# Shaper Tool Holder Question



## olcopper (Dec 22, 2016)

Probably a dumb question, but is a lathe tool holder, (old style such as used with acorn type tool post)
the same as a shaper tool holder, or can they be used for a shaper.
I recently came across some old tool posts and tool holders----these are big holders and tool posts---
the gentleman sold his large lathe and has no further use for them.
olcopper


----------



## francist (Dec 22, 2016)

They can be used, yes, but the less common ones for carbide tooling are better. They present the cutter parallel with the bottom of the holder rather than at the back rake angle on the normally-found holders. The ones made for carbide tooling have a "T" prefix on them, as in T-1-R, which would indicate a carbide holder, #1 size, right hand. 

The drawback with the back-rake tool holders is that it places the cutting edge further out in front of the fulcrum point, making a jam more likely should the cutter take a big bite. The closer the edge is to the fulcrum at the base the better, which is why dedicated shaper holders often look like they're mounted backwards. That being said, I have shaper documentation here from reliable sources of the day that do show the angled holders in use, but they do concede the ones with zero rake are preferred. I have used the angled ones without issue, just be aware.

-frank


----------



## francist (Dec 22, 2016)




----------



## f350ca (Dec 22, 2016)

As Francist said, I've used the angled ones, saves grinding rake on the top of the cutter. I let the small ones I had go with the Logan. Would like to find a couple of 5/8 wide holders for the current shaper.

Greg


----------



## olcopper (Dec 23, 2016)

f350ca said:


> As Francist said, I've used the angled ones, saves grinding rake on the top of the cutter. I let the small ones I had go with the Logan. Would like to find a couple of 5/8 wide holders for the current shaper.
> 
> Greg





francist said:


> They can be used, yes, but the less common ones for carbide tooling are better. They present the cutter parallel with the bottom of the holder rather than at the back rake angle on the normally-found holders. The ones made for carbide tooling have a "T" prefix on them, as in T-1-R, which would indicate a carbide holder, #1 size, right hand.
> 
> The drawback with the back-rake tool holders is that it places the cutting edge further out in front of the fulcrum point, making a jam more likely should the cutter take a big bite. The closer the edge is to the fulcrum at the base the better, which is why dedicated shaper holders often look like they're mounted backwards. That being said, I have shaper documentation here from reliable sources of the day that do show the angled holders in use, but they do concede the ones with zero rake are preferred. I have used the angled ones without issue, just be aware.
> 
> -frank


Frank,
Thank you for the explanation and the drawings , they cleared up a lot of questions for me.
olcopper


----------



## benmychree (May 4, 2017)

I worked with a guy years ago who swore by using the Armstrong angled type tool holders on shapers and planers, but he turned them backwards; this put the cutting edge closer to the fulcrum point, but required the tool bit to be nearly ground in half, even to achieve a zero back rake; he had the shop make a special holder for him to hold 1" square tool bits in this manner (this was a 6ft X 6ft X 15 ft planer)  he was on swing shift I was on days; I'd use the Williams swivel type planer tool holder, he'd come in for his shift and put his holder on, I'd come in take his off, put mine on -----
The problem with the angled type lathe tool holders used on shapers and planers is that they have so much back rake that it is necessary to grind the top of the tool off quite a bit to reduce the back rake to a minimum, or zero back rake.  excessive back rake can encourage the tool to hog into the work.  Round nose roughing tools of the F.W. Taylor shape generally have a bit of negative rake, especially after repeated sharpening and still work fine.  On shapers and planers, the tools require much less clearance than turning tools, since they do not feed in the cut; front and side rake only need about two degrees clearance, side rake ten or fifteen degrees.
Rest in peace, Walter White, and your peculiar tool holder and cutting tools.


----------



## amuller (Jan 25, 2018)

It's worth looking at an Armstrong catalog for the dedicated shaper pattern tool holders.


----------



## C-Bag (Jan 25, 2018)

I got lucky and my Atlas 7b came with the Armstrong adjustable holder on it. When you really start delving into all the things a shaper can do with the right bit and holder, that's when you really come to appreciate it. Instead of having all these different holders, left hand, right hand etc, this one holder does it all. The only thing you have to do is grind your bits left or right, pointed, round or whatever. These can be hard to find and pricey when you do, but you only need one holder so it can be worth it. The only thing it can't do is hold large bits.


----------



## amuller (Jan 25, 2018)

My Shap-rite came with one of those, a #39.   If I could find the extended one for cutting internal keys and splines, a #46, I'd be well pleased.  Does anybody know when Armstrong stopped making these things?


