X2 machine-Scribe a Line MEW-204-pg.61

[Ketan SwaliParticipant @ketanswali79440]

I am really disappointed that the editor David Clark has chosen to publish this letter without checking any facts with suppliers of this family of machines.

The original 'X2' does not have a brushless motor.

In the second last paragraph, the writer talks about brushless drive motors. He is in fact referring to the tapping facility on the first version of 'Super X3'. It has no relevance to the X2 – the original subject of his letter. Also, whilst it is true that the first version of the Super X3 did have an issue – say 7 years ago, at which time we rejected it, this was soon fixed by correct programing, and it happily taps 8mm holes. I repeat – this has no relevance to the X2 or the 'Super X2 Plus', as these models do not have a tapping facility!.

The 'Super X2 Plus' does have a 500w Brushless Motor- with Belt drive. Its control board is correctly programmed to give Hi Torque at low speed. Unfortunately as a result of Davids lack of thinking, I had to field phone calls on this subject by concerned customers. Today I even had a customer visiting us because he was concerned about his 'Super X2 Plus' after reading this letter in the magazine. I took the guard off the display machine, made the customer put on a leather work glove and got him to try to stop the spindle by holding it, at very low speed – say 40 rpm. He was apprehensive so I demonstrated first. Then he put the glove on and tried to stop the spindle. I can tell you that he had to work really hard to try and stop it, and a scene of relief came on to his face.

I am fed up of this kind of nonsense talk. Why don't these people who are intent on creating mischief put money where their mouth is. I put forward an open challenge to any such people to present their unmodified factory built X2 mini-mill clones – gear drive or BRUSHED motor upto 600w belt drive to compete against our unmodified Super X2 Plus – 500w Motor-Belt Drive Hi Torque. Name the time or the place – we will take you on.

Ketan at ARC.

[Ketan SwaliParticipant @ketanswali79440]

[Bob PerkinsParticipant @bobperkins67044]

Fighting talk. Ketan's has thrown down the leather work glove. I will support his comments my super x2 , un-modified ( well that bit ) has excellent low speed torque.

[Chris HeapyParticipant @chrisheapy71135]

Good job the glove didn't get caught on anything.

Chris

[Sub MandrelParticipant @submandrel]

"Stay! The Ketan has thrown his gauntlet down!" (to misquote Shakespeare!)

To be fair, the letter writer doesn't actually state that his brushless milling machine is an X2. From the content I get the impression he has quite a range of machines.

From what I know of brushless motors is that, like 3-phase invereter driven motors, the way the controller is programmed makes all the difference to the torque/speed characteristics.

Neil

[oldveloParticipant @oldvelo]

Hi to all as I Still await the MEW 204 issue in the antipodes.

The writer of the letter is responsible for its content and NOT David Clark

Having read and analysed Ketans response to this without reading the original My own biased opinion is that >>>

There is HISTORY of Previous ((Disagreement-Argument)) on this subject and an attempt to re-fire the ((Disagreement-Argument)) again and not to take the ""Attack The Person"" and not make an attempt to solve the problem.

Was "Mischief" the sole intention or was it a means of starting a "Healthy" debate.

Eric

[jwbParticipant @jwb]

There is good editorial balance in the published letters in MEW 204. The other letter published on the same page gives Arc Euro an honourable mention, while the letter Ketan takes exception to doesn't actually mention any suppliers by name.

Fair's fair!

John

[RobboParticipant @robbo]

In the days before forums, a contentious (in the eye of the reader) letter in the magazines would be followed by a swift response, by letter, by the suppposed aggrieved party, for publication in the next issue.

Would suggest this is what should still happen. Ketan's customers who are worried by the content have obviously never tried the techniques mentioned as giving poor results, or they would already know the answer. Perhaps they never will need them.

Teacups and Storms spring to mind.

[Ketan SwaliParticipant @ketanswali79440]

Hi All,

This is a collective response.

With reference to DC : Yes I agree that he should show a balance view. However, as an Editor, he is also responsible for checking certain facts about the content which is printed. This is my opinion.

So here goes:

In his first paragraph, the writer says: his C3 lathe and an R8 X2 head that he uses on his CNC machine all have smashed gears. The writer is based in Leicester. It is my opinion based on several facts that his name is not 'Walthair 'Casey' Jones'. ARC is based in Leicester. The question is: why did this writer smash his gears?. My answer as a fact is that he was doing something he wasn't supposed to. He has not gone into detail, so nor am I.

ARC used to sell the geared head X2 more than five years ago, and just stopped selling the geared head C3 last week. All of our competitors sell the geared head versions of these machines. So, in this repect it does not effect us directly, but it does do indirectly becasue we sell the SIEG family of machines. DC knows we are in Leicester, the writer is from Leicester, talking about X2 and C3. DC clearly knows that these machines were (x2)/are (C3 until last week) sold by ARC. The question is, should DC have checked the facts before printing?. Everyone has their opinion about the answer to this question. Ours is that he should have checked the facts.

In the second paragraph, the writer recommends Amadeal. OK fair enough. Amadeal is offering you a steel gear – not from SIEG, and ARC is offering you the original cast iron gear from SIEG. So here, the writer is offering you an alternative. Good for you and the writer. Well done.

In the sixth paragraph, the writer refers to the R8 X2 head. he says that he had no trouble getting the bearings to fit it from Simply Bearings Ltd.. He is saying this for two reasons.:

A. He is offering you an alternative to buying from ARC.
B. In Neil Wyatts original article Part 2 in MEW 201 – Page 54, ARC is saying that although the 7206-B-2RS angular contact ball bearings are correct for the MT3 spindle as described by Neil, ARC is working on a solution for the R8 spindle which has a different bearing at the bottom of the spindle. The solution ARC is referring to for thr R8 spindle is based on Angular Contact ball bearings, WITHOUT trying to modify the spindle. Unfortunately, this solution for the R8 spindle is expensive at present. If you think and feel that the writer is correct, then do as he says at your own risk.

In the second last paragraph, the ghost writer refers to a brushless drive motor. I have addressed this issue to a certain level in the opening post. In the past few days I have been given the opportunity to read the original email 'letter' from the ghost writer. It is the un-edited version of the letter. DC edited it before printing it. In the unedited version, Casey Jones stated that he was referring to the Super X2 mill with brushless motor from Axminster. He also stated that it was supposed to tap 8mm holes. Well, you make up your own mind:

1. No where on Ax's website does it say the Super X2 brushless motor has any tapping facility.
2. The Brushless Motor Hi-Torque Super X2 or the Super X2 Plus are single direction machines. They do not have a tapping feature. It would be interesting to see if and how the writer carried out/tried to carry out this operation on the Super X2, without modification. Not impossible, but interesting to see how and what he was REALLY expecting to do.
3. As mentioned in my opening post, the Super X3 with does have a 1000w brushless motor and belt drive, does have a tapping facility, and the original version did have a problem with tapping 8mm holes, which was rejected by us – say about 7 years ago. A very small group of people were aware of this at that time, and many people were aware that we had rejected the machine at that time due to poor torque performance programing of the board which was quickly corrected by the SIEG factory. Well documented on various X series forums based inn U.K., Canada and the U.S. for all to read. To be honest, there are a lot of errors and mis-information. The writer is trying to discredit the Super X2 Hi-Torque belt drive with brushless motor, which does not have a tapping facility, by using ancient history information for the Super X3.

Continued in next post as too long…

[Ketan SwaliParticipant @ketanswali79440]

Continued..

As I see it, so far the ghost writer has discredited the geared head on two machines, and offered you two alternatives other than buying from ARC. He had followed this up by trying to discredit the brushless motor versions too, which ARC is now heavily involved with.

At this point it is clear to ARC that the writer, using a 'ghost' name, coming from Leicester is not happy with ARC. That is his wish.

The controller on the 500w brushless motor belt drive Super X2/Super X2 Plus is the same as that which is used on the KX1 CNC Mill. DC had the same KX1 mill for a while before he sold it to finance his house move.

Knowing all of the above, knowing that DC has to present a balanced view, knowing that DC has engineering as well as direct knowledge of similar products, and overall him knowing things which he does, I was and still am disappointed that he chose to print this letter. He has also been advised on several occasions to check information about bearings before print because ARC does get inquiries as a result of what is printed – for which we are thankful to him as well as the magazine. We are extremely grateful for all the business generated as a result of published articles thanks to DC, the magazine and contributors.

A balanced view is important, based on facts – at least some of which should be checked by the editor.

This in our opinion was an attempt by the writer to create mischief and to plant a negative seed. We have been victim to this in the past with some other articles (Not Neils of David Fenners), where certain elements of non-verified facts – seed planting – led to loss of business for us. DC was made aware of this at that time. DC has fallen victim to this again by printing information which has not been checked. So, in this respect, I do hold him responsible to a certain level, because it does effect my business. The writer of the letter is heavily responsible too, but the editor IS responsible for printing a letter which is not based on facts, and read by many!.

The editors actions in this case have caused me financial damage in many ways. Is he or the magazine or anyone going to pay me for the damage I have incurred?. How would YOU the reader feel if this nonsense effected you?

ARC has every right to respond to what we perceive to be damaging.

After reading this, if anyone still feels that the ghost letter presented a balanced view, you are entitled to your opinion too.

The challenge as stated in the original post still stands.

Ketan at ARC.

[MetalhackerParticipant @metalhacker]

Thanks for that information Ketan, I hope it clarifies things for the 'knockers'. All I can say is that I have been highly satisfied by my SX3 supplied by you and when I broke something, the replacemnt part was with me very rapidly. I for one am a very satisfied customer and will be buying a Super C3 and an SX2 plus for my holiday house, as soon as I have saved up the mazuma.

Keep up the good work,

Andries

[Author]

Posts