# Chestnut Buffing wheels, is this right?



## KimG (11 Sep 2012)

I have the three wheels and the dome mops, but something seems amiss, Wheel A material is softer than Wheel B while Wheel C is the softest, I find I get a better gloss finish from wheel A (tripoli compound) than from the harder material used in Wheel B, in fact if I use wheel A followed by Wheel B, I find that I get a reduction in the quality of the finish, more often than not at least, and this is despite my trying to use a wide variety of pressures just to be sure it isn't me.

I am wondering if somehow my wheels got miss labeled, and in fact wheel B is actually the material normally labeled A.

The dome mops do seem similar though, which make me suspect that they are not in error.

What are yours like?


----------



## Doug B (12 Sep 2012)

Any chance of posting a picture of the 3 buffing wheels, Kim?

The shine does usually get progressively higher as you go up A to B to C.

Cheers


----------



## KimG (12 Sep 2012)

I'll post some pics later today.


----------



## YewTube (12 Sep 2012)

I don't have a set but there is a review by Mark Sanger which puts them in the order 1. Hardest (brown) 2. Mid (white) 3. Softest (wax). This would agree with my experience and logic of using them. I believe your suspicion that A and B are reversed is correct.

Bill


----------



## CHJ (12 Sep 2012)

Something definately not right there Kim, immediate first reaction would be that mop was mis-labeled but you say both large wheels and domes are the same which is hard to believe.


A. Should be a coarse Dense stiff Cotton (almost fine linen like) type fabric.
B. Should be slightly softer but still coarse cotton.
C. Should be a very soft white cotton.

On my originals. 
A is a Mid tan colour
B is a off white/light tan
C is bright white.


----------



## Terry Smart (12 Sep 2012)

Hmm... I'd like to be able to say 'it could never happen' but experience has taught me (in pretty much every part of life, not just in business) to never say never.

It sounds like a possibility. The difference between Wheel A and Wheel B is very slight, so it is possible they were transposed at the labelling process. In fact, apart from the label it's pretty much impossible to tell them apart - but I can assure you all they are different.

My suggestion would be to clean them both up to remove the compounds on them. Easiest way is to hold a coarse (80 grit) abrasive against the spinning edge (held on a piece of wood, not direct) to wear away the top surface and expose fresh material. Then try them the other way round and see if this improves the situation. That will at least tell us what's going on...and if it is the case, contact me by pm and we'll sort something out to compensate for the wasted time, material and general frustration!

If this makes no difference we'll go back to the drawing board and look for another solution.

I look forward to seeing the results and resolving this for you.


----------



## myturn (12 Sep 2012)

Kim,

I had exactly the same thing with mine, which I only discovered after using them for a while.

As A and B are so similar in feel the best way to tell them apart is to spin them up on the lathe as it is much easier to feel the difference when they are rotating at operating speed.

Once swapped round I cleaned mine up with 80 grit as Terry has already suggested.


----------



## KimG (12 Sep 2012)

I will try that Terry, as the wheels are not as Chaz describes, they are the opposite, in other words, the heavier and stiffer fabric is on the B wheel while the A wheel is much less stiff and has a softer feel. I will swap them around as regards purpose and compounds and see how it goes. I appreciate the customer support, thanks! 

I should add that the dome mops are very similar, Mop B seems much stiffer than Mop A, I will try them too.

Thanks to all for the replies too!


----------



## CHJ (12 Sep 2012)

Sounds as though someone, supplier or final assembly line has mixed up the mop specs, if so I suspect someone has some checking to do.


----------



## Grahamshed (13 Sep 2012)

Sounds like an embarrassing cook up but you have to admire firms that have reps on here and are prepared to stand behind their products and ensure customer satisfaction.


----------



## tekno.mage (13 Sep 2012)

Sounds like the labels on the wheels got mixed up during manufacture. With my own Chestnut Buffing System it was very obvious from new that wheel A was firmer & harder than wheel B - and that wheel C was very soft indeed. It is still obvious which wheel is the harder now my system is well used. The advice Terry has given about cleaning the wheels and trying the other way around should sort it out.


----------



## boysie39 (13 Sep 2012)

Well done to Terry for picking it up so quickly , has his eyes on the ball does our Terry, =D> =D> .


