"The bed was tensioned to leave it bowed 0,02mm high in the middle, this conforms to schleisinger protocols..." - Henrik Andrén How would one scrape such an an intentionally convex bed and still maintain that bow? If your long straight edge were straight, then the bow would be removed. For example, if the bed were 72" long, convex by 0.0008" high in the middle, and the ink on the straight edge were a medium spreading of 50 millionths thick, then the inking would leave only a 2.25" long section of blue. (Edit: The 2.5" occurs on both sides of center and so the 2.5" becomes 5". I apologize for the error. It is getting so that I should not be allowed near a calculator anymore.) I have not read the Schleisinger Protocol, but in my ignorance I ask: does it actually specify that such a bow should be intentionally cut? Or instead, does the 0.0008" bow that exists merely fit within the specification tolerance? Or, perhaps the specification is intended for ground beds that will not be scraped? Does actually it state that the bow is desirable? Incidentally, aside from the bow, I am pleased to see someone using a planer in this way. The first lathe I ever cut was one of my own, a 16" Hendy, in about 1978 when I experimentally used the broad edge of a flat-tool to cut it. It worked splendidly, and I have been using the flat-tool technique on lathes ever since. However, I have never seen, or even heard of anyone else using the method, and so I am delighted to see it being used here. -Rees
Rees, First and foremost - Thanks for reaching out and your feedback! There is no coincidence I use a broad flat tool, I´ve watched all your youtube films and read the very nice paper you compiled and was uploaded on PM by Richard King. If anyone reading this has not watched Rees work - go visit his channel - like right Now. I have thought a bit about you comments and questions and I conclude I may need to re-phrase my english a bit. But also maybe start from what I think is the larger thing here. I have not intended to scrape finish it hence the whole, indeed, problematic situation with continuing scraping it "bowed" falls. Right or wrong, this bed cuts butter smooth and with a light deburr stoning with a flat ground precision stone one is hard pressed to scrape it better, only different. Mating surfaces otoh will be scrape fitted to the bed of course for proper contacting and oil retention. (Btw the Straight Edge is straight, check it regularly I´m fortunate to have a 2,4x1,3m surface plate.) Now moving on, my reference to schleisinger. Ah, I need to re-phrase that somehow. I wanted a reference for tolerance width in general. I am not meaning to claim it will be fully in spec as I do not do all tests and I can´t as I do not complete the rebuild entirely. I mainly take out the hardship by removing the large volumes and keeping the geometry togheter through planer work and some rough fitting. Then some is left for the owner. And no it does not specify that any bow Should be cut, rather it is allowed some. And as RK tought us to leave as much "flesh" as possible to allow the machine to first wear into spec - before wearing out of spec. And this is my take on it. I think it makes sense but It is just as easy to make it straight so should someone want it straight hence wearing out faster, fine by me :) Or then of course if one would be scraping it as second op. I hope this has clarified your questions somewhat, but please do continue giving me feedback . As I often say - I´m just a happy amatuer - on a good day, otherwise I´m just an amatuer :)
@@henrikandren6967 Thank you for your response. I had suspected that the problem had something to do with our different languages, so thanks for mentioning that. I am also a bit relieved to find that the specification you mentioned does not suggest an advantage in making the bed convex. I can now see how the language translations got in the way of me grasping that, too. It had not occurred to me that the surface would be used unscraped, and therein lies my inability to visualize how it would be scraped. Thanks for clarifying. Regardless of where you learned of using the flat-tool the way you do, I am glad to see it. I think it is key to making the planer useful for this kind of task, indeed, it makes the planer the best tool for the job. However, I have to confess that I was hoping, just a little, that you had learned of it somewhere else. It has always made me a bit uncomfortable to say that I had likely invented the technique - how could I know that? Finding out otherwise would have prevented me from saying it anymore. Oh, and I am glad you appreciate the Planer Work paper. As stated, I wrote it for my son, but I decided to publish it because there are not very many people left who know how to use a planer. I am hoping that helping people understand the tool might keep the old machines from being thrown away. There aren't many of them left either, and we are probably not going to build any more of them. -Rees
@@reesacheson5577 I can´t recall seeing it anywhere else, beside your paper and videos I only have "Planers and Shapers" by John T. Shuman and Cincinnatis "Treatise on Planers" specifically targeting planer work. There are a few different variants of finishing tools but I like this one rather good. I have tried carbide with negative geometry, although cutting very well I think this positive geometry is better for this and it holds up really well. I have also started gathering stuff for a hydraulic conversion, Mainly a cylinder that should fit snugly with minimum changes. I think that´s actually the hardest part on this one and taking up the forces. Rgds Henrik
