Rebuttal Post - Reports of M&R AC Print-Head Issues

By pwalsh on Jul. 05, 2011
pwalsh's picture
Forums: 
Screen Printing

There’s been a lot posted on DigitSmith over the past year or so about new technology and design elements of various machines. Recently we’ve seen a post by a respected member warning potential purchasers of M&R equipment of a potential design flaw in the way that M&R mounts the drive system on their AC print-heads.

Essentially the “Expert” is posting his opinions that the method used by M&R to mount their right angle worm reduction gearbox’s (WRG’s) with the electric motor facing vertically down, is a design flaw. Our expert goes way beyond criticizing the approach that M&R uses, by promoting the methodology used by a competitive manufacturer that totally avoids the use of a WGR, in favor of using a simple system of a toothed drive belt to achieve a geared reduction between the drive motor and the intermediate pulley to drive the print-head.

A few important questions that the expert did not address in his post, that are worth additional consideration include:

  • Is the method that M&R is using to mount these WGR’s with the electric motor mounted vertically down, a manufacturer approved method?
  • What is the “Mean Time Between Failure” (MTBF), and primary cause of failure that M&R has experienced from mounting WGR’s this way?
  • Why does M&R utilize a more expensive WGR in their design when a simpler system of a toothed belt and pulley reduction is available?
  • What additional level of friction and inefficiency is created by using a toothed drive belt versus the minimal drag of a lubricated WGR?
  • What MTBF, or other issues with their drive mechanism has this alternative manufacturer experienced?
Location: 
United States
—

Peter G. Walsh
Vice President & General Manager
Nazdar SourceOne Shawnee Kansas
913-422-1888 x2020 - 913-579-6662 (cell)pwalsh@nazdar.com - SourceOneOnline.com

“The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions, strategies or opinions of the Nazdar or Thrall Companies.”

Submitted by Anorosh on Fri, 03/22/2019 - 06:30

Hi all
May I get help pls
I want to know what the gearbox to
Used for the same motors and the same
Application?
And if i want to change the same application
But with steppers motors

What size i do needs ?
Is gearbox needed with stepper motor
In this application
I want to make the same print armhead
Thanks

Spider-Machines's picture
Submitted by Spider-Machines on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 08:44

Nice post Peter ... it's nice to see you back :-)

Here is my reply ...

The fact that the Vice-President of NaZdar is taking an hour -or- more to reply to design flaw issues with M&R A/C Printheads means that Printex is winning the game :-D

FACT ... people are choosing Printex over M&R for more reasons than just drive belts :-@

BTW ... it's nice to see you back :-p

Here is some of the info from the thread Peter is referring to:

preston wrote:
Not really. Take the sportsman for example. On the ac print heads M&R uses a 90 degree gear reduction. The problem is they mount it with the motor down. This is not the best way for several reasons but the main thing is the oil is not sitting in the sump correctly and the oil seal between the gear reduction and motor is constantly submersed under the oil. So what happens when the oil seal starts to fail? Well the first thing is oil starts running down all over the motor. Not good. Now comes the serviceability of this type setup. You have to unbolt the heavy assembly, disconnect all the drive stuff to the squeegee/floodbar carriage and remove the gear drive and motor from the print arm. Now you have to remove the motor, drain the oil from the gear reduction, open it up, remove the gears and bearing, knock out the oil seal, replace it, put the whole thing back together and remount it. A lot of work for something that should never have been mounted that way in the first place.

With the Printex there is no oil to leak, no heavy gear reduction. If ever needed changing the reduction pulley belt is quick and simple. The ac motor is also very easy to replace if needed.

Spider-Machines wrote:
I found this pic that shows what you are describing ...

Thanks for such an informative post Preston ... it explains why we see a lot of these GearBox issues in the field ... Do you know if M&R has addressed this known problem with their A/C Printheads :-?

Once again thanks for bringing it to light :-))

preston wrote:
No spin as I did not say it had to be done every week. But when it needs to be done it is a lot of work and takes a long time. This cost you not only in down time but if you are paying a tech it cost you more if it takes him longer. Also on the sportsman the only way to adjust the belt tension is by loosening the angle drive gear box mount plate and then using a pry bar to slide it back on the slotted bolt holes. Again, time and money.

On the Printex you just lift up the front screen clamp and adjust the belt with a 10 mm wrench. Simple, fast and cost effective.

This is the point of this thread. To show how the design of the printex saves you tons of time when and if you need to repair something. Most things are so simple you do not even need to get a tech in to do it. Becasue it is such a well thought out design things can be repaired or adjusted fast if needed. This means less downtime and that means you are making more money because your press is not down for a long time during repairs or adjustments.

The sportsman is a great press but when it breaks down it is going to cost you a lot.

Spider-Machines wrote:
Preston this is an excellent post ...

The really interesting point about the design is that you could own a Printex and literally never have to remove the A/C motors no matter how many millions -and- millions of prints <--- that has tremendous value :-))

A belt change would be as simple as (4) bolts with a Jack Screw to set proper tension :-D

Robert Barnes
Spider Machines
864-649-0123

robert@spidermachines.com

BlackBerry PIN: 322321FD
Skype: robert.w.barnes

Visit us on the web:
SpiderMachines.com

Service for New & Used Screen Printing Equipment
Auto Presses:
M&R - Gauntlet, Challenger, Formula, Sportsman, DiamondBack
RPM Press, Printex, Anatol

Note:
Robert Barnes was the Founder of Progressive and designed the Falcon line of Automatics Printers currently being sold by Workhorse Products

pwalsh's picture
Submitted by pwalsh on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 09:52

Spider-Machines wrote:
Nice post Peter ... it's nice to see you back :-)

Here is my reply ...

The fact that the Vice-President of NaZdar is taking an hour -or- more to reply to design flaw issues with M&R A/C Print-heads means that Printex is winning the game :-D

FACT ... people are choosing Printex over M&R for more reasons than just drive belts :-@

BTW ... it's nice to see you back :-p

Here is some of the info from the thread Peter is referring to:

Robert: I'm back because the DigitSmith Site Administrators have implemented a level of moderation that curtails the personal attacks, and spread of blatantly false information. Your guy posted a lot of information on the design that M&R used for their AC print-head drives, and even went as far as to suggest that the system that another manufacturer is using is more effective.

I refute the points that were made in the original post and have responded with a series of specific questions related to the design that M&R and PrintEx are using on their AC drive print-heads. I’d greatly appreciate getting “Qualified” answers to these specific questions rather than you just reposting the original unsubstantiated statements.

