OT - Any Bearing Experts (Thrust Problem)

One of our customers with a special three spindle drilling head is having some problems. They went out and bought a drill press that can not get the
RPM / thrust settings right for a particular drilling process they need to run.
Rather than buy a new drill press, they bought some tooling that can handle the higher feed rate per revolution.
The head is being used to drill 2 holes at 0.326" diameter and one hole at 0.218" diameter. The material is stainless steel and their machine makes a lot of thrust. They can not reduce the thrust or increase the RPM unless they buy a new drill press and of course, they are resisting that idea because the drill press they would need to buy (probably a used Bridgeport actually) costs much more than the head I sold them.
The bearings inside the head do not last very long because they are being pushed way past their thrust ratings. Because of the close C-C spacing, there are no larger bearings or "stacked" bearing options available to me at this time without actually building them a brand new drilling head. They are open to this as the fault here is clear - they need the proper machine to drive the head...
But... Before we go down either the new and more robust head route or new machine to drive the head route... I'm wondering if there are any bearing experts out here who can tell me whether there are any specialty bearings that take higher thrust numbers or even vibration better than a typical ABEC 1 bearing. I was thinking ceramic, but I don't think they would take vibration very well... We were thinking of going to higher ABEC numbers on the bearings but I'm not sure that will help either s it shows higher RPM ratings, but not much difference in thrust ratings.
Before anyone asks, we can't change the input/output RPM of the head to compensate either. If I could simply have the input:output at 1:2, that would solve it, but there is no room for the gearing inside their footprint to do that...
Random thoughts from the wild welcomed! We have two solutions as noted above, but the customer would like to avoid both if possible...
Regards, Joe Agro, Jr. (800) 871-5022 01.908.542.0244 Automatic / Pneumatic Drills: http://www.AutoDrill.com Multiple Spindle Drills: http://www.Multi-Drill.com Flagship Site: http://www.Drill-N-Tap.com
V8013-R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 10:45:33 -0500, "Joe AutoDrill"

=======While this does cause an increase in the motor operating temperature, if 3-phase use a VFD to slow down, i.e. 45-50 cycle. Relatively inexpensive fix if this works.
Unka' George [George McDuffee] ------------------------------------------- He that will not apply new remedies, must expect new evils: for Time is the greatest innovator: and if Time, of course, alter things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better, what shall be the end?
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman. Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Unfortunately, RPM and feed rates are tied to the motor RPM. We were going to throw a differetn RPM motor on there if they weren't.
--


Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Joe, Check with INA, they have some nice thrust/roller combination bearings that you may be able to fit in there.....worth a look....
http://www.ina.com
I'm assuming these are Angular contact bearings you are using now?
You might also look at the thin ring crossed-roller bearings they offer.....very high thrust load ratings for a very, very thin bearing. You might be able to swap to a different ABEC roller and use the crossed roller as thrust bearings in the same space.
--
Anthony

You can't 'idiot proof' anything....every time you try, they just make
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

that
roller
http://www.kalamaprecision.com/bearingmanual /
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

In another thread he states that the spinldes are within .875" of each other. Thi is slightly more than 22 mm. The only bearings I see in the NSK catalog are deep grove ball bearings, either a 6900, or a 6801. I didn't find any Angular contact, or anything else that looks useful in that small of an OD.
The 6900 is 10mm ID, and 22mm OD The 6801 is 12mm ID, and 21mm OD.
The 6900 may have a higher load rating, if I understand it correctly.
Secondly, this appears to be a problem where they are over feeding the drill for the available RPM. So, unless the feed is mechanically driven from the spindle, it seems like a VFD could solve the problem. Since Joe says that the actual bearings in use are "Secret" not sure what more can be done for him...
Unless there are newer angular bearings, or unless he can add an Actual Thrust bearing to the face of the drive.. Don't know what else to suggest without more info.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

