[Geof]

I think gar has the horsepower thing correct. If you want to check go to the Haas website and then to the Answer Man archives. There was a question and answer about this a couple of years ago.

As far as I can recall the hp on the machine is the 150% load, the border between yellow and red on the spindle load display and this can be used for up to 30minutes, anything above is limited to 10 minutes and 100% can be used indefinitely.

It seems to me that many people have the perception that Haas machines are underpowered and I think this arises because so many of their lower cost units have a simple direct belt drive. A direct drive machine running at 3000 rpm will appear to be grossly underpowered compared to a gearbox machine running 3000 rpm in low gear.

The answer is if you want to use hefty cuts and feeds spring the extra dollars and get a gearbox machine.

[gizmo_454]

Gearbox. Wouldn't that be nice!

As far as complaints, not too many. But there are 3 off the top of my head:

1)
Being able to "block delete" something that contains cutter comp commands. Not necessarily a line or 2 during cutter comp, but the whole section of code that contains say; a safe tool change, to positioning, to start cutter comp, to blah blah blah, to exit cutter comp. It will currently run that way with block delete on, but turn it off and it alarms out.

2)
More flexibility in options for new machines. For example, I wanted to get through spindle coolant on our Mini Mill. It was, however, unavailable unless we stepped up to a Super Mini Mill. That doesn't make sense, since (from what I understand) the spindle cartridge for a 6000 rpm spindle is the same as the 7500 rpm spindle, and you can get TSC on larger machines with the 7500 rpm spindle. (Just a side note, for those of you who doubt these 2 belt drive spindles are different, we just had a new spindle installed in our Mini a couple of months ago and the spindle that was shipped from Haas Automation was labeled as a 7500 rpm spindle.)

3)
Something needs to be addressed on the SL-10 for cleaning out the sump. The only way we have found is to remove the chip conveyor, which if you don't know, takes an act of congress to do. Also, the chip conveyor, not the auger, fits nicely on 3 sides. There aren't too many places for chips to get around on those sides. The fourth, however, leaves almost a 3/8" gap for chips to run right through. This fourth side is the very front of the machine, where the door is, (on our machine) right below the parts catcher. The whole front edge is open for chips to get washed into the sump.

Great machines otherwise. Thanks for the place to rant!

[Geof]

Gearbox. Wouldn't that be nice!

As far as complaints, not too many. But there are 3 off the top of my head:

1)
Being able to "block delete" something that contains cutter comp commands. Not necessarily a line or 2 during cutter comp, but the whole section of code that contains say; a safe tool change, to positioning, to start cutter comp, to blah blah blah, to exit cutter comp. It will currently run that way with block delete on, but turn it off and it alarms out.

Put that entire sequence in a subroutine and then block delete the line with the subroutine call.

[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.

.

[PBMW]

You know what I'd liketo see from Haas?
I'd like to see a lube oil pump that didn't cost as much as a used car.
I'd like to see a service guy that didn't try to RAPE me on padded service hours. I'd like to see someone actually bring the correct parts and repair the machine right the first time instead of charging me three and four service trip travel hours (four round trip hours for a 1 hour trip).
I'd like to see someone put a stop to the $500 floppy drive.
I'd like to see Haas make a lathe thatsomething ...ANYTHING doesn't break every stinking month.

I don't mean to be negative. I truely don't. But this 2004 SL10 is bar none, the worst machine I have EVER owned.
So, That's what I'd like to see Haas address.

But I don't think it's gonna happen.

[jensen]

I would like that the cursor bar in the offset panel would follow the input on the jog keys.

[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.

.

[gizmo_454]

gar,

not to drag this out any longer than it should be, but do a search on the net for pound-foot. All it will bring up it foot-pound. and here is the definition provided by Wikipedia:

Foot-pound force
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The foot-pound force, or simply foot-pound (symbol: ft·lbf) is an English unit of work or energy. It is also a unit of torque.

After considerable searching, I could not locate anything on pound foot at all. Every search for pound foot only brings up foot pound.

Good luck.

[Geof]

gar,

not to drag this out any longer than it should be, but do a search on the net for pound-foot. All it will bring up it foot-pound. and here is the definition provided by Wikipedia:

Foot-pound force
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The foot-pound force, or simply foot-pound (symbol: ft·lbf) is an English unit of work or energy. It is also a unit of torque.

After considerable searching, I could not locate anything on pound foot at all. Every search for pound foot only brings up foot pound.

Good luck.

If your Physics Instructors taught you to use foot pound or pound feet interchangeably regardless whether you were dealing with work or torque they were out to lunch.

The units of the two properties are identical; a force multiplied by a distance but by convention energy is foot pound, i.e. distance first force second, while torque is pound feet, force first then distance. This is done simply to distinguish between the two.

I suppose you can always flout convention but then if you are misunderstood it is your fault not the person who misunderstands you.

[gar]

070620-2157 EST USA

gizmo_454:

Because a search of the internet with Google or something else does not result in a hit on pound-feet relating to torque does not mean you have done very good research. The internet is not the only or necessarily a very good source of information, and many times it is incorrect. However, the internet can be very useful.

I had a prof by the name of Wilson P. Tanner. An internet search uncovered a discussion of a radio message from Wilson P. Tanner on 7 Dec 1941 from a PB-Y to Pearl Harbor indicating their involvement in the sinking of a sub. This occurred prior to the actual attack on Pearl. Was this my prof or not? I do not know. But resulting from the search there are very interesting discussions on events and knowledge that existed for at least a year before 7 Dec. Try these two searches with Google:
"Wilson P. Tanner"
"Wilson P. Tanner" pearl harbor

(edit)
Use Google to search for
"pound-feet"
This results in 304,000 hits.
(end edit)


Relative to Wikipedia: under Torque you will find
"The SI unit for torque is the newton metre (N m). In U.S. customary units, it is measured in pounds-feet (lb-ft) (a.k.a. "foot-pounds"). "
I disagree with the inclusion of the a.k.a. because this helps devalue what should be a clear and accurate definition. This certainly contributes to the dumbing down of our general education. Basics need to be taught accurately and reinforced to provide clarity which in turn helps communication.

Now for some more examples:

Design of Machine Members by Vallance and Doughtie, University of Texas, McGraw-Hill, 1951, page 271 "T = torque, lb-in." .

Analytical Mechanics for Engineers, Seely and Ensign, University of Illinois, John Wiley and Sons, 1921 thru 1948, page 138, just above Problems, "Frictional moment .... 20,300 lb.-in." .

The Gasoline Automobile, Heldt, Engineering Editor, Automotive Industries, 1911-1920, page 55, Y-axis includes "Pounds-Feet" .

Alternating-Current Machinery, Bailey and Gualt, University of Michigan, McGraw-Hill, 1951, page 139 about 2/3 down, "Tr is the torque factor in pound-feet"

A few years ago when talking with an engineer at one of the torque wrench manufacturers I mentioned the subject of the mislabeling of the units of torque on their wrenches. His response was that he has been trying to get them to make the change.

My reason for mentioning this from time to time, this means all the time when I have contact with assembly line people and process engineers, is that to get a change in the mislabeling requires repetitive education of as many people as possible.

I think I have given enough historical examples from different sources to prove my point.

If you look at a wide variety of different threads and posts on this Forum you will see how difficult communication is because of the use of incorrect terms. A thyristor is not a thyrector for example. This discussion occurred on CNCZONE.

.

[gizmo_454]

I digress to my original statement. My statement is accurate. Also, your statements are accurate. To differentiate torque and energy, they are noted differently, but in the sense of the math behind it, they are the same.

pound foot (lbf ft or lb ft)
a traditional unit of torque. Torque is the tendency of a force to cause a rotation; it is the product of the force and the distance from the center of rotation to the point where the force is applied. Thus it can be measured in pounds of force times feet of distance. One pound foot is equal to approximately 1.355 818 newton meter (N·m) in SI units. Algebraically, torque has the same units as work or energy, but it is a different physical concept. To stress the difference, scientists and engineers traditionally measure torque in pound feet (or newton meters) and work or energy in foot pounds (or joules).
© Russ Rowlett and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Anyway, I concede we three are correct in our own right. Just looking at it from different points of view.

Hope you are having a good weekend!

:cheers:

[Geof]

.... Algebraically, torque has the same units as work or energy, but it is a different physical concept. To stress the difference, scientists and engineers traditionally measure torque in pound feet (or newton meters) and work or energy in foot pounds (or joules).[/I]
© Russ Rowlett and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Anyway, I concede we three are correct in our own right. Just looking at it from different points of view.

Hope you are having a good weekend!

:cheers:

No. Gar and I are correct, you are wrong. Here is a quote from one of your earlier posts: "A ft*lb or lb*ft are one in the same. Doesn't matter which way it's stated.

However as Rowlett says torque is a different physical concept to energy so they are differentiated by the order in which the units are placed.

[gizmo_454]

Sorry Geof. As I said above, from my point of view, I am right, to a degree. I look at it from a math standpoint, and mathematically speaking they are the same. What their traditional meaning is, IS different in how it is WRITTEN. But the math is the same no matter how you look at it.

If I am wrong, I am wrong and I will always be wrong. Why we Americans had to screw everything up with our written words are beyond me. The metric standard has N*m and joules to define the difference. Which makes more sense than just flipping the words around. It's too confusing.

Never the less. I am done with this, whether I am right or wrong, this little matter is not worth the time to debate. There are too many things in life to do to spend the next six weeks debating it.

Have a good weekend

[Geof]

....Never the less. I am done with this, whether I am right or wrong, this little matter is not worth the time to debate. There are too many things in life to do to spend the next six weeks debating it.

Have a good weekend

I have taught college level physics, did it for many years actually. You remind me of students I had who were to stubborn to accept when they were wrong in the context of the point upon which they disagreed. Torque and energy are physical concepts, looking at them from a math stand point is wrong, math is merely the tool that is used to manipulate them. It is similar to speed and velocity: To a mathematician they are indistinguishable but to a physicist they are very different and using them interchangeably is wrong.

[HuFlungDung]

And here I thought multiplication was commutative

If the units of an equation work out to lb-ft or ft-lb, there is no difference in the resultant quantity.

Torque is the instantaneous force applied through an arm that has not yet rotated, but if allowed to do so, will begin to perform work, because work is an accumulation of torque applied over time and moving a load. You will not be getting any ft-lbs of work done with zero torque.

The potential to do work is different than actually doing the work, but the electrical energy supplied to the motor will be similar, whether the motor is stalled by a brake, or whether it is successfully moving its load. How would they tell down at the generating station whether that motor is doing work or not? All they know is that they have to input the same amount of energy into the power grid to make that circuit work. Whether the result of the power is heat coming out of the stalled motor, or the load moving is just subjective observation subject to the whim of the observer's attention Thus, the old school teacher's quip (I remember mine saying this) about "no work being done if the load is not moved' is just bull, because some work is being done to create the torque, he's just chosen to ignore that fact.

[gar]

070625-1033 EST USA

Hu:

If I have a cantilevered beam with a weight hanging on the end, then I have torque, and no work being done. There was work done to put the weight on the beam end, but once there we have a static condition.

Also we have many different torque values depending upon where you choose the pivot point. In a statics problem I can choose to put a pivot point anywhere I want and the sum of all torques (moments) are zero and all forces are zero. There is no work done in a static state.

.