Just to comment...
I know a lot of people put a lot of emphasis on the orbit length of a dual action polisher as this is reflective of how aggressive a cutting or polishing action a tool can have. But we can't leave the rotating factor out as it's just as important a contributor to defect removal as the orbit factor.
Will everyone generally and even specifically agree with these statements?
I agree but would like to add to this.
In the realm of paint polishing, orbit speed seems to be limited to upwards of 12,000 OPM/RPM. One oscillation IS one rotation of the drive spindle, unless the machine features some sort of gearing (I know of none commonly used for paint polishing). Most of the time, we are using machines that deliver a maximum of about 7,000 RPM. I surmise that there are more than a few reasons for these "speed limits". Trying to avoid a long post here so I won't jump into these "reasons" as they are merely observations.
Anyway-
all other parameters being equal, a machine featuring a large stroke will create more
centripetal force than a machine featuring a small stroke.
This is a big deal because centripetal force is the primary element that causes the backing plate to rotate. Therefore, if you use a machine with a large stroke size, you should generally see an increase in random pad rotation versus an identical machine featuring a short stroke.
Another thing about orbit size:
If the orbit size is doubled,
the speed the in which the backing plate moves increased by two, but the cutting power more than doubles. That's a BIG statement, and it is not completely accurate because there is so much to consider. Like what?
Is the pad skimming or biting into the paint?
Are the abrasive particles attached to the pad and thus moving at the same rate of speed as the pad, or are the particles free to move about between the pad and paint surface?
Is the pad transferring the machine motion, or is the pad deflecting its shape, effectively negating the motion and converting the energy it into heat?
And on and on and on. Since there are so many things to consider, it is often easier to simplify or generalize specifications or statements.
FWIW- This is the kind of boring stuff I am putting into my paper. Im the MAN
Funny, but this reminds me of the whole random orbital "clutch versus no clutch" discussion. The idea of using a mechanical clutch to better explain how a random orbital works (as far as I know) was to relay to the average guy that the random orbital motion was akin to having a clutch in the machine that would engage or disengage when the pad was put under excess pressure. Thus, a statement that was originally similar to this:
The random orbital is safe to use because the machine acts like it has a "clutch" or features a "clutch-like action".
This was eventually changed to a statement was deemed to mean the machine literally employed a clutch.
So yes- I agree with the statement:
I know a lot of people put a lot of emphasis on the orbit length of a dual action polisher as this is reflective of how aggressive a cutting or polishing action a tool can have. But we can't leave the rotating factor out as it's just as important a contributor to defect removal as the orbit factor.
I agree, but I added all the extra stuff to avoid oversimplifying things. This is all REALLY cut down to the basics and we could debate this or that, and add all kinds of qualifiers and stuff... but
wow would that make for a
really long thread.
Thanks for helping the guys on this forum, Mike.
I'm sure the site has seen a dramatic increase of action since you joined the AG team! :dblthumb2:
