Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] To the moderator

I think there was a lot of different types of tracers at one time. I know Gorton had several some everything Hyd and others also with manual controls. But my mill was a CNC from the start and also has manual controls and ball screws etc. Whitey

----- Original Message -----
From: Jon Elson
To: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] To the moderator


Doug Pollard wrote:
>
> I worked in a shop In Fort Lauderdale that bought a fairly large
> hydrolic tracer mill. Because they are a nightmare they bought it for
> almost nothing. We put ball lead screws and stepper motors in it in
> place of hydrolic cylinders. They used a ptogram that ran in windows
> which was a bit of a problem. I think they used widows 95 so widows
> would go nutz now and then but it really made a good heavy duty machine
> though you could never be sure when it would crash. The price was
> right. I would not reject a hydrolic tracer as a possigle conversion if
> you have the ability to convert it.
>
The general design of some of these machines mad it harder to convert.
The Bridgeport tracers have been said to be much more difficult to
retrofit than a manual machine, just due to the way the cylinders were
mounted, you had to modify the main castings a bit. I don't know this
from personal experience, though. Moog hydrapoint machines used
hydraulic motors and ballscrews, so these were excellent conversion
prospects.
(That's a hydraulically-controlled tape NC mill, not a tracer, but there
were some tracers that used hydraulic motors and screws rather than
using the ram diectly to move the table.)

Jon




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]