www.homemetalshopclub.org/news/sep04/sep04.html


----------



## Mark_f

Here are DRAFTS for what I propose for the balance system. It is simple ans easy to machine.



	

		
			
		

		
	
 This is a new draft showing the change in the wheel arbor. NOTICE detail "A".



	

		
			
		

		
	
 This is detail "A" which gives the dimensions for making the groove.



	

		
			
		

		
	
 This is the proposed wheel arbor balancing weights and how to make them. This is a simple process. Are there any other ideas or changes ?


----------



## Mark_f

Andre said:


> I always thought this method of eccentric weights was interesting, although I've never tried it. I use the gap in the center of my lathe bed as a balancing tool.



What kind of balance system do you use?


----------



## Billh50

Just a quick note on balancing. Some wheels may not need to be balanced when first used but as the diameter and thickness get smaller from dressing they could need balancing. It is best to check the balance every once in awhile after a couple dressings or as the finish seems to change appearance.


----------



## Andre

mark_f said:


> What kind of balance system do you use?



I use a carbide drill to peck small divots in the wheel near the hub. Only 3/16" deep or so, so it's not like the wheel is severely weakened in radial tensile strength. It works OK, but I would still prefer an arbor with balancing weights.


----------



## JimDawson

If it's helpful, I had a B&S hub removal tool in my hand today so I measured the major diameter of the external thread, 0.975.  I'll be doing more grinding work on Monday if you need any other measurements.


----------



## Mark_f

Andre said:


> I use a carbide drill to peck small divots in the wheel near the hub. Only 3/16" deep or so, so it's not like the wheel is severely weakened in radial tensile strength. It works OK, but I would still prefer an arbor with balancing weights.


That does not even sound safe. You could crack the wheel.


----------



## Andre

mark_f said:


> That does not even sound safe. You could crack the wheel.


I totally understand your concern and acknowledge the dangers. It took very little pressure to cut into, I took it off the arbor to make sure it still rung. (Balance didn't change much after removing the arbor.) Then  ran it for awhile standing away from thy machine and when everything checked out I dressed it. I researched the method and doesn't hear of any accidents, and although I don't recommend it it works okay for me. When I end up buying a new wheel I might make a new arbor with weights. 

Sent from my XT1053 using Tapatalk


----------



## rwm

Just ran across this. Is this of any use?

http://greenville.craigslist.org/tls/5535001082.html



From a B&S grinder.
Robert


----------



## T Bredehoft

Looks like a spell in the electrolytic cleaner would be beneficial.  And maybe save LOTS of work.


----------



## Bill Gruby

I'll leave that one for Mark. At this point the spindle is his baby.

 My rails arrive today. This indicates the mail will be late today.  ROTFLMAO

 "Bill"


----------



## Mark_f

Thanks Bill. Boy, those are rough for $35 apiece.

My rails shipped today , Bill.


----------



## Mark_f

I have a thread in Moderator projects about building a grinding wheel balancer. I needed to make one and it will come in handy when this project is completed. The balancer is done and works great. I am machining an arbor for the wheels now. Since it will work on this project , I am going to include the arbor here along with the special arbor I am making to machine the grinding wheel arbor for this grinder.


This is the balancing arbor. The end shafts are finished. This was turned from a piece of 1" OD CRS. This had to be machined between centers to be sure the shafts are exactly the same size and concentric and parallel. The shaft sizes are within .0002 from one end to the other. They were then polished with 400 paper and final polished to a mirror finish with fine Crocus cloth.I am also making a special arbor to machine the grinding wheel arbor. They both will have the taper in the middle, which will also be turned between centers. I will post a photo of the machining arbor. It will be used to machine the grinding wheel arbor. Once the grinding wheel arbor is drilled and the taper cut in it. It will get mounted on the machining arbor and machined on both sides. This will insure every dimension is referenced off the center taper and concentric with it. I am getting all three pieces ready to machine the taper so once the lathe is set up for 3 IPF taper , I can cut all the tapers at once. I am going to make two wheel arbor blanks to use to make a mock up of the balancing system. If they work out I can then finish these later into useable grinding wheel arbors.


----------



## Mark_f

This is the arbor to machine the wheel arbors.


Next will to be to machine all the tapers at the same time.


----------



## Mark_f

I have found another error in the wheel arbor print. I have corrected my prints. I will be machining a wheel arbor this week to make sure everything is correct. The depth of the front internal threaded bore has been changed from .750 to .650 to make the taper slightly longer than the taper on the spindle.


----------



## Mark_f

I am making the wheel arbor as a mock up to check the print. If the main part is good, I will finish it into a usable wheel arbor.


	

		
			
		

		
	
 This is a rough blank for the wheel arbor. It is machined from a solid piece of steel 3" O.D. and 3" long. All the surfaces have .050' to .100" left for finish machining after the taper is cut.


	

		
			
		

		
	
 The front and rear recesses are the only surfaces machined to finished Dimensions. Once the taper is cut, this piece will mount on a special arbor shaft made to hold it by the taper while all the finish machining is done. This will insure every dimension is concentric with and located off the taper. This is important so the arbor runs true and is balanced as well as possible. The next step will be to cut the taper in the center hole. I am holding every tolerance as perfect as I can to insure a quality part. I am making this part off my print to make sure the print is correct. I will be correcting any errors along the way if any are discovered and then I know we will have a usable print.

I priced these arbors, which are available to buy and the quote was $800 + for one arbor. I will have $25 in material and I think about 24 hours labor making the arbor.


----------



## TOOLMASTER

will there be adjustable feet on it?


----------



## Bill Gruby

Yes all feeds will be adjustable.

 "Bill"


----------



## JimDawson

I finally had a chance to play with a cheap stepper speed controller, without some additional electronics it won't make a good table drive.  I could not get it to accel and decel at the ends of travel, so it won't generate a trapezoidal motion profile.  The least cost method to properly drive the table with a stepper motor is to hook a computer to it and run Mach3 on the computer.  CNC surface grinder here we come..


----------



## TOOLMASTER

Bill Gruby said:


> Yes all feeds will be adjustable.
> 
> "Bill"


feeT


----------



## Bill Gruby

Jim, I shouldl have something to show you on that in a week or so. The students at the Trade School where I mentor are working on it in the Lab. Wish them luck please as they work very hard on these things. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes not at all.  They jumped at the chance.

 Fat fingers Toolmaster.  LOL  Happens all the time.

"Bill"


----------



## JimDawson

Bill Gruby said:


> Jim, I shouldl have something to show you on that in a week or so.



Cool, looking forward to seeing what they come up with.


----------



## John Hasler

JimDawson said:


> I finally had a chance to play with a cheap stepper speed controller, without some additional electronics it won't make a good table drive.  I could not get it to accel and decel at the ends of travel, so it won't generate a trapezoidal motion profile.  The least cost method to properly drive the table with a stepper motor is to hook a computer to it and run Mach3 on the computer.  CNC surface grinder here we come..


An Arduino can control a stepper and provide all the ramps and stuff you could want.


----------



## Bill Gruby

I haven't checked in with the students in a few days. I mentor tomorrow. I believe they are going with the Arduino unit. Not positive though. I will know more tomorrow.

 "Bill"


----------



## ome

I like Arduino, lots of support


----------



## Mark_f

I machined the 3 IPF tapers today on my mockup, arbor, my machining arbor , and my balancing arbor.


This is the completed balancing system. The arbor is as close to perfect balance as it gets. I can set it on the stand in any position and it does not roll. I put the mock up wheel arbor on it and it rocks slightly and rests heavy side down, but the balance on the mock up is very close.



This is the mock up arbor and the balance arbor and the machining arbor. The tapers came out great. I am very pleased with them so far. Next...... Machine the mockup arbor and check the balance.


----------



## ome

That's beautiful work , Mark!


----------



## Andre

Nice work Mark, may I ask what steel you chose? I think 12l14 would be good for the taper because if the arbor spins the lead in the material could possibly help prevent galling.


----------



## Mark_f

Andre said:


> Nice work Mark, may I ask what steel you chose? I think 12l14 would be good for the taper because if the arbor spins the lead in the material could possibly help prevent galling.


I was highly considering 12L14 but in a 3" diameter it is very expensive. I went to my only local supplier ( aka. "Junk yard") and he had some mystery metal 3 1/16" diameter. He said it was an "unknown alloy " to him so he sold it to me for $12 a foot. It cuts like 12L14. I don't know what it is but it machines great. I am using it to make the arbor.


----------



## Mark_f

In working on the grinding wheel arbor, I mounted it on the special arbor I made to machine the wheel arbor and turned all surfaces to finish size so everything is concentric with and located off the taper.


	

		
			
		

		
	
  The machining arbor is held in my ER 40 collet on one end and a center on the other end. I measure .0001" run out. I can live with that. By using this setup, I can turn the part around and it stays true.




All the surfaces are turned to finish size and polished. There is a relief to the inside for clearance. The shell will be gripped by the outer surface of the arbor.


	

		
			
		

		
	
 The rear is turned to finish size leaving a .125" wall thickness on the recess. This recess covers the end of the spindle to keep debris and grit away from the spindle front.


	

		
			
		

		
	
 The arbor is threaded 1 1/4"-16 left hand threads. There is a .250" wide register that supports and locates the grinding wheel.


	

		
			
		

		
	
 The inside of the front portion of the arbor is threaded .984-16 right hand threads. This is for screwing in the puller to remove the arbor from the spindle.


	

		
			
		

		
	
 I am now working on the nut that holds the grinding wheel on the arbor. It has a recess matching that of the arbor for clamping the wheel. There will be a thin ground steel flat washer that goes between the grinding wheel and the nut. ( I'm working on that). This arbor should be done this week and so far it seems good.


----------



## Mark_f

It is important that the wheel arbor is accurate and true in all  respects, so to machine the nut ......


	

		
			
		

		
	
 The nut is installed on the arbor and tightened against a spacer. The wheel arbor is mounted on the machining arbor and machined.









	

		
			
		

		
	
 The nut runs true with the arbor after machining. I will drill two holes for the spanner wrench.I will be altering the arbor print as I have made some changes . Actually making the part let me see some things that needed changed but looked OK on paper. One big change was the nut was thinned down from .500" thick to .300" thick to reduce the weight and mass.

I will be trying to cut the balance weight groove on a practice piece of steel first, as I would hate to screw up a part I have over twenty hours in making.


----------



## Mark_f

I have the proto-type grinding wheel arbor finished. It came out excellent as far as I can tell.


I started by turning the balance weights. I machined a ring with a 20 degree angle on the outside.


	

		
			
		

		
	
 This is the finished outside ring. Next , I turned another ring with a 20 degree angle on the inside.


The two rings press together.




	

		
			
		

		
	
 The two rings are pressed together, divided into six parts , and center punched on the seam between the two rings.


	

		
			
		

		
	
 The holes are drilled and tapped at 10-32. The ring is marked half way between each hole for cutting. Each segment is number stamped because the segments are matched and cannot be mixed up.


	

		
			
		

		
	
 The ring is cut ALMOST through . ( if cut through, the rings will fall apart ). The last cut is all the way through. Now the segments can be easily broken apart.

The arbor was mounted in the 4 jaw chuck , indicated to less than .001 T.I.R. A groove was  cut .275" wide and .300" deep. Then each side of the groove was cut at a 20 degree angle.


	

		
			
		

		
	
 The weights are is installed in the dove tailed groove. There are three weights. Most of the newer arbors come with three weights but I read several places that it is much easier to balance the wheel using only two weights. You can see one weight is longer than the other two. This was done in case a little heavier weight is needed.



	

		
			
		

		
	
 I drilled two holes in the nut for a spanner wrench.

I spent about thirty hours making one arbor. I had to grind several special tools to machine this arbor. I could probably cut that time by at least 1/3 now that I know how to do it.

One last thing....... I MADE TWO OF THESE ARBORS! .... I will be sending one to you Bill Gruby.


----------



## Mark_f

These are the final prints for these parts as I have made them and the prints are updated and final,


----------



## MikeWi

I'm confused on the  first drawing.  It looks like you have a nut shown at the bottom with a 1/2-16 LH for securing the hub to the spindle.  It's a little shorter than the cavity in the end of the hub, but it looks like it has spanner holes on the circumference.  Seems like you can't tighten this in place as shown?  What am I missing?


----------



## Billh50

Looks like slots on the face to me. Like for a large screw driver like tool


----------



## Mark_f

You aren't missing anything. The nut screws on the end of the spindle to hold the arbor on. It has spanner slots in the end to tighten or remove with a special spanner wrench.  Yes it is .150" shorter than the hub.  It could be made longer if one wanted. It should be close to flush.
    My original plan was to make the spanner holes and slots to match the standard wrench for surface grinders, but after getting a quote of $42 for a wrench, I stopped following that thought because for that price, I will make my own wrench.


----------



## MikeWi

Ah!  missed that they were slots.  Still learning how to read.


----------



## Mark_f

I ordered the needed washer from Sopko for the arbor . I ordered a half dozen because they have a $15 minimum order and I need them anyway. Need one for this arbor and some for my T&C grinder. They were only $2.75 each. I can't make them for that.



I set the arbor on the mill and cut the keyways for the washer with a 1/8" end mill.








I also made the puller for removing the arbor.


It will use a 1/2-13 grade 8 bolt for the stud.

I guess the arbors are finished. Time to get started on some other part.


----------



## Mark_f

I discovered a MAJOR problem on the wheel adapters. I have a LOT of hours in these and was not sure they can be saved. Another thread on here opened my eyes to this problem ( thank you Savarin). When I cut the taper inside, I couldn't get the tool in the correct position without making some special tooling, so I raised the tool I had above center to make the taper. I totally forgot that this would cut a weird taper and actually sort of oval shaped ( I think the term was " parabola". Now, I got two beautiful parts with about 30 hours apiece in making. I have to save them. 

I chucked up the special arbor I made to turn these and recut the angle WITH THE TOOL ON CENTER (boy, were these angles strange and off).  I next put the wheel adapter in my four jaw chuck and gout it dialed in to .00005. This took my finest Federal indicator ( which reads tenths but is marked in 1/4 tenths and is 3" diameter ) and about an hour just to get it chucked up. I set up and cut the taper again but CORRECTLY this time.

