Lathe control/switch upgrade for Woodfast

[davidwalser]

I have a Woodfast lathe that was sold by CSUSA in the late '90s. It's controls are mounted at the headstock and I would like to move them to the tailstock. While I'm doing that, I'd like to upgrade the controls (which currently consist of a power on/off switch, a start/stop switch, and a variable speed switch) to include the ability to switch from forward to reverse. I'm doing this for two reasons: First, the power switch, which has never been too reliable, has quit working and needs to be replaced. Second, while I'm doing that, I might as well move the controls to where I'd like them and add reverse.

Questions:

1. Assuming I keep the current controls mounted where they are (if only so I don't have to mount a plate to cover up the holes), can anyone tell me which switches (with part numbers, if possible) I should buy? Everything needs to be compatible with my existing motor (Leeson 1.5hp 240v) and electronic drive (a Minarick AC100).

2. Does anyone make a kit that would make this upgrade simpler?

3. Is there any reason I shouldn't be trying to do this (other than my own lack of knowledge and competence)?
I'd appreciate any advice you might have.

 

[Bill Boehme]

David, I presume that you have the manual, but if not you can download it here: Miniarik AC100 User Manual.

If the installation is not currently set up with reverse, then it may be necessary to change parameter #17 in the set up menu for both forward and reverse operation as well as designating an available set of terminals on the inverter for the forward/reverse function. I didn't read far enouogh into the manual to see whether that would require a SPST or a SPDT switch. Also check to see if it requires a standard ON-OFF or a momentary contact switch.

It is up to you whether you use the existing controls or buy new ones, but you can't have both wired to your controller.

You cited your lack of knowledge, but plan to proceed anyway. You might want to consider enlisting the aid of someone more familiar with electronics. It might keep you from letting the smoke out of the electronics or creating a potential safety hazard.

 

[hockenbery]

David,

I know little about electronics and I have replaced a controller all by myself.

One thing that helped was taking a close up photo of the wires before disconnecting.
Also I put a piece of tape on each with the terminal it was on and the color the diagram said it was.
Some of the colors require imagination or vastly different lighting for them to be the color my diagram indicated.

My smoke is safely trapped inside the new controller
Bill, if ever let smoke out, how do you get the smoke back in :-(

Have fun,
Al

 

[Bill Boehme]

... Bill, if ever let smoke out, how do you get the smoke back in :-(

Have fun,
Al

It would be tough, especially if it is a windy day.

Speaking of smoke and wind:
Some have tried substituting Delirium for the semiconductor magic smoke, but being an unstable element, the results of using of Delirium are unpredictable. The use of Delirium is best left to the pros where it is often used in smoke replacement therapy for projects that are behind schedule and suffering catastrophic cost overruns after management has blown as much smoke as possible.

 

[Rob Wallace]

Some have tried substituting Delirium for the semiconductor magic smoke, but being an unstable element, the results of using of Delirium are unpredictable. The use of Delirium is best left to the pros where it is often used in smoke replacement therapy for projects that are behind schedule and suffering catastrophic cost overruns after management has blown as much smoke as possible.

You are absolutely correct Bill - delirium is an unstable element. Although I am not a physical chemist, this sounds like a familiar reaction where delirium degenerates to the element administratium through a fairly controlled series of losses of order, logic, and common sense (instead of losing protons, neutrons, and electrons). Given the lack of reactivity, the delirium ---> administratium transition would reduce (to zero) the probability of generating any form of smoke from semiconductors used in the controller, no matter how much current was forced through the circuit. Thus, incorrectly-wired circuits would still be OK, even after major changes (such as deliberate polarity reversal through sensitive diodes), and the controller would be unaffected if administratium semiconductors were used, due to the well-known ineptitude response. Read more about adminitratium HERE.

Rob

 

[Bill Boehme]

Rob, first liar doesn't strand a chance.

David, we're still here. I hope that the humor hijacking didn't drive you away.

You didn't ask, but the existing components make expensive hole plugs and could confuse a visitor who might use the lathe. If you need to cover some holes, make a cover plate by turning a nice looking piece of wood.

 

[davidwalser]

Thanks everyone for the responses. I appreciate both the help and the humor.

To allay everyone's concerns: I'm not flying solo on this. I have a good friend who's an electrical engineer who'll be doing the actual wiring/set up for me. I just want to make sure I've all the parts necessary when we get together to do the work. I know that this is surprising news for most of you on two heads. First, that I'm smart enough not to try this on my own. Second, that someone smart enough to be an EE could also be dumb enough to be my friend. On his side, it's a pure act of charity.

The reason I said to assume that I wouldn't be using the current switches is because I want to use the switches someone would use if starting from scratch. For example, the current power switch has just two positions, on and off. I suspect that it would be better to have a power switch that has three positions, on (forward), off, and on (reverse). I also suspect that one could use my existing power switch by adding a double pole double throw switch. I'd prefer not to do it that way if buying the "proper" switch would allow one switch to do the work of two.

Finally, despite what I said, I never intended to leave any unused switches sticking out of the head stock to serve as dust covers. It would be confusing to someone else using the lathe to have disconnected switches doing nothing but catch dust. Please ignore my phrasing. My humor is dryer than the dust we've been discussing.

 

[Bill Boehme]

.... For example, the current power switch has just two positions, on and off. I suspect that it would be better to have a power switch that has three positions, on (forward), off, and on (reverse).

Maybe yes or maybe no. It depends on what the inverter needs. The switches provide "logic" inputs to the inverter, as in ones and zeroes. Depending on what is required, a third switch position could lead to a third "state" commonly called a "logic maybe" by engineers. You probably already see the "usefulness" of such a state.

 

[odie]

David......

I don't know if this would be a concern for you, but when I converted my Woodfast lathe to variable speed, I specifically intended to move the controls away from their location below the headstock. My reason for this was that I kept turning off the lathe accidentally with my body. Since I do all my final turning (except the foot) with the bowl mounted to a waste block and faceplate, it is necessary to do the outside of the bowl from the headstock side. In order to get a stable, and finely executed cut on that side, I steady the motion of the tool by leaning on the lathe with my arms and body.

Since faceplates and wasteblocks are not the current trend in turning, this may not make much difference to very many turners these days......

ooc

 

[Wally Dickerman]

David......

I don't know if this would be a concern for you, but when I converted my Woodfast lathe to variable speed, I specifically intended to move the controls away from their location below the headstock. My reason for this was that I kept turning off the lathe accidentally with my body. Since I do all my final turning (except the foot) with the bowl mounted to a waste block and faceplate, it is necessary to do the outside of the bowl from the headstock side. In order to get a stable, and finely executed cut on that side, I steady the motion of the tool by leaning on the lathe with my arms and body.

Since faceplates and wasteblocks are not the current trend in turning, this may not make much difference to very many turners these days......

ooc

Yes we are in the minority. I've been using a wasteblock and screwchuck (Glaser) for a lot of years. Since long before the 4-jaw chuck now used by most turners was available. I completely finish the vessel including applying a finish before parting it off and finishing the base.

I do use a 4-jaw chuck at times but usually with a wasteblock. It's nice to not have that knuckle busting thing in the way.

For large or deep pieces a faceplate is the most secure fastening.