Messages

Stickan:

Again, thank you for your concern and interest. Incidentally, I returned the kit immediately because, without any discussion of my problem, the supplier asked me to do so. Having looked at the website, I could not see that it was possible to email Tormek direct but have noted this very helpful possibility for the future.

I understand you to indicate that the stone end of the shaft is trued to ensure concentricity of the journal (16mm nominal) with the 12mm diameter where the stone sits. This is clearly desirable, particularly if stones are being removed and replaced frequently as seems to be the trend. The same result could have been achieved at the manufacturing stage, however, by mounting the shaft truly and just machining the 12mm portion (always assuming that the shaft was already round, parallel and of correct diameter).

Stickan

Thank you for this very prompt reply. Unfortunately, I did not see it before trekking up to the post office to return the kit to the supplier; I must now wait to see how they respond.

I have, of course, returned the instructions with the kit but, so far as I recall, there is no mention of this precision truing there, which seems unfortunate. Strictly speaking, the new shaft (and, therefore, the stone) will have a slight swashing motion and whilst I accept that this may not matter in practice I think the feature should have been pointed out and explained in the instructions and also made clear on the website. I wonder whether this feature was included on the original, plated and rust-prone shaft?

I appreciate your valuable contributions to this forum.

I took the advice to upgrade to the new stainless EzyLock shaft but on getting the kit noticed what seemed to be a small but significant problem with the shaft. Here is what I wrote to the supplier:

"Thanks for sending the MSK-250.

Unfortunately, I think there may be a manufacturing defect in the shaft. At the EzyLock end of the nominal 16mm dia portion of the shaft and where the nylon bush sits there is a small but noticeable step 15 mm long; the bulk of the shaft measured with a micrometer is 15.98 dia but the stepped portion is slightly smaller at 15.95 mm dia. This would mean that one of the bushes, which appear to be identical, would be a looser fit than the other.

Will you please look into this with a view to exchange or refund. This is an expensive item and I do not wish to install a defective shaft in my Tormek.

I await an early reply, please."

Ideally, I would l like to know the official Tormek view on this. I know they specify a generous tolerance for the fit of the nylon bushes but presumably the 16 mm nominal length of the shaft should be the same diameter at each end. I would also value comments from the forum.

Ken S:

Thank you for the history - I had not heard of the EA-240.

I take it that the jamming was caused by your inadvertently wrong-way-round attempt at removal causing the EzyLock to be tightened beyond the point at which it could easily be removed - yet another of life's gotchas! I would guess that your practice of frequent wheel removal has meant that correct removal is now second nature.

RichColvin

Thank you for clarifying this method of removing the wheel. Checking back to the Tormek website, I see that this is the official way.

I upgraded my shaft to stainless before the EzyLock came out. Now that a variety of alternative wheels including CBN is available I will probably upgrade again.

Incidentally, I was sorry to learn that Torgny Jansson died some time ago. I have a feeling that my Tormek will outlive me, too!

Rich Colvin and Ken S:

Thank you for your replies. As you may have realized I am running the old style Tormek spindle with 12mm x 1.75mm right hand threads at each end. With this, the advice was to tighten the nut retaining the grinding wheel by hitting the spanner with a hammer!

I'm assuming that both ends of the EzyLok-type spindle are 12mm in diameter. I guess that the reason for the super-coarse 2mm pitch thread of the left hand thread is that it is also "EzyUnlok"; presumably, the standard right hand *nut* on the other end could not be removed by hand pressure (ignoring the threaded plastic knob which allows the honing wheels to be removed by hand).

My other thought was that the difference between the two pitches which you have pointed out plays some part; not for the first time, I wish I had paid more attention in the physics class!

Incidentally, I have seen one complaint that the EzyLok nut could only be removed by the use of a monkey wrench.

From Tormek's description of the MSK-250 shaft kit:

"With the Tormek EzyLock, which is both a nut and a washer, you need no tools for mounting and dismounting the stone. The special pitch on the left hand thread causes the rotation of the wheel to tighten the nut to the right torque."

Does anyone know what this "special pitch" is? Is it essentially any different from the lefthand nut found on eg bench grinders where the inertia of the nut causes it to self-tighten when the machine is started up?

I'm puzzled by some of the comments about the thread on the universal support. Looking at my own, bought some years ago as a replacement for the original unthreaded support, it certainly seems to be a standard M12 thread ie 1.75 mm pitch with metric 60 degree thread form. Did the "square-cut" or acme threads referred to above come along later? I can't see any reason why these special threads should have been thought necessary for the microadjust function.

Perhaps a Tormek representative would clarify this?

Thanks for this information. I guess we shall have to wait a few years to judge the success of "ED" - whatever that is!

I hope my machine has plenty of life left in it but if I were buying new now I would want the improved coating.

My only major problem in nearly ten years' light intermittent use of the Supergrind 2000 has been a rusty shaft. When replacing this I also attended to the various areas of rusting on the casing where the powder coating had lifted. Does anyone know in what way this has now been improved? To my mind, any form of powder coating is likely to fail over time in a wet environment. Wouldn't galvanizing be better whilst remaining economic?

As a newcomer to the forum I would just like to add that I have already found it a very useful source of advice and information - thank you!