----------



## KimG (13 Sep 2012)

Well I followed the instructions and cleaned the B wheel as free of the tripoli as I could get it, I didn't bother cleaning the A wheel as I was going to use the coarser tripoli on it, I set it up to work on an unpolished piece, starting with the Coarse Wheel B and Triploi, I got a nice smooth finish, on Wheel A and diamond white fetched up a decent shine and Wheel C laid on an even coat of wax, so indeed from this test it seems that the wheels were wrongly labeled as this is the first time I have got the expected results, prior to this I rarely used the Wheel B as it always seemed a backwards step.

I checked the dome mops and indeed they seem the same (A and B reversed) as far as the cloth stiffness and texture goes at any rate, they are a bit harder clean off though, I can send them to Chestnut for checking if you think that would be helpful Terry.


----------



## CHJ (13 Sep 2012)

If the mops ever get to the 'grotty' state you can wash them in a drop of normal washing machine liquid.
Rinse well and dry off, spinning in a hand drill will encorage the latter, care with direction you aim them unless you don't mind a shower.

I've only done this with a coarse and medium domed mops that I abused during trials but they came up as nearly new with no noticable loss of fabric stiffness.


----------



## KimG (13 Sep 2012)

Useful Tip, thanks Chas.


----------



## Terry Smart (14 Sep 2012)

Thanks for the kind words above folks, and I'm also grateful to a certain forum member (I won't name names to avoid their blushes) who was kind enough to point me in the direction of this thread. This is currently silly season for us with exhibitions and demos etc, so I'm all over the place -well, more than normal anyway- with varying degrees of internet connection.
We are looking into this, can I ask those that need a reply to bear with me a few days please until I have a few days at base so that I can answer properly?

Thanks.


----------



## al3ph (15 Sep 2012)

Yep same thing here, just purchased them last week, A/B are hard to tell apart, but when spinning B was stiffer, i.e. when put under pressure it deflected a lot less than A, bit annoying getting the brown compound off A was a bit futile but when I swapped them over it all started to work as expected.

I guess it'd help stop this, if the mops could be a bit different in coloration, less likely for the labelling to get confused.


----------



## Chrisnw (16 Sep 2012)

I've just looked at mine and think that mine have been labelled incorrectly too. I haven't had the chance to spin them up because of an epic workshop tidyup but the B wheel certainly seems stiffer than A. I feellike such a fool for not reallising this myself. 

Thanks for the spot.


----------



## paul johnson (16 Sep 2012)

Hi Kim, I have got the 3 mop bealle system and got to say a good bit of kit, I notice your only a couple of miles up the road from me your more than welcome to call round to my workshop and have a look at mine.

Regards Paul.


----------



## KimG (16 Sep 2012)

Thanks Paul, I may well do that sometime!


----------



## Terry Smart (18 Sep 2012)

Hello All

Thank you all for your patience in waiting for a reply. I've finally got half an hour in the office to post a proper answer...

We've already started the process of checking the wheels we have in stock, both by opening up the kits we have and also the 'loose' ones waiting to be bagged or made into kits. Fortunately for us we've had a delay on our latest order for compounds so we have a lot of wheels ready to make kits with but haven't been able to box them up. Just makes the job slightly less onerous for us.

Of the stock we have, it would appear that some of the wheels have been mislabeled. The wheels come into us blank, ready for assembly, and I can only assume that the suppliers didn't label the boxes correctly. We should, of course, have spotted this, but as has already been said the difference between the two is quite slight and only really noticeable if you're looking for it. We have corrected the errant wheels and our stock in the warehouse is all present and correct.

We are also checking stock of the Dome Buffs - that's a horrible job due to the packaging but we're getting there and will have this completed in the next day or so. So far only a very limited number are wrong and I think this dates back to a period when we sub-contracted the assembly to a third party. I can only assume they weren't as careful as they should have been and didn't follow the instructions they were given. The good news (for us) is that we stopped using them quite some time ago so this issue should be very limited.

We're confident that any new stock leaving the warehouse will be correct, and we're taking steps to make sure that this can't happen again.

