What Constitutes a MechMate

[jwt]

I'd like to, very timidly, ask a question.

What constitutes a MechMate?

Is it the overall base table design?

twin horizontal co planar gantry rails?

The y-Car design?

The v-rails and v-rollers?

The table base has been changed modified updated and aborted numerous times. Very few built and running tables seem to adhere to the basic table design, some have used c channel everywhere, some like me have used box section etc etc

The v-rails. Originally they were hand ground from angle iron. Then prefabricated v rails attached to aluminium were added to the option list. Some , like me have used linear rails (even though I'm still using v-rails and v-rollers for the z-slide)

Even the gantry design isn't adhered to by everyone. Sure everyone has stuck with the twin spar design, primarily I suspect because of the laser cut steel.

The car again seems to be a rigid design and most people adhere to it, again I suspect because of the laser cut steel makes it easier to stay with the original design.

And I wonder. Is this the nub of the issue. The laser cut steel?

As long as you build something that uses the laser cut steel you're ok? By design or by accident using the laser cut steel forces you to stick to a basic design and shape of machine that has an intrinsic "MechMate" look.

And if the answer to that question is yes, is the fact that anyone who makes the laser cut steel passes a percentage of the profit to this site the real reason that there is such a reaction to designs that might not use the laser cut steel.

If it truly is the case that financial considerations are ruling these decisions, fair enough. It's a copyrighted design and the new site owner has a right and entitlement to run this as he sees fit.

Maybe a clear and unequivocal answer to the question

Is the MechMate design, participation on this site and granting of a serial number contingent on sticking to a design that generates an income for the site?


John

[Kenrbass]

Interesting discussion.

I am sure Mike purchased the site with the intent on making money selling parts. I really would not expect him to take all of this on for free.

From my perspective of having owned the horizontal (prt) shopbot and now owning a vertical gantry (prs alpha) that is similar to what kim is working on, I can give a little insight to the difference in the two.

First with Gerald's advice, I welded up the prt gantry and modified the y car hold down similar to the mechmate design.

The horizontal (prt) design like the mechmate cut pretty good.

I ran across a "deal" on a prs vertical gantry and purchased it.

The difference is night and day. I went from parts that were pretty good to parts that go straight to assembly without any further need of sanding or anything.The hardened steel rails are great as well.

One of the best things is not having to crawl under the gantry to change bits. The spindle hangs off of the face of the gantry and it is VERY easy to change bits on this vertical gantry style machine.

There are a few weak points in the new prs design from shopbot. The aluminum rails are not as strong and tight as the welded steel frame. I have done some bracing on the machine and tightened it up quite a bit. Having some aluminum and some steel, it HAS to be a bolt together machine instead of welding. I believe if this design were changed to a welded all steel design, it would surpass the current design of the shopbot.

I also still think that laser cut parts from Mike would be needed for the new design, if it every evolved.

Perhaps another "experimental gantry design" heading could be added to the forum. This way the people that want a tried and true design to build, could do that. Other folks that want to tinker with new desings, (like Gerald did to start this site) would have a place to go do that without confusing the other builders.

Respectfully

Ken

[shaper]

Hi All

I agree with Brad in general but I'd also just like to offer some thoughts, from my own perspective, so please don't take these on anything more than face value.

I actually have been finding myself visiting the forum less often lately (and yes I am still building), this is for a variety of reasons but the biggest is that the flow of idea's for improvement, different takes on functionality and conversation of a more general cnc nature (i.e. some of the detailed control stuff) much less frequent. This is a sign of two things, one is the sign of a mature, tested high quality design the other is just stagnation.

While the building is great (and I can't wait to have enough space to seriously get moving again) if we were all to just build straight off the paper then the design would never evolve, improve or other wise and aside from build threads the activity here would greatly decrease. The case in point here is the evolution/variety of belt reductions now posted here.

Having said all of this and partially in answer to Johns question my understanding of what makes a MM relates to Mike R's story and the answer therefore is that what makes a MM is the gantry and Y car as these were the start of the MM design from the shopbot.

Finally, while I agree that Kim's design is no longer a MM I still think the idea's are interesting and useful to many of us, perhaps they just belong in a different part of the site (assuming of course Mike wishes this to be the case).

Take it for what it's worth but they are my thoughts
Jed

[edgey]

Mike, I know you don't want this site to turn into a general cnc site, which I respect and appreciate.
Perhaps you could start a thread along the lines of "MM inspired Machines" or "MM descendants" and let it run for a short time to gauge if this is a path worth investigating and it may give in site into the evolution of MM.
With all the talented individuals on this forum I'm sure some amazing designs and ideas will come out which would normally die in a note book on some bench around the world.