  • Is the method that M&R is using to mount these WGR’s with the electric motor mounted vertically down, a manufacturer approved method?
  • What is the “Mean Time Between Failure” (MTBF), and primary cause of failure that M&R has experienced from mounting WGR’s this way?
  • Why does M&R utilize a more expensive WGR in their design when a simpler system of a toothed belt and pulley reduction is available?
  • What additional level of friction and inefficiency is created by using a toothed drive belt versus the minimal drag of a lubricated WGR?
  • What MTBF, or other issues with their drive mechanism has this alternative manufacturer experienced?

BTW, Here’s a couple of additional questions to add to the list:

  • Do you realize that M&R’s original AC print-head drives from 10+ years ago used a very similar drive belt and reduction pulley system to what PrintEx uses today?
  • Do you think there’s a possibility that M&R learned something about this design approach that drove their decision to move to a more expensive AC drive system that utilizes a worm gear reducer?

Peter G. Walsh
Vice President & General Manager
Nazdar SourceOne Shawnee Kansas
913-422-1888 x2020 - 913-579-6662 (cell)pwalsh@nazdar.com - SourceOneOnline.com

“The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions, strategies or opinions of the Nazdar or Thrall Companies.”

Spider-Machines's picture
Submitted by Spider-Machines on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:52

pwalsh wrote:
Robert: I'm back because the DigitSmith Site Administrators have implemented a level of moderation that curtails the personal attacks, and spread of blatantly false information. Your guy posted a lot of information on the design that M&R used for their AC print-head drives, and even went as far as to suggest that the system that another manufacturer is using is more effective.

I refute the points that were made in the original post and have responded with a series of specific questions related to the design that M&R and PrintEx are using on their AC drive print-heads. I’d greatly appreciate getting “Qualified” answers to these specific questions rather than you just reposting the original unsubstantiated statements.

  • Is the method that M&R is using to mount these WGR’s with the electric motor mounted vertically down, a manufacturer approved method?
  • What is the “Mean Time Between Failure” (MTBF), and primary cause of failure that M&R has experienced from mounting WGR’s this way?
  • Why does M&R utilize a more expensive WGR in their design when a simpler system of a toothed belt and pulley reduction is available?
  • What additional level of friction and inefficiency is created by using a toothed drive belt versus the minimal drag of a lubricated WGR?
  • What MTBF, or other issues with their drive mechanism has this alternative manufacturer experienced?

BTW, Here’s a couple of additional questions to add to the list:

  • Do you realize that M&R’s original AC print-head drives from 10+ years ago used a very similar drive belt and reduction pulley system to what PrintEx uses today?
  • Do you think there’s a possibility that M&R learned something about this design approach that drove their decision to move to a more expensive AC drive system that utilizes a worm gear reducer?

  • Is the method that M&R is using to mount these WGR’s with the electric motor mounted vertically down, a manufacturer approved method?

    approved isn't the point ... when designing equipment we make choices that are less than optimal ... M&R has made such a choice -and- unfortunately M&R customers are paying that price with leaking GearBoxes throughout the world :-((

  • What is the “Mean Time Between Failure” (MTBF), and primary cause of failure that M&R has experienced from mounting WGR’s this way?

    Lets give M&R the benefit of the doubt -and- assume that the GearBox will not leak before the belt needs to be change ... we'll call it even on a time/use basis ... its easier to change a belt -than- rebuild a Gear Box -nad- a heck of a lot cheaper to buy a new belt -than- to buy a $500 Gear Box

  • Why does M&R utilize a more expensive WGR in their design when a simpler system of a toothed belt and pulley reduction is available?

    cost ... its cheaper for M&R to buy a mass produced GearBox -than- to MFG the parts to build the Belt System

  • What additional level of friction and inefficiency is created by using a toothed drive belt versus the minimal drag of a lubricated WGR?

    Minimal Drag? Have you ever tried to manually pull the printhead on an M&R compared to the Printex ... talk about SPIN :-o

  • What MTBF, or other issues with their drive mechanism has this alternative manufacturer experienced?

    This one is Laughable ... there are Belts just like these with millions of rotational inches/feet/miles ... (Belt Life is not a topic you can win a debate on)

  • Do you realize that M&R’s original AC print-head drives from 10+ years ago used a very similar drive belt and reduction pulley system to what PrintEx uses today?

    yup ... are you saying that M&R customers were experiencing catastrophic failure so M&R switched ... I think not ... as I posted above ... M&R went with a mass produced Gear Box to reduce their costs -and- increase their profit :-p

  • Do you think there’s a possibility that M&R learned something about this design approach that drove their decision to move to a more expensive AC drive system that utilizes a worm gear reducer?

    if M&R was having application issues with its Belt Design it my very well have been its design NOT the Belt Power Transmission (once again Belt Life / use is NOT a topic you will win a debate on) ... Belts are used in far worse applications than screen printing machines and last for decades ... doesn't M&R use drive belts in conjunction with the GrearBox (nuf said)

Robert Barnes
Spider Machines
864-649-0123

robert@spidermachines.com

BlackBerry PIN: 322321FD
Skype: robert.w.barnes

Visit us on the web:
SpiderMachines.com

Service for New & Used Screen Printing Equipment
Auto Presses:
M&R - Gauntlet, Challenger, Formula, Sportsman, DiamondBack
RPM Press, Printex, Anatol

Note:
Robert Barnes was the Founder of Progressive and designed the Falcon line of Automatics Printers currently being sold by Workhorse Products

pwalsh's picture
Submitted by pwalsh on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 11:23

Spider-Machines wrote:
  • Is the method that M&R is using to mount these WGR’s with the electric motor mounted vertically down, a manufacturer approved method?

    approved isn't the point ... when designing equipment we make choices that are less than optimal ... M&R has made such a choice -and- unfortunately M&R customers are paying that price with leaking GearBoxes throughout the world :-((

  • What is the “Mean Time Between Failure” (MTBF), and primary cause of failure that M&R has experienced from mounting WGR’s this way?

    Lets give M&R the benefit of the doubt -and- assume that the GearBox will not leak before the belt needs to be change ... we'll call it even on a time/use basis ... its easier to change a belt -than- rebuild a Gear Box -nad- a heck of a lot cheaper to buy a new belt -than- to buy a $500 Gear Box

  • Why does M&R utilize a more expensive WGR in their design when a simpler system of a toothed belt and pulley reduction is available?

    cost ... its cheaper for M&R to buy a mass produced GearBox -than- to MFG the parts to build the Belt System

  • What additional level of friction and inefficiency is created by using a toothed drive belt versus the minimal drag of a lubricated WGR?

    Minimal Drag? Have you ever tried to manually pull the printhead on an M&R compared to the Printex ... talk about SPIN :-o

  • What MTBF, or other issues with their drive mechanism has this alternative manufacturer experienced?

    This one is Laughable ... there are Belts just like these with millions of rotational inches/feet/miles ... (Belt Life is not a topic you can win a debate on)

  • Do you realize that M&R’s original AC print-head drives from 10+ years ago used a very similar drive belt and reduction pulley system to what PrintEx uses today?

    yup ... are you saying that M&R customers were experiencing catastrophic failure so M&R switched ... I think not ... as I posted above ... M&R went with a mass produced Gear Box to reduce their costs -and- increase their profit :-p

  • Do you think there’s a possibility that M&R learned something about this design approach that drove their decision to move to a more expensive AC drive system that utilizes a worm gear reducer?

    if M&R was having application issues with its Belt Design it my very well have been its design NOT the Belt Power Transmission (once again Belt Life / use is NOT a topic you will win a debate on) ... Belts are used in far worse applications than screen printing machines and last for decades ... doesn't M&R use drive belts in conjunction with the GrearBox (nuf said)

Robert: This civil response is a positive development that I thank you for, and it would have been even better if the information that you had provided was accurate and correct.

For example the fact that you can push or pull a PrintEx print-head by hand has everything to do with the different gear ratios being used than it does with “belt and pulley” versus worm gear reducer.

So why would M&R use a much lower ratio than PrintEx? Could it be that it allows the AC motor to spin at higher RPM’s allowing the motor to develop higher torque, and for the cooling fan on the motor to work more effectively? His is an issue where it would be great to have Preston’s input on.

And what are you smoking with your assertion that it’s less expensive for M&R to purchase a worm gear reducer than it would be for them to utilize a cheaper system of a belt and pulley? Are you suggesting that M&R couldn’t purchase a mass produced belt and pulley system than the current worm gear reducer?

Peter G. Walsh
Vice President & General Manager
Nazdar SourceOne Shawnee Kansas
913-422-1888 x2020 - 913-579-6662 (cell)pwalsh@nazdar.com - SourceOneOnline.com

“The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions, strategies or opinions of the Nazdar or Thrall Companies.”

Spider-Machines's picture
Submitted by Spider-Machines on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 11:39

pwalsh wrote:
Robert: This civil response is a positive development that I thank you for, and it would have been even better if the information that you had provided was accurate and correct.

For example the fact that you can push or pull a PrintEx print-head by hand has everything to do with the different gear ratios being used than it does with “belt and pulley” versus worm gear reducer.

So why would M&R use a much lower ratio than PrintEx? Could it be that it allows the AC motor to spin at higher RPM’s allowing the motor to develop higher torque, and for the cooling fan on the motor to work more effectively? His is an issue where it would be great to have Preston’s input on.

And what are you smoking with your assertion that it’s less expensive for M&R to purchase a worm gear reducer than it would be for them to utilize a cheaper system of a belt and pulley? Are you suggesting that M&R couldn’t purchase a mass produced belt and pulley system than the current worm gear reducer?

Robert: This civil response is a positive development that I thank you for, and it would have been even better if the information that you had provided was accurate and correct.

GFY ... Just kidding ;-) LOL <--- welcome back Peter

For example the fact that you can push or pull a PrintEx print-head by hand has everything to do with the different gear ratios being used than it does with “belt and pulley” versus worm gear reducer.

it actually has everything to do with the mechanics of worm gear itself <--- really suprised you didn't know that (have you never rebuilt one of these -or- do you just sell'em a replacement GearBox :-?

So why would M&R use a much lower ratio than PrintEx? Could it be that it allows the AC motor to spin at higher RPM’s allowing the motor to develop higher torque, and for the cooling fan on the motor to work more effectively? His is an issue where it would be great to have Preston’s input on.

you are kidding right ... you are aware that the windings/Hz/rotational speeds are almost identical on the Printex -vs- M&R ... post pics of the GearBox -and- the Ratios -and- we can do a fair comparison of your thesis

And what are you smoking with your assertion that it’s less expensive for M&R to purchase a worm gear reducer than it would be for them to utilize a cheaper system of a belt and pulley? Are you suggesting that M&R couldn’t purchase a mass produced belt and pulley system than the current worm gear reducer?

I don't smoke ... never have -and- never will ... I can absolutely stand by my statement ... by M&R buying a cheap mass produced GearBox it is less cost than M&R making the necessary parts in-house -and- installing them correctly in the final assembly (this is by far the biggest issue that M&R faced in deciding to go with a cheap GearBox)

Robert Barnes
Spider Machines
864-649-0123

robert@spidermachines.com

BlackBerry PIN: 322321FD
Skype: robert.w.barnes

Visit us on the web:
SpiderMachines.com

Service for New & Used Screen Printing Equipment
Auto Presses:
M&R - Gauntlet, Challenger, Formula, Sportsman, DiamondBack
RPM Press, Printex, Anatol

Note:
Robert Barnes was the Founder of Progressive and designed the Falcon line of Automatics Printers currently being sold by Workhorse Products

pwalsh's picture
Submitted by pwalsh on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:34

Spider-Machines wrote:
For example the fact that you can push or pull a PrintEx print-head by hand has everything to do with the different gear ratios being used than it does with “belt and pulley” versus worm gear reducer.

it actually has everything to do with the mechanics of worm gear itself <--- really surprised you didn't know that (have you never rebuilt one of these -or- do you just sell'em a replacement GearBox :-?

[B]PW Response: Actually I’ve built and rebuilt many hundreds, maybe even more than a thousand Worm Gear Reducers to include the small format units used on the M&R press though to large format gear reducers used on industrial drive systems. Here’s a snippet of information for you. I’ve only had three jobs in my career to include; 16 years with the Nazdar Company, 9+ years with TAS, and before that 10 years with Renold Australia (renold.com.au) one of the world’s leaders in industrial transmission products. So, your question about my experience in this area is a just a little off base. [/B]

So why would M&R use a much lower ratio than PrintEx? Could it be that it allows the AC motor to spin at higher RPM’s allowing the motor to develop higher torque, and for the cooling fan on the motor to work more effectively? His is an issue where it would be great to have Preston’s input on.

you are kidding right ... you are aware that the windings/Hz/rotational speeds are almost identical on the Printex -vs- M&R ... post pics of the GearBox -and- the Ratios -and- we can do a fair comparison of your thesis

PW Response: I’ll concede the point that the RPM of the electric motors on the M&R and PrintEx could be similar at max speed, but that isn’t how screen-printers run their presses. The AC drives are operated at much lower speeds, especially when using heavy bodied plastisol inks such as whites, high density, and other specialty products. It’s in these applications where a worm gear reducer with the appropriate ratio for the application will significantly reduce the stress on the motor by allowing it to rotate faster at slower print stroke speeds.

And what are you smoking with your assertion that it’s less expensive for M&R to purchase a worm gear reducer than it would be for them to utilize a cheaper system of a belt and pulley? Are you suggesting that M&R couldn’t purchase a mass produced belt and pulley system than the current worm gear reducer?

I don't smoke ... never have -and- never will ... I can absolutely stand by my statement ... by M&R buying a cheap mass produced GearBox it is less cost than M&R making the necessary parts in-house -and- installing them correctly in the final assembly (this is by far the biggest issue that M&R faced in deciding to go with a cheap GearBox)

PW Response: You’re welcome to stand by your position, but you are still wrong. Do you honestly expect people to accept your position that M&R would produce their own pulley’s “In-House” versus sourcing them from a mass producing manufacturer on the open market? What other components and assembly would be involved that couldn’t be cost effectively produced at M&R? After all they previously used a direct drive belt and pulley system more than 10 years ago. If M&R ever decided to go back to the drive belt and pulley system that PrintEx is using, I have no doubt that they could do it at a lower cost than the worm gear reducer that they currently use.

Robert: Please see above for qualifiied responses to your post, and that's what I have to say on this issue.

Peter G. Walsh
Vice President & General Manager
Nazdar SourceOne Shawnee Kansas
913-422-1888 x2020 - 913-579-6662 (cell)pwalsh@nazdar.com - SourceOneOnline.com

“The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions, strategies or opinions of the Nazdar or Thrall Companies.”

Spider-Machines's picture
Submitted by Spider-Machines on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 13:44

pwalsh wrote:
Robert: Please see above for qualifiied responses to your post, and that's what I have to say on this issue.

Well ... if that's all you got to say ... well ... ummm ... you didn't do so well :-(

on the GearBoxes you never once explained what ratio M&R uses <--- which makes me fully believe you just realized the ratios are the same :-o

You did concede that the motor max speeds are the same -but- failed to explain that if you can't make the case that your ratio is different then you lost the "thick ink argument"

now ... if we were lifting ink buckets on a crane =then- you might be able to twist my "Printex is easy to move be hand" into some kind of breaking force issue -but- that is not the case here either :-(

As for the making pulley's in-house (don't insult people's intelligence) <-- Lord knows there are plenty here that ... well you know what I mean ;-) LOL

Here is the deal ... M&R did what they did to reduce the M&R costs NOT help the M&R buyer ... case closed :-@

Robert Barnes
Spider Machines
864-649-0123

robert@spidermachines.com

BlackBerry PIN: 322321FD
Skype: robert.w.barnes

Visit us on the web:
SpiderMachines.com

Service for New & Used Screen Printing Equipment
Auto Presses:
M&R - Gauntlet, Challenger, Formula, Sportsman, DiamondBack
RPM Press, Printex, Anatol

Note:
Robert Barnes was the Founder of Progressive and designed the Falcon line of Automatics Printers currently being sold by Workhorse Products

screenmachines's picture
Submitted by screenmachines on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 14:35

Spider-Machines wrote:
Robert: This civil response is a positive development that I thank you for, and it would have been even better if the information that you had provided was accurate and correct.

GFY ... Just kidding ;-) LOL <--- welcome back Peter

For example the fact that you can push or pull a PrintEx print-head by hand has everything to do with the different gear ratios being used than it does with “belt and pulley” versus worm gear reducer.

it actually has everything to do with the mechanics of worm gear itself <--- really suprised you didn't know that (have you never rebuilt one of these -or- do you just sell'em a replacement GearBox :-?

So why would M&R use a much lower ratio than PrintEx? Could it be that it allows the AC motor to spin at higher RPM’s allowing the motor to develop higher torque, and for the cooling fan on the motor to work more effectively? His is an issue where it would be great to have Preston’s input on.

you are kidding right ... you are aware that the windings/Hz/rotational speeds are almost identical on the Printex -vs- M&R ... post pics of the GearBox -and- the Ratios -and- we can do a fair comparison of your thesis

And what are you smoking with your assertion that it’s less expensive for M&R to purchase a worm gear reducer than it would be for them to utilize a cheaper system of a belt and pulley? Are you suggesting that M&R couldn’t purchase a mass produced belt and pulley system than the current worm gear reducer?

I don't smoke ... never have -and- never will ... I can absolutely stand by my statement ... by M&R buying a cheap mass produced GearBox it is less cost than M&R making the necessary parts in-house -and- installing them correctly in the final assembly (this is by far the biggest issue that M&R faced in deciding to go with a cheap GearBox)

Found this about worm gear reducers on the internet
Mounting the unit so the input worm shaft is vertical or under the output shaft is ideal for lubrication; mounting the unit so the input worm shaft is above the output shaft will reduce the driving capacity of the unit by about 10 %.

"Keep the the ink moving and you make money..."

Spider-Machines's picture
Submitted by Spider-Machines on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 15:12

screenmachines wrote:
Found this about worm gear reducers on the internet
Mounting the unit so the input worm shaft is vertical or under the output shaft is ideal for lubrication; mounting the unit so the input worm shaft is above the output shaft will reduce the driving capacity of the unit by about 10 %.

Here is a cutaway of what we are dicussing ... the oil level is like that of the rear end differential in a pickup truck ... oil is filled about midway -then- slung about (talk about spin)

Robert Barnes
Spider Machines
864-649-0123

robert@spidermachines.com

BlackBerry PIN: 322321FD
Skype: robert.w.barnes

Visit us on the web:
SpiderMachines.com

Service for New & Used Screen Printing Equipment
Auto Presses:
M&R - Gauntlet, Challenger, Formula, Sportsman, DiamondBack
RPM Press, Printex, Anatol

Note:
Robert Barnes was the Founder of Progressive and designed the Falcon line of Automatics Printers currently being sold by Workhorse Products

pwalsh's picture
Submitted by pwalsh on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 15:19

Spider-Machines wrote:
Here is a cutaway of what we are discussing ... the oil level is like that of the rear end differential in a pickup truck ... oil is filled about midway -then- slung about (talk about spin)

Robert: Given that you are now an expert on worm gear reducers, please explain the different oil fill levels, oil seals, and bearing lubrication packages that manufacturers use dependent on how the unit is mounted. BTW: M&R uses worm gear reducers with ratio's of 8/1 or 10/1 dependent on the machine series.

Peter G. Walsh
Vice President & General Manager
Nazdar SourceOne Shawnee Kansas
913-422-1888 x2020 - 913-579-6662 (cell)pwalsh@nazdar.com - SourceOneOnline.com

“The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions, strategies or opinions of the Nazdar or Thrall Companies.”

Spider-Machines's picture
Submitted by Spider-Machines on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 16:52

pwalsh wrote:
Robert: Given that you are now an expert on worm gear reducers, please explain the different oil fill levels, oil seals, and bearing lubrication packages that manufacturers use dependent on how the unit is mounted. BTW: M&R uses worm gear reducers with ratio's of 8/1 or 10/1 dependent on the machine series.

Sorry Peter ... but ... The ratio between this drive motor pulley and the larger jack shaft pulley seem to be very similar to the "8/1 or 10/1" <--- Spiderman accepts your apology ;-) LOL

Robert Barnes
Spider Machines
864-649-0123

robert@spidermachines.com

BlackBerry PIN: 322321FD
Skype: robert.w.barnes

Visit us on the web:
SpiderMachines.com

Service for New & Used Screen Printing Equipment
Auto Presses:
M&R - Gauntlet, Challenger, Formula, Sportsman, DiamondBack
RPM Press, Printex, Anatol

Note:
Robert Barnes was the Founder of Progressive and designed the Falcon line of Automatics Printers currently being sold by Workhorse Products

Promo Print's picture
Submitted by Promo Print on Wed, 07/06/2011 - 10:40

pwalsh wrote:
Robert: I'm back because the DigitSmith Site Administrators have implemented a level of moderation that curtails the personal attacks, and spread of blatantly false information. Your guy posted a lot of information on the design that M&R used for their AC print-head drives, and even went as far as to suggest that the system that another manufacturer is using is more effective.

I refute the points that were made in the original post and have responded with a series of specific questions related to the design that M&R and PrintEx are using on their AC drive print-heads. I’d greatly appreciate getting “Qualified” answers to these specific questions rather than you just reposting the original unsubstantiated statements.

  • Is the method that M&R is using to mount these WGR’s with the electric motor mounted vertically down, a manufacturer approved method?
  • What is the “Mean Time Between Failure” (MTBF), and primary cause of failure that M&R has experienced from mounting WGR’s this way?
  • Why does M&R utilize a more expensive WGR in their design when a simpler system of a toothed belt and pulley reduction is available?
  • What additional level of friction and inefficiency is created by using a toothed drive belt versus the minimal drag of a lubricated WGR?
  • What MTBF, or other issues with their drive mechanism has this alternative manufacturer experienced?

BTW, Here’s a couple of additional questions to add to the list:

  • Do you realize that M&R’s original AC print-head drives from 10+ years ago used a very similar drive belt and reduction pulley system to what PrintEx uses today?
  • Do you think there’s a possibility that M&R learned something about this design approach that drove their decision to move to a more expensive AC drive system that utilizes a worm gear reducer?

Hi Peter

Nice to have you back. I personally do not understand much technical part that you and Robert are arguing.
In my opinion belt does seems like simpler, more elegant and easier solution.
If you want to replace motor, you unbolt it and bolt new one. If belt snaps you put new one. I have no doubt that belt can last long time and perform well. After all, every car motor spins over cam belt and cam belt can last up to 100 000km.
Thing that interest me is why M&R steeped away from that concept?
Rich once used about the same line that you used, but he never elaborated on why M&R did it.
Providing yours long term relationship with M&R do you maybe know answer to that?

screenmachines's picture
Submitted by screenmachines on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 00:26

Direct AC Drive Facts
1. Custom motor required
2. Direct drive motor can cost 5 to 7 times more then a standard motor
3. Requires more amps to produce the same torgue ratings as drive system with motor / gearbox combo

For lower speed/higher torque applications right angle gearboxs are recomemded by nearly all major manufactures of Frequency Drives.

Motor/Gearbox Facts
1. More componets in the drive system
2. Requires routine maintenance

There are many ways to drive to Chicago. Just because everyone takes a different route, don't really mean they are wrong.
All information was found on the interent in minutes.
So the way I see it, as long at each manufacture mounts the parts in their chosen drive system according to specs, they are both right.

"Keep the the ink moving and you make money..."

preston's picture
Submitted by preston on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 01:15

screenmachines wrote:
Direct AC Drive Facts
1. Custom motor required
2. Direct drive motor can cost 5 to 7 times more then a standard motor
3. Requires more amps to produce the same torgue ratings as drive system with motor / gearbox combo

For lower speed/higher torque applications right angle gearboxs are recomemded by nearly all major manufactures of Frequency Drives.

Motor/Gearbox Facts
1. More componets in the drive system
2. Requires routine maintenance

There are many ways to drive to Chicago. Just because everyone takes a different route, don't really mean they are wrong.
All information was found on the interent in minutes.
So the way I see it, as long at each manufacture mounts the parts in their chosen drive system according to specs, they are both right.

I think you need to go back to school on the AC Drive facts. And a little brush up on angle drive would not hurt either.

Shop Cal Software

Spider-Machines's picture
Submitted by Spider-Machines on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 09:16

inkman996 wrote:
Awesome post Peter it is sad tho that said expert instead of refuting any of your distinctions had to resort to his usual attack.

What's there to refute ... you are big on common sense right?

Apply common sense ...

A. The oil resting on the seal will eventually leak out (gravity is common sense)

B. if the gear box were mounted horizontally the movement within the gearbox would sling/pump/splash the oil around correctly (common sense)

C. If the gear box were mounted vertically the motor would be sticking up so even if the seal were damaged it wouldn't leak down the sides of the motor (more common sense)

Spiderman has to get on a Video Skype Conference Call with Austria in a bit ... Marcodie is inches away from the USA market ... Boy won't that be FUN :-))

Robert Barnes
Spider Machines
864-649-0123

robert@spidermachines.com

BlackBerry PIN: 322321FD
Skype: robert.w.barnes

Visit us on the web:
SpiderMachines.com

Service for New & Used Screen Printing Equipment
Auto Presses:
M&R - Gauntlet, Challenger, Formula, Sportsman, DiamondBack
RPM Press, Printex, Anatol

Note:
Robert Barnes was the Founder of Progressive and designed the Falcon line of Automatics Printers currently being sold by Workhorse Products

Submitted by Printwizard on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 10:58

screenmachines wrote:
So which is it, Printex, Marcodie, or the China machine. Crazy how you think they all are the best. Please pick a product and stick with it. It's just hard to keep up with your product choice.

I thought TAS being mainly built of common parts would have no maintenance issues. The ones I have seen seem to actually have a longer production life as you see a lot of old TAS still chugging out the work beside mothballed gauntlets. (India)

SCREENMACHINES, Great call, pick a brand. I think last week the mention was SRoque as well. Logic dictates any buyer will look at supply chain and downstream parts and profitiblilty of a company so it will still be there to service, and locally techs can support, and a second hand demand which only comes with a critical mass and a profitable, reputable manufacturer. You can't do that with twenty factories that all have a dozen presses in the market, you would grow and sell easier one manufacturer and get 240 presses in the market, then you would get better manufacturer support, marketing, and it would snowball with the critical mass. The shotgun approach of being all things to all people is not good business sense, next week will RWB be pitching us offset flex machines in case we want to go into printing plastic bags?

NAZDAR, great questions, this is the comparison we need more of, and across more brands.
RWB, Great answers. Explained and understandable. It's not about the person, it's all about the machine.:)

Spider-Machines's picture
Submitted by Spider-Machines on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:43

Printwizard wrote:
I thought TAS being mainly built of common parts would have no maintenance issues. The ones I have seen seem to actually have a longer production life as you see a lot of old TAS still chugging out the work beside mothballed gauntlets. (India)

SCREENMACHINES, Great call, pick a brand. I think last week the mention was SRoque as well. Logic dictates any buyer will look at supply chain and downstream parts and profitiblilty of a company so it will still be there to service, and locally techs can support, and a second hand demand which only comes with a critical mass and a profitable, reputable manufacturer. You can't do that with twenty factories that all have a dozen presses in the market, you would grow and sell easier one manufacturer and get 240 presses in the market, then you would get better manufacturer support, marketing, and it would snowball with the critical mass. The shotgun approach of being all things to all people is not good business sense, next week will RWB be pitching us offset flex machines in case we want to go into printing plastic bags?

NAZDAR, great questions, this is the comparison we need more of, and across more brands.
RWB, Great answers. Explained and understandable. It's not about the person, it's all about the machine.:)

Wiz ... you are WRONG about the different brands ... Printex has its Market in the USA (Buyers of Sportsman EX Buyers -and- Challenger III) ... Marcodie has its Market in the USA (Alpha8 Buyers) ... China Sporty has its Market in the USA (Buyers of Used Gauntlet II, Sportsman, etc.)

Robert Barnes
Spider Machines
864-649-0123

robert@spidermachines.com

BlackBerry PIN: 322321FD
Skype: robert.w.barnes

Visit us on the web:
SpiderMachines.com

Service for New & Used Screen Printing Equipment
Auto Presses:
M&R - Gauntlet, Challenger, Formula, Sportsman, DiamondBack
RPM Press, Printex, Anatol

Note:
Robert Barnes was the Founder of Progressive and designed the Falcon line of Automatics Printers currently being sold by Workhorse Products

Submitted by Printwizard on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 12:59

Spider-Machines wrote:
Wiz ... you are WRONG about the different brands ... Printex has its Market in the USA (Buyers of Sportsman EX Buyers -and- Challenger III) ... Marcodie has its Market in the USA (Alpha8 Buyers) ... China Sporty has its Market in the USA (Buyers of Used Gauntlet II, Sportsman, etc.)

RWB, I can understand the Marcodie vs Alpha8 and Printex, but surely the second hand gauntlet and sportsman market would be better placed into new hurricanes at worst or spectrums in terms of price and model comparability. Also, do you have to cover off all things and be all things to all people? If you work 60 hours a week on one brand it will be strong, if you divide that by three brands, you risk never being effective at any of them. Don't get me wrong, I would like this to work, I really would, but even big companies with ten times the resource wouldn't bed in so many brands at a time. People who will buy off you will buy the china sporty at the expense of the spectrum.
Maybe I am wrong. I am the only one really who thinks this.......
Critical mass for viability versus field of dreams, build it and they will come?
Heck, there has to be a first time for me to be wrong!:D

Spider-Machines's picture
Submitted by Spider-Machines on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 13:48

Printwizard wrote:
RWB, I can understand the Marcodie vs Alpha8 and Printex, but surely the second hand gauntlet and sportsman market would be better placed into new hurricanes at worst or spectrums in terms of price and model comparability. Also, do you have to cover off all things and be all things to all people? If you work 60 hours a week on one brand it will be strong, if you divide that by three brands, you risk never being effective at any of them. Don't get me wrong, I would like this to work, I really would, but even big companies with ten times the resource wouldn't bed in so many brands at a time. People who will buy off you will buy the china sporty at the expense of the spectrum.
Maybe I am wrong. I am the only one really who thinks this.......
Critical mass for viability versus field of dreams, build it and they will come?
Heck, there has to be a first time for me to be wrong!:D

Printex doesn't need/want the bottom feeders

So ... you have:

Alpha8 = Marcodie
Challenger III = Printex Prism II
Sportsman EX = Printex Spectrum

Used M&R = China Sporty

Robert Barnes
Spider Machines
864-649-0123

robert@spidermachines.com

BlackBerry PIN: 322321FD
Skype: robert.w.barnes

Visit us on the web:
SpiderMachines.com

Service for New & Used Screen Printing Equipment
Auto Presses:
M&R - Gauntlet, Challenger, Formula, Sportsman, DiamondBack
RPM Press, Printex, Anatol

Note:
Robert Barnes was the Founder of Progressive and designed the Falcon line of Automatics Printers currently being sold by Workhorse Products

Spider-Machines's picture
Submitted by Spider-Machines on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 15:16

Proper Mounting ...

Robert Barnes
Spider Machines
864-649-0123

robert@spidermachines.com

BlackBerry PIN: 322321FD
Skype: robert.w.barnes

Visit us on the web:
SpiderMachines.com

Service for New & Used Screen Printing Equipment
Auto Presses:
M&R - Gauntlet, Challenger, Formula, Sportsman, DiamondBack
RPM Press, Printex, Anatol

Note:
Robert Barnes was the Founder of Progressive and designed the Falcon line of Automatics Printers currently being sold by Workhorse Products

pwalsh's picture
Submitted by pwalsh on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 15:35

Spider-Machines wrote:
Proper Mounting ...

Robert: That is one method of mounting, it's definitely not the only manufacturer approved method, and not necessarily the best method. In fact a mounting with the worm shaft below the wheel is way, way more common.

Peter G. Walsh
Vice President & General Manager
Nazdar SourceOne Shawnee Kansas
913-422-1888 x2020 - 913-579-6662 (cell)pwalsh@nazdar.com - SourceOneOnline.com

“The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions, strategies or opinions of the Nazdar or Thrall Companies.”

Spider-Machines's picture
Submitted by Spider-Machines on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 16:57

pwalsh wrote:
Robert: That is one method of mounting, it's definitely not the only manufacturer approved method, and not necessarily the best method. In fact a mounting with the worm shaft below the wheel is way, way more common.

