开云体育

On 3/21/07, Ed <edo@...> wrote:

I just clicked on it as posted - it looks like the period got included
as part of the hyperlink. It works without it. Thanks.



Be sure to check out for small mills and lathes.
Yahoo! Groups Links

On 3/21/07, Ed <edo@...> wrote:

Thanks, Mike. The link no longer works but I found it




Be sure to check out for small mills and lathes.
Yahoo! Groups Links

On 3/21/07, Ed <edo@...> wrote:

I order a Homier over the weekend and got it today! I had planned on
spending the evening cleaning it up, but there was no red grease to be
found. All the bare metal had a light coat of oil on it. The back
splash and pan were both dented, but no creases and I was able to
straighten them out just fine.

Unfortunately, my Enco order won't arrive until tomorrow so I have no
tools yet (or anything to cut).

I ran it per the instructions to break it in and realized that 2500
RPM is pretty fast. I was surprised at how quietly and smoothly it
runs. What speeds are used for cutting aluminum? steel?
Ed




Be sure to check out for small mills and lathes.
Yahoo! Groups Links

----- Original Message -----
From: born4something
To: 7x12minilathe@...
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 6:45 PM
Subject: [7x12minilathe] Re: mini laths (and OH&S)



Hi Ian,

I don't want to knock your training and comments, but I suspect you've
been out of the industry and legislative requirements for a while.

Over the last decade or two there's been a bureaucrat takeover of
industrial safety. I'm sure the drive comes from insurers covering
compensation liability. That in itself is not a bad thing. They measure
risk by payouts. However, they value a life at $X - an obvious
underestimate for the individual. They value an injury at the payout
including ongoing aids, etc. Most significantly, they don't measure the
relative costs of implimenting various alternate risk management
measures, only the savings on payouts. That cannot achieve a fully
balanced outcome.

Yet the legislators are on side and that's resulted in enforcement of a
bureaucratic top-down safety system which often over-rides safety
practices developed over the recent two centuries of industrialisation.
They'd claim consultation. However, the safety legislation enforces a
structure aimed at unskilled workers. Not surprising. The structure was
devised by unskilled administrators forming committees advising
bureaucrats. Maybe I'd best get off my hobby horse at this point and
quote you the legislated hierarchy of controls as used in Australia (and
elsewhere).

From
www.nohsc.gov.au/OHSInformation/Databases/OHSSolutions/hierarchy.htm
<;
.htm> :

The Hierarchy of Controls = preferred order of control measures for OHS
risks.

1. Elimination - controlling the hazard at source. 2.
Substitution - eg. replacing one substance or activity with a less
hazardous one. 3. Engineering - eg. installing guards on machinery
4. Administration - policies and procedures for safe work practices
5. Personal Protective Equipment - eg respirators, ear plugs.

Training is seen as a means to help this all work. However, it is not a
substitute for using the above list. That means an employer who teaches
his employees about the hazards of the lathe chuck but fails to
impliment the highest feasible solution in the list is subject to The
Big Stick. Hence the chuck guard implimenting the Engineering Solution.
Other international jurisdictions will differ in detail but it's pretty
much a global movement.

I have no problem with you training youngsters in the older safety
practices. I do so myself. I also know they are going to live and work
in a world governed by the above approach. When they jab themselves in
the stomach because they stood in line with the unprotected tang of a
file nobody will question their contribution. Only whether the employer
identified the hazard and applied the above process to manage the risk.

So that's the long story behind the chuck guard. And why I dare not
remove it in my workplace. And why hobbiests and anyone else not
beholden to worker's compensation insurance companies are free to remove
it. But I still say SIEG STUFFED UP by putting a 6" chuck guard on a 7"
lathe. In fact, by creating a strong inducement to its removal, Sieg or
their distributors may yet be found liable for "foreseeable
consequences".

John

--- In 7x12minilathe@..., "steam4ian" <fosterscons@...>
wrote:
>
> G'day Mike et al.
> CHUCK GUARD.
> You have to seriously wonder at the value of the chuck guard.
> Somewhere in OH&S regs they say all rotsting pats must be guarded. On
> automatic machines its presence is justified but on manual machines
> it adds little to safety and may in itself create a hazard. It
> obscures you vision when sighting how close the tool is to the chuck
> and puts you at risk of crashing the tool into the chuck.
>
> My lathe has a guard, thankfully without a kill switch so it is
> always up; I only put it down if coolant is being flung about by the
> chuck.
>
> I have seen others in this group advocate leaving the change gear
> cover off. I do not endorse this because it would be easy to let your
> fingers stray towards the gears when using the lathe. The chuck guard
> is another matter.
> Let's do a JSA (Job Safety Analysis)
> First danger: leaving the key in chuck; this should be overcome by
> developing good habits; also starting slowly means the key drops out
> rather than is flung out (this is inherent with the speed control
> needing to be reset.
> Second danger: clothing being caught in the chuck dragging in the
> operator; overcome by wearing correct clothing, short sleeves, no
> ties ec.
> Third danger: ring finger getting caught, ripping off portion of
> finger; overcome by taking rings off.
> Forth danger: Swarf etc flung from chuck into eyes (it does happen);
> overcome by wearing safety glasses.
>
> The list goes on but each risk can be controlled by correct practices.
>
> IMHO, take off the chuck guard and bridge out the limit switch.
>
> As a professional I am safety focused, here is a very recent example.
> I had a family from our church over for a meal. The son is doing
> metal work at school and together we turned up a quicky widget on the
> lathe. The corners need rounding so I showed him how the file must be
> used left handed and stressed that your arms must not cross over the
> chuck and the file should be on a line passing outside the body. Next
> day he went to school and was using a lathe with a file. He
> apparently followed my instructions much to the surprise of his
> teacher who asked how he learned the correct way. Response, "The
> pastor of our church showed me!"
>
> My point. We must learn SAFE PRACTICES along with the skills we
> master and, using groups like this, we must pass them on. the chuck
> guard does little to enhance safe practice, it is appropriately
> named, chuck it away!
>
> One good turn deserves another.
> Regards,
> Ian
>
>
>
>
> --- In 7x12minilathe@..., "Mike Payson" mike@ wrote:
> >
> I'm not sure if it's standard to all of the 7x's now, but the HF adds
> > a chuck saftey shield that is only 3" from the center of the chuck,
> so
> > without removing it, somehow moving your work 3" or so from the
> spindle, the
> > largest work you can possibly turn is 6".
>