I removed the part and set it up on the turning arbor to check it. If it is not perfectly true, I will have to recut every surface slightly to get everything back true with the taper. I ran the spindle a couple minutes spinning the adapter. I can't visually detect any run out.  I put the Federal super indicator on it and it is still as close to perfect as I can get.


One more to go.

THE PARTS ARE DONE AND GOOD!


Now the only issue is the taper was supposed to be 1.0000" on the large end. It is now 1.025" on the large end. This will let it set back farther on the spindle by close to .100". I think the spindle will be ok with that but I have to check the dimensions to be sure. Since the spindle is not made yet I may add .050" to the length but only if needed. This way , we could still use a purchased adapter if we ever want to ( but at the price of them, I will make them again if I want another one.)
Another disaster averted


----------



## Mark_f

I'm sorry about the delay on this project, but hopefully it can get under way again soon. Billy G has all the info and he said everything was going to get shipped to me to continue until he gets back. So I am waiting also at the moment.


----------



## Tony Wells

I was just thinking about your balancing weights, Mark. By making one of the three longer, and hence heavier, aren't you introducing an out of balance condition to begin with, regardless of the wheel itself? Seems like this may work against you. Not that you couldn't compensate with the other 2 weights, but I was taught in general to make balancing work with the lightest weights possible. Since the wheels are supposed to be pretty close when they get to you, I hope you don't need all that much steel.


----------



## ome

Mark, one question, if I ever wanted to make this in my hobby shop, would I absolutely need a four jaw chuck. 
I spent 1200. On my Buck chuck , 3 jaw. 
I have never even used or indicated a 4 jaw.


----------



## Mark_f

Tony Wells said:


> I was just thinking about your balancing weights, Mark. By making one of the three longer, and hence heavier, aren't you introducing an out of balance condition to begin with, regardless of the wheel itself? Seems like this may work against you. Not that you couldn't compensate with the other 2 weights, but I was taught in general to make balancing work with the lightest weights possible. Since the wheels are supposed to be pretty close when they get to you, I hope you don't need all that much steel.


Tony,
You missed part of my explanation. I will be using two weights to balance instead of three. Older hubs had to weights on them , all the newer hubs have three weights. I have read that three weights are much harder to balance with and most people like using two weights better , so that is my plan , to use two weights.  The third weight will be an extra but it is a little bit heavier in case it is needed for a badly out of balanced wheel. I hope this helps.


----------



## Mark_f

ome said:


> Mark, one question, if I ever wanted to make this in my hobby shop, would I absolutely need a four jaw chuck.
> I spent 1200. On my Buck chuck , 3 jaw.
> I have never even used or indicated a 4 jaw.


I assume you're asking if you could make this wheel hub in your hobby shop. The answer is yes,I think you could use your three jaw Buck chuck just fine. As long as you can adjust it to run absolutely true it will replace the four jaw chuck.


----------



## Tony Wells

OK Mark, I thought your intention was to use all 3 to achieve balance.


----------



## NEL957

Bill and Mark
Fantastic build and love the size, it's just right for a home shop. I can almost see the finished machine, keep us up to date. I have one suggestion and that is but a second set of bearings while the price is where it is. I bought my bearings for my Quorn and today I can not find them at the price I paid for the first ones, more like double plus.
Looks like a machine in all that metal.
Nelson Collar


----------



## Bill Gruby

I am back full time now and will bring my end up to date over the next few weeks. Thank you all for your understanding.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Mark_f

WELCOME BACK BILL!


----------



## savarin

Glad the ankles ok. Broken bones are so debilitating, your not ill but theres so much you cant do. Take care


----------



## uncle harry

savarin said:


> Glad the ankles ok. Broken bones are so debilitating, your not ill but theres so much you cant do. Take care



Dislocated shoulders work similarly. Mine virtually  destroyed my summer shop update schedule.  Welcome back as well....lookin' forward to more of more of your mutual endeavors..


----------



## NEL957

Bill
Hope you ankle is doing well. How is the grinder coming along? It's been a little while.
Best health
Nelson


----------



## hanermo2

Great thread !
Hope it continues.

Kudos to Mark F.


----------



## Bill Gruby

We are truly sorry for the time away from this project. When I began the project and brought Mark into it neither of us saw the personal problems coming. I will not continue the project till Mark returns 100%. I will work on my end in that back and get together with a friend and do the prints up for the rest of the grinder. This is a two man project and will continue when both of us are on the same page. Thank you for your patience.

 "Billy G and Mark"


----------



## hanermo2

Bill + Mark F ..
I understand completely.

Just wished to give appreciation for both of Your hard work, often in difficult circumstances.

Secondly, I am very interested in seeing how it works, once it does, as in flatness of surfaces ground..


----------



## Mark_f

It seems that some people think this is my project. That is not true.  THIS PROJECT WAS STARTED BY BILL GRUBY! He graciously asked me to participate in it which I was honored to do. But do to personal reasons, I am leaving this forum permanently. I sincerely hope Bill continues this project and many of you assist him in this quest. I am sorry but I have to leave.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Thank you Mark. Please rethink the leaving the forum permanently part. You are needed here. As far as I am concerned you were here at the start of this build and I want you here at the end of it.

 You have an extremely large and deep rooted following here Mark .  They have a lot of respect for you and your abilities.  Take all the time you need to sort things out.

I will get together with Bill and get the prints posted in your absence.

 "Billy G"


----------



## rrjohnso2000

I have to agree completely with Bills comments. I always enjoy seeing your projects


----------



## Mark_f

I feel I am not in a frame of mind at this time to make a rational and final decision about leaving permanently at this time but am leaning in that direction. That being said, I very much would like to finish the surface grinder project with Billy G. and wish to stay long enough to accomplish that task. It is important to complete this project for one of the main reasons it was started and that is to prove to all those doubters that WE CAN DO IT! Soooo ......   I intend at this time to focus on this project. Bill drew the prints and did the design. I look forward to getting the prints when they are ready and working with Bill on the rest of this project.


----------



## silence dogood

As soon as I see any thread  signed by mark_f, I immediately go read it.   I have a lot  of respect  in your fortitude and honesty.  Please stay in touch.  Even though I have never met you personally, I consider you a friend. Also a Mark AKA Silence Dogood.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Stand by folks, I need to contact "BillH50" to get the build underway again. I don't do CAD, he does. It has been said by other experts on other forums that a surface grinder cannot be shop built. We set out to prove them wrong and together Mark and I WILL prove them wrong.

 "Billy G"


----------



## David S

Mark only you know what personal difficulty you are are experiencing.  While I have my share of hardships, from what I have read, they pale compared to yours.  First and foremost I most sincerely hope you can get back to a productive life and overcome your challenges. 

On the machining side I have always been impressed with what you can accomplish with your limited machines.  I have learned alot about improvisation, and also how to admit that when I make a mistake it is ok, and then how to save the day.

As much as I would like you to continue the project, I would not in any way want my selfish desire to compromise your health or recovery.

All the best

David


----------



## Hawkeye

Mark,

I appreciate your intention to see the project through. In the event that your situation makes that too difficult, please consider leaving your membership intact and just step back. If circumstances dictate that you have to remain away, no further action will be required. If things improve and you feel that you wish to again become active, you don't have to come up with a new on-line identity.


----------



## Bill Gruby

I got a PM from Bill. He is just out of the hospital. I will get everything I have together and call him on Friday and set a time to CAD the prints. We're getting closer. LOL

 "Billy G"


----------



## Silverbullet

Billh50 said:


> Mark,
> I know that feeling. I had about 50 pieces on a blanchard grinder once when the magnet let go. It sounded like a machine gun going off when all the parts flew into the guards. I just hit the floor until the noise stopped.


Bill did you need new drawers too. Must have been scary as heck  . Had them blow like that and it ruined the machine never ground right after.


----------



## Silverbullet

mark_f said:


> Another topic for discussion is the seals on the spindle ends. Do you all think we should use rubber oil seals or a labyrinth seal? Rubber seals are much easier but put a drag on the spindle and create more heat, while the labyrinth seal is more difficult to machine but creates no drag or heat. Are there any other seal options? I have done both types and have a preference , but would like to hear ALL options and opinions.


Anytime there's drag there's a certain amount of heat , causing breakdown of the seal and wear on the surface. Labyrinth sounds better to me. My two cents plus or miness .


----------



## Silverbullet

extropic said:


> I must have assumed that the design/build was directed at facilitating hobbyist machinist's access to a home built surface grinder. A design appropriate for highly experienced/capable machinists is another matter.


I would hope that our members would be willing to work that out. 
Maybe a collaboration between several using each ones strengths WELDER electrician machining , painting . Some making different parts for the others unable , but have other strengths to offer. 
 At least I think we can help each other out.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Moved to Members Projects. We are ready to start again.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Bill Gruby

I should be getting together with Bill on Friday to get the prints started. It will depend on his health. Going over what I have I had to make more changes that I forgot when this project went to the back burner. The water-jet cutter has the steel and is waiting for me. I would like to have that done at the end of next week. Fingers are crossed.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Billh50

Billy,
I have a doctors appointment today so will let you know what is going on later this afternoon.


----------



## Billh50

Spoke with Billy G today and will be starting to put his design of this grinder on cad soon. I will release the prints to Billy G only as it is his design. It will be up to him to release them to anyone or post them as he sees fit.


----------



## Rick Leslie

I don't get over here nearly as much as I would like, but when I do, it's always a treat. The membership support is unlike many, if not most sites on the web today. I haven't seen one thread where a member wasn't supported, offered help or just encouraging words during a time of trouble or uncertainty

That being said, I can only echo the sentiments expressed earlier in the thread regarding Mark, Bill, Bill and others actively involved in this project. "Permanent" is, well... just too permanent. Mark, if you do decide to leave, I have a strong feeling that you will always be a part of this forum. (Like it or not.)


