thetyreman
Established Member
I've ordered a 1/4" collet, will see if that fixes the problem when it arrives.
I suggest that 'works' ought to be taken with a large pinch of salt - sorry.Well, all I can say is that I have one that works with both.
That's why I wondered if the deviation was uniform along the length.... the cutter would have tended to push the side fence away from the edge of the timber if the router's fence is not very firmly held tight to the wood by the user.
Looking at the first photo the cutter is protruding more than 20mm so the deflection would be greater than .6 of a milI suggest that 'works' ought to be taken with a large pinch of salt - sorry.
View attachment 162838
An 'ER' type collet closes [parallel] over its range but simple draw-bar or closing nut actuated collets just squeeze the nominal size. Over a few thou this is not a problem but you will surely see from my sketch that at 20mm out from the mouth of the collet a 6mm cutter in a ¼" collet will potentially 'wobble' up to 10% of the nominal diameter.
That is assuming that there is sufficient travel in the closing mechanism to actually 'close' the collet. You will also observe that the clamping is at a single point (ring) with all that implies.
I'm not saying that you can't hold cutters smaller than the nominal collet size, but that doing so will not give you the security or accuracy that can normally be expected.
Going the other way - trying to force a ¼" cutter into a 6mm collet - whilst maybe not impossible with a worn collet - would have similar (though different) issues. This is what I suspect is the problem for the @thetyreman
The example I was referring to.I suggest that 'works' ought to be taken with a large pinch of salt - sorry.
View attachment 162838
An 'ER' type collet closes [parallel] over its range but simple draw-bar or closing nut actuated collets just squeeze the nominal size. Over a few thou this is not a problem but you will surely see from my sketch that at 20mm out from the mouth of the collet a 6mm cutter in a ¼" collet will potentially 'wobble' up to 10% of the nominal diameter.
That is assuming that there is sufficient travel in the closing mechanism to actually 'close' the collet. You will also observe that the clamping is at a single point (ring) with all that implies.
I'm not saying that you can't hold cutters smaller than the nominal collet size, but that doing so will not give you the security or accuracy that can normally be expected.
Going the other way - trying to force a ¼" cutter into a 6mm collet - whilst maybe not impossible with a worn collet - would have similar (though different) issues. This is what I suspect is the problem for the @thetyreman
Though not an ER type, that IS a parallel closing collet so does have a 'range' that could well cover 6mm & ¼"The example I was referring to.
I was actually just addressng the basic principle and hadn't looked that closely at the original photo's, but yes, the further 'out' the cutter is the larger will be the size error.Looking at the first photo the cutter is protruding more than 20mm so the deflection would be greater than .6 of a mil
A dado cutter in a tablesaw is the ideal tooling for this kind of work. I've used one for thirty years without any problems whatsoever.If possible, I much prefer cutting grooves using a wing cutter. It's a lot more satisfactory and easier to control. This has its limitations as well, re the distance in from the edge, but I find it gives better results. I found this out when trying to fit Tonks/ Library strip, using a straight-cutter and failing miserably.
well spotted, yes because the truss rod I am installing is not a normal one, it has a rounded bottom not flat, the truss rod is a spoke wheel type and a bit more complicated to install than a regular one.Also when zooming in on your first photo I notice the cutter is a downward cut spiral which must be two flutes surely
Also when zooming in on your first photo I notice the cutter is a downward cut spiral which must be two flutes surely
Enter your email address to join: