Reality check? was Re: RF-45
Posted by
ballendo@y...
on 2001-05-15 20:15:22 UTC
List,Drew,
The link you posted shows a table size of 9-1/4 x 32; with an X
travel of 24 inches. Can anyone confirm this?! And can someone who
has converted one of these(rf-45) to cnc, comment on the ACTUAL
travel AFTER the conversion? (the taiwanese specs for travel are the
MAXIMUM POSSIBLE, and mean the table is halfway out of the saddle!).
It also says 9 inches of Y travel. The rf-30 series has a similar
size table and only about 7x18 travel...
Lastly, the pic shows four tee-slots in the table. again, the rf-30
has less (3). 4 slots would imply a larger table, or smaller slots?
What is the base dimension of an rf-45? I want to compare to the rf-
30's I have.
Is this ad correctly stating things?
Thank you in advance.
Ballendo
The link you posted shows a table size of 9-1/4 x 32; with an X
travel of 24 inches. Can anyone confirm this?! And can someone who
has converted one of these(rf-45) to cnc, comment on the ACTUAL
travel AFTER the conversion? (the taiwanese specs for travel are the
MAXIMUM POSSIBLE, and mean the table is halfway out of the saddle!).
It also says 9 inches of Y travel. The rf-30 series has a similar
size table and only about 7x18 travel...
Lastly, the pic shows four tee-slots in the table. again, the rf-30
has less (3). 4 slots would imply a larger table, or smaller slots?
What is the base dimension of an rf-45? I want to compare to the rf-
30's I have.
Is this ad correctly stating things?
Thank you in advance.
Ballendo
--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., Drew Rogge <drew@p...> wrote:
> http://www.grizzly.com/fcgi-bin/lookup.fcgi/products/lookup.cfg?
q=item&kw=G9748
>
> Alan Marconett KM6VV wrote:
> >
> > A quick check on the Grizzly site didn't show a G9748, I'll check
the
> > catalog at home!
> >
> Alan,
> Try:
>
> http://www.grizzly.com/fcgi-bin/lookup.fcgi/products/lookup.cfg?
q=item&kw=G9748
>
> Drew
>
>
> --
> Drew Rogge
> drew@p...
Discussion Thread
ptengin@a...
2001-05-15 03:14:22 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: RF-45
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2001-05-15 11:11:29 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: RF-45
Joe Vicars
2001-05-15 11:16:42 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: RF-45
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2001-05-15 12:09:25 UTC
Re: RF-45
Drew Rogge
2001-05-15 12:18:16 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: RF-45
Drew Rogge
2001-05-15 12:21:40 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: RF-45
Joe Vicars
2001-05-15 12:21:54 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: RF-45
rfs@c...
2001-05-15 16:20:10 UTC
Re: RF-45
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2001-05-15 16:33:10 UTC
Re: RF-45
Drew Rogge
2001-05-15 16:53:13 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: RF-45
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2001-05-15 17:20:53 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: RF-45
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2001-05-15 17:43:27 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: RF-45
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2001-05-15 18:12:28 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: RF-45
Doug Harrison
2001-05-15 18:47:10 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: RF-45
Alan Marconett KM6VV
2001-05-15 19:59:11 UTC
Re: RF-45
ballendo@y...
2001-05-15 20:15:22 UTC
Reality check? was Re: RF-45
dave engvall
2001-05-15 20:19:18 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: RF-45
ptengin@a...
2001-05-17 01:35:14 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: RF-45