PDA

View Full Version : Drawing problems - Archived 27 June 2008


Gerald_D
Fri 25 November 2005, 09:20
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.

DMS
Mon 31 December 2007, 17:50
While going through drg M5 10 314 I find difference in M5 10 314 PA pdf and M5 10 314 PB dxf files.
Plate size is 128 x 160 in pdf while 146 x 160 in dxf file.
I think the dxf M5 10 314 PB is higher version and I should go for it ?
Any comments ?

cobra427mnsi
Tue 01 January 2008, 09:27
While going through drg M5 10 314 I find difference in M5 10 314 PA pdf and M5 10 314 PB dxf files.
Plate size is 128 x 160 in pdf while 146 x 160 in dxf file.
I think the dxf M5 10 314 PB is higher version and I should go for it ?
Any comments ?

Since I am planning to use the geared motor PK296A2A-SG7.2, I have been preparing the DXF files designed for the geared motor as listed in the "MechMate Laser-Cut Steel Components and Bending" - Full options (geared OM's only).

While preparing these DXF files for the laser cutting contractor, I, too, noticed that the DXF file no. M5 10 314 is different than the PDF file of the same name. The total Y distance in th PDF file is 128mm but, in the DXF file, it lists both 128mm and 146 mm as being the measurement. I used Mastercam to measure the distance and it was actually 146.18794mm (all the measurements are off by a small fraction but that is not the issue here. I will save the small fraction issue for another post). The point is that the actual measurement is closer to 146 than 128 listed in the PDF drawings.

If I overlay the two PDF drawings M5 10 314PA (geared motor plate) and M5 10 312DA (direct drive motor plate), they are the same size in Y and the swing hole is in the same place ( there are some understandably small differences in the flange design). But , with the DXF drawing M 10 314 overlaid, it is a different size and the swing hole does not match.

I hope this explanation isn't too confusing. I have been reading and rereading trying to get my ming wrapped around all this info.

BTW, Gerald I am very impressed as to how much work and effort you have put into preparing this set of plans. I thank you for making them available. I feel like I am stealing your hard work when I am allowed to download everything for free. I'm sure that I speak for many others when I say that I would gladly pay something for this privilege.

Thanks again
Paul

Gerald D
Sun 06 January 2008, 12:00
While going through drg M5 10 314 I find difference in M5 10 314 PA pdf and M5 10 314 PB dxf files.
Plate size is 128 x 160 in pdf while 146 x 160 in dxf file.
I think the dxf M5 10 314 PB is higher version and I should go for it ?
Any comments ?

Sharma, I will look into this soon and let you know the reasons/issues.

Gerald D
Thu 10 January 2008, 04:06
While going through drg M5 10 314 I find difference in M5 10 314 PA pdf and M5 10 314 PB dxf files.
Plate size is 128 x 160 in pdf while 146 x 160 in dxf file.
I think the dxf M5 10 314 PB is higher version and I should go for it ?
Any comments ?

That M5 10 314 PA pdf was before I turned the motor to get less dust into the wire entry:
http://www.mechmate.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6213&postcount=22

The revision B dxf is of course the later one. Attached is the rev B pdf.

Sorry for the mistake.

Alan_c
Fri 11 January 2008, 06:10
Hi Gerald

Just a small error I picked up on the drawing for the bending of the geared head top plate M6 10 115 BA (10 20 456 BA). The material in the title block is indicated as 6mm but next to the small drawing developed part t=10, I think it's a minor typo that can be corrected with the next issue.

Gerald D
Mon 14 January 2008, 00:55
They first look at material type & thickness, then the length of the bend and their gut feel already tells them the tonnage, but there are tables and formulae if they don't have enough guts...
Next thing they look at is whether there is an unusual radius specified, that can affect the tonnage drastically.
Then they wonder if their "bender" has enough "throat" to accept the plate (before and after bending) - in general if the bent shape fits in their tooling.
But, plate thickness always seems to be the first question.....

