# DIY lathe design question



## Stefants (Jun 1, 2019)

I’m at the thought exercise phase of building a lathe.  It’s not because I think it’s the cheapest way to do things or that I think it’ll yield the best machine possible, but because I enjoy the process.  I’ve built a wood lathe from wood previously and I’m happy with the result so far.  I’m curious to try out the concrete lathe concept that’s out there and see just what’s possible first hand.  Maybe it’ll work, maybe it’ll be more a learning experience than a machine build . With a couple kids and limited time, we’ll see when/if I get out of the thought exercise and actually build something...but for now, I have a design question.  

The vast majority of lathes I see are designed such that the spindle is located pretty much right between the two ways.  Between the radius of the work plus the tool extension beyond the toolpost, this puts much of the downward cutting force on the front way...or pretty much all of it if the downward force ends up in front of the front way.  It seems that setting the spindle back somewhat would locate the cutting forces more symmetrically between the two ways, particularly for parts of any appreciable size.  This would result in the carriage being forced down against both ways more uniformly during a cut, rather than putting the majority of the load on the front way or potentially even twisting forward (lifting the carriage off the back way in the worst case scenario).  Is there a reason moving the spindle back relative to the ways is not more common?

A couple pictures taken from freely available downloadable (old) books (_Lathe Design, Construction, and Operation_ by Oscar Perrigo  and _Lathe Bed Design_ by Joseph Horner):







I saw reference to an offset spindle once, but the concept didn’t seem to stick.  







Is there a reason it isn’t more common?  Or is it more common than I think it is?  Thanks!


----------



## jwmelvin (Jun 1, 2019)

The carriage will have more of an internal bending moment of you move the force away from the front way. I’m not sure how significant that is.


----------



## brino (Jun 1, 2019)

Hello @Stefants,

First, Welcome to the site!
You are among like-minded people here.

Second, I have no idea. I've never even thought about it.
However, I am already "watch"ing the thread, because I know it will generate many good response.

-brino


----------



## ThinWoodsman (Jun 1, 2019)

Just hazarding a guess here. 
1) Most lathes were developed for general-purpose use, so the design allowed for both forward and backward rotation of the spindle, so the back way and front way should be in the same position in relation to the spindle. 
2) Moving the spindle center from the center of ways (which generally act as the feet) would cause problems with faceplate work - the heavy, counterweighted chunk of metal clamped to the edge of the faceplate would cause the lathe to walk towards the front way, if the spindle was centered over the front ways instead of between the ways.


----------



## jwmelvin (Jun 1, 2019)

I like your point about unbalanced loads @ThinWoodsman


----------



## benmychree (Jun 1, 2019)

This smacks of re inventing the wheel; there are, I am sure plenty of reasons that lathes have evolved in their present form.


----------



## jwmelvin (Jun 1, 2019)

It seems reasonable to understand something before deciding not to invent a new one.


----------



## Hawkeye (Jun 1, 2019)

You brought up an interesting point, so I went and checked my lathes. The Hercus (Australian SB9) has the spindle centred, but the Swedish Storebro Bruk Ornmaskiner has the spindle set toward the back rail - somewhere around 60/40.


----------



## C-Bag (Jun 1, 2019)

And without that understanding you can't know whether it was just "historical engineering"(well that's the way we've always done it) or if their was a sound reason, Certainly something I've not thought about before.


----------



## Stefants (Jun 2, 2019)

It’s definitely worth picking a knowledgeable community’s brains about this before diving in and doing something obviously silly. I appreciate the input. I do suspect there’s a reason it doesn’t seem to be common practice...I just wish I knew exactly what it was. I don’t think it’s a notion without merit. I’d like to suss out any undiscovered checks, though. It’s always dangerous to see the possible upside and not be able to identify the downside.

Thanks for checking your equipment, Hawkeye. An existence proof more recent than 100 years ago (the approximate age of the books I posted pictures from) is useful and encouraging.


----------



## MontanaLon (Jun 2, 2019)

I think it is a matter of compromises. If you were to design the ideal lathe, you would want rigidity in buckets. Think about having a need to make 1 part a million times. You could and likely would design a machine dedicated to that single part. Let's say that part is a bolt and for the sake of the exercise, that you couldn't make the bolt any other way. It would need so much power and any extra would be wasted. It would need a lot of rigidity so it would be heavily built. Ideally, the tool holder would be mounted with the range of motion needed to create the piece and all other aspects of it would be built for rigidity and nothing else. It would likely be mounted in a far more rigid fashion than resting on rails with a piece of iron bolted onto the bottom acting to keep it from moving in any direction but that required to complete the part.