In the meantime I'd like to apologise to anyone affected by this. 
If you have got a set of wheels or Dome Buffs that are wrong I'd also like to send you a pair of the compounds - 1 (brown) and 2 (white) by way of apology and to replace the the compounds wasted in the cleaning up process. If you have the Dome Buffs and have been unsuccessful in cleaning them up sufficiently we will replace them. I hope this will be acceptable to everyone here.
In either case, please contact me by pm with your address so that I can make suitable arrangements. It would be helpful to also know where and roughly when you purchased these items so that we can check any stock being held by our stockists.

Thank you again for your time, patience and support.


----------



## boysie39 (18 Sep 2012)

Good on ye Terry , I was thinking of ordering some a few months ago , (would that count) . :lol: :lol: 

Good to see another Company on the ball looking after it's customers.


----------



## KimG (18 Sep 2012)

What excellent customer service! Thanks Terry.


----------



## KimG (27 Sep 2012)

My replacement domes and the complimentary compounds arrived today. 

Until I restarted turning in the last few months I had not heard of Chestnut products, having no call for them till recently, I do have a good number of the items now and am very happy with them, but this level of service is par excellence!
My thanks to Terry and the company as well for such great back up.


----------



## loz (27 Sep 2012)

Always great customer service from Chestnut - Well done Terry - I wish other vendors would do the same !


----------



## Terry Smart (27 Sep 2012)

Thanks - actually I felt guilty because it's taken a few days longer than planned and I didn't put an accompanying letter in! Time simply hasn't been on my side this week!


----------



## Blister (27 Sep 2012)

Lovely it's




time :lol:


----------



## al3ph (27 Sep 2012)

Spare bars turned up today! 

Thank you!

Ps. You might want to investigate a MT1/2 mount for your buffing system as the bar solution doesn't work that well, I have to use a specific set of jaws on my chuck, which is a bit time consuming, popping off the chuck and slapping in a MT2 piece would be easier.

Axminster sell a mop arbour which might explain what I mean.

http://www.axminster.co.uk/axminster-la ... prod22741/


----------



## CHJ (27 Sep 2012)

al3ph":21woz0qk said:


> .......Ps. You might want to investigate a MT1/2 mount for your buffing system as the bar solution doesn't work that well, I have to use a specific set of jaws on my chuck, which is a bit time consuming, popping off the chuck and slapping in a MT2 piece would be easier.
> 
> Axminster sell a mop arbour which might explain what I mean.
> 
> http://www.axminster.co.uk/axminster-la ... prod22741/



Can I ask what chuck you have and which jaws cause the problem, judging by the checks I carried out on the most popular chucks currently available when I was making some mandrels the sizes Chestnut use should cover a fare spectrum of manufactures.

Re: a morse taper mandrel; might I make a couple of comments on that score, to be safe in use whilst using a buffing mop a taper fit mandrel should be held securely in in the spindle with a threaded draw bar passed though the spindle.
To do this with any certainty of correct fit would mean draw bars specific to each lathe spindle length and there is always the risk that someone who does not have a hollow spindle would use one without the safety locking.

I would think that providing such an alternative mounting would be a somewhat expensive option.

If you note the Axminster mandrel requires the tailstock to be brought up to the end to provide the safety lock in place of the draw bar. 
Something that would not be possible with the Chestnut system of mounting particularly in the case of domed mops.


----------



## al3ph (27 Sep 2012)

Axminster K10, the only jaws that I've got that work are the B Dovetails, I've also got C Type Dovetail which is my most commonly used, but those aren't appropriate.

hmm actually it might be the "Internal Stepped Jaws" that work best, the other jaws don't hold the bar horizontally accurately enough and you get wobble of mop.
http://www.axminster.co.uk/axminster-in ... prod21596/

Ah yes I see your point about the tailstock, and dome mops, though I though they were meant to be used with a power drill.

If you discount the dome mops then the axminster solution might work, and would remove the requirement for an expensive chuck/jaw combo.

I'm pretty new to this lathe stuff so take any comment from me with a bag of salt or so 




CHJ":15u8gol0 said:


> al3ph":15u8gol0 said:
> 
> 
> > .......Ps. You might want to investigate a MT1/2 mount for your buffing system as the bar solution doesn't work that well, I have to use a specific set of jaws on my chuck, which is a bit time consuming, popping off the chuck and slapping in a MT2 piece would be easier.
> ...


----------



## CHJ (27 Sep 2012)

al3ph":rr091rg6 said:


> Axminster K10, the only jaws that I've got that work are the B Dovetails, I've also got C Type Dovetail which is my most commonly used, but those aren't appropriate.



That's strange, the type C jaws are my main user and the ones that are normally still fitted when I use the Mandrel.
Only thing I've noticed recently is that the new carriers present a smaller bore than the accesory jaws, the original carriers match the jaw bore more closely.

But regardless the SP chuck I have grips the mandrel with or without the accessory jaws fitted.

Are you saying that the carriers when fitted to the K10 do not secure the mandrel, they should regardless of whether a C type accessory jaw is fitted.


----------



## al3ph (28 Sep 2012)

Pretty sure the c jaws are too large, check the axminster site they have the internal jaw measurements so you can double check, the chuck definitely won't work with out jaws, unless I'm meant to be using the smaller of the two bars, which I haven't tried.



CHJ":3ds7h4of said:


> al3ph":3ds7h4of said:
> 
> 
> > Axminster K10, the only jaws that I've got that work are the B Dovetails, I've also got C Type Dovetail which is my most commonly used, but those aren't appropriate.
> ...


----------



## CHJ (28 Sep 2012)

You are putting the smaller stem portion of the Large mandrel in the carrier portion of the chuck and not just the 6mm or so of the accessory jaw ?
On chucks with a larger Carrier Throat the intention is to put the full diameter of the mandrel in the jaw carriers, it looses another 20mm or so of length but may match the central bore better on some chucks/jaw combinations.


----------



## al3ph (28 Sep 2012)

If you look at the image of the k10 

http://www.axminster.co.uk/axminster-cl ... rod800680/

When I try inserting the large mandrel (small bit first), the large diameter part butts up against the four corners on the face of the chuck, giving about 2mm of contact from the jaw carriers, i.e. the bar is to big a diameter to insert properly into the chuck.

If you look at the spec for the c-jaws the minimum internal diameter is 27mm, and your mandrel is 25mm, the other jaw sets are a minimum of 25mm which is barely enough, and these are angled, so very little contact with the mandrel.

http://www.axminster.co.uk/downloads/211302_manual.pdf

This has the specs for the K10, plus jaws, though it doesn`t mention the internal diameter of the chuck etc.







CHJ":d305yi5o said:


> You are putting the smaller stem portion of the Large mandrel in the carrier portion of the chuck and not just the 6mm or so of the jaw carrier ?
> On chucks with a larger Carrier Throat the intention is to put the full diameter of the mandrel in the jaw carriers, it looses another 20mm or so of length but may match the central bore better on some chucks/jaw combinations.


----------



## CHJ (28 Sep 2012)

Can you give me the bore diameter of the through hole in the K10 Chuck please.

I will investigate with the axminster chucks I have later when I get back in.


Are there other members using a K10?


----------



## al3ph (28 Sep 2012)

Can do, will check tonight. You could also ask axminster nicely, as the diameter may differ for the different versions of the chuck.



CHJ":b1varcbc said:


> Can you give me the bore diameter of the through hole in the K10 Chuck please.
> 
> I will investigate with the axminster chucks I have later when I get back in.
> 
> ...


----------



## jumps (28 Sep 2012)

CHJ":1t3aumfz said:


> Can you give me the bore diameter of the through hole in the K10 Chuck please.
> 
> I will investigate with the axminster chucks I have later when I get back in.
> 
> ...



fwiw in this discussion, I believe the large mandrel spigot measures 18mm, and is 25mm overall.

The small mandrel has a spigot of 10mm and a shaft size of 13mm.

I find I can always find a way to secure one, or other, somehow, in the chuck in use with the jaws in use. Secured in the jaw internal corners or carriers I sometimes centre using the tailstock before final tightening.

Using an unsecured MT in the headstock will always work loose - initial trials with a large MT drill chuck proved this to me!

I don't have a K10 though....


----------



## CHJ (28 Sep 2012)

jumps":1y35v0gp said:


> fwiw in this discussion, I believe the large mandrel spigot measures 18mm, and is 25mm overall.
> 
> The small mandrel has a spigot of 10mm and a shaft size of 13mm.
> ......



Yes that is the size chosen for the large mandrel several years ago when Chestnuts asked for an idea of the through bore of the chucks, all those that I personally could check on their behalf and those suppliers/manufacturers I had replies from when I asked were no smaller than 20mm, hence the choice of 18mm to make sure of clearance on chucks available at the time.

