Shopsmith Forums

Well I got my muclechuck today and did a little no so scientific analyzing/testing for balance. I set it on flat board and measured how far it could extend past the edge b4 falling off, I then set it so the locking set screw side was hanging over, distance was the same, rotated 90* measured, the same, rotated 90*, the same, and again, and again the same. Not exactly scientific.

ERLover wrote:Well I got my muclechuck today and did a little no so scientific analyzing/testing for balance. I set it on flat board and measured how far it could extend past the edge b4 falling off, I then set it so the locking set screw side was hanging over, distance was the same, rotated 90* measured, the same, rotated 90*, the same, and again, and again the same. Not exactly scientific.

Not exactly dynamic either!

@JPG>Not exactly dynamic either!
I agree, I went to there site and watched there video on it, they say it is balanced, however they do it. Funny, there is about a 1/8-3/16 diam drill out on the face, you can see it on the pics posted previously here, I wonder if that is how they balance it.

ERLover wrote:@JPG>Not exactly dynamic either!
I agree, I went to there site and watched there video on it, they say it is balanced, however they do it. Funny, there is about a 1/8-3/16 diam drill out on the face, you can see it on the pics posted previously here, I wonder if that is how they balance it.

You got it.

The collet is symmetrical to begin with so should be balanced. You drill a hole for the cap screw. Now you are unbalanced. Insert the screw and you have restored the balance almost but apparently in this case the weight of the screw is less than the material removed to create the hole for the screw. That is why you have to remove material opposite the screw. The head of the screw is heavier than the shank. Notice the hole drilled in the top of the collet is not 180* opposite the screw. It is closer to the screw head because that is the heaviest part of the screw.

I have dynamically balanced more generator rotors than I care to think about. With a few exceptions we added weight instead of drilling to remove weight. Exactly the same principle except 180* opposite.

I concur John

jsburger wrote:

ERLover wrote:@JPG>Not exactly dynamic either!
I agree, I went to there site and watched there video on it, they say it is balanced, however they do it. Funny, there is about a 1/8-3/16 diam drill out on the face, you can see it on the pics posted previously here, I wonder if that is how they balance it.

You got it.

The collet is symmetrical to begin with so should be balanced. You drill a hole for the cap screw. Now you are unbalanced. Insert the screw and you have restored the balance almost but apparently in this case the weight of the screw is less than the material removed to create the hole for the screw. That is why you have to remove material opposite the screw. The head of the screw is heavier than the shank. Notice the hole drilled in the top of the collet is not 180* opposite the screw. It is closer to the screw head because that is the heaviest part of the screw.

I have dynamically balanced more generator rotors than I care to think about. With a few exceptions we added weight instead of drilling to remove weight. Exactly the same principle except 180* opposite.

Don't forget the slot that was sawed to "split" the ring clamp. It's thin, but has a large area, and thus significant volume. The missing material from the slot explains why the balancing hole is not adjacent to the screw head.

BuckeyeDennis wrote:

jsburger wrote:

ERLover wrote:@JPG>Not exactly dynamic either!
I agree, I went to there site and watched there video on it, they say it is balanced, however they do it. Funny, there is about a 1/8-3/16 diam drill out on the face, you can see it on the pics posted previously here, I wonder if that is how they balance it.

You got it.

The collet is symmetrical to begin with so should be balanced. You drill a hole for the cap screw. Now you are unbalanced. Insert the screw and you have restored the balance almost but apparently in this case the weight of the screw is less than the material removed to create the hole for the screw. That is why you have to remove material opposite the screw. The head of the screw is heavier than the shank. Notice the hole drilled in the top of the collet is not 180* opposite the screw. It is closer to the screw head because that is the heaviest part of the screw.

I have dynamically balanced more generator rotors than I care to think about. With a few exceptions we added weight instead of drilling to remove weight. Exactly the same principle except 180* opposite.

Don't forget the slot that was sawed to "split" the ring clamp. It's thin, but has a large area, and thus significant volume. The missing material from the slot explains why the balancing hole is not adjacent to the screw head.

I totally agree. I didn't mention it for the sake of simplicity.

All good points, some discussions here and I am guilty of it too, is egos and being right. My father in law retired as a Sr VP of a large utility, and moved to FL in a very affluent condo community, one afternoon while we were down there sitting around the pool, he mention about some changes to the grounds, more trees, I said suggest it to the condo board, he said he did but they shot it down, so I said get on the board, now my father in law was a great man, dynamic, compassionate, wise, fore site, he told the CEO of the utility back in the 80s, electric conservation is the way to go, not build more power plants, ect, He said Mike, you dont understand, we are all retired chiefs here of various different companies, we all know how to get something done, BUT WE WERE ALL CHIEFS AND GOT WHAT WE WANTED!!!!