----------



## C-Bag (Jan 25, 2018)

I don't think they have made them for decades. But technically I think the #39 can be turned into one by unbolting the hold down nut, pulling that nut/hold own, cutter bit, and making the shaft extension out of drill rod and mounting it in place of the hold down. If you look up Stefan Gottswinter on YouTube and his Gack shaper there is a buch of great things he's made for his. Like he made a reverse clapper box( so it cuts on the return stroke) and Keyway cutters that you just pull the clapper box off and put this in its place. This gives you more room, is more ridged and you don't have immobilize the clapper like you would do if you mounted a cutter in the clapper box. This is the route I would go after watching his vids. YMMV.


----------



## benmychree (Jan 25, 2018)

I have seen keyseating tools for shapers, homemade, that replace the tool post; at the front end they are threaded for a nut that retains them and clamps them in place; they are necked down to whatever diameter and length is appropriate for the job at hand and provided with a square hole near the outer end and the end is drilled and tapped for a setscrew.  This said, I have never been a fan of keyseating in the shaper, what with the tool dragging on the return stroke and dulling easily, lots of chatter, etc.  One thing to remember; do your cutting on the top side of the workpiece, not the bottom, this eliminates the chance of the tool dropping down while feeding into the cut.  Also of course, the clapper box must be immobilized, usually with setscrews near the bottom on one or both sides that bear on dimples drilled into the clapper; most shapers that I have seen and used, already have these provided, my 20-24 Gould & Eberhardt does, but thanks be, I do not have to use it for internal shaping, as I also have a 6" Pratt & Whitney vertical shaper for that class of work; it has a specially designed clapper box that makes internal shaping a pleasure so far as tooling holding up is concerned.  One thing about internal shaping tools is that very little relief (clearance) on the cutting face is required, only a few degrees, and back rake should not be excessive, or the tools tend to hog in.


----------



## C-Bag (Jan 25, 2018)

The keyseater you mention is what I've seen too. Where Stefan's is different is the cutting tool is the extension, so it's very ridged looking as there is no offset, and no clapper so nothing to tighten up. It obviously works good because he's done many internal keys with it(always cutting on the bottom of the hole) and there seems to be no chatter. He's not the kind of guy that thinks chatter in any of his finishes is ok. Since the clapper/tool holder are so easy to remove and replace with this kind of setup it's definitely on my list if it ever comes up that I need to do any internal work. It dawns on me though that one of his design features is a 5deg down tilt to the tool mount hole to help with clearance. I'm in no way some kind of expert on shapers, I'm only trying to pass on what I think I remember. IIRC he said he had plans for that tool mount on his website too. You would have to modify to make it work on other shapers I'm sure.


----------



## f350ca (Jan 25, 2018)

I'd seen his keyway setup some time ago, and just watched a video again. Can't see the advantage of having the bar at the 5 degree angle, actually in the video I watched he had to machine the top of the bar at a negative angle to clear the top of the bore. 
I made a bar that replaced the tool holder for the Logan I had, worked great. For the Peerless I have now it required a holder to lower the bar to the table. The ram to table distance is too great to clamp parts at the height of the tool holder. Still cuts chatter free with the bar holder.





The table is at the top of its travel here.







Greg


----------



## benmychree (Jan 25, 2018)

The similar holder that Armstrong made had a split clamped hole for the "boring bar" It could be extended as long or short as desired and would not be a difficult home build.  The split was on a radial line to one side of the shank, the clamp screw was at 90 deg. to the centerline of the holder.
I have one for my shaper, but have only used a few times until I bought my keyseater and vertical shaper; either one is better than the shaper for keyseats, the keyseater especially, because it automatically centers the keyseat in the bore.


----------



## C-Bag (Jan 25, 2018)

f350ca said:


> I'd seen his keyway setup some time ago, and just watched a video again. Can't see the advantage of having the bar at the 5 degree angle, actually in the video I watched he had to machine the top of the bar at a negative angle to clear the top of the bore.
> I made a bar that replaced the tool holder for the Logan I had, worked great. For the Peerless I have now it required a holder to lower the bar to the table. The ram to table distance is too great to clamp parts at the height of the tool holder. Still cuts chatter free with the bar holder.
> View attachment 255702
> 
> ...



