When in doubt, make it stout.
-
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!
POTD- PROJECT OF THE DAY: What Did You Make In Your Shop Today?
- Thread starter wachuko
- Start date
I made myself accept I was going to have to make it again! 
This is the clamping ring for my Donut-esque compound base:
I realised two things.
1. The lip that holds down the 'donut' (shown below)
Is only 2 mm thick. Eh, maybe it'll be fine but I'd prefer more.
2. The outer thicker ring will need four M6 clearance holes drilled (to take the vertical threaded studs rising up from the T-Bars)
The nuts that fix the clamping ring will protude a teensy bit over the edge of the ring. Just barely, probably not even a millimetre, but still it's untidy. More importantly, drilling a clearance hole for M6 (6.4 mm) is very, very tight. I should have left a larger diameter. Maybe it might work as is but I'm not happy.
I have another bit of appropriately sized steel, and this one also has a nicely sized bore in the middle, so I can go straight to boring.
In any case, the nice thing to discover was that I was entirely relaxed about re-making the part. I enjoyed making the first one, and now I get to enjoy myself again, and do a better job into the bargain!
This is the clamping ring for my Donut-esque compound base:
I realised two things.
1. The lip that holds down the 'donut' (shown below)
Is only 2 mm thick. Eh, maybe it'll be fine but I'd prefer more.
2. The outer thicker ring will need four M6 clearance holes drilled (to take the vertical threaded studs rising up from the T-Bars)
The nuts that fix the clamping ring will protude a teensy bit over the edge of the ring. Just barely, probably not even a millimetre, but still it's untidy. More importantly, drilling a clearance hole for M6 (6.4 mm) is very, very tight. I should have left a larger diameter. Maybe it might work as is but I'm not happy.
I have another bit of appropriately sized steel, and this one also has a nicely sized bore in the middle, so I can go straight to boring.
In any case, the nice thing to discover was that I was entirely relaxed about re-making the part. I enjoyed making the first one, and now I get to enjoy myself again, and do a better job into the bargain!
My version of a similar thing for my 10x22. Bottom view.I made myself accept I was going to have to make it again!
This is the clamping ring for my Donut-esque compound base:
View attachment 572907
View attachment 572908
I realised two things.
1. The lip that holds down the 'donut' (shown below)
View attachment 572909
Is only 2 mm thick. Eh, maybe it'll be fine but I'd prefer more.
2. The outer thicker ring will need four M6 clearance holes drilled (to take the vertical threaded studs rising up from the T-Bars)
The nuts that fix the clamping ring will protude a teensy bit over the edge of the ring. Just barely, probably not even a millimetre, but still it's untidy. More importantly, drilling a clearance hole for M6 (6.4 mm) is very, very tight. I should have left a larger diameter. Maybe it might work as is but I'm not happy.
I have another bit of appropriately sized steel, and this one also has a nicely sized bore in the middle, so I can go straight to boring.
View attachment 572910
In any case, the nice thing to discover was that I was entirely relaxed about re-making the part. I enjoyed making the first one, and now I get to enjoy myself again, and do a better job into the bargain!
Top view.
Design by @RJSakowski , I converted his SolidWorks file into FreeCAD, with his permission. The six bolt tie down can be a pain at times, but the compound is really clamped down.
On the lathe. It's much better than the original clamp ring, but I think it could use a ring between it and the piece above it. Machined out of standard 1/2" thick steel plate. Was fun to make on the mill. It was the first time I used my rotary table.
You do a far better job than I do, nice job.
Nice job.
The 6 fixings should provide better hold than the standard 4 fixing mod, itself making a big difference to the rigidity over the original 2 fixing clamp.
I initially did the 4 fixing clamp, and it substantially improved taking cuts (most markedly for parting off but also in DOC and surface finish), but when I saw the 'donut' mod, with its increase in the surface area that the compound sits on threefold, I decided I fancied that.
Here's a picture of the original degree-graduated ring (left), next to the 'donut' compound support (right):
Here's a link for the donut mod document:
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum...ompound-mount-9x20-lathe.pdf-33933d1583968238 (you can find this pdf in lots of places, that was just the first place Google showed it)
The pdf is worth taking a look at. It explains the author's reasoning and shows him actually doing some empirical testing, comparing the donut's support of the compound with the original graduated ring's support.
I didn't fancy the author's clamps, though (I got what the author was saying, but it just looked a bit prototype-esque), and saw a picture of a different design for a clamping solution, so I based my clamping ring on that....I just got it wrong on my first attempt!
I reckon the standard 4 (or in your case, 6) fixing clamp modification drastically improves the rigidity of the compound, compared with the original. If the author is correct, I reckon the donut mod should provide a similar level of improvement over that standard mod.
Diminishing returns may kick in mind you, and the 9x20 compound itself is no neutron star mass of rigidity.
No mind though, this mod is bound toimprove things to some degree, and it looks nicer than the original setup, and I've really quite enjoyed the project.
Thanks for the URL. Interesting, especially since I had slightly modified my "donut" to add more screws. I'll take a look at this to see if it's possible to do something similar. Unlike the author, I don't have tee slots in my cross slide, so my design degrees of freedom may be limited.Nice job.
The 6 fixings should provide better hold than the standard 4 fixing mod, itself making a big difference to the rigidity over the original 2 fixing clamp.
I initially did the 4 fixing clamp, and it substantially improved taking cuts (most markedly for parting off but also in DOC and surface finish), but when I saw the 'donut' mod, with its increase in the surface area that the compound sits on threefold, I decided I fancied that.
Here's a picture of the original degree-graduated ring (left), next to the 'donut' compound support (right):
View attachment 572924
Here's a link for the donut mod document:
https://www.homemadetools.net/forum...ompound-mount-9x20-lathe.pdf-33933d1583968238 (you can find this pdf in lots of places, that was just the first place Google showed it)
The pdf is worth taking a look at. It explains the author's reasoning and shows him actually doing some empirical testing, comparing the donut's support of the compound with the original graduated ring's support.
I didn't fancy the author's clamps, though (I got what the author was saying, but it just looked a bit prototype-esque), and saw a picture of a different design for a clamping solution, so I based my clamping ring on that....I just got it wrong on my first attempt!
I reckon the standard 4 (or in your case, 6) fixing clamp modification drastically improves the rigidity of the compound, compared with the original. If the author is correct, I reckon the donut mod should provide a similar level of improvement over that standard mod.
Diminishing returns may kick in mind you, and the 9x20 compound itself is no neutron star mass of rigidity.
No mind though, this mod is bound toimprove things to some degree, and it looks nicer than the original setup, and I've really quite enjoyed the project.
This is the small one (65mm), with an ER11 collet. I wanted the smaller lighter one for the lathe. It's also supposed to be 110VAC
There are a lot of 80mm diameter spindles that run ER20 or ER25 collets.
Thanks!
How big of a spindle is in that mill?
I use the 80mm sizes for milling steel and other materials. It seems to run fine down to 3k rpm, as long as you keep the load low. Running 1/8" carbide in high alloy stainless on the CNC at up to 12K rpm 20ipm.
These are maybe a little fast for milling with anything other than CNC and carbide. It would be ideal if the doubled the motor poles and halved the rpm.
Last edited: