Through all my headaches setting pins yesterday I managed to keep the machine from moving.-a The vise I used to machine the vises measured
within a couple tenths of parallel to travel.-a I locked one axis, and
then put a cheater bar on the handle to make sure it wouldn't move.
I left the pins set overnight so the Loctite 604 could cure, and this morning I dropped them on the machine where they are going.-a Both vise
pins bumped up against the planned t-slot and both vises were within
were less than a thousand pout of parallel to the travel of the machine.
-aPretty darn good when you consider I have never indicated that t-slot
and had no idea how straight it was. Then I found the problem.-a The two vises are 7 thousandths out of line with each other.-a DANG-IT!
I checked the original factory face, and I check the machined step I put
in the jaws.-a Both were straight, and both were 7 thousandths out of
line with the other vise.-a They were both parallel.-a Just .007 out of
line with each other.
I was pretty careful with the setup, but the body of the vise was
supported by the fixed jaw in the vise holding it while I drilled the
pin holes.-a It was a lot more rigid than it sounds.-a Under all the
forces the DRO never drifted.-a Well, 0.0002, but that doesn't really count.
I have two ideas for the discrepancy.
1.-a I got a chip in the setup somewhere or made some other mistake that
put them 0.007 out of line, but kept it parallel.
2.-a The fixed jaws of the two vises are .007 difference in thickness.
from front to back.
Sorry, can't check it right now.-a As soon as I got over my temper
tantrum I lined up the two vises with hammer, cinched them down, and
threw a fixture plate in them to start roughing mold blanks 4 pieces at
a time.
Maybe tomorrow I'll pull the fixture plate out of the way and measure
the jaws.
What do you think happened.
1.-a Did I screw up by a nice parallel 0.007 inches?
2.-a Did the Chinese grinder operator just stop when the vise was square without checking all the dimensions?
What do you think happened.
1. Did I screw up by a nice parallel 0.007 inches?
2. Did the Chinese grinder operator just stop when the vise was square without checking all the dimensions?
No guesses?
In either case I could fix it by turning some shouldered pins 0.014 larger diameter, or if I was insanely talented make a sleeve .007 thick.
The former would require a slide hammer pin puller and heat. The later would require skills and equipment far beyond me.
"Bob La Londe"-a wrote in message news:1780326245-16941@newsgrouper.org...
What do you think happened.
1. Did I screw up by a nice parallel 0.007 inches?
2. Did the Chinese grinder operator just stop when the vise was square without checking all the dimensions?
No guesses?
In either case I could fix it by turning some shouldered pins 0.014
larger diameter, or if I was insanely talented make a sleeve .007 thick.
The former would require a slide hammer pin puller and heat.-a The later would require skills and equipment far beyond me.
-------------------------------
Add shim stock behind the recessed vise jaw? Tin can steel is close to 0.007" thick, or use a feeler gauge blade.
Telescoping brass tubing easy to hold and turn in a collet. A live
tailstock center keeps it straight and when parting it cut close to the collet so it doesn't bend. I use a parting tool to reduce its diameter
with a smooth finish.
On 6/1/2026 10:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Bob La Londe"-a wrote in message news:1780326245-16941@newsgrouper.org... >>
What do you think happened.
1. Did I screw up by a nice parallel 0.007 inches?
2. Did the Chinese grinder operator just stop when the vise was square
without checking all the dimensions?
No guesses?
In either case I could fix it by turning some shouldered pins 0.014
larger diameter, or if I was insanely talented make a sleeve .007 thick.
The former would require a slide hammer pin puller and heat.-a The
later would require skills and equipment far beyond me.
-------------------------------
Add shim stock behind the recessed vise jaw? Tin can steel is close to
0.007" thick, or use a feeler gauge blade.
Telescoping brass tubing easy to hold and turn in a collet. A live
tailstock center keeps it straight and when parting it cut close to
the collet so it doesn't bend. I use a parting tool to reduce its
diameter with a smooth finish.
I definitely thought about gluing (loctite) on some shim stock, but I
think milling the pins is the easiest answer.-a I do have precision shim stock on hand.-a Since the t-slots have a generous chamfer I would not
even need to risk touching the bottom of the vise, but because there is
so much surface area it wouldn't matter if I did.
