rear chuck or live center?

BHQ said:
in regards to this thread, http://forums.azbilliards.com/showthread.php?t=83679&highlight=rear+chuck
i've been thinking about mounting a live center to left of headstock
i figured that once it is setup and centered with main chuck and tailstock,
it SHOULD always be good to go
the spindle on my sheldon is approx 18" long, so maximum travel needed on the live center would be 12" to 15"
anybody got any thoughts????
Click to expand...

I think you are asking for a lot of alighment problems. It is far more simple to use delrin collets or to install a rear chuck in my opinion.

I have used delrin collets for many years with no problems. I have about 40 or more for each lathe so as to fit almost all diameters of shafts and butts.

Good Cuemaking,
 
I agree. I used collets for a long time & then picked up a rear chuck thinking it would eliminate the need for all those collets. As much of an advancement that chuck was, I still use the collets & made more to use with the chuck!!!!
 
I also use bushings and collets like Arnot with no problems ... I did make a bushing to fit back ID of spindle and bored it to accept a live center but it's not any better than a bushing, only used it twice , never know unless you try ... I have many different sizes like Arnot and I bored the ID with a butt taper and the OD to the inside of spindle , mark your collets as to which is large side or small if tapered ... Everything comes out pretty much dead nuts , you can push the collets inside the spindle to fit on to your work , the inside taper fits nice and snug to eliminate runout as long as your OD is precise to ID of spindle ... Delrin will swell up if temperature gets warm so take into consideration your tolerances ... Alot of this stuff you have to make because good luck buying it anywhere to fit your machinery ... That's the challange and fun of cue making , you have to wear more than one hat to pull it off successfully ...
 
Collets are hot.........most I think use them for their versatility.
I have often thought of a very similar setup of what your talking about though.
If properly done...it would be the nutts. For efficiency, I think your set up would have to allow the tailstock center to be able to slide inside the spindle for use on shorter pieces. To be very efficient, a custom made extender off the tailstock part would be needed. The design I have in my head really isn't that complicated and would work nice. As always....finding the time to do the design and setup of such a piece is where anymore than just the "idea" stage ends for me.
 
BarenbruggeCues said:
Collets are hot.........most I think use them for their versatility.
I have often thought of a very similar setup of what your talking about though.
If properly done...it would be the nutts. For efficiency, I think your set up would have to allow the tailstock center to be able to slide inside the spindle for use on shorter pieces. To be very efficient, a custom made extender off the tailstock part would be needed. The design I have in my head really isn't that complicated and would work nice. As always....finding the time to do the design and setup of such a piece is where anymore than just the "idea" stage ends for me.
Click to expand...
was nice to talk to you last nite
 
I have rear chucks on all of my larger lathes and it would really slow me down if they weren't there. Even with a rear chuck or front chuck or any other holding device on a lathe, collets are still needed so as not to mark or damage the cue. With just a collet system though, you need very many more collets as their diameter must be consistent with the spindle or wherever it is you are going to use them. With a chuck the collets can span a much larger range of sizes as the diameter can be changed without affecting the collets ability to hold and protect the material. The drawback on a rear chuck is precision. It is extremely difficult to get a rear chuck to run tolerances as good as the front chuck. When mounting a chuck, the lathe itself is used to true the plate for the chuck both for chuck concentricity as far as being in line with both the spindle and bed and remove all yaw so that the jaws also run true. This can only be down precisely after the chucks plate has been mounted to the spindle. The only perfect way to accomplish this is to take the spindle out and take to a larger lathe and have it set up there and then put your lathe back together. Both time consuming and costly.

You can usually get the rear chuck to run close enough for most operations that need to be done on a cue. When facing a shaft or butt I use a steady rest as I want this perfect as very little movement will show when the shaft and but are together.

Dick
 
Dick, it's very nice to hear your perspective. I have spent untold hours trying to perfect my (very nearly true) rear chuck while reading where others claim that theirs run true. I also use a steady rest for critical operations.
I made a bearing mount for the steady rest on my big lathe. I imagine that everyone else must do something similar, but no one seems to talk about it.

Thanks again.
 
The drawback on a rear chuck is precision. It is extremely difficult to get a rear chuck to run tolerances as good as the front chuck.
Probably next to impossible unless you get a set-tru rear chuck?
Run thompson rod, chuck to chuck and indicate it and set the rear chuck?

I once called Logan if he sold the adapter to mount a rear chuck.
He would not sell it. He said the lathes were not designed to have rear chucks.
I'm guessing LIABILITY insurance.

I have pic somewhere of a Feeler lathe with a long bed pan.
A custom steady rest with 3-bearing was bolted a few inches away from the rear.
I can't find it right now as I am at "work".:D
I thought that thing was da nuts. I believe Dan Janes sold the lathe to Falcon.
 
I've often dreamt of a lathe with a really long bed that has the chuck in the center. Then you could have 2 tailstocks. One to the left and one to the right.
 
Sheldon said:
I've often dreamt of a lathe with a really long bed that has the chuck in the center. Then you could have 2 tailstocks. One to the left and one to the right.
Click to expand...
this is exactly how mine will be,
ifn's i ever get around to doing it ;)
 
This is the way the deluxe lathe is by hightower. However, as nifty as the little machine is, it would be VERY cool if it could be pulled off on a machine lathe. That would be an ultimate cuemaking lathe, a short headstock with 6 jaw tru-set chucks on both ends, 6" apart from one another, centered on a hardened & precise ground bed with tail stocks on each end & steady rests that could fit dead nuts center every time, equipped with tapered collet set-ups. Oh how I wish I had Tucker's fabrication shop :) Hey Murray, how much to build a lathe like this?
 
JoeyInCali said:
The drawback on a rear chuck is precision. It is extremely difficult to get a rear chuck to run tolerances as good as the front chuck.
Probably next to impossible unless you get a set-tru rear chuck?
Run thompson rod, chuck to chuck and indicate it and set the rear chuck?

I once called Logan if he sold the adapter to mount a rear chuck.
He would not sell it. He said the lathes were not designed to have rear chucks.
I'm guessing LIABILITY insurance.

I have pic somewhere of a Feeler lathe with a long bed pan.
A custom steady rest with 3-bearing was bolted a few inches away from the rear.
I can't find it right now as I am at "work".:D
I thought that thing was da nuts. I believe Dan Janes sold the lathe to Falcon.
Click to expand...

The drawback with a set-tru lathe is that you still can't face the faceplate so that it is exactly perpendiculer to the spindle or bed. By using the set-tru's unique centering feature, the chuck can be made concentric to the spindle either on the front of the jaws or on the back, but not both. By yaw, I mean the chuck doesn't run concnetrically both in the front and the back. When setting up you can get the chuck to run fairly true at one spot on the jaws but if you clamp down on another spot it will run off.

Dick
 
JoeyInCali said:
The drawback on a rear chuck is precision. It is extremely difficult to get a rear chuck to run tolerances as good as the front chuck.
Probably next to impossible unless you get a set-tru rear chuck?
Run thompson rod, chuck to chuck and indicate it and set the rear chuck?

I once called Logan if he sold the adapter to mount a rear chuck.
He would not sell it. He said the lathes were not designed to have rear chucks.
I'm guessing LIABILITY insurance.

I have pic somewhere of a Feeler lathe with a long bed pan.
A custom steady rest with 3-bearing was bolted a few inches away from the rear.
I can't find it right now as I am at "work".:D
I thought that thing was da nuts. I believe Dan Janes sold the lathe to Falcon.
Click to expand...
It is a liability unless the chuck somehow bolts on. I have a sheldon just like the original poster and my rear chuck threads on. Because of the direction the lathe turns it can unscrew and come off. It will just drop but not something you want to happen if you have a foot anywhere close. The sheldon by the way has a sleeve that screws on. I took a back plate and bored it out and put four set screws in it to mount the chuck on the sleeve and it works perfectly. I just use a dial indicator to check it now and then. It has been on there for like 20 years with no problems.
 
rhncue said:
The drawback with a set-tru lathe is that you still can't face the faceplate so that it is exactly perpendiculer to the spindle or bed. By using the set-tru's unique centering feature, the chuck can be made concentric to the spindle either on the front of the jaws or on the back, but not both. By yaw, I mean the chuck doesn't run concnetrically both in the front and the back. When setting up you can get the chuck to run fairly true at one spot on the jaws but if you clamp down on another spot it will run off.

Dick
Click to expand...
K, got that Dick.
I forgot about the register. I need a NASA engineer buddy.
 
qbilder said:
This is the way the deluxe lathe is by hightower. However, as nifty as the little machine is, it would be VERY cool if it could be pulled off on a machine lathe. That would be an ultimate cuemaking lathe, a short headstock with 6 jaw tru-set chucks on both ends, 6" apart from one another, centered on a hardened & precise ground bed with tail stocks on each end & steady rests that could fit dead nuts center every time, equipped with tapered collet set-ups. Oh how I wish I had Tucker's fabrication shop :) Hey Murray, how much to build a lathe like this?
Click to expand...

You sure don't ask for much do you?


<~~~glad qbilder isn't on my christmas list....................
 
Sheldon said:
I've often dreamt of a lathe with a really long bed that has the chuck in the center. Then you could have 2 tailstocks. One to the left and one to the right.
Click to expand...

Don't they call that a Hightower:) <sorry, couldnt resist>

Dale
 
macguy said:
It is a liability unless the chuck somehow bolts on. I have a sheldon just like the original poster and my rear chuck threads on. Because of the direction the lathe turns it can unscrew and come off. It will just drop but not something you want to happen if you have a foot anywhere close. The sheldon by the way has a sleeve that screws on. I took a back plate and bored it out and put four set screws in it to mount the chuck on the sleeve and it works perfectly. I just use a dial indicator to check it now and then. It has been on there for like 20 years with no problems.
Click to expand...
hi mac, could you send a pic of your rear chuck please
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top