brightspark
Member
- Messages
- 40,142
- Location
- yarm stockton on tees
i thought u said it was in the landrover
- Thread starter julianf
- Start date
julianf
Member
- Messages
- 8,188
- Location
- devon, uk
note: i know the bow would be an awful place to tie to, but it was just a precaution that i hoped would not be needed - my dogs' leads (well prepared, i know) were not long enough to go anywhere else!
The base has wheels at the back, but sits on the floor at the front.
The base has wheels at the back, but sits on the floor at the front.
A bit of elbow grease and that'll look much tidier.
julianf
Member
- Messages
- 8,188
- Location
- devon, uk
Unloaded the saw this afternoon to a friends workshop (its easier if its there for a few months) and had a very brief look at it.
Apart from being pretty messy, all seems to be there, and will run, but with one (terminal) exception -
The clutch arm wont lock properly against the, umm, locking arm?
If its held down manually, the saw runs, and it will lock when the saw is off, but the moment power / movement is applied, it leaps out.
Im going to clean evreything down next week, but just wondered if anyone had any comments? The catch does not really look worn. I think there is a small amount of play in the locking arm, which i dont think helps, but there's no clear reason.
I spent about 5 or 10 mins on this, so i realise i need more time on it!
Apart from being pretty messy, all seems to be there, and will run, but with one (terminal) exception -
The clutch arm wont lock properly against the, umm, locking arm?
If its held down manually, the saw runs, and it will lock when the saw is off, but the moment power / movement is applied, it leaps out.
Im going to clean evreything down next week, but just wondered if anyone had any comments? The catch does not really look worn. I think there is a small amount of play in the locking arm, which i dont think helps, but there's no clear reason.
I spent about 5 or 10 mins on this, so i realise i need more time on it!
MattF
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 16,564
- Location
- South Yorkshire
I've removed that dog clutch on mine and locked the pulley to the spindle. Drilled and tapped the pulley to take a 1/4" bolt/screw.
The dimple drilled to locate the bolt tip in the bronze sleeve on the shaft which the pulley usually freewheels on:
Pulley fitted without the clutch:
Drilling that hole is the hardest part, due to the limited clearance from the pulley rim.
The dimple drilled to locate the bolt tip in the bronze sleeve on the shaft which the pulley usually freewheels on:
Pulley fitted without the clutch:
Drilling that hole is the hardest part, due to the limited clearance from the pulley rim.
julianf
Member
- Messages
- 8,188
- Location
- devon, uk
Ive just done the first clean of the saw, and am leaving it with the oil to soak in.
Two things ive noticed -
a)
the main pulley on mine is set to spin anticlockwise (when viewed from the pulley side)
you tube videos seem to show units running both ways, but it seems that mine would not jump out of gear in the same way if it were running clockwise
i need to go and look again, as i cant really see how the saw would not just jump on the sprung clutch (as in the clutch itself, rather than the engage handle) if run the wrong way arround
b)
the engage handle is only engaging on about 1/2 of the catch. it seems that if the handle were moved away from the machine (with a shim etc) then it would hold on a greater area. i cant think its correct that its only holding on half the surface of the catch? the handle has some play also, which i think contributes to it jumping off the catch (but, again, im not sure this would be an issue if the main pulley spun the other way)
Two things ive noticed -
a)
the main pulley on mine is set to spin anticlockwise (when viewed from the pulley side)
you tube videos seem to show units running both ways, but it seems that mine would not jump out of gear in the same way if it were running clockwise
i need to go and look again, as i cant really see how the saw would not just jump on the sprung clutch (as in the clutch itself, rather than the engage handle) if run the wrong way arround
b)
the engage handle is only engaging on about 1/2 of the catch. it seems that if the handle were moved away from the machine (with a shim etc) then it would hold on a greater area. i cant think its correct that its only holding on half the surface of the catch? the handle has some play also, which i think contributes to it jumping off the catch (but, again, im not sure this would be an issue if the main pulley spun the other way)
Last edited:
julianf
Member
- Messages
- 8,188
- Location
- devon, uk
Looking at the mating faces of the clutch itself, it does look like my unit is running the wrong way.
None of the faces seem square, but one is certainly a gentle slope.
The engage / disengage handle (the one that the saw itself moves downward to unlock the upper handle) has a slight curve on it, so as to 'miss' (be offset relative to) the upper handle.
If the lower handle was moved across (shims etc) to use more than 50% of the catch surface, it seems that the two handles would then conflict (ie the offset curve of the handle would not be great enough)
I dont really understand this? Can anyone who has both handles confirm the extent to which the mating surfaces of the catch overlap horizontally?
The motor fitted to my unit has this board arrangement (not my photo - mine has more wires, and two more terminals, but the board is the same) -
I need to confirm what the K and S terminals do, before i mess with anything, however, it looks like swapping "T" and "Z" should swap over the start winding, and change the motor direction.
None of the faces seem square, but one is certainly a gentle slope.
