Ollie,I do not know what the head weighs but the entire machine weighs less than 150 lbs.I balanced the head with about 35lbs or so of weight.I made a strut that fastens inside the column with two pulleys at the top. One pulley is attached to a horizontal angle ,the other to the vertical strut.Cable attached to the head goes over the pulleys and then holds the weight.No ceiling mount involved. I did this because I need to move the machine once in a while and did not want to disconnect the weights each time.
mike
From: Oliver Fick <ofick@bendbroadband.com>
To: GrizHFMinimill@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 5:49 PM
Subject: RE: [GrizHFMinimill] Re: Counterweight Arrangement
The head itself weighs about 160 lbs so unless you have a mechanical advantage with a pulley arrangement, this is what the joist would see. Maybe I'm missing something?Ollie
From: GrizHFMinimill@yahoogroups.com [mailto: GrizHFMinimill@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of gerry waclawiak
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 2:41 PM
To: grizhfminimill@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [GrizHFMinimill] Re: Counterweight ArrangementThe weight to balance the head cant be much above 50lb which should not be a problem provided you have a secure fixing to a joist. If you are worried you could always put in a spreader across a couple of ceiling joists to share the load#
Gerry
Leeds UK
To: GrizHFMinimill@yahoogroups.com
From: ofick@bendbroadband.com
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:41:36 -0800
Subject: RE: [GrizHFMinimill] Re: Counterweight Arrangement
Be careful. Ceiling joists are only designed to support the weight of the dry wall and insulation. They are not designed to hold high point loads. This is what has discouraged me from using the ceiling joist option.Ollie
From: GrizHFMinimill@yahoogroups.com [mailto: GrizHFMinimill@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of kr98664
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 1:37 PM
To: GrizHFMinimill@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [GrizHFMinimill] Re: Counterweight Arrangement
Hi Roger,
Thanks for the comments. As far as a pulley arrangement, I'd have to run a cable straight up to a ceiling joist if I wanted the lifting force applied at the spindle end. I wouldn't be able to use David's slick semi-hidden version inside the vertical column. Over the weekend, I plan to play, I mean do a controlled scientific experiment, to see if there any advantage to my idea. One big drawback is an overhead cable will get in the way, versus David's semi-hidden version. It could be that my cure is worse than the disease, especially where David says he is very pleased with his results. I will find out this weekend.
Regards,
Karl
--- In GrizHFMinimill@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Blair" <Roger.Blair@...> wrote:
>
> Karl,
>
> (IMHO)
>
> Issue 1.
>
> To compensate some for gib play, attach the counterweight near the spindle end of the head, and ensure that it is heavier than the
> head weight enough to hold the spindle/tool in the same angular position as when the tool loads into the work. (eliminating slack
> motion)
>
> Issue 2.
>
> In theory, adding a second pulley at or near the spindle end of the head will introduce a much greater moment arm on the vertical
> column than from the center of David's single roller to his attach point, and the higher the head position is on the column, an
> extended arm will cause the column to bend more. If there is a measurable effect, only stiffening the column will correct for that.
>
>
>
> Roger
>
>
>
> From: GrizHFMinimill@yahoogroups.com [mailto:GrizHFMinimill@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of kr98664
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 02:09
> To: GrizHFMinimill@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [GrizHFMinimill] Re: Counterweight Arrangement
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi David,
>
> I like your idea to use a nylon strap, especially how well the bend radius compares to the more typical steel cable. I had already
> been planning to do that.
>
> While brainstorming the installation, I got to wondering if there was anything to be gained by applying the lifting force at the
> spindle end, away from the gibs. There will always be some amount of play as the head rocks up/down on its gibs, so I'd like to take
> out as much play as possible by lifting the spindle end of the head. Granted, the pulley arrangement would no longer be as clean and
> simple as your design, so there would be a trade-off.
>
> --- In GrizHFMinimill@yahoogroups.com <mailto:GrizHFMinimill%40yahoogroups.com> , "a3sigma" <dcclark111@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Karl,
> >
> > My counterweight scheme continues to work very well for me. See my files at:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/GrizHFMinimill/files/D.C.%20Clark%20stuff/
> >
> > Note also my thrust washer file. I have several sets remaining, and my offer still stands to give a set to any member who sends me
> a SASE. Email me off list for my address.
> >
> > David Clark in Southern Maryland, USA
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In GrizHFMinimill@yahoogroups.com <mailto:GrizHFMinimill%40yahoogroups.com> , "kr98664" <kr98664@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello All,
> > >
> > > I've been looking at options to minimize the Z-axis drop on my Micro-mark mill. I've read plenty about gas lifts and
> counterweights. In both cases, the upward force is close to the vertical column. No matter how well the gibs are adjusted, any play
> is magnified and the spindle end can still tip down a tiny bit.. My thoughts are if I apply the lifting force (via a counterweight)
> near the spindle, this will practically eliminate any Z-axis play, even more so than a gas spring or counterweight nears the gibs.
> > >
> > > Any thoughts? Am I out in left field?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Karl
> > >
> >
>size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0" align=center>No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4755 - Release Date: 01/20/12size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0" align=center>No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4755 - Release Date: 01/20/12
__._,_.___