If I marked them left and right I could mill the pins individually to
have a likely pull and drop on within a couple tenths of parallel across
the whole 14 inches of effective grip range.-a (Gap > 2.0 between vises.)
Even being 7 thousandths off but parallel, positioning was a lot faster
than normal for setting two vises up as a pair.-a Well once I got over my temper tantrum and stopped kicking things.
On 6/1/2026 10:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Bob La Londe"a wrote in message news:1780326245-16941@newsgrouper.org...
What do you think happened.
1. Did I screw up by a nice parallel 0.007 inches?
2. Did the Chinese grinder operator just stop when the vise was square
without checking all the dimensions?
No guesses?
In either case I could fix it by turning some shouldered pins 0.014
larger diameter, or if I was insanely talented make a sleeve .007 thick.
The former would require a slide hammer pin puller and heat.a The later
would require skills and equipment far beyond me.
-------------------------------
Add shim stock behind the recessed vise jaw? Tin can steel is close to
0.007" thick, or use a feeler gauge blade.
Telescoping brass tubing easy to hold and turn in a collet. A live
tailstock center keeps it straight and when parting it cut close to the
collet so it doesn't bend. I use a parting tool to reduce its diameter
with a smooth finish.
I definitely thought about gluing (loctite) on some shim stock, but I
think milling the pins is the easiest answer. I do have precision shim >stock on hand. Since the t-slots have a generous chamfer I would not
even need to risk touching the bottom of the vise, but because there is
so much surface area it wouldn't matter if I did.
If I marked them left and right I could mill the pins individually to
have a likely pull and drop on within a couple tenths of parallel across
the whole 14 inches of effective grip range. (Gap > 2.0 between vises.)
Even being 7 thousandths off but parallel, positioning was a lot faster
than normal for setting two vises up as a pair. Well once I got over my >temper tantrum and stopped kicking things.
On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 12:07:14 -0700, Bob La Londe <none@none.com99>
wrote:
On 6/1/2026 10:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Bob La Londe"-a wrote in message news:1780326245-16941@newsgrouper.org... >>>
What do you think happened.
1. Did I screw up by a nice parallel 0.007 inches?
2. Did the Chinese grinder operator just stop when the vise was square
without checking all the dimensions?
No guesses?
In either case I could fix it by turning some shouldered pins 0.014
larger diameter, or if I was insanely talented make a sleeve .007 thick. >>>
The former would require a slide hammer pin puller and heat.-a The later >>> would require skills and equipment far beyond me.
-------------------------------
Add shim stock behind the recessed vise jaw? Tin can steel is close to
0.007" thick, or use a feeler gauge blade.
Telescoping brass tubing easy to hold and turn in a collet. A live
tailstock center keeps it straight and when parting it cut close to the
collet so it doesn't bend. I use a parting tool to reduce its diameter
with a smooth finish.
I definitely thought about gluing (loctite) on some shim stock, but I
think milling the pins is the easiest answer. I do have precision shim
stock on hand. Since the t-slots have a generous chamfer I would not
even need to risk touching the bottom of the vise, but because there is
so much surface area it wouldn't matter if I did.
If I marked them left and right I could mill the pins individually to
have a likely pull and drop on within a couple tenths of parallel across
the whole 14 inches of effective grip range. (Gap > 2.0 between vises.)
Even being 7 thousandths off but parallel, positioning was a lot faster
than normal for setting two vises up as a pair. Well once I got over my
temper tantrum and stopped kicking things.
Just kick the right thing in the right place hard enough to shift it
.007" the right direction - - - - - -
On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 12:07:14 -0700, Bob La Londe <none@none.com99>
wrote:
On 6/1/2026 10:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Bob La Londe"-a wrote in message news:1780326245-16941@newsgrouper.org... >>>
What do you think happened.
1. Did I screw up by a nice parallel 0.007 inches?
2. Did the Chinese grinder operator just stop when the vise was square
without checking all the dimensions?
No guesses?
In either case I could fix it by turning some shouldered pins 0.014
larger diameter, or if I was insanely talented make a sleeve .007 thick. >>>
The former would require a slide hammer pin puller and heat.-a The later >>> would require skills and equipment far beyond me.
