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]
>
>