# Buffing Systems



## The Shark (30 Oct 2010)

Hi guys,

I am after some advice from the knowledgeable ones, please :lol: 

At Miles's bash, I amongst others had a good look at the Beal buffing system. I have to say I was very impressed, but as I understood it, the only real difference between the Beal and the Chestnut system was that the Beal had mops for doing internals. We were told that Chestnut had promised to bring internal mops in, but that there were no dates for this yet.

My question is: Which is the better system to go for - Beal, with the internal mops but a larger price tag, or the cheaper Chestnut system with the promise of internals?

Any opinions welcomed,

Thanks,

Malc


----------



## PeterSk (30 Oct 2010)

You can find those internal mops at Axminster if you dig around on the website for very good prices


----------



## Jonzjob (30 Oct 2010)

I have the Beall system with the internals and have just found out that the arbour has a 5/8" 'ole in it that the MT1 mount that I ordered fits into.

The system is really good and so easy to use and now that I have changed the motor on my Record CL1 for a Direct Drives 3ø motor I have liberated the original lathe motor and it now bears the arbour and makes the Beal system even easier to use! The results from this lot is more than I could have wished for. The internals are ideal for the pot-pourie that I am making for some very good friends for their krimble pressies and as I ordered the smaller 3" ones they fit a treat!

I would recomed them and if any of you would care to come and check mine out then just yell!!!


----------



## mark sanger (31 Oct 2010)

Hi 

You will find the mops as long as they are cotton/not sythetic will be the same no matter which system. 

I went for the chestnut system and it is brilliant, does exactly the same as the Beal but cheaper. 

You can get the mushroom mops here. http://www.thepolishingshop.co.uk/acatalog/copy_of_Bottom__Goblet___Cabbage_Mops.html

I just use them in my Jacobs chuck. Or you can use button jaws if you want.

I use them and they are good and at £2.56 for a large one you can not go wrong.


----------



## Jonzjob (31 Oct 2010)

The 3 Beall wheels. The first is linen and the hardest of the 3, fr the brown stuff. The second is alternate linen/cotton for the white stuff and the third is all cotton for the canuba and is very soft.

The same with the internal mops.

I have no idea as to how much the individual bits cost as I bought them as the complete kit.


----------



## Terry Smart (31 Oct 2010)

Of course, I can't be truly objective about the relative merits of the two systems.

There are several users of our system on the forum, perhaps they might like to give their opinions?

The Beall System is very good and has many deserved fans. Our system differs firstly by being made/assembled in the UK and is based on a mandrel system held in a chuck, rather than a morse taper and a drawbar. 
We chose the chuck based system after consultations with various turners, both professional and enthusiasts. The lathe we use at demos won't accept a drawbar and it occurred to us that others might havea similar problem and we wanted the system to be as universal as possible.
Of course, it means you have to have a chuck but we figure that anyone spending this sort of money on a buffing system will be serious enough to have a chuck already.

As has been mentioned elsewhere and I'm sure you're all bored of hearing it, this whole project has been dogged with problems.
The Buffing Kit is a slight diversion for us from our normal product range and has entailed sourcing and dealing with new suppliers and manufacturers for some of the components.
We have had probably two years of broken delivery dates, shoddy (and rejected) workmanship, broken promises of ability to supply, samples ordered that never arrived, vital pricing information witheld...you name it, it's gone wrong.

Each time we hit a dead-end we have to start practically from scratch again so this has meant we have broken our own internal deadlines.
The kit is now sorted, barring unforeseeable disasters we will be able to supply that ad infinitum.
In the last two weeks we made a couple of huge leaps towards having the domed mops ready; we probably made more genuine progress on this than we have in the last six months. We are very near to confirming a design and going into production.
Reallistically this will take about six weeks, by which time I hope the first of the domed mops will be trickling out with full stocks achieved very early in 2011.

It's been a long road, thank you to those of you who have supported us, it is trully appreciated!


----------



## Jonzjob (31 Oct 2010)

I have to admit Terry that I didn't realise that you were doing the system when I got mine. It was on recomendation and seemed good, but if I had realised that there was a system being made in the U.K. then that is almost certainly what I would have gone for.

Mind you, I wouldn't have been able to mount it like this, but then again I wouldn't have known about it???









It's a little bit low at the mo, but that's easily fixed.


----------



## jpt (31 Oct 2010)

I use the Chestnut system and having used the beal system a few times when I borrowed it from a friend I preferred the mounting version of the chestnut system.

I have done a review of the chestnut system HERE

john[/url]


----------



## CHJ (31 Oct 2010)

John (Jonzjob), and others, I am sure there would be a facility via Terry to have " Chestnut System" Mandrels made to suit individual setups like you are using the Beal Mandrel, however there are inherent safety implications in such a simple method of mounting.

One of the dangers, and I know you are aware of this because of our communications, is that folks seeing such a setup try it with any spare 2 pole motor or old Grinder they have lying around.

Whilst a 200mm dia (8") mop is safe to rotate at the 1425 RPM of a 4 pole motor.
Spinning an unstiched mop of this diameter at the 2850 RPM of a 2 pole motor is not.

Even a fixed speed of 1425 RPM is a little on the high side and a considerable amount of the advantages of having lower speeds down to 750 RPM or so are not available because centrifugal forces effectively prevent the mop flowing around and into the more irregular shapes.

I don't take the 100mm (4") mops I'm using above 1500 RPM as they are more than stiff enough at this speed.


----------



## CHJ (31 Oct 2010)

Seeing Marks pointer to the small domed mops above, I've been using some of those for some time as a stop gap whilst Terry dives even deeper into despair at companies that just don't seem to want business.

The main problem is they are only of the softer fabric and are not quite so effective with the courser abrasives such as Tripoli, some of the Bottom Mops are stiffer but they tend to flap out because they have far fewer layers and present a flat fabric to the surface which seems to skid as opposed to cut.

The Domed mop samples using the same fabric mixes as the larger mops are definitely more effective at abrading.


----------



## mark sanger (31 Oct 2010)

Hi Chas/ Terry

Yes the domed mops that I use are not brilliant for the reasons you mention. But at the cost I put up with that due to not having anything better at this time and like you are waiting for the Chestnut ones to come out at which time I will swap over.

In reply to Terry and for info of others.


In relation to the Chestnut buffing system. The reason I use it is for the following reasons. 

I have no affiliation or commission, nor am I connected to Chestnut in anyway apart from I use there products. 

As I say at the beginning of all of my demo's I am not affiliated or have any commercial interest with any company as I personally do not find that all of any one companies products suit the way I work and I will not be tied down to saying something is brilliant if I do not use it. 


Form and finish is everything to me and I struggled for many years with the later. Finishing often took me as long as making the whole piece. 

Then I was aware of the chestnut system so got one and tried it. 

I have never looked back. My finishing time is now a matter of minutes the results are excellent (and I am a picky bxxxxr and anything but excellent from my tools and methods will not do)

The chestnut buffing system elevated my work to the level I wanted it in relation to the ease and application of finish. 


In my demo's I use the chestnut and recommend it whole heartedly and passionately. WHY

1/ I can easily and quickly fit it into any chuck I am using without having to change the jaws. 

2/ I can use the small mandrel in my drill on large work. 

4/ I can very quickly spin off and on the different wheels. 

5/ No draw bar or the associated time issues/technical considerations. 

6/ The results are fantastic and consistent and more to the point it is so very easy. It removed all the myth and black art that I thought was involved in finishing from when I started turning. 

7/ The Beal system was available to me for a long time but I thought it too pricey so I made do with home a made synthetic system which was not very good. 

8/ The method of fixing of the Chestnut I prefer to the pig tail system as I believe it is safer due to the positive fixing of the allen screw. 

9/ Having use the Chestnut system now for a year or so pretty much every day I can say that the wheels are of very good quality. They have not broken apart and appear to be as good as the day I got them. I beat the hell out of mine at times so it definitely stands up to the wear and tear

So in a nut shell, I like the simplicity, quality, efficiency of the finish and the price. 

I don't like posting such comments as people will always say that I get some sort of benefit from the company mentioned. I DO NOT.

If I like it I will say if I don't then I won't use it.

Oh and it is also made in the UK, what a refreshing change to having "made in China" stamped everywhere.


----------



## Jonzjob (31 Oct 2010)

Chas, the Beall instructions recomed a speed of 1750 rpm which is the speed a 4 pole motor runs on 60 Hz so 1425 is not a problem, but I agree that 2850 rpm is too high. My motor is a 4 pole.

The instructions for my system are the top pdf on their site here http://www.bealltool.com/instructions.php


----------



## UnicycleBloke (31 Oct 2010)

Have just tried the Chestnut which arrived yesterday. It seemed very simple, and made some marked improvements to an oak bowl and ash platter I made a while back. 

Couldn't really tell whether the B wheel was doing anything - probably not enough compound - and the wax is so hard it was hard to know if any actually went on the C wheel. With a little trial and error, I might actually be happy to put my name on something. 


Al


----------



## CHJ (31 Oct 2010)

UnicycleBloke":5mtldhti said:


> Have just tried the Chestnut which arrived yesterday. It seemed very simple, and made some marked improvements to an oak bowl and ash platter I made a while back.
> 
> Couldn't really tell whether the B wheel was doing anything - probably not enough compound - and the wax is so hard it was hard to know if any actually went on the C wheel. With a little trial and error, I might actually be happy to put my name on something.
> 
> ...



