I went and bought some drawer guides today for my DIY mortiser. There
turned out to be way too much vertical slop after installing them.
The roller skate bearings performed WAY better.
Watch my progress below: (I plan on keeping an up to date log of my
progress below:)
http://garagewoodworks.com/garage_blog/
Cheers!
On Sep 24, 3:00=A0pm, Pat Barber <[email protected]> wrote:
> Here is another approach done by somebody...
>
> <http://www.brunnerent.com/Tools/Portfolio/frontend/item.asp?type=3D15&s.=
..>
>
> On 9/23/2010 11:35 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> > GarageWoodworks<[email protected]> =A0writes:
> >> I went and bought some drawer guides today for my DIY mortiser. =A0The=
re
> >> turned out to be way too much vertical slop after installing them.
> >> The roller skate bearings performed WAY better.
>
> >> Watch my progress below: (I plan on keeping an up to date log of my
> >> progress below:)
>
> >>http://garagewoodworks.com/garage_blog/
That is a nice design. It looks like he incorporated a motorized lift
for the Z axis. Neat idea.
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> ............. The Rating plate
>>claimed 2200W, which at 220v is 10A, which seems low for a 3HP motor.
>
> 1 HP is roughly 745 watts, so, _at_100%_efficiency, a 2200 watt motor
> is very close to 3HP.
>
> And, I can say, with the _utmost_ confidence, it's a *much* more accurate
> number than any modern _vacuum_cleaner_ rating. Where they routinely
> manage to get "6+ HP" on _less_than_ 15A @ 120v.
>
> Hmmm. I wonder if one could use one of those vacuums as the basis for
> a perpetual motion machine. less than 1800 watts electric in, over
> 4500 (6hp is 4470) watts out. assume only _50% efficiency in driving
> a generator, and you've still got an 'excess' output of 450 watts,
> beyond what is needed to be self-sustaining.
>
> More realistically, I wonder if the above could be used to get the FTC
> to impose some 'rational' standards on the vacuum advertising.
>
Hey, somebody could sue the vacuum cleaner companies for withholding the
perpetual motion machine from all of us.
That would really get everybody's attention concerning their false
advertising, etc.
In article <[email protected]>,
Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ............. The Rating plate
>claimed 2200W, which at 220v is 10A, which seems low for a 3HP motor.
1 HP is roughly 745 watts, so, _at_100%_efficiency, a 2200 watt motor
is very close to 3HP.
And, I can say, with the _utmost_ confidence, it's a *much* more accurate
number than any modern _vacuum_cleaner_ rating. Where they routinely
manage to get "6+ HP" on _less_than_ 15A @ 120v.
Hmmm. I wonder if one could use one of those vacuums as the basis for
a perpetual motion machine. less than 1800 watts electric in, over
4500 (6hp is 4470) watts out. assume only _50% efficiency in driving
a generator, and you've still got an 'excess' output of 450 watts,
beyond what is needed to be self-sustaining.
More realistically, I wonder if the above could be used to get the FTC
to impose some 'rational' standards on the vacuum advertising.
In article <[email protected]>,
J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article <J4idnegce-
>[email protected]>, [email protected]
>bonomi.com says...
>>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) writes:
>> >>In article <[email protected]>,
>> >>Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> ............. The Rating plate
>> >>>claimed 2200W, which at 220v is 10A, which seems low for a 3HP motor.
>> >>
>> >>1 HP is roughly 745 watts, so, _at_100%_efficiency, a 2200 watt motor
>> >>is very close to 3HP.
>> >
>> >Yes. Have you ever seen a 100% efficient motor?
>>
>> _Every_ electric motor I've seen efficiently transforms 100% of the
>> electricity into it into "something else". <grin>
>>
>> > I had this discussion
>> >with a support engineer at Laguna. It may be just a labelling issue,
>> >I haven't taken the housing off to read the actual motor nameplate and
>> >the FLA rating.
>>
>> 'Horsepower', _unqualified_, is a nebulous/ambiguous rating term. It is
>> _not_necessarily_ equivalent to 'shaft horsepower', or 'brake horsepower',
>> or other similar terms with a specified measurement criteria.
>
>The Budweiser beer wagon has 8 horsepower. So does my lawn mower. Care
>to make any bets on which can pull harder?
Actually, Clydesdales are rated at considerably more than one horsepower.
The 'horsepower' derives from the animals once used in English mining
operations. They are relatively small specimans.
That aide, 'which can pull harder' is a matter of the torque generated,
not the horsepower. With a sufficiently high 'down' ratio in a gear-box,
that lawnmower engine -will- move loads that the Clydesdales can't budge
w/o mechanical assistance (e.g., a multi-sheave rope-and-pulley arrangement).
It won't move such a load very fast, but it _will_ move it. <grin>
In article <[email protected]>,
Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) writes:
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> ............. The Rating plate
>>>claimed 2200W, which at 220v is 10A, which seems low for a 3HP motor.
>>
>>1 HP is roughly 745 watts, so, _at_100%_efficiency, a 2200 watt motor
>>is very close to 3HP.
>
>Yes. Have you ever seen a 100% efficient motor?
_Every_ electric motor I've seen efficiently transforms 100% of the
electricity into it into "something else". <grin>
> I had this discussion
>with a support engineer at Laguna. It may be just a labelling issue,
>I haven't taken the housing off to read the actual motor nameplate and
>the FLA rating.
'Horsepower', _unqualified_, is a nebulous/ambiguous rating term. It is
_not_necessarily_ equivalent to 'shaft horsepower', or 'brake horsepower',
or other similar terms with a specified measurement criteria.
Ever wonder why a vehicle with only a 100HP engine needs brakes that can
absorb 1000HP to stop the car?
HP is a power rating that is instantaneous and involves no time factor.
Rev your vacuum cleaner up and stick a piece of wood in the fan. It probably
generates ten times the rated HP of the motor for about 1 mSec. Then there
is that ball you have to develop your wrists to steer...LOL
"Robert Bonomi" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
1 HP is roughly 745 watts, so, _at_100%_efficiency, a 2200 watt motor
is very close to 3HP.
And, I can say, with the _utmost_ confidence, it's a *much* more accurate
number than any modern _vacuum_cleaner_ rating. Where they routinely
manage to get "6+ HP" on _less_than_ 15A @ 120v.
Hmmm. I wonder if one could use one of those vacuums as the basis for
a perpetual motion machine. less than 1800 watts electric in, over
4500 (6hp is 4470) watts out. assume only _50% efficiency in driving
a generator, and you've still got an 'excess' output of 450 watts,
beyond what is needed to be self-sustaining.
More realistically, I wonder if the above could be used to get the FTC
to impose some 'rational' standards on the vacuum advertising.
In article <[email protected]>,
Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> ............. The Rating plate
>claimed 2200W, which at 220v is 10A, which seems low for a 3HP motor.
In article <J4idnegce-
[email protected]>, [email protected]
bonomi.com says...
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) writes:
> >>In article <[email protected]>,
> >>Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> ............. The Rating plate
> >>>claimed 2200W, which at 220v is 10A, which seems low for a 3HP motor.
> >>
> >>1 HP is roughly 745 watts, so, _at_100%_efficiency, a 2200 watt motor
> >>is very close to 3HP.
> >
> >Yes. Have you ever seen a 100% efficient motor?
>
> _Every_ electric motor I've seen efficiently transforms 100% of the
> electricity into it into "something else". <grin>
>
> > I had this discussion
> >with a support engineer at Laguna. It may be just a labelling issue,
> >I haven't taken the housing off to read the actual motor nameplate and
> >the FLA rating.
>
> 'Horsepower', _unqualified_, is a nebulous/ambiguous rating term. It is
> _not_necessarily_ equivalent to 'shaft horsepower', or 'brake horsepower',
> or other similar terms with a specified measurement criteria.
The Budweiser beer wagon has 8 horsepower. So does my lawn mower. Care
to make any bets on which can pull harder?
In article
<[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> In article <[email protected]>,
> J. Clarke <[email protected]> wrote:
> >In article <J4idnegce-
> >[email protected]>, [email protected]
> >bonomi.com says...
> >>
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) writes:
> >> >>In article <[email protected]>,
> >> >>Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ............. The Rating plate
> >> >>>claimed 2200W, which at 220v is 10A, which seems low for a 3HP motor.
> >> >>
> >> >>1 HP is roughly 745 watts, so, _at_100%_efficiency, a 2200 watt motor
> >> >>is very close to 3HP.
> >> >
> >> >Yes. Have you ever seen a 100% efficient motor?
> >>
> >> _Every_ electric motor I've seen efficiently transforms 100% of the
> >> electricity into it into "something else". <grin>
> >>
> >> > I had this discussion
> >> >with a support engineer at Laguna. It may be just a labelling issue,
> >> >I haven't taken the housing off to read the actual motor nameplate and
> >> >the FLA rating.
> >>
> >> 'Horsepower', _unqualified_, is a nebulous/ambiguous rating term. It is
> >> _not_necessarily_ equivalent to 'shaft horsepower', or 'brake horsepower',
> >> or other similar terms with a specified measurement criteria.
> >
> >The Budweiser beer wagon has 8 horsepower. So does my lawn mower. Care
> >to make any bets on which can pull harder?
>
> Actually, Clydesdales are rated at considerably more than one horsepower.
Whoosh.
<snip>
[email protected] (Robert Bonomi) writes:
>In article <[email protected]>,
>Scott Lurndal <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> ............. The Rating plate
>>claimed 2200W, which at 220v is 10A, which seems low for a 3HP motor.
>
>1 HP is roughly 745 watts, so, _at_100%_efficiency, a 2200 watt motor
>is very close to 3HP.
