Re: Bridgeport servo motors

To tell you the truth I am glad for you. I thought the motor you
picked was a terrible choice. It has a large diameter giving it high
rotational inertia (poor for control, long response time.). That's
why servos are long and thin. And you were going to run it 1-1,
probably the worst choice you can make. DC motors do not run
smoothly at low speeds. So with high rotor inertia and 1-1 belting I
think this would have been a disaster.

Not trying to insult you, just trying to help.

Wally

P.S.

What you may want to look at is surplus center 10-1723 motor. It has
the right servo shape, good torque, and the shaft you want...assuming
no mistake on reverability.

at 111vdc it has 483 0z-in or 30 lb-in torque. I think you said you
were going to run the rutex drives so all this torque would be
available.

Running this motor 3-1 would give you more torque than you could
shake a stick at and 200 IPM rapids. Assuming you have the room for
3-1, you may only easly fit 2-1 if i am understanding your machine
correctly.


--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com, "braidmeister"
<braidmeister@y...> wrote:

>
> Scott,
> Unfortunately...It is correct...they ARE CCW...#$^%^(*()&$!!!!
>
> I just called them and the tech opened up the motor and looked at

the

> brushes. He said that it did sound different running it forwards or
> backwards...BUT the brushes were angled...and there is no easy way

to

> get them timed for both directs.
>
> WHAT A HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT!!!
>
> So now...back to freakin' square 1. I would be interested in other
> types of motors than these or the Ameteks (too slow). Anybody got a
> source for 3 that will work at a decent price? (Decent meaning

better

> than $400 ea)
>
> SO here's a question for you people: Since Surplus Center

advertised

> the motors as bi-directional, who pays for the shipping up and

back?

> Why should I have to pay shipping on something that was falsely
> advertised?
>
> -Brady
>