King Way Design

W

wcunning

Registered
Registered
Joined
Apr 21, 2016
Messages
134

I saw this Youtube video yesterday, and I'm curious what people think of the alternative King Way way rest design here. I like the points he makes about the adjustable way rest, and I think that it should be fine once you have an indicator plus a set of level vials.

For example, if I'm measuring a banana shaped lathe way on a fairly well leveled lathe, the level vials should measure similar dips in the ways as the indicator does, and if I can get the readings to repeat over a couple of passes along the way surface, can I trust that measurement? The worry would be that the joint would slip and the two sides would spread out, or in the alternative, that the rods would flex more than the original King Way way rest would have and that that would allow plural tenths of movement in the indicator.

Finally, as a sort of separate discussion, I'm still wrapping my brain around how to build the end fingers using solely manual machines without incredibly complicated rotary table work. I'm thinking something like using a 3" diameter chunk of material, slit the ends in 2 lines 90* apart with a super spacer (I have one, and it's way easier to set up vs. the rotary table), part or saw the end off of the rod. Then, machine each side flat, drill the two holes and file the ends round and under the size of the drill bushings so as to ensure that you only bear on the bushings. Does that seem like an efficient order of operations? If not, what would you guys do instead?

Thanks,
Will
 
As long as the fixture has a 3 point contact on the ways, it would make no difference; the original one is adjustable to position the shoe, just by screwing the upright into various holes in the shoe for vee ways, inverted vee ways or dovetails or square ways. As long as the proposed design can be securely clamped in position it makes little difference. The one that I made used some of the main parts that I bought from Rich, so it is virtually the same as the original; mine is the mid size model, and I'd like to make a copy of the smaller one also, it uses Brown & Sharpe swivels instead of the rigid blocks , and the size would be more appropriate for the smaller machines that most of us are working on, I'm thinking that the level vial assembly could be shared between both sizes. In answer to the question, I would stick to the original design; tried and proven.
 
Will,

What you are doing will work only if you have a linear surface that is straight and flat and is not a way bearing member. For example, the surface between the ways would make a good reference surface to set your dial indicator on. The tailstock ways are not a surface to put your dial indicator on. They could have wear on them.
 
I saw this posted on my YouTube alerts and was wanting to get around to watching and this was a good excuse. I feel Wes does a good job as usual of explaining his idea and reasons, it's just a little funny how he trades one "impossible" machining process for another :) Not all of us have a CNC mill or access to one. So, yeah those rest arms are a bit of a head scratcher. And it doesn't take much to stump a noob like me. But the first step is trying to get some kind of scale of the arms. Then the distance between the pivot holes, and the inside radius. The inside radius once figured out I envision laying out the arms out in pairs (on maybe 1/4" thick aluminum plate?)on the opposite sides of the radius and using a hole saw to rough cut them out. Then drill out the holes using the DRO on the mill to be accurate. To me the rest of it can be done on the band saw and belt sander. The next complication to me is getting those arms, rods, and bushings to all end up square when you try and bolt them together. That whole thing would be a good exercise in using the lathe, mill and metrology tools for me.
 
C-bag,

I was thinking about figuring out a way to part off a disc of large DOM tubing (I have a piece that's 2.5" OD and like 1.5" ID), do the layout for it in a super spacer on the surface plate, drill all the holes on the mill and then bandsaw it into 4 pieces. Probably file the round into each end after that. Thoughts?

Cheers,
Will
 
That's brilliant Will. And it just so happens I have some 1 3/4" OD, 3/4" ID DOM so I'll steal that idea, thank you very much! My main stumbling block is trying to get the layout/size of those rest arms. Most of what I envision me wanting to use this for is on my little hobby stuff. Wes definitely works at a larger scale than I do so I think I could get away with this 1 3/4" DOM.

There has been some back and forth on YouTube about Wes posting the files for the layout of those arms. Hope it comes out in pdf so us mere mortals can get a clue. :)

I see what you are getting at with the super spacer to get your hole layout. It would defiantly be a workout for me to try and get that right as I'm a noob. And just started to get a clue about how to use my rotary table. I was thinking more low tech of using my cheapo DRO on the mill/drill to get the hole spacing and either cut them apart first then locate off the first hole and just worry about hole spacing and part size to get uniformity. I'm sure that's clear as mud :)

On another step, I've not delved into the whole reasoning behind this double level. I'm hoping he'll reveal all when he completes his King Way. This whole thing after reading the Connoly book and seeing these devices looks deceptively simple but it's always the details that gets me.
 
The level is to a large degree a check that the apparatus doesn't fall out of alignment. If you bumped a clamp or picked the rests up from the ways or got caught on a bit of grit, that would show up on the indicator needle, but if the level goes out of level at the same time as the indicator shows a big swing, then you're looking at either a major, long dip in the ways, or your setup has suddenly gone out of true and you need to reset and restart your measurement. Does that make sense? Am I thinking about this all wrong 4gsr?

Thanks,
Will
 
Makes sense, and what I kinda deduced looking at it. I always welcome some kind of backup check and in this case you could possibly be reading twist at the same time or a good way to make sure your initial set up is correct. But I thought on the other King Way's I've seen there were two viles? or was I just seeing a big center zone and thinking I was seeing two viles?

After using the micro adjust on my Center Mike and my B&S trammel I'll bet I'll wish I had something like those on the big clamping joints. Wes mentions his rig just has one clamp knob and you had to be careful or the whole thing will go schwangle and I think it would be frustrating trying to tweek that and just want to move it just a tad.......
 
The originals used two level vials, mounted perpendicular to one another and independently adjusted just like a Starrett machinist's level. I'm choosing to go with a little Wyler cross test level specifically because it's much much more compact for measuring smaller machines, with 3 jack screws forming a 3 point base, with brass acorn nuts on the ends of the screws to give me good adjustment. We'll see how I like it in the end, I guess.
 
What are the accuracies of the vials in the Wyler? They need to be equivalent to than in the Starrett Master precision level which is 0.0005" in 10". The Starrett 98 Machinists is not accurate enough at 0.005" in 10". The dial indicator should only be placed on a reference surface that has no wear, as I said, the unworn area between the way surfaces.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top