MechMate CNC Router Forum

Go Back   MechMate CNC Router Forum > Archives
Register Options Profile Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old Mon 08 October 2007, 19:53
domino11
Just call me: Heath
 
Cornwall, Ontario
Canada
New Mechmate drawings and changes

Gerald,
I was just wondering if I was the only one getting a little confused with all the new changes coming around lately, such as the several rail heights, capped rails, new motor mounting plates etc. Will all this be finalized in the new drawing set? Will all the new choices be apparent in the planset? I was just in the finalizing stages of getting some laser cut parts ordered and now Im not sure of what I need. Sorry just getting a little nervous. I just want to make sure I make all the right choices before I order. I can wait for the new plans, thats not a problem.

Thanks again.

PS. I think including the jr skate cutouts in the laser cut parts is great, that would save us a lot of time.
  #2  
Old Tue 09 October 2007, 05:23
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Heath, here is an early preview of the gantry as an example of where the drawings are heading. Again let it be said that the old, current set of drawings are adequate - the new set will be untested.

Drawings removed
  #3  
Old Tue 09 October 2007, 05:51
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Some other drawings fiddled with in the last few days . . . .

Drawings Removed
  #4  
Old Tue 16 October 2007, 08:15
domino11
Just call me: Heath
 
Cornwall, Ontario
Canada
Gerald,
Thanks for the update. I really appreciate it. I hope I didnt seem like I was rushing you for the new drawings. I am eagerly awaiting them though.
  #5  
Old Tue 16 October 2007, 09:08
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
That's okay Heath. We went away for the weekend and my mind went into neutral. Lost some momemtum though . . . . . .
  #6  
Old Thu 18 October 2007, 07:40
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Proof readers appreciated . . .

Here is a first draft of the bulk of the drawings - proofreaders appreciated.

Set removed for update 7/11/07
  #7  
Old Thu 18 October 2007, 08:40
Marc Shlaes
Just call me: Marc
 
Cleveland, OH
United States of America
Send a message via Skype™ to Marc Shlaes
Gerald,

Going through the PDFs now. I will report any thing I see.

Can I ask you a question about your design process?

I am sure that I would not have made a good engineer because I truly struggle when I attempt to think in 3D. I have a very good friend (a designer by trade) who clearly thinks in 3D every moment of every day. He instantly sees how parts and components fit together and it takes me much longer. I have been building things all of my life and I still have to really work at 3D visualization. I believe, from your work that you are like my friend Jeff.

Now... here is the question. Do you design the MM in 3D and then produce the drawings in 2D for the package of PDFs or do you draw the whole thing in 2D and the connections and interferences and constraints are just a natural product of your brain?

This is a serious question. I realize that this represents many, many hours of work and I am in no way implying that it is easy but... I believe that you have a much easier time than I in this respect and I am curious as to how that affects your actual design process with CAD tools.

Your insight (or anyone elses) regarding 2D vs 3D design processes are very welcome.
  #8  
Old Thu 18 October 2007, 10:03
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
I design 2D on paper and 3D in my head. Not using CAD 3D models.
  #9  
Old Thu 18 October 2007, 11:26
smreish
Just call me: Sean - #5, 28, 58 and others
 
Orlando, Florida
United States of America
3d Drafting

Interestingly enough I draft in both 2D and 3D, but prefer 2d. I think projecting and drafting each section and elevation actually makes me a better designer. I feel I pay far better attention to details when I am forced to make choices, for example, in an orthographic projection. Just my 2 cents.
Sean
  #10  
Old Thu 18 October 2007, 11:34
domino11
Just call me: Heath
 
Cornwall, Ontario
Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald D View Post
I design 2D on paper and 3D in my head. Not using CAD 3D models.
Gerald,
How do you do your backups then? Thanks for the new draft drawings. I will be looking them over this evening!

Marc,
I too have a hard time visualizing in 3d. 2D isn't so hard but putting all the pieces together in my head just doesnt work. The early shetchup model of the MM was invaluable for me to learn how all the parts fit together.
  #11  
Old Thu 18 October 2007, 11:45
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
The many demo's that I have seen in Solidworks, Inventor and a couple of German packages have all made "wow" graphics but poor sheets of paper for the guys on the shop floor. My constant emphasis is on the person with a caliper in one hand and a welding torch in the other. I try to tell the welder what he needs/wants to know - no more and no less. Same for the machinist, etc. So I am constantly thinking of making the part, the processes. Will the washer lie next to the weld fillet if the weld is less than perfect? Would a standard wrench(spanner) fit in there? Will rainwater run out if the project is left outside for a month? Will the table be distorted if lifted by a forklift? And other crazy things . . . . .

The "graphics" and pretty pictures seem to to be over-rated in the 3D packages. The stuff I build can easily be modelled in real steel or wood, so I get lots of second chances (and some scrap). But I would hope that ships and aircraft have been properly modelled
  #12  
Old Thu 18 October 2007, 11:50
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Quote:
Originally Posted by domino11 View Post
How do you do your backups then?
Remember when I said I lost momentum after a weekend away? Just start all over again!

Also remember, I have built 2 of these things and they are solid "models". I often come back to this forum to look at photos.
  #13  
Old Fri 19 October 2007, 01:57
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Proofreaders still appreciated

Here is a first draft of the rest of the drawings - proofreaders still appreciated.

Set removed for update 7/11/07
  #14  
Old Fri 19 October 2007, 08:47
domino11
Just call me: Heath
 
Cornwall, Ontario
Canada
Gerald,
I noticed on the first draft set that drawings 10 40 000 and 10 40 014 are labeled both as 10 inch slide assembly. I believe the second one is the longer version?
  #15  
Old Fri 19 October 2007, 12:58
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Thanks. Title block needs a change.
  #16  
Old Sun 21 October 2007, 09:31
Doug_Ford
Just call me: Doug #3
 
Conway (Arkansas)
United States of America
Gerald,

I found a couple of small errors.

Drawing M1 20 210 - the top line of text says that the bolt should have a .06" plain shank. I think that should be .6" plain shank.

Drawing M5 10 160 is titled Geared Motor but the drawing shows a direct drive motor.
  #17  
Old Sun 21 October 2007, 09:41
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Thanks Doug

Hey, there must be plenty more mistakes! (There are a couple of drawings in there that are quite wrong, but are just holding the place in the sequence). In the last few weeks, I found some howlers with the older set of drawings that made me cringe.
  #18  
Old Sun 21 October 2007, 10:34
Doug_Ford
Just call me: Doug #3
 
Conway (Arkansas)
United States of America
Honestly, I'm amazed that you were able to draw up something this complicated with nothing but tiny inconsequential errors. It would be a different story if you were designing a machine for your employer but you're just doing this because you're a great guy. Right or wrong, most people wouldn't be as conscientious in their attention to detail on the free project.

If you found errors in the old drawings, I'm shocked. I put the whole machine together using them and everything fit perfectly!!!

I'm a nit picking editor when I'm asked to be but don't let me piss you off. If I start getting on your nerves, let me know and I'll back off.

Here are a few more I found:

- Drawing M2 10 110. There is a typo in the spelling of purchased.

- M2 10 124. The rack length is shown as 390 (11.4"). I believe it should be 390 (15.3").

- M1 30 222. The arrow points to part M5 10 332P but I believe the part is M1 10 332P.

- 10 10 320 and 10 10 322. The title block as a typo. Longitudnal should be spelled Longitudinal unless that's the South African spelling like colour vs. color.
  #19  
Old Sun 21 October 2007, 10:45
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
More Doug, give me more!!!!
  #20  
Old Thu 01 November 2007, 00:36
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
I am a little surprised at the few downloads (42) and the few people giving feedback (2).
  #21  
Old Thu 01 November 2007, 04:06
smreish
Just call me: Sean - #5, 28, 58 and others
 
Orlando, Florida
United States of America
Gerald,
I had a chance to finally go over the draft set of drawings and I found a couple of things noteworthy you may want to check.
- M2 10 124 Z-axis rack
(the overall dimensions calls for 390mm, but the alternate shows 11.4" Should this be 15.35 inches?) It looks like you dimensioned actual part size after the sectioning of the detail to fit the page.
-M2 10 70 155 - nice note about amp rating for dust collection. Do you think you should duplicate the note on M10 70 130 since you have called out the contactor rating just upstream of this location?
- I like the note about phase color on the America's drawings. Some non- electrical People will appreciate that notation. L1 L2 is sometimes not so apparent in Load Centers here in the Americas.
----
I will keep looking as I build. Back to marking holes and drilling steel for the day!

Sean
  #22  
Old Thu 01 November 2007, 04:12
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Thanks Sean.
  #23  
Old Thu 01 November 2007, 10:52
Doug_Ford
Just call me: Doug #3
 
Conway (Arkansas)
United States of America
New Mechmate drawings and changes

To Gerald:

Maybe I'm crazy but it seems like I recall you instructing someone to ensure that their stepper motors were oriented so that the wires leading into the body were on the bottom to reduce dust contamination and bearing failure. I searched and searched for the post but couldn't find it. If you did indeed made that post, then the drawings for the geared motor mounts will need to be changed. My motors can only be mounted with the wires on the side so I'm planning to put a small dab of silicon sealant on the hole.