[javeria]

How about MM V2! a competition to redesign from scratch! would be interesting - what people would come up with -

anywayz we are just clogging Kim's thread!

[MetalHead]

I for sure will not be changing the design at the moment. I think this machine is well placed and proven. That is one of the factors that makes jumping into this forum so attractive. It is a buildable design that anyone can build. No fancy parts. Just really hard work can get you a great machine.

This machine aint no toy either. As we can see from members of this forum. Money can be made with these machines... Or you can just play with them. Your choice but the frame can handle it with no problems.

It can be built very affordable if you shop and do just the basics.

I can't decide if I want to venture off into the zone (pun intended) by spreading out into other design areas with an Experimental area.

At the moment I am still debating this with myself... a strange conversation for sure :)

I know if we follow this line of thinkning we would all still be banging rocks and rubbing stick together to make a livin. I am one of the first guys to jump at innovation, but you know some things don't need fixin really.

But I will keep my mind open and pull these last few posts over to another topic area so we can talk about it more.

[shaper]

Mike

Totally see where you are going here, you are absolutely correct about what the design is and is not. My comments probably say as much about me as it does the forum.

Other designs and all the rest could prove distracting (you only need to look at cnczone to see the effect of open slather) and your not here to support everybodies R&D through the maintenance of the forum.

I guess where I was going was for the users that have been around the forum and contributed to the forum for a while or have completed a machine could be given permission to put mechmate inspired designs that are not MM in one area.

interested to see where the conversation goes.

[bradm]

Hey Mike, thanks for pulling this conversation out - and others for taking a break from it briefly.

I'm in favor of a clearly demarcated "MechMate Design Experiments" area, since we've already had many of those, and they've mostly been helpful. Part of the reason they've mostly been helpful, however, is that we've been pretty draconian about shutting down conversations that strayed too far from the core MechMate design. So, having an area where there's a little more rope, *and* an understanding that we may choose to abandon/close/delete/stick-our-tongues-out-at threads that drift too far seems helpful.

[PEU]

Look at the reprap (reprap.org/) community, the design evolved in the last years and from time to time they release new plans. What can be done if the experimental area is created is to create an "Design is proven" rating, meaning, new users can decide on what to build based on how many users completed the design.

If someone is willing to put money on the leading edge, we will try to support, but he will know beforehand that many of his questions may remain unanswered or may be replied with just common sense or experience from old designs.

[lumberjack_jeff]

My motivation for coming here is to discuss and learn innovative ideas for improving my MechMate's utility. While I'm here, I'm happy to help new members get to the point I'm at.

If I'm not brought here by those new ideas, I'm not here to help new members.

Like it or not, the cat is out of the bag. The MechMate is for all practical purposes an open source project. Either we collaborate to expand the utility and improve the design, or each machine becomes a fork in the MechMate development. If you wander too far from the design envelope, you're unlikely to get much help from builders with more traditional machines.

It's a business/collaboration tightrope, and it's hard to get right, but it's important to do so because the business purpose depends on that continuing free (in both senses of the word) collaboration.

I think Pablo, Jed and Richards are largely correct. The MechMate forum needs to tolerate (if not embrace and accept) non-doctrinaire idea sharing, even if those ideas are only tangentially related to the business purpose of the site.

[mrghm]

having just seen this new biesse machine,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JflUEIJQEro

i think that they have been looking at the mechmate, the gantry design total different to there tradditional style, while not 100% alike its not far off, the table has same size steel as used in a mechmate.

computer station with estop looks like a mechmate's builders unit.

[sailfl]

I don't get it. If you want another design other than the basic MM go to CNCZone. When I was searching and find this site, I know I was in the place for me. People have made modifications and changes but the design is good. That doesn't mean it can not evolve. It has. One example is the change in motors and the reduction gears.

[KenC]

there is a saying here "If you don't move forward, you will fall behind..."

[domino11]

There is also a fine line from moving forward to taking a completely different road. :)

[danhamm]

Yes, just what is a Mechmate or a Shopbot..? I am on no# 4 shopbot..
I have modified each one to suit me..this last one was purchased from the
woodweb, it was a 2002 prt, by the time it got to me the truckers were just tossing the pieces back on the pallet.. so it cost 3500 plus shipping and duty for a table..
I want to thank Gerald for a very informative forum, I have used many idea's from it , mostly for where to get stuff cheap..any way here is a quick video
of my machine...don't know what to call it..?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38wzs0rT-fA

[danhamm]

Just gave the machine a good test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23qa2uZPxZI&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL

[servant74]

What is a 'MechMate'? For me, it looks/works/behaves like the plans. Even with some 'mods' (both those described in the plans and many others), I would still consider it a MechMate.