Carbide tube?

tom

Michael Webb said:
I made mine one inch also and it's what I prefer. The sleeves that I sent out were also one inch. Tom does what he feels is right, Different strokes for different folks. Tom also builds a great cue, his work is clean and straight, He is a very good cuemaker and machinist. He chooses to offer hardware to the industry. You would be impressed to know how many cuemakers use his products.
Click to expand...
Good morning Mike,
I had no clue that Tom builds cues. It's funny that he makes his only a 1/4" long.
He told me at Valley forge,[ 2005],if they wear, to simply just re-grind the face and they will be fine. WRONG, TOM. If you do re-grind the face it will infact make the joint size for the shaft, larger, [ because of the taper getting larger, and smaller on the butt], and the butt size smaller. This is what is mind blowing to me, how a machinest can say such a thing.Just think about the angle?
Yes, differant strokes.
What other products does he make, Mike?

blud
 
blud said:
Good morning Mike,
I had no clue that Tom builds cues. It's funny that he makes his only a 1/4" long.
He told me at Valley forge,[ 2005],if they wear, to simply just re-grind the face and they will be fine. WRONG, TOM. If you do re-grind the face it will infact make the joint size for the shaft, larger, [ because of the taper getting larger, and smaller on the butt], and the butt size smaller. This is what is mind blowing to me, how a machinest can say such a thing.Just think about the angle?
Yes, differant strokes.
What other products does he make, Mike?

blud
Click to expand...

Just read the posts here... You're right about the joint gettting larger if only the face would be re-grinded. I believe the whole thing should be grind to size again. I'm not a master machinist but I very well know that if it does have a taper on it, facing will result in a slightly bigger joint size.
 
hadjcues said:
Just read the posts here... You're right about the joint gettting larger if only the face would be re-grinded. I believe the whole thing should be grind to size again. I'm not a master machinist but I very well know that if it does have a taper on it, facing will result in a slightly bigger joint size.
Click to expand...

Yes Sir, You are correct. I don't know if Tom said that or not, I can't speak for his every move, But I can speak for his products and I like the quality of what he offers. He offers something that we cuemakers have needed for a long time. A choice of quality products designed the way we want them. He makes my Pins the way I want them without killing me on the price. I won't tell you whats different about them but they are different from yours.
 
Am I missing something here or what? Why would you be refacing the shaft carbide unless it is worn to the point that it is undersize? By refacing the tapered carbide you would be cutting it back to it's original size, wouldn't you?
Dick

P.S. Hi Mike and all, been in Vegas and just read your greetings. Thanks for the thought.
Dick
 
Your right but on the butt end you would be smaller. I have been using my mandrells for years but I do not own a dowel sander nor do I plan on getting one.
 
rhncue said:
Am I missing something here or what? Why would you be refacing the shaft carbide unless it is worn to the point that it is undersize? By refacing the tapered carbide you would be cutting it back to it's original size, wouldn't you?
Dick

P.S. Hi Mike and all, been in Vegas and just read your greetings. Thanks for the thought.
Dick
Click to expand...
Tom makes his carbide mandrels with no taper normally.
If you want a taper, he'll taper them around .005" in half an inch of carbide.
Tom's no dummy. .
He makes pins for a lot of makers. Absolutely the best deal anywhere.
Nice guy to deal with like Mike mentioned.
 
Michael Webb said:
Yes Sir, You are correct. I don't know if Tom said that or not, I can't speak for his every move, But I can speak for his products and I like the quality of what he offers. He offers something that we cuemakers have needed for a long time. A choice of quality products designed the way we want them. He makes my Pins the way I want them without killing me on the price. I won't tell you whats different about them but they are different from yours.
Click to expand...

I agree Mike. I've seen his site and we're blessed that guys out there like Blud, Tom etc. could still find time to make & offer tooling for fellow cuemakers instead of keeping the goodies to themselves :D
 
Michael Webb said:
Your right but on the butt end you would be smaller. I have been using my mandrells for years but I do not own a dowel sander nor do I plan on getting one.
Click to expand...

Now that I've been using a dowell sander in my shop for about 2 years, I don't think I could get by without one. Or at least I'd hate to! It's the handiest, non-essential, piece of equipment I have in the shop. Like anything else though, you do have to develop some skill in using one. You can easily get carried away and remove too much!

just more hot air!

Sherm
 
cuesmith said:
Now that I've been using a dowell sander in my shop for about 2 years, I don't think I could get by without one. Or at least I'd hate to! It's the handiest, non-essential, piece of equipment I have in the shop. Like anything else though, you do have to develop some skill in using one. You can easily get carried away and remove too much!

just more hot air!

Sherm
Click to expand...

Maybe one of these days, I'll get to visit and you can show me what I might be missing.
 
