Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: part holding
Posted by
Jon Elson
on 2004-09-03 14:52:27 UTC
Keith Clark wrote:
I think the milling forces are too great for the holding power of a magnetic
chuck. (You will also note that surface grinders are often
installed next to walls, so if the power on a line-powered
magnetic chuck fails, the part hits the wall, rather than sailing
through the shop at 250 MPH!
Vacuum chucks are used with small fragile parts , often made of plastic,
and with routers cutting wood, plastic and composite parts.
Generally not used with steel parts, as the cutting forces will
overpower the vacuum even more easily than a magnetic chuck.
(Obviously, the magnetic chuck will only work on ferrous parts.)
Jon
>I just remembered a friend of the family who was an outstandingmagnetic chucks are most frequently used on surface grinders.
>machinist for General Motors in Michigan. He used a magnetic chuck
>in his garage shop. I also saw a used vacuum chuck at the local
>machine tool store this week. What about these two options? Is
>this an old question or fruit for a good discussion?
>
>
I think the milling forces are too great for the holding power of a magnetic
chuck. (You will also note that surface grinders are often
installed next to walls, so if the power on a line-powered
magnetic chuck fails, the part hits the wall, rather than sailing
through the shop at 250 MPH!
Vacuum chucks are used with small fragile parts , often made of plastic,
and with routers cutting wood, plastic and composite parts.
Generally not used with steel parts, as the cutting forces will
overpower the vacuum even more easily than a magnetic chuck.
(Obviously, the magnetic chuck will only work on ferrous parts.)
Jon
Discussion Thread
skykotech
2004-09-02 20:50:38 UTC
part holding
Tom Hubin
2004-09-02 21:07:19 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] part holding
skykotech
2004-09-02 21:38:25 UTC
Re: part holding
Keith Clark
2004-09-02 22:31:20 UTC
Re: part holding
Keith Clark
2004-09-02 22:36:15 UTC
Re: part holding
Doug Chartier
2004-09-03 00:25:05 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] part holding
Bill Vance
2004-09-03 00:34:40 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] part holding
Bob Muse
2004-09-03 01:33:51 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] part holding
Abby Katt
2004-09-03 02:30:31 UTC
Re: part holding
Bill Vance
2004-09-03 03:44:15 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] part holding
Ron K
2004-09-03 07:17:55 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: part holding
R Rogers
2004-09-03 07:20:19 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: part holding
terence figa
2004-09-03 08:07:08 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: part holding
R Rogers
2004-09-03 08:09:49 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] part holding
Bob Muse
2004-09-03 09:44:51 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] part holding
Jon Elson
2004-09-03 14:52:27 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: part holding
Marcus and Eva
2004-09-04 08:30:44 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] part holding
Doug Chartier
2004-09-04 10:05:45 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] part holding
Don Rogers
2004-09-04 22:37:01 UTC
Re: Re: part holding