-------------------------------
Add shim stock behind the recessed vise jaw? Tin can steel is close to
0.007" thick, or use a feeler gauge blade.
Telescoping brass tubing easy to hold and turn in a collet. A live
tailstock center keeps it straight and when parting it cut close to the
collet so it doesn't bend. I use a parting tool to reduce its diameter
with a smooth finish.
I definitely thought about gluing (loctite) on some shim stock, but I
think milling the pins is the easiest answer. I do have precision shim
stock on hand. Since the t-slots have a generous chamfer I would not
even need to risk touching the bottom of the vise, but because there is
so much surface area it wouldn't matter if I did.
If I marked them left and right I could mill the pins individually to
have a likely pull and drop on within a couple tenths of parallel across
the whole 14 inches of effective grip range. (Gap > 2.0 between vises.)
Even being 7 thousandths off but parallel, positioning was a lot faster
than normal for setting two vises up as a pair. Well once I got over my
temper tantrum and stopped kicking things.
Just kick the right thing in the right place hard enough to shift it
.007" the right direction - - - - - -
"Bob La Londe"-a wrote in message news:10vl77j$2jkgm$1@dont-email.me...
I have no issue with with spending some time once or twice to save from
a couple to several minutes for the rest of the life of the vises every single time they go back on the table, and get a consistent repeatable
result doing it.-a In addition to just making the job of putting the
vises back faster, easier, and more consistent it will mean I will take
them off to do other jobs more often as well if that's the best way to
do the job.-a I personally will be more flexible in my approaches to
jobs.-a I do not see this as a once in a great while thing.-a I see me
taking advantage of the improved efficiency often and willingly.
-----------------------------
The method I used on the RF-31 vise could apply here. Clamp a
straightedge on the table with the rear edge indicated parallel to X
travel, clamp both vises on it upside down. Mill the key slots to make
them identical, fit keys to the vise bases and table slots. The vise and table slot widths don't have to be the same, the key can be stepped. The vises will fit identically, as accurately as you care to make the slots
and keys.
If you know the table slots are parallel to X travel the keys can be straight and milled in a vise. To make its upper vise base tenon and the fixed jaw parallel to X I had to mill the key in the RF-31 table slot
which was angled.
On 6/2/2026 4:32 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Bob La Londe"-a wrote in message news:10vl77j$2jkgm$1@dont-email.me...
I have no issue with with spending some time once or twice to save from
a couple to several minutes for the rest of the life of the vises every
single time they go back on the table, and get a consistent repeatable
result doing it.-a In addition to just making the job of putting the
vises back faster, easier, and more consistent it will mean I will take
them off to do other jobs more often as well if that's the best way to
do the job.-a I personally will be more flexible in my approaches to
jobs.-a I do not see this as a once in a great while thing.-a I see me
taking advantage of the improved efficiency often and willingly.
-----------------------------
The method I used on the RF-31 vise could apply here. Clamp a
straightedge on the table with the rear edge indicated parallel to X
travel, clamp both vises on it upside down. Mill the key slots to
make them identical, fit keys to the vise bases and table slots. The
vise and table slot widths don't have to be the same, the key can be
stepped. The vises will fit identically, as accurately as you care to
make the slots and keys.
If you know the table slots are parallel to X travel the keys can be
straight and milled in a vise. To make its upper vise base tenon and
the fixed jaw parallel to X I had to mill the key in the RF-31 table
slot which was angled.
I think I have a handle on dialing them in for THAT machine.-a It also occurred to me to do something I found fault with on another machine.
The Y position needs to be very consistent and that is (will be)
achieved with the key pins, but it is helpful if the X position is
modestly consistent as well.-a Maybe not sub half thousandth like the Y position, but within 10-15 thousandths.-a This would of course also
help with the Y position as inconsistencies in the T-slot would be
mooted. The answer?-a Engrave the table.-a Wait, I know.-a Apprentice
marks on the table are to be avoided, but in this case it would be a
great help.-a The idea has been creeping up on me.
Engraving the table is as abhorrent to me as it is to some of you, but
we are talking about a bed mill here.-a The work envelope never
changes. Even in a major tear down and rebuild it wouldn't change much.
I've seen it done before.-a On a mill that made no sense (to me at the
time) to do it.-a There are work envelope marks on the table of my
KMB1. I got it that way.-a It didn't make any sense to me at the time.-a
The head can move left to right, and telescope in and out. The work
envelope can absolutely change on it.-a In fact its one of the reasons
I decided to rebuild it instead of scrapping it.-a With some care I can
make work pieces three to four times the area of the "static work
envelope" without moving the part.-a The previous owners probably never moved the head.-a I had to use a hammer to break loose the telescoping
part of the head, and it took a lot of leverage to swivel it left to right.-a The thing is if they were working on modestly large work
pieces it might have made sense for their work flow and efficiency to
be able to quickly see it was within the work envelope.
The Tormach is a bed mill.-a As stated above the work envelope never changes,so being able to drop the vises in nearly the exact same spot
every time would be very beneficial, and much augmented by engraving
the table.-a I'm actually particular about their position and relative distance.-a With them almost exactly int he center, a little over 2
inches apart I can work on molds in a single setup 18 inches long with little or now chatter coming from the work piece for the types of work
cuts I make.
I'm not managing the machine to have best resale value.-a I'm managing
the machine to get the best work out of it for what I do.
On 6/1/2026 12:12 PM, Clare Snyder wrote:
On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 12:07:14 -0700, Bob La Londe <none@none.com99>
wrote:
On 6/1/2026 10:05 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
"Bob La Londe"a wrote in message news:1780326245-16941@newsgrouper.org... >>>>
What do you think happened.
1. Did I screw up by a nice parallel 0.007 inches?
2. Did the Chinese grinder operator just stop when the vise was square >>>> without checking all the dimensions?
No guesses?
In either case I could fix it by turning some shouldered pins 0.014
larger diameter, or if I was insanely talented make a sleeve .007 thick. >>>>
The former would require a slide hammer pin puller and heat.a The later >>>> would require skills and equipment far beyond me.
-------------------------------
Add shim stock behind the recessed vise jaw? Tin can steel is close to >>>> 0.007" thick, or use a feeler gauge blade.
Telescoping brass tubing easy to hold and turn in a collet. A live
tailstock center keeps it straight and when parting it cut close to the >>>> collet so it doesn't bend. I use a parting tool to reduce its diameter >>>> with a smooth finish.
I definitely thought about gluing (loctite) on some shim stock, but I
think milling the pins is the easiest answer. I do have precision shim
stock on hand. Since the t-slots have a generous chamfer I would not
even need to risk touching the bottom of the vise, but because there is
so much surface area it wouldn't matter if I did.
If I marked them left and right I could mill the pins individually to
have a likely pull and drop on within a couple tenths of parallel across >>> the whole 14 inches of effective grip range. (Gap > 2.0 between vises.) >>>
Even being 7 thousandths off but parallel, positioning was a lot faster
than normal for setting two vises up as a pair. Well once I got over my >>> temper tantrum and stopped kicking things.
Just kick the right thing in the right place hard enough to shift it
.007" the right direction - - - - - -
On second thought. NO! ABSOLUTELY FREAKING NOT! JUST BUMP IT IN IS NOTIt was tounge in cheek response to your kicking things around in
THE RIGHT ANSWER!
Yes, absolutely I can bump in a vise. Yes, absolutely I can bump in two >vises together. I DO NOT FREAKING WANT TO AND ANY FORM OF ME WANTING TO
IS NOT THE CORRECT ANSWER.
The whole point was to make taking the vises off and putting them back
on a big nothing. Sure I can bump in a vise. A single vise I can do
very very fast. Under a minute if it doesn't move when being tightened >down. Really 2-3 minutes most times. Two vises isn't much more
difficult, but it is a little. Add on top of that I want to make it
fast and REPEATABLE to maximize use of the work envelope of the machine
and just bump it in misses the mark entirely. I want them not just
aligned, but in the same spot.
... and the solution to the task I ACTUALLY WANT TO MAKE EASIER is even >easier than I was thinking last time around. I could do it with a file
and a mic next time the vises are off the machine.
I have no issue with with spending some time once or twice to save from
a couple to several minutes for the rest of the life of the vises every >single time they go back on the table, and get a consistent repeatable >result doing it. In addition to just making the job of putting the
vises back faster, easier, and more consistent it will mean I will take
them off to do other jobs more often as well if that's the best way to
do the job. I personally will be more flexible in my approaches to
jobs. I do not see this as a once in a great while thing. I see me
taking advantage of the improved efficiency often and willingly.
I'd still indicate them just to make sure they don't move when being >tightened down, but it will make them faster and the machine more usable
for one off jobs where the vises aren't the best work holding, or where
a different vise is the best work holding.
Its not because its hard, its because its efficient. Same reason some >people install a power draw bar. Its not HARD to put a wrench on the
quill and a wrench on the draw bar and then tap on it with a hammer...
well on one my machines it would require a step stool, but its still not >hard. Its just a lot more efficient and you will change to the best
tool more often if it is. Net productivity goes up. I have 6 mills
under power in the shop. Only one does not have a power draw bar (or
other quick change tooling system), and it has had the same tool in the >spindle for years. I only use it for engraving.
P.S. I'm not yelling at you. I'm yelling at me for allowing myself to
be dragged away from my purpose in this exercise.
"Its the way we have always done it," is not the BEST way to keep doing
it if its a routine process and you can make it better.
P.S. I'm not yelling at you. I'm yelling at me for allowing myself toIt was tounge in cheek response to your kicking things around in
be dragged away from my purpose in this exercise.
"Its the way we have always done it," is not the BEST way to keep doing
it if its a routine process and you can make it better.
"Clare Snyder" wrote in message news:n0o12lh9np86pikjrmvrf2v15r7t8heb5d@4ax.com...
On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 17:13:38 -0700, Bob La Londe <none@none.com99>
wrote:
...
P.S. I'm not yelling at you. I'm yelling at me for allowing myself to
be dragged away from my purpose in this exercise.
"Its the way we have always done it," is not the BEST way to keep doingIt was tounge in cheek response to your kicking things around in frustration!
it if its a routine process and you can make it better.
----------------------
Now I'm trying to design a calibrated hammer.
"Clare Snyder" wrote in message news:n0o12lh9np86pikjrmvrf2v15r7t8heb5d@4ax.com...
On Mon, 1 Jun 2026 17:13:38 -0700, Bob La Londe <none@none.com99>
wrote:
...
P.S. I'm not yelling at you. I'm yelling at me for allowing myself to
be dragged away from my purpose in this exercise.
"Its the way we have always done it," is not the BEST way to keep doingIt was tounge in cheek response to your kicking things around in frustration!
it if its a routine process and you can make it better.
----------------------
Now I'm trying to design a calibrated hammer.
Now I'm trying to design a calibrated hammer.
You start with calibrated rubber bands.
--
Bob La Londe
CNC Molds N Stuff
-------------------------------------
Aha! That's the answer I was looking for, no more air pump in the
handle. You'll get honorable mention on the patent.
Now I'm trying to design a calibrated hammer.
You start with calibrated rubber bands.
--
Bob La Londe
CNC Molds N Stuff
-------------------------------------
Aha! That's the answer I was looking for, no more air pump in the handle. You'll get honorable mention on the patent.
"Bob La Londe"-a wrote in message news:10vsgv9$jctf$1@dont-email.me...
On 6/4/2026 7:34 AM, Jim Wilkins wrote:
Now I'm trying to design a calibrated hammer.
You start with calibrated rubber bands.
--
Bob La Londe
CNC Molds N Stuff
-------------------------------------
Aha! That's the answer I was looking for, no more air pump in the
handle. You'll get honorable mention on the patent.
Oh, I have more.-a Its also adjustable.-a Just count the number of time
you turn the propeller.
--
Bob La Londe
CNC Molds N Stuff
------------------------------
With careful adjustment I could make a rubber band airplane fly
straight, drop a paper cap "bomb" stuffed part way under the unwinding rubber, then without the bomb's offset weight to compensate for the off- center wing the plane would circle around and return to me.
With careful adjustment I could make a rubber band airplane fly straight, drop a paper cap "bomb" stuffed part way under the unwinding rubber, then without the bomb's offset weight to compensate for the off- center wing
the plane would circle around and return to me.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 69 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 37:16:46 |
| Calls: | 900 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,320 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (12,347K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,688 |