Alan, the drawing numbers you mentioned don't make any sense to me now. I think I've gone nuts (again). (My aircon doesn't work after the weekend - it is before 10am and my office temp is 28C [82F])

Alan_c
Mon 14 January 2008, 03:35
At least you have the potential for an aircon, our power has only just come on again after an Eskom induced blackout...:mad: and the temp in the factory is hovering around 31C

The number M6 10 115 BA is what that drawing should be but it currently has 10 20 456 BA as its title. Check your post 19 Nov 07 15:46

Gerald D
Wed 20 February 2008, 21:52
We seldom use proxy's with connectors, so I didn't think of it. Were you okay at the gantry ends? There is an elliptical hole directly above the proxy there, and the idea was that the cable could pass directly into the push-button box above.

smreish
Thu 21 February 2008, 04:46
Gerald,
I actually used a right angled connector for the gantry ends due to the button box location and the boring of that elliptical hole up to 20mm would have caused a lot of chatter. If the hole was bigger, and if I planned my button location better, i could have made it work. I will take pic for you in a few hours when I get in the office for clarification.

smreish
Fri 22 February 2008, 19:41
Pics located here (http://www.mechmate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=460&page=9) (post 247) in response to post above.
The gantry holes would really need to be about 25mm ellipses to clear the QD connector (if I used the 12mm straight barrel connectors) The OD on the QD fitting is about 17.5 mm.

Gerald D
Thu 06 March 2008, 06:40
From a recent email. Will look at it later . . . . .

I was sifting through my prints of the mamba during my 3hr power outage today (90min yesterday) and noticed some weird things with Nils spread sheet. Index 122, drawing should read M1 30 200 according to PDF. But I'm not sure who is incorrect thus not posting it on the forum yet.
Then your PDF's of the skate has incorrect drawing numbers. Nils has numbered them(correctly?), but from what information? So I'm not sure if i have missed a link/download page with correct info. All information i have downloaded is from the 13 Feb 2008.
Then maybe add new M510 314 B PDF to the correct PDF folder "part 5" instead as an a loose drawing for first time down loaders

domino11
Thu 06 March 2008, 07:47
The rail grinding tool has incorrect numbers printed on the plans. The last 5 sheets should be numbered:
M6 10 100 A A
M6 10 115 B A
M6 10 115 P A
M6 10 116 B A
M6 10 116 P A

I think this post covers the rail griding tool fix?

Heath.

sailfl
Thu 06 March 2008, 10:02
Gerald and Every One

I sent Gerald a new Excel spreadsheet but I missed that I needed to correct M1 30 200 which I have now corrected. I can send that to you Gerald but before I send again what are we doing with M5 10 314 P B?

According to Part5.pdf, the drawing is M5 10 314 P A. Are you adding a new drawing M5 10 314 P B?

Let me know and I will be happy to update the Excel spreadsheet.

Gerald D
Tue 08 April 2008, 05:30
Note to self: M1 20 100 A mentions slimming the nut to M1 20 141 T which was never created.

Gerald D
Fri 11 April 2008, 13:48
Received by e-mail, but prefer putting everything in this one thread:

"On drawing M5 10 160 A, suggestions:

* Part 15 (which is there) does not have a label
* Cross section A-A is shown on top drawing but "Section A-A" note is missing from bottom section drawing (section B-B appears to be correct)"

Thanks - will review only this thread when editing drawings one day

dmoore
Fri 11 April 2008, 14:20
From drawings M5 10 160 A & M5 10 200 A, part description 11:

These "M6 X 16 Allen Head Cap Screw" appear to be the bolts used to attached the motor to the motor mounting plate. If so, could a note be added for the optional geared motors (PK296xxx-SGx) that these items are not required as your motor will ship with 1/4"-20 "cap head" screws, with included lock washers.

