Hello Guest it is April 18, 2024, 12:17:11 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - simpson36

491
Time for new stuff. Two topics the carousel pod and the claw. NOTE the photo attaching did not work again, so I am using the previous method

First photo is a test rig for the prototype # 2 gripper type Carousel pod. It works perfectly, holds the adapter tight against the o-ring seal and is just cool looking. So after much contemplation, Ive decided against doing the hybrid prototype and will stick with the gripper pod. It is a little bit more challenging to make and more $$, but not when compared against doing an entire third prototype. I wanted to avoid torquing the carousel with the release cylinder above the pods, but the force needed to yank the adapter out of the hybrid pod might well be more then the cylinder exerts, so that became something of a moot point.



Enough about the pod. On to the CLAW . . .  dun duuuun <- scary sound effect  ::)

OK, the claw has a rocker in place of the finger on the previous  . .  hand . .  (it was not strong  enough to enjoy true claw status). The rocker snaps smartly to its open and closed positions by way of an over-center spring plunger arrangement. The force is quite high and it requires a very enthusiastic deceleration to dislodge the adapter.

Which brings us to the safety interlock. When the claw rocker is in the closed position, the spring loaded interlock plunger moves between the rocker and the claw body, interfering with the claw rotation and preventing the release of the adapter. The plunger is retracted by the solenoid which allows the rocker to  . .  rock . . and release the tool. The rocker remains in the open position under spring pressue until it is again slapped around an adapter. I have messed with it a bit and it seems to be working as intended so this will be the final design for the Claw. The pod will get some minor improvements to make the interlock a little bit more bulletproof and that wraps up the tool transfer mechanisms for the ATC.

Last order of business will be the actuators for the arm and the carousel, but that will have to wait as I have higher priorities ahead of this.

I hope everyone has enjoyed the thread so far. My objective here was not to bring cool finished parts for show and tell, but rather to show the development process that results in the cool parts . .  including the fails which are part of the normal flow. You hope the design will pass all testing and be a done deal (like the first spindle gripper), or perhaps have some typical adjustments and minor changes and still move into the light. Really you don't like to abandon finished prototypes altogether, but in engineering we have a saying; 'you can't polish a turd'. Mo better go back to the drawing board than to break out the brasso and have at it. The first claw was a clear fail  . .  which is bad. The first pod, while functional, was supplanted by a superior idea . . which is not so bad.




492
You asked for participation(;-)  Be Careful what you ask for.  LOL

Your participation is;   Usually interesting. Occasionally entertaining. Always welcome and appreciated.

493
A 'linear' relationship means that the calculation is the same at every point in the curve.

Actually....  conventionally, a "linear relationship" means a graph of the relationship would yield a straight line.  For example, Y = 3 * X is a linear relationship, while Y = 1 / X is not.  Both *are* "linear equations", since neither contains any exponentials, logs, trig functions, or or non-linear terms.


If Y is always 1/X and there are no other terms that change this relationship, the the relationship is linear . . . not meaning a straight line, but rather unchanging . . . like a staight line . . . only different.  ???  On topic, the relationship between torque, time and horepower does not change with torque, time or horsepower, so what shall we call that relationship?

Easy to see there is bordome brewing. I will post some photos of the finished Rev1 claw. Then the red pencils can come out and we will resume the fun.

494
YEP Dan has it right. Torque is the measure of FORCE. HP is a measure of work over time.   HP is a calculation and torque is a true measurment.
This is semantics. You are just saying the same thing in a different way. I don't know how you define a 'true' measurment. If you put a motor on a dyno, you are measuring toque and you are also measuring speed (time in the equation).

However I will add that torque is also a static force. I doubt you have a way of directly measuring torque in a practical way with a machine spindle, However, you CAN use the motors HP power curve to calculate the torque at any point. Since torque is what generates the stress on the mechanism (which I think was your point), then you can assess the effect, but you would get the torque out of the HP calculation . . which is linear.

If the manuf provides HP curve and also the torque curve, then there is no need to know the formula and the relationship is irrelevant, but inquiring minds may still want to know how it all fits together.

Quote
Another part of the spindle equation is RPM and balance.  The inertial value of the imbalance squares as the rpm doubles making balance very important for high speed spindles.  It can add to the drawbar pressure equation.
Agreed. Certainly the lateral forces rise exponentially (as opposed to linear) as the speed rises. Recall that I found two separate drawbar specs for BT30 differentiated by RPM. Incidentally I would point out that the drawbar tension is force and not pressure, but that would be nit picking, don't you think?  ;)


495
Torque and HP are essentially the same thing. HP is just torque over time, and the relationship is linear.

Not exactly. Power is torque times rotational speed.

That is correct, Dan. However, consider what rotational speed is. It is revolutions per MINUTE. It is time in the HP equation.

Quote
And saying that the relationship is linear is a bit confusing as the speed (RPM) is not a constant itself.

Sorry to be confusing. I make the mistake of assuming everyone is on the same page with the terminology. A 'linear' relationship means that the calculation is the same at every point in the curve.  It does not mean that the power output of any specific device is linear. For example, the formula for HP is the same if the stepper is running at 2PRM, 20PRM or 200 RPM. 

Put another way, the 'torque curve' may be dropping like a rock with the stepper motor, but the relationship between HP, torque and speed is the same no matter where you measure or calculate it.



496
I'd like to offer one other variable that may play into this equation, and that is the thermal effect.
Loading a chilly holder into a toasty spindle.
The expansion / shrinkage of the mating materials immediately following the tensioning of the draw bar would vary the final values ... would it not ?
I've certainly seen this effect with the #5 Morse in a radial drill. Granted, the shank surface finish wasn't pristine but required substantially more effort to remove.

Absolutely. The adapter will expand and the spindle contract as the temp equalizes, creating (or in this case increasing) the interference fit.

In fact, this is the most common method for assembling and disassembling press fit parts.

497
If you were looking for grip/slip value per spindle type you would use the available TORQUE value not HP. 

Torque and HP are essentially the same thing. HP is just torque over time, and the relationship is linear.

498
Yes, I have an Emco F1 bench top mill and it uses BT30 holders without the flats and the spring force is sufficient to hold the holders not allowing them to slip.

It would be helpful to know the application.  There is a lot of distance between driving 1/4 roughers thru aluminum and pushing a big face mill across an interrupted cut on stainless.
8mm roughing mill full diameter 4mm deep in aluminium. I am sure I could do twice that depth and the tool wouldn't slip.

CNCcookbook has a speed/feed calcuator that includes (IIRC) the HP required and the MRR as part of the data for each calculation. This would be good info to have available for machines that are short on power.

Currently, I have 7HP peak and I have not slipped an R8  . . that I know of . . .  , but then I am changing tools by hand and cranking on the drawbar nut with a wrench. I would guess that I am easily putting over 2,000 lbs tension on the drawbar. The spindle is small and skinny and not made from very good material so it gets a killer monkey grip on some of the tooling and needs serious persuasion sometimes to release the tools.

499
Interesting, fellas, thanks for chiming in.

So how much force are we talking about?

Thanks,
Dave

R8 requires upwards of 2500 # drawbar tension for max retention.  And, BTW, the set-screw in the slot on the side of an R8 has nothing to do with preventing the tool from slipping, except when the drawbar is being tightened.  The friction created in the taper FAR exceeds the feeble ability of that screw to prevent slippage.  

I will deny I ever said this, but many, many moons ago, we used the pin and a loose adapter as a red neck floating tap holder. For emergency use only, of course . . . .   :-[

Quote
Spec for 30-taper is about 1300#, 40-taper (IIRC) is about 1800#, 50-taper I'd guess upwards of 2000#.  Keys are not necessary for small machines (up to 3-5 HP), above that, the keys seem, if not necessary, at least worthwhile.

It seems logical to me that with only a couple of steps in adapter size and a wide range of spindle HP, that both the drive dogs and the drawbar tension would be specified for the machine and not as a set number per taper.

Does anyone know if there are published HP ranges for each taper?

500
something i've just remembered, many years ago i was operating a 40 int mill and i checked to see if the lugs were actually doing anything. After the job the gap between the drive lugs and the toolholder was still there, so this job didn't cause the toolholder to use the drive lugs.

Let me first say that I am merely speculating when I comment that it occurs to me that in a perfect world the friction would always be sufficient for the job. There are those extreme cases where perhaps a tool spins or even dislodges from the spindle, and then the momentary slip where the friction was overcome momentarily.

I suspect that the latter is far more common and would include things like tool crashes. The damage to the spindle taper could be significant if the holder were allowed to spin, so perhaps the dogs have always been intended as 'arrestors' rather than 'drivers'.