Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] RE:rE:re:Re: not stiff enough! (machine design considerations)
Posted by
Smoke
on 2001-01-23 14:59:25 UTC
I sure would like to know (via a sketch) what you call a gantry design and
what you call a bridge design.
I might want to build one of these CNC routers one of these days and I'm
just wondering what (all you experts) would call the one I've got designed.
Smoke
what you call a bridge design.
I might want to build one of these CNC routers one of these days and I'm
just wondering what (all you experts) would call the one I've got designed.
Smoke
>Some thoughts on machine design:discussion of shop built systems, for CAD, CAM, EDM, and DRO.
>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
>
>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)