Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] To the moderator

Jon Elson wrote:

>
> 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
>
>

Jon, Speaking of the MOOG nc mill They brought me one on demo to do a
job which had a lot of dememtions tolerenced to .oo3 center to center.
This I think was the first year they were in production maybe 1966.
The machine could not hold the tolerence. They may have gotten better
in later models. I would think you are right though it would seem to me
an excellent machine to convert as it was a quality machine and would be
a quick and easy conversion. I would think it would be hard to find
one that has not been converted though Doug