Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [southbend10k] Re: on pm new 10K

Expand Messages
  • Chris Strazzeri
    Hi Jordan,   I think Anthony did a good job of doing that. I really do think that if SB thought they could get the same results using additional pulley
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 26, 2010
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Jordan,
       
      I think Anthony did a good job of doing that. I really do think that if SB thought they could get the same results using additional pulley reduction they would have done it, as it would have reduced manufacturing cost considerably. Even if vari-speed motors could produce equivalent torque at very low speeds, the loss of the 'inertia factor', in the rotor can't be dismissed either.
       
      Interesting discussion gentlemen..
       
      Chris

       


      From: Jordan <jwprincic@...>
      To: southbend10k@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Sat, September 25, 2010 11:48:43 PM
      Subject: [southbend10k] Re: on pm new 10K

       

      Thanks Chris, but that doesn't tell me anything about the whys and wherefores.


      Jordan



      ********

      Posted by: "Chris Strazzeri"


      Well consider this....  Do you really think that any manufacturer would consider
      incurring such a considerable added expense of what back gears entails if they
      didn't have too?

    • Chris Strazzeri
      Yahoo appears to be doing that hiccup thing again. This was posted a week ago and just made it into my mailbox today, for the second time I guess!    
      Message 2 of 21 , Oct 2, 2010
      • 0 Attachment
        Yahoo appears to be doing that 'hiccup' thing again. This was posted a week ago and just made it into my mailbox today, for the second time I guess!
         

         


        From: Chris Strazzeri <cjstrazz@...>
        To: southbend10k@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sun, September 26, 2010 8:45:37 AM
        Subject: Re: [southbend10k] Re: on pm new 10K

         

        Hi Jordan,
         
        I think Anthony did a good job of doing that. I really do think that if SB thought they could get the same results using additional pulley reduction they would have done it, as it would have reduced manufacturing cost considerably. Even if vari-speed motors could produce equivalent torque at very low speeds, the loss of the 'inertia factor', in the rotor can't be dismissed either.
         
        Interesting discussion gentlemen..
         
        Chris

         


        From: Jordan <jwprincic@...>
        To: southbend10k@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sat, September 25, 2010 11:48:43 PM
        Subject: [southbend10k] Re: on pm new 10K

         

        Thanks Chris, but that doesn't tell me anything about the whys and wherefores.


        Jordan



        ********

        Posted by: "Chris Strazzeri"


        Well consider this....  Do you really think that any manufacturer would consider
        incurring such a considerable added expense of what back gears entails if they
        didn't have too?

      • davesmith1800
        I have try the low speed and poly belt with a DC motor it turn the spindle at a low speed of 28 RPM with out using the back gears. This low speed did not cut
        Message 3 of 21 , Oct 2, 2010
        • 0 Attachment
          I have try the low speed and poly belt with a DC motor it turn the spindle at a low speed of 28 RPM with out using the back gears.
          This low speed did not cut well not using the back gears.

          I sold this lathe and got a UMD type the old ways works the best

          Dave

          --- In southbend10k@yahoogroups.com, Jordan <jwprincic@...> wrote:
          >
          > Hi Anthony,
          > I hadn't thought of slowing the motor, and accept that it might be less
          > efficient at low speeds.
          > Like gears, pulleys/belts can be torque converters too, but I guess
          > gears could be more compact than another probably 2 belts to get the
          > equivalent performance. Poly-vee belts could help keep pulleys small though.
          > I wouldn't necessarily dismiss a belt-only lathe, but then I haven't
          > experienced one!
          >
          > Jordan
          >
          > ********
          >
          > The big benefit of back gear over other means of providing lower spindle
          > speeds is increased torque......
          >
          > Anthony
          > Berkeley, Calif.
          >
        • Jordan
          Hi Chris, From what I ve read here, I now understand that it s asking a lot of a belt-only system, to provide the large ratio drop such as back gears can
          Message 4 of 21 , Oct 5, 2010
          • 0 Attachment
            Hi Chris,

            From what I've read here, I now understand that it's asking a lot of a
            belt-only system, to provide the large ratio drop such as back gears can
            provide.
            Sometimes I keep pumping for info, in case it gets lost "in the mists of
            time". Thanks for the responses, fellas!

            Jordan

            *******
            Hi Jordan,

            I think Anthony did a good job of doing that. I really do think that if SB
            thought they could get the same results using additional pulley
            reduction they
            would have done it, as it would have reduced manufacturing cost
            considerably.
            Even if vari-speed motors could produce equivalent torque at very low
            speeds,
            the loss of the 'inertia factor', in the rotor can't be dismissed either.

            Interesting discussion gentlemen..

            Chris


            ****
            Thanks Chris, but that doesn't tell me anything about the whys and
            wherefores.
            Jordan
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.