I saw this before here in the shaper forum. Very cool and what made me look at my tool holder. Thing that makes me crazy is I was in some tourist antique store and saw one of those special holders and thought "WTH?". Being only mildly familiar with lathe tool holders. Those antique places are chock full of weird tools that I'll never find out what they are for. BTW  that's a very studly looking shaper! I don't think something of that caliber ever has chatter


----------



## Silverbullet (Jan 25, 2018)

I've been looking for the round head adjustable type for my planer. Most on flebay want my arm and leg to buy one. Ill keep watch eventually ill find one around the $20 Mark. Or ill just make one or two.


----------



## Uncle Buck (Jan 28, 2018)

I don't mean to be the wet blanket, but I think you might have a very long wait to buy a round head adjustable shaper tool holder for $20 or less. If you don't have a very very long wait you will be shot heck full of incredible luck since those just do not sell cheap. Just my opinion though.


----------



## Silverbullet (Jan 29, 2018)

I find things near my prices all the time. I needed a collet nose for my 5c collets on my logan there up to around a hundred now. Not to long ago I bought a small lot of tooling for thirty bucks , YUPP one was there it was pictured but not pointed out . I bide my time never rush they come up . There was one on last week for $29.50 + ship . Buy it now. There's always more.


----------



## Dranreb (Jan 29, 2018)

Not sure if I've posted these on this site before, apologies if I have.

After ages looking for one I made my own at no cost, used a huge old holder for the shank and some old shaft steel for the rest of it.

I cut the castellations in a dividing head on my shaper, rather a rough finish there as the tool blunted very quickly in the tough steel.

The washer can be changed if wear occurs and also allows round tools to be used if needed.

Using it with the nut under the clapper will reducer chatter.

Tool bit isn't ground for shaper use yet in the pics.












Bernard


----------



## C-Bag (Jan 29, 2018)

Yup, if you are patient and observant stuff shows up. I have to admit my first reaction was the same Uncle Buck because I've never seen those holders for less than $100 anywhere. But then I thought back to how many screaming deals I've gotten on even eBay and decided Silverbullet was right. After all I got my 7b complete with tool holder, original vise and funky stand (just missing the motor belt guard) for $125. So miracles happen. In my case it was totally out of the blue and I wasn't looking for one. But the trick is to know what you're looking at too. Just yesterday I had a neighbor offer me a a big Craftsman floor standing drill press that looks perfect for free! Also totally unexpected, and I have to pass as I don't have the room. Then there's the case of that crazy deal up in Redding of a complete 20" shaper for $250! The deals are out there.....


----------



## Uncle Buck (Feb 5, 2018)

Very nicely made cutter holder there! I have seen plans for making your own through the years too. You did a smashing job with yours.


----------



## Uglydog (Feb 5, 2018)

If anyone is interested, I've got several extra of these.
Just the holder no bar.
I'll post them on the for sale section.

Daryl
MN


----------



## Dranreb (Feb 5, 2018)

Uncle Buck said:


> Very nicely made cutter holder there! I have seen plans for making your own through the years too. You did a smashing job with yours.



Thanks Uncle, nice of you to say so.

I made a mistake when I wrote 'Using it with the nut under the clapper will reducer chatter.' I meant to say 'having the nut away from the lapper will reduce chatter'

Bernard


----------



## benmychree (Feb 5, 2018)

Dranreb said:


> Thanks Uncle, nice of you to say so.
> 
> I made a mistake when I wrote 'Using it with the nut under the clapper will reducer chatter.' I meant to say 'having the nut away from the lapper will reduce chatter'
> 
> Bernard


Yes, this effectively makes it into a hook tool; getting the tool bit nearer or even behind the pivot point of the clapper box is what we are after.  Only thing, for heavy cutting it puts a big strain on the swivel part of the holder; likely better to do roughing with the tool in front and finishing with the tool behind.


----------



## C-Bag (Feb 15, 2018)

benmychree said:


> Yes, this effectively makes it into a hook tool; getting the tool bit nearer or even behind the pivot point of the clapper box is what we are after.  Only thing, for heavy cutting it puts a big strain on the swivel part of the holder; likely better to do roughing with the tool in front and finishing with the tool behind.



Hi benmychree,

Please explain "hook tool". There are so many details to shapers that are particular to them it seems. I tried switching my cutter to the back early on because I saw it somewhere, but I didn't have enough experience to get what was going on. I also was lucky that my old 7b had a sharp cutter on it. It was done in a way I'd not seen before. And that's not surprising as I'm new to machining and totally noob to shapers. It was very rounded and the top rake was not flat, but curved or dished, like what you would do with like a burr. As I used it and resharpened I ground into the top, taking away the curve. I couldn't figure out with my grinders how to do that and definitely my finish went to hell no matter what I did. Then yesterday I remembered I'd gotten some diamond burrs and the smallest was just right. I was able to finally recreate that curved top rake and did a test and hallelujah it's back peeling those perfect little curls and leaving a beautiful finish. I would have never known that if I hadn't gotten that tool with it.