The engage / disengage handle (the one that the saw itself moves downward to unlock the upper handle) has a slight curve on it, so as to 'miss' (be offset relative to) the upper handle.
If the lower handle was moved across (shims etc) to use more than 50% of the catch surface, it seems that the two handles would then conflict (ie the offset curve of the handle would not be great enough)
I dont really understand this? Can anyone who has both handles confirm the extent to which the mating surfaces of the catch overlap horizontally?
The motor fitted to my unit has this board arrangement (not my photo - mine has more wires, and two more terminals, but the board is the same) -
I need to confirm what the K and S terminals do, before i mess with anything, however, it looks like swapping "T" and "Z" should swap over the start winding, and change the motor direction.
julianf
Member
- Messages
- 8,188
- Location
- devon, uk
Update -
I changed the direction of the motor, as outlined in this thread - http://www.mig-welding.co.uk/forum/threads/brook-crompton-motor-terminals.51040/
With the main pulley spinning in a clockwise direction (when viewed from the pulley side) the machine holds in gear without any issues at all. The engage lever locks fine, and the dis-engage leaver knocks it out of gear again smoothly.
The cut finish is reasonable. Some saw marks, but nothing that is a problem - just light lines.
Im unsure if filling the dampener will change this or not - obviously the static downward force of the blade would be identical, but i dont know how the dampener will act in cutting. What i mean is, i dont know if its job is simply to lower the blade to the job in a smooth motion, or if it helps with the cutting itself?
Either way, however, if the saw gets no better than it is at the moment, it will still be a great tool for cutting.
I changed the direction of the motor, as outlined in this thread - http://www.mig-welding.co.uk/forum/threads/brook-crompton-motor-terminals.51040/
With the main pulley spinning in a clockwise direction (when viewed from the pulley side) the machine holds in gear without any issues at all. The engage lever locks fine, and the dis-engage leaver knocks it out of gear again smoothly.
The cut finish is reasonable. Some saw marks, but nothing that is a problem - just light lines.
Im unsure if filling the dampener will change this or not - obviously the static downward force of the blade would be identical, but i dont know how the dampener will act in cutting. What i mean is, i dont know if its job is simply to lower the blade to the job in a smooth motion, or if it helps with the cutting itself?
Either way, however, if the saw gets no better than it is at the moment, it will still be a great tool for cutting.
julianf
Member
- Messages
- 8,188
- Location
- devon, uk
One other quick question -
The vice bed on the saw has some ware. The surface should be flat, however, mine has ware approaching the fixed jaw, i assume, were work movement over many years has worn the surface.
This is only actually visible when the fixed jaw is removed, and a small 'ledge' is apparent. Not much at all - i did not measure it, but id be surprised if its more than 0.8mm.
Obviously what this means is that the rest of the bed is at a slight angle / incline, rising up from the fixed jaw. This would make no difference at all to right angle cuts, but mitered cuts would suffer from having a very slight additional angle to them, of, i guess, about 1mm in 300mm (say, 1:360 to make it easy - 1 degree)
Id like to think this is small enough to be negligible, but ive heard talk of building up the bed with weld - surely this must be for way more significant cases?
The vice bed on the saw has some ware. The surface should be flat, however, mine has ware approaching the fixed jaw, i assume, were work movement over many years has worn the surface.
This is only actually visible when the fixed jaw is removed, and a small 'ledge' is apparent. Not much at all - i did not measure it, but id be surprised if its more than 0.8mm.
Obviously what this means is that the rest of the bed is at a slight angle / incline, rising up from the fixed jaw. This would make no difference at all to right angle cuts, but mitered cuts would suffer from having a very slight additional angle to them, of, i guess, about 1mm in 300mm (say, 1:360 to make it easy - 1 degree)
Id like to think this is small enough to be negligible, but ive heard talk of building up the bed with weld - surely this must be for way more significant cases?
brightspark
Member
- Messages
- 40,142
- Location
- yarm stockton on tees
mine was well worn so i built it up with cast iron ark rods and ground it down i realy wouldnt bother about a bit of wear. the saw isnt 100 percent accurate anyhow if the vice jaws arent worn 2 much they will hold the metal at 90 degrees anyhow as the fixed jaw is bolted to the unworn bed
MattF
Forum Supporter
- Messages
- 16,564
- Location
- South Yorkshire
Good to hear the clutch issue was an easy fix.
With regards the bed wear, just try it and see how you go. It's not unusual to find some wear on the ways. If you did need to reface the ways, it'd likely be just as easy to take a smidgeon off the Tee portion, (to elongate it slightly), of the jaws and add a strip of metal along the top of the ways, and countersink and screw that down. Easily replaceable in future if wear becomes an issue again.
With regards the bed wear, just try it and see how you go. It's not unusual to find some wear on the ways. If you did need to reface the ways, it'd likely be just as easy to take a smidgeon off the Tee portion, (to elongate it slightly), of the jaws and add a strip of metal along the top of the ways, and countersink and screw that down. Easily replaceable in future if wear becomes an issue again.
