What you have made here is called a burnishing tool. There are many other designs here on CZcams, some complicated, some simple, but most dont need such a large roller bearing and are much smaller in general, similar in size to a standard lathe tool. I can link to some other videos if you're interested? Some of them have even released the drawings for free
The model that inspired me is from an old lathe book. The name in the book was ”Flattener for lathe” and it contained two bearings. I chose to use a large bearing and a small ball in order not to stress the edges of the ball seat. The larger the bearing, the better the ball sits on it and does not stress the walls of the hole where it is located. And the component that covers the bearing and can move is my invention. Its purpose is not to leave the bearing exposed, not to spread oil everywhere, to center the ball and another purpose that will appear in a future video. Thank you for your comment !
In all videos from now on that will contain turned parts. Where I have to sand the surfaces with sandpaper I will use this tool. Thank you for your comment !
Yes. The part that appears in the movie was thinned by 0.06 mm. (0.03 mm radius) The same difference is regardless of the thickness of the part, but it depends on the roughness of the turning over which the ball passes. This difference applies to the fine turning in the video. If you still need an answer, please don't hesitate to ask me. Thank you very much for the message !
The part in the video was 37.66 mm and now it is 37.60. The difference of 0.06 mm is probably valid for any part thickness. (0.03 radius). It also depends on how rough the turning is. Thank you for your comment !
If the ball is adjusted to the center of the part, then the scale of the lathe will indicate the correct values. 0,01 mm will be 0.01 mm only if we are on the centre. Pressing the ball ”thins” the part that has been turned on the lathe. The alignment should eliminate as much as possible the friction against the walls of the hole where it is located. Its misalignment would produce greater wear of the hole. Thank you for your comment !
My "invention" is the rotating component that covers the bearing and that has the role of not spread the oil everywhere, to make centering on the part easier , to not leave the bearing exposed, and a fourht use will appear in a future video. Using a ball and bearing to finish a part is not my ideea. Thank you very much for watching and for your comment!
It is an italian product DAMATOMACCHINE DM 550. The center distance is 550 mm. and the chuck size is 130 mm. It is manufactured in the year 2016. I am satisfied with it, it has no errors and work absolut perfectly. The only big drawback is that it does not have a speed lower than 160 rpm/min. Thank you for watching!
Probably somewhere around 0.03mm- 0.04mm. I have not measured, but in the first video in which I will use it I will make this measurement and present it. However, it also depends on how fine the turning is. For a turning like I did, this is probably it. Thank you for watching!
Regarding the lathe, is that product of Emco Maier? (I have Emco Maier Maximat 11, & it looks very similar, having milling head, but it is mounted in the middle of the bed, not at headstock end.) When you pressed that pulley on, you should never apply pressure on the sheaves, as they can crack on cast-iron pulley. Ring-shim should be placed to put pressure on the hub, not the sheave. What you have made is a metal burnisher. It's sort of like knurling, but with smooth, hardened tool. What does it do to dimension (diameter)? How much do you need to machine "over" to compensate?
It is an italian model. Damatomacchine DM 550. I t is manufactured in 2016. As for the dimensions of the part shown, the differences are 0.05 mm smaller after the ball passes over the turned surface. 0.025 mm radius. I assume that this difference will be identical regardless of the diameter of the part. Thank you for your comment !
The bearing was pressed by pressing the inner ring on that shaft, the outer ring was not pressed. It's the only correct way I know to press a bearing. I hope this is what your comment refers to. Thank you!
My doubts: 1)if higher pressure is better so smaller ball should be used? 2)I a saw a video using a small cilinder instead a ball of a ball bearing with same results then why not use just a ball bearing, i mean same device some people uses for centering the piece? 3)Is that better than polishing or should be before/after polishing? Thanks.
1. A small ball flattens more effectively than a large ball. Being a smaller contact surface, its efficiency increases and the pressure doe not have to be as high as with a large ball 2. Model that contains a small cylinder has the advantage of being to able to approach the end of the part, but not the entaire surface of the cylinder is in the contact with the part, but only the tip of the small cylinder. 3. The smoother the surface, the less stress is placed on the ball and the better the results. Thank you for watching !
Interesting take on a burnishing tool, a little bulky for my tastes. Most external burnishing tools pinch the part for a reason, you put a lot of sideways pressure on the work when you do this. I'd recommend using your follow rest if you want to do this on anything longer than a few cm.
The "bulky" model is my concept.I chose a large bearing to increase the contact area with the ball and I don't want to completely copy the existing models because then I don't really see the point of filming myself. Whether it is a successful and sustainable model remains to be seen. Right now it's perfectly functional and I'll be using it for a long time to come.(I hope) Any problem that arises I will film and explain. Thank you for your comment and technical suggestions !
It looks like the tool slightly deforms the part and reduces the diameter. do you know if the amount can be controlled / predicted? or for precise dimensions will you always need a test part and a way to repeatably apply the same pressure?
When the ball touches the part, the scale is adjusted to 0 mm. Pressing will be indicated by the scale of the lathe. A first test is needed to see how much to compress the part until the desired finish is reached. For harder materials, more passes are required but with the same result. I did not do this test, but I think that the part must be turned to a larger diameter by approx. 0,03-0,04 mm so that after finishing it remains at the desired diameter. The first time I use it, I will also film this aspect. Thank you for your comment and for your interest !
I believe that taking a measurement with a Palmer caliper BEFORE the "burnishing" threatment, is a false value, the caliper only sees the "montains tops". After "threatment" montains-tops became only "hills" and thereafter ( with a third pass ) ... just plain surface. Of couse the problem is "AT WHAT DIAMETER STOP LATHING" ... or - otherwise - go on with alternative multiple passes, lathing, burnishing, and then lathing again ... ? I built up an equivalent tool i saw from U-Tube, i used a ( ? ) hard stone ball escaping out from an old equipment ( having not diamond balls to discard ... ). The tool is very tiny, made of a bore through an hex steel bar ( could be equally a square one ), 100 mm in lenght, 12 mm type, a bit reduced to fit in my tool post : there i inserted the ball, a spring, then a metal ball and a screw at the end to make some type of regulation in tension. It works, lubrification is a must if you don't want to see the ball fast become an "half ball". I have to say i'm only an hobbist, moreover my lathe is a chinese one 7 x 12 inches, so i'm not pretending to be a "master", this is only my experience. ( i'm playing with my lathe from 2006 ). I also need a suggestion ... if anybody can help me. I noticed my lathed pieces come out in a tapered shape instead that cylindrical. For 10,00 millimeters travels toward chuck, i lost 0,01 millimeters. This is not depending from any "flection" of the piece, 0,5 mm pass and 0,1 mm pass give me identical result. Nor anything changes if i lathe the piece from right or from left, so i discard the idea of the tool becaming hot ( and so longer ... ), the piece is always thinner near the chuck, and always of the some amount ... Nor using tailstock changes anything ... I believe my spin in not lined up with guides ... How could i solve this problem ? Working "between points" instead gives me a perfect cylindrical shape, as i carefully adjusted the tail-stock position ... Or ... is this error "the better i can get" from a chinese lathe ? ( not adjustments provided, if you ever have seen a chinese lathe ... under the spin box there is only a "V" ( inverted ) shape to fit against guides, nothing else ... can i use some metal thin pieces ( 0,03 millimeters thick ) under the spin box to correct this error ? Thank you very much for any help or suggestions ...
@@alessandroandrenacci2372 the error definitely sounds like the ways of your lathe aren't true and aligned. I'd suggest getting a precise level and shiming the feet of your lathe to make the bed as level as you can manage. from what I know, only after truing up the bed should you try shimming the headstock
@@Stellar_Lake_sys thank you very much for your kind answer, i hope you are going to solve my problem ... as my spin is pointing not toward me, but to the opposite side ( in fact i get lower diameters nearer to chuck ), what foot of the right side of the lathe shall i lift up ? Thank you again for your help and patience ... ... and my best regards from Italy ...
I know that every lathe has an adjustment for flatness. This adjustment for your lathe is done by turning the three or four screws that are behind the chuck. Through the holes of the flange that supports the chuck and that remains attached to the lathe, insert a screwdriver and turn gently. Ther are three or four screws behind the flange.Through repeat checks you will reach the desired result. In conclusion, the screwdriver behind the chuck are for adjustment and any lathe has flatness adjustments (be it chinese too). I hope it helps you and solve this problem. Thank you for your comment!
"A risk is only a danger if you are unaware". It amazes me that every post on my channel teaches me something. That means there are only intelligent people here and I am honored by your presence. Thank you !
Regarding the difficulty getting work to run true in chuck: you should face outer end first, then turn around in chuck with faced side against jaws. Then face the outside end. You will have 2 faced ends square to the outside diameter. There should be no need for hammering tweak.
I made the adjustment to turn the outside. I moved the part towards the tips of the chuck jaws so as not to turn the jaws. The part was moved 2 mm to protect the jaws. The facets were turned correctly, only the outsides had to be turned. Thank you for your comment !
@@JIMMY916 You are welcome. It may be useful to prepare a few rings or disks of various diameters and a few mm thick, faced parallel on both sides, to act as a spacer to put between the chuck and a work piece. Such a spacer ring or disk would register a faced surface parallel to the chuck without needing to dial it in. Quick and easy.
Maybe check if the ball is rotating freely, or there's something snagging it here and there. Because that tool should be able to deliver real mirror, but only if the ball rotates very smoothly. MAybe you need to run it longer until it positions properly and nothing catches. I watched the video with similar tool just yesterday, and it wasn't that much different, but the result was near perfect mirror, and your tool can do it, too.
There is no doubt that the ball is spinning freely. In the last test the camera is focused on the bearing and it rotates perfectly. For the real mirror I had to go over the surface one more time. I wanted to present the idea more than the perfection of the processing achieved by it. I thought it's obvious that more passes or more pressure on the part make perfect mirror. In future projects when I use it, it will be a maximum yield and the mirror will be perfect.Thank you for watching and I appreciate your advice !
@@JIMMY916 It was also not my intention to criticize you, or the tool, jst for a sake of criticizing. I may have been still under impression of that other video where the perfect mirror finish happened in the very first try, and after just one step, so it did not seem right that the same did not quite realize here. Of course, that finish may very well have been the result of decades of experience and who knows how many similar, or identical tools made in the past. This finish is in a way similar to knurling, where everything has to be just right to get the good result in one pass. In any case, just keep up the good work.
@@johnsmith-000 To be as believable as possible, I dont shoot a sequence several times, I don't do tests before shooting, thats why id doesn't always come out perfectly. There are many details that I leave out due to lack of experience. All the tools I produce are built for the first time and are used by me "live". I love filming them working "first hand" and I think the best thing about CZcams is that we learn from each other. Now I understand your comment better and understand that it is made with the best intentions. Including interpreting each message correctly is something that needs to be learned. Thank you for your message and I hope talk again!
The oldest model of this kind that I saw was a model from the 60', only it was much more robust. Mine is from 2016. These models have advantages but also disavantages. Thank you for your comment !
Yeah I'm sorry I can get the same finish with the proper speed feed and tooling. I won't even begin to think about using a burnishing tool unless I'm trying to get a 4 microfinish or something better. I can attain a 32 or even a 16 RMA finish on a daily basis day in and day out without using such a bulky device that clearly will only work for just a few setups if your parts any longer than an inch or so good luck keeping it straight with no taper
I am very curious, but from your comment I understand that you have never used this tool. If is just an opinion without the experience of using it, are you absolutely sure that you cannot be wrong in considering that tool is useless? If you want to watch my other videos, you will see that I use all the projects I have built. It will not be an exception with this one either and in the near future we will see if you are right or not. Thank you for your comment and I'm waiting for you with other opinions !
@JIMMY916 I've been a machinist 40 years now. Obviously, I have used a burnishing tool more than once. And I can tell you from experience your design is a large and clumsy design, and there are much better burnishing tools on the market today that you can probably pick up a lot cheaper than the labor cost that it took you to make that one. So does that answer your curiosity at all. I mean I have thought just by the fact that I'm throwing out figures like a four microfinish or the fact that I can turn a 32 or 16 RMA finish daily would give you some sort of inkling that I do know a bit about this trade and that I'm probably most likely a machinist because there's very few people other than a machinist that would even know what a 16 RMA finish is
I congratulate you and your career and I assure you that I respect your experience. At the moment I have no arguments to support whether it will work properly or not because unfortunately I cannot test this now, but I assure you that the failure or succes of its operation will be filmed. But both enthusiasm and failure are a part of our life. Here we don't compete with each other, we just enjoy together and I admit that sometimes I forget that too. Thank you sir !
@@JIMMY916 Thanks, I used to work in a machine shop and we had a guy who lost several fingers because some long stringy chips grabbed his wedding ring and acted like razors and mulched his fingers. Please Stay safe out there!
@The_Foolish_Fool Almost everyone who wrote me comments told me about terrible experiences what scares me, I can admit I work on the lathe only as a hobby, so I am not aware of the dangers. Anyway, my lathe is certainly not as a dangerous as the lathes you work on. Thanks again for writing me about these dangers, my friend !
Instead of spending so much time fixing the face runout , you can just use a piece of brass strip , between the tool and the rotating part... Take seconds to get it running true
Someday maybe I can too. Until I find someone who can explain to me how he does it, I'm doing the best I can. I'm far from knowing them all. Thank you for your time !
Thanks for the great lesson.
Thank you very much ! Your words honor me and give me the greatest reward
Very good Ideea. Thanks for sharing.
Thank you very much, my friend !
Does a wonderful job.
Thank you very much! I needed this message.
What you have made here is called a burnishing tool. There are many other designs here on CZcams, some complicated, some simple, but most dont need such a large roller bearing and are much smaller in general, similar in size to a standard lathe tool.
I can link to some other videos if you're interested? Some of them have even released the drawings for free
The model that inspired me is from an old lathe book. The name in the book was ”Flattener for lathe” and it contained two bearings. I chose to use a large bearing and a small ball in order not to stress the edges of the ball seat. The larger the bearing, the better the ball sits on it and does not stress the walls of the hole where it is located. And the component that covers the bearing and can move is my invention. Its purpose is not to leave the bearing exposed, not to spread oil everywhere, to center the ball and another purpose that will appear in a future video. Thank you for your comment !
Whole I appreciate the effort you went to in making that tool, when would you use it?
In all videos from now on that will contain turned parts. Where I have to sand the surfaces with sandpaper I will use this tool. Thank you for your comment !
Nice work
Thank you very much sir! Your appreciation honors me!
Does the tool change the dimension of the part after use? Great video!
Yes. The part that appears in the movie was thinned by 0.06 mm. (0.03 mm radius) The same difference is regardless of the thickness of the part, but it depends on the roughness of the turning over which the ball passes. This difference applies to the fine turning in the video. If you still need an answer, please don't hesitate to ask me. Thank you very much for the message !
nice burnishing fixture!
Thank you for your appreciation and for your time!
Muito bom trabalho amigo,perfeito!!!!
Sucesso e muita saúde!!!
Thank you very much , my friend ! Your comments encourage me.
How does this effect your end dimensions? Say you were shooting for 50mm would it take .05 mm off ?
The part in the video was 37.66 mm and now it is 37.60. The difference of 0.06 mm is probably valid for any part thickness. (0.03 radius). It also depends on how rough the turning is. Thank you for your comment !
Is it important to accurately set the centre height?
If the ball is adjusted to the center of the part, then the scale of the lathe will indicate the correct values. 0,01 mm will be 0.01 mm only if we are on the centre. Pressing the ball ”thins” the part that has been turned on the lathe. The alignment should eliminate as much as possible the friction against the walls of the hole where it is located. Its misalignment would produce greater wear of the hole. Thank you for your comment !
@@JIMMY916 Thanks, I thought it could be made accurately enough using the base of the square section as the datum.
I've not see a burnishing tool like this before. Most I've seen used the OD of the bearing to engage the part on a slight angle.
My "invention" is the rotating component that covers the bearing and that has the role of not spread the oil everywhere, to make centering on the part easier , to not leave the bearing exposed, and a fourht use will appear in a future video. Using a ball and bearing to finish a part is not my ideea. Thank you very much for watching and for your comment!
What is the mfg and model of your 3-in-1 lathe? I had a used Shoptask years ago but not-so-good. Thanks
It is an italian product DAMATOMACCHINE DM 550. The center distance is 550 mm. and the chuck size is 130 mm. It is manufactured in the year 2016. I am satisfied with it, it has no errors and work absolut perfectly. The only big drawback is that it does not have a speed lower than 160 rpm/min. Thank you for watching!
How much does it affect the dimensions of the part?
Probably somewhere around 0.03mm- 0.04mm. I have not measured, but in the first video in which I will use it I will make this measurement and present it. However, it also depends on how fine the turning is. For a turning like I did, this is probably it. Thank you for watching!