You would likely end up with a machine that is recognizable as a lathe only vaguely. But it really would be a lathe at heart.

Now imagine you need to build a different part. Larger, smaller, even with a different thread pitch. You would need a whole new machine to do it. For someone making a million of the same thing, a new dedicated machine might make sense. 

But if you aren't making a million of anything and need to make all sorts of parts using the same machine then you start making compromises. Bigger, smaller, etc. Everything is a trade off.


----------



## savarin (Jun 2, 2019)

and dont forget there are slant bed lathes and vertical lathes.
My vertical lathe was the drill press using hand held tools.
It worked for aluminium.


----------



## Choiliefan (Jun 2, 2019)

The c1916 book "Lathe Design - construction and operation" by Oscar Perrigo goes into it pretty well.
Perrigo knew his stuff.
A quick search came up with a pdf:   https://archive.org/details/lathedesignconst00perrrich/page/n6
The chapter on bed/way construction starts on page 69.


----------



## Stefants (Jun 2, 2019)

Choiliefan said:


> The c1916 book "Lathe Design - construction and operation" by Oscar Perrigo goes into it pretty well.
> Perrigo knew his stuff.
> A quick search came up with a pdf: https://archive.org/details/lathedesignconst00perrrich/page/n6
> The chapter on bed/way construction starts on page 69.



Yes, that book seems pretty solid. The symmetric diagram I originally posted was from p77. But I didn’t see any reference there to anything other than symmetric being preferred in general as a matter of “strength, rigidity, and stability.” I’d love an explanation to go with the assertion.


----------



## Choiliefan (Jun 2, 2019)

IIRC some 60's LeBlond sales literature has a diagram and some blurb as to why they changed the front angle for a deeper bearing surface.
Will post if I can find it.


----------



## Choiliefan (Jun 2, 2019)

c1958 Leblond catalog:



http://www.vintagemachinery.org/pubs/2102/16487.pdf


----------



## hman (Jun 2, 2019)

savarin said:


> My vertical lathe was the drill press using hand held tools.  It worked for aluminium.


My first "lathe" was a drill press and a Dremel grinder.

PS to Stefants - I'd offer a SWAG to the effect that symmetrical (spindle centered over bed ways) lathes are largely a matter of design simplification.  As long as the front bed way is strong enough to withstand the anticipated cutting forces, the rear way can be placed wherever it's easy (simple) to do so.  And of course, there's the added factor that many (most?) lathes have an inverted V way in front and a flat way on the rear, unlike the first diagram you included.  I can see where the inverted V helps prevent the carriage from moving sideways (toward the operator) under cutting forces.  And having a flat rear way reduces the need for precise location (and therefore expense) that twin Vs would require.  

I'm definitely not a tool designer.  But I find this whole discussion very interesting.  Thanks for bringing it up!


----------



## francist (Jun 2, 2019)

hman said:


> My first "lathe" was a drill press and a Dremel grinder.



Luxury! Here's "my" first lathe.....




Powered off an old clothesline pulley hanging from the ceiling and a length of cord around the workpiece.....
One hand pulled the cord, the other hand hand the chisel. Some dexterity was required!


----------



## hman (Jun 2, 2019)

Almost a classic "tree" lathe!  Love it!


----------



## savarin (Jun 2, 2019)

Sheer luxury, we ad ta tie part ta wagon wheel an run along wi chisel ta make tha cut.


----------



## darkzero (Jun 2, 2019)

hman said:


> My first "lathe" was a drill press and a Dremel grinder.



My first "mill" was a Dremel & Dremel drill press attachment. That Dremel was the very first power tool that I got in my life when I was 15 yrs old. I still have that Dremel but the bearings are bad now, I wonder why.  

My first "lathe", well first time I used a "lathe" was a brake lathe that I used to machine 2 pulleys off a Honda harmonic balancer. Had no idea what a lathe was at the time & that I was technically machining the pulley.


----------



## WCraig (Jun 3, 2019)

Stefants said:


> It’s definitely worth picking a knowledgeable community’s brains about this before diving in and doing something obviously silly. I appreciate the input. I do suspect there’s a reason it doesn’t seem to be common practice...I just wish I knew exactly what it was. I don’t think it’s a notion without merit. I’d like to suss out any undiscovered checks, though. It’s always dangerous to see the possible upside and not be able to identify the downside.
> 
> Thanks for checking your equipment, Hawkeye. An existence proof more recent than 100 years ago (the approximate age of the books I posted pictures from) is useful and encouraging.


AIUI, Myford's ML7 lathes used an offset design for decades:



> ... The spindle was offset from the bed centre line towards the rear - a feature the makers ingeniously claimed in their first publicity sheet: "_The distinct advantage of the offset is paramount when turning large diameters, the degree of rigidity being equal to that of a bed 5-inches wide with the headstock centrally disposed_."







__





						Myford Lathes
					





					www.lathes.co.uk
				




Disclaimer:  no personal experience, just happened to be reading about Myford's products the other day.

Craig


----------



## Stefants (Jun 3, 2019)

WCraig said:


> AIUI, Myford's ML7 lathes used an offset design for decades:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good stuff! Thanks! I think for the overall design I’ve had in mind, I’m planning to offset the spindle to the back. How much to the back is yet to be determined, but it seems like an idea for which there is precedent and (as of now) no solid detriment to point to. Again, we’ll see how long it takes for me to get to building...still plenty of time to change my mind 

I appreciate everyone’s feedback!


----------



## Iceberg86300 (Jun 3, 2019)

Don't forget about the tailstock & steady rest. Both will need the same offset of the headstock if they are to be included.

Also, symmetry is a very nice thing. Humans tend to gravitate to it & this shows in our designs, but it can also be very useful. A symmetrical design tends to be easier to manufacture. Symmetrical castings of a bed/base/headstock variety not only behave in a more predictable manner but they also facilitate easier manufacture. If patterned & cast on its side the parting line can be straight down the middle, where any cores are also likely to be placed. Something with a pure "A" frame can theoretically be patterned & cast upside down w/o a parting line. 

An "A" frame on top of a box with a slight negative draft, also cast upsidedown, puts the parting line anywhere below the ways. So the headstock & ways are pressed into the drag (bottom) portion the mold where they would be most likely to get the best fill with the least amount of inclusions/impurities (when fed & vented correctly). Thus making the most important parts of the castings the most sound as all the junk floats the top. This would also make it fairly easy to accurately place a core for spindle location. Cores could also be easily stacked above the drag to create cavities/structure in the base. 

This would be just for "simple" two piece molds, but I think you get the idea. I don't have a lathe in front of me to analyze but I don't remember seeing many in which the headstock protrudes over the base. At least on small/med engine lathes w/o bolted in headstocks. 

Doing so could throw a pretty big wrench into things by breaking up the parting line into multiple planes when before it was contained by one. 

Just some extra stuff to think about!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## martik777 (Jun 3, 2019)

Hubert Elffers , an 80 year old built this in 3 years: http://www.lathes.co.uk/elffers/ 

Then there is the Stepperhead: http://www.lathes.co.uk/stepperhead/


----------



## Stefants (Jun 3, 2019)

Iceberg, your points are well taken regarding manufacturability. For all the problems that may come with concrete, I think some of those casting issues are easier. You have some more mold flexibility when you don’t have to worry about incinerating it! I did cast aluminum in a homemade Gingery style charcoal foundry in high school...I’m familiar with the challenges you’re talking about. And in a “build and sell lots of them” world, I think they’re very legitimate considerations.

Martik, those are some beauties . I have no doubt I’m setting my sights a little lower, but I’m hoping for an interesting ride.

Here’s my wood lathe in its current incarnation. My long term intent is to add ornamental capability...I have grand designs for lots of headstock tweeks to make that happen. As it is, it’s kinda neat to have a homemade treadle powered machine to make file handles with . I got this far about the time my daughter came along 7 years ago. Been pretty stagnant since then.


----------



## savarin (Jun 3, 2019)

__





						The Essential Documents: What You Need to Read Before You Build These Projects - My CMS
					

From the Founder, Pat Delany: My role: to revive the original concrete lathe concept, to update the technology by 100 … Read More →



					opensourcemachinetools.org


----------



## C-Bag (Jun 4, 2019)

savarin said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Crazy, never heard of Yoeman before. This would seem to solve the major hurdle of building the frame of the lathe as I could never see how you could deal with casting the frame out of iron and then machining it.


----------



## Stefants (Jun 4, 2019)

Having read about Yeoman’s lathes from wartime, I am quite surprised that the general concept did not catch on with the DIY community. Casting aluminum isn’t beyond reach, for sure, but concrete is certainly a lower bar. And a big, heavy, vibration damping concrete base has appeal (concrete’s dimensional instability is another story). At this point, since Pat Delaney‘s site is not actively kept up to date, and the wiki space where a lot of the information he had assembled is defunct, it seems like the prospect of a concrete machine is slipping back into the ether. Maybe there are good reasons for that. There are certainly a lot of folks out there willing to say that it’s a terrible idea. But I would like to see for myself.

The only place I have seen the idea actually put into practice is here:









						Concrete Metal Lathe
					

Concrete Metal Lathe: I've wanted a large CNC lathe for a long time...key ingredient to that being a large lathe.  Unfortunately most places that sell these lathes want a large sum of money in exchange.  After some searching on the internet it turns out one could build a…




					www.instructables.com
				




For all the thought that was seemingly put into the concept, it seems a number of shortcuts were taken in this particular incarnation that don’t necessarily make it the best test of capability. That said, the results this guy got are encouraging enough to make me want to try it myself.

I’m currently doing my homework regarding concrete. Super plasticizers, pozzolans, and fiber reinforcement, oh my! I think the countertop world has made the right composition for a machine a thing to be avoided...but I’m not certain yet. They tend to advocate loading up the concrete with polymers and flexy fiber bundles...I think I want rigid and not flexible for a machine. My first step is some basic concrete exploration...


----------



## Stefants (Jun 6, 2019)

While I like my wood lathe, I didn’t really want this thread to be represented by 2x4 construction! This is closer to what I’m envisioning for these purposes...


----------



## MozamPete (Jun 6, 2019)

WCraig said:


> AIUI, Myford's ML7 lathes used an offset design for decades:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The offset is so small I have to admit I had never noticed it - I would of sworn the ML7 spindle was in the middle of the ways. But yes, it is offset slightly towards the rear way.


----------



## Tozguy (Jun 6, 2019)

jwmelvin said:


> It seems reasonable to understand something before deciding not to invent a new one.



Especially since many have gone before us and there is not much new under the sun.
However I am all for trying to invent/improve something just for the exercise and the learning it brings.
When I look at your lathe made out of wood I see the hours of fun and satisfaction you got from making it.
Will be watching this thread too, uncovering the 'why' behind how our tools are designed is fascinating.


----------



## C-Bag (Jun 6, 2019)

Stefants said:


> While I like my wood lathe, I didn’t really want this thread to be represented by 2x4 construction! This is closer to what I’m envisioning for these purposes...


Much nicer aesthetically than the one in the vid with the aggregate showing. To me the vid one screamed the cement was too dry. Personally I will never tackle a major repair on my lathe without either a spare lathe OR access to another lathe again. There are things like the spindle that you can only make with a lathe. And not having enough ID through the spindle is a PIA.

Everybody has their own focus that differs. Like there are a lot of guys here who have basement shops and the idea of a huge chunk of cement that doesn't come a part that literally weighs a ton is not appealing. I personally after living with with a nomad for 30yrs in which we moved 23 times makes me phobic heavy bulky stuff. I'm not living with that anymore but it hangs in the back of my mind and makes my back ache just thinking about it.  

I personally would have something of a hybrid with the metal headstock separate possibly like Rivett design with the bearings able to pressed into the headstock. AFAIK flanged bearings are not really precision either. This way you could have the mass in the bed and ability to take it apart not to mention ease of alignment and adjustment.


----------



## Stefants (Jul 18, 2019)

I would like to find a chunk of cast iron to use as a reference comparison as I investigate the properties of various concrete compositions. The easiest thing I have come up with so far would be to cannibalize a cooking vessel. I am not sure that cast iron is representative of machine tool cast iron, though, and it’s not my preferred dimension to work with. I see that I can buy a disk of continuous cast gray iron on eBay (and then pay pretty much the same cost over again to ship it). That would work and is my leading candidate at the moment (but again, I’m not sure that’s the best analog for machine tool cast iron). Any suggestions as to where I might find a piece of scrapped cast-iron suitable to my purpose? I am looking for something that could yield a rectangular slug about 5 inches long, 2 inches wide, and a half inch thick. Thanks for lookin’


----------



## MontanaLon (Jul 18, 2019)

weight lifting plate. See them pretty frequently on craigslist.


----------



## C-Bag (Jul 18, 2019)

MontanaLon said:


> weight lifting plate. See them pretty frequently on craigslist.


Those plates are not like the cast iron in American machines. It can be hard and almost impossible to machine. I bought a big chunk of that durabar iron off eBay and it's wonderful to machine. It is the most like the part of my cast iron machines that I've machined.

But I learned the hard way there can be impurities in the Chinese castings and I don't know what they are but HSS edge in my shaper bit was just sheared off by these two spots. I've been working on truing up the flute grinding jig for my Deckel style grinder which was basically a 3"x2.5"x3.5" piece of Chinese cast with a 1.180" hole through it for the arbor and a dovetail on the bottom. The top, and sides were no problem and the shaper did a beautiful job as usual. I was doing all this because the machining of the whole thing was a mess. The hole for the arbor had .011 play which made it close to impossible the grind the flutes. After closer inspection I also found the dovetails had almost .008" taper and were not level to each other, being around .005" off from each other.

After getting the top, sides and ends square to each other so I had true reference for truing the bottom of the dovetail that's where I ran into the hard spots. I got a 2" carbide insert facemill and it went right through it and did a nice job. I have no idea if impurities float to the top or bottom or just got lucky with all my cuts until the bottom of the dovetail. I got a HSS dovetail cutter for truing up the dovetails. Got it before running into the hard spots so who knows what will happen.


----------



## Stefants (Oct 9, 2019)

Well, it has been slow going on my concrete work. I will still be playing with that for a while. That does not stop me from thinking ahead and looking forward to a time when I am dealing with more traditional machine tool kind of stuff 

At the moment, I am keeping my eyes open for a machinist’s level. Is there any reason that I would want a standard level rather than a frame level? It seems that the frame level offers the ability to register to a horizontal or vertical surface, while a standard level is a one-trick pony. Is there any functionality lost by getting a frame level instead of a standard level? It does not seem to be the case, but maybe I am missing something. 







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## C-Bag (Oct 9, 2019)

Stefants said:


> I would like to find a chunk of cast iron to use as a reference comparison as I investigate the properties of various concrete compositions. The easiest thing I have come up with so far would be to cannibalize a cooking vessel. I am not sure that cast iron is representative of machine tool cast iron, though, and it’s not my preferred dimension to work with. I see that I can buy a disk of continuous cast gray iron on eBay (and then pay pretty much the same cost over again to ship it). That would work and is my leading candidate at the moment (but again, I’m not sure that’s the best analog for machine tool cast iron). Any suggestions as to where I might find a piece of scrapped cast-iron suitable to my purpose? I am looking for something that could yield a rectangular slug about 5 inches long, 2 inches wide, and a half inch thick. Thanks for lookin’


Just now for some reason I remembered this but I don't know if you found what you were looking for in cast iron but add to keep on the look out list is dead table saws. I ended up scrapping the one I got off of CL and I ended up using almost everything for other projects. Including the cast iron top and wings. The wings I bolted together and made a really nice flat for my welding table. Because of the webs of the casting it has really worked out for working on odd shapes and for clamping. It kills me years ago I had a neighbor who cleaned out his shop and threw away probably 4-5 sets of cast iron wings off table saws. At the time I couldn't think of the thing to do with them. Hindsight it killer 20/20.


----------



## C-Bag (Oct 9, 2019)

Stefants said:


> Well, it has been slow going on my concrete work. I will still be playing with that for a while. That does not stop me from thinking ahead and looking forward to a time when I am dealing with more traditional machine tool kind of stuff
> 
> At the moment, I am keeping my eyes open for a machinist’s level. Is there any reason that I would want a standard level rather than a frame level? It seems that the frame level offers the ability to register to a horizontal or vertical surface, while a standard level is a one-trick pony. Is there any functionality lost by getting a frame level instead of a standard level? It does not seem to be the case, but maybe I am missing something.
> 
> ...


----------



## Stefants (Oct 9, 2019)

C-Bag said:


> Just now for some reason I remembered this but I don't know if you found what you were looking for in cast iron ...



I bought a piece of continuous cast iron from eBay. It should let me get the comparison I’m looking for. Thanks for your input 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stefants (Jul 23, 2020)

Just wanted to say that this thread ain’t dead, but I admit it’s not as active as I had anticipated/hoped. I got my hands on a universal milling machine that needs attention and at the moment I’m busy building a swimming pool . But I’ll be back. Here are some bar molds for casting concrete samples just to show my only relevant progress 







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Winegrower (Jul 23, 2020)

Normally when I set out to reinvent the wheel, or fire, I have some idea of what I am trying to improve.  I wonder if in this time you have some specific goals for the project?

BTW I’m currently trying to improve on fire, using deuterium fusion.    I’m leaving the wheel to my superiors.


----------



## Stefants (Jul 23, 2020)

Winegrower, I do want a functional lathe out of this endeavor. I feel like building accuracy from the ground up is an interesting challenge and a good educational project. But I really want to know if the concrete base idea works. It seems like an attractive lathe for the DIY crowd, but I’ve seen surprisingly few folks take the idea up and run with it (and the ones I’ve seen have seemingly cut corners in a way that kind of defeats the purpose in my opinion). I just get squirreled very easily on this kind of endeavor... too many things to examine. I might be better off just starting in on it (except for the pool who’s season is fading quickly and the mill that’s taking up my parking spot being in the way), but at this point I’m in materials optimization mode. I’m pretty sure concrete for a sidewalk, deck post, or countertop isn’t likely the best bet for a machine tool. So that’s where I’m at 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## C-Bag (Jul 23, 2020)

Stefants said:


> Winegrower, I do want a functional lathe out of this endeavor. I feel like building accuracy from the ground up is an interesting challenge and a good educational project. But I really want to know if the concrete base idea works. It seems like an attractive lathe for the DIY crowd, but I’ve seen surprisingly few folks take the idea up and run with it (and the ones I’ve seen have seemingly cut corners in a way that kind of defeats the purpose in my opinion). I just get squirreled very easily on this kind of endeavor... too many things to examine. I might be better off just starting in on it (except for the pool who’s season is fading quickly and the mill that’s taking up my parking spot being in the way), but at this point I’m in materials optimization mode. I’m pretty sure concrete for a sidewalk, deck post, or countertop isn’t likely the best bet for a machine tool. So that’s where I’m at
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


I suffer from squirreling usually in the form of some idea for a DIY tool which I use my hobby lathe or mill for. Those are distracting enough but starting from scratch like that one guy and make a lathe out of reinforced concrete is amazing and I know I don’t have the time to do it. I’ve still got a couple of really good projects I can’t find the time to complete.

There is no doubt it can be done because he did it but he doesn’t seem to be offering detailed plans which would really speed up the process eliminating the trial and error. I’m not sure if he doesn’t want anybody to know how he did it or is expecting some company to come along and give him a bunch $$. But it is an intriguing idea because the major drawback to making a DIY lathe is making the bed. Especially out of cast iron. Good luck with all your other projects.


----------



## francist (Jul 23, 2020)

Well I have to say those are nice looking concrete bar moulds, that’s for sure. They remind me of the little steel mould trays we used for materials testing of different mortar mixes. They made the most perfect cube shapes — until they sat under water for 28 days cure and half the test batches fell apart! Oooops.

I like figuring things out, or more to the point _trying _to figure things out. No idea what my batting average is but most of the time I end up getting somewhere. Except for boomerangs — gall dang it my two failed prototypes still hang from my shop ceiling in silent mockery. Maybe one day, I tell myself, maybe one day I’ll figure them.

Good luck with the design, you never know what you learn in the process.

-frank


----------



## Choiliefan (Jul 24, 2020)

ANY DETAILS OR PICS OF THE MILLING MACHINE?


----------



## Stefants (Jul 26, 2020)

Choiliefan said:


> ANY DETAILS OR PICS OF THE MILLING MACHINE?



New to Van Norman and new to milling








						New to Van Norman and new to milling
					

Hi there,  I got a mill that looked interesting at a glance and also dirty cheap so I bought it, the guy had dismantled it for transport and never put it back together again. So it turned to be a sort of weird machine called Van Norman 12, then a further research shown that the collets are as...




					r.tapatalk.com
				





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Stefants (Jul 26, 2020)

Choiliefan said:


> ANY DETAILS OR PICS OF THE MILLING MACHINE?



Sorry, wrong page. Here’s mine...


New to me Van Norman No 12








						VN - New to me Van Norman No 12
					

I managed to get this as far as my garage last weekend :). Looking forward to ripping it down and seeing what exactly I’ve gotten myself into! I’m a rookie, but I like to think I’m at least somewhat mechanically inclined. Should be fun. It’s eventually going to my basement and likely getting...




					r.tapatalk.com
				





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

