2013/10/1 andy pugh <[email protected]>

> On 1 October 2013 10:29, Sven Wesley <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Thanks Andy. I think there's too much play for rigid tapping with the
> > gearbox, or do you rigid tap with your Harrison?
>
> I haven't actually tried rigid tapping yet.
> However, the sensors are sensing gears that are rigidly attached to
> the spindle, so it ought to work.
>
> Presumably there is a final stage gear in your machine that could be used.
>
>
The original spec is 580-2900 RPM for the highest gear if I don't remember
wrong. If the engine can handle lower RPM with a good VFD (I have a Bosch
laying in the workshop that should work) it shouldn't be a problem to stay
on the highest gear all the time as tapping isn't a brute force operation.
I should be able to top up the max speed a bit too. On the other hand,
planing a piece of steel would be nice with the low gear so I should try to
figure out how to control the hydraulics from the controller cards.

Higher RPM drives me to a larger modification though. I can get my hands on
a belt driven spindle. Then I need another motor that handles the wide RPM
range which isn't the cheapest. There are identical machines with max RPM
specified to 3600 so it seems that the machine can handle a bit better
speeds. I need to find out what in the setup that is the limiting factor,
either bearings or the gears. I would like to reach at least 6000 RPM to
meet the cutting speeds I will reach with the new servo system.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from 
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134791&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Emc-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Reply via email to