"DeusEx"

[mocha]

here's a better one; there's three switchable keyboard maps and macros too.

[Swarfing]

Heres the link to the thread i was thinking of and the software you are looking for is called PYSTROMO

http://www.linuxcnc.org/component/op...3/lang,german/

[mocha]

Bookmarked! Thanks for that. Another subject to explore. :-)

[mocha]

Z axis question... I've read that minimising the distance from the spindle to the Y axis is a good thing to prevent flexing. Is that it or are there other reasons to do this??

What I suppose I'm asking is does getting it wrong affect the load that the spindle can handle or is there more to it?

thanks

[JAZZCNC]

Z axis question... I've read that minimising the distance from the spindle to the Y axis is a good thing to prevent flexing. Is that it or are there other reasons to do this??

What I suppose I'm asking is does getting it wrong affect the load that the spindle can handle or is there more to it?

thanks

Well it don't really minimise flex as so much as it doesn't waste cutting area.! But another, better reason IMO, to minimise offset is to help with balance and reduce un-even loadings on both Y and X Axis bearings.

There are far more important areas on a Z axis that affect flex. . . Front Plate thickness and design combined with bearing/rail placement have far more impact than offset from Y axis.
A lot will depend on material and rail/bearing type in which is the best way to go about designing a Z axis with minimum flex.! . . . . You don't always have to use thick expensive material either and thinner material can be used with the right design.

Here's one that use's 9.5mm Ali and would be very strong.

[Jonathan]

Deleted...
[Duplicate post, not sure how I managed that given the time restraint]

[Jonathan]

Z axis question... I've read that minimising the distance from the spindle to the Y axis is a good thing to prevent flexing. Is that it or are there other reasons to do this??

Increasing that distance clearly increases the turning moment which results in the magnitude of the forces on the Y-axis bearings being greater. Also, for the same reason, if the Y axis ballnut is not directly between the Y-axis linear bearings then, for forces parallel to Y, you will get a lot of deflection as the parts in between don't have to flex much at all - it just 'rotates' about the ballnut since the ballnut is essentially the only support in that direction.

[mocha]

Thanks chaps! Jazz, that's alloy porn! LOL, Very pretty. Is it in use / used or planned for the next one?

The location of the supported rails on their side is unusual isn't it? Most of the ones I've seen seem to be in the Z; up/down axis usually one facing up and one facing down. Any reason for doing it that way?

I've attached a few shots of something I was playing with to help me understand what I am trying to do... It's not to scale! more of a schematic block diagram sketch to see if it could be done, but comments are most welcome.

I've left out some of the elements so it can be seen easily. (like the colums parralell to the Z ballscrew joining the upper and lower Y axis motion, joining the upper and lower blue box sections etc.) and I've shown as bars things that could be plate etc. The purple areas are the supported rail, any other questions just shout. If you want to play with the Sketchup file PM me and I'll send it over as Google wont let me upload it, they must have standards! lol.

As I said it's not to scale and not an opimised design, putting the ball screw mount under the 3rd Y axis support, moving the Z ball screw closer to the spindle, etc. could all help to reduce the overall footprint - although the overall size should be spindle + ballnut + Y axis support? could drop it in the region of under 200mm??

I'm wondering if the ideal position for a high sided frame design be putting the whole of the Z axis UNDER the Y axis? (but I might have OD'd on the coffee this morning LOL)

[JAZZCNC]

Thanks chaps! Jazz, that's alloy porn! LOL, Very pretty Is it in use or planned for the next one?

No not in use, Like a lot of stuff I do and make it was designed to make best use of cheap available materials, in this case the machine was going to be for a guy who had bought some really cheap 150x9.5mm Ali and was on a real tight budget.
It actually never happened due him losing his job scraping the project, I ened up buying the Ali off him which luckly for him was is only outlay upto that date.

The location of the supported rails on their side is unusual isn't it? Most of the ones I've seen seem to be in the up/down axis usually one facing up and one facing down. Any reason for doing it that way?

If you mean the Y axis rails then No they where just drawn that way, they could go either way round. The back plate and rail was just put there for affect really and this was just quick mock up drawing really not actually a finished design in any way. . . . . . Only posted to give some idea how thinner material could be used put still give a stiff Z axis.!!

Regards your design I'm slightly struggling fully under stand the layout but my first initial reponse would be "WHY".??? . . . . Why all the complexity when you won't really gain any extra support over a conventional Z axis.

The way you have it drawn you are still relaying on just 2 rails/bearings and if the bit with rail on top thats jutting out from the Y axis with rails top n bot is not directly mounted to the gantry sides or X axis bearings plate then your in big trouble.!

If Z axis was supported on 4 sides with rails/bearings then yes I could see the bennifit but can't see any how you have it now. . Plus still the jutting out bit would need attention.

If you have the length and done right then the wide gantry with central Z axis (Ala Mech mate) can be very strong it just cost's MORE, more expense, more real estate, more work.! . . . trick is working out if it's worth that much MORE.:question:

[Swarfing]

So what you have there is a copy of the MECHMATE? that is the type of arrangement they use.