Walther Trowal THM 300/1 vs THM 500 continuous-feed blast machine catalog comparison

Review THM 300/1 and THM 500 from the official THM brochure marked 06/19, physical PDF page 8. Compare 9 source fields, retaining units, qualitative symbols and conditional bases. This pair differs in 8 adopted fields. Record your sample objective, compatibility or loading questions, safety and site requirements, and acceptance method. The comparison download uses your current form entries.

Walther Trowal THM 300/1 vs THM 500 continuous-feed blast machine catalog comparison - source-properties-chart - Jintaijin
Original source-data graphic or concept workflow. Versioned 06/19 PDF physical p8; no actual trial result.

Compare source rows and record review questions

Choose source fields and record questions for the supplier and sample owner.

Versioned catalog rows

Source fieldTHM 300/1THM 500
Number of blast chambers (pieces)13
Number of rods (pieces)4363
Number of turbines (pieces; range retained)12–4
Power per turbine (kW; range retained)7,57,5–22
Dust-collector air entry (Bm³/h; printed alternatives)2.0003.000/5.000
Smallest workpiece diagonal (mm)2025
Minimum workpiece thickness (mm)1010
Maximum workpiece length (mm)150650
Maximum workpiece diameter (mm)100350

Configuration entries for this pair

Number of blast chambers (pieces): THM 300/1 1; THM 500 3. Number of rods (pieces): THM 300/1 43; THM 500 63. Number of turbines (pieces; range retained): THM 300/1 1; THM 500 2–4.

Drive entries for this pair

Power per turbine (kW; range retained): THM 300/1 7,5; THM 500 7,5–22. Dust-collector air entry (Bm³/h; printed alternatives): THM 300/1 2.000; THM 500 3.000/5.000.

Geometry entries for this pair

Smallest workpiece diagonal (mm): THM 300/1 20; THM 500 25. Minimum workpiece thickness (mm): THM 300/1 10; THM 500 10. Maximum workpiece length (mm): THM 300/1 150; THM 500 650. Maximum workpiece diameter (mm): THM 300/1 100; THM 500 350.

Walther Trowal THM 300/1 vs THM 500 continuous-feed blast machine catalog comparison - source-characteristics-chart - Jintaijin
Original source-data graphic or concept workflow. Versioned 06/19 PDF physical p8; no actual trial result.

Source reading and conditions

Publisher qualitative legend: ++ very good suitability; + good suitability; 0 limited suitability; - no suitability. These categories are not measured values or percentages. Blank remarks are NOT_LISTED. Paste footnote markers remain visible; *) states cycle time more than 24 hours. A merged remark is marked SHARED_REMARK_NOT_INDEPENDENTLY_MAPPED.

Walther Trowal THM 300/1 vs THM 500 continuous-feed blast machine catalog comparison - sample-review-flow-diagram - Jintaijin
Original source-data graphic or concept workflow. Versioned 06/19 PDF physical p8; no actual trial result.

Source and sample-review scope

Official THM brochure, 06/19, physical page 8, captured 2026-10-05.

Use this independent Walther Trowal reference to prepare a supplier and sample discussion. It does not establish Jintaijin supply, partnership, an equivalent product, current offers or a customer trial. Obtain a current specification and safety documentation, then define a real sample, part or liquid-stream objective, constraints and acceptance method. User annotations remain USER_RECORDED_NOT_VERIFIED. No mixing, dosing, compatibility, hygiene or wastewater-discharge approval follows from this page.

Questions about this pair

Which adopted fields differ for THM 300/1 and THM 500?

Number of blast chambers (pieces): THM 300/1 1 versus THM 500 3. Number of rods (pieces): THM 300/1 43 versus THM 500 63. Number of turbines (pieces; range retained): THM 300/1 1 versus THM 500 2–4. Power per turbine (kW; range retained): THM 300/1 7,5 versus THM 500 7,5–22. Dust-collector air entry (Bm³/h; printed alternatives): THM 300/1 2.000 versus THM 500 3.000/5.000. Smallest workpiece diagonal (mm): THM 300/1 20 versus THM 500 25. Maximum workpiece length (mm): THM 300/1 150 versus THM 500 650. Maximum workpiece diameter (mm): THM 300/1 100 versus THM 500 350.

How should source symbols and missing remarks be read?

Publisher qualitative legend: ++ very good suitability; + good suitability; 0 limited suitability; - no suitability. These categories are not measured values or percentages. Blank remarks are NOT_LISTED. Paste footnote markers remain visible; *) states cycle time more than 24 hours. A merged remark is marked SHARED_REMARK_NOT_INDEPENDENTLY_MAPPED.

What source conditions must remain visible?

Versioned manufacturer catalog entries are neither tested customer performance nor an established current configuration. No installed-option, site-fit, process recipe, metered energy, current offer, Jintaijin equivalent or regulatory approval is established. Units, decimal punctuation, multiplicity, alternatives and conditional row bases remain literal; no cross-family scoring is calculated. The tunnel-diameter row has no explicit unit and is excluded. Bm³/h is not converted to Nm³/h; slash alternatives are not summed or reinterpreted as ranges. Turbine powers are not multiplied to infer system power. No blast result or explosion-protection approval is established.

Can these entries predict a process result or cost?

Versioned catalog values and symbols retain their source row bases; they are not measured trials or approved process settings. Symbols ++, +, 0 and - are qualitative; no numeric score, ranking or dosage is calculated. Descriptive pH is not a numeric range; media fill, batch volume and mass retain separate meanings. No part compatibility, finish, hygiene, discharge compliance, installed configuration or current offer is established. Independent Walther Trowal reference; Jintaijin supply, partnership and equivalence are not established. User annotations are not verified trials or customer facts.

What must the current supplier and sample review establish?

Use this independent Walther Trowal reference to prepare a supplier and sample discussion. It does not establish Jintaijin supply, partnership, an equivalent product, current offers or a customer trial. Obtain a current specification and safety documentation, then define a real sample, part or liquid-stream objective, constraints and acceptance method. User annotations remain USER_RECORDED_NOT_VERIFIED. No mixing, dosing, compatibility, hygiene or wastewater-discharge approval follows from this page.

Related review tools

Prepare a sample-review enquiry

Provide a drawing or liquid-stream description, objective, constraints and acceptance method for a SurfacePolish discussion.

Open the SurfacePolish enquiry form

#+86-592-2381506

Email : info@surface-polish.com

Headquarters address : No. 31, Xinchang Road, Xinyang Industrial Zone, Haicang District, Xiamen

click here to leave a message

Leave A Message
If you are interested in our products and want to know more details,please leave a message here,we will reply you as soon as we can.

Preparing secure enquiry form…

Home

Products

whatsapp

contact