Moderators: Dave Moll, Steve Anderson
Wonder why there is a jump from the 17 to 23 size .....it also sounds like if they are telling the truth about their motors power rating the wire size is varying depending on who made them ?
harry dalek wrote:Viewmaster wrote:Harry, other than using bellows or rubber there is another type of coupling that was used on tuning for short wave receivers etc, where zero back lash was essential.
Eddystone Radio made them many years ago and they are seen on ebay
from time to time.
Consisted of a two pieces of brass mounted either side of a circular plate. riveted each side (or use bolts). Coupling boss each side in centre.
The Eddystone one took a 1/4 inch dia shaft.
You could easily make one to suit requirements using 2 pieces of spring steel etc. or something along this principal design.
See piccy of the Eddystone one here.
Hi Albert
I have never seen one of those before made in the days when every thing was hand made i bet .
Is the back the same as the front visa versa ?
gary wrote:Well it's a tricky one that's for sure.
I would be happy with 175 oz-in.
But if you see a really good bargain on 35 oz-in or greater don't let me talk you out of it - slow is better than stopped! and they are useful in other projects down the track anyway so won't be wasted.
I think I could make a good argument that the x and y axis should be the same if possible, but technically they can all be different - the software allows you to make allowances for number of steps max speed etc.
Actually I use a different convention to at least some - I call the longest axis (the one that moves the gantry) the Y and the one that moves the spindle side to side the X, and the one that moves the spindle up and down the Z (I've never seen anyone call the latter anything but Z - although the yanks always mispronounce it zee )
It sounds like there a lot of testing to match your build motors to the software which is understandable.
Actually no - the only thing that is trial and error is determining the maximum speed the steppers can travel at without losing steps - after that it is just a matter of plugging the numbers in.
harry dalek wrote:Have you found vibration to be a problem from your cutting motor ?
harry dalek wrote:Perhaps the slow steppers or running them slow might be a good thing for fine work ?
No, not at all. That would indicate a problem with the spindle (if my assumption that "cutting motor" is the spindle is correct).
the speed is something associated with the cutter and the material being cut - this is a minor science in itself and is way too complicated to go into here - suffice it to say that is something you will learn along the journey, but it is the same knowledge you need to know whether you are doing it manually or via CNC.In regards to accuracy of the positioning of the cutter then all things being equal (i.e. no racking no flexing) then as long as steps aren't missed speed has nothing at all to do with it.
gary wrote:That's quite an unusual arrangement you have there Harry, most unconventional. I am a bit worried that after you attach the spindle (what ever that will be) that it's centre of gravity may not be ideal - possibly causing racking. OTOH being built of steel it may well be fine - I guess you will eventually find out.
gary wrote:Oh Harry - it looks very strong and well built - but you know the old adage - give me a lever and I will move the earth - the trick with these systems is to balance the loads and stresses so that the forces on the bearings are compressive (where they are very strong) rather than lateral where they are weaker - the forces should be pushing the bearings onto the rails as much as possible rather than away from them or worse still sideways. If that is achieved then the arrangement you have will be virtually indestructible.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests