Drawing problems and revisions required, considered and intended . . . . .

[Gerald D]

This thread is the only list of changes needed to the drawings. When I sit down to do drawing revisions, this is the sole source of input.

I have each drawing sheet in a separate file, and the file names are my gospel. Sometimes I do loose concentration and forget to fix the title blocks, etc.

But let me know what else appears odd and I'll either fix or explain it. :)

This thread was archived 28 June 2008 link (http://www.mechmate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=857) At that point all the changes were included in a new drawing set, and this thread was reset for comments against the latest drawing set.

[Alan_c]

Had a quick look through the drawings and they are impressive as usual, I like all the "refinements".

The only error I could find was the last page of Part1 (10 20 450 WA) needs to be deleted - wrong section and redundant.

The Y car assembly drawings (part 3, pg 1 & 2) does not show the added tab for the switch box.

minor points I know, but the rest of it is so good...:)

[Gerald D]

Those are major points! - I cringed when I spotted them last night :o

Another snag is that the page sequence is incorrect in some places. (The index shows the correct sequence). It is a schlep to combine 153 .pdf files into 5 .pdf files and still get them in the right sequence. Especially when you have a cold, the PC is new and the pdfcombine program wasn't installed yet.

I'll wait for some more reports before I fix those glitches.

[Gerald D]

PS. The lip not showing on the assembly drawing is not a big one for me. At one stage I had it not showing on the bending drawing, and your comment made me think I had done it again!

For most of the revisions I don't reflect the changes all the way through to the assembly level. I only change the higher levels when there is a real risk that this thread will be filled up. ;)

[Gerald D]

1010247DA - the 46.4 dimension needs changing to 46 mm (not critical to one decimal)

[Gerald D]

1010302DA & 1010123DA - That hole spacing pitch of 350 to 400 [14-16"] is maybe a bit too wide. Checked this week that our existing two tables are just under 300mm [12"] spacing. There isn't much point in making this spacing closer than the spread between the cross supports indicated at the top of 1010123DA, and there I am comfortable with the 300-400 [14-16"] interval.

The spacing very much depends on the strength of the table surface, and the resistance to the bolt heads tearing out,.....and how you are going to abuse the table by trying to pull curved stuff down flat.

The outer perimeter of our tables take strain with the G-clamping we do. Maybe we should only increase the number of screws on the perimeter?

[Gerald D]

1040432D: The approximate hole spacing of 132[5.2"] is incorrect. Actually quite a bit wider. Nearer to 139 for those with 100mm slide plates and 5.54" for those with 4" slide plates. The lasered "wings" near the middle rollers need spreading in next revision.

[Gerald D]

M120220T: Remove the big bevel from the part . . . . the seals of the Superior V-rollers are slightly recessed and there is no chance that this part will rub against the seal. The bevel is not required.

[Gerald D]

Change sequence of spider processes to reflect method in thread:
http://www.mechmate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=878

[William McGuire]

Gerald...
I may have found an error in drawing 10 10 247. You have listed [0.25"] inch rack under your rail drawing. I found it while looking for the distance between the 0.50 inch rack and the mail beam...

[Gerald D]

Bill, drawing 10 10 247 only shows a Drilling process, nothing more. It is indicated by the D in the "Process" block on bottom right. Thus you must read any information on that sheet as it relates to Drilling. . . .

1816

I think the above area is where you got the impression of "1/4 rack". My poor choice of words . . .

What I should have said there, is that the dimension for the drilling, when using 1/2" rack, is 1/4" from the edge.

For the 15mm rack, the dimension is 7.5mm.

[Gerald D]

. . . while looking for the distance between the 0.50 inch rack and the rail beam...

The racks are flush with the outside of the rail, to get the pinion gears as far onto the motor/gearbox shafts as possible.

The inch rack guys could have a space of around 1/4" between the rack and the beams. . . . . depends how straight your beams are ;)

[William McGuire]

Thanks much, Gerald...:o

[Gerald D]

No need to blush Bill. I need to do more to make the drawings clearer, and inputs like yours tells me where the potential problems are. Thanks.

[Kobus_Joubert]

Ok, one more thing, Now that I see your Y-Car with the cable chain bracket....make sure you either have a halfnut on the bottom, or countersink it from the bottom and put the nut on the top. In my build the nut on the bottom caught on the nut from the V-Wheel if I remember correctly..

[Gerald D]

Maybe I need to move that screw hole a bit . . . .

[domino11]

Gerald,
In the last set of profiles and bends, 1020456 is supplied as revA for cutting (dxf) but the bend pdf lists the drawing as a rev B. Should the cut file be a rev B?

[Gerald D]

10 20 456 P A is the latest revision of the Profile cut drawing for that part
10 20 456 B B is the latest revision of the Bend drawing for that part

The reason for the Bend drawing having a higher revision than the Profile drawing is stated at the top of the title block: "Corrected error caused by scale view". That error only appeared on the Bend drawing - there was no need to make any changes to the Profile drawing for that part.

[domino11]

Gerald,
Sorry for the confusion, I thought the revs would track.

[Gerald D]

It is plain coincidence that most of the MM drawings have the revs of the P and B drawings tracking each other. The rev only gets changed when the older drawing can cause a mistake. For example, if a hole is added to a profile drawing, there is normally no need to formally revise the bend drawing - in my "day job" I most often see the P drawings with higher revisions than the B drawings.

[domino11]

Gerald,
A small thing, in the options schedule, part 10 40 434, the description says x motor plate lug. Shouldnt this read Z Motor plate lug? :confused: In the actual drawings, it is only described as Motor Plate Lug.

[Gerald D]

Thanks

[PEU]

While converting bends DXF's (June30/2008 set) to Solidworks I found these small details, not sure if they are errors or are intended to be this way, just in case here they go:

in 10.60.315 sheet tickness is specified at 4mm but in inches it says 3/16". IMHO 3/16" is closer to 5mm (IE. in 10.40.432 3/16" is specified as 5mm)

this also happens in 1030455PB

in 10.4.387 the hole in the bend and the bending mark are included in the dimensions layer, so if you remove this layer for any reason these features are lost.

There are some outlines that needed minor corrections, for example open outlines, not sure if this is an importing problem or with the native files.

So far these are the only details I found :)


Pablo

[hutchcj]

1030455PB.DXF - Open contour, on small step, upper right (on inside edge). Horizontal needs extending.
1040432PF.DXF - Contours overlap, both sides, lower squigly side cuts.
M610116PB.DXF - Open contour, very bottom line on the right, just where there is a small fillet.

These are small errors, less that 0.5mm

If you need more info (or a picture) let me know.

[Gerald D]

Thanks hutchcj

I don't find the first one (my AutoCad draws hatch or boundary happily)

Second one has 0.56mm overlaps

Last one has 0.14 gap

[riesvantwisk]

@all,

I am preparing the sheets and a USB stick for laser cutting my parts.
According to the DXF the spinder plate (10 40 432 ) should be 5mm thick. Yet the XLS document suggested a preferred thickness of 4mm. Which one is right?

Looking at the XLS part 10 30 455 also suggests 4mm, but part 10 20 451/452 suggest 5mm so I couldn't make a decision yet... Reading the above thread suggest 4mm is bare minimum, so best is 5mm steel. Would that be correct and teh XLS is wrong??

Regards,
Ries van Twisk

[domino11]

Ries,
I think the excel sheet did NOT get updated with the last updates to the plans. I would go with the 5mm as called for in the current drawing set. :)

[Gerald D]

5mm is better. I must change the xls sheet.

[Gerald D]

From a PM received:

Hi, on drawings 1030422BD and 1030422PD the higher drawing number must be 1030's not 1020's.

[jeffa]

We're getting close to welding up the gantry and we have assembled (bolted) correctly (I think) the Near Gantry End Sub-weldment and the Far Gantry End Sub-weldment. However, drawings 10 20 451WA and 10 20 452WA have us scratching our heads just a little. Is it possible that the Right side views of these parts in both drawings are actually the Left side views placed on the right side of the Front view? If this is the case, we've got everything placed correctly and we can weld away, if not, we've got some more head scratching to do.

Thanks for your help,:)

Jeff and Erick

Jeff and Erick, you spotted some errors there. ....452W's right view can only be correct if it is a section cut. (Similar on 400W). Looking from middle out.

[Alan_c]

Fix drawing 10 40 334: change dimensions of hole positions; 305 to 315, 415 to 425, 545 to 555.

[dragonfinder1]

Most of the 10 20 451 and 10 20 452 drawings show what looks like two slotted holes. One of the drawings does not. My laser cut parts don't have those slots. Do I need to add those slots? Also the same for the 10 30 450.

[Gerald D]

See these posts before the last drawing revisions:
http://www.mechmate.com/forums/showthread.php?p=13310&postcount=20

The slots have been removed. Now use countersunk screws to hold the geared motors to the motor plates.

Will check if the slots need deleting from more drawing views.

[Gerald D]

Support board thickness:

"I relooked at the drawing today and see that I said 24mm max under the screwhead. That was because of the screw length. I should also have given a minimum and that would be 16mm. Anything thinner and I would fear for the head tearing out the bottom section. . . . . this after seeing it happen on our first table and finding it impossible to fix later."

