Re: How Would You Design question

Hi Tim,

My thoughts go to single axis postitioning of the "Saw" using stepper
or servo control> This would be for depth or thickness of cut with
very little movement required.
Longitutal travel to be handled by air cylinders and solinoids (due
to surplus availability and resonable cost. In this case the saw
would be moved and not the board.

Lateral travel into the blade path ( could be stepper or servo
controled as well.

I have a preminary drawing of this if you are intrested let me know.

Alan Trest
Pensacola Florida

--- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., "dave_ace_me" <davemucha@j...> wrote:
> On a similar note,
>
> I made a saw many years ago that had multiple blades. A 2x4 was
> passed through it and it sliced and diced to make 1/4 inch wide
> strips. They were then glued them to make curved laminated beams.
>
> I do not know if you have multiple parts of one size, but such a
set-
> up would allow you to pass a single piece, cut all your parts and
> only need a fence.
>
> Kind of eleminates the whole CNC thing, but may be effective.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y..., "Marcus & Eva" <implmex@a...> wrote:
> > Hi Tim:
> > You will probably need to stabilize the material on both
sides
> of the
> > cut if you want to hold 0.0025"
> > Best way I can think of for the free strip is a vacuum fence.
> > If you just let it hang out in space the saw will recut it every
> time it
> > curls or flops around.
> > You'll never hold tolerance without the vacuum fence.
> > So long as you can adjust it dead nuts parallel and exactly to
> width, you
> > may not even need anything more elaborate than just the fence.
> > It's worth a try anyway ( cheapest part of the whole rig,
assuming
> you've
> > got a decent saw and a top quality planer blade.)
> > If you want to get fancy, then you can set up a panel sawing
frame
> to run in
> > the miter fence slots, and top clamp the stock.
> > You still need the vacuum fence though (but it becomes part of
the
> sliding
> > frame.)
> > Cheers
> >
> > Marcus
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Tim Goldstein" <timg@k...>
> > To: <CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO@y...>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 7:16 PM
> > Subject: RE: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: How Would You Design question
> >
> >
> > > Lots of considerations in this besides the ease of cutting. A
> knife edge
> > > band saw will cause crushing of the wood towards the surface
and
> drive
> > > up the density while reducing the stiffness. There is also the
> problem
> > > that a band saw blade wanders and would make the thickness
> inconsistent.
> > > Reducing the waste is not a concern. Turning 50% of the raw
stock
> to
> > > dust is OK if the resulting product is very smooth and
> consistent, not
> > > sawn, and has the absolute minimum fiber damage on the surface.
> From all
> > > the ways of cutting I have tried using a circular saw blade
> produces the
> > > proper product. You have to take off your engineering hats on
> this part
> > > and accept that marketing says it has to be cut that way. Not
put
> the
> > > engineer hat back on to work on the design for this.
> > >
> > > I am leaning to using a timing belt to drive the feed for the
> cutting
> > > and a lead screw on the advance feed. I am thinking that the
best
> way to
> > > avoid lash on the advance feed it to spring load it to apply
> pressure
> > > against the screw. This avoids the need to use zero backlash
type
> > > systems and should work fine as there is no load or pulling in
> this
> > > direction. The part I am still hung up on is how to arrange the
> length
> > > feed so that the + - .0025" thickness requirement can be met
> without
> > > building a monstrosity. Something like the 80/20 stock is
> appealing, but
> > > I doubt that it can be consistent down the length. I like the
> idea that
> > > someone threw out to have a stop that controls the cut
thickness
> as the
> > > precision part than just becomes the slide against that.
> > >
> > > Tim
> > > [Denver, CO]