So the female mandrel would get smaller, but the male It may would help to face. I am no super machinist Myself, but If the taper goes all the way through the set when screwed together, would'nt the male wear the fastest, because It's the shaft side, and would get used more. Perhaps that's what It was. refacing the male would buy more time. Just a guess ;) .


Greg
 
carbides

Cue Crazy said:
So the female mandrel would get smaller, but the male It may would help to face. I am no super machinist Myself, but If the taper goes all the way through the set when screwed together, would'nt the male wear the fastest, because It's the shaft side, and would get used more. Perhaps that's what It was. refacing the male would buy more time. Just a guess ;) .


Greg
Click to expand...
The mandrles should be tapered. After all were working with a tapered butt and shaft.The shaft mandrel will wear a little faster because of an extra shaft, you make from time to time.

In my opinion, making the mandrel straight with no taper is not good. Go up hill on a shaft and then make a quick turn straight. No way.
Doing it with straight carbide does two things, first it sands up the shaft, then changes directions to flat.Then on the butt drops of quickly, and beings they are straight, this can cause you to tear the sand paper very easily.

It's much easier to sand a smooth striaght taper, as opposed to a straight taper then make a turn at the end. This will wear out the leading edge of the carbide.

Using a dowel sander with mandrels, the longer carbide, will out last the short ones many times over.

Keeping in mind there's always room for improvement.However,I have not changed my design in 25 years or so. Haven't seen a need to. It ain't broke guys.Works very well.
I make my bases out of bronze, then glue and press fitt the carbide, and grind them on a TAPER, between centers, to fitt the angle were working with.
blud
 
blud said:
The mandrles should be tapered. After all were working with a tapered butt and shaft.The shaft mandrel will wear a little faster because of an extra shaft, you make from time to time.

In my opinion, making the mandrel straight with no taper is not good. Go up hill on a shaft and then make a quick turn straight. No way.
Doing it with straight carbide does two things, first it sands up the shaft, then changes directions to flat.Then on the butt drops of quickly, and beings they are straight, this can cause you to tear the sand paper very easily.

It's much easier to sand a smooth striaght taper, as opposed to a straight taper then make a turn at the end. This will wear out the leading edge of the carbide.

Using a dowel sander with mandrels, the longer carbide, will out last the short ones many times over.

Keeping in mind there's always room for improvement.However,I have not changed my design in 25 years or so. Haven't seen a need to. It ain't broke guys.Works very well.
I make my bases out of bronze, then glue and press fitt the carbide, and grind them on a TAPER, between centers, to fitt the angle were working with.
blud
Click to expand...
Blud,

Would i be correct to assume that if the shaft mandrel gets worn faster, and has an uphill taper, that it could be re-ground on the face (which would increase the diameter) and somehow kept true to the butt mandrel?

I guess someone could always make two shaft mandrels, it would be tricky (after grinding the first one together with the butt mandrel, the second would prove difficult to grind exactly flush, without taking a small (by small i mean less than a thou) pass on the butt mandrel.)
 
size difference?

What would be the ideal size difference in the sanding and finishing mandrels?

Bob
 
size

oldnovice said:
What would be the ideal size difference in the sanding and finishing mandrels?

Bob
Click to expand...
Hello Bob,
I make my sanding size about .837, and built the finish size for painting to .840....works well for me.
Several years ago, I just made one set at .840. Just had to be careful not to bleed through the paint, into the cue. Learned better after a couple of years of struggling, and made the other set.
blud
 
blud said:
Hello Bob,
I make my sanding size about .837, and built the finish size for painting to .840....works well for me.
Several years ago, I just made one set at .840. Just had to be careful not to bleed through the paint, into the cue. Learned better after a couple of years of struggling, and made the other set.
blud
Click to expand...

Hi Blud,
Makes sense to me. Thanks for the staight up answer. Those things cost too much to be guessing at the size difference needed. I used a variation of the collet holding device you told me about. Works well. Thanks again.

Bob
 
blud said:
Hello Bob,
I make my sanding size about .837, and built the finish size for painting to .840....works well for me.
Several years ago, I just made one set at .840. Just had to be careful not to bleed through the paint, into the cue. Learned better after a couple of years of struggling, and made the other set.
blud
Click to expand...

.... .... .... .... .... .... ....
 
blud said:
Hey, Mike, what is this,

.... .... .... .... ???????
Click to expand...

This meant at the time I read it, I was totaly speechless. .003, that much.
You are the original big spender.
 
Michael Webb said:
This meant at the time I read it, I was totaly speechless. .003, that much.
You are the original big spender.
Click to expand...

I must admitt that I was sort of taken back by those numbers. .0015 thick for a finish does seem rather sparce but then again that may be for the final coat.
Dick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top