Home Built Surface Grinder

WyldStyl3 said:
This is a fantastic thread. You guys have inspired me to build one as well. Ordered everything I need yesterday.

I had a thought though. The one like Stromberg Knives Stromberg Knives made, it looks like if you take that top black plate and mount it to the side of the aluminum magnetic chuck instead of the bottom you wouldn't have to mill any of the tooling arm off and it could bolt right up. Depending on the thickness of your plates I suppose.
Click to expand...
Correct, but then you would lose the tapering capability.
 
Im not sure the rail has enough meat to tap it for the tapering adjustment. Furthermore, the extra plateplate do introduce any play anyway. Once it's bolted up and the Chuck is surfaced, it's not going anywhere
 
Kevin McGovern said:
Im not sure the rail has enough meat to tap it for the tapering adjustment. Furthermore, the extra plateplate do introduce any play anyway. Once it's bolted up and the Chuck is surfaced, it's not going anywhere
Click to expand...
I think we're on different pages. You see that top plate in your pic that I have attached below? The one that has the adjustable levers clamping it in place to the plate underneath? The one that is bolted to the magnetic chuck. What I'm talking about will be no different except where that top plate is bolted to. The top plate would have to be a bit wider, but in the same location. Then the side of the chuck would be bolted to the bottom of the plate instead of the side of that plate bolted to the bottom of the chuck. It would work the EXACT same way. It would just let the chuck hang a bit lower so no material would have to be taken off the tooling arm. Does this make sense?

img_20180210_165510492-jpg.847332
 
WyldStyl3 said:
I think we're on different pages. You see that top plate in your pic that I have attached below? The one that has the adjustable levers clamping it in place to the plate underneath? The one that is bolted to the magnetic chuck. What I'm talking about will be no different except where that top plate is bolted to. The top plate would have to be a bit wider, but in the same location. Then the side of the chuck would be bolted to the bottom of the plate instead of the side of that plate bolted to the bottom of the chuck. It would work the EXACT same way. It would just let the chuck hang a bit lower so no material would have to be taken off the tooling arm. Does this make sense?

img_20180210_165510492-jpg.847332
Click to expand...
Ah. I see. Yes that should work.
 
It all depends on type of feed adjust you use if the tooling arm needs milling or not. My arm doesn't require milling as you can in the thread linked on post #211 on previous page.
 
I'm getting ready to build another. The next one I'm going to use the SGR20N rail, instead of the 20. My first has the 20, which is I believe 60mm wide rail. Works great! But I think it's overkill. The 20N is 46mm. It's cheaper, lighter and the roller block is actually slightly longer even though it's more narrow. I'm also going to try make a new magnetic chuck from 3/4" steel bar. I already have 50mm n52 neodymium magnets. Gonna try 2"x12" bar stock. Some of the people have purchased the adjusters. Both myself and KenH made our own adjusting blocks. And I believe making one gives a more precise piece.
 
I will add, that if you look at my chuck, understand I should have used more magnets, set closer together. It works, but I could deal with a stronger hold .
 
Kevin McGovern said:
I will add, that if you look at my chuck, understand I should have used more magnets, set closer together. It works, but I could deal with a stronger hold .
Click to expand...

Absolutely! I agree with Kevin 100% on this. I feel the same with mine. While the holding power is very strong, just seem to want more! And since I have the magnets fairly far apart, I know I could have easily done more. Use as many magnets as the surface will allow.
 
One Armed said:
Absolutely! I agree with Kevin 100% on this. I feel the same with mine. While the holding power is very strong, just seem to want more! And since I have the magnets fairly far apart, I know I could have easily done more. Use as many magnets as the surface will allow.
Click to expand...
I did notice they ae much stronger after having had to resurface it after switching to vertical. Even a few mms closer to the magnets makes a huge difference
 
Last edited:
One Armed said:
I'm getting ready to build another. The next one I'm going to use the SGR20N rail, instead of the 20. My first has the 20, which is I believe 60mm wide rail. Works great! But I think it's overkill. The 20N is 46mm. It's cheaper, lighter and the roller block is actually slightly longer even though it's more narrow. I'm also going to try make a new magnetic chuck from 3/4" steel bar. I already have 50mm n52 neodymium magnets. Gonna try 2"x12" bar stock. Some of the people have purchased the adjusters. Both myself and KenH made our own adjusting blocks. And I believe making one gives a more precise piece.
Click to expand...