Regarding the lathe, is that product of Emco Maier? (I have Emco Maier Maximat 11, & it looks very similar, having milling head, but it is mounted in the middle of the bed, not at headstock end.)
When you pressed that pulley on, you should never apply pressure on the sheaves, as they can crack on cast-iron pulley. Ring-shim should be placed to put pressure on the hub, not the sheave.
What you have made is a metal burnisher. It's sort of like knurling, but with smooth, hardened tool. What does it do to dimension (diameter)? How much do you need to machine "over" to compensate?
It is an italian model. Damatomacchine DM 550. I t is manufactured in 2016. As for the dimensions of the part shown, the differences are 0.05 mm smaller after the ball passes over the turned surface. 0.025 mm radius. I assume that this difference will be identical regardless of the diameter of the part. Thank you for your comment !
The bearing was pressed by pressing the inner ring on that shaft, the outer ring was not pressed. It's the only correct way I know to press a bearing. I hope this is what your comment refers to. Thank you!
My doubts: 1)if higher pressure is better so smaller ball should be used? 2)I a saw a video using a small cilinder instead a ball of a ball bearing with same results then why not use just a ball bearing, i mean same device some people uses for centering the piece? 3)Is that better than polishing or should be before/after polishing? Thanks.
1. A small ball flattens more effectively than a large ball. Being a smaller contact surface, its efficiency increases and the pressure doe not have to be as high as with a large ball 2. Model that contains a small cylinder has the advantage of being to able to approach the end of the part, but not the entaire surface of the cylinder is in the contact with the part, but only the tip of the small cylinder. 3. The smoother the surface, the less stress is placed on the ball and the better the results. Thank you for watching !
Interesting take on a burnishing tool, a little bulky for my tastes. Most external burnishing tools pinch the part for a reason, you put a lot of sideways pressure on the work when you do this. I'd recommend using your follow rest if you want to do this on anything longer than a few cm.
The "bulky" model is my concept.I chose a large bearing to increase the contact area with the ball and I don't want to completely copy the existing models because then I don't really see the point of filming myself. Whether it is a successful and sustainable model remains to be seen. Right now it's perfectly functional and I'll be using it for a long time to come.(I hope) Any problem that arises I will film and explain. Thank you for your comment and technical suggestions !
It looks like the tool slightly deforms the part and reduces the diameter. do you know if the amount can be controlled / predicted? or for precise dimensions will you always need a test part and a way to repeatably apply the same pressure?
When the ball touches the part, the scale is adjusted to 0 mm. Pressing will be indicated by the scale of the lathe. A first test is needed to see how much to compress the part until the desired finish is reached. For harder materials, more passes are required but with the same result. I did not do this test, but I think that the part must be turned to a larger diameter by approx. 0,03-0,04 mm so that after finishing it remains at the desired diameter. The first time I use it, I will also film this aspect. Thank you for your comment and for your interest !
I believe that taking a measurement with a Palmer caliper BEFORE the "burnishing" threatment, is a false value, the caliper only sees the "montains tops". After "threatment" montains-tops became only "hills" and thereafter ( with a third pass ) ... just plain surface.
Of couse the problem is "AT WHAT DIAMETER STOP LATHING" ... or - otherwise - go on with alternative multiple passes, lathing, burnishing, and then lathing again ... ?
I built up an equivalent tool i saw from U-Tube, i used a ( ? ) hard stone ball escaping out from an old equipment ( having not diamond balls to discard ... ). The tool is very tiny, made of a bore through an hex steel bar ( could be equally a square one ), 100 mm in lenght, 12 mm type, a bit reduced to fit in my tool post : there i inserted the ball, a spring, then a metal ball and a screw at the end to make some type of regulation in tension. It works, lubrification is a must if you don't want to see the ball fast become an "half ball".
I have to say i'm only an hobbist, moreover my lathe is a chinese one 7 x 12 inches, so i'm not pretending to be a "master", this is only my experience. ( i'm playing with my lathe from 2006 ).
I also need a suggestion ... if anybody can help me.
I noticed my lathed pieces come out in a tapered shape instead that cylindrical.
For 10,00 millimeters travels toward chuck, i lost 0,01 millimeters.
This is not depending from any "flection" of the piece, 0,5 mm pass and 0,1 mm pass give me identical result. Nor anything changes if i lathe the piece from right or from left, so i discard the idea of the tool becaming hot ( and so longer ... ), the piece is always thinner near the chuck, and always of the some amount ...
Nor using tailstock changes anything ...
I believe my spin in not lined up with guides ...
How could i solve this problem ? Working "between points" instead gives me a perfect cylindrical shape, as i carefully adjusted the tail-stock position ...
Or ... is this error "the better i can get" from a chinese lathe ? ( not adjustments provided, if you ever have seen a chinese lathe ... under the spin box there is only a "V" ( inverted ) shape to fit against guides, nothing else ... can i use some metal thin pieces ( 0,03 millimeters thick ) under the spin box to correct this error ?
Thank you very much for any help or suggestions ...
@@alessandroandrenacci2372 the error definitely sounds like the ways of your lathe aren't true and aligned. I'd suggest getting a precise level and shiming the feet of your lathe to make the bed as level as you can manage. from what I know, only after truing up the bed should you try shimming the headstock
@@Stellar_Lake_sys thank you very much for your kind answer, i hope you are going to solve my problem ... as my spin is pointing not toward me, but to the opposite side ( in fact i get lower diameters nearer to chuck ), what foot of the right side of the lathe shall i lift up ?
Thank you again for your help and patience ...
... and my best regards from Italy ...
I know that every lathe has an adjustment for flatness. This adjustment for your lathe is done by turning the three or four screws that are behind the chuck. Through the holes of the flange that supports the chuck and that remains attached to the lathe, insert a screwdriver and turn gently. Ther are three or four screws behind the flange.Through repeat checks you will reach the desired result. In conclusion, the screwdriver behind the chuck are for adjustment and any lathe has flatness adjustments (be it chinese too). I hope it helps you and solve this problem. Thank you for your comment!
It’s a ball bearing burnishing tool. Saved you nearly 40 minutes. You’re welcome.
WOW, you are a genius ! The model is also called ” Flattener for lathe ”. Lets call it that from now on !?
Nice work 👍😀
And a nice homemade tool 👍
Thank you sir ! Your appreciation is the energy I need and honors me.
Not a good idea wearing gloves while working on a lathe.
Yes, you are right ! I'm "addicted" to gloves. I'm trying to get out of the habit of wearing them...Thank you very much for your advice !
@@JIMMY916 stay safe :)
Thanks! I will be 👍
In some parts of the world it is standard practice to wear gloves, not judging just saying. The thing is, a risk is only a danger if you are unaware.
"A risk is only a danger if you are unaware". It amazes me that every post on my channel teaches me something. That means there are only intelligent people here and I am honored by your presence. Thank you !
Regarding the difficulty getting work to run true in chuck: you should face outer end first, then turn around in chuck with faced side against jaws. Then face the outside end. You will have 2 faced ends square to the outside diameter. There should be no need for hammering tweak.
I made the adjustment to turn the outside. I moved the part towards the tips of the chuck jaws so as not to turn the jaws. The part was moved 2 mm to protect the jaws. The facets were turned correctly, only the outsides had to be turned. Thank you for your comment !
He didn't want the faced side against the jaws, because he was going to turn the diameter all the way, and did not want his tool hitting his chuck.
@@xtnuser5338 Thank you for your comment!
@@JIMMY916 You are welcome. It may be useful to prepare a few rings or disks of various diameters and a few mm thick, faced parallel on both sides, to act as a spacer to put between the chuck and a work piece. Such a spacer ring or disk would register a faced surface parallel to the chuck without needing to dial it in. Quick and easy.
@@xtnuser5338 Yes, thats a good ideea ! I will use your method next time. 👍
Метод рабочий! Еще и поверхность детали становится прочнее!
It is true and besides that it is an extra protection against rusting. Thank you very much for your comment !
Maybe check if the ball is rotating freely, or there's something snagging it here and there. Because that tool should be able to deliver real mirror, but only if the ball rotates very smoothly. MAybe you need to run it longer until it positions properly and nothing catches. I watched the video with similar tool just yesterday, and it wasn't that much different, but the result was near perfect mirror, and your tool can do it, too.