The most rapid way to obtain the maximum gloss is to sanding seal a reasonably scratch free surface (240-320 grit) and then go through the wheels, just take care with pale woods like Ash which can trap the dark Tripoli abrasive in the grain pores, in this case you will have to start with the white diamond wheel but it will be difficult to remove any substantial sealer runs or build streaks so extra care is needed at sealer stage, worst case scenario wipe with thinners to to flatten any excessive sealer build up or streaks first.

On existing pieces that you have already finished with a soft wax it's best to remove the surface coat with thinners and start again from the tripoli up. If you have a lot of soft wax or heavy oil film on an existing piece it tends to just spread with friction heat and contaminate the mop reducing the cutting action, a bit like you get if you try to sand a partially dry sealer or oil.
The White wheel will hardly touch a hard surface, its main function is to clean off the tripoli residue and enhance the gloss left by the tripoli. Too much white compound can result in excessive waxy deposits at the edges and in crevices.

The Hard wax needs very little transfer to achieve the thin film required, as long as you see any rounding of the wax stick when held against the wheel there will be sufficient transferred.


----------



## tekno.mage (31 Oct 2010)

I have a Chestnut system, which I bought after chatting to Mark Sanger about his when I saw him demonstrating it. My original intention was to buy the individual 8" mops and compounds and fix up my own pigtail arbor to mount on my lathe. However, having seen the quality of the Chestnut system that Mark was using and doing some sums I quickly realised that I would save very little dosh by buying the individual bits of equivalent quality and would still have to make my own arbor! 

I find the Chestnut system simplicity itself to use - it's quick and easy to mount on the lathe and it takes me longer to put a used wheel away in it's poly bag than it does to actually change the wheels over!

I also have some Axminster domed mops which I can hold in either a jacobs chuck on the lathe or in an electric drill. Either method works for bowls - I think I prefer using the mop in a drill and the bowl held on the lathe.

I'm still in the process of finding some small enough mops to polish the insides of small boxes!


----------



## Paul.J (31 Oct 2010)

Another vote here for the Chestnut system Malc,now i've finally started to use mine  
Chas popped in a few weeks back and he showed me how to use the mops,so he went over a couple of the pieces i had and they came up a treat,and in quick time.
So the next day i polished most of what i have in the house and they all got the thumbs up from everyone.
Just one question from me though with the inner dome mops.
Would it mean doing that area seperately again after most the inside is done with the large mops :?: 
If so would the waxes effect the parts that are finished,or would it all just blend in.If you see what i mean. :?


----------



## The Shark (31 Oct 2010)

Hi guys,

Thank you all for some excellent, informative posts!
I think I know what I am going to do now :lol: 

Malc :lol:


----------



## miles_hot (31 Oct 2010)

Just a small note - the beal can be used in the chuck; you just have to turn a small dovetail on to the bar and you're away (saves the cost of the MT adaptor too as well as providing more reach).

Glad to hear that the Chestnut mops are finally on the way.

Miles


----------



## CHJ (31 Oct 2010)

Paul.J":3pu6ryoi said:


> ....Just one question from me though with the inner dome mops.
> Would it mean doing that area seperately again after most the inside is done with the large mops :?:



What I do Paul is I just swap the mop sizes to reach wherever at each stage, it only takes seconds, especially if you happen to be finish buffing a batch of pieces, on some pieces I may use three different sized mops to get to inside curves.

Even on the two small open bowls last posted in my thread I used the 4" straight mops to do the inner as they followed the curve better, on deeper pieces though they have to be used with care because of risk of the fixing bolt catching hence the need for the domed mop forms to avoid the risk.

Some of the smaller mops currently getting a workout.














The smalest I currently have, 75mm.









This last pic. is obviously not a finished piece, just a bangle blank, but shows how I can finish down to 50 mm if necessary, care is needed if heavily compressing the mops not to run too fast and create friction burns.


----------



## Paul.J (31 Oct 2010)

Thanks Chas.
I was thinking along the lines of using the bigger mop to do part/most the item and the dome just to do the very bottom,but your explaination makes it clearer once again


----------



## CHJ (31 Oct 2010)

A lot depends on the dimensions of the bowl internals Paul, and whether there is any undercut etc. simple form bowls with something near or larger than 200mm can be done in total with the larger mops, the nearer the mop diameter to the inner curve the easier it is to manoeuvre it to blend the curve. Slowing the speed down will allow the bigger mops to flex into slightly smaller places.
I guess everybody developes their own way of working, a couple of catches and launched items whilst trying to force the mop into areas it doesn't want to go or forgetting to keep contact on trailing edge as opposed to leading edge soon instills the need for concentration on what is safe and feasible. :lol:


----------



## Lightweeder (1 Nov 2010)

Have only tried the Chestnut, which I have, and wouldn't like to be without it.


----------