If you never made that post then ignore this one.

To Everyone Else:

Come on guys. Pitch in. Gerald has worked his butt off helping us and has only asked for blue paint and a logo. The least we can do is respond when he asks us for something.
  #24  
Old Thu 01 November 2007, 10:55
domino11
Just call me: Heath
 
Cornwall, Ontario
Canada
Doug,
Its difficult though, Gerald is so particular that finding errors is few and far between.
  #25  
Old Thu 01 November 2007, 11:12
smreish
Just call me: Sean - #5, 28, 58 and others
 
Orlando, Florida
United States of America
Doug,
Good point. This isn't the correct thread for this, but As I look at my 7.2 Gearsteppers on the bench, your correct about orientation, but due to the alignment and swing angle to the rack, we are subject to only that orientation. The non-geared folks can rotate their motors in 90degree clocks and maintain centerline. down is good, sideways not so bad, up..pretty bad. I will silicone my entry point as well! Sean
  #26  
Old Thu 01 November 2007, 12:05
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Doug & Sean, it is something like the wire entry orientation that should be on an assembly drawing. Might sound like something small, but we did seize up a motor because of that, and there were no spare motors on this continent. (Against all advice, the motor was opened, cleaned out and bearings replaced).

I didn't think that the geared motors don't have the options on wire orientation. But then I seem to recall that the lone geared motor I have seen had a reasonable seal and clamp for the wires? (Our un-geared motors are fairly open)
  #27  
Old Thu 08 November 2007, 05:13
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
I think the attached set is complete . . . . . . . almost. The expensive stuff (laser, bending, big pieces of steel) should all be there. Some small stuff is lacking in detail (eg - proxy switch brackets), but it has always been like that and nobody complained. .

The zipped .dxf files for the laser supplier, also contains the relevant bending drawings now. Must still do a spreadsheet of quanties/options and thicknesses.

Question: Are all the sheets here and can this set go to the "downloads" page for the "mass public"?

Also, I think the original design must stay posted under the name "Classic", but then what do we call this newer version?

All files now on "downloads page"
  #28  
Old Thu 08 November 2007, 05:50
Marc Shlaes
Just call me: Marc
 
Cleveland, OH
United States of America
Send a message via Skype™ to Marc Shlaes
MechMate 1.1

From my life managing large software development endeavors we would handle it as the following:

Mechmate 2.0 would indicate SIGNIFICANT changes. It is still the same machine we "know and love". We would call this an update not a version. The first number indicates version and the second indicates release. But, theoretically, you have done some updates already so something in 1.2 or 1.3 would be appropriate. As members continue to find little bugs here and there and things get fixed, it becomes 1.3.1, 1.3.2, etc.

And each version is maintained on the downloads page so that a member can actually say he has a MM 1.3.2 and can choose to upgrade or downgrade to suit his needs. (this aspect may be more work for you than it is worth but... you asked).
  #29  
Old Thu 08 November 2007, 08:01
Alan_c
Just call me: Alan (#11)
 
Cape Town (Western Cape)
South Africa
Send a message via Skype™ to Alan_c
Hi Gerald

Just had a quick look through the drawings - found the following "issues"

10 10 240 WA - proxy holes not indicated
10 10 200 AA & 10 10 220 AA - proxy holes shown in different positions, whereas
10 10 246 & 10 10 247 - proxy holes shown in the same position.
ditto for 10 20 200 / 10 20 220 / 10 20 246 / 10 20 247

Note on 10 20 451 BA and 10 20 452 BA refers to drilling - what drilling, is that the countersink?

10 30 450 DC - why the change to countersink "handing"

10 40 14 AA - why is the slide tube longer than the slide plate in 14" version?

Cable chain shelf 10 60 215 / 315 is not shown in the Part1 - Part5 PDFs only in the bending PDF and DXF folder. - Where do they fit on the gantry / table?

Will look more indepth tonight to see where else I can nitpick
  #30  
Old Thu 08 November 2007, 08:17
smreish
Just call me: Sean - #5, 28, 58 and others
 
Orlando, Florida
United States of America
Gerald,
I'm going to print everything out in Color for a nice "coffee table" review. The profiles are off to the laser cutter for final pricing on cutting/forming and shipping FOB Tampa. I only really focused on these plates today. (I like the unified plate for the cable chain attachment far better than the b/w series drawings we exchanged earlier in the week.) That method will save $$ on the forming cost's and doesn't change the cutting cost.
Sean
Closed Thread

Register Options Profile Last 1 | 3 | 7 Days Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:01.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.