Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] RE:rE:re:Re: not stiff enough! (machine design considerations)
Posted by
Bob Campbell
on 2001-01-23 14:52:34 UTC
Ballendo,
One thing that cnc router builders should keep in mind when building a
gantry system is to keep the distance between the X axis bearings as far
apart as possible. Going from 12 inches to 18 inches can make a great deal
of difference.
Bob Campbell
One thing that cnc router builders should keep in mind when building a
gantry system is to keep the distance between the X axis bearings as far
apart as possible. Going from 12 inches to 18 inches can make a great deal
of difference.
Bob Campbell
----- Original Message -----
From: <ballendo@...>
To: <CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2001 3:41 PM
Subject: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] RE:rE:re:Re: not stiff enough! (machine design
considerations)
> Richard,
>
> Good to know our suggestions are helping!
>
> Some thoughts on machine design:
> One of the MAJOR disadvantages of a 'gantry' style machine (like you
> have) is "axis error buildup". What this means is that ANY 'flex-
> ability' in X WILL BE ADDED to Y, and whatever 'flex-ability' is in Y
> (which now includes the X problems) WILL BE ADDED to Z! Finally,
> whatever Z has on its' own will be added...
>
> A bridge design "solves" this problem by NOT connecting Y support to
> the X axis. But at the cost of larger footprint, longer slide
> travels, etc.
>
> The reason I'm saying all this to you is your statement re: changing
> the Z axis shafts... This is like putting a solid performer (think
> circus acrobats) on the shoulders of two wobbly, 'supporters'!
>
> In a gantry design, the X axis (being 'lowest' in the stack) needs to
> be STIFF!!!
>
> Keep in mind that any mass you add at
> "the top" of the stack is like putting the fat man on the shoulders
> of the child... (circus again)
>
> It may even be worth making the X travel shorter, and "picking it up"
> by making the Y travel greater... When using unsupported shafts this
> will definitely increase overall machine stiffness (all else being
> equal).
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Ballendo
>
> >Thanks all those who responded to my stiffness quiestions.
> >
> >Taking cuts no more than 1/2" the bit diameter, and running the
> >routine twice has solved 90% of the problems.
> >Still get some flex when the 1/4" router bit plunges in. I'm putting
> >the 3/4" rails on Z, and trying different bits.
> >Richard S
>
>
>
> Welcome to CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@...,an unmoderated list for the
discussion of shop built systems, for CAD, CAM, EDM, and DRO.
>
> Addresses:
> Post message: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@egroups.com
> Subscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-subscribe@egroups.com
> Unsubscribe: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> List owner: CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO-owner@egroups.com, wanliker@...
> Moderator: jmelson@... timg@... [Moderator]
> URL to this page: http://www.egroups.com/group/CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO
> bill,
> List Manager
>
> FAQ: http://www.ktmarketing.com/faq.html
Discussion Thread
ballendo@y...
2001-01-23 14:07:07 UTC
RE:rE:re:Re: not stiff enough! (machine design considerations)
Bob Campbell
2001-01-23 14:52:34 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] RE:rE:re:Re: not stiff enough! (machine design considerations)
Smoke
2001-01-23 14:59:25 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] RE:rE:re:Re: not stiff enough! (machine design considerations)
ballendo@y...
2001-01-23 15:29:51 UTC
Re: RE:rE:re:Re: not stiff enough! (machine design considerations)
ballendo@y...
2001-01-23 15:36:08 UTC
Re: RE:rE:re:Re: not stiff enough! (machine design considerations)
Bob Campbell
2001-01-23 15:37:06 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] RE:rE:re:Re: not stiff enough! (machine design considerations)
Smoke
2001-01-23 16:12:17 UTC
Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: RE:rE:re:Re: not stiff enough! (machine design considerations)