History will repeat itself : ( 1936 ) President Roosevelt signed
into law a series of large tax increases for taxpayers at all
income levels. At the bottom end, personal exemptions
were reduced, and an earned income credit was eliminated.
At the top end, the highest marginal rate was increased to
79 percent in 1936.
Between 1930 and 1940, the corporate income tax rate
was doubled from 12 percent to 24 percent, and an "excess
profits" tax was added on top. In addition, Roosevelt
imposed an excise tax on dividends, a capital stock tax,
and he increased estate taxes.
Any problem can be solved with the proper ammount of taxes.
Best Regards
Tom.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

=======================When the economy is in an deflationary "death spiral" the last thing to do is increase taxes and reduce government spending as this takes even more money out of circulation, exacerbating the problem
On the other hand, an extremely skewed distribution of wealth causes other social/political problems which may outweigh the need to try to keep a reasonable amount of money in circulation through low taxes. One of the worst effects of extreme mal distribution is the isolation/insulation of a very small but very vocal/powerful minority who indeed "never had it so good," and who therefore are unwilling to tolerate, let alone promote essential changes in the economic structure/environment.
It should be noted that the accepted measure of wealth distribution is the GINI index. By this measure, the wealth/assets in the United States were more unevenly distributed [concentrated in to fewer hands] in 2007-2008 than the years 1928-29 just prior to the market break and deflation/implosion called the "Great Depression." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality When you check for the relative position of the US compared to other countries remember that what is being measure is the equality of income, not the level of income. For historical US GINI data see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/histinc/f04.html
Roosevelt to a *SMALL* degree did increase the marginal tax rates on those that had considerable money, but any effect on the money supply in circulation was more than offset by increased [deficit] governmental spending. At no time did he advocate the more extreme wealth redistribution schemes such as Huey Long's "Share the wealth program" under "Every Man a King."
A democratic society, indeed no society, will long endure where the social/living conditions between the elite and the bulk of the people is so extreme as to be effectively separate countries or even parallel universes. [Think "let them eat cake."]
For example, If I am making 50 million dollars a year, a spike in gasoline prices to 10$ a gallon is to my benefit because it gets the riff-raff off the roads in their cheap automobiles and lets get to my important meetings and then home quicker in my Maybach or Masseratti. Same thing in the restaurants. Expensive food keeps the yokels out of Elaine's, Ruth's Chris, or Per Lie [Windows on the World is gone] so I can get good reservations and service.
Thus in many cases, the main effect of [greatly] increased taxes, even confiscations/capital levies is not to increase governmental revenue, but to force the reconnection/reintegration of the top 1 or 2 % back into the rest of society. There will be of course howls of rage at this, but the top 1 or 2 % have only themselves to blame as they (or their employees) were the ones that drove the economic bus in the ditch, and increasingly "over the cliff."
When you are tending a flock of sheep, the whole idea is to shear them, not flay them alive, so you can keep getting the wool. FWIW -- shearing them close just before winter sets in is not a good idea ether.
Unka' George [George McDuffee] ------------------------------------------- He that will not apply new remedies, must expect new evils: for Time is the greatest innovator: and if Time, of course, alter things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better, what shall be the end?
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman. Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This of course added a number of years to the Great Depression, which we only got out of by entering a world war as its main manufacturing supplier
Gunner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Agreed, after listening to the presidents speach yesterday it reminded of what roosevelt did. Being a product of chicago machine democrats i believe the president never met a tax he didnt like, same as roosevelt.
Best Regards Tom.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You probably don't see the logical contradiction you've just stated, but on the off chance you may recognize it if it's laid out for you:
The mainstream view is that the hesitant stimulus program run by Roosevelt was proven to be insufficient to do the job. In 1935 (IIRC) he actually reversed the program and tried to re-institute a balanced budget. The result was that the recovery stopped dead in its tracks and we whipsawed into another recession.
World War II, from an economics point of view, was the greatest deficit-spending program in history. Finally, there was enough stimulus. As you say, that's what got us out of the Depression.
The lesson to be taken from this is that stimulus has to be strong and comprehensive to work. Thus, Obama's large stimulus plan, which is an outgrowth of the ill experience we had with the half-assed program of the 1930s (roughly what McCain and the Republicans are pushing for now) and the successful experience we had with the enormous stimulus of WWII.
If you think about what you said above, you'll realize what "added years to the Depression." It wasn't the deficit spending. It was the lack of it.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Keep something in mind, however. The amount of national debt now is greater, in relation to GDP, than it was in 1935. So financing of such programs may become difficult.
i
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Financing it is difficult, as a result of the legacy national debt of around $10 trillion (70% of GDP today versus 40% in 1935). But they haven't invented any new ways of dealing with it since the 1930s, so we're stuck in the same boat we were then: monetary policy is tapped out, export markets are drying up, investment sucks despite the lowest *real* corporate tax rates in the developed world, employment is falling along with GDP, etc.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