----------



## Bill Gruby

Mark is committed to finishing this build with me and the rest of you. You have nooooo idea how much work needs to be done yet. It will be quite some tome before this is over. All we have so far is the spindle and wheel hub. They are useless without the rest. It was quite a feat to enlarge and reverse engineer this grinder. You will not be disappointed. And yes. despite the nay sayers, I am sure all of you could build this. Monday I get together with Bill and we start the uphill battle to get this project on paper (CAD). I didn't say it would be easy for everyone, but I did say you could do it.  FAITH --- The ability to go forward with no guarantee. Keep that in mind and follow us down the yellow brick road.


"Billy G, Mark and BillH50"


----------



## Bill Gruby

The long wait is just about over. By tomorrow afternoon the prints will start coming. Be advised this could be a long process as Bill and I hate CAD and I want you to be able to read these. If I can't read them, you don't see them. We plan to keep this build as simple as we possibly can. Thank you for your patience so far. We will do our best not to let you down.

 "Billy G, Mark and Bill"


----------



## sanddan

Let me know if you need help with the cad part. I have SW so can solid model and do prints. PM me if interested.


----------



## NEL957

Mark
I glad to see you back, I know it is hard and just do what you feel able. You will be in my prayers and many others on the group. So good to hear it is on go. 
Be well my friend
Nelson


----------



## Billh50

Dan,
I also have SW as well as ProE, Cadkey and MasterCam. All of which render 3D drawings. But if I have any problems I will keep you in mind. Just need to get together with BillyG right now to make exchanging drawings easier between BillyG and Mark.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Bill will be calling this afternoon after his last Doctors appointments and we will get this underway. His health is more important to us than this project. He is a key player now, as I am going to try and learn the basics of CAD from him. Good luck today Bill.

 "Billy G, Mark and Bill"


----------



## Bill Gruby

10:00 AM tomorrow is the go time. I spent today working on the raising and lowering problems. Got it on paper. May still need a counter balance for the heavy motor.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Mark_f

I look forward to the prints and getting going.

Mark


----------



## Bill Gruby

Did any of you ever get the feeling that someone did not want something to get done? Went to the Caddy to go to bills' place and low and behold, flat tire. Easy fix, boys change tire for me. Only have a donut for a spare and it's flat. Tire shop is right up the street. I'll get there at some point in time Bill. ROTFCMEO

 "Billy G"


----------



## Bill Gruby

Need three gears to use in the raising and lowering of the wheel. There will be two lead screws to handle this task so a third gear is needed to make both turn in the same direction. I want them to be 4 inch diameter. OK so far?

 Need the pitch diameter. I have the OD and I have the # of teeth (48) ------ PD = ND / N+2

 N   # of teeth
D   OD of the blank gear

PD = 48X4 / 48+2
PD = 192 / 50
PD = 3.84"

All gears the same, 48 teeth it is. 48 was used because none of the others I tried had an even PD.  I tried 60, 45, and 40 and none were less the 5 decimal places.

 "Billy G


----------



## Bill Gruby

Bill now has the prints I finished. He will post them as he gets them done. I am going back go work on the gear box.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Tony Wells

Question, Bill. What is your approach to synchronizing these leadscrews to compensate for the backlash that will exist in that geartrain? And will it be adjustable?


----------



## rwm

Interesting question Tony. What amount of back lash would be significant? What tolerances are we shooting for on the height adjustment? .001" or better? I assume the height screws will be very fine in pitch?
Robert


----------



## Tony Wells

Robert, I'm not really sure. It just made me think of the way a wood working planer is built, with two elevation screws.  It may be that if the intermediate gear is used to actually drive the individual screws, once they were synchronized they should wear at almost identical rates and not create a side loading problem for the ways or guides for the head. And since like all plain screw methods, we operators would always approach the target location from the same direction, and if over-shot, move back and try again......it may not be an issue. But in original construction, I would think that there will need to be a good way to "fix" the relationship between the two screws as closely as possible. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Raising and lowering should have near zero backlash. The weight of the motor should in theory keep it in the same side of the thread both up and down. If not our thought is to use a counterbalance to keep it there. Now back lash in the lead screw will be dealt with using double nuts, one above and one below the top plate. Each nut will be adjusted to one side of the thread and locked with a set screw. This will hold the backlash down and keep the screws in sync. Adjustable at any time.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Billh50

Couple quick Prints for Billy G to look over.


----------



## Bill Gruby

You are correct the center (intermediate) gear will drive the two screws simultaneously Tony. I don't believe this type set up will allow the screws to go out of sync.

Good Bill. Everyone please keep in mind that anything can change at any time during the build.


 "Billy G"


----------



## Billh50

Billy G,

Here's a sketch of the timing belt Idea I had for moving the table left to right.
Let's see what others think also.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Thank you Bill, that's pretty much what I thought it would be when you suggested  it today. Will definitely keep that in mind.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Bill Gruby

Involute Gear Cutters only make one set of teeth precise. By that I mean only the first number, the lowest is the precise number. Let me ease it a little, say you want 48 teeth like we need. The #3 cutter can cut 35 to 54 teeth. Only the 35will cut on the money. This is true with all 8 of the cutters. We will make our own cutter to get as close as we can to the precise 48 teeth. Gonna call it a 3.5.  LOL  Can do folks, can do. Gotta get some sleep. I'll dream of this allllllll night. ROTFLMBO

 "Billy G"


----------



## Bill Gruby

I just talked to Bill and he is going to post an isometric drawing of how the lead screw backlash will be controlled.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Billh50

Here's the photo.


----------



## Billh50

Detail 16 in the drawing becomes a fixed nut. Detail 16A then becomes an adjustable nut to remove backlash. These together work the same as a split nut.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Thank you Bill. You are correct. The nut to the left of the plate is locked in with a set screw. It stays in place . The upper nut (right) has a groove all the way around the OD. It can be moved to bring the lead screw as close as possible to zero backlash, then it is locked in place with a setscrew. Same as using a split nut.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Billh50

updated photo


----------



## Tony Wells

A threaded Clamptite collar (H-K/Allen) could be modified with spanner holes to give infinite adjustment with positive locking without any scarring of the screw or stub extension if choosing non-threaded collars. Something about set screws leaves me uncomfortable with fine adjustments. Collars such as Clamptite leave no marks on the shaft or screw at all, and are very secure in holding position.  Again, just thinking out loud. Just tell me to shush if I am interfering. Somehow I feel the need for some pretty precise balancing between left and right elevating forces.


----------



## Billh50

One thing I believe we should try to consider is that this is something for a hobby machine shop. So we have to be aware not to over think things to the point they become complex or expensive to make. The more we can make ourselves the less the cost. Or at least that was my thought in the beginning.


----------



## Tony Wells

Good point, Bill. I do tend to over analyze things, but I am driven to best results first, and sometimes other factors cloud my thinking. Not that in this case the collars I refer to are expensive, or something that couldn't be made or perhaps even improved on, but your point is well taken. I'm just trying to toss out ideas to keep the thought processes from getting rutted. As usual, the poor cat can get skinned again in many ways.

And yes, not being a hobbyist does affect my approach. But sometimes exposure to commercial work is very enlightening and many concepts can cross over to the hobby shop.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Thank you Tony and Bill. The set screw bothered me also but I decided to go with them because of hopefully few adjustments. I will keep the collars in mind though. A fine thread on the OD of the collar and a lock nut would also work. We have options.

 "Billy G


----------



## Billh50

Tony,
I do know what you mean.
When I was working as a toolmaker I didn't care what something cost as long as it was something good. But now that I am on a low fixed income and not much left every month, cost means more to me. I have seen a few milling machines that I could have afforded if I was still working. But now that I am not I can't seem to find anything I can afford that is available.


----------



## Mark_f

My personal opinion is that the set screw is not a problem as this machine is used in a hobby setting and will not have the use as in a professional setting, therefore not requiring any adjustment that often. 
Just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## Bill Gruby

The adjustment is extremely fine anyway. At it longest distance it can only be thread to thread. Any way you do it should be no problem. It is nice however to have as many options as possible. I finished figuring out the cutter dimensions today for a precise 48 teeth. This will keep backlash to a minimum.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Billh50

The Rest of the prints I have. Please keep in mind these can change as Billy G and Mark go along.


----------



## Bill Gruby

I've got some more for you, I'll get there this week. Got more steel to order this week also. All who watch this build please note, it ain't cheap, but not near as much as a new one.

 "Billy G"


----------



## f350ca

Another approach.
The compound on my Summit lathe uses a two nut system, One is press fit as yours with tapered pins locking it to the casting, the other nut can turn in the casting as yours, The shoulder has maybe 20 teeth cut in it. Two spring loaded pins can slide out into the slots, when one pin is engaged the other is behind a tooth to give 1/2 tooth adjustment. 

Greg


----------



## Bill Gruby

A big thank you for that approach Greg.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Bill Gruby

Got word yesterday that all8 pcs. of 1018 pickled will arrive on Thursday. I will get with the "Water Jet " people tomorrow and finalize the cutting. ( 8 pcs. 1/2 X 24 X 24 ) It will be .040 over to allow for finish machining. Once cut amd machined here at my shop, a set will be sent to Mark. This is one time Marks' machinery will not have to be pushed over the edge. LOL

 "Billy G"


----------



## Mark_f

Bill Gruby said:


> Got word yesterday that all8 pcs. of 1018 pickled will arrive on Thursday. I will get with the "Water Jet " people tomorrow and finalize the cutting. ( 8 pcs. 1/2 X 24 X 24 ) It will be .040 over to allow for finish machining. Once cut amd machined here at my shop, a set will be sent to Mark. This is one time Marks' machinery will not have to be pushed over the edge. LOL
> 
> "Billy G"


I appreciate that, Bill. Those might just be a little big for the Burke.


