Shopsmith Forums

JPG40504 wrote: It amazes me that SS Inc. can develop new stuff, but seems unable(or unwilling) to 'fix' this design inadequacy. A stronger arm in the direction it gets displaced would reduce the frequency and extent of this 'failure'. Surely they are not still using the 'original' molds at this late date!

I suspect that the quadrant is a sacrificial part, designed to fail before something more expensive and/or difficult to replace.

jimthej wrote:I suspect that the quadrant is a sacrificial part, designed to fail before something more expensive and/or difficult to replace.

Now that is an interesting euphemism for weak link! I am not sure what it is sacrificed to 'save'. The pork chop exerts the force on to the end of the control sheave which is a very substantial (strong) part. I am more inclined to think the speed dial(the crank) is more likely to fail due to excessive torque applied to it than the control sheave being pushed too hard. The dial would be much easier to replace than the porkchop!

Keep in mind the pork chop damage is the result of the arm displacing on the main body of the speed control. That is the weak link, not the pork chop! The damaged pork chop adds to the list of parts needing to be replaced(or repaired).

The reason Bill Mayo's 'fix' works is that it eliminates any slop in the pivot due to the roll pin. His fix also eliminates the side play of the porkchop between the two legs it pivots on. This minimizes the opportunity of the quadrant gear becoming mis-aligned with the worm gear. If the quadrant gear teeth get cocked due to the pivot slop, it creates the side force that eventually causes the leg to bend. It is a snowball rolling down hill from there. It just keeps getting worse and worse.

My original thought was the lubrication of the control sheave and damage to the wire loop that connects to the quadrant. After thinking about your response, I realize that it also is an easily observable and repairable indicator of problems with the speed control system.
I would still vote for not hardening the quadrant.
Thanks for your explanation, it helped me understand how it really works.

JPG40504 wrote:Now that is an interesting euphemism for weak link! I am not sure what it is sacrificed to 'save'. The pork chop exerts the force on to the end of the control sheave which is a very substantial (strong) part. I am more inclined to think the speed dial(the crank) is more likely to fail due to excessive torque applied to it than the control sheave being pushed too hard. The dial would be much easier to replace than the porkchop!

Keep in mind the pork chop damage is the result of the arm displacing on the main body of the speed control. That is the weak link, not the pork chop! The damaged pork chop adds to the list of parts needing to be replaced(or repaired).

The reason Bill Mayo's 'fix' works is that it eliminates any slop in the pivot due to the roll pin. His fix also eliminates the side play of the porkchop between the two legs it pivots on. This minimizes the opportunity of the quadrant gear becoming mis-aligned with the worm gear. If the quadrant gear teeth get cocked due to the pivot slop, it creates the side force that eventually causes the leg to bend. It is a snowball rolling down hill from there. It just keeps getting worse and worse.

jimthej wrote:My original thought was the lubrication of the control sheave and damage to the wire loop that connects to the quadrant. After thinking about your response, I realize that it also is an easily observable and repairable indicator of problems with the speed control system.
I would still vote for not hardening the quadrant.
Thanks for your explanation, it helped me understand how it really works.

I do not advocate 'hardening' the quadrant. Strengthening the leg is IMHO a responsible thing to do.

If the floating sheave is operating correctly, the wire loop will never feel any stress. Its purpose is to keep the button center of the bearing from rotating only.

Remember this?

[ATTACH]11207[/ATTACH]

EDIT: I left this pix out originally.
After ddvann79 soak
[ATTACH]11210[/ATTACH]


After a day in evaporust
[ATTACH]11208[/ATTACH]

After brief wire brushing
[ATTACH]11209[/ATTACH]

Does not want to be 'disassembled', so it is drowning in K1 for a day.

Tune in tomorrow.

P.S. I posted this to the wrong thread. It belongs here.

JPG40504 wrote:I do not advocate 'hardening' the quadrant. Strengthening the leg is IMHO a responsible thing to do.

