MechMate CNC Router Forum

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #121  
Old Mon 07 April 2014, 06:49
racedirector
Just call me: Bruce #122
 
New South Wales
Australia
kiwiken, I sent you a PM so not to clog this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #122  
Old Thu 26 February 2015, 12:59
mouradjaoui
Just call me: mourad
 
algiers
Algeria
cnc for woodworking

Hi,Iwould start building a cnc router for Wood working, please could i have an approximatif cost for it
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike John View Post
My board sizes are 2070mm x 2800mm
thank you
Reply With Quote
  #123  
Old Thu 26 February 2015, 13:37
domino11
Just call me: Heath
 
Cornwall, Ontario
Canada
Builds in North America have been anywhere between $5000 US and $15000. Depending on your skillset and what you already have around for parts.
Reply With Quote
  #124  
Old Wed 17 June 2015, 08:05
Change
Just call me: Kevin
 
Springs
South Africa
Board Size Vs Main Beam

Hi All

Wanna try this but no experience with plans and even welding....what I want to know if I make my main longitudnal beam 3350 long, what board size will I be able to work with?

Am i right by saying it will be 3350 - 600mm = 2750 length board?

Last edited by Change; Wed 17 June 2015 at 08:23..
Reply With Quote
  #125  
Old Wed 17 June 2015, 13:37
darren salyer
Just call me: Darren #101
 
Wentzville mo
United States of America
Sounds about right to me.
Reply With Quote
  #126  
Old Sun 19 July 2015, 00:39
abengineering
Just call me: AB
 
St Louis
United States of America
Hi to everyone and thanks for your useful inputs.
I was wondering why MM seems so heavy? Yes, according to steel dimension used for the table and the gantry that seems too much. May be this issue has already been raised and answered but generally speaking a light machine should have better performance (and cheaper), but again may be I am missing something. Any input or link is welcome.

Abe
Reply With Quote
  #127  
Old Sun 19 July 2015, 05:44
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
The fully professional CNC routers are much, much heavier. I think you are missing something . . . . .
Reply With Quote
  #128  
Old Sun 19 July 2015, 06:08
Tom Ayres
Just call me: Tom #117
 
Bassett (VA)
United States of America
Some of us have built certain parts more heavy, some lighter, depends on what feel you require. Some areas of the build can be more critical than other areas and have a greater effect on overall performance, example, I built my gantry with a slightly thicker wall tube because my length was longer, I was able to tap directly into the tube without having to use the fastener strip inside the tube. The idea was to help eliminate a bit of flex and the additional work of an extra set of holes to align. Sometimes material availability and the type of use for the router helps make those decisions. The plans are a very good guide and culmination of ideas and improvements others have shared. Most reasoning for any deviation of the plans has most certainly been argued and there is always room for improvements. If you have ideas, share them, ultimately that's why you chose to build a MechMate.
Reply With Quote
  #129  
Old Sun 19 July 2015, 08:44
servant74
Just call me: Jack
 
Nashville (Tennessee)
United States of America
Abe,

GrealdD is right, many commercial comparable CNCs are much heavier.

Some of the comparative and lighter CNCs use hold-down technology rather than gravity to keep the gantry on the table when pushing down against the material/table.

One of the great things about MM is you can build what you want. If MM is to heavy for you, build it lighter. Depending on your size it may be faster or more susceptible to bending issues.

Let us know what you decide, we are interested. ... Jack
Reply With Quote
  #130  
Old Sun 19 July 2015, 09:28
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
It is all a compromise between:
- speed / acceleration (you might be looking only at these and calling it performance)
- flex /chatter / repeatable positioning under varying loads (a massive part of real performance)
- costs
- transportability (especially for companies selling and shipping low-cost machines)

Even the heaviest MechMate shakes like mad when cutting letters on a sign at production speed . . . . . .
Reply With Quote
  #131  
Old Sun 19 July 2015, 11:51
abengineering
Just call me: AB
 
St Louis
United States of America
Thank you guys for all these enlightening inputs.
I especially appreciate Gerald last sentence "Even the heaviest MechMate shakes like mad when cutting letters on a sign at production speed . . . " which tells lot about MM experience.
However, I still believe that a lighter MM for smaller passes, moderate speeds, etc. can be considered so the over all weight of the machine may be reduced by 20, 30 and even 50%, depending on everyone's purpose. This can be done using MM structural shapes sizes indicated in the drawings with smaller dimensions (example: use channel CH 120x12 instead of CH 180x21 for the table). Mechmate architecture however is undoubtedly very nice and should be the reference.
Reply With Quote
  #132  
Old Sun 19 July 2015, 14:15
Tom Ayres
Just call me: Tom #117
 
Bassett (VA)
United States of America
Personally, I find there's little substitute for mass.
Reply With Quote
  #133  
Old Sun 19 July 2015, 18:52
darren salyer
Just call me: Darren #101
 
Wentzville mo
United States of America
I agree on the value of mass. Big Iron isn't made that way just to sell it by the pound.
Reply With Quote
  #134  
Old Mon 20 July 2015, 07:12
bradm
Just call me: Brad #10
 
Somerville(MA)
United States of America
<chuckle> I built a smaller, aluminum extrusion based router before I built my MechMate. After you get past the thrill of seeing it work, you move quickly to impatience with those extra passes, and frustration when vibration messes with your cut quality or snaps a mill.

Sure, you can lighten various pieces, but you won't save all that much on the overall cost, and you'll pay for it over and over later. From a performance standpoint, more mass is better. Now,if you're intending to cut cardboard and foam, then by all means, go for a lighter machine.
Reply With Quote
  #135  
Old Fri 24 July 2015, 16:20
smreish
Just call me: Sean - #5, 28, 58 and others
 
Orlando, Florida
United States of America
I haven't commented in a while, but while trying different "mass of gantry" set ups in my initial build of #5, I found that the heavier of the