Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: MachMotion vs. DIY for a Bridgeport
Posted by
Danny Miller
on 2009-02-18 17:31:19 UTC
OK, I kept thinking that that number wasn't right.
Haven't seen a Bridgeport either.
So listen to Henrik here.
Danny
Henrik Olsson wrote:
Haven't seen a Bridgeport either.
So listen to Henrik here.
Danny
Henrik Olsson wrote:
> Hi Danny,
> I think you've got that a bit wrong.... The G540 does not contain 4 G203's.
> It contains 4 G250's which are rated at 60% of the voltage and half the
> current compared to a G203 (50V/3.5A vs 80V/7A), that makes quite a bit of
> difference when talking about Bridgeport sized machines.
>
> I'm pretty sure that a G540 and the 200oz-in NEMA23 motors you referred to
> are too small for a Bridgeport without going to ridiculous reduction rations
> between the motor and screw. Most Bridgeport conversions I've seen runs on
> 600-1200oz-in step motors.
>
> /Henrik.
>
>
Discussion Thread
danieltmedlin
2009-02-17 15:52:28 UTC
MachMotion vs. DIY for a Bridgeport
Danny Miller
2009-02-17 22:32:05 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] MachMotion vs. DIY for a Bridgeport
Marv Frankel
2009-02-18 05:41:43 UTC
Re: MachMotion vs. DIY for a Bridgeport
Danny Miller
2009-02-18 10:52:42 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: MachMotion vs. DIY for a Bridgeport
Jim Fleig - CNC Services
2009-02-18 11:54:02 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] MachMotion vs. DIY for a Bridgeport
Henrik Olsson
2009-02-18 12:50:38 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: MachMotion vs. DIY for a Bridgeport
Andrew Werby
2009-02-18 13:06:36 UTC
Re: Re: MachMotion vs. DIY for a Bridgeport
Danny Miller
2009-02-18 17:31:19 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: MachMotion vs. DIY for a Bridgeport
Michael Fagan
2009-02-18 18:45:19 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: MachMotion vs. DIY for a Bridgeport
Jim Fleig - CNC Services
2009-02-23 00:12:29 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: MachMotion vs. DIY for a Bridgeport