Here is the spec sheet from the motor:
http://www.mechmate.com/Forum/messages/13/3427.jpg

Here is the instructions stating the proper bolts are included (see "screws (included):

http://catalog.orientalmotor.com/Asset/dm_pk29-s.jpg

It also appears there is a US/inch version and a worldwide/metric model.

dmoore
Tue 15 April 2008, 22:18
Drawing 10 10 302 S has a description of " Cross Bearer - Cut". This sheet does show the cross bearer C-Channel. Drawing 10 10 306 S has a description of "Cross Bearer - Cut". This sheet shows what I would describe as a "lower brace". Was it intended to be named the same?

Thanks!
david

Gerald D
Tue 15 April 2008, 22:40
10 306 S should have been Lower Cross Brace, or something like that. Thanks!

lunaj76
Tue 15 April 2008, 23:44
Hello,

We are having problems with the slotted holes on the near and far carrier plates (1020451PA, 1020452PA) lining up with the upper mounting holes of the motor mounting plate (M510314PB). We are building the mamba version with geared stepper motors. Did we miss something?

Thanks,

1172

On re-reading this thread, I realise that Paul was telling me this in January already! Gerald :

. . . But , with the DXF drawing M 10 314 overlaid, it is a different size and the swing hole does not match.

Gerald D
Wed 16 April 2008, 02:06
Thanks Justin (and Paul), you have spotted a bad (not fatal) slip on my part. The slots are for revA of M510314P.

1173

What happens there is that the geared motors are supplied with 4 cap screws. The heads of the supplied cap screws need some space and hence the slots. I forgot to address the slots when rotating the motors to keep the dust out of the cable entries. (The two grey dots).

Thinking back further, I was probably thinking to delete the slots altogether, because the grey dot position is a nasty place to notch the gantry or the y-car.

The "cure" is to dump two of the screws supplied with the motors and replace them with countersunk cap screws of the same nominal length. Which means the new screws will appear to be slightly shorter.

Drawing changes needed:

a. Need a M5 10 314 D drawing added to the pack to show the countersinking (too scared to look now if there are left & right hands involved)

b. Slots need to be deleted on 10 20 451, 452 and 10 30 450.

c. Motor assembly drawings need revision.

Sorry guys.

Gerald D
Wed 16 April 2008, 10:19
The grey holes shown in the red M5 10 314 PB must be countersunk from the side opposite the motor. No welding and no maching required. 5 minutes on a drill press and 6 screws to be purchased.

Gerald D
Fri 18 April 2008, 22:06
Notes to self:

10 20 440 D
Avoid the seam of the tube so that clamp strip seats properly.

10 60 100 A
Draw cross-support offset to right side in top view (0,0 is to right)

Gerald D
Sun 20 April 2008, 09:35
This thread has been hacked to remove posts pertaining to older drawing sets. Revisions needed to the current drawing set are summarized here:

www.mechmate.com/MechMate_Drawing_Index_Rev_2.1.xls (http://www.mechmate.com/MechMate_Drawing_Index_Rev_2.1.xls)
http://www.mechmate.com/forums/images/misc/progress.gif

dmoore
Mon 21 April 2008, 12:21
It might help to add in the reference "0,0 Corner" which is on drawing 10 10 300 W to the following drawings (not that there is something wrong now, it may just help clarify...):

10 10 300 D
10 10 000 A
10 00 000 A (on both front and side views)

dmoore
Mon 21 April 2008, 12:38
(I checked Rev 2.1 of the change index and didn't find this..)

In reviewing cable management, it appears that on drawing 10 00 000 A (rev B) that the cabling management system for Y (10 60 000 A) is show on both front and side views but 10 60 000 A is not a valid drawing number. The correct drawing appears to be 10 60 100 A (rev A) that shows the "cable chain assemblies" for both X and Y.

Would it also be possible to add in the X-axis cable chain and remove the orginal "loose cable" design? It does seem important to show the cable coming from the control box as to determine proper location of the cables.

The current "loose cable" doesn't come into the umbilical plate (10 10 307) under the table in this drawing (as shown on 10 10 300 W).

Reference to control box, drawing 10 70 000 A, does not exisit. I suspect that 10 70 000 A would have been a drawing that showed the layout of the control box but was not drawn. The first drawing in 10 70 xxx is 10 70 105.