Do you at the very least agree that this is the worst way to mount one :-?

Based on the admittedly vast number of these you have personally rebuilt I would find it strange that you are soooooo admit about defending them ... How many M&R belts have you changed -vs- M&R GearBoxes :-?

Here are the leaking M&R GearBoxes

Robert Barnes
Spider Machines
864-649-0123

robert@spidermachines.com

BlackBerry PIN: 322321FD
Skype: robert.w.barnes

Visit us on the web:
SpiderMachines.com

Service for New & Used Screen Printing Equipment
Auto Presses:
M&R - Gauntlet, Challenger, Formula, Sportsman, DiamondBack
RPM Press, Printex, Anatol

Note:
Robert Barnes was the Founder of Progressive and designed the Falcon line of Automatics Printers currently being sold by Workhorse Products

screenmachines's picture
Submitted by screenmachines on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 17:13

Spider-Machines wrote:
Do you at the very least agree that this is the worst way to mount one :-?

Based on the admittedly vast number of these you have personally rebuilt I would find it strange that you are soooooo admit about defending them ... How many M&R belts have you changed -vs- M&R GearBoxes :-?

I don't agree, I've changed belts on the Old Formula style. More then I have heard of people changing gearboxes on the newer machines. I have replaced a few gearboxes in my years. Most because belts get tightened to tight and caused an issue not because they were mounted wrong. This is only an opinion, and it's mine.

"Keep the the ink moving and you make money..."

preston's picture
Submitted by preston on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 17:59

screenmachines wrote:
I don't agree, I've changed belts on the Old Formula style. More then I have heard of people changing gearboxes on the newer machines. I have replaced a few gearboxes in my years. Most because belts get tightened to tight and caused an issue not because they were mounted wrong. This is only an opinion, and it's mine.

If you can tighten a belt tight enough to damage a 90 degree gear reduction then that is one cheap gear reduction.

Shop Cal Software

screenmachines's picture
Submitted by screenmachines on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 18:35

Spider-Machines wrote:
OMG ... I literally can't stop laughing ... I have tears in my eyes ... ScreenMachines has no idea what she is posting about ... Toooooo Funnny :-@

Note: her DiamondBack doesn't have A/C Printheads ... still can't stop laughing ... OMG :-D

Even Preston understood it. Guess your blinded, by all those great machines, which is it this week?

Preston, you know even the best gearbox in the world will fail if you over tighten the belt and let it run that way for long periods.

Funny how she shows a picture of a failed gearbox, then a cut out of a different gearbox, compare APPLES to APPLES.

I just made a few calls, guess what I can't find one manufacture of gearboxs that say the way M&R mounts them would be incorrect. So with that your picking and choosing opinions.

"Keep the the ink moving and you make money..."

preston's picture
Submitted by preston on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 20:12

screenmachines wrote:
Even Preston understood it. Guess your blinded, by all those great machines, which is it this week?

Preston, you know even the best gearbox in the world will fail if you over tighten the belt and let it run that way for long periods.

I guess all the non-textile machines I have worked on in my life had better 90 degree gear boxes. Had some starting and stopping 60 tons with a side load drive. Never a failure due to that. Can you tighten a belt to 60 tons of tension?

Shop Cal Software

pwalsh's picture
Submitted by pwalsh on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 20:59

Spider-Machines wrote:
Note: Inkman must of tightened his spring tooooo much -and- that's why he needs a bigger lift cylinder ... Right?

C'mon ... Printex drop'd the ball -and- Spider Machines wants to resolve it <--- that's the way it should be done :-))

Robert: For you to admit that there are real issues that need to be corrected on Inkman's Printex press, and further more that you would express your desire to resolve the situation is a credit to you. Well done, very well done indeed. Unfortunately it would appear from what's been posted that Inkman, and Dan the Company Owner have developed a major distrust of what might happen if they allow you onto their premises to work on the machine.

Given that this stand-off that is helping no-one, I wanted to ask you if there was anyone other than yourself from the PrintEx or Spider Machines organization(s), who could make an on-site visit to address the open issues with this press? If it turns out that you are the most qualified person to visit Dan's shop I was wondering would you be willing to propose the following conditions to cover your visit into Dan's shop, and if not why not?

  • Only essential personnel from Printex and their Service /Repair agent Spider Machines would be allowed entry to Dan's facility.
  • This would exclude non-essential personnel such as Webgurl, Preston, or other people who are not directly required in the repair process from entering Dan's shop.
  • Absolutely no electronic or photographic recording of any kind to be performed by Printex /Spider Machines during your visit to Dan's facility.
  • In the event that photographic recording is required to facilitate repair of the defects to the press, then such actions will be performed by Representatives of Dan's company.
  • Copyrighted/restricted use copies of essential video or still images supplied to Printex/Spider Machines on an as needed basis, to be used strictly on an internal basis.

I've deliberately avoided making any comment on this issue previously as I felt that the situation was best addressed between the customer and the manufacturer directly. Given that the problems have been debated openly in these forums by both parties I thought that it couldn't hurt to offer both of you guys some common sense advice that might help Dan and Mike put these issues behind them, and also help PrintEx on the way to having another satisfied customer.

Peter G. Walsh
Vice President & General Manager
Nazdar SourceOne Shawnee Kansas
913-422-1888 x2020 - 913-579-6662 (cell)pwalsh@nazdar.com - SourceOneOnline.com

“The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the positions, strategies or opinions of the Nazdar or Thrall Companies.”

Spider-Machines's picture
Submitted by Spider-Machines on Tue, 07/05/2011 - 22:30

pwalsh wrote:
Robert: For you to admit that there are real issues that need to be corrected on Inkman's Printex press, and further more that you would express your desire to resolve the situation is a credit to you. Well done, very well done indeed. Unfortunately it would appear from what's been posted that Inkman, and Dan the Company Owner have developed a major distrust of what might happen if they allow you onto their premises to work on the machine.

Given that this stand-off that is helping no-one, I wanted to ask you if there was anyone other than yourself from the PrintEx or Spider Machines organization(s), who could make an on-site visit to address the open issues with this press? If it turns out that you are the most qualified person to visit Dan's shop I was wondering would you be willing to propose the following conditions to cover your visit into Dan's shop, and if not why not?

  • Only essential personnel from Printex and their Service /Repair agent Spider Machines would be allowed entry to Dan's facility.
  • This would exclude non-essential personnel such as Webgurl, Preston, or other people who are not directly required in the repair process from entering Dan's shop.
  • Absolutely no electronic or photographic recording of any kind to be performed by Printex /Spider Machines during your visit to Dan's facility.
  • In the event that photographic recording is required to facilitate repair of the defects to the press, then such actions will be performed by Representatives of Dan's company.
  • Copyrighted/restricted use copies of essential video or still images supplied to Printex/Spider Machines on an as needed basis, to be used strictly on an internal basis.

