RFGuy wrote: ↑Wed Jan 10, 2024 6:15 pm
...However, what I have personally observed in the past when I do horizontal boring is vertical deflection of the drill bit during quill extension. I can't say for certain that it is the quill moving up or the table flexing down or both, but I have seen this, even with the main table anchored to the aux table...
We should start a new thread on this one. It intrigues me but I'm busy with some other projects. Another member, new to the SS and forum IIRC, mentioned quill movement when the quill was unlocked in comparison to a traditional DP. And it should be asked whether anchoring the main table to the aux reduces the magnitude of the deflection you've seen. (What I'd expect.) I've observed the main table instability that is improved upon by anchoring the table to be at its worst with forces axial to the quill, drilling, disc sanding, conical disc sanding, and to a lesser degree horizontal routing. While the table movement is mostly horizontal, away from the force, it actually has a 'roll axis' function and therefore presumably a vertical component. But I'd expect this to be improved by anchoring.
DLB wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 9:06 amWe should start a new thread on this one. It intrigues me but I'm busy with some other projects. Another member, new to the SS and forum IIRC, mentioned quill movement when the quill was unlocked in comparison to a traditional DP. And it should be asked whether anchoring the main table to the aux reduces the magnitude of the deflection you've seen. (What I'd expect.) I've observed the main table instability that is improved upon by anchoring the table to be at its worst with forces axial to the quill, drilling, disc sanding, conical disc sanding, and to a lesser degree horizontal routing. While the table movement is mostly horizontal, away from the force, it actually has a 'roll axis' function and therefore presumably a vertical component. But I'd expect this to be improved by anchoring.
- David
Agreed. I haven't had time to get back to investigate this, but I was trying to think of the best way to measure and/or record what I observe. If it is noticeable to me and my eye, then it is definitely a considerable deflection I believe. I was hoping my description might have been enough to trigger an a-ha moment for someone here to elucidate on it.
Goldie is not 'historically' accurate. Original paint was closer to brown, but rustoleum hammered brown is too dark. They were also referred to as brownie. Now why was the 'copper' not involved? Rustoleum gold made a decent substitution for the brown. The original hammered look is to blame for our historically inaccurate description.
I agree all color schemes are better than 'machine tool gray'.
RE deflection of the drill bit during horizontal boring: I would be somewhat suspicious of quill/bore slop rather than table deflection. I question if the table is parallel to the quill axis(but then the saw blade would also be funky???). I agree a new thread on this subject is called for. One question I have is how does quill force cause any vertical deflection relative to the horizontal table top by being extended?
╔═══╗
╟JPG ╢
╚═══╝
Goldie(Bought New SN 377425)/4" jointer/6" beltsander/12" planer/stripsander/bandsaw/powerstation /Scroll saw/Jig saw /Craftsman 10" ras/Craftsman 6" thicknessplaner/ Dayton10"tablesaw(restoredfromneighborstrashpile)/ Mark VII restoration in 'progress'/ 10E[/size](SN E3779) restoration in progress, a 510 on the back burner and a growing pile of items to be eventually returned to useful life. - aka Red Grange
I think so... I didn't want to jump to the conclusion that the issue RF Guy mentioned was directly related to table instability, which seems more horizontal. Or that it was systemic. But I've observed more table movement than I think is acceptable when conical disc sanding to width, which is similar force, and that the movement was not all linear/horizontal. And that it improves dramatically, but not 100%, with the main table anchored. Which in this case, due to the angle that someone says is 4 degrees, I used two main tables for anchoring.
This thread seems to be jumping all over the place, but things relate back to what is on the new website and marketing. The color schemes have now been brought up and JPG commented,
Goldie is not 'historically' accurate. Original paint was closer to brown, but rustoleum hammered brown is too dark. They were also referred to as brownie. Now why was the 'copper' not involved? Rustoleum gold made a decent substitution for the brown. The original hammered look is to blame for our historically inaccurate description.
I have restored a Mark 5 Goldie in the past and now have recently bought another Mark 5 Goldie (Yuba) plus I have two Goldie Bandsaws (one Yuba and one Magna American) and a Goldie Belt Sander (still marked as Magna PTC) to restore. My only problem with the restoration is getting the right color paint to do it. JPG is correct that Goldie is inaccurate as the color is more of a light brown than the yellowish color of gold.
