Page 3 of 3

Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 10:47 pm
by judaspre1982
==============================

Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:09 pm
by JPG
judaspre1982 wrote:Thanks, I thought I remembered a washer.
Dave
I thought I remembered one also.

I just took a look at it.

It ain't got no washer!

I must have been seeing things in the pix!

The spring is just slightly larger than the nut corners. That is why the socket was necessary.







I would have sworn it had a washer!!!!!:o

Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:30 pm
by judaspre1982
===========================

Posted: Sun Jul 25, 2010 11:36 pm
by JPG
judaspre1982 wrote:Now you've got me curious. I will have to look to see what I have tomorrow. Thats what happens when you work on so many different vintages, you lose track of what's what. Thats my excuse anyway:D

Dave
Really? Here I thought it was old timers disease!;)

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 8:49 am
by Ron309753
[quote="JPG40504"]Here's one way!

Socket mounted in chuck mounted on ss output shaft, use quill to position socket/nut, depressing spring, manually rotate motor pulley to advance nut. Motor sitting on board sitting on way tubes. Nut spaced inside socket so as to be at open end of socket.

Precise alignment important!]

Wow! That's an excellent idea. I saved you notes and picture if I ever need to remove that nut, which I don't plan to do.

Sincerely,

Ron309753

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 2:04 pm
by JPG
Ron309753 wrote:Wow! That's an excellent idea. I saved you notes and picture if I ever need to remove that nut, which I don't plan to do.

Sincerely,

Ron309753
If you DO decide to remove it, GOOD LUCK:D! Far more difficult than reassembly. I do not think the one in the pix had been removed since its DOB!

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 3:28 pm
by judaspre1982
=============================

Posted: Mon Jul 26, 2010 5:47 pm
by JPG
judaspre1982 wrote:Well, mine doesn't have a washer either. The nut has a taper that fits in the inner diameter of the spring to keep the spring aligned.
Not the first time my memeory has failed me.

Dave
I think we both be guilty of thinking about the current ss inc variation.