I've deliberately avoided making any comment on this issue previously as I felt that the situation was best addressed between the customer and the manufacturer directly. Given that the problems have been debated openly in these forums by both parties I thought that it couldn't hurt to offer both of you guys some common sense advice that might help Dan and Mike put these issues behind them, and also help PrintEx on the way to having another satisfied customer.

Thank you Peter for this post ... Spiderman will personally go into Dan's building ALONE (no one else) <--- they have my permission to setup a webcam, video camera surveillance, take as many pics as they please (the sole purpose of my visit will be to identify ANY issues -and- get the information needed to the Boyz in Poland -then- layout a planned timeline of corrective action)

Follow up visit will be 100% solution based ... Spiderman has ALWAYS supported his customers -and- this can be a great opportunity to prove it to ALL the naysayers :-))

Once again ... Thank you Peter for your post :-D

Robert Barnes
Spider Machines
864-649-0123

robert@spidermachines.com

BlackBerry PIN: 322321FD
Skype: robert.w.barnes

Visit us on the web:
SpiderMachines.com

Service for New & Used Screen Printing Equipment
Auto Presses:
M&R - Gauntlet, Challenger, Formula, Sportsman, DiamondBack
RPM Press, Printex, Anatol

Note:
Robert Barnes was the Founder of Progressive and designed the Falcon line of Automatics Printers currently being sold by Workhorse Products

Submitted by Printwizard on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 05:52

Great, we can get over who screenmachines works for then! End of story and I never have to read that line, awesome!!! I love the debate that Peter Nazdar and Screenmachines are bringing to the table, it's healthy, I don't understand enough to pick sides, but it is educational.
I like the comment on driving different routes, and thinking on that, there wouldn't be fifty machine manufacturers if they all only made the exact same models out of the exact same componentry and were all clones of each other. Each company goes down different routes in terms of development, technology, putting things in for ease, taking them out for ease, costs, history hindsight, research, new technology resources and tooling, and a whole lot of reasons I will never know or understand, that's not to say they are all right or all wrong. Some may be better in some ways, worse in others. They may also look at simplification for cost, but that's about making a profit, and you are in business to make money, not for love or ego.
In terms of maintenance, all machinery and vehicles need some degree of servicing and maintenance based on time and usage.
Perhaps an interesting thread may be a fifteen year maintenance cost per machine design or per head, or per hundred thousand impressions as an overall machine cost extrapolation, rather than on some components or parts on some models. That way printers could budget in repairs and maintenance on a per job or shirt price or overhead cost with a relatively known quantity and this cost could be factored in buying decisions of machine models and brands as part of the decision process like purchase cost versus running cost.
Different answers are not necessarily wrong answers in the big picture. You could end up arguing the beige or white shade of RPM makes it easier to spot oil or grease on the paint than Printex or MnR, but overall in the bigger scheme it's not the reason not to buy a blue shade, or for those manufacturers to start painting their machines beige.....
But keep up the points, it's healthy, great and informative even if I don't know enough to decide a clear winner, at least I am not reading and thinking Anatol!

Submitted by arttex on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 06:54

Yep, I agree. These kind of posts are great! You can go starting debates on many others machine parts and design solutions. Tell us the diffrerences and why do you think your machine is better than others.

Spider-Machines's picture
Submitted by Spider-Machines on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 08:30

arttex wrote:
Yep, I agree. These kind of posts are great! You can go starting debates on many others machine parts and design solutions. Tell us the diffrerences and why do you think your machine is better than others.

This statement Spiderman is about to make sums up what you should be looking for when buying:

at the end of the day it's NEVER truly about product, service, etc. it's about the impact made on the companies ability to make $$$ MONEY $$$

So ... Your job as a buyer is to figure out what makes your business "tick" -then- determine what machine/brand will make it "tick the loudest"

Printex offers you the BEST ratio of Technology, Features with Benefits, Price -vs- Costs, etc.

Robert Barnes
Spider Machines
864-649-0123

robert@spidermachines.com

BlackBerry PIN: 322321FD
Skype: robert.w.barnes

Visit us on the web:
SpiderMachines.com

Service for New & Used Screen Printing Equipment
Auto Presses:
M&R - Gauntlet, Challenger, Formula, Sportsman, DiamondBack
RPM Press, Printex, Anatol

Note:
Robert Barnes was the Founder of Progressive and designed the Falcon line of Automatics Printers currently being sold by Workhorse Products

screenmachines's picture
Submitted by screenmachines on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 20:51

Spider-Machines wrote:
This statement Spiderman is about to make sums up what you should be looking for when buying:

at the end of the day it's NEVER truly about product, service, etc. it's about the impact made on the companies ability to make $$$ MONEY $$$

So ... Your job as a buyer is to figure out what makes your business "tick" -then- determine what machine/brand will make it "tick the loudest"

Printex offers you the BEST ratio of Technology, Features with Benefits, Price -vs- Costs, etc.

Not sure what this has to do with the topic at hand. Again hijacking..

"Keep the the ink moving and you make money..."

screenmachines's picture
Submitted by screenmachines on Thu, 07/07/2011 - 07:44

MORE FACTS
Q. How can you minimize the size of a major drive component such as a motor and its reducer while maximizing output torque capacity?
A. Introduce mechanical advantage or ratios where possible.
Example: An application requires 700 in-lbs of torque at 90 RPM utilizing a 1HP 1750 RPM motor (36 in-lbs. of torque generated from 1HP motor SCI)

Option 1 - 20:1 reducer with 720 in-lbs of output torque capacity. 36 in-lbs X 20:1 ratio = 720 in-lbs capacity less efficiency loss through reducer.

Option 2 - 10:1 gear reducer. 36 in-lbs X 10:1 ratio = 360 in-lbs capacity less efficiency loss through reducer plus a 2:1 chain drive from reducer to drive shaft

Option 2 would be most economical because we are reducing the gearbox size requirements (capacity needed) by half and still mainating the application torque requirements at the drive shaft with the use of the chain drive.

Note: The more HP or torque that the application needs to transmit, the more money that can be saved by multiplying torque through reducers and auxiliary drive components.

Q. Why use a worm gear reducer?
A. A worm gear reducer is a right angle gear solution that allows the maximum speed reduction in the smallest package.

"Keep the the ink moving and you make money..."

2025 © DigitSmith | Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy | Contact