----------



## benmychree (Feb 15, 2018)

In the days of forged tools, a hook tool would be forged out so that the cutting edge was moved backwards more or less in line with the backside of the tool's shank instead of more or less in line with the front side of the shank; if it is in front of the shank, the tool tends to lift due to the angle between the clapper box pivot point, the hook tool places the cutting edge more nearly directly under the pivot point and the tendency to lift is greatly reduced, greatly diminishing the tendency for the tool to chatter in the cut.  The way I grind roughing tools for the shaper is to use the tool forms that were created by F.W. Taylor in his experiments on the most economic methods to cut metal "On the Art of Cutting Metal" published in the late 1890s after about 27 years of experiments; his tools had a fairly large radius curve in the cutting flank, blended into a much smaller radius on the point, and ground with sufficient top rake to cut freely (Which can be considerable)  The end and side clearance need be no more than a few degrees, as the shaper or planer tool does not feed over while cutting as in a lathe.
If the top of the tool is dished, I suppose it could be fed in either direction, however, as you point out, it is not really easy to accomplish and tedious to sharpen; the better approach would be to simply grind an angled rake on the tool and have left and right hand tools for right or left handed cuts in steel or iron; a tool for brass would not need any side rake and could be used for both left and right cuts.


----------



## C-Bag (Feb 15, 2018)

Thanks so much for that and putting me on to that book. Turns out you can DL pdf of it here:

https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/parent/3x816s35t/technical_reports/gx41mp578

Seems like this should be added to the library here HM.


----------



## benmychree (Feb 15, 2018)

It is quite a tome, shows illustration of all the equipment used in the experiments, tool shapes and the history of the endeavor. a footnote is that Taylor and White, his assistant developed the process of hardening HSS; previous to that, they used carbon steel for tools, and a sort of super carbon steel from Britain, known as Mushet Steel.  In fact, they discovered that it was a semi hardened form of HSS; they discovered by accident, by overheating a tool in the forge that was reshaped and re hardened that it took on the properties of HSS, being able to cut at a higher rate of surface speed and exhibit the property of red hardness; after the tool was heated up to the melting point, they removed it and thinking that it was ruined, they gave it a try anyway; the rest is history!  The two stage hardening process where the tool is brought to a red heat, then quickly to white heat is known as the Taylor-White process of hardening HSS.


----------



## benmychree (Feb 15, 2018)

Here are some pics of my shaper tools and holders:
#1 a spring tool used on shaper or lathe when using form tools to reduce chatter; tool head swivels and screw is used to limit or eliminate spring feature
#2 Williams swivel head shaper tool, has serrated ring to allow many more positions of swivel than the similar Armstrong type.
#3 My favorite roughing tool
#8 The tool in the reversed position as "hook tool" Note the setscrew in the side of the clapper box housing, it is used to lock the clapper in position when doing internal shaping, it bears into a drill point hole that is drilled a little back from the setscrew so that when tightened it draws the clapper block firmly against it's seat in the clapper box housing.
#9 some of my other shaper tool bits
#10 A light spring used to quiet the clapper when stroking fast; if allowed to go to full applause when running at high speed, the vibration can cause the tool slide to slip downwards, feeding into the work deeper, possibly ruining the job.


----------



## C-Bag (Feb 15, 2018)

Great stuff, thanks! My wife laughs herself silly when she looks over my shoulder and asks what in the world are you reading! When I say a manual, or the Connoly scraping book, or the many shaper books I've gotten off here she just can't believe it. It's fantastic that somebody has preserved these old books digitally. The sad thing is I've got other projects I'm trying to do right now and when I try to think back where in the hell I saw this its going to take some digging.

 I deeply appreciate the sharing of knowledge and the willingness to get slightly off the rails when the opportunity arises.


----------



## benmychree (Feb 15, 2018)

C-Bag said:


> Great stuff, thanks! My wife laughs herself silly when she looks over my shoulder and asks what in the world are you reading! When I say a manual, or the Connoly scraping book, or the many shaper books I've gotten off here she just can't believe it. It's fantastic that somebody has preserved these old books digitally. The sad thing is I've got other projects I'm trying to do right now and when I try to think back where in the hell I saw this its going to take some digging.
> 
> I deeply appreciate the sharing of knowledge and the willingness to get slightly off the rails when the opportunity arises.


