Jintaijin | Magnetic-flat series
OBD-30 vs OBD-35 magnetic finisher comparison
Compare OBD-30 and OBD-35 published workpiece capacity, processing area, dimensions, net weight and motor rating. Export your comparison with sources.
This comparison starts with OBD-30 and OBD-35 in the on-floor magnetic-finishing family. Review what changes in the published loading reference, processing area, outer envelope and rating before requesting a representative-part trial. You can change the two models below and export the current selection. Catalogue values describe a reference configuration; they do not confirm usable loading or accepted output for your parts.
Compare two published model records
Optional mass must be positive with at most two decimal places; 1000000 kg is a software ceiling, not machine capability. Margins compare only the catalogue number, with no load approval.
OBD-30 vs OBD-35: source fields side by side
| Published field | OBD-30 | OBD-35 |
|---|---|---|
| Published workpiece capacity (kg) | 30.0 | 35.0 |
| Processing area dimensions (mm) | 1000 × 580 | 1080 × 680 |
| Outer machine L × W × H (mm) | 1300 × 850 × 750 | 1300 × 850 × 750 |
| Net machine weight (kg) | 350.0 | 350.0 |
| Motor rating (kW) | 4.0 | 5.5 |
| Published speed range (RPM) | 0-1800 | 0-1800 |
Checked 3 October 2026 against matching tables on the OBD-30 product page and the OBD-100 product page. kg/mm/kW fields are read under their explicit row headings; imperial values are not converted into new data.
Interpret this pair's loading and layout differences
OBD-35 lists 35 kg against 30 kg for OBD-30: a 5 kg catalogue difference. The processing-area entries are 1000 × 580 mm and 1080 × 680 mm. A larger published area does not establish a permissible part envelope or guarantee movement with pins.
Both models publish the same 1300 × 850 × 750 mm outer dimensions and 1.105 m² plan footprint. Choosing between them on floor area alone hides their different workpiece-capacity, processing-area and motor-rating entries.
Keep drawing-sensitive surfaces, thread fit, pin retention and cleanliness inspection in the trial record. Supply actual part geometry and batch information when asking whether either published configuration can meet your requirement.
Rating and handling information to confirm
OBD-30 lists 4 kW and OBD-35 lists 5.5 kW; the nameplate difference is 1.5 kW. It is not an energy-saving estimate, required supply calculation or permission to connect a machine.
Both list 350 kg net machine weight. Equal net mass does not establish identical internal construction or equal supplied shipping mass.
Both tables list 0-1800 RPM. That published range does not select a finishing speed for any material. Ask for the current supplied configuration and a controlled trial with your representative parts.
Questions about OBD-30 vs OBD-35
Does OBD-35 require more plan floor area than OBD-30?
Both models publish the same 1300 × 850 × 750 mm outer dimensions and 1.105 m² plan footprint. Choosing between them on floor area alone hides their different workpiece-capacity, processing-area and motor-rating entries.
Does the 5 kg catalogue capacity difference prove more output?
No. It compares nominal workpiece-capacity entries. Geometry, movement, contact risk, pin access, cycle and acceptance must be validated on representative parts.
Does the 1.5 kW rating difference predict energy use?
No. Nameplate motor rating is separate from measured operating input power, load, run time and electrical installation requirements.
Can the processing areas determine the largest acceptable part?
No. Compare the published two-dimensional area entries, then confirm container, pin travel, access and actual part movement with the supplier.
Related references and inquiry
Browse all six magnetic-flat catalogue models. Review outer footprint arithmetic. Build a part-condition trial inspection plan.
Request a OBD-30 vs OBD-35 configuration review with your part drawing, trial target and current comparison export.
+86-592-2381506 
IPv6 network supported 