... When you go to test a lathe you push the tailstock and headstock together and check the points using a steb center or other centers. Now if they line up perfect you are saying great......
No, not great, but this has been so often repeated by woodturners that saying otherwise is like wasting time charging windmills. So, here I am on my steed with lance in hand ready to charge.
Bringing the tailstock up to the headstock to verify that the points align is great, but this only addresses half of the issue because it only checks for radial misalignment. How about angular misalignment? The angular misalignment can be huge and the points may still match at that one particular location. Nothing is perfect and there will always be some angular misalignment, but whether either type of misalignment is important is a function of its magnitude or the way that the turning is mounted, or both. For pen turners, the issue is significant because the mandrel is rigidly coupled to the spindle axis. For turning furniture spindles, there is no issue with either type of misalignment because there is, in essence, a universal joint at each end which means that the spin axis is the centerline between the points no matter how severe the misalignment.
.... The solution we use is to turn a cylinder, with a Morse taper at each end.
We put one in the MT of the headstock and the other in the tail stock. This should align the tail stock......
This is fine as long as the double ended taper is wooden since any misalignment will not damage the taper socket at either end. This solution can be useful under certain conditions such as would be the case when radial or angular misalignment lies completely in a plane parallel to the bed
AND provided that there is enough free play between the ways to allow sufficient movement to compensate for the error. The gotcha' is that it would be a rare condition for alignment to be purely within this plane. Most likely, there is a vertical component and there is nothing that can be done within the scope of ordinary lathe adjustments to compensate for that. Fixing that problem would require some machining on the base of the headstock and tailstock and possibly the bed also.
John
There is a simple check.
Put a block of wood in a chuck length to suit you.
clean the face.
put some non revolving center with a point in the tailstock.
turn on the lathe advance the point of the center slowly to the wood so that it just touches it. You will either scribe a circle with the point or a point.
Point is good. big circle bad. small circle not so bad.
The center point at a specified distance is critcal for supporting a thin stem goblet. drilling an accurate hole and a few other things. Most of the time close is good enough for wood.
-Al
Al, you gave the best advice of all as far as I am concerned. A woodturning lathe is not a precision instrument.
Now, there's an interesting idea! I wonder if one of these double ended morse tapers made from steel has ever been marketed? I'll bet a few would sell, but I doubt that I'd ever buy one.
Yes, I have seen a number of them marketed, but I suggest avoiding them like the plague. You could make a wooden one like Claude suggested, but stay away from such a two headed monster made of steel. The problem is that a Morse taper is intended for precision alignment on the order of a ten thousandth of an inch. If you try to jam a taper into a mating socket when they are misaligned, it is going to cause some damage to the mating surfaces of the tapered parts. While it sounds like a great idea, it really isn't -- it is actually a disaster waiting to happen.
I've come to the conclusion that perfect alignment may give one a sense of satisfaction......but, it's not really that important. This sort of reminds me of new turners who fret over getting the perfect angle to turning tools.......but, most of us realize that isn't that important either......close enough is good enough, and you can eyeball turning tools while grinding. If the edge is sharp, it'll cut just fine.........
Now, you're talking. Woodturning is not rocket science and we do not need the precision of a machine that could be used to build the mirror of the Hubble telescope. (oops, I forgot that the mirror had an error in its curvature)
