Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Moog Hydrapoint

stirlinguy wrote:

> Hi Jon,
>
> Some good points here. I was unaware of the hydraulic problems you
> mention. Good thing to consider because the machine is resident in
> my garage.
>
> The Moog doesn't use servo valves (although I really don't know what
> you mean by servo valve - I'm assuming something electrically
> driven).

There have been a number of later CNC systems with hydraulic drive and
electronic control. They generally use Moog proportional hydraulic servo
valves. These valves have a tiny valve shuttle driven by a pair of
opposing solenoid coils. This valve drives a servo piston which operates
a larger valve, and the flow controlled by that valve drives either a
double-acting cylinder or a hydraulic motor. These systems are
relatively maintainable, although still expensive and power hungry.

> What it uses are hydraulic cylinders to provide the motion
> with air driven logic. There are a series of holes .1 apart along
> the length of the axis and a rotary device with 100 holes and the end
> (to give .001) all driven by air.

This is an earlier generation. I don't know whether Moog sold these to
Cincinnatti, or they made up their own similar version of this.

> The machine has hydraulic cylinders but there are cover plates
> exactly where the handwheels go on a regular bridgeport. The table
> castings all look the same as a regular bridgeport. I assuming that
> ballscrews can be fitted in the same manner as a normal bridgport.

Well, it sounds like it could be fitted back to lead screws. Some bridgeport
hydraulic tracer mills have been reported to be VERY hard to convert to
leadscrews, but yours may be a drop-in retrofit.

Jon