Steam Stoker Engine Project: Designing a Custom Planer Tool Specific For This Project
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 фев 2025
- Steam Stoker Engine Project: Designing a Custom Planer Tool Specific For This Project
Support VintageMachinery.org on Patreon:
/ vintagemachinery
Make a one time donation to VintageMachinery via PayPal:
www.paypal.me/...
Please Visit: www.vintagemach...
Sponsored by:
American Rotary Phase Converters
www.americanro...
Use checkout code "Vintage10" for a 10% discount on all AD, ADX and AI converters!
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Oh for a time machine to go back and see how it was done in the day.
Exactly my thought, it was done, so some one knew how.
Keith mentioned recently that they probably had a dedicated machine just for that one job. He didn't say, that the machine probably couldn't do much else, that it was extremely limited and that's probably why it didn't survive.
@ not an unreasonable assumption, but any ideas as to what sort of machine that might have been?
Thanks Keith for taking the time to explain all the details to your decision.
For those of us who don't think real well in 3D, your explanation of the geometry of this machining problem was extremely helpful! Thanks for taking the time to talk us through it.
"Helpful???" Listen, the "problem" is that Bozo is not a machinist, but if "goofy ideas" were money he would be a millionaire!
I find the juxtaposition of some of your projects fascinating. On some, you just zip through what, to me, looked like a really complex and difficult problem. On others, it takes you years (literally!) to get things done, with all sorts of roadblocks, some anticipated, many not.
But ever time, you stick to it and take us along with you. Thanks so much for that!
A cliff hanger ending!!! This is amazing, Keith!
I've been waiting for this project to get going again.
I look forward to the machining Keith
I enjoy the thought process and explanation
As someone who has years of experience in commenting on youtube videos, I approve of this approach.
Lock up your clapper box, with the tool set behind the pivot of the clapper, it will swing into the work on the return stroke.The clapper pivot is not the same as the pivoting or hinged tools. Your tool should work with the tool cutting edge behind the line of the clapper, the flex in the tool will allow it to rise in stead of digging in.
That's definitely a point to keep in mind, with the tool behind the joint of the clapper box you potentially run into trouble on the back stroke.
There are effectively 2 pivot points not 1. The pivot point on the return stroke is the pivot of the clapper box. The cutting edge of the tool should be either directly below this pivot point or slightly forward of it so that the tool will lift off the work instead of digging in on the return stroke. But when cutting on the forward stroke, the clapper box pivot point is not relevant. In the forward stroke the 'pivot' point is virtual, and can be thought of as entirely due to bending / flexing of the tool holder and cutter. This cutting edge should be either directly below or slightly behind this bending virtual pivot point so that when the bending happens during a cut, the cutting edge pivots back and up, away from the work instead of digging in. Thinking about the clapper box pivot when trying to avoid digging in is wrong. It's not pivoting there! And moving the cutting edge too far back will cause trouble on the back stroke when the clapper box pivot is needed.
@alanblair3193 Exactly, locking the clapper would solve the return stroke problem.
@ now that I have thought a little bit about it, even if the cutting edge is behind the clapper box hinge axis, on the return stroke the tool should have enough clearance so that it can swivel a little bit on the edge at the end of the cut face and then stay lifted on the rest of the backstroke. At least in theory, don't know if you can guarantee it to work like that on every stroke or on every cutter geometry.
@CatNolara I wouldn't risk it, lock up the cIapper! No problem with light cuts. There's not much room ( 1" ) in front of the tool.
Always amazes me how smooth flame cuts can be.
If you slow down and set your flame properly, they can be very clean. I've seen equipment that was made back in the late 30's, with unfinished edges that looked no different (at least visually) from a rough end mill cut.
Thanks for the explanation, Keith! It's great that you found a (possible) solution in one of those old books! SO much technology and innovation that we've forgotten over the years. I remember hearing that the destruction of the Library of Alexandria put civilization backwards by 1000 years......
Looking forward to the machining.
I can sense your frustration, keep up the good work!👍👍
After watching this whole thing, I'm reminded of my own journey which ended up with using a die grinder to hog out a relatively small volume of metal and then simply scraping to match small "toolmaker flats" I could insert in the cavity being finished. Origination of these machines always ended up with hand work because only hands could ever get in the recesses in final fitment. I've been working on much smaller scale, but with exactly the same dilemma's.
Thanks, John, for suggesting a scraper. If I recall, Keith has both power and hand scrapers, so he could hog out most of the surface using power and use the hand scraper in the corners.
@@stuartschaffner9744 I've been doing this kind of work for better than fifty years, I learn a lot watching these kinds of videos and I think when we watch and comment, we're sharing the trade. I hope I'm doing this on the day I die, it's been a good life.
What a great explanation of your problem. Looking forward to see if it works !
My first thing to try would have been to reduce the width of the cutting tool. Less pressure.
yes, make the cutting width 2.5x the stepover width of the previous pass and take it slow
Very cool! I like to see the outcome from solving a problem. Sometimes I learn something too.
I think that geometry while good for the digging in, will have the opposite problem of not letting the clapper box open on the return stroke. It will then try to dig in on the return. I'd try it by hand first.
Keith you needed a solid 2” X 3” drop hitch to make your tool holder. lol
I myself have ran into “they don’t make a tool for that” and go unconventional route.
Enjoy your channel.
Have a great day or night as time frame allows.
Great presentation, solution looked good, here's hopeing
Looking forward to the build of the new cutter and the initial trial! We had a parting tool for a lantern type post on an old Labond lathe in our farm workshop in Western Canada, it was an Armstrong I believe and it flexed away rather than digging in by flexing away, saved the part and you had the chance to change the speeds hone the cutter it happened to me more than once while learning. I ended up becoming an engineer and am now retired after working on 5 continents and living on 3 of them , I-like your approach to the problem.
Great information!! It's nice to see solutions published in old books.
I can't wait to see if it works.
Probably heard these ideas a dozen times, but if you turned your finishing tool to a 45 degree angle it would shave the metal rather than chiseling it. Or you could grind it to a v shape with a slight relief in the center to get the same effect shaving from either side to the center and it would work to cut the entire surface in one setup. If you continue to run that straight cutter on your new springy holder, it may not jam up, but it will jump and skip leaving a poor finish.
Thanks for the video ,, I hate to be the fly in the morning coffee but you are so fixed on cutting a lot out at once. I say you don't need 100lbs of tool to take out an ounce of material.
you have all day back off the cut and don't try taking it all out in a couple of passes . you do it on the lathe all the time,,, back it off here also.
His last effort was trying to remove 0.001. Most would not consider that "cutting a lot out at once"
Thanks Keith!
A Lot of work, Good job.
There is a tone on clearance there … you need a 3/8 inch carbide endmill whit a max 2 inch shaft or even better, a shrink fit holder …
Keith, I am thinking of a very simple solution that may help in increasing the stiffness of the vertical arm. Obviously you cannot increase the depth of it but you could increase its width by welding two plates to it one on each side. They don’t have to go full length, just stop above the cutter head. If the two plates amount to the width of the arm the stiffness will almost double. What do you think?
Thank you for sharing.👍
You could weld a brace to the back of the tool. Mike
I have been following this project since day one! One of your most challenging jobs for sure. Makes you wonder what kind of machine they used when they first machined the part. We will probably never know.. Best of luck Keith!!
They used the correct machine tool, and Bozo has one, but he has very little skill using machine tools, and always fumbles along, it's like "a comedy of errors" lots of laughs!
Great video, very informative
I will remove the entire slidingpart out the big casting, make a flat bottum an make 2 new sliding parts separate and bolting that in the big casting. The sliding parts have only a force in the forward and back way stroke.
Big advantage is, that in the future, you can easy make new one's if needed without a lot of inside work again and to take out the hole casting out of the coal tender.
The biggest problem I see with your idea that this is a restoration project and they want to keep everything as it was originally produced. It would be nice to be able to remove everything from inside the casting and be able to work on it that way but it’s not how it was done so I think that idea is off the table.
Wow, PLEASE, Bozo can come up with enough dumb ideas on hie own, he needs no help from you!
Thank the Lord I don't think he reads the comments, so he probably wont take your advice!
I haven't read all the suggestions, so apologies if someone has said this before. I would attack the problem from a different angle. Instead of trying to make a new stiffer tool, how about either extending the clapper down to support the existing tool or even making a triangular support for it as it is, bolted to the back side of the tool, such that, on the cutting stroke, the "base" of the triangle is butted up against the underside of the clapper box assembly. Either method would considerably stiffen the cutting tool and prevent the flex that is giving you grief. John
Turn your work piece around and use the new cutter behind the pivot, looks like you would have more free space for the cutter mount in front.just a though I may be missing some thing.
Everything you're doing so far to solve the problems seems to be on the right track. I might suggest a little more experimentation with tool geometry at the business end. Close the book for a minute and try some different rakes and reliefs, it can be trial and error but ive stumbled on a tool grind before that the book says is wrong but it got me out of some situations that were looking hopeless..
I think you have the spring holder turned around at to the direction of cut. You might want to take another look
One thing you didn't discuss and may be missing is the issue when the planner backs the tool up. If the cutter is behind the clapper pivot, the tool can dig into the work when backing up. Personally I favor going back to the vertical mill and using a smaller cutter with heavier tool holder. Maybe only a 1/2 inch sharp carbide..
Isn't there a book showing the original manufactoring of stokers? So far, thank You for the lesson.
If this doesn't work - Outshop to a die sink EDM after fiinishing the sidewalls in the planner.
Electric discharge machining will cut soft, hardened or welded work surfaces.
a smaller cutter, less force, more rigidity
Could you take your current bar, the one you made, and put a cut in the back side, close tot he cutter head, so that the cutter could spring up and back if it gets hung up?
I have a dremel type tool that is 55 ft long and uses 1/4 in cable. small fly cutter and a 1/2 hp drill. I hope conventional methods can work. maybe bore a long 3/8 hole in some square stock, mill open areas top and bottom for a pair of bearings and hang a 3/8 chuck on the end, run a small fly cutter with a drill
You’re a brave, creative thinking man Keith. Can’t wait to see if this latest iteration works.
Lots of comments; here is mine. A lack of rigidity is the root of the problem, as I understand it. No one who manufactures tool holders of any sort would choose mild steel as their starting point. The properties of mild steel and specialty steels are worlds apart, with rigidity being one of the benchmarks for comparison. Proper heat treatment would be an essential follow-up after choosing the correct alloy. None of this is rocket science. It also looks from here like the shank of your tool holder could be substantially "beefier."
This project has fought all the way and demanded having to be creative at every step
A wild thought, but would the use of negative rake cutters be at all possible as this is a finishing cut?
Such a cutter would be scraping rather than cutting, but such tools are regularly used for turning brass in the lathe, specifically to avoid dig in.
Good morning Keith! Looking forward to seeing the mill in action. Have a great week!
A. Einstein… “ If I had an hour to solve a problem. I would spend 55 minutes thinking about the problem and five minutes thinking about solutions.” Well done and thanks for describing the challenges!
Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea how this was done originally? Love your channel.
I would just grind down your existing carbide to one quarter of the width it currently is. It would only take one quarter of the force to push it and that would be below the force required to flex your existing tool. Don't try to push the whole snow bank at one time!
Make the cutter engagement narrower. Physics!
Along with the rest of what you're doing, give some thought to the concept that the total force on the tool and its holder are based on how much material it's trying to remove; the rectangle of depth times width, trying to push that iron out of the way.
If you make the cutter half as wide, you reduce the cutter's engagement to one half, and the force to one half. Or a quarter, or a tenth.
You did try reducing the depth of cut, but you haven't mentioned the width yet. Think on it a while. You're working on interesting improvements, but wouldn't it be nice to reduce the basic requirement to a fraction? 🙂
Yes - this is the solution! Excellent video Keith.
Thanks Keith very interest , for myself Keith your videos are far too short but you can only do what you can do . Thank you Keith for the great videos .
I think you’ve got a bead on it this time. We’ll all be so relieved when it finally works and this project can move on to the next step. Fingers crossed 🤞! 🥸👍👀👋✅
I can vouch for the concept. I built a tool holder for my shaper that follows the idea, and I have been pleased by the results so far. And, with the extension downward, it is much easier to shape out slotting forms (such as a dovetail). It gives me more room and reduces risk of the ram crashing the work or work holding ...
The horizontal boring mill??
Perhaps the Nevada Northern Steam Shop, the East Broad Top Museum, the Tennessee Valley Assoic. or the Union Pacific Steam shop could give you some insight on your unique problem.
Bozo's problem is that he dose not know much about operating his many machine tools, and he is trying to use the wrong one!
So get out the pop corn and enjoy the laughs!
Good morning
I sort of agree with what you are doing, without agreeing. This is because all you have proved so far is that your single pointed cutter works. So in my view a wider scraping type cutter is not the way to go. The method I am thinking of is pictured in number 28 of the Workshop Practice series written by the original Tubal Cain, a University teaching Professor. Long gone to another world. The item concerned is a crankshaft turning tool. Fig 3.41 page 95. This is a wide parting tool with the centre part relieved & radiuses at either side. In use, it is supported by a silver brazed blade to take the vertical load. It works by the side radii cutting the diameter of the crankshaft. by following one another as the tool is traversed. This way you are reducing the tool load to double the point load that you currently have.
Hence, my part agreeing with you. As your spring loading is also going to be required.
By the way I live in England.
Concur Precisely.
Remove the constraints, split the casting in a jig, machine it then braze it back together.
Wow, PLEASE, Bozo can come up with enough dumb ideas on hie own, he needs no help from you!
Thank the Lord I don't think he reads the comments, so he probably wont take your advice!
Is it possible to use the Lucas Boring Mill?
I am curious if that idea is going to work. I understand your thinking behind it and it seems reasonable. I can see one issue. If the tool is behind the clapper box pin then it will dig on the back stroke, won't it? How are you going to solve that?
Steam Stoker Engine Project lives on! Love this series.
Keith how about using a lapping compound and a block of metal
Now you have to invent a tool that suits the application.
Great job!
Have you had any conversations with the existing shops that are maintaining operating steam locomotives in the present day?
I don't know of any operating steam locomotive that has a stoker engine. They are all stoked the old fashioned way by a fireman with a shovel.
I’m wondering how they made it in the first place.
Very interesting to see Your process to find solutions for Your planer issues.
I suspect what You tried to do was to create a bearing surface for the cross head? If that shows such a changing feat I would check with the museum You doing this for if You could make the system in an other manner?
I guess Your goal is to make a bearing surface in the bottom and a Babbitt coating on the cross head.
Why not do it the other way around? Make the surface good enough with tools that work and cast Babbitt in the bottom. Make the bearing surface on the cross head easily in Your mashines and scrape the Babbitt to fit!
Thank You for the informative videos of Yours.
Best of luck!
I think it’s an excellent game plan, and that you have come up with a solution that is likely to succeed.
If the cutting tool shaved instead of cut? in other words the shape of cutting edge being straight up and down instead of angled? seems would less likely gouge?
Keith recognises that the tool bit is too wide so I am surprised he doesn't try a thinner one.
Putting deliberate flexing into the holding bar to stop digging in will encourage vibration/chatter.
Great information on this topic. Excellent description of the actual problem, the flex of the tool and the swing of the arc of the flex. Never fails to inform, and always entertaining.
Steam Stoker Engine Project
👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
How did they do this 100 years ago?
The difference is they knew what they were doing and Bozo dose not!
I hope it works
You don’t give up easily do you Kieth, I think this approach will work, a narrower cutter might help as well.
Now that the surface is roughed you may be better off using a hand scraper to finish the surface.
Why not try a narrower cutter in the tool you have? Like 1/4" face...
Happy Monday Keith! 😊
Great explanation and solution.
I think that might jam on retract, check your cad....
Have you tried your horizontal boring machine stand the storker on end and used a smaller cutting head
How about adding a knee brace to the back of the cutter you have been ising
Great explanation, Keith! Looking forward to the next video in this series!
is it an option to remove as much material as possible with the current tool and then replace it with a metal plate using countersunk bolts
👏🏻top
Me Rucker I hopes that this works out !
How about a 2" cup grinding stone with a
Ridged arbor in the mill?
This is a wonderful project - very challenging, instructive, and interesting. Great work, Keith!
How about a collaboration with fireball to get the holder made?
From What I see Is The Part is welded In place. Can You cut it out do the mill work then weld it back in place?
Did you think about using the
Lucas?
Probably already been suggested, but Id say Take it all out and fabricate a block that will bolt in? That way the precision machining doesn't have to be done down in the hole.
👍👍👍👍
I think you have identified the problem with respect to the pivot point. Seems like now the clearance problem transferred to the other end of the stroke. Best wishes. I would still reduce the width of the cutter to slightly larger than the step over function.
If all else fails use a router with a carbide end mill cutter
I still wonder why you can't stand it up on end and use the boring mill. Maybe the spindle is too big? IDK? But it seems it would be easier to adapt some tooling for it rather than trying to do some "period correct" process
You don't need to wonder, it's because bozo dose not know what he is doing!