Build of a permanent magnetic chuck / base / vise. Part III: finale
Вставка
- Опубліковано 18 лип 2023
- As far as I know, there are no videos on UA-cam about building a magnetic chuck based on permanent magnets. Apparently the traditional build is too demanding for a home shop. In the UA-cam videos I only see transformers used in big heavy bulky electromagnetic chucks. I want something smaller, nicer and more refined. Suitable for a mini mill and based on neodymium magnets. Here's the third and last part of an attempt to do so. After building the vise, I put it to the test.
Music: "Here we go again.." Norah Jones, Ray Charles
MusOpen: Pachelbel, Canon in d major by Kevin McLeod
MusOpen: Beethoven, Sonata 32 for Piano, by Paul Pitman - Наука та технологія
Your voice is not boring (although the choice of music is exquisite!), you express yourself clearly and educationally. I love your scientific attitude with a sprinkle of humor.
I look forward to seeing how you make a magnetic chuck for the lathe🙂
Thanks for sharing!
Thank you! 🙂
I've watched this multiple times and one cannot come away without the feeling of the exactness of your work is. The time in research is incredible and time consuming AND for those with extreme patience. Thanks Michel, great lesson in applying thought to workpiece!!
Thank you for sharing. I'm definitely going to build one myself.
Michel, it's been terrific to see your "concept" idea transform into this working piece of tooling, Congrats!!
You‘re the reason to stay on yt. Love your content and engineering capabilities. A big wow ❤
Thank you!😊
That is a brilliant build, very educational, very inspirational to say the least. Thank you.
Great project and video series.
was a pleasure to watch such finesse build.
Thank you! 🤗
Great job! Soundtrack is perfect! Thank you!
FELICITARI inca o lucrare ultraprofesionala cu masini hoby. Esti foarte bun profesionist.
Mulțumesc 🙂
Hertzlichen Glückwunsch! Ein sehr aufschlussreiches Projekt und einige sehr nützliche Forschungsergebnisse. Sie haben diese Art von Schraubstock gut in die Möglichkeiten des Heimwerkers integriert. Beste Grüße aus Tewkesbury, Großbritannien.
New at this, and in my research I find that the Neo bat's from older PC hard drives are fragile if removed from there molybdeum mounting plate. I see now why Michel's design is critical, in that the magnets are recessed and allowed to float. Any one wish to chime in on this would be useful. After watching a 3 parts, I see that I am in for a challenge, but at 70 and retired, game on :-).
All right! Go for it! And if you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.
Well thought out and nicely implemented! Thank you for sharing.
Very interesting
Brilliant!
Just great!
Love it...
WOW!!! Just wow
This exactly what I have been looking for. Thank you for sharing your experience and knowledge. Do you think you will be offering basic plans and dimensions?
Thank you again
Tom
The plans are very simple. It is a matter of buying enough magnets (in my case 170 pieces ø6 mm by 8 mm), and measuring the diameter and height accurately. Then make a slab of aluminum that is only a few hundredths of a mm thicker than that height and with the correct number of precise holes with the desired spacing (for me 2 mm). Then two aluminum slabs with the same holes in which you glue the steel cylinders. The dimensions and flatness must be very precise, and the eccentricity of the scotch yoke must accurately match the needed replacement of the magnets ( half of the magnets diameter plus half the gap, so for me exactly 4 mm). For the rest you are actually free to choose the dimension at will. If you have a design in mind and have questions, feel free to ask.
Great, I will keep you posted with my progress.
Thanks again
Tom
thanks for the music
I need one ! :)
Surprised the magnets didn't break while milling them.
I didn't mill the magnets. Neodymium is too brittle and hard to mill.
Besides, when one removes the thin nickel skin the magnets would corrode very quickly.
I only milled all those steel cylinders at both sides of the outer slabs
didn't you do a skim cut of the neo magnet surface? @@Michel-Uphoff
@@en2oh No. There is no need for that.
Great video’s, i’ve watched them three times now. 😅 is there a set of plans or drawings available?
Thank you!
No, no plans available, but the design is very simple. Read the comments and my answers here and, together with the video's I think you will get a good impression of what's important in this build. And if you have questions, juist ask.
Hello thank you so much for your video.
Ihave one qoetion:
Ihave some stanlees steel flat material do you think is better than aluminium?
If it is indeed stainless (a magnet won't stick on it at all, so it has a very low magnetic permeability), and you have the tools to machine that stainless steel, it is even better than aluminium. Much more wear resistant, stronger material.
@@Michel-Uphoff thank you for response.Iwill make one,ipromise.ihave one small lathe and ilove it alot,so Iwill make one small magnet chuck exactly the same system what you made.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen Sina 🇦🇹
OK! Exited so see the results. Please keep us posted.
Stainless is a pain to drill :)
this is a brilliant project - my only question is about cost. Do you think that it cost more than a commercial unit?
If you don't count the hours of work, it's cheaper. If you count them in, o hell no, this is way more expensive!
But I don't think this design, with a magnetic bottom, is for sale.
sweat equity! BRILLIANT! As a retired person, I can get a pretty good rate when working for myself! 😀@@Michel-Uphoff
Good afternoon
I repeated your design with magnets Ф6x10mm, the distance between the rows is 6mm. St. 20 metal (0.2% carbon) is used in the upper and lower plates. As a result, the upper and lower plates are well magnetized to the middle plate, but the parts are magnetized to them very weakly. Those. The magnetic conductivity of the steel I use is very low. The steel cylinder is well magnetized to the magnet. But to this cylinder, anything is already very weakly magnetized. What kind of steel did you use to make the cylinders for the top and bottom plates?
