[MachineShop] Prioritization

[S Ford]

Thanks for the update.

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 3:25 PM Denis Muradov <denis.muradov at gmail.com>
wrote:

> The South Bend lathe. I will leave the belt configuration as is. Currently
> it has a single phase VFD on it. At the previous building I complained to
> Bill that the wiring was causing tripping issues, so he installed solid
> conduit. Right now, it does not have any wires. Bill is trying to get the
> CNC wood machine working so he is unavailable to work on it. I will look
> and see if I can wire it without conduit. I'll try to think of something.
>
> The Mill, Bridgeport and Bandsaw are currently functional, just buried
> under junk. The hardness tester needs its tooling organized. I need to
> figure out an optimal placement for the grinder.
>
> Training for the hardness tester would be useful. I found it difficult to
> remember the steps myself, even after going through the documentation for
> it. I'm wondering if it might be useful to record it and then go back and
> break the steps down.
>
> The EDM discussion was about two different EDM machines. One was about a
> shop machine that was being discarded, and another discussion was about an
> EDM project that can be installed on a 3D printer. The shop EDM machine was
> a no go for a number of reasons: it was non-functional, it would need a
> large investment, it would take up a lot of space, it was the wrong
> voltage, it had little resale value, and it would be very expensive to
> move. The second option was more viable, it was a project called
> “Powercore.” Another member bought one of the components themselves. This
> involves putting EDM like components on to a 3D printer. My main concern
> was that research into safety procedures should done, since little is known
> about the hazards of this process by most people (including me). Being the
> size of a 3D printer, space didn't seem like an issue. I doubt such a
> hypothetical machine would have the tolerances needed since 3D printers are
> open-loop (no absolute position encoders). But it could be useful.
>
> I partly think that separate training for the smaller lathes, if the user
> has had training on the SouthBend, isn't needed. Basic documentation,
> manual, or etc on the operation of those machines would save a lot of time.
> But I also agree that training of any kind would make their use safer. It’s
> a valid point. In which case, all the machines in the shop should get
> training.
>
> As for the yellow combination lathe/mill, this is going to be a long
> explanation.
>
> The Machine Shop has a two-person rule and many people found it
> problematic. It has been the main complaint about the machine shop. Me and
> Bill were talked about how to make the machine shop more accessible to
> users while also being safe. I went online and tried to feel out the safety
> rules to see how we were doing with our procedures to see if the two-person
> rule was excessive. But the general advice I received was towards more
> safety. There were recommendations that the woodshop should adapt a
> two-person rule with the table saw, and that the practice should not be
> limited to the machine shop.
>
> With that, my alternative idea was to pursue a sweet spot of “hobby
> machines” which were big enough to use but not big enough to cause serious
> injury (as in requiring hospitalization) where the second person rule for
> the use of that machine would be dropped. This is the case with the drill
> press for example. One makerspace I looked at online had had a hazard class
> rating system on their machines. They had their machines rated one through
> four, with the last one only being usable by staff. That’s not to say that
> dropping the two-person rule on smaller machines will make the machines
> safe, since someone determined enough can send themselves to the hospital
> from using a pencil wrong, but rather ultimately of lower risk. This would
> be machines that have low stored momentum. I'm not sure where to draw line,
> but I think the idea of having smaller middle ground machines is worth
> trying. Provided there is space.
>
> This is where the combination lathe/mill machine comes in. Some time ago
> we had a 3-in-1 Smithy donated to us from the AFB. It was never maintained
> and needed work just to turn on. Additionally, it took as much floor space
> as our “real” machines while not having any tooling. The machine Bill
> brought in is similar, except that 1) it was a working machine when it was
> removed 2) it includes tooling 3) it has a manageable footprint 4) It has a
> DRO. On top of that, it is a common popular conversion to CNC. The machine
> is also 120V and would have good resale value if we decided to get rid of
> it.
>
> Having said that, I’m kicking myself for not getting this
> https://www.bentleysauction.com/auctions/11007/lot/354129-plas-labs-chamber-w-prazi-sd-300-lathe
> I was going to bid on it but by the time I got home I was too tired and
> forgot about it. Lathes have issues with stored momentum, and that machine
> seemed like it was of a good size without being too big. Granted the amount
> of money I could have put down would have been limited. The sherline and
> unimat are nice and small, but I don't recall if we have all the tooling
> for them.
>
> The other way to make the machine shop viable, would be if quelab got a
> security guard of some kind and/or we have designated machine shop hours.
> In theory that’s doable, since we have three lathes and three mills.
>
> Another option I tried was to get a co-steward to run the shop and train
> people. Over the years I never managed to find the right candidate.
> Generally everyone filtered out in to two categories: competent but
> unavailable, not competent and available. Recently one person said that
> they are interested, and I plan on putting them through training once I get
> the South Bend going.
>
> The previous shop steward, Eric, made it all work by keeping regular
> office hours every week but that’s just impossible for me with my family
> obligations (among other problems I'm not going to list here).
>
> But there are also some people that think that the two-person rule should
> apply to the shop no matter what machine is being used, out of principle.
> This is something that would be done under say “shop Thursdays” when you
> have a large enough user base to just show up at once. I'm not in that
> mindset though. The user base isn't there. Right now having a wall
> separating the woodshop and the machine shop means that the second person
> would have to be in the machine shop to qualify, and that’s going to be
> hard to manage. If people simply ignore it, then we'll have a culture of
> ignoring safety and an injury lawsuit on our hands.
>
> So that’s why that yellow lathe/mill is there.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 23, 2025, 6:11 AM S Ford <sford.soar at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I wish I could come in and help Denis. I’m on travel again next 70 days
>> or so; back home for a couple of weeks then out again; back home then gone
>> mid June to 8 July….. I have plans to use the Southbend early May or early
>> July if it is available
>>
>> As for priorities that I value:
>> - Southbend Lathe; the mill that we test on; the Bridgeport; one of the
>> other lathes; bandsaw; hardness tester; pedestal/bench grinder to grind
>> cutting tools.
>>
>> I don’t see the ShopSmith as a useful tool. It doesn’t have the precision
>> that I look for.
>>
>> I would like to get one of the Unimat lathes going: a jewelers size lathe
>> can be quite useful on tiny parts; I have experience setting one up and
>> maintaining it. And am happy to instruct others in use
>>
>> Similarly: I’m happy to have a gathering where machine shop folks can
>> learn about the hardness tester and how to use it. The utility of it is
>> determining the condition of a steel or alloy before one attempts to
>> machine it on the other equipment
>>
>> I can applaud Tim wanting to refurb the EDM and CNC….. and I thought that
>> he wanted to recondition and resell those?  but I don’t honestly see much
>> utility in having them in the shop unless a user or users are going to run
>> numerous parts to support an incubating biz.
>>
>> As for safety procedures:
>> - I thought that the basic procedures for the machines that have been
>> developed are good; and that key was training on the machines that one
>> would use. I don’t believe in one policy fits all machines and that
>> becoming familiar with the basics then getting an introduction to a machine
>> and it’s characteristics are key
>> - with regard to limiting torque or power on a machine in the name of
>> safety……. I would like to avoid that and instead emphasize respect for the
>> power of the machine and, when used improperly, for the ability of a
>> machine to cause serious injury. To me the risks are no different than
>> those that exist in the wood or welding shop areas.
>>
>> I should be in town all of Fall and early winter. Can come help you, etc
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> > On Feb 22, 2025, at 23:50, Denis Muradov via Machineshop <
>> machineshop at quelab.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > 
>> > Just brainstorming here.
>> >
>> > What do you consider a priority right now? Do you consider bringing the
>> southbend lathe online, making room or organization a priority? I ask
>> because currently organization is much more difficult (back issues) for me
>> than repairing things. But if that is what people want, I'll find a way.
>> >
>> > Bill is stuck working on the wood machine CNC so things involving
>> wiring is held up.
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Machineshop mailing list
>> > Machineshop at quelab.net
>> > http://pepper.quelab.net/mailman/listinfo/machineshop
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://pepper.quelab.net/pipermail/machineshop/attachments/20250224/aef95a24/attachment-0001.htm>