Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Using unsupported MT accessories.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    "Brownsville", North Queensland, Australia.
    Posts
    289

    Using unsupported MT accessories.

    Like a lot of things we do in wood turning - we get away with many slack practices, until one day we have an "accident." Unfortunately many turners don’t manage hazards and risk very well.

    We may perceive the risk associated with using MT accessories in driven applications as low but some hazards do exist, & the potential injuries can be serious.

    Just because a “tool” has a Jarno or MT1, 2 or 3 taper (I will just use MT as a generic term) does not necessarily mean it is suitable for use as an unsupported “driven accessory” on a wood lathe, or that the omission of a thread for the use of a draw bar correlates as “a draw bar is not required in all MT applications.”

    MT drive & live centres, accessory arbors for items like cup chucks etc rely upon static friction to secure the MT taper in position. We want the mating MT surfaces to not move relative to each other i.e. not slip, and not to come apart so that we can drive a work piece and securely hold it where we want it.

    The static friction is maintained by a positive axial force i.e. a force into the MT socket; negative force is away from the socket. On a drill press the press exerts the axial force/load on the MT, on a lathe the screw thread (or the lever in plunge/ram styles) in the tailstock delivers the positive axial force. MT drive & live centers rarely (if ever?) make provision for use of a draw bar, because on a lathe they are almost always used as a pair between centres so a positive axial load is maintained against the MT tapers unless the blank fails.

    If for any reason that static friction is over come then the driven accessory/centre may slip (loose drive) or to move axially outwards, wobble and work its way out of the female MT taper (socket). Ever had a Jacobs chuck drop out of a drill press while there was no load on it; or the Jacobs chuck work loose from the tailstock while withdrawing a drill bit from the wood – negative axial load!

    MT accessories are an entirely different proposition as they are often used by wood turners in unsupported mode i.e. no draw bar & no tail stock support. Tools like a MT Jacobs Chuck to hold/chuck small spindle pieces in the head stock; pendant chucks; as a mandrel for a collet chuck body, sanding discs, or friction/jamb chuck.

    These unsupported applications present the additional hazard that they do not always maintain the positive axial force required to maintain the static friction fit and may work loose. In fact some wood turning tasks using buffs or certain cuts generate considerable negative axial forces!

    The main causes of unsupported MT tapers working loose generally are

    • dirty MT tapers, foreign objects, rust, oil, dust, shavings caught in the taper
    • insufficient positive axial force to maintain the static friction
    • particular wood turning cuts (RH Vee & Cove cuts) generate negative axial forces on the blank,


    It is a relatively simple task to over come or eliminate the hazard,

    • don’t use a MT accessory with out a draw bar in unsupported applications, or where negative axial loads are created,
    • or choose MT accessories with provision for a draw bar, and install a draw bar,
    • or choose an accessory that threads directly onto the head stock spindle.


    Ultimately it is the individual turner’s decision. Is the perceived risk and the potential severity of an injury high enough to warrant addressing the potential hazard? How much time does it take to fit a draw bar?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Fort Pierce, Florida
    Posts
    3,498
    Which is why I sold the MT collet chuck (not MT collets) after one use and bought an ER collet chuck that threads onto the spindle. Good article, thanks Geoff.
    Retired - when every day is Saturday (unless it's Sunday).

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Carlisle, Pa
    Posts
    285
    Blog Entries
    1
    I never really thought about any of this. Thanks for posting.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    "Brownsville", North Queensland, Australia.
    Posts
    289
    A couple of photos,

    ER_collet_v_MT2.jpg

    The two ER25 Collet Chuck bodies on the left & the spindle adaptor (1"x8 to 1"x10) are made by Vermec, however Beall & Apprentice make a similar collet chuck units with a threaded chuck body. The tanged MT2 spindle on the Jacobs Chuck is not suitable for unsupported work because a draw bar cannot be fitted.

    Nova Mercury tailstock quill detail.jpgNova Mercury tailstock quill WC.jpg

    Teknatool had a nice little design enhancement on the Nova Mercury lathe which used MT2 collets with a Collet Clamping Nut. This design does not require a drawbar and has the added benefit that longer spindle items can be fed through the hollow tailstock quill or a deep boring brill bit can be held along its shaft. The most significant benefit though was the minimal loss of between centers length for drilling / boring operations on a mini lathe whereas a Jacobs Chuck would loose 3 to 4" of between centers length. The only negative was that collets were only available in four sizes.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    "Brownsville", North Queensland, Australia.
    Posts
    289
    Marvin Hasenak raised a very good point about the typical construction with a Jacobs Taper (JT) from the MT2 spindle mandrel into the Jacobs chuck body. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Machine_taper

    Many new & experienced wood turners are not aware of how our tools are constructed so don't even consider the potential risk of a Jacobs Chuck MT2 coming out of the head stock while in use or the JT separating from the spindle to chuck. I have seen many instances of Jacobs Chucks working the MT2 loose from the head stock while turning and from the tail stock while drilling but very few instances of a JT separating in use. Personally I have had a cheap Jacobs Chuck JT cause issues because of poor machining & poor factory QC & assembly - it is now scrap metal.

    My message about safety is consider the potential hazards, then the risk i.e. potential frequency and severity of injuries. All I am saying is that some tools can be used safely if a turner understands the hazards & potential risk but they may not be the best choice in a particular application.

    Morse tapers and threaded chucks/inserts are antiquated in production manufacturing because of their inefficiency in a production environment and the inherent dangers of using them in particular applications i.e. a MT 2 accessory in unsupported mode or a threaded insert with the lathe running in "reverse." Wood turners and manufacturers continue to use them because they are economical to manufacture, robust, simple to use & maintain but they do have some potential hazards if used inappropriately.

    (reposted to this thread)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •