Re: [CAD_CAM_EDM_DRO] Re: Open (i think) design for a parallel robot (reprap may be interested)

Mike,

I've had pictures up for a long time. Most of the pics are of the
first machine. You've probably looked at it -- I saw my URL go past
as part of this thread. Here is a place to start:
http://www.foxkid.net/cmm/platform/project-notebook.html

There are some pictures of components of the second machine, but not
much of the whole thing. Maybe this weekend I'll take some more.

Constructing the second machine was greatly slowed by a lack of time,
and a general need to live life. The second machine is operating now, though.

First machine was "bluemonster", since it was painted blue. At my
wife's suggestion, the new machine is called "newmonster".

After I started the second machine, I got a lathe which offered many
kinds of distraction. Unfortunately, I got the lathe after I had
done all the work for which a lathe was suited.

I'm adding a "seventh" axis now, in the form of a rotary table and
tailstock. This will let me make cylindrical parts. Although I
really good hexapod might be able to machine all surfaces of a
vertical cylinder, I dont' end up with a large enough working volume
to do everything I'd like when the pitch and roll axes are set to large angles.

-- Carl



At 03:07 PM 9/1/2006, Mike Pogue wrote:

>Cool! Could you post some pics somewhere?
>
>Mike
>
>Carl Mikkelsen wrote:
> > Someone in this thread suggested that a hexapod would be difficult
> > for homebrew construction. I built my hexapod (two now) because it
> > was easier to homebrew.
> >
> > Why is it easier?
> >
> > For me, it was easier because:
> >
> > 1) no large cast parts are required
> > 2) no precision flat surfaces. No scraping required.
> > 3) there is much similarity between parts. You need six legs --
> all the same.
> > 4) it is not necessary to home-manufacture any precision parts that
> > move against each other. No matter if you use threaded rod or ball
> > screws, the only parts that slide against each other are the screws
> > and matching nuts.
> > 5) the emphasis is on the control system (software and electronics),
> > rather then the mechanical implementation. I have better tools for
> > compiling code and making PC boards than I do for making metal parts
> > (which is part of why I want a machine in the first place).
> >
> > -- Carl
> >
> > At 12:42 PM 9/1/2006, Ron Yost wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>Be careful about dismissing something as a toy, history is
> littered with the
> >>>remains of those who made that mistake, from steam shovel makers about
> >>>hydraulic diggers, to mainframe computer makers about personal computers.
> >>>
> >>
> >>>Tony
> >>
> >>Too true! I apologize if I came off that way. It was not my intention to
> >>be dismissive. I worded it very badly, it seems. And I'm sorry.
> >>
> >>Thank You all for your indulgence and thoughtful responses! Education
> >>is always a good thing. Even one at a time. :)
> >>
> >>Best of luck in your endeavors!!! And, thank you again!
> >>
> >>Ron Yost
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]