[Gerald D]

Add a note to 10 10 302 S:

If an alternative to the specified C-section is considered, ensure that a minimum cross section moment of inertia (Ixx) value of 0.70 x 106 mm4 [1.4 in4] is maintained.

And then maybe add a table of alternatives in L-iron and box tubing.

[Gerald D]

Following received via PM:

There used to be a forum for suggested changes, but I couldn't find it.

1) the title block of drawing 10 40 104 indicates that it is for the 250mm z-slide. It is for the 350mm z-slide

2) drawing 10 40 334 doesn't indicate the dimension for the lowest rack-attaching hole. I believe it should be 230mm (9.05")

3) drawing M2 10 124D indicates that the z-rack should be cut 390mm (11.4"). 390mm is 15.35"

I know that dual dimensioning with most cad programs is a pain in the butt.

All the above are valid. These errors need correcting.

[Gerald D]

And then another PM:

mistyped? 10 40 _014_?

Yes

[Gerald D]

M2 30 110 T A

Remove the [3/16" or 1/4" UNC] and replace with [10-32 or 1/4-28]

See "Grub"/set scews for pinion gears, with LocTite ? (http://www.mechmate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=795)

[Gerald D]

Drawing 10 60 100 A should explain in what direction the two views are. The top view is the "back" of the MM - looking from y=max towards y=0. (From far side towards near side) The bottom view is from x=max towards x=0 (again from far to near).

[Gerald D]

This mentioned today:

. . . .

Then I find that last 6 holes on the gauge plate not correspond with holes on the z-slide tube. I think the quotes are wrong???

I think this has been mentioned before, but I repeated it here to remind me.

[MAC2009]

drawing 10 20 400
2. referrers to sub weldment 10 20 450 is that not sub weldment 10 20 451?

[Gerald D]

Thanks MAC. The note 2 should read:

. . . . and the sub-weldments 10 20 451 W or 10 20 452 W as distance gauges . . . .

[Gerald D]

Received via PM:

Drawing Typo Part 4 PDF Sheet M1 30 200:

the spring is labled item 4 and is item 3 on the list

Thanks to the donor!

[Gerald D]

Drawings 10 20 200 A and 10 20 225 A:

- Show the clamp strip in cross-section, showing the tapped hole

- Add the gantry tube in cross-section, through a hole

- Add another view with the whole system tightened together (in addition to the exploded view)

[Shanker]

I need some clarification with dwg 10 10 000. At the bottom of the dwg there is a close up view of a resin filled csk carriage bolt. What does the dotted line in the dwg signify?

Thanks

Rick.

[Gerald D]

Well spotted, and good question. . . . . . but, I can't see any reason for that bit of line being there! :o

[David Bryant]

Great product Gerald.
I am enjoying gathering the parts and learning about the MM. Some very clever design ideas are implemented here.
I suggest you consider adding an outline of 10 20 440 onto dwg 10 20 200 (210, 220 225) to help clarify the assembly and how the hole sizes are different. It took me a little while to realise this is where the adjustment is for doing the alignment.

Thanks for the well supported product
David

[Gerald D]

This didn't make sense 2 years ago:

. . . .

Then I find that last 6 holes on the gauge plate not correspond with holes on the z-slide tube. I think the quotes are wrong???

From a recent discussion, it was the inch dimensions that are slightly off, I only check the metric stuff.

[Slipery]

Just a minor point but I dont see any mention of fastener sizes on 10 60 100 or anywhere else in the 10 60 series.

[Slipery]

M1 30 000 A references Higher Drawing 10 30 000 A. This does not appear to be in pdf pack.

[Slipery]

I hope you dont mind me being a nit picker here but I figure if I see an error I should tell someone. Up to you of course to ignore it.

any way another one
10 40 000 and 10 40 014 both named 250mm Z Slide Assembly

[Gerald D]

See post #36 of 03 August 2009 above

[Slipery]

Ok I wont waste my time any more.

[Tom Ayres]

Drawing 10 20 440 S A shows dimensions y=500(19.7") and just below that (2330)(91.7"), what is correct? with a 60" y it would be 79.7" or 2024mm which is far less than the 2330mm.

[Gerald D]

The (2330)[91.7"] was my actual dimension because I built for a 1830 [72"] wide table.

If you want to have a 60" wide table, then you must +19.7" as the drawing shows in blue.

[Tom Ayres]

Thanks for the clarity Gerald, I'm cutting steel and didn't want to muff it up on first cuts.