Attention Lathe Turners

paulmcohen · Post by **paulmcohen** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:35 am

Does anyone know when the new (thicker) eccentric was introduced and what is its part number?

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 5:16 am

paulmcohen wrote:Does anyone know when the new (thicker) eccentric was introduced and what is its part number?

Check here. I don't know when it was released but I received one of the early releases in April 2010.

The Eccentric Bushing is 515616 and in April 2010 it cost me $27.29 which is the online cost today.

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 10:55 am

dusty wrote:Check here. I don't know when it was released but I received one of the early releases in April 2010.

The Eccentric Bushing is 515616 and in April 2010 it cost me $27.29 which is the online cost today.

Tailstock eccentric Dusty!

I only know it was mentioned here on the forum that they are now thicker.

dusty · Post by **dusty** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 1:33 pm

JPG40504 wrote:Tailstock eccentric Dusty!

I only know it was mentioned here on the forum that they are now thicker.

Are you sure about that? I am unaware of a "NEWLY DESIGNED" tailstock eccentric.

The original tailstock eccentric (288) is part number 501437 Eccentric Mount and it has been replaced by 5014379 and is referred to as a Center Adjust.

paulmcohen · Post by **paulmcohen** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:14 am

dusty wrote:Are you sure about that? I am unaware of a "NEWLY DESIGNED" tailstock eccentric.

The original tailstock eccentric (288) is part number 501437 Eccentric Mount and it has been replaced by 5014379 and is referred to as a Center Adjust.

What is the difference between 5014379 and 501437. When was 5014379 released and it it less likely to warp?

JPG · Post by **JPG** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 12:53 pm

paulmcohen wrote:What is the difference between 5014379 and 501437. When was 5014379 released and it it less likely to warp?

http://www.shopsmith.net/forums/showpos ... stcount=11

reible · Post by **reible** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 5:29 pm

May we assume that the thickness shows up from the back side and would be visually different enough to notice?

The three that I have all look alike from this prospective. The other one is up-north but is the same vintage so most likely all the thinner ones.

[ATTACH]16643[/ATTACH]

Ed

robinson46176 · Post by **robinson46176** » Sat Mar 10, 2012 8:07 pm

This isn't a problem I have had (yet

) but looking at it I was wondering if it would be either a problem or an advantage to polish the inside of the insert out like with a Dremel tool and filling the whole inside (except the the bore) with something like JB-weld etc? I'm not sure it would be solid enough to help stop distortion, it has a little flex to it even fully cured.
It would not be very hard at all to turn one out of a solid piece of aluminum or even steel for that matter. It could also be turned from aluminum and press fitted with a steel sleeve that has a setscrew seating channel in it. A number of possibilities...

.

paulmcohen · Post by **paulmcohen** » Sun Mar 11, 2012 4:17 am

Before the repairs and the second set screw the points align when the pointer on the tail-stock points to 1/4. With the second setscrew I can get it to align at the mark but also at several other places depending how I tighten the screws. There is quite a bit of slop between the ring and the tail-stock.