I agree a cheater of any length on a Kurt vise key is asking for something to break or pop out. I'm a mechanic for 30yrs and I can count on both hands how many times I torqued something to 160 ft lbs. It takes some effort for a 180 lb guy. My question is what needs 12k lbs of clamping force that you work width? To each their own of course.
-
Welcome back Guest! Did you know you can mentor other members here at H-M? If not, please check out our Relaunch of Hobby Machinist Mentoring Program!
Vise squareness question
- Thread starter ZombiWelder
- Start date
On occasion a part will require more then one vice (-:If you look closely at the top of the right hand column in the Kurt table, it says D810... a $1600 vise.
Tom
Dial indicator, if you can indicate 1 vice square on the mill table why not 5? This is not a fast process in any way and may take longer then making the part itself.So how does one align five vises? Do the end ones, put the part in center vises loose to table, tighten vises on part then go tighten three middle ones to table? Do all five?
One of the things that you are paying for with $5000.00 worth of Kurt vices is that the heights are pretty damn close to one another, not close enough for hobby work of course but often close enough for industrial work of this kind.
Treat multiple vices as one vice, same machine table and spindle, if all are in line they work as one.
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2013
- Messages
- 2,522
Might be a good bargain, but the ad says: "Condition: New: A brand-new, unused, unopened, undamaged item....."
while the photo says: Mmmm... not so much.
Tom
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2013
- Messages
- 4,395
no need to be snarky mate. Remember, making other people look bad doesn't make you look good.
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2012
- Messages
- 1,352
Come on guys. Lets take a deep breath here. How someone decides to treat their own vice is their business. For sure if it looks like someone could get seriously hurt then I think we owe it to each other to point that out, other than that to each his own.
David
David
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2014
- Messages
- 3,533
Not trying to be snarky, but I do believe P.Waller has made an accurate observation. I often read how some members are hung up on milling or turning to .0001". While it can be done and is done where necessary, a vast majority of home projects don't require that level of accuracy. In most cases an accuracy of +/- .005" is more than sufficient. There is a small percentage of the time when =/- .001" is necessary and an even smaller percentage when +/- .0001" is necessary.
I worked for a major manufacturer for over 20 years designing, machining, and building machinery. In all those years over 80% of the prints specified -+/- .005". Another 15% or so specified +/- .001", and the final 5% were +/- .0001". It's nice to be able to achieve the .0001" tolerances, but in most cases far from necessary. One of the standard jokes when designing parts was " For every place you move the tolerance decimal point to the right you move the cost decimal point one place to the left". While the accuracy could be achieved the cost of doing so more often than not was prohibitive. In almost every case there was little if any difference in the longevity of the part regardless of whether it was machined to +/- .005" or +/- .0001"
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2018
- Messages
- 880
Agreed, I thought it was funny. The ability to work within 0.001" tolerance is admirable, but that precision is often pursued for its own sake by enthusiasts (i.e., any off-the-clock worker). Nothing wrong with that, but there's something amusing about a level of precision required "only by amateurs and NASA"
Not snarky at all just the way it is. If making a one off part for hobby purposes people often aim for the least deviation from nominal dimensions with a near perfect visual appearance.
The multiple vice method pictured above will always leave unsightly visible tooling marks where the cuts over lap, this 110" long part had to be face milled in 3 sections leaving 2 visible artifacts that would be deemed unacceptable for a hobby project.
In industry if the part surface is within the flatness tolerance specified, +- .002" for example, a visible tooling mark on this type of part is perfectly acceptable.
There are many threads on this very forum about tooling marks left on surfaces when several overlapping tool passes are required for facing or pocketing. Such visual artifacts may not be measurable by conventional methods but detract from the appearance.
A good example are pipe flanges, in the picture below there is a visible line on the OD of the new part, this happens when the OD is turned from both ends and is nearly unavoidable. This is perfectly fine when the part is installed at an oil refinery. It would be less then perfectly fine it were in the OD of a brass model steam engine flywheel (-:
