@PhilJohnson To recap, you have 3 motors (x and y axis) that are 178.5oz.in and 1 motor (z axis) that is 269oz.in? Or did you stick with all 4 motors the same?
I knew you would like it 
1 Like
Which is which? Are you holding the new next to the old?
I can tell itâs bigger but my motors from Inventables arenât all black like yours and you mentioned the holding power so I assumed you already swapped it. Sometimes you can get more in smaller packages.
1 Like
Iâve done my x and what difference smoother and much better hold during bit changes. You will love the new motors
1 Like
Welp add another $100 to my upgrade cost for this summer. I blame Phil.
1 Like
You knowâŚIâm just happy you got amusement from it. Plus itâs not like Iâd care personally.
1 Like
What software you used to create this 3d file?
Are the mounting holes spaced the same as the old ones, or do you need some kind of adapters?
I had a brain fart, momentarily thinking that my existing motors were NEMA 17âs (like on my 3D printer), not 23âs. Oops.
1 Like
Not necessarily. It is not a function of the TB6600, but it is a function of the stepper motor controller design.
When the TB6600 is requested to reduce torque it will reduce the motor current to 30 percent of the current limit value.
As an example, the X-controller has a user selectable reduction of torque based on the fourth switch in each micro-step selection DIP switch. When the switch is ON (from the pictures of the board I have seen it comes from Inventables set to ON) the X-controller will request a reduction of torque when there is an absence of step pulses for that motor. When the switch is OFF, no reduction takes place.
Each stepper motor controller that uses the TB6600 can elect to use this feature or not. It just depends on the external design.
On the controller I believe Phil is using, This option is not available. TB6600 has become a generic term for these controllers. The main source of failure and the poor reviews seem to be link to 2 issues. Poor heat sink to chip interface during assemble. Cases of no contact or no thermal paste. Poor quality supply cap and value. While many of the cases look the same there seems to be a great variation in the guts and assembly. I believe Philâs controllers are not TB6600 but, the TB67S109AFTG. There are several improvements on this chip at the cost of lower current.
Well, I had to know. I took one my drivers apart and found the chip is labeled S109AFTG. Heat sink contact is good, plenty of thermal transfer grease. Caps look to be good quality. Board construction is nice. All solder joints are pristine.
No selection for torque reduction. I canât tell from the board which way itâs wired. At some point I may test it.
[Edit] - this chip does not support torque reduction.
Yes agreed. It is very disappointing that they donât at least offer this as an option.
Will the 269oz fit the Z-Axis? According to Inventables it may not.
It may foul on the x carriage if itâs too tall, and you are running a stock Z axis.
They will not fit the stock setup. A friend of mine just borrowed my old motor until he gets his new linear Z-Axis slide.
There is no mention of torque reduction in the data sheet other than the torque that is lost due to micro-stepping.
I havenât measured it yet, but I think that means it does not do any reduction when holding.
1 Like
Thanks for that video Phil. Iâm about to build another X-Carve and was hoping to use 4 of the 269oz motors. Is there a template somewhere for the taller end plates? Is that all I need to do to use the 269oz motor with the Z axis?