Not that Wiki is the best source; but it's often the quickest and most concise. Here's a simple look at US debt history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
The only way deficit spending can successfully stimulate the economy (as opposed to crippling it) is if the result is enough growth in real productivity and wealth creation that the deficits can actually be repaid. And that needs to happen BEFORE some new crisis needs additional deficits. Note that I said REAL wealth creation. Paper growth based on third hand-derivative speculation in things that already exist doesn't count. In fact, it hurts by drawing money away from real investments that actually produce something besides paper.
At the end of WWII, the prospects for rapid and dramatic growth were MUCH brighter than they are today. Other industrial economies in Europe and Asia had been wrecked by the war. The US was still small enough (in population and energy usage) that it could pretty much oil itself without relying on imports (OPEC didn't even exist yet). And many of the nations which now compete with us for shares in a global marketplace (e.g. S. Korea, China, India) were still insignificant in terms of their place at the table of large-scale trade and finance.
In other words, growth and expansion were easy.
That's not the case today. Growth is harder, slower, and less certain. And so is the likelyhood that our debt will ever be brought under control.
If you dig yourself into a 10' deep hole, and you have a 15' rope securely anchored at the top, then climbing out isn't impossible. If the hole gets to be 20' or 50' deep, however...
KG
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's a good analysis, Kirk, which leads to the next question: What alternative is there to going for a new wave of growth? That's where the spending on education and science come into play. It's a long shot. It's also the only shot.

Unfortunately, the alternative is to sit at the bottom of the hole with no rope at all -- and you can only jump five feet. <g>
Several economists have said lately how impressed they are with Obama's guts to promote this program. But they tend to agree that he has no viable alternative. He's shooting for the moon: stimulating the economy, and simultaneously stimulating the things that have driven most of our rapid economic growth in the past.
What do you think? Are we up to it? Or have we run out of gas?
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

It's good to keep a sense of humor...
http://msunderestimated.com/SNLBailoutSkit.wmv
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

LOL! Oh, that's a good one. I missed that the first time around. Thanks for the chuckles.
-- Ed Huntress
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Ed Huntress wrote:

