|
Posted by Tim Leech on September 6, 2008, 1:50 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:11:16 +0100, Richard Edwards
>Since I have had my Denford Viceroy I have never been happy with the
>belt drive. This is an A section Link Belt, a similar setup to the
>Boxford.
>The Belt suffers as Backgear oiling is preferred from points over the
>gears, the oil therefore gets on the belt!
>Even though the manual says oil I feel the best option for the future
>is grease the layshaft and use gear spray on the gears from time to
>time.
>
>I stripped it apart today and noticed that the belt is not sitting
>down into either the top or bottom pulley grooves. In fact there are
>one and a half link thicknesses standing proud. Theoretically three
>link sides should always be in contact IMHO.
>The belt that I removed shows polishing soley on about 8mm of the
>thinner "tail", ie from the innermost part of the groove.
>The pulleys appear to be original Denford (certainly the top pulley on
>the backear setup) and an A section belt is supposedly the standard.
>Groove angle seems to be 38 degrees from a quick check
>I have done some calculations and it appears that an SPZ belt will
>handle the loadings. Obviously the SPZ will sit fully in the groove
>hopefully allowing a full drive.
>
>I suppose that a 13mm belt may have been fitted as opposed to an A
>section, however I doubt that 12.7 compared to 13mm would make that
>much difference.
>
>Has anyone seen anything similar before?
>Can anyone suggest my best course of action?
A section *is* 13mm <g>
Maybe it's been fitted with B section (16mm)?
Be very careful if you're thinking of using a smaller section, if the
belt bottoms in either pulley you'll get next to no drive at all.
Tim
|
|
Posted by Richard Edwards on September 6, 2008, 2:05 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:50:56 +0100, Tim Leech
>On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:11:16 +0100, Richard Edwards
>
>>Since I have had my Denford Viceroy I have never been happy with the
>>belt drive. This is an A section Link Belt, a similar setup to the
>>Boxford.
>>The Belt suffers as Backgear oiling is preferred from points over the
>>gears, the oil therefore gets on the belt!
>>Even though the manual says oil I feel the best option for the future
>>is grease the layshaft and use gear spray on the gears from time to
>>time.
>>
>>I stripped it apart today and noticed that the belt is not sitting
>>down into either the top or bottom pulley grooves. In fact there are
>>one and a half link thicknesses standing proud. Theoretically three
>>link sides should always be in contact IMHO.
>>The belt that I removed shows polishing soley on about 8mm of the
>>thinner "tail", ie from the innermost part of the groove.
>>The pulleys appear to be original Denford (certainly the top pulley on
>>the backear setup) and an A section belt is supposedly the standard.
>>Groove angle seems to be 38 degrees from a quick check
>>I have done some calculations and it appears that an SPZ belt will
>>handle the loadings. Obviously the SPZ will sit fully in the groove
>>hopefully allowing a full drive.
>>
>>I suppose that a 13mm belt may have been fitted as opposed to an A
>>section, however I doubt that 12.7 compared to 13mm would make that
>>much difference.
>>
>>Has anyone seen anything similar before?
>>Can anyone suggest my best course of action?
>
>
>A section *is* 13mm <g>
As I understand it SPA is 12.7 A section Metric is 13mm (another <g>)
However I would be happy to be proved incorrect <g>
>
>Maybe it's been fitted with B section (16mm)?
Thats what I assumed until I measured it.
>
>Be very careful if you're thinking of using a smaller section, if the
>belt bottoms in either pulley you'll get next to no drive at all.
Agreed, well aware of that, need to apply test sections at my local
supplier.
>
>Tim
--
Richard
Email address is valid but remove burrs before sending!
|
|
Posted by Tim Leech on September 6, 2008, 6:16 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:05:53 +0100, Richard Edwards
>On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:50:56 +0100, Tim Leech
>
>>
>>A section *is* 13mm <g>
>
>As I understand it SPA is 12.7 A section Metric is 13mm (another <g>)
>However I would be happy to be proved incorrect <g>
>
>>
The Fenner leaflet in front of me lists both A and SPA as 13 x 10,
I've seen the 12.7 figure before but 0.3mm on a Vee belt is possibly
within the allowed tolerance.
Tim
|
|
Posted by Mark Rand on September 6, 2008, 7:29 pm
Please log in for more thread options
wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:05:53 +0100, Richard Edwards
>
>>On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:50:56 +0100, Tim Leech
>>
>
>>>
>>>A section *is* 13mm <g>
>>
>>As I understand it SPA is 12.7 A section Metric is 13mm (another <g>)
>>However I would be happy to be proved incorrect <g>
>>
>>>
>The Fenner leaflet in front of me lists both A and SPA as 13 x 10,
>I've seen the 12.7 figure before but 0.3mm on a Vee belt is possibly
>within the allowed tolerance.
>
>Tim
Note. A section belts are not 13mm, they are not 12.7 mm, they are half a
bloody inch! Just like M or Z section belts are three eighths of one.
<G>
Mark Rand
RTFM
|
|
Posted by Richard Edwards on September 7, 2008, 2:57 am
Please log in for more thread options
On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 00:29:37 +0100, Mark Rand
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 19:05:53 +0100, Richard Edwards
>>
>>>On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 18:50:56 +0100, Tim Leech
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>A section *is* 13mm <g>
>>>
>>>As I understand it SPA is 12.7 A section Metric is 13mm (another <g>)
>>>However I would be happy to be proved incorrect <g>
>>>
>>>>
>>The Fenner leaflet in front of me lists both A and SPA as 13 x 10,
>>I've seen the 12.7 figure before but 0.3mm on a Vee belt is possibly
>>within the allowed tolerance.
>>
>>Tim
>
>
>Note. A section belts are not 13mm, they are not 12.7 mm, they are half a
>bloody inch! Just like M or Z section belts are three eighths of one.
>
>
><G>
>
>
>Mark Rand
>RTFM
>
I have it on good authority that M or Z section are actually 9.525mm
<G>
However back to the subject in hand. Considering that the Viceroy was
designed in the '50s it SHOULD use a true imperial section belt, maybe
this is the main problem. I am concerned though with the old belt
indicating polishing on just the very inner section of the links. I
assume that Nu-T-Link belts have the same included angle wether Metric
or imperial.
--
Richard
Email address is valid but remove burrs before sending!
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Link belt drive problems resolved. | September 9, 2008, 2:15 pm |
| Link belt drive rotation direction | April 6, 2008, 7:15 am |
| Belt drive question | August 13, 2008, 1:42 am |
| Re: Pulley problems | January 6, 2008, 5:29 pm |
| BT Internet problems | January 28, 2008, 6:45 am |
| OT Posting Problems | May 5, 2008, 6:56 pm |
| Myford ML7 with bearing problems! | April 11, 2008, 6:18 pm |
| Lathe Facing Problems | May 13, 2008, 7:33 am |
| Anyone got a B68 belt or two? | July 1, 2008, 12:18 pm |
| Bridgeport interact belt | April 8, 2008, 4:51 pm |
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
>belt drive. This is an A section Link Belt, a similar setup to the
>Boxford.
>The Belt suffers as Backgear oiling is preferred from points over the
>gears, the oil therefore gets on the belt!
>Even though the manual says oil I feel the best option for the future
>is grease the layshaft and use gear spray on the gears from time to
>time.
>
>I stripped it apart today and noticed that the belt is not sitting
>down into either the top or bottom pulley grooves. In fact there are
>one and a half link thicknesses standing proud. Theoretically three
>link sides should always be in contact IMHO.
>The belt that I removed shows polishing soley on about 8mm of the
>thinner "tail", ie from the innermost part of the groove.
>The pulleys appear to be original Denford (certainly the top pulley on
>the backear setup) and an A section belt is supposedly the standard.
>Groove angle seems to be 38 degrees from a quick check
>I have done some calculations and it appears that an SPZ belt will
>handle the loadings. Obviously the SPZ will sit fully in the groove
>hopefully allowing a full drive.
>
>I suppose that a 13mm belt may have been fitted as opposed to an A
>section, however I doubt that 12.7 compared to 13mm would make that
>much difference.
>
>Has anyone seen anything similar before?
>Can anyone suggest my best course of action?