Thanks!
david

dmoore
Mon 21 April 2008, 12:44
Ok, please understand I'm just this kind of person - somewhat OCD. This makes no difference, just something I noticed....

All drawings title blocks are black lines with blue text except for:

10 10 324 G (all black)
10 10 334 D (all black)

Doing a great job!

david

Gerald D
Mon 21 April 2008, 13:32
0,0 corner is actually a personal choice, depending on one's previous experience. If you cut your teeth on Italian Biesse machines, your y-axis would run opposite to nearly every else. Some Coreldraw has 0,0 in the center of a plotting table. Might have notes saying "typical 0,0" position

Cable management does not insist on a chain for the x-axis. We have looped umbilicals on two machines which a lot cheaper and never get in anyone's way. I felt obliged to design for x-chains because I saw them being mounted in positions that could be improved. The demand for x-cable chains caught me offside in the numbering, and it shows.

I do intend a control box assembly drawing one day when I am confined indoors on light duty for a misdemeanour. The idea of the numbers on that top level drawing was more to show the main sub-familes and the groupings on this forum.

dmoore
Mon 21 April 2008, 14:40
0,0 corner is actually a personal choice, depending on one's previous experience. If you cut your teeth on Italian Biesse machines, your y-axis would run opposite to nearly every else. Some Coreldraw has 0,0 in the center of a plotting table. Might have notes saying "typical 0,0" position

This is the MechMate way... It would really create confusion if people building MechMates started refering to 0,0 as the center of the table (that would be odd).

Cable management does not insist on a chain for the x-axis. We have looped umbilicals on two machines which a lot cheaper and never get in anyone's way. I felt obliged to design for x-chains because I saw them being mounted in positions that could be improved. The demand for x-cable chains caught me offside in the numbering, and it shows.

I didn't even realize that cable management was an option. Now that I look at 10 60 100 A I see that the X-Axis cable management is listed as an option, as where Y-Axis cable management is not. I agree that X cable management isn't required (as is the case on my current CNC machine).

Kobus_Joubert
Mon 28 April 2008, 11:49
On drawing 10 20 246 D revision B the top right hand drawing it shows the angle iron...the 12mm holes being 46.4 mm from the edge, but at the bottom of the same drawing point number 2. it said 46 mm from the reference edge. Does this 0.4 mm make a difference ?

Gerald D
Mon 28 April 2008, 12:45
Makes no difference - I'll fix it one day.

Gerald D
Sat 03 May 2008, 07:51
The extra lengths added at the ends of the rail, that the skate needs to ride on, so that the correct usable/ground length of rail is obtained, becomes 160mm [6.3"] on the one end and 40mm [1.6"] on the other end. The notes on drawing M1 10 110 M need to be revised.

Gerald D
Sat 03 May 2008, 23:25
Add note to 1010302S to state that the length of the cross support is NOT the finished width of the table.

Kobus_Joubert
Sun 04 May 2008, 01:45
Hi Gerald, Why different lengths on the two ends as in post 41 ? When I grinded the y-rail I put the skate on the rail and grind NORTH. Then I turn the skate 180 and grind the other side SOUTH. To me I needed the same length both sides to grind the rail... or am I missing something here...is the another way to grind rails ? Just checking

Gerald D
Sun 04 May 2008, 02:14
At the moment, the drawings only show 100mm [4"] extra per end. That assumes an un-tipped skate. When the skate gets tipped, it gets complicated if the rails are already cut to the current drawing dimensions. The post showed the factors to think of when the skate gets tipped and you could go 160 + 40 instead of 100 + 100.....but you have to "hou kop" (keep your head).

Future drawings will add 350mm to the rails' length.

Gerald D
Thu 05 June 2008, 10:47
Problem reported with gas spring length:

http://www.mechmate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=755

lunaj76
Fri 06 June 2008, 07:18
We ordered 2.5X1.5X.25 angle for the rails instead of the recommended 2.5X2.5X.25. Reason: only 1.725 of working height between bottom of grind head top plate and work surface (grinder is Bosch 1710). By using 2.5X1.5X.25 you get more life out of the cut wheel because the uncut rail will completely slide under the bottom of the grind head top plate. Am I making any sense? We used the pferd cut wheels and only used a few wheels cutting 40' of rail to height.