For my previous restoration (shown below) I used Rustoleum Hammered Finish Paint in the colors Copper and Oatmeal. The Oatmeal Rustoleum Hammered Finish Paint is a near perfect match for the Goldie paint color but is no longer available. Shopsmith used to sell a "gold" non-Hammered Finish paint but that has been discontinued too. It is interesting that they still sell the copper which is used way less in the color scheme and both dark and light green paints. The Rustoleum Hammered Finish Copper is a near perfect match too and is still available.
_
IMG_0273 r.jpg (119.88 KiB) Viewed 663563 times
Russ
Mark V completely upgraded to Mark 7
Mark V 520
All SPT's & 2 Power Stations
Model 10ER S/N R64000 first one I restored on bench w/ metal ends & retractable casters.
Has Speed Changer, 4E Jointer, Jig Saw with lamp, a complete set of original accessories & much more.
Model 10E's S/N's 1076 & 1077 oldest ones I have restored. Mark 2 S/N 85959 restored. Others to be restored.
DLB wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 1:25 pm
I think so... I didn't want to jump to the conclusion that the issue RF Guy mentioned was directly related to table instability, which seems more horizontal.
I didn't catch right away that he was considering quill movement in horizontal vs. vertical mode. That could happen in conjunction with table movement also. I haven't noticed the quill as an issue apart from table stability.
With the conical sander you shouldn't need to extend the quill very far before locking it down so I'd think lateral quill movement wouldn't be a concern. In horizontal drilling there is the possibility that any play in the quill bearings will direct the quill downward, more so the further you extend it. You can position the piece to drill very close to the end of the bit to minimize that problem. In my experience chucks have been much more of an issue in any kind of drill press.
So far I have not noticed much table movement in horizontal boring. The table will be at a low height unlike table saw mode, so the legs don't allow much flex. The bigger problem has been the fence sliding. It's easy to clamp a board down to back it up but really the piece being drilled should be clamped down on the table top in horizontal mode, and held in a vice or clamped to the fence in vertical mode because wood can move perpendicular to the bit as grain direction and density vary along the length of the hole.
dusty wrote: ↑Thu Dec 07, 2023 6:50 am
Not only is the new site up and running but a lot of work has been done to bring it up to date. I especially appreciate the images that are being added to better define what a part number is.
Still hoping for part descriptions to b added to items like screw bolt, washer, nut.
Again I use the word "disappointed". Yes there are more images being used but poor images to say the least.
"Making Sawdust Safely" Dusty
Sent from my Dell XPS using Firefox.
DLB wrote: ↑Thu Jan 11, 2024 1:25 pm
I think so... I didn't want to jump to the conclusion that the issue RF Guy mentioned was directly related to table instability, which seems more horizontal.
I didn't catch right away that he was considering quill movement in horizontal vs. vertical mode. That could happen in conjunction with table movement also. I haven't noticed the quill as an issue apart from table stability.
With the conical sander you shouldn't need to extend the quill very far before locking it down so I'd think lateral quill movement wouldn't be a concern. In horizontal drilling there is the possibility that any play in the quill bearings will direct the quill downward, more so the further you extend it. You can position the piece to drill very close to the end of the bit to minimize that problem. In my experience chucks have been much more of an issue in any kind of drill press.
So far I have not noticed much table movement in horizontal boring. The table will be at a low height unlike table saw mode, so the legs don't allow much flex. The bigger problem has been the fence sliding. It's easy to clamp a board down to back it up but really the piece being drilled should be clamped down on the table top in horizontal mode, and held in a vice or clamped to the fence in vertical mode because wood can move perpendicular to the bit as grain direction and density vary along the length of the hole.
David, Ed, etc.,
Yes, I am going to take the suggestion to start a new thread covering this, but I want to get some kind of measurement or data on it before I present something. However, before departing this thread, I want to say that yes this is what I am describing. During vertical drilling there is only downward pressure against an orthogonal table which can depress and flex. What I am complaining about is that in horizontal drilling (table axis parallel to bit axis), what I remember is noticing a deflection of the bit vertically as the quill was extending. Workpiece was just in front of the drill bit so quill extension was almost zero to start with. The drill bit was something like a 5/16" or larger brad point drill bit so it was beefy and should have had negligible deflection itself. Of course, it may have been an optical illusion, i.e. the table may have flexed during quill extension and the bit/chuck/quill could have remained as-is. This is why I said I am not sure if was only table movement (flex), only quill movement, or a combination of the two.
RF Guy
