Thread: King Midas mill conversion
You are all doing a good job explaining the principles.
- It was me who assumed X and Y -axis ballscrews are put together in similar way.
- Assumed too, that idea is to make it as sturdy/rigid as possible.
- There are some gaps in my knowledge, filling the gaps with assumptions doesn't always work
But it will be good. Will create another drawing of the ballscrews -setup.
Thanks again for comments!
... and only one pair of Belleville washers, you don't want to balance the screw between two springs because that can move.
A few design tips.
I bolted the X screw pulley solid to the inner race. I sprung the sleeve that takes the handle at the other end. This reduced the bearing overhang I couldn't avoid on the Y.
Putting the handle on a sleeve means I can pop the handle off without detensioning the screw. Handy if I want to work on something that overhangs the end of the bed.
I mounted the X motor facing the unlikely way round and extended the screw to get clearance on it. This makes it a lot easier to mount, easier to change the belt and easy to pop a cover over to keep the crut and fingers out.
My X motor mount isn't actually bolted to the machine, it's free to turn. I was going to Loctite it in place but found the 500 lbf screw tension quite sufficient to hold it. I lean on it occasionally, if it ever moves I will know I have lost tension.
Thanks again Robin
Please would this setup make the X-ballscrew dandy? (is this what you mean?)
Sorry if this obvious to some of you. I tried to figure it out, that
- if you now tighten the screws at each end of the X-axis screw ---> the nut(s) will push the Belleville washer ---> the Belleville washer will push the bearing ---> the bearing will push the fixed bearing mount. But because the bearing mount is fixed, then tightening the nut(s) will pull (try to stretch) the screw from either end.
Please correct. (is this getting better or worse? Tell me)
Try this pic for the X screw in tension...
Right hand nut down tight.
Left hand nut tensions the screw.
Personally I'd put the pulley at the other end to reduce the overhang.
I should have drawn the handle fitting bigger than the nut. That way you can put the handle on and off without removing the nut.
Edit: I should also have put the Belleville washers on the other side of the pulley so the pulley grub screw doesn't have to slide. I can redraw it if you want.
Last edited by Robin Hewitt; 18-03-2012 at 04:25 PM.
Cool Robin :) - Thanks!
That picture is worth a thousand words. Updated X-axis draft accordingly.
- added Belleville -washers on the other side of the pulley, like you say
- the sleeve, on top of which the handwheel comes is a nice feature.
The challenge is, that the X-axis movement is a mere 220mm, though the table is 500mm wide.
Thought of moving the
way out of the end of the table, on the right hand side.
This "extension" would change X-axis movement from 220mm to around 400mm. Think there might be challenges ahead, with accuracy/slack, at the far end of the X-table movements. However, I have reasoned, that perhaps one could bring the slack down with careful adjustment. Just have been thinking, that there may be situations, I would rather live with a small slack at far end, than reposition the object on the table (because of lack of X-axis movement).
Of course people will wonder, why one didn't buy a larger mill in the first place. But what do you think, is this "extension" something one definitely should not do? Please comment :)
- extension would not be for attaching, or supporting pieces on table, but rather bring out the X-axis motor, pulley, bearing block.
On my mill the original handle / bearing arrangement already clears the casting that the bed runs on. The extra travel that 'gains' has proven invaluable on numerous occasions. As you say it's bound to not be as rigid as using the standard travel, but I've never noticed it.
You could use some decent size aluminium bar for the extension and use it to house the bearings. Convenient as you can do it all on a lathe.
Is it convenient to add another (e.g. 6201) bearing at the driven end of the screw? I'd prefer to have the screw supported with two bearings at one end as otherwise I suspect the significant radial force due to the tension of the timing belt will tend to bend the screw about the single angular contact bearing. Might be negligible in reality as clearly it works for Robin without ... ?
Good, only one small mistake. You only leave a gap on the left hand side, the tension end. On the right you want the 12mm nut to grip the angular bearing inner ring against the step in the screw. That gives you something to tighten the nut against so it stays where you put it. Don't want that right end nut free to unscrew itself.
The gap on the left only needs to be long enough to stop the 16mm part of the screw ever touching the bearing. If it does touch then the Belleville washers stop pulling on the screw.
My handle fitted inside the saddle, if it didn't I would have extended it. My X motor didn't fit so I extended that end a long way.
The extension can be as long as you need, it doesn't have to be wide.
A wide extension could get in the way of the motor. Allow room for the motor, you don't want the motor hitting the saddle or getting in the way when you want to turn the handle.
The extension has to take a big axial load from the Bellevilles.
The radial load is the motor torque.
The side loading is ordinary workshop bumps and knocks.
It has to hold the bearing square, otherwise the screw will flex when you turn it.
It is comforting if the extension carries any motor heat in to the bed, so the screw doesn't warm up.
A good tip here is to also if you are going to use the machine manually is to be able to disconnect the motors from any circuit. Otherwise they will act as little generators sending a nice bit of current back to your circuit boards :whistling:If the nagging gets really bad......Get a bigger shed:naughty:
If you short out a stepper coil you get a definite resistance when you try to turn it.
I don't feel any resistance or cogging when I turn a motor with the driver OFF or FREE so I don't think there is any electrical path for it to push against.
OTOH I could be delusional, it happens at my age.
Ezecnc Roger had this issue when he converted his viceroy, he did not suffer any damage luckily but did have a huge issue with resistance. Made it hard work to mill by hand. He was using large steppers but goes to show that the issue is there no matter what size steppers you use. It would be worth whipping out the DTM to check on any back current flow?If the nagging gets really bad......Get a bigger shed:naughty:
CONVERSION: Sx3 mill conversionBy deisel in forum Conversion Build LogsReplies: 1Last Post: 29-04-2014, 09:23 AM
NEW MEMBER: Saying hello, about to start a mill conversion.By irgonomics in forum New Member IntroductionsReplies: 4Last Post: 28-04-2013, 02:35 PM
By wolsey in forum General DiscussionReplies: 1Last Post: 15-08-2011, 10:07 PM
NEW MEMBER: Hi From King's LynnBy dialman in forum New Member IntroductionsReplies: 1Last Post: 13-10-2010, 08:59 PM
By Ross77 in forum Milling Machines, Builds & ConversionsReplies: 134Last Post: 02-04-2010, 09:25 AM