Shopsmith Forums

Thanks for the interest in this post.

I improved the belt and appearance and have now used it for about three hours.
[ATTACH]10560[/ATTACH]
After two hours polishing (sanding) rust off way and base tubes, I noticed the motor was getting pretty warm to the touch so I quit for a few hours to let it cool. The tailstock support is just a piece of mdf with a hole in it, clamped to a couple of short tubes.
[ATTACH]10562[/ATTACH]
No harm done, it ran very smoothly and I finished in another hour. This arrangement is easily mounted or removed, but the belt has to be placed around the 8" pulley before the pulley is mounted because of clearance to the tubes....no biggie.
[ATTACH]10561[/ATTACH]
The 8" pulley uses the 5/32" hex wrench for its' set screw, conveniently.

FWIW, Pre-rust removal with Evaporust would reduce the 'polishing' time to a matter of minutes (< 20) for both tubes. If severely pitted, let them be(the pitting). The average diameter is what counts.

That being said, according to MickyD, total removal of pitting reduces the diameter very slightly(on a pair of 'really seriously rusted tubes'[SDSSmith]).

prmindartmouth wrote:Post #8 notes intent to use a variable speed DC aux. motor. I have a small treadmill motor I want to try.

Been gone a few days so just getting back to this. My original thought, though not apparently made clear was why not replace the original machine motor with either a DC unit or a 3 phase with a VFD instead of adding on a motor assemble to drive the one output shaft? If it's an extra machine and the intent is to reduce the speed considerably, a 3 phase with a VFD and appropriately sized pulleys on both the motor and machine I would think you could do what's desired here. My lathe has a 3 phase with a VFD and I can spin it in the single digits for rpms though you need a little more rpms to cut cleanly. The pulleys are step pulleys so it has a very wide range of speeds available between the pulleys and the vfd.

I'm probably missing something here but it seems like it would be a natural to me. Just thoughts.

Regardless, nice looking setup, very creative.

hcbph wrote:Been gone a few days so just getting back to this. My original thought, though not apparently made clear was why not replace the original machine motor with either a DC unit or a 3 phase with a VFD instead of adding on a motor assemble to drive the one output shaft? If it's an extra machine and the intent is to reduce the speed considerably, a 3 phase with a VFD and appropriately sized pulleys on both the motor and machine I would think you could do what's desired here. My lathe has a 3 phase with a VFD and I can spin it in the single digits for rpms though you need a little more rpms to cut cleanly. The pulleys are step pulleys so it has a very wide range of speeds available between the pulleys and the vfd.

I'm probably missing something here but it seems like it would be a natural to me. Just thoughts.

Regardless, nice looking setup, very creative.

I don't believe you are missing anything; you just have a slightly different way of implementing the same functionality (the ability to run at lower speeds with finite control).

IMHO You have a greater challenge though. Installing your motor in the existing motor pan could be the limiting factor.

I am looking forward to seeing what comes from this..

Thanks for your comment hcbph. I do have a larger dc motor on my old drill press (with another router speed control and rectifier) and thought of swapping as you suggest, but decided I'd like to keep the 510 as manufactured and have the aux. motor as an easily added and removed temporary setup whenever I really needed the slower speed. BTW, it works great with my 8" wire wheel, much gentler at 160 rpm than when run at 700 rpm.
I am happy with this temporary method of getting lower speed, until I can afford a Power Pro!

I do have a spare greenie headstock with a busted speed control and questionable motor that I am thinking of replacing my older bench mounted drill press with. It would be permanently mounted on the bench (with the bigger dc motor swapped onto it) like Bill Mayo showed in msg 113 in this post:
http://www.shopsmith.net/forums/showthr ... #post75097
Advantages would be bigger table, more quill travel, more distance from bit to support posts and more daylight possible vertically from work table to chuck and takes up same space as presently used for drilling. A good subject for a future post.

I stumbled on this data and though it just might be of interest.

dusty wrote:I stumbled on this data and though it just might be of interest.

"4 Farad"! Wow!

Peter, what size rectifier are you using in combination with the router speed controller? I have a DC motor out of a treadmill motor that I'm thinking of installing on a 10ER. I have the speed controller from the treadmill, but the rectifier and router controller would be an alternative should the treadmill controller fail.

Thanks,

Here is one approach to putting a DC motor in the SS motor pan.



additionally: http://www.firechat.com/ssdc.htm

John

hcbph wrote:Been gone a few days so just getting back to this. My original thought, though not apparently made clear was why not replace the original machine motor with either a DC unit or a 3 phase with a VFD instead of adding on a motor assemble to drive the one output shaft? If it's an extra machine and the intent is to reduce the speed considerably, a 3 phase with a VFD and appropriately sized pulleys on both the motor and machine I would think you could do what's desired here. My lathe has a 3 phase with a VFD and I can spin it in the single digits for rpms though you need a little more rpms to cut cleanly. The pulleys are step pulleys so it has a very wide range of speeds available between the pulleys and the vfd.

I'm probably missing something here but it seems like it would be a natural to me. Just thoughts.

Regardless, nice looking setup, very creative.

That looks like a very neat package, indeed. But the questions I have as a SS noobie:
1) Why?
2) What are the advantages?
3) Speed Range 0-??
4) HP?
5) Cost of this modification?
6) Ramifications?

One other question: Does this system bypass the intermediate shaft entirely, since speed control looks like it's being done at the bottom?