Are traditional methods always the best or the right way? In the world of technology, the size of a consumer computer has progressed from a heavy, boxy desktop to a handheld device. Pushing conventional boundaries is in our wheelhouse, too—especially with the design of the two-mass vibratory feeder, which General Kinematics has defined and continued to refine. Before investing in brute force equipment, consider this alternative feeder for your facility. Here’s why.

1) Strain and lift

Brute force feeders experience tremendous strain through the pressure that’s put on their components. That weight creates friction and shock. As a result, often, brute force machines routinely experience unaligned surfaces and damaged machine parts over the course of time. Comparatively, two-mass machines redistribute energy with a spring system that’s situated between the motor and the trough. That way, it isn’t up to the motors to do all of the lifting.

2) Energy requirement

When crunching the numbers, a brute force machine requires 7.7 times more force to create the identical stroke of a two-mass machine. (We have the equation, if you’d like to see it.) Would you rather eat a pancake or an omelet before that morning hike? Obviously you want more power for your time and your buck.

3) Care and maintenance

The design of two-mass machines doesn’t incorporate belts, couplings or bearings. That means, all of those parts—which are a part of brute force machines—won’t fail and you won’t need to go through the hassle or loss of production hours to replace them. Inherently, you’ll save on repair costs, too. Why can’t all machines be this dependable and simply smart?
« | »
  • Amy Donahue

    Test