Wanna see my big wheel?

I know Southbend used it too. Wonder who started it?

Of course now I have to also paint all my tools that color to be like Bruce. ;)
 
Bruce, I figured it to be about 2,670 sfpm. I wouldn't put my life on those calculations tho. :foot:

With the 1700rpm motor spinning a 2" pulley to drive an 8" pulley, that should give around 425rpm.

Then the belt surface feet per minute= (RPMxIPR)/12... so (425x75.4)/12= 2,670sfpm

I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes along and tells me I'm completely wrong...

Re the green--- In my industrial operations books, they say that green color helps the operator focus on the task and not the machine itself. I'm not sure how that works, but it must, because there have been an awful lot of companies that painted their tools/equipment John Deere green or some slight variation of it. :)
 
NickWheeler said:
Bruce, I figured it to be about 2,670 sfpm. I wouldn't put my life on those calculations tho. :foot:

With the 1700rpm motor spinning a 2" pulley to drive an 8" pulley, that should give around 425rpm.

Then the belt surface feet per minute= (RPMxIPR)/12... so (425x75.4)/12= 2,670sfpm

I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes along and tells me I'm completely wrong...

Re the green--- In my industrial operations books, they say that green color helps the operator focus on the task and not the machine itself. I'm not sure how that works, but it must, because there have been an awful lot of companies that painted their tools/equipment John Deere green or some slight variation of it. :)
Click to expand...

I get the same numbers
 
NickWheeler said:
Bruce, I figured it to be about 2,670 sfpm. I wouldn't put my life on those calculations tho. :foot:

With the 1700rpm motor spinning a 2" pulley to drive an 8" pulley, that should give around 425rpm.

Then the belt surface feet per minute= (RPMxIPR)/12... so (425x75.4)/12= 2,670sfpm

I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes along and tells me I'm completely wrong...

Re the green--- In my industrial operations books, they say that green color helps the operator focus on the task and not the machine itself. I'm not sure how that works, but it must, because there have been an awful lot of companies that painted their tools/equipment John Deere green or some slight variation of it. :)
Click to expand...

Thanks Nick,
Would you please do the math with the same rpm of 1700 but with a 2" drive pulley, 4" driven pulley and the old 14" wheel? I hoping the surface feet per minute is close to the same. I loved my 14" because it spun at a nice controllable sfpm.
 
NickWheeler said:
Re the green--- In my industrial operations books, they say that green color helps the operator focus on the task and not the machine itself. I'm not sure how that works, but it must, because there have been an awful lot of companies that painted their tools/equipment John Deere green or some slight variation of it. :)
Click to expand...


Well, that explains where I went wrong. I painted everything in here bright blue :/

Awesome setup Bruce. :)
 
Compensating for something?

That thing is pretty awesome, Ill have to stick to my 14" for now.

-Josiah
 
Bruce If I may ask a question on the "coat-tails" of your thread.....

Why do all the makers use Belt grinders now? I know they are flexible in ways that grind stones are not. I wonder if the pay off is there though.

Has anyone looked into mounting centerless grind stones for doing hollow grinds? I think I would be happy grinding annealed tool steel on a medium Norton India at 36" diameter with a mineral spirit bath under it. Why did the industry move away from the grind stones, when there are new grinding stones available?

Thank you tolerating the tangent gents. But it seemed on point with the "big wheel" thread.
 
I would think cost would be prohibitive. and the fact that surface of the grind wheel spins faster as the wheel wears down. multiple grits would require multiple wheels. on practical machinist. com, owners of large powerful stand grinders make it sound like the belt grinder has replaced the bench/ stand grinder.
 
PT Doc said:
I would think cost would be prohibitive.
Click to expand...

I thought so too at first. But that would be with the old quarried grind stones. The newer manufactured stones with increased center diameter cut down on the cost of large wheels. With the large price tag of belt grinders, a direct driven grinding stone is a couple hundred dollars compared to that.
 
J-siah said:
Compensating for something?

That thing is pretty awesome, Ill have to stick to my 14" for now.

-Josiah
Click to expand...

I was gonna make that joke but I chickened out :D

PT Doc said:
I would think cost would be prohibitive. and the fact that surface of the grind wheel spins faster as the wheel wears down. multiple grits would require multiple wheels. on practical machinist. com, owners of large powerful stand grinders make it sound like the belt grinder has replaced the bench/ stand grinder.
Click to expand...

I was around that industry for a bit, I would always go to the 6x48 + disc before a pedestal grinder for general tasks in machining and welding/fitting. I just wish I'd caught on to the 2x72 machines sooner. :(

Normally I would only use the bench/pedestal grinder for light stuff like tool bit grinding and sharpening tig tungstens and center punches, that type of thing.
 
Whenever I return to this thread I keep hearing "Big wheel keep on turning. Proud mary keep on burning"
 
Bruce Bump said:
Thanks Nick,
Would you please do the math with the same rpm of 1700 but with a 2" drive pulley, 4" driven pulley and the old 14" wheel? I hoping the surface feet per minute is close to the same. I loved my 14" because it spun at a nice controllable sfpm.
Click to expand...

1700rpm x (2/4) x (14" x pi 3.14)
= 1700 x .5 x 43.96
850 x 43.96
= 47 366
inches per minute




= / 12
feet per miniute
=3,113


just to show the work because sooner or later somebody else will try and caclulate this.
 
12345678910 said:
1700rpm x (2/4) x (14" x pi 3.14)
= 1700 x .5 x 43.96
850 x 43.96
= 47 366
inches per minute




= / 12
feet per miniute
=3,113


just to show the work because sooner or later somebody else will try and caclulate this.
Click to expand...

Ok so if I want to match the sfpm of the old 14" wheel I need to change the driven pulley to what size?
 
12345678910 said:
1700rpm x (2/4) x (14" x pi 3.14)
= 1700 x .5 x 43.96
850 x 43.96
= 47 366
inches per minute




= / 12
feet per miniute
=3,113


just to show the work because sooner or later somebody else will try and calculate this.
Click to expand...


Bruce Bump said:
Ok so if I want to match the sfpm of the old 14" wheel I need to change the driven pulley to what size?
Click to expand...

3113= (1700 x (pulley ratio you need ) x (24x3.14)) /12
3113x12 =1700 x (pulley ratio you need ) x 75.36




Dammit Bruce, I had to find a pencil to get that one.

ratio of .3

so if your small wheel is 2" then 6.6" is your other driven pulley

double check it

1700x (2/6.6) x (24x3.14)) /12
=3200 ish

There is rounding errors in there


a 6.5" would be really close
 
That is some good old ingenuity. It would definitely be strong enough. I guess the only thing I would worry about would the old rubber flying apart and the balance of the wheel. Looks like you made it through the scary part and have it figured out. All the mathematical equations give me a headache and make me feel under-educated and a little dumb. One other thing is you guys have shops that look like laboratories. I would be scared to enter without haze-mat gear for fear of contaminating the place.
 
Last edited:
12345678910 said:
3113= (1700 x (pulley ratio you need ) x (24x3.14)) /12
3113x12 =1700 x (pulley ratio you need ) x 75.36




Dammit Bruce, I had to find a pencil to get that one.

ratio of .3

so if your small wheel is 2" then 6.6" is your other driven pulley

double check it

1700x (2/6.6) x (24x3.14)) /12
=3200 ish

There is rounding errors in there


a 6.5" would be really close
Click to expand...

Instead of buying another big expensive pulley to get the right ration, I would buy a larger pulley than the 2". This will be cheaper in the end and get the same ratio.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top