----------



## Bill Gruby

They might make it but I wouldn't want to chance the hold. It won't tax my 8520 but it won't be the easiest job I've done on it. I will need an engineering plate that I have to do it properly.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Bill Gruby

Whoa -- long time no see. LOL

 Let's visit the gears again. I want to change the center to center distance to 4 inches for clearance reasons. A good reference book here is "Gears and Gear Cutting" by Ivan Law. It is #17 in the Workshop Practice Series. Extremely easy to follow.

 Ok, knowing I have three gears and I want them all the same for ease of machining. Still using 48 teeth but the new pitch diameter is an even 4,00 inches.

 Need the DP ( Diametral Pitch)  DP = N/PD 48/4 = 12  The new DP is 12

 Cutter now needed is #3 12DP 14.5 PA. It will cut a tooth depth of .180. Nice when all numbers are even. LOL  Just ordered the cutter this morning.

Update on the steel, ????  It was supposed to be at the Water Cutter last week.  No show yet. I will give them a call tomorrow. That's all I have for now. I will update again tomorrow.

"Billy G"


----------



## Bill Gruby

I would like to add that although not rocket science, gear cutting can become very confusing. For this very reason I highly recommend the book referred to above. Just reading chapter 1 the Basics you will become at ease with the subject. By the time you reach the formula chapter you will feel as if you have really accomplished something. Gear Design is a complicated thing, but with a little reading, hands on will be much simpler. I will be more than happy to answer any questions you have if I can. If I can't we will search for the answer together. Have fun.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Mark_f

I look forward to things getting going again here. Are all or most of the prints ready?

 These are the gears for raising and lowering the wheel, correct?


----------



## Bill Gruby

I have to get with Bill and all the prints will be done. There are 52 or 54 individual prints. Yes Mark those are the gears to raise and lower the spindle.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Silverbullet

Has there been any thought to gathering all the parts to build one and maybe offer a price to buy the kit to build our own at home. Like a Hemingway kit. Just thinking if we could help each other , sometimes it's hard to find everything.  I don't know just my troubles always trying to find everything needed to do a build. It may help with price if the dealers going to sell 10 sets over just one or two. Even ask them to save the cutting dimensions so others can just order . I don't know just thinking from my point of view.


----------



## Bill Gruby

That could be done but one must be built first to see what is involved. Thank you for that input, I hadn't thought about it. Maybe even a partial kit could be done.

 "Billy G"


----------



## Billh50

Billy will be calling me tomorrow evening after I get through with my bone scans. We can talk about getting together for prints then.


----------



## 34_40

Bill G.,  what and where is this Workshop Practice Series you mention above?  TIA
"
 A good reference book here is "Gears and Gear Cutting" by Ivan Law. It is #17 in the Workshop Practice Series. Extremely easy to follow."


----------



## Bill Gruby

There are many copies for sale on ebay. Amazon also has them.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gears-and-G...454442?hash=item465e6602ea:g:A0sAAOSw~AVYrIBw

 The covers may vary but they are all the same book.

 "Billy G"


----------



## 34_40

Thanks Bill.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Newest cover, same text.


http://www.ebay.com/itm/NEW-Gears-A...606079?hash=item58ee07baff:g:mukAAOSw9N1Vs3U9

 "Billy G"


----------



## brino

@34_40 

I previously posted a list of the "Workshop Practice Series" books here:
http://www.hobby-machinist.com/threads/beginners-book.48539/#post-411305

-brino


----------



## Bill Gruby

Wow, That is an old list, LOL. There are 49 in the series now, not 38.

 'Billy G"


----------



## 34_40

brino said:


> @34_40
> 
> I previously posted a list of the "Workshop Practice Series" books here:
> http://www.hobby-machinist.com/threads/beginners-book.48539/#post-411305
> 
> -brino



Thank You Sir!  That should come in very handy.


----------



## Bill Gruby

Been groveling over the gears again and still am not satisfied with the Tooth Depth. I don't think .180 will be deep enough. .180 is with a 12 PD. We already know how to figure this out.

 N = PD X DP  Lets drop to an 8 PD. This gives a .270 Depth of Tooth.

 N = 4.00 X 8 or 32 Teeth. Still even numbers but a different cutter is needed. Now a #4 - 8 DP cutter is needed. No sweat, got one of those.

 I need to stop reworking this thing. But then all this stuff will save time in the end. Any other thoughts on this before I move on??

 "Billy G"


----------

