Vertical Parting Tool

[jackary]

Hi DR
Cutting tool in the vertical directly supported from below on the cross slide.

[cameron]

I recall a parting tool in the normal front position, supported by the cross slide by an extension piece brazed to the bottom edge of the parting tool. Appeared in Model Engineer many years ago, possibly by Tubal Cain.

Dave Cameron

[Clevelander]

That said, the reason for the "normal" rear mounted part off tool is for lighter machines so the spindle load is in compression through the body of the lathe rather that the load being carried by the spindle cap bolts which under heavy enough load act as micro springs by stretching.

BTW, I'm jealous that you have power cross feed.

[Rosco-P]

.................................................. ..........................................

Why has this not been tried before?

.................................................. .........................................

Alan

What is it that you feel has not been tried before?

Rear part off? Brazing HSS onto a blank? Allowing side clearance on the tool?

All of those have been around for many decades.

Same is true for rear mounted and upside down, rear mounted parting tools. They would be "standard equipment" on a second op. lathe or a fully automatic screw machine like the B&S 1/2, 0 or 2.
IMHO a "vertical parting tool" serves the same need as putting chrome on a hearse.

[jackary]

Rosco -P
You are correct to say that both front and upside down rear parting tools are in common use but I have in my limited experience not yet seen a parting tool that is in more or less direct compression. Both conventional front and inverted rear parting tools are more or less horizontally mounted and are therefore subject to a bending moment which creates problems with the rigidity of the mounting arrangements. I do not say it has not been done before but I say that I have not seen it myself and would be interested in seeing previous examples.,
Alan

[Rosco-P]

How much does your toolholder reduce the available swing of the lathe? One quarter, one third? By design, your toolholder would shrink as the workpiece size increases. Unsupported tool length would increase.
That's a pretty small piece of metal you are parting off, post another video parting off a section of 3" CRS.

[Forestgnome]

IMHO most problems encountered in parting off have less to do with tool design and lathe capabilities and more to do with technique. Properly set up I've had little problem parting off with lots of overhang using HSS blades. When I was learning I broke a fair number of blades though.

[dian]

why should it reduce the swing?

[lwalker]

This is probably heresy around here, but a good tool design should strive to reduce the need for good "technique."

The easier you make the operation, the less error prone it tends to be. Designing something that requires a high level of operator skill is generally not a good idea all other things being equal.

IMHO most problems encountered in parting off have less to do with tool design and lathe capabilities and more to do with technique. Properly set up I've had little problem parting off with lots of overhang using HSS blades. When I was learning I broke a fair number of blades though.

[jackary]

That's a pretty small piece of metal you are parting off, post another video parting off a section of 3" CRS.

It's maximum capacity would be about 2" dia on a small Myford size lathe. I have not yet tried it yet on 2" dia and do not intend to because I think it would be asking quite a lot for a small machine. The idea is being shown for interest and comment. If you do not like the idea please ignore it and carry on as you have been doing, but if you have any info on parting off 3" dia CRS on a Myford sized machine it would be good to see.
Alan