A stepper motor with a holding torque of 200(mNm)is aquivalent of how many oz-in
Thanks, Marc..
A stepper motor with a holding torque of 200(mNm)is aquivalent of how many oz-in
Thanks, Marc..
Marc,
200 newtons is equal to 719 oz. The mNm is throwing me a little. 200 Millinewtons = .719 oz. Hope this helps.
Opps I found it - 200 mNm = 28.3 oz/in! And that is my final answer!
Regards,
Glen
mNm = Milli Newton Meter ( should read mN/m or mN-m).
Regards,
Glen
Thanks a million man
Marc..
Ok, you guys can tell me to shut up if you're tired of hearing this...Originally Posted by BigDaddyG
Torque is the product of force and distance, so writing oz/in or N/m is wrong. (It would imply you could open a door *infinitely* fast by touching it's hinges... and I guess we all know that's not the case).
Also, products in the metric (SI) system is not expressly written, neither with a '-' nor a '*' nor anything else. So 'mNm' is actually the correct way of writing millinewtonmeter. (Although IMO perhaps Nmm [newtonmillimeter] would be nicer...)
Arvid
I don't remember my math from that far back but isn't the designation Oz/In refering to weight over distance moved? I know it is a torque rating but the leverage would change the end result (ie distance from the fulcrum). the closer to the fulcrum the higher the oz. to move. and the less distance. so the formula would self correct? ie the oz. would go up and the distance down? or am i missing something.Originally Posted by arvidb
thanks
Michael T.
"If you don't stand for something, chances are, you'll fall for anything!"
I'm not very comfortable working with pounds and ounces, but think about it this way:
You get more torque by either increasing the force or increasing the distance from the fulcrum. If you divide by the distance, the torque figure will instead *decrease* with longer distances, and reach infinity at zero distance (since you would divide by zero). In the real world, of course, you get zero torque if you apply the force directly on the fulcrum (i.e. at zero distance), and the torque increases linearly with increased distance; thus torque is proportional to both the force and the distance - or, to force and distance multiplied. (Or if you use SI units, torque equals force times distance.)
I'm not sure what you mean by weight over distance moved... torque is force times distance. And oh, ok, weight of course refers to force of gravity of one pound - i.e. the force 1 lbf? But it's not really distance *moved*, it's simply distance from the fulcrum, and it's not "over" but "times". Hmm, maybe I'm being too picky here, english is not my native language
Don't you americans get to learn things like this at school? The dash '-' in your units stands for product, not division.
Arvid
mNm is milliNewtons*meter; 0ne thousandth of a Newton force at a radius of 1 meter.Originally Posted by arvidb
Nmm is Newtons*millimeter; One Newton force at a radius of one thousandth of a meter.
Not quite the same torque.
My apologies if someone has already pointed this out I got lost in the numbers looking for it. :drowning:
"ie the oz. would go up and the distance down"
Yes, correct, for equal torque you would need to increase the force if the distance is reduced. But try it:
2 "force" * 5 "distance" = 10 "torque". Increase the force and decrease the distance:
5 "force" * 2 "distance" = 10 "torque". Torque stays the same, as you predicted.
And with the division:
100 "force" / 10 "distance" = 10 "torque". Again increase the force and decrease the distance:
10 "force" / 100 "distance" = 0.1 "torque"! This is clearly not right...
Or taken to its extremes:
1 "force" / 0 "distance" = infinite torque.
Arvid
I don't beleive i made any comments on the - verses slash. but yes we do learned stuffs like dat in da schools out her.Don't you americans get to learn things like this at school? The dash '-' in your units stands for product, not division.
I believe that division by 0 is a no-no in math is it not? (damn ders dat "-" again). thus no devision by zero is possible .Butt I aint no enginerrer.
thanks
Michael T.
"If you don't stand for something, chances are, you'll fall for anything!"
Torque measured in oz/in is like this; think of a drum that is 2" diameter, that means it will have a radius of 1", now wrap a string around the drum several times with the beginning end glued to the drum, now hang a weight from the free end, let's say that you can hang 50 onces on the free end before the motor will lose it's position while under power, you have a motor with 50 oz/in holding torque. If your drum was 4" dia. and you could hold 25 oz. without slipping, you would still have 50 oz/in holding torque. Back to the 2" diameter drum, if you can hang 192 ounces on the string without slipping then you have (1) ft/lb holding torque. If your drum is 24" dia. and you can hang 16 oz on the string then you have (1) ft/lb. holding torque.
Torque will always be measured in a Radius and a weight.
Just to be irritatingly precise I think you should switch it to (force)weight and a radius. By convention torque is expressed with the force first and the distance next, lbft to differentiate it from energy which is distance first followed by force, ftlb.Originally Posted by CharlieM
Yeah, division by zero is a no-no. The result of dividing zero by zero is quite interesting:
x/x = 1
x^2/x = x
x/x^2 = 1/x
and
lim x->0 k/x -> infinity (k > 0)
Set x = 0 in the first three equations and you get 0/0 = 1, 0/0 = 0 and 0/0 = 1/0. The last equation instead hints that the result should reach infinity when the divisor is 0 and the dividend is not zero. So three different results depending on which "proof" you use!
So ok, to be mathematically correct, I should have said this:
'Or taken to its extremes:
lim d->0 1 "force" / d "distance" -> infinite "torque".'
Not as clear, is it?
Arvid
Wow, you guys are really into numbers Just reading all those post gives me a headake
Marc..
Originally Posted by arvidb
with a keyboard its about as clear as it gets. but I took higher math and it looks ok to me.. but after 20yrs of not using it. I just cant remember most of it.
they say aqe brings wisdom, but I say age just makes you seam to remember enough to bull$h!t your way through things. (thats wisdom!)
thanks
Michael T.
"If you don't stand for something, chances are, you'll fall for anything!"
*LOL*Originally Posted by miljnor
Glad you like it! You got the interval wrong, however... I guess you meant '1>x>0' - i.e. x is between 0 and 1? Your x is negative (less than one and less than zero )Originally Posted by ViperTX
Arvid
Good catch....Originally Posted by arvidb
Well I suspect that the lim k/x as x -> 0 that most people would believe that the lim is k.....not realizing that when 1>x<0 the dividend causes the divisor to grow....pick x = 1/10, 1/100, 1/1000, 1/1000000000000....K is multiplied by the inverse of x......pretty cool. :wave:Originally Posted by arvidb
140oz/in =1Nm
how I calculate torgue to motor need? mean milling machine crank/handle come motor and how much torgue must need, how calculate this?
first need old real milling reform new stepper system.but dont know how torgue motor need.
secon,my own cnc projekst(small)dont move y-axle, need know torgue what use thats good? 1Nm(o,95Nm) vexta 268 1,6A/5,4V not run axle.
same x-axle too but axle run but when I but hand sledge/taple thats stopped
thing need more torgue but how much.