Re: Newbie question

Corey,

Congrats on the RF20 Drill/Mill! You will need at least 300 oz/in, no
doubt the 350+ you have seen. No, the "Hobby CNC" 60 oz/in aren't
enough, probably not enough for a Sherline mill/lathe, either. Their
controller boards are probably NOT chopper drives, L/R? Couldn't see
the driver I.C.'s You will want something like Dan's 5A drivers.

Does it have ball screws? Or will you add them? Seems to be a hot
topic for the "larger" mills. ;>)

The Motor mounts/belt drives are probably going to be the hardest part.
Have you found drawings yet? Perhaps someone on this list can provide!

CNCpro would then be a good choice for the driver software, and then
you'll want a CAD/CAM package, or a "free" cad package and a .DXF to
Gcode program. Not that you couldn't write the gcode by hand! Try:

http://www.teleport.com/~mattsonm/autonc.htm

for a "free" editor and learning tool!

Good luck!

Alan KM6VV


"Renner, Corey" wrote:

>
> Thanks for the link to the FAQ, I read through it but didn't find answers to
> my questions.
>
> I just bought an RF20 mill that should be here in a week or two. I'm
> interested in converting it to CNC.
>
> http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/taf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=981
>
> 1. What size steppers would be appropriate? From reading old posts it looks
> like 350-450 oz? Is this right or could I get by with something smaller.
>
> 2. What is my best bet for an controller? I see that Camtronics has two
> different ones, a 2 amp and a 5. It looks like if I were using one of the
> big steppers the 5a would be required. Hobby CNC sells a couple of kits
> that are three axis and include 60oz steppers, I assume that these are too
> small, am I right?
>
> http://www.seanet.com/~dmauch/
> http://hometown.aol.com/drigotti/HobbyCNC.htm
>
> 3. I've seen several websites with RF30's that have been converted to CNC,
> but I did not see information posted on specifics such as steppers used,
> controller type, software used, etc. Does anyone have a link to an
> informative site? I would much rather try to duplicate something that has
> been proven than reinvent the wheel.
>
> thanks in advance,
> c
>