Thanks for the compliment!  Yes, I do get off the rails somewhat; reading what others post reminds me of similar things that may be of interest to others; I'd rather go at it that way than create new posts, which I did recently for the first time.  Earlier I replied to a post on threading to add a threading technique that not many people know about for Q&D work, 7TPI in 5 or 7 cuts (it's been a long time since I did it, forget which it is ---)  I bought my Taylor book back in the 1960s or 70s when such things were relatively cheap, paid $17.00, looked on Barnes & Noble in '99, they were asking $390!  Taylor started his experiments under the largesse of William Sellers, because he wanted to write a book on scientific management of shop work, where speed, feed, and depth of cut, plus standard shapes for tools could be dictated by management for the most efficient production; well, he found that he did not have enough information to carry it off, hence the experiments.  He finally did write his book "Shop Management, copyrighted in 1911; I do not know how much I paid for it in '69, but B&N had it in '99 for $455.


----------



## benmychree (Feb 15, 2018)

Another recommended book is "One Best Way" by Robert Kanigel Little, Brown & Co. C. 1997, and is a biography of Taylor and his works. It cost me $24 in 2002.


----------



## francist (Feb 15, 2018)

Thanks for putting up those photos, John. Especially of the cutters. It's easy to look at the old books and see how the tools might have been used and such, but sometimes (depending on the illustrator) one can completely misinterpret how the grind is supposed to go. So it's especially useful to see the actual tools in the flesh as it were. 

I for one also really appreciate when folks like you, who actually worked with the old machines like shapers and planers on a daily basis for the course of their jobs, pass on the tricks and methods for doing some of the operations. Again, it's really easy to read the books but nothing compares to somebody who has actually worked at it. Thank you for taking the time to pass it along.

-frank


----------



## benmychree (Feb 15, 2018)

francist said:


> Thanks for putting up those photos, John. Especially of the cutters. It's easy to look at the old books and see how the tools might have been used and such, but sometimes (depending on the illustrator) one can completely misinterpret how the grind is supposed to go. So it's especially useful to see the actual tools in the flesh as it were.
> 
> I for one also really appreciate when folks like you, who actually worked with the old machines like shapers and planers on a daily basis for the course of their jobs, pass on the tricks and methods for doing some of the operations. Again, it's really easy to read the books but nothing compares to somebody who has actually worked at it. Thank you for taking the time to pass it along.
> 
> -frank


Thank you,you are very welcome!


----------



## C-Bag (Feb 15, 2018)

Being a hobbyist and on a budget, I'm grateful I don't have to buy books. When something gets hot like the Connoly book you see originals for $500 so it doesn't surprise me when you mention a book for $300. If I was trying to run a machine shop I guess, but with CNC so prevalent how would that apply I wonder. BTW I was to one who got you off the rails. When I got from your post you actually worked with these things as your day job I couldn't resist. I love biographys and will see if I can find One Best Way. Thanks again.


----------



## benmychree (Feb 15, 2018)

I had to advantage of buying most of my books before they got expensive; I'm blown away that Connolly could cost $500!  I bought mine way back when it was just another book --- I have literally hundreds of books, from machinery catalogs, steam engineering, boat building, industrial biography (see Samuel Smiles "Lives of the Engineers"); I have the whole set, and a whole lot of books on local and early California history, plus books that just look good on the shelf ---.   My family were early California settlers, who came here in 1845 when this was still a Mexican possession; My GGGF was a member of the Bear Flag Party and served with Fremont's Battalion under Paul Revere's grandson Joseph Revere.


----------



## f350ca (Feb 15, 2018)

While we're slightly off topic and bothering John. Any suggestions for improving the finish I get with my Peerless shaper. The table advance is 0.014 at the lowest stroke setting, as in one click of the ratchet. Even a shear tool doesn't leave a nice finish at that much advance. My old Logan would go down to about 2 or 3 thou advance.
Thanks
Greg


----------



## Dranreb (Feb 17, 2018)

C-Bag said:


> Thanks so much for that and putting me on to that book. Turns out you can DL pdf of it here:
> 
> https://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/concern/parent/3x816s35t/technical_reports/gx41mp578
> 
> Seems like this should be added to the library here HM.






benmychree said:


> It is quite a tome, shows illustration of all the equipment used in the experiments, tool shapes and the history of the endeavor.



