Kurt mounted sideways on mill

Topics include, Machine Tools & Tooling, Precision Measuring, Materials and their Properties, Electrical discussions related to machine tools, setups, fixtures and jigs and other general discussion related to amateur machining.

Moderators: GlennW, Harold_V

User avatar
Harold_V
Posts: 20231
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:02 pm
Location: Onalaska, WA USA

Re: Kurt mounted sideways on mill

Post by Harold_V »

tornitore45 wrote:
as well as a means for clamping parallels so they aren't disturbed by air
I can not visualize that. Usually, the parallel is shorter than the jaw depth. Clamping the parallel from the top with L shaped pieces (or washer pushing spacers reaching the parallel top) can only be done on a fraction of the length, a small part can rest on the unencumbered parallel portion.
My normal procedure is to use a spacer, which mounts on top of the parallel and becomes the stop. It projects above the jaws a small amount. And, as you alluded, only a portion of the parallels is available to support the work piece. In my case, that's not a problem, as the setup is specifically for small work.

While I have been known to use an L shaped piece as the clamp, I normally use a square piece, which can be rotated for ideal placement. The tail of the square piece projects towards the rear of the fixed jaw and allows for the placement of the proper height of blocking so the square piece clamps parallel, thus not deflecting the parallel. An L piece limits that ability and may or may not be acceptable for any given setup.

Harold
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
User avatar
tornitore45
Posts: 2077
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 12:24 am
Location: USA Texas, Austin

Re: Kurt mounted sideways on mill

Post by tornitore45 »

Got it Harold.
I use a toolmaker 3" vise (aka grinder vise) hardened and ground on all surfaces, therefore drilling and tapping is out of the question. I though it was too small and have a 6" import with swivel for the chance I need to hold something larger, a need that has not materialized in the 9 years I had the mill.
Mauro Gaetano
in Austin TX
User avatar
seal killer
Posts: 4696
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 10:58 pm
Location: Ozark Mountains

Re: Kurt mounted sideways on mill

Post by seal killer »

Mauro--

I also have a 3" "tool maker's" vise. I often clamp it in the Kurt. Mine works well for me but I am sure it is an import.

--Bill
You are what you write.
reggie_obe
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 6:16 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Kurt mounted sideways on mill

Post by reggie_obe »

Harold_V wrote:
reggie_obe wrote:Instead of re-mounting the vise in an awkward orientation, why didn't you just clamp the blocks to the table with straps, studs, flange nuts, etc.
I'd like to comment on this one.

I've made setups like you've described on many occasions. They work well, but are slower, and require stops to be added when more than one piece is to be machined, as in this case. Without the stops, any attempt at a simple production run would be lost, as orientation of the part to the spindle would be lost when the first piece was removed from the setup. For those of us who have worked in the shop for gain, that isn't acceptable, and it most likely isn't acceptable for the guy who does it strictly as a hobby, as it is time wasted.

While it's true that a stop is still required when a vise is employed, in many cases, such as mine, the vise is built to accommodate a stop, so adding it is a simple matter. The fact that the fixed vise jaw becomes the second stop makes this much easier, with the added benefit of rapid changes of the parts, something that can't be said of working with clamps.

It is my belief that the setup chosen by seal killer was in keeping with the best shop practice.

Harold
Three points, three studs on the table become the locating points, the basics of fixturing. But I'm sure you know that, so repeat-ability is ensured for the "production" run of two parts. I would not remove and remount my vise for two parts. No production shop would and not necessary for producing two parts in a hobby shop either.
User avatar
Harold_V
Posts: 20231
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:02 pm
Location: Onalaska, WA USA

Re: Kurt mounted sideways on mill

Post by Harold_V »

reggie_obe wrote:Three points, three studs on the table become the locating points, the basics of fixturing. But I'm sure you know that, so repeat-ability is ensured for the "production" run of two parts.
Yes, I know that, and is the precise type of setup I make when required. Placement of the location "studs" can be a problem, however. It's not always easy to clamp the locating pieces in such a location that the work holding clamps are well placed. That would be true for small parts, as, once the locating blocks/studs are placed, there may or may not be room for work holding clamps. That has always been an issue for me, and I expect it would be for seal killer as well.

Don't dismiss the concept of small production (two parts). What is being overlooked is that once a good part has been produced, the likelihood that a second part turns out properly is enhanced, assuming the operator makes what could be construed as a production type setup (recording dial settings is very much a part of that concept). This is the very type of work in which I was engaged (when not building tooling), and never used a DRO. It was routine for me to crank out fewer than ten parts, often with a large number of features, and do so without creating questionable quality. I attribute that to the very idea of making simple setups and recording dial settings. It takes far less time to do that than to start from scratch on each piece.

Here's a good example of work produced by that very method. Take note of the huge number of features, some nested within other features. Close tolerance work, all produced without making scrap. The copper pieces are 1¼" sweat couplings, which should serve to help in a size perspective of the work piece. It's ¼" thick aluminum, alodine finished.
chassis top.jpg
chassis bottom.jpg
I would not remove and remount my vise for two parts. No production shop would and not necessary for producing two parts in a hobby shop either.
Unfortunately, I missed your point. Whether it's remounting a vise, or making a table setup, effort must be expended. I, personally, would opt for the one that offered the greater advantage, and in this circumstance, it would appear to me that a vise would. Clamping parts to the table is slower, and offers a small, although more likely, risk of error. And making the table setup would still require the removal of the vise, as well as the reinstallation of the vise. There is no time loss that wouldn't be lost, regardless of choice.

