Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 26

Thread: Tangential Toolholder: Practical Self v.s. Emotional Self. A Play in 2 Acts

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    San Antonio, Texas
    Posts
    86

    Default

    I had the same arguement with myself several years ago while trying to learn on a clapped out Logan lathe. I finally bit the bullet and shelled out the cash to buy one from BayCom. Best machining money I ever spent. Period. I wish I had done it sooner. I was amazed at how well that sloppy lathe worked with a well ground bit. If I screw up and take too much bite, the bit just slides down instead of tearing things up. If I get in too much of a hurry and dull the cutter, it takes about 2 minutes to resharpen. I've recently upgraded to a bigger, tighter lathe. The first thing that got installed was my diamond toolholder. I plan to make my own (someday) for my BXA toolpost, both left-hand and right-hand. The only thing I dislike about it is that I have to keep adjusting the toolpost angle. When I make my own, I'll set the angles so that it will turn and face with the toolpost square with the work.

    Kerry

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 1999
    Location
    SE OZ
    Posts
    3,957

    Default Tangential tool-holder

    Get a standard common lathe tool-holder to suit the tools bit size/s you want to use, cut the head off it, rotate the head 90 degree (so that the fastening screw is to the right), grind/shape the head and shank to suit the front clearance angle you require and weld it together.

    One quick, cheap "tangential" cutter = done and ready to go.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Albuquerque
    Posts
    2,789

    Default

    You don't need plans just wing it. :-)
    http://home.earthlink.net/~lhartswic...urning-facing/
    like I did, works good .
    :-)
    ...lew...

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    15,631

    Default

    Nice job on "Aloris" tangential toolholder Lew

    Do you use it, or do you prefer a conventional tool?

  5. #15

    Default

    I just bought one. I think they get a bad rap because they are designed as an all purpose one size fits all thing, and seem designed to replace skill by making it really easy to sharpen. But if you forget their targeting of the market, and look in something like a KBC catalog where there are a loads of toolholders for insane prices, and limited uses, it isn't so bad.

    So far it really works well, and they really work well for the kind of work I do with the lathe I have. I have a slew of other bits and holders, that cut fine, but this one takes a lot less sharpening. I have 4 south bends, and they came with a bunch of original cutters, used by guys that had these lathes before me. The bits that alway seem pretty useful are the one with a very narrow point and a high back cut angle. The diamond tool holder naturally takes that shape on, and it is infinetly sharpenable without cutting away the useable portion of the tool. There is a ton less stone dust in the air after a fresh diamond bit is shaped than there would be shaping one of those ye' olde ones.

    I haven't tried the threading yet. I just hope it is as good.

    There is only one thing about it that isn't so good, and that is the price. I managed to get one direct from OZ when the Can. dollar was at a favourable rate, and that made it a lot cheaper for me to acquire. If one looks at it as a part of getting some improved tooling into a lathe that was a steal in the first place... It's not too bad a price overall.

  6. #16
    tony ennis Guest

    Default

    probably 'cause I'm too weak to get the screw tight enough.
    Dude. Spot weld. Works great for lugnuts too.



    Hope this helps!

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Newtown, CT
    Posts
    539

    Default

    I've built two tangential holders and vote for making one - it'll give you a chance to use your shaper again

    I'd also vote for setting the tool so it can turn and face without swiveling the QCTP - I grind most all my tools so the QCTP angle stays fixed.

    I built the monolithic style first and then built one to fit a regular toolholder. The one to fit the regular toolholder sticks out more than most bits so it entails cranking the CS when using different tools.

    I plan to make another monolithic type to replace it and am interested in the one Goeff showed. However, I don't see how the saw cuts were done to get them to intersect without weakening it - any chance of an explanation and/or a picture of the bottom, Goeff?

    John


    Pictures here: http://www.gadgetbuilder.com/ToolHolders.html#Tangent

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    739

    Default

    Hi John,

    I am in the middle of a move - the computer is still at the old place but the lathe is at the new one.

    I won't promise but will try to take a photo tomorrow and bring it back here to post. The sawcut does not compromise the bottom section of the toolholder but I can't remember the details. Hopefully a photo will help.

    Geoff

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    739

    Default

    Here are some more details of the slitting saw cuts that I made to enable some flex in the clamping section.









    Let me know if you need more details.

    Regards,

    Geoff
    Last edited by ammcoman2; 12-03-2011 at 06:30 PM.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    North Central Oklahoma
    Posts
    232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ammcoman2
    Here are some more details of the slitting saw cuts that I made to enable some flex in the clamping section.







    Let me know if you need more details.

    Regards,

    Geoff
    Very nice work!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •