Time to go vertical.!

[georgetheforge]

came across this little monkey whilst googleising a few options....


looks quite nice.... me want...!

G

[JAZZCNC]

looks quite nice.... me want...!

G

Easy pezzy lemon squeezy and thats just how I would do it if starting from scratch. Now imagine having that static in one place against wall with folding or sliding doors to keep all the mess and noise inside.

Honestly the difference working vertical makes is great and no more difficult than when horizontal. For mostly wood working and board use then they are perfect layout IMO.!!

[Tenson]

Hi Jazz,

Where do you get that resin impregnated MDF as seen in your vertical CNC video?

[vtcnc]

Hadn't thought about this before, but it would be great to gain back some of the floor space taken up by my 4'x4' CNC hot wire foam cutter. The table is even larger than 4x4. And certainly reaching over the surface is difficult now.

The only things to work out would be clamping methods. Presently I just use weights to hold the foam down. Foam has very little weight itself, but isn't easily clamped, since pressure needs to applied over a larger surface area than other harder materials. But I'm sure the other advantages would outweigh the disadvantage of more difficult clamping. Incidentally, for foam cutting purposes, the table itself could be built less stiff for a vertical cofiguration -- a horizontal table foam cutter mainly has to support its own weight to avoid sag -- well, and the weight of all of the junk that gets inevitably piled on it when not in use! Vertical orientation would sure cure that, wouldn't it?

I like it!


EDIT: Thinking further about it, when wire cutting foam there is often movement of the blank's top surface because the cut weakens the blank -- there may be some thin sections (with substantial kerf) that develop during a part cut. Usually you sequence your cuts so that the foam movement occurs above cuts rather than below -- the base is stationary and a reference.

By using weights on a horizontal table, the blank is still held to the table, even if the top of the blank drops a little. For a vertical table, we would need clamps that automatically adjust for this. So, probably spring loaded large area pads would be required for a conventional clamp.


FURTHER EDIT: Maybe a clamp pad made of two layers of thin sheet material -- say 2" x 6" x 1/8" , with a layer of sponge rubber glued between would work for this. With several of these pads made up I could use conventional clamps.

[TrickyCNC]

I presume the weight of the gantry and Z and spindle will have a greater effect on the motors when used this way up ?

If you were pushing the motors to the limit when horizontal, then surely they would stall when up on end ?

[irving2008]

I presume the weight of the gantry and Z and spindle will have a greater effect on the motors when used this way up ?

If you were pushing the motors to the limit when horizontal, then surely they would stall when up on end ?

I think the short answer is "it all depends". clearly the ideal(ish) option is for the gantry to traverse horizontally in X so the Y is vertical and only the cutting head/Z-axis has to be lifted against gravity, but then you lose the benefit of having the chips fall into clear space. Unless your X-rails are space out from the bed in some way.

Of course, you shouldnt be running near the stall point anyway, there's a high chance you'll lose steps on fast direction changes if you do...

[TrickyCNC]

I was thinking more of the smallest footprint, would have the gantry rising and falling, otherwise it would mean the gantry is longer than needs be. If it'son it's side so to speak, then yes, the weight would not be an issue.

[Jonathan]

Weight would still be an issue, just for the Y-axis not X, plus Z should go faster.

Presumably before Jazz 'went vertical' he had a decent safety margin in his X-axis feedrates so he just used up some of this. Just as an example, if your X-axis ballscrews are 10mm pitch and the mass of the gantry is 50kg, then making it vertical will require 50g=490N more force to lift it, which corresponds to:
T=FLe/(2pi)=490*0.01*0.9/(2*3.142)=0.7Nm extra torque required.

[JAZZCNC]

Presumably before Jazz 'went vertical' he had a decent safety margin in his X-axis feedrates so he just used up some of this.

Yep Exactly.!

I think the short answer is "it all depends". clearly the ideal(ish) option is for the gantry to traverse horizontally in X so the Y is vertical and only the cutting head/Z-axis has to be lifted against gravity, but then you lose the benefit of having the chips fall into clear space. Unless your X-rails are space out from the bed in some way.

Of course, you shouldnt be running near the stall point anyway, there's a high chance you'll lose steps on fast direction changes if you do...

If you see my first post it explains how it came about being in the vertical position. It wasn't my first choice and if building from scratch then I'd run the gantry horizontal has it's a no brainer to why. . . . Other things aren't so obvious untill you've run it in this position.?
Little things like avoiding chip collection areas so need careful thought re-covers for Z axis, ball-screws etc to stop chips building up on rails or end bearings. The ball-screws on X axis will be better positioned behind the bed again to protect from falling chips. Not a problem in the vertical position.

I presume the weight of the gantry and Z and spindle will have a greater effect on the motors when used this way up ?

If you were pushing the motors to the limit when horizontal, then surely they would stall when up on end ?

Yes would have an affect if at motors limit but then Like Irving points out that's a bad idea in any case or machine. Pushing the max is one of the most common causes of missed steps and positional errors.
My machine is capable of nearly 12mtr/min but I run it at 7mtr/min in favour of acceleration. I always leave a minimum of 10% safety on velocity and often more like in this case when wanting higher acceleration. In all the time I've run this machine it hasn't ever missed a step or lost position unless I've caused it by hitting something, even then it takes a lot to stop it which wouldn't be the case if I run it anywhere near the motors corner speed.

When tipped vertical it made no difference to performance and still has enough torque to cut heavy depths. The video of it cutting 10mm single pass was 5mtr/min but it actually cut another at full 7mtr/min and then for the final test it cut full material thickness of 12.5mm single pass @7mtr/min with no problem until the really really knackerd cutter snapped.!! . . But the machine didn't stall it just kept on going like nothing happened.!!

[i2i]

counter balance the gantry.