Justin

Gerald D
Fri 06 June 2008, 09:44
Please help me out here . . . . .

Where are people getting the idea that they must use a 2.5 x 2.5 angle to cut down? I need to correct this perception right at its source, but I cannot find the source. (Drawing M1 10 110 is silent on this, and that is probably a mistake - at minimum I have to add a note over there.)

sailfl
Fri 06 June 2008, 10:00
Gerald,

Please notify the Excel Drawing Monitor if you make changes to the drawings.

Thanks

Gerald D
Fri 06 June 2008, 10:07
It will be quite a while before I tackle a drawing revision again. Folk should keep an eye on this thread and pencil relevant remarks onto their drawing set. This thread is my sole list of drawing revisions to be made - I look at nothing else. That's why I am a little miffed that my request to mention something in this thread was ignored - at that time I couldn't get the weird Norwegian keyboard and OS to make a link for me.

lunaj76
Fri 06 June 2008, 23:14
Gerald,

It is not stated on the drawing what angle to use. Only that one leg be 2.5. I assumed that since the other builders were using the drop off piece for the clamp strip, that was the way to do it with the taller angle.

Gerald D
Sat 07 June 2008, 00:14
Justin, you are right, there has always been a notion/discussion about using the off-cut for the clamp strip. But I have never been encouraged by this thrift/recycling. That off-cut is a nasty piece of metal - while it is theoretically rectangular, one corner is small radius, another corner is big radius, while the remaining two are sharp and need rounding over. That's too much work / too ugly for me and I rather use fresh pieces of standard flat bar.

Gerald D
Wed 11 June 2008, 04:48
In the "OptionSchedule" spreadsheet, zipped with dxf's, X-motor lug should read Z-motor lug.

Gerald D
Thu 12 June 2008, 23:31
I ordered a set of laser cut & bend parts yesterday, and I tweaked the design of 2 parts. Nothing drastic. See "Downloads" (http://www.mechmate.com/forums/showthread.php?p=12637&postcount=3) page.

dmoore
Fri 13 June 2008, 11:26
Also extending the lower x-axis cable chain brackets would be very helpful:

http://www.mechmate.com/forums/showt...1&postcount=29 (http://www.mechmate.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11591&postcount=29)

One could debate that if you purchase a cable chain with a tight enough radius, this isn't an issue but there isn't any "loss" to making the top of the brackets longer, it only pushes the mounting point up on the beam:

http://www.mechmate.com/forums/attac...1115934 1.jpg (http://www.mechmate.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1424&stc=1&d=1211159341.jpg)

Gerald D
Fri 13 June 2008, 13:18
Thanks David - will do.

dmoore
Sat 14 June 2008, 23:35
Can we add 10 40 386 Z spring anchor to the laser cut parts list? Seems odd that isn't not already there.

Gerald D
Sun 15 June 2008, 00:07
A perennial question. I will add it as an option to avoid the question again. :)
(My stock answer is that you make that part from a bit of scrap cheaper than a laser cutter. That's what we do at my "day" job - tiny parts like that mess with a bigger order from a laser cutter. They get lost/damaged between the bigger parts)

Gerald D
Tue 17 June 2008, 04:18
Here is a complete new set of profiles & bends - will the beady-eyed folk tell me if it is safe to put into the "official" downloads page (http://www.mechmate.com/forums/showthread.php?t=376) Must apologise in advance that it was done in a rush between other stuff.

Gerald D
Fri 27 June 2008, 03:03
Serious warning for laser cutters and benders: Part 1060215 has been revised with longer legs in the cutting (P) drawing. This drawing also shows the engraving of the bend positions. However, the bending version (B) of that drawing does not show the longer legs yet. Bending as per the older (but current) B drawing will be incorrect. Bending must be done on the laser engrave, 100mm from the tips.