There will be some difference in experience of using the smaller mandrel aimed at using in a drill press or hand held electric drill as the design has changed recently, but still aimed at fitting a 10mm chuck.

Using a Axminster SP chuck:
*Fitted with 80mm C jaws and gripping on the 18mm stem.*


*Fitted with 100mm C jaws and gripping on the 25mm stem.*




Using an Axminster Goliath chuck.
*Fitted with Cole jaws and gripping on the 18mm stem.*


----------



## jpt (28 Sep 2012)

It should go in the K10 with the 100mm C jaws ok.

First picture my K10 with the C jaws attached.





The jaws wont close down enough to grip the smaller part of the stem, as in Chas picture above, but if you put the madrel in the open jaws the smaller spiggot will go between the jaw carrier slides and sit on the base of the chuck, as below.





You can then tighten the jaws up and get a very secure grip on the mandrel.





I have used it this way several times.

It is best to do this on the lathe so you can bring up the tailstock with a centre in into the end of the mandrel before tightening the jaws to make sure it is centered properlly.

john


----------



## al3ph (28 Sep 2012)

Internal Diameter is 20mm, just checked the C jaws and they do sort of hold it, but there isn't much to hold on to. Might be able to get it working better using the tailstock to center the bar properly.



CHJ":2zbnoakj said:


> Can you give me the bore diameter of the through hole in the K10 Chuck please.
> 
> I will investigate with the axminster chucks I have later when I get back in.
> 
> ...


----------



## woodyturner (28 Sep 2012)

I have the Axminster K10 and the S/P chucks and I turn a lot 25mm alaminum for anything like the mandrel I always use the step jaws


----------



## al3ph (28 Sep 2012)

woodyturner":2k3dlj24 said:


> I have the Axminster K10 and the S/P chucks and I turn a lot 25mm alaminum for anything like the mandrel I always use the step jaws



Yep thats pretty much the conclusion I can to, they hold the bar true and firmly, might get some of the integrated step jaw/carriers, which would make life a bit easier.


----------



## CHJ (28 Sep 2012)

woodyturner":3dnffwgh said:


> I have the Axminster K10 and the S/P chucks and I turn a lot 25mm alaminum for anything like the mandrel I always use the step jaws


Ideal if you are specifically holding metal for turning but I doubt they are a common tool kit item for most wood turners. And do of course require the changing of the jaw/carriers for most folks who have been turning wood, something that is rather a bind if you have just finished a turning and want to give it a quick buff up. 
Hence the desire to be able to just mount the mandrel without having to adjust the jaws to accommodate it.


----------



## woodyturner (28 Sep 2012)

CHJ":3k73z46x said:


> woodyturner":3k73z46x said:
> 
> 
> > I have the Axminster K10 and the S/P chucks and I turn a lot 25mm alaminum for anything like the mandrel I always use the step jaws
> ...


Not all of them do http://www.axminster.co.uk/axminster-in ... prod21596/ but there is another alternative with all three buffing wheels on a bit of threaded stud with a wooden MT on one end and an indent on the other end put between centers and it takes seconds to set up


----------



## CHJ (28 Sep 2012)

woodyturner":2hjllnlg said:


> ...Not all of them do http://www.axminster.co.uk/axminster-in ... prod21596/ ...




Ahh, cross purposes a bit, for steped jaws I read standard engineering style jaws.


----------



## woodyturner (28 Sep 2012)

CHJ":39b6jwsj said:


> woodyturner":39b6jwsj said:
> 
> 
> > ...Not all of them do http://www.axminster.co.uk/axminster-in ... prod21596/ ...
> ...



They are the jaws that I use but as I said not all of them need for the carriers to be removed also I now understand what you were saying a lot of messing around just for a quick buff I have a pig tail and mop on one side of my slow grinder fore that but than not every body has one of them we can only share and hope it is of help to someone


----------



## CHJ (28 Sep 2012)

Glad to hear you are using mops on a SLOW grinder.
Not too happy when I've seen loose mops used on a standard speed grinder, stiched mops may be fine and not let go but Loose mops are pushing it a bit in the 3000 rpm region of a standard one I think.


----------