I agree on the quadrant. I tried for many years to find a permament way to strenghten the legs including combinations of pop rivits, plates and/or JB Weld. I had tried using various welding shops (MIG, TIG, etc.) including an aircraft welding shop who could not weld/solder anything to these legs. The metal is a steel alloy that is very similar to "pot metal". It melts, bubbles and disappears whenever any kind of heat is applied.

Thinking about this subject now, I did not try drilling several holes apart from each other and filling the indented space plus through the holes with JB Weld. The JB Weld would not stay attached to the legs (no holes) for any length of time under use before coming loose is all that I did.

Therefore, I would be very interested in learning if anyone else has been successful getting any type of reinforcement to stay attached to these legs.

P.S. I posted this to the wrong thread. It belongs here.

No, I'm glad you posted it here. It fits well with the other rust removal tests. I still have the results from one more EvapoRust vs. Must for Rust test to post. Your photos well illustrate that EvapoRust took off what the more expensive remover left behind.

It looks pretty good, although uber pitted. I guess if you have a 10E or ER it doesn't matter since that part is hidden inside the tailstock, right? I'm interested to see how hard it will be to loosen that nut!

EDIT: The Rest of the 10ER Lathe Center Thread

By the way, nice photos!

ddvann79 wrote:No, I'm glad you posted it here. It fits well with the other rust removal tests. I still have the results from one more EvapoRust vs. Must for Rust test to post. Your photos well illustrate that EvapoRust took off what the more expensive remover left behind.

It looks pretty good, although uber pitted. I guess if you have a 10E or ER it doesn't matter since that part is hidden inside the tailstock, right? I'm interested to see how hard it will be to loosen that nut!

By the way, nice photos!

I will continue this saga on the other(Don't laugh) thread. I will add links to it here on this thread. Hope the kerosene is 'seeping'!:)

Neither the nut nor the center wished to be 'moved'(yet)!

The holidays are over and I got power to the shop working again. I came through the other side of Christmas with the bearing puller I needed ,a new shop vac, air compressor, Porter Cable cordless set, and a few miscellaneous odds and ends for the shop. So I'm back in the shop after being dark for almost a month.

Bearings
I replaced the bearings on the drive shaft and motor yesterday. The 6202RS bearing I purchased for the quill had an ID that was too tight. I ruined it trying to press it on the shaft. It now hangs at the same point every revolution. That's still better than the old Fafnir 202KDD5 that feels like it has gravel inside. I've decided to break down and spend the money on a good Fafnir replacement. The few websites I've found that sell it require a business account so I guess I'll have to pay the $30 to get it locally.

This is the original quill bearing and the cheap, sealed replacement.
[ATTACH]11414[/ATTACH]

These are the motor bearings. Originals were 77203, "Hoover" manufacturer. Replacements are sealed 6203RS
[ATTACH]11415[/ATTACH]

The drive shaft bearings are 6205RS, replacing the original 6205ZZ KOYO JAPAN bearings. So much for buying American.
[ATTACH]11417[/ATTACH]

A.O. Smith Motor
Hopefully I'll pick up a quill bearing on Monday, but in the mean time I'm working on putting the motor back together and I need some help. It's a1 and 1/8 hp A.O. Smith motor. At the capacitor end of the motor, the bearing fits inside the end shield and a keeper ring screws to the back of the end shield to hold the shaft in place. Strangely, one of the screws that holds the ring in place is longer than the other. When I put this back together, the long screw digs into the end of the rotor (picture below). I took a lot of pictures when I disassembled this thing and none of them shows extra washers or other parts under the head of this longer screw. Anybody out there know what I'm talking about? Can anyone help?

[ATTACH]11420[/ATTACH]

[ATTACH]11419[/ATTACH]

Hi, progress looking good!

BTW, a lesser-known fact is that your Quill bearing (6202Z with 5/8 ID) is available from Shopsmith for only $4.99:
http://www.shopsmith.com/ownersite/item ... =Find+Item

Regarding that too-long screw, perhaps you've used a longer screw that is meant for attaching the centrifugal switch (?).