I believe it was @kuraki who told me steel makes for a poor choice of material for a magnetic chuck since it’s magnetic in itself.
 
I have been loking for info on the magnetic chuck buildng, but I have not found much that I could understand or would apply to a home builder. I was curious on the shape of the magnets and spacing and of course a thinner magnet would need the poles going the correct way.

If aluminum is better than steel, that is great as it is much easier to machine for me.​
 
Stromberg Knives said:
I believe it was @kuraki who told me steel makes for a poor choice of material for a magnetic chuck since it’s magnetic in itself.
Click to expand...


Not sure why the steel being magnetic, would make it worse?? Seems it would make for a much stronger holding chuck. Although I may just try Aluminum again with more magnets closer together. Really though, the only downside I can see to steel is the weight and it would be more difficult to keep clean. (Because of the magnetism).

On the side, I find it odd that someone who hasn't built one is telling others what WOULD or WOULDN'T work well. (I'm not referring to you Stromberg)
 
One Armed said:
Not sure why the steel being magnetic, would make it worse?? Seems it would make for a much stronger holding chuck. Although I may just try Aluminum again with more magnets closer together. Really though, the only downside I can see to steel is the weight and it would be more difficult to keep clean. (Because of the magnetism).

On the side, I find it odd that someone who hasn't built one is telling others what WOULD or WOULDN'T work well. (I'm not referring to you Stromberg)
Click to expand...
I don't think it would make it worse, but I don't see how steel would make it "better" since neither aluminum nor steel is going to increase the power of a magnet. Aluminum IS easier to clean, which is a constant operation.
 
WC53 said:
I have been loking for info on the magnetic chuck buildng, but I have not found much that I could understand or would apply to a home builder. I was curious on the shape of the magnets and spacing and of course a thinner magnet would need the poles going the correct way.

If aluminum is better than steel, that is great as it is much easier to machine for me.​
Click to expand...

There is this first thread I started(did you read from the beginning? Because this thread has a ton of info throughout!) And KenH started another thread in Knifedogs after him & I were talking. It also has some very clear info. I do believe you would be better served using aluminum. Just use as many magnets as possible, as Kevin pointed out.

And if you will be using 3" belts, do the 2.5" chuck with 60mm n52 magnets. If you are sticking with 2" belts, use a 2" chuck with 50mm magnets.
 
Kevin McGovern said:
I don't think it would make it worse, but I don't see how steel would make it "better" since neither aluminum nor steel is going to increase the power of a magnet. Aluminum IS easier to clean, which is a constant operation.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree with that. It would be more difficult to clean. Does anyone know if the SG1 uses aluminum? I honestly thought it was steel when I built mine, but not sure now. My sole reason for aluminum was the machining aspect. I only had the cheap 1/3hp HF drill press that used to mill the slots for the magnets. Now I have a mill, so I can machine the slots in anything I want! (Maybe I'll make one with ADAMANTIUM:D)

Well, you made me think after the fact Kevin. Weighing the pros & cons, I do think aluminum is the better option. Just use more magnets.
 
One Armed said:
There is this first thread I started(did you read from the beginning? Because this thread has a ton of info throughout!) And KenH started another thread in Knifedogs after him & I were talking. It also has some very clear info. I do believe you would be better served using aluminum. Just use as many magnets as possible, as Kevin pointed out.

And if you will be using 3" belts, do the 2.5" chuck with 60mm n52 magnets. If you are sticking with 2" belts, use a 2" chuck with 50mm magnets.
Click to expand...
good advice. I opted for a 2.5" chuck, as I use 3" wide belts. Of course I can use 2" belts as well. I wanted the flexibility.
 
One Armed said:
Yes, I agree with that. It would be more difficult to clean. Does anyone know if the SG1 uses aluminum? I honestly thought it was steel when I built mine, but not sure now. My sole reason for aluminum was the machining aspect. I only had the cheap 1/3hp HF drill press that used to mill the slots for the magnets. Now I have a mill, so I can machine the slots in anything I want! (Maybe I'll make one with ADAMANTIUM:D)

Well, you made me think after the fact Kevin. Weighing the pros & cons, I do think aluminum is the better option. Just use more magnets.
Click to expand...
The original Travis unit appears to be steel. Like you, I was better able to machine aluminum than steel. It is easier to clean since all the grinding dust accumulates in the magnet channels, where it is easily wiped away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top