Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Grizzly mini mills

Hi Rich, Jerry, & Scott

Yes, the mini mill does have it's weaknesses and is a bit flimsy in areas.
But I already have a BP for the heavy work and want someting for the small
pieces. There are things that can be done to improve the rigidity of the
machine, and once I've got it home and stripped, I'll look in to this.

Ball screws came from McMaster last time I was in Chicago, and I have
sufficient to do all three axis with plenty to spare. There looks to be
enough room when the rack is removed to fit a ball screw for the Z axis. A
small amount of machining may be required to the head to accomodate the
nut(s).
An assortment of NEMA23 steppers are to hand along with a monster type 42 if
the Z axis needs it. Some small toothed belts and pullies can be used if I
find direct drive to be insufficient. A bank of four G210 drives hooked up to
an EMC box will provide the control.

I'll keep you updated on my progess - Which is likely to be slow. Too many
other projects on the go at the same time.

Regards, Paul.

On Friday 02 November 2001 11:58 pm, Rich Goldner wrote:

> I also have a Grizzly mini-mill. I'm very interested in your CNC
> conversion. Can you offer any details? Are you going to use the
> standard Z-axis or build a leadscrew for it? What size motors are
> you using? Servos or steppers? Which driver card? Any pictures? Are
> you going to go with direct drive or use gears/pullys? What do you
> think the cost will be?

On Saturday 03 November 2001 1:37 am, S.L.Ramsay wrote:

> Regarding the Grizzly mini-mill G8689 and a CNC convertion. If the Grizzly
> line is too flimsy, and the Sherline mills are too small, what is a good
> solid benchtop size mill? What brand and model do you recommend for a
> mini-mill cnc system? Has anyone come up with a viable alternative to the
> Grizzly?
>
> Scott

On Saturday 03 November 2001 2:02 am, Jerry Kimberlin wrote:

> Even for a hobby, there is no sense in going thru all the effort to
> build up a CNC machine only to find that it is unsatisfactory for
> your purpose. For some, the G8689 may be perfectly satisfactory.
> But part of the problem is trying to anticipate what one might do
> with the machine and capturing that capability right at the
> beginning.
>
> JerryK