Harold
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
reggie_obe
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 6:16 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Kurt mounted sideways on mill

Post by reggie_obe »

We agree to disagree. Removing the vise to gain real estate, necessary because so many, hobbyists and "pros" alike insist on mounting the vise dead center on the table. A practice that also causes the great wear, localized in the center of the screw and the ways. I have mine bolted down off center and relocate it slightly each time I clean the table and re-tram the vise. This leaves me room on my full size mill for jobs that don't easily fit in a the vise. This was discussed some time ago on Modern Machine Shop (MMS) as a "Best Practice".
User avatar
SteveHGraham
Posts: 7788
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:55 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Kurt mounted sideways on mill

Post by SteveHGraham »

Well, it's not like Harold knows anything.
Every hard-fried egg began life sunny-side up.
User avatar
SteveHGraham
Posts: 7788
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 7:55 pm
Location: Florida

Re: Kurt mounted sideways on mill

Post by SteveHGraham »

Harold, I have a new thread-hijacking question. Do you not trust the flatness of the mill table? Is this the primary reason for using three studs instead of just putting the part on the table? Since I use the table as a reference for tramming the mill's head, it never occurred to me to worry about laying parts on it. Or are is this just a concern where you have to go all the way through parts, and you don't want to mill into the table?

Even then, I would have assumed parallels would be the first thing to try. I don't even know how I would go about adjusting three studs so their heights were exactly the same. I have screw jacks, but I wouldn't look forward to adjusting their heights with a micrometer.
Every hard-fried egg began life sunny-side up.
reggie_obe
Posts: 260
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 6:16 pm
Location: New Jersey

Re: Kurt mounted sideways on mill

Post by reggie_obe »

SteveHGraham wrote:Well, it's not like Harold knows anything.
....and it's also true that he doesn't know everything. Who does?


SG, three studs (3 buttons, etc.), three points to locate a part in X-Y space. Not three studs of equal height to support the part, the part rests on the table.
User avatar
Harold_V
Posts: 20231
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:02 pm
Location: Onalaska, WA USA

Re: Kurt mounted sideways on mill

Post by Harold_V »

SteveHGraham wrote:Harold, I have a new thread-hijacking question. Do you not trust the flatness of the mill table? Is this the primary reason for using three studs instead of just putting the part on the table? Since I use the table as a reference for tramming the mill's head, it never occurred to me to worry about laying parts on it. Or are is this just a concern where you have to go all the way through parts, and you don't want to mill into the table?
As has been described, the studs serve to locate the part in the X-Y orientation, not in the Z orientation.

Do I trust the mill table?

Well, I own a BP mill, and I trust it as well as I can trust a BP. It's more than evident, at least to me, that it doesn't travel a straight path, witnessed by the coming and going of cross hatch when flycutting. Still, it has to be trusted, as you must work from a surface as a base point.

It should be noted that a common milling machine is hard put upon to do work under a thou in tolerance. With one's best effort, it may or may not be capable. It's a milling machine, not a jig borer.
Even then, I would have assumed parallels would be the first thing to try. I don't even know how I would go about adjusting three studs so their heights were exactly the same. I have screw jacks, but I wouldn't look forward to adjusting their heights with a micrometer.
With that out of the way, yeah, I tend to work off parallels, although I have been known to use a sacrificial piece under my work piece. It the work I'm doing isn't critical in any way, even a piece of wood can serve the purpose. Anything to avoid the risk of machining the table.

Harold
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
User avatar
Harold_V
Posts: 20231
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:02 pm
Location: Onalaska, WA USA

Re: Kurt mounted sideways on mill

Post by Harold_V »

reggie_obe wrote:We agree to disagree. Removing the vise to gain real estate, necessary because so many, hobbyists and "pros" alike insist on mounting the vise dead center on the table.
Some do, but I don't, and never have. I am keenly aware of localized wear, and use my mill accordingly. I also wipe and oil regularly.
This was discussed some time ago on Modern Machine Shop (MMS) as a "Best Practice".
I'm not the least bit interested in what others may consider "best practice". I am a capable machinist, who learned the trade at the hands of those who were abundantly skilled and experienced in the trade, and had to perform under circumstances that sort those who think they can from those who can. I also operated a small shop on a full time basis for 16 years, as my soul source of income, providing quality work to the defense industries. I'm not a stranger to good practice, nor to difficult work.

What I'm interested in is what is best for me, and that can't be determined by others, as they may not have a firm understanding of the issues I face. We see this on a daily basis, whereby someone posts on a given subject and does what is best for them with the equipment they have at their disposal. Often times I disagree with the procedure chosen, but that individual may or may not have options that might allow for what I consider to be the best possible method.

Regardless of your posture in this matter, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the method that was chosen by seal killer. To make an issue of it is beyond the scope of this board.

Harold
Wise people talk because they have something to say. Fools talk because they have to say something.
User avatar
Mid Day Machining
Posts: 418
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:58 am
Location: San Clemente, CA

Re: Kurt mounted sideways on mill

Post by Mid Day Machining »

Another advantage to having your vise mounted perpendicular to the X axis is it will allow you to work in an X+ Y+ direction.

When you're working on a CNC and back jaw of your vise is your Y zero, you;ll be working in a Y minus direction all the time. Not a bad idea till you have to make a manual Y axis edit and you leave the minus sign off your Y axis edit. Now guess what. Your Y axis takes off in a Y plus direction and you just bought that part.

Let me tell you, that NEVER happens when you're just getting started in a part. NOPE, it will happen near the end when you need to measure it before you take it out of the machine.

Your part needs to have a fine adjustment in the Y direction and you leave the MINUS sign off, you can now add that part to your scrap heap.
You can buy good parts, or you can buy cheap parts, but you can't buy good cheap parts.
Post Reply