Separate names with a comma.
Some features disabled for guests. Register Today.
Discussion in '3D printers' started by greg97233, Sep 17, 2014.
This is a Dual X-axis platform.
greg97233 published a new build:
Read more about this build...
An extremely intriguing design you have there, I look forward to following your progress
Thank you. I still have to finish the X drive systems and wiring options, but I thought it was complete enough to give a first peek.
The double carriage idea is awesome, and something I have been contemplating for a while now for multi-functional production machines. That said, I mean 2 separate sets of carriages that move around separately, one can dock on each end, and they stay out of each other's way while the other one is working. As seen here: http://www.openbuilds.com/builds/v-slot-belt-pinion-example-build.97/
The other implementation I've seen is two individual X-heads, like here: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:115885
The thing is, they're driven by a single vertical motion system, not 2. One of the fundamental assumptions of a 3D printer is that you can never print below your highest layer, so having the individual capability of one head to go under the other seems pointless.
That said, you know what they say about assumption, so I'm curious as to your reasoning for the way you designed it.
Thank you for the links, the second is very interesting.
If the trailing printer head is positioned one print layer above the current working plane, it could lay down a second layer retaining the full range of X with a Y offset based on the distance between the printer heads, in theory. That being said, I can see how the workload could be spread over two printer heads in different zones reducing the overall production time without the duplication of resources.
If both ideas were combined, four heads could be feasible.
Actually, I had already gone back to the drawing board. The DoubleX has a price tag of $2k + the controller. I had retained the independent Y , but now I am going to give it some more thought.
While working on my current revision, I realized the fundamental choice I overlooked on my previous response. I chose a threaded rod drive over belt drive for accuracy and long term durability. While the dual Z will most likely have more application with a multi-purpose application (CNC, other?) and testing new ideas, my current revision has a single Z primarily due to cost.
Hello Greg, I would keep it also with one Z-axis. The amount of parts that go in, you might as well build 2 separated machines by just adding an extra bed.
That said, I wanted to comment on the special part of your design, the cars of the Y-axis to move the gantry. It seems you don't use eccentric spacers. This won't give you the possibility to adjust the wheels. Also, the Z-axis height will stress the cars too much, making the cars longer will reduce your Y-axis movement but will improve stability. What you have designed now can't be used for a router setup. Eccentric spacers are adapted with ease to your current design, but I would rethink your whole design again first .
Keep up the good ideas, I love that you did something others would be scared of to do .
puntoMX +1 the design look very top heavy with the gantry with the spindle ect it's going to stress the carriers and getting the steppers to drive the mass with any sort of accuracy is going to be challenging
the gantry is going to need some triangulation or A frames on the Y axis to spread the load stepper wise your going to need something with good torque high end nema 23 or something a bit bigger then your getting into stand alone drivers due to the current draw
I will be following this to see what happens