Thanks for that link C-Bag, I was expecting illustrations but there doesn't seem to be any in that PDF.

Is it me, am I missing something here?


----------



## C-Bag (Feb 17, 2018)

Oh no, I don't see and illustrations either!


----------



## 12bolts (Feb 19, 2018)

f350ca said:


> ....The table advance is 0.014 at the lowest stroke setting, as in one click of the ratchet. Even a shear tool doesn't leave a nice finish at that much advance. ...


How about a big radius on the nose of the tool?

Cheers Phil


----------



## f350ca (Feb 19, 2018)

That helps Phil, but then you can get into chatter issues with so much tool in contact. Think about trying to take a finish pass on the lathe with a 14 thou per rev feed. Would be the same feed rate as 71 tpi.

Greg


----------



## francist (Feb 19, 2018)

Is there an option to make a new ratchet gear with tighter spacing? I'm not sure what arrangement you have on yours, but mine uses a square tooth pawl and gear to turn the cross feed screw. I'm thinking if the teeth on the gear were closer together you would turn the lead screw less per detent stop (if that babble makes any sense at all).

I'm prepared to be completely out in left field here and it may not be a useful solution at all -- but I keep thinking about it!

-frank


----------



## C-Bag (Feb 19, 2018)

f350ca said:


> While we're slightly off topic and bothering John. Any suggestions for improving the finish I get with my Peerless shaper. The table advance is 0.014 at the lowest stroke setting, as in one click of the ratchet. Even a shear tool doesn't leave a nice finish at that much advance. My old Logan would go down to about 2 or 3 thou advance.
> Thanks
> Greg



Yes, I've been hoping benmychree would come back to this too. That's why I've not been posting my usual off in left field/vaguely related stuff.


----------



## f350ca (Feb 19, 2018)

Makes perfect sense Frank. The ratchet wheel is fairly fine now but could probably make one with a few more teeth. The problem is the gear arrangment they used. It multiplies the ratchet movement. You can take the gear off the cross feed screw and put it on the table vertical feed to face the side of a part. The big gear can't easily be changed, it has a friction clutch built in for a safety. 






If I could move the ratchet wheel out to the feed screw I'd gain that about 1:3 ratio and be down to a resonable .005 thou feed.
So many projects so little time.

Greg


----------



## francist (Feb 19, 2018)

Yup, it's exactly the same as mine then, just bigger. I see what you mean about the multiplier -- darn.






-frank

Edit: added photo


----------



## C-Bag (Feb 19, 2018)

f350ca said:


> Makes perfect sense Frank. The ratchet wheel is fairly fine now but could probably make one with a few more teeth.
> 
> If I could move the ratchet wheel out to the feed screw I'd gain that about 1:3 ratio and be down to a resonable .005 thou feed.
> 
> Greg



So you are saying swap the two gears? That would solve the problem, but it sounds like the problem is with the ratchet gear? 

Just out of curiosity I looked at the Atlas manual to see what the ratios were and the main difference is the ratchet wheel is almost the same size as the ratchet gear. In your case you'd have to mod the ratchet arm I guess to put a larger wheel with more teeth, right?


----------



## f350ca (Feb 19, 2018)

Swapping the gears would give the desired affect, but the large one has an integral safety clutch driven by the ratchet wheel so not easy to swap. A larger ratchet wheel would work but then I'd have to build a different mount for the pawl. Moving the ratchet over to the screw shaft would be the easiest, maybe. Its on the never ending list.

Greg


----------



## C-Bag (Feb 23, 2018)

I would be interested to see how that turns out if you decide to do it.


----------



## f350ca (Feb 23, 2018)

I'll hopefully get to it someday, but this post might be long forgotten before then. lol

Greg


----------



## vtcnc (Apr 2, 2018)

benmychree said:


> I had to advantage of buying most of my books before they got expensive; I'm blown away that Connolly could cost $500!  I bought mine way back when it was just another book --- I have literally hundreds of books, from machinery catalogs, steam engineering, boat building, industrial biography (see Samuel Smiles "Lives of the Engineers"); I have the whole set, and a whole lot of books on local and early California history, plus books that just look good on the shelf ---.   My family were early California settlers, who came here in 1845 when this was still a Mexican possession; My GGGF was a member of the Bear Flag Party and served with Fremont's Battalion under Paul Revere's grandson Joseph Revere.



The Smiles books are timeless...won't see anything like that published again! What I found really interesting about him is his series of "self-help" books titled, "Duty", "Character" and I think "Thrift"?


----------