I think the US has made the same mistake that most other "empires" in history have made. We reached the pinnacle of power - of control over our own destiny - and then we got fat and lazy. We're fat enough and lazy enough now that I sincerely doubt we're able to do what it would take to reverse the trend toward borrowing from the future to pay for today's luxuries.
If we really wanted to get healthy, and if it were possible for a government to get elected by promising to help us in that direction, we'd severely limit the amount of borrowing we do, and the way we do it, as a government and as individuals. We'd accept the need for a long and difficult period of rebuilding, and then emerge infintely stronger and more secure 20 or 30 years from now. We'd stop building and buying huge cars. We'd stop buying houses that are more than we need or can afford, and that overuse our land, energy, natural resources, road systems, and more. We'd simply refuse to deal with, or buy stock in, public companies whose top managers were paid in any way at all that wasn't tied directly to profits. We'd recall and discard politicians who enrich themselves or their friends with public money.
We'd begin to measure our wealth and well-being by how secure we are, and how much control we have over our futures, rather than by whether we own the newest, prettiest, most impressive and expensive versions of all the things we don't need anyway.
We'd invest in education, as you say; but ONLY in things that actually work. Spending billions of dollars to send every kid to college makes no sense until we've figured out how to teach every kid to read in the first and second grade.
With regard to science and technology: Developing new devices, like newer and smarter CNC machines, doesn't help if we can't find or train people who can program them, set them up, run them, and make things of value with them. Finding new ways to cure diseases, or to improve the quality of our lives, does little good if we can't afford the benefits, or if we come to believe that we're entitled to every pill and procedure our doctors want to sell us, even if that hurts our kids and our grandkids later on.
Most investments we'd make first as individuals, using our savings and our own energies to develop new ideas, and then turning those into small but solvent businesses, and then growing those businesses into major industries without being throttled by taxes, or by labor laws that protect the rights of floor sweepers while treating investors and entrepreneurs like "natural resources".
Larger, more expensive things, like exploring space or developing new medicines, would be done by companies that could attract investors by the promise of success, not by collecting grants of government money taken from taxpayers at gunpoint.
We'd begin building prisons. LOTS of prisons, so that those convicted of crimes would be taken OFF our streets, not just cycled back into our neighborhoods. Crime is one of the major reasons for urban sprawl, as anyone who can hold a pen and sign a mortgage tries to get his family out of the very places that were once the incubators of families, communities, and economic strength. Our cities are too dangerous, too expensive, and too hungry to kill and eat our children. Until that changes - until a young couple can buy a modest home, live there while they raise their kids in safety, and move only when they've earned and saved enough money that it makes sense to move, and to make room for the next young family - we'll never have enough suburbs, enough land, enough energy, enough roads, or enough time in our lives to help our kids with their homework, attend PTA meetings, hear what the local liars have to say at the city council meeting, etc.
We'd stop spending insane amounts of money and energy, and the lives of our kids, trying to build a democratic nation for someone else - anyone else - who happens to piss us off for any reason at all. We'd protect ourselves first, always, and lead by example rather than by pointless self-sacrifice. We'd honor our alliances; but we'd make those carefully, always making certain that our own interests were as well protected as those of our allies. We're NOT an empire. We're supposed to be world leaders. There's a difference.
We'd do all these things and more, aggressively, purposefully, with leaders who'd reject JFK's innane slogan, and would help us see ways that we could do for our country, and our country could do for us, at the same time.
So, to answer your question: No, I don't think we're up to it. I don't think we have been since the end of WWII, when we finished doing something important and difficult, came home to rest and reward ourselves, and then got addictied to rest and rewards. My best guess is that it will take another serious, ugly depression to wipe out all the pretense of wealth, and our imagined immunity to the consequences of our actions, and bring us back (painfully, unwillingly) to a sense that what we get out of life really is connected to the choices we make, now and in the future.
I have no way of knowing if the present economic crises is the beginning of that, or of we'll "succeed" in postponing it a little more, and in letting our kids deal with our mistakes. But I can't see this country doing the right things without some major and inescapable reasons. Hunger and cold are tough teachers; but few ignore their lessons.
KG
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 15:07:47 -0500, Kirk Gordon

=============Indeed, but only if the policy makers get hungry and cold. As indicated in another response, this is *THE* major danger with insulated/isolated elitist "leadership."
Unka' George [George McDuffee] ------------------------------------------- He that will not apply new remedies, must expect new evils: for Time is the greatest innovator: and if Time, of course, alter things to the worse, and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better, what shall be the end?
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman. Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
F. George McDuffee wrote:

Isolated/insulated elitism isn't the problem; but it's a very clear symptom. People (real, actual, non-elite members of the proletariat) put their money into CitiBank, and took the advice that Morgan Stanley's investment councelors offered, and signed the documents for mortgages they couldn't afford, and voted for the "leaders" who told the best lies. If they hadn't done those things, and countless others like them, there wouldn't be any isolated/insulated elite. There'd only be unemployed bankers, stock-brokers, and politicians, who'd need to find honest work if they wanted to eat.
KG
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.