high speed spindle (was no subject)

Considder the trim router for a few reasons.

#1) your mount will not change if replacements are needed. model
changes occur on cosmeticly designed units.

#2) some makes have metal bodies so mounting is secure and accurate.

#3) some manufacturers offer multiple sizes of collets.

#4) compact size and high power.

#5) the noise will keep cats and mice out of your shop.

#6) highest power

also, there is a lot of tooling with 1/4 or 1/8 shank so a higher
quality tool will have a high quality collet.

the die griinders offer a much longer housing so if you are doing
modeling in 4 or 5 axis, you can reach much farther. don't pretend
like long tools will work, a microscopic wobble at 3,000 rpm is a
tool whipping action at 30,0000 rpm.


Trim Router: 30K rpm-
1/4" collet
5.6Amp

Rotary Saw:30K rpm-
1/8 & 1/4 collet
5 amp

1-1/2" Die Grinder:25K rpm-
1/8 & 1/4 collet
3 amp

2" Die Grinder:19K rpm-
1/8 & 1/4 collet
5 amp

Dave

=========

--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, "washcomp" <jeff@w...> wrote:
>
>
> A bridgepport is a great mill, but lacks the high speed required
for
> miniature CNC work and engraving. I'm thinking of attaching a high
> speed spindle to my Bridgeport spindle with an Erickson 30 holder.
> It would hang on a bracket similar to what Jon Elson shows on his
web
> site, but under the spindle.
>
> http://www.pico-systems.com/wwspndl.html
>
> Any preference for which electric tool is better for this
application
> (die grinders, trim routers and cut-out tools)?
>
> So you don't have to look them up (using Dewalt as an example):
>
> Tool type Speed HP or watts (if
> listed) Current Collet weight
>
> Trim Router: 30K rpm 7/8HP 5.6
> AMP 1/4" collet 4.75 pounds
> Rotary Saw: 30K rpm ?
> 5.0 AMP 1/8 & 1/4 collet 3.2 pounds
> 1-1/2" Die Grinder: 25K rpm 350W 3.0
> AMP 1/8 & 1/4 collet 3.25 pounds
> 2" Die Grinder: 19K rpm 485W
5.0
> AMP 1/8 & 1/4 collet 6.0 pounds
>
> Even though I may have to create an 1/8" collet, I'm thinking the
> trim router gives the most bang for the buck, but I'm interested in
> your take on it.
>
> Thanks again and regards,
> Jeff