[Rob_M.]

Geof and Gar,

You are correct and I am aware of that. We do a lot of hogging, so when the machine bogs down it's rather annoying, we've learned to live with it I guess it would be "nicer" if 100% spindle load meant 30hp. In all reality for the cost of the machine it works really well.

[Geof]

Geof and Gar,

You are correct and I am aware of that. We do a lot of hogging, so when the machine bogs down it's rather annoying, we've learned to live with it I guess it would be "nicer" if 100% spindle load meant 30hp. In all reality for the cost of the machine it works really well.

Normally I machine aluminum and find they perform very well. On steel it is different and one compromise solution I use on a SuperMinimill when I am dealing with hot rolled steel is to go fairly high speed, smallish depth of cut and a good feed with a small face mill using an air blast.

But it is not a good choice of machine for steel I think.

[gar]

070614-1927 EST USA

Here is a source of some spindle information.

http://www.haascnc.com/pdf/brochure/SLBrochure.pdf

I found this thru Google. On HAAS's web site I could not figure out how to find it.

See pages 12 and 13.

Note: the comment on duty cycle. However, there is much information not said. If you ran at 200% for 5 minutes, then how long must you wait before you can run continuous at 100%, and what must you do during the wait period.

I do not see where HAAS specifically states what the magnitude of "continuous horsepower" is for a given front panel label, such as SL-20. It seems to be implied, but not explictly stated that an SL-20 has a continuous 20 HP rating above N RPM. Nor does it say at what ambient temperature range this applies.

If you measured the DC voltage and current from the capacitor bank to the spindle drive you can estimate the power to the motor. A snap on Fluke Hall device current probe will allow you to measure DC currect without opening the wire.

HAAS continues to use the wrong units for torque. Torque is not measured in ft-# but rather by #-ft. This incorrect useage is propogated by ignorant torque wrench manufacturers. See the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, and I suspect most if not all college physics textbooks. Note ft-# is used to measure work. If you raise 1# 1ft, then you have done 1 ft-# of work, and you have stored 1 ft-# of energy. This has no relation to torque until other factors are included, RPM, power, and time.

Also notice that below some speed the drive is constant torque. Above this speed it is approximately constant HP.

.

[gizmo_454]

070614-1927 EST USA

HAAS continues to use the wrong units for torque. Torque is not measured in ft-# but rather by #-ft. This incorrect useage is propogated by ignorant torque wrench manufacturers. See the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, and I suspect most if not all college physics textbooks. Note ft-# is used to measure work. If you raise 1# 1ft, then you have done 1 ft-# of work, and you have stored 1 ft-# of energy. This has no relation to torque until other factors are included, RPM, power, and time.

.

The way I understand this, as a once Math major/Physics minor, is relatively simple.

A ft*lb or lb*ft are one in the same. Doesn't matter which way it's stated. Unlike mph, (mi/hr), the ft*lb is a multiplication where mi/hr is a division. In other words, for ft*lb, if ft=1 and lb=2, then 1*2=2*1. For mi/hr, if mi=1 and hr=2, then 1/2 does not = 2/1.

Do correct me if I am wrong, but from what I remember, this is correct.

[gar]

070618-2209 EST USA

gizmo_454:

It has nothing to do with multiplicativeness. It has to do with names of units of measure.

Treated as one type of measurement TORQUE is not the same measurement as WORK. These are two different types of measurement. And they have different names for their units of measurement. One of the names of a unit of measurement of TORQUE is #-ft, and another is NewtonMeter. Both have the force element in the name first.

To distinguish TORQUE measurements from WORK there is a different name for the unit of work and it is ft-#, etc.

(edit)
My 40th Edition of the Handbook of Chemistry and Physics defines under Torque on p 3171
Pound-foot = 1.3558 x 10 to the 7 power dyne-centimeters

Under Work and Energy on p 3167-3168
Foot-pound = 0.138255 kilogram-meter (edit 2) here is an inconsistency in that kilogram-meter is being used instead of meter-kilogram(end edit 2)

My College Physics book by Haussman and Slack is lost, but I believe they made an important differentiation between the said units.

(end edit)

.

[gar]

070619-0648 EST USA

Two more references:

My high school physics book Physics Part One Mechanics by Max J. Irland and E. E. Ensign.

On page 8-1 under Work the units are defined as foot-pounds. Also listed are "joules, kilogram-meters, foot-poundals, inch-ounces, etc."
On page 6-4 under Torque the units are defined as pounds-feet.


In Electrical Engineers Handbook by Pender and McIlwain, John Wiley & Sons, 1947 printing are references also.

On page 1-54 Table 14 units of torque are shown as pound-feet and their metric equivalents.
On the next page 1-55 under Work in Table 16 the units of work are shown as foot-pounds.


My physics professors were the primary persons to emphasize the difference in the unit names.


Now consider the logical reason for different names. Suppose everyone in the world was named John Smith, then the name would serve no useful purpose to distinguish different persons. We use names to identify things. And that is the case here. If I talk about #-ft, then by the name I have an immediate association with torque. Whereas, if I talk about ft-#, then the indication is work.

In the equation
HP = RPM * T / 5252
I have both work and torque. HP is the rate of doing work, 550 ft-#/second. If I apply torque thru a distance (angular), then I do work. If I apply a torque, but do not move, then I am doing 0 work. These are different entities, and deserve different names for both the entities and their units.

If I write the equation
x = f * d
then this can represent many different physical conditions depending upon with what I associate x, f, and d. The equation is good for Ohm's law given the correct association. Or work or torque or temperature, and so on. To make use of this equation I need useful and distinguishable names for the variables and constants.

.

[gtrjunkie]

I'd like to see a D&T match just like the H&T match. Been burned by this a few times by changing tool #'s, deleting sections of program with it in, missing one, and then when the tool runs, it reads the D of the tool before it which with my luck usually always has a neg. offset. Just happened today to another guy. He was doing an 8" bore +-.0008 with a copy mill. He changed the tool#, changed the D. The programmer had the tool doing another feature before the bore that was already done so the machinist took that part out of the program deleting the D with it so it ended up running the D from the previous tool which was -.002 which left the bore .004 O/S. Different H&T will alarm(unless off) but a T&D mismatch can be just as devastating.