@@henrikandren6967 "I can´t recall seeing it anywhere else, beside your paper and videos I only have "Planers and Shapers" by John T. Shuman and Cincinnatis "Treatise on Planers" specifically targeting planer work. There are a few different variants of finishing tools but I like this one rather good." - Henrik Andrén To be clear, I do not claim to have invented the flat-tool, nor its general use, just its use in planing lathe bed ways - cutting the full width during each stroke. Conversely, the normal method is to cut incrementally down each side of the way, using multiple strokes to complete each pass. However, while on the subject, I did figure out for myself the mechanics of the flat-tool - what makes it work, and how to avoid "digging in". "Digging in" is the dreaded condition wherein the tool suddenly cuts much deeper - the full width of the tool - often ruining the workpeice. In the early 1970's, when I worked in a planer shop there was always a fear of digging in. No one seemed to know why it happened, it just did sometimes. It was not until later, when I had my own shop, that I figured why this occurs, how to avoid it, and how to design a successful flat-tool. It is that design that I published in the paper and in the flat-tool video. I do not at all claim to be the first to figure this out, just that I have never heard of an explanation, and I wished to publish it for the benefit of others. If I had not heard of it, it is likely that others had not either. -Rees
You two are lovely. This thread was an enjoyable read. The most humble people never take credit for the things they have taught - they just encountered a problem and solved it, then told their friends. Far too few of the older generation is willing to teach the younger generation. (Far too few of the younger generation is willing to listen). Far too much valuable knowledge is being lost as time goes on. I will forever be grateful to the “old guys” who were willing to “correct” me when I had done something stupid. Or were willing to fully explain WHY to do something. And I was always willing to put up with the “saltiness”. So much knowledge is too important not to pass down. I have scraped several of my machines. I once scraped 0.005” off an old mills knee vee ways - by hand… no power scraper. That was brutal. But that 1950’s Induma mill still cuts more square and true than any of my other mills.
@@henrikandren6967 Wow! That is a substantial amount of wear! I would expect in the region of this also for the underside of the saddle? It had to be a long time since this lathe was accurate..
Ah, for sure! And yes the sad-le is a chapter of its own. But the nice thing is that this way its very possible to restore it to very good working condition and it should serve well for a long!
Hà nội việt nam thanhs you
Very nice. -Doozer
Thanks!
Otroligt tydligt man kan se på V-prisam vart det är slitet!
Ja, det var rejäla vändkanter!
Har en gammal Blomqvist BS600 som skulle må bra av en restaurering. Intresserad?
Hej, ja men visst! Vi kan kolla på det iaf! Du kan nå mig på förnamn punkt efternamn kanelbulle håttmäjl punkt se
"The bed was tensioned to leave it bowed 0,02mm high in the middle, this conforms to schleisinger protocols..." - Henrik Andrén
How would one scrape such an an intentionally convex bed and still maintain that bow? If your long straight edge were straight, then the bow would be removed. For example, if the bed were 72" long, convex by 0.0008" high in the middle, and the ink on the straight edge were a medium spreading of 50 millionths thick, then the inking would leave only a 2.25" long section of blue. (Edit: The 2.5" occurs on both sides of center and so the 2.5" becomes 5". I apologize for the error. It is getting so that I should not be allowed near a calculator anymore.)
I have not read the Schleisinger Protocol, but in my ignorance I ask: does it actually specify that such a bow should be intentionally cut? Or instead, does the 0.0008" bow that exists merely fit within the specification tolerance? Or, perhaps the specification is intended for ground beds that will not be scraped? Does actually it state that the bow is desirable?
Incidentally, aside from the bow, I am pleased to see someone using a planer in this way. The first lathe I ever cut was one of my own, a 16" Hendy, in about 1978 when I experimentally used the broad edge of a flat-tool to cut it. It worked splendidly, and I have been using the flat-tool technique on lathes ever since. However, I have never seen, or even heard of anyone else using the method, and so I am delighted to see it being used here.
-Rees
Rees,
First and foremost - Thanks for reaching out and your feedback!
There is no coincidence I use a broad flat tool, I´ve watched all your youtube films and read the very nice paper you compiled and was uploaded on PM by Richard King.
If anyone reading this has not watched Rees work - go visit his channel - like right Now.
I have thought a bit about you comments and questions and I conclude I may need to re-phrase my english a bit. But also maybe start from what I think is the larger thing here.
I have not intended to scrape finish it hence the whole, indeed, problematic situation with continuing scraping it "bowed" falls. Right or wrong, this bed cuts butter smooth and with a light deburr stoning with a flat ground precision stone one is hard pressed to scrape it better, only different. Mating surfaces otoh will be scrape fitted to the bed of course for proper contacting and oil retention.
(Btw the Straight Edge is straight, check it regularly I´m fortunate to have a 2,4x1,3m surface plate.)
Now moving on, my reference to schleisinger. Ah, I need to re-phrase that somehow. I wanted a reference for tolerance width in general. I am not meaning to claim it will be fully in spec as I do not do all tests and I can´t as I do not complete the rebuild entirely.
