Chestnut Buffing wheels, is this right?

[Terry Smart]

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]

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]

What excellent customer service! Thanks Terry.

 

[KimG]

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]

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

 

[Terry Smart]

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]

Lovely it's

time :lol:

 

[al3ph]

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]

.......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]

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

.......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.

 

[CHJ]

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]

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.

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.

 

[CHJ]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

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?

 

[jumps]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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.

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?