There is no doubt that the ball is spinning freely. In the last test the camera is focused on the bearing and it rotates perfectly. For the real mirror I had to go over the surface one more time. I wanted to present the idea more than the perfection of the processing achieved by it. I thought it's obvious that more passes or more pressure on the part make perfect mirror. In future projects when I use it, it will be a maximum yield and the mirror will be perfect.Thank you for watching and I appreciate your advice !
@@JIMMY916 It was also not my intention to criticize you, or the tool, jst for a sake of criticizing. I may have been still under impression of that other video where the perfect mirror finish happened in the very first try, and after just one step, so it did not seem right that the same did not quite realize here. Of course, that finish may very well have been the result of decades of experience and who knows how many similar, or identical tools made in the past. This finish is in a way similar to knurling, where everything has to be just right to get the good result in one pass. In any case, just keep up the good work.
@@johnsmith-000 To be as believable as possible, I dont shoot a sequence several times, I don't do tests before shooting, thats why id doesn't always come out perfectly. There are many details that I leave out due to lack of experience. All the tools I produce are built for the first time and are used by me "live". I love filming them working "first hand" and I think the best thing about CZcams is that we learn from each other. Now I understand your comment better and understand that it is made with the best intentions. Including interpreting each message correctly is something that needs to be learned. Thank you for your message and I hope talk again!
Your machine looks just like my mid90s ShopTask machine, only green and with more modern style switches.
The oldest model of this kind that I saw was a model from the 60', only it was much more robust. Mine is from 2016. These models have advantages but also disavantages. Thank you for your comment !
Yeah I'm sorry I can get the same finish with the proper speed feed and tooling. I won't even begin to think about using a burnishing tool unless I'm trying to get a 4 microfinish or something better. I can attain a 32 or even a 16 RMA finish on a daily basis day in and day out without using such a bulky device that clearly will only work for just a few setups if your parts any longer than an inch or so good luck keeping it straight with no taper
I am very curious, but from your comment I understand that you have never used this tool. If is just an opinion without the experience of using it, are you absolutely sure that you cannot be wrong in considering that tool is useless? If you want to watch my other videos, you will see that I use all the projects I have built. It will not be an exception with this one either and in the near future we will see if you are right or not. Thank you for your comment and I'm waiting for you with other opinions !
@JIMMY916 I've been a machinist 40 years now. Obviously, I have used a burnishing tool more than once. And I can tell you from experience your design is a large and clumsy design, and there are much better burnishing tools on the market today that you can probably pick up a lot cheaper than the labor cost that it took you to make that one. So does that answer your curiosity at all. I mean I have thought just by the fact that I'm throwing out figures like a four microfinish or the fact that I can turn a 32 or 16 RMA finish daily would give you some sort of inkling that I do know a bit about this trade and that I'm probably most likely a machinist because there's very few people other than a machinist that would even know what a 16 RMA finish is
I congratulate you and your career and I assure you that I respect your experience. At the moment I have no arguments to support whether it will work properly or not because unfortunately I cannot test this now, but I assure you that the failure or succes of its operation will be filmed. But both enthusiasm and failure are a part of our life. Here we don't compete with each other, we just enjoy together and I admit that sometimes I forget that too. Thank you sir !
Pls don't use gloves when working a lathe. They can get you pulled in.
Thank you for the advice . I already threw them away !!
@@JIMMY916 Thanks, I used to work in a machine shop and we had a guy who lost several fingers because some long stringy chips grabbed his wedding ring and acted like razors and mulched his fingers. Please Stay safe out there!
@The_Foolish_Fool Almost everyone who wrote me comments told me about terrible experiences what scares me, I can admit I work on the lathe only as a hobby, so I am not aware of the dangers. Anyway, my lathe is certainly not as a dangerous as the lathes you work on. Thanks again for writing me about these dangers, my friend !
Instead of spending so much time fixing the face runout , you can just use a piece of brass strip , between the tool and the rotating part... Take seconds to get it running true
I don't have a brass strip, and if I did, I wouldn't know the method anyway. Thank you for the suggestion !
wow, i get that finish with my regular lathe tooling ...i dont know why but i find the finish of his part is not very good
Someday maybe I can too. Until I find someone who can explain to me how he does it, I'm doing the best I can. I'm far from knowing them all. Thank you for your time !
@@JIMMY916 Higher RPM generally helps with surface finish.
@@topduk Thank you! Good to know!
Such a horrible noise in the lathe.
I'm sorry for the inconvenience. The belts are worn.