I mainly take out the hardship by removing the large volumes and keeping the geometry togheter through planer work and some rough fitting. Then some is left for the owner.
And no it does not specify that any bow Should be cut, rather it is allowed some. And as RK tought us to leave as much "flesh" as possible to allow the machine to first wear into spec - before wearing out of spec. And this is my take on it. I think it makes sense but It is just as easy to make it straight so should someone want it straight hence wearing out faster, fine by me :) Or then of course if one would be scraping it as second op.
I hope this has clarified your questions somewhat, but please do continue giving me feedback . As I often say - I´m just a happy amatuer - on a good day, otherwise I´m just an amatuer :)
@@henrikandren6967 Thank you for your response. I had suspected that the problem had something to do with our different languages, so thanks for mentioning that. I am also a bit relieved to find that the specification you mentioned does not suggest an advantage in making the bed convex. I can now see how the language translations got in the way of me grasping that, too.
It had not occurred to me that the surface would be used unscraped, and therein lies my inability to visualize how it would be scraped. Thanks for clarifying.
Regardless of where you learned of using the flat-tool the way you do, I am glad to see it. I think it is key to making the planer useful for this kind of task, indeed, it makes the planer the best tool for the job. However, I have to confess that I was hoping, just a little, that you had learned of it somewhere else. It has always made me a bit uncomfortable to say that I had likely invented the technique - how could I know that? Finding out otherwise would have prevented me from saying it anymore.
Oh, and I am glad you appreciate the Planer Work paper. As stated, I wrote it for my son, but I decided to publish it because there are not very many people left who know how to use a planer. I am hoping that helping people understand the tool might keep the old machines from being thrown away. There aren't many of them left either, and we are probably not going to build any more of them.
-Rees
@@reesacheson5577
I can´t recall seeing it anywhere else, beside your paper and videos I only have "Planers and Shapers" by John T. Shuman and Cincinnatis "Treatise on Planers" specifically targeting planer work. There are a few different variants of finishing tools but I like this one rather good. I have tried carbide with negative geometry, although cutting very well I think this positive geometry is better for this and it holds up really well.
I have also started gathering stuff for a hydraulic conversion, Mainly a cylinder that should fit snugly with minimum changes. I think that´s actually the hardest part on this one and taking up the forces.
Rgds
Henrik
@@henrikandren6967 "I can´t recall seeing it anywhere else, beside your paper and videos I only have "Planers and Shapers" by John T. Shuman and Cincinnatis "Treatise on Planers" specifically targeting planer work. There are a few different variants of finishing tools but I like this one rather good." - Henrik Andrén
To be clear, I do not claim to have invented the flat-tool, nor its general use, just its use in planing lathe bed ways - cutting the full width during each stroke. Conversely, the normal method is to cut incrementally down each side of the way, using multiple strokes to complete each pass.
However, while on the subject, I did figure out for myself the mechanics of the flat-tool - what makes it work, and how to avoid "digging in". "Digging in" is the dreaded condition wherein the tool suddenly cuts much deeper - the full width of the tool - often ruining the workpeice. In the early 1970's, when I worked in a planer shop there was always a fear of digging in. No one seemed to know why it happened, it just did sometimes. It was not until later, when I had my own shop, that I figured why this occurs, how to avoid it, and how to design a successful flat-tool. It is that design that I published in the paper and in the flat-tool video. I do not at all claim to be the first to figure this out, just that I have never heard of an explanation, and I wished to publish it for the benefit of others. If I had not heard of it, it is likely that others had not either.
-Rees
You two are lovely. This thread was an enjoyable read.
The most humble people never take credit for the things they have taught - they just encountered a problem and solved it, then told their friends.
Far too few of the older generation is willing to teach the younger generation. (Far too few of the younger generation is willing to listen). Far too much valuable knowledge is being lost as time goes on. I will forever be grateful to the “old guys” who were willing to “correct” me when I had done something stupid. Or were willing to fully explain WHY to do something. And I was always willing to put up with the “saltiness”. So much knowledge is too important not to pass down.
I have scraped several of my machines. I once scraped 0.005” off an old mills knee vee ways - by hand… no power scraper. That was brutal. But that 1950’s Induma mill still cuts more square and true than any of my other mills.
Very nice! How much wear was there on the front V ?
Thanks!
About 0,2+ mm on the surfaces, on both sides of the V-way. Had to remove 0,25mm on both sides.
@@henrikandren6967 Wow! That is a substantial amount of wear! I would expect in the region of this also for the underside of the saddle? It had to be a long time since this lathe was accurate..
Ah, for sure! And yes the sad-le is a chapter of its own.
But the nice thing is that this way its very possible to restore it to very good working condition and it should serve well for a long!
That carbide must be razor sharp to pick the cut back up and not slide over it!
Yes, it's lapped to sharp keen edge.