Have you watched the previous videos? The part about the magnetic permeability of different metals is particularly important. You don't tell what material the plates are made of. Aluminum I hope. Steel as a top and bottom plate actually short-circuits the magnetic field, which is of no use to you. Like me, you will have to use aluminum with steel rods inside to "open and close" the magnetic field. Brass, copper or good quality stainless steel can also be used for the three layers. Are you sure the alignment of the magnets and cylinders is spot-on? A deviation of one millimeter is enough to ruin the pulling power. Furthermore, I think a mutual distance of 6 mm is a bit much. Approximately half of the magnets can then be accommodated per unit area, and so the clamp also provides half of the pulling force. What grade of neodymium did you use? If that is a low grade, such as 36 instead of the 52 I use, then another 50% of the pulling force is lost, leaving you with 25% of the force I established.
@@Michel-Uphoff Yes, I watched the whole video; Plates - aluminum; 6 mm between rows is not enough, this is my mistake; The magnets turned out to be N42; The holes are aligned and made using CNC.
So, if the magnets are aligned properly, you should reach a pulling force of about 0.75 (grade difference) * 0.5 (number of magnets per surface area) = 37.5% of the holding force I reached, maybe somewhat less because your magnets are longer. Still a considerable force however. The alignment is precise, and the magnets hoover just (not more than a few hundredths of a mm) under/above the steel cylinders? All six main surfaces are really flat? You'r sure that you have used alternating plus and minus poles as in the previous videos is explained?
Great!!! What final surface disk is it???
Sorry, I don't understand your question. Could you elaborate on it?
time 23/ 41 about in video hou make surface on a blade. what disk you have in a mill chuck??? Very interesting!! Thanks...sorry for my english...
@@kostasmarkakis2596
No need to apologise. I'm sure many anglophones hardly understand a word Greek.
I guess you do very well, judging by your name. And if I am correct you very well know what an anglophone is.
That's a "vacuum brazed diamond grinding cup wheel". If you google these words you will find many examples.
Thank you very much!!!
Sorry for asking so many questions but you have really triggered my interest. What are the the thicknesses of your plates? I am figuring 1/4" x 1/4" magnets in 1/4" aluminum. Can the top and bottom layers be slightly thicker with longer steel rods (approx 3/8"?
Don't be sorry, I like it when people are interested in my builds. All metric here on the other side of the pond. The middle plate with the magnets is on average 0.03 mm thicker than the height of the magnets. My magnets are 8.03 to 8.05 mm high and the plate is 8.07 mm thick. This is important, you don't want the magnets rubbing against the steel cylinders with any force. Now that they can stay just below the surface, the magnets barely touch the steel cylinders that pull the magnets more or less evenly in both directions. This means there will be hardly any wear on the magnets, which is important because the protective layer of nickel is thin and neodymium corrodes very quickly. That is also why the magnets must be able to move freely up and down in the plate so that they can 'settle'. So I made the holes 0.02 (1 thou) mm wider than the diameter of the magnets.
The top and bottom plate are 10 mm thick (slightly thicker than 3/8"), and so is the height of the cylinders.
If I heard it correctly in the video your magnets are 1.5 mm apart. They don’t appear to be that far apart. I am contemplating making mine 3 mm? What do you think?
Thanks for being patient.
1.5 mm was for the prototyping. For the final build I used 2 mm. As you can see in the second part, the spacing is important when very thin steel work pieces are to be sucked on the plate. So if you intend to do so, make the spacing as small as possible. Keep in mind however, that a small spacing weakens the strength of all slabs. The middle slab has to survive a considerable tension / compression force lengthwise when moved by the Scotch Yoke. 3 mm could be OK, but that would reduce the number of magnets per surface area roughly 20% compared to my design. It all depends on the dimensions of the magnets you are going to use. And of course the quality, you don't want NdFeB N30 of 35 magnets. Prefer the more expensive N50 or N52 grades. They pull roughly 60% harder than the cheap ones.
I am looking at N52 right now
Thanks
@@Michel-Uphoff what if you arrange the magnets in a honeycomb pattern? This way the distance will be distributed more evenly and densely and you will probably get even more magnetic force from the vice. I don’t know, I don’t understand physics well, I rely on my intuition, which, by the way, is sometimes wrong :)
By the way, great video! I like your channel and right now I subscribed to it.
Once again, I tip my hat to your endurance, making all those small parts and drilling those holes! It would be interesting to see how thin pieces can be machined using you chuck. Is there a limit where one could expect the magnets to pull the work piece slightly out of form or to wobble under the tool pressure? I also use magnetic scales, have you noticed any issues with yours after exposing them to ferrous swarf? Slightly off topic, but I found this video about magnetising/demagnetising quite interesting ua-cam.com/video/RazORgAqEUc/v-deo.html
Hi Paul,
No problems with magnetic swarf and my scales. I just wipe them clean when there is too much swarf on them. I know the 'secret' of demagnetization and have a small but effective demagnetizer (just a W shaped core with one coil, creating an alternating magnetic field, effectively 'wiping' the magnetization). You can see it somewhere in this video.
In theory every force deforms a work piece, but most times the work pieces wil be flat and that shape wil benefit from the pull of the magnets, keeping it flat while milling or grinding.
@@Michel-Uphoff I think his way of visualizing the fields is very clarifying.