Yes. Have you ever seen a 100% efficient motor? I had this discussion
with a support engineer at Laguna. It may be just a labelling issue,
I haven't taken the housing off to read the actual motor nameplate and
the FLA rating.
scott
> Wasn't particularly expensive (less than 1k), so you get what you
> pay for, I guess. =A0 =A0I've rigged a brace from the wall to the top
> of the column which improved the stability (and quality of the
> mortise) considerably.
Ouch, sad story. Can't believe you didn't return it. I rarely do that
but of they sent something different than what I was sold and then it
had such performance issues...
I think money spent on a used Maka would be better spent. I can't wait
to get one... some day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DKJUJ796jxls
GarageWoodworks <[email protected]> writes:
>I went and bought some drawer guides today for my DIY mortiser. There
>turned out to be way too much vertical slop after installing them.
>The roller skate bearings performed WAY better.
>
>Watch my progress below: (I plan on keeping an up to date log of my
>progress below:)
>
>http://garagewoodworks.com/garage_blog/
>
>Cheers!
After purchasing Laguna's low-end V-way horizontal mortiser, I'd recommend
strongly that you make your mechanism _very _rigid. The Laguna
mortiser (ordered August 29, 2009, arrived December 3, 2009)
I received was a different model than that shown in the
web-site video, and claimed to have a 3HP motor. The Rating plate
claimed 2200W, which at 220v is 10A, which seems low for a 3HP motor.
Even tho the motor was wired for 220V, it came with a molded NEMA 5-15P
line cord where one of the blades had been twisted with a pliers
90 degrees to create a faux NEMA 6-20P pattern. I cut this off and
replaced it with a standard 6-20P plug.
The redesigned table was clearly inferior to that shown on the website
video. There was no milled slot lengthwise in the table for a mitre
gauge, unlike that shown in the video, which required me to build a
custom fence for mortising the ends of aprons and rails. The provided
mitre gauge is completely useless, at 90 degrees to the bit.
As usual with Laguna, the instructions were minimal, and included no
instructions on assembly.
The biggest issue is the rigidity of the column supporting the
mortising head. It moves a fair bit when cutting mortises causing
the width of the mortise to vary by a few hundredths which leads
to ill-fitting loose tenons.
Wasn't particularly expensive (less than 1k), so you get what you
pay for, I guess. I've rigged a brace from the wall to the top
of the column which improved the stability (and quality of the
mortise) considerably.
On the other hand, I love my LT-16.
scott
Here is another approach done by somebody...
<http://www.brunnerent.com/Tools/Portfolio/frontend/item.asp?type=15&size=0&lngDisplay=0&jPageNumber=1&strMetaTag=>
On 9/23/2010 11:35 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> GarageWoodworks<[email protected]> writes:
>> I went and bought some drawer guides today for my DIY mortiser. There
>> turned out to be way too much vertical slop after installing them.
>> The roller skate bearings performed WAY better.
>>
>> Watch my progress below: (I plan on keeping an up to date log of my
>> progress below:)
>>
>> http://garagewoodworks.com/garage_blog/
>>
>
I'd love to have 350 Budweiser grade horse power in my truck!
Those horses are rated at 4-5 horses each. They and Morgans are
the big horses on the block.
Martin
Martin H. Eastburn
@ home at Lions' Lair with our computer lionslair at consolidated dot net
"Our Republic and the Press will Rise or Fall Together": Joseph Pulitzer
TSRA: Endowed; NRA LOH & Patron Member, Golden Eagle, Patriot's Medal.
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Originator & Charter Founder
IHMSA and NRA Metallic Silhouette maker & member. http://lufkinced.com/
On 9/28/2010 3:47 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article<J4idnegce-
> [email protected]>, [email protected]
> bonomi.com says...
>>
>> In article<[email protected]>,
>> Scott Lurndal<[email protected]> wrote:
>>> [email protected] (Robert Bonomi) writes:
>>>> In article<[email protected]>,
>>>> Scott Lurndal<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> ............. The Rating plate
>>>>> claimed 2200W, which at 220v is 10A, which seems low for a 3HP motor.
>>>>
>>>> 1 HP is roughly 745 watts, so, _at_100%_efficiency, a 2200 watt motor
>>>> is very close to 3HP.
>>>
>>> Yes. Have you ever seen a 100% efficient motor?
>>
>> _Every_ electric motor I've seen efficiently transforms 100% of the
>> electricity into it into "something else".<grin>
>>
>>> I had this discussion
>>> with a support engineer at Laguna. It may be just a labelling issue,
>>> I haven't taken the housing off to read the actual motor nameplate and
>>> the FLA rating.
>>
>> 'Horsepower', _unqualified_, is a nebulous/ambiguous rating term. It is
>> _not_necessarily_ equivalent to 'shaft horsepower', or 'brake horsepower',
>> or other similar terms with a specified measurement criteria.
>
> The Budweiser beer wagon has 8 horsepower. So does my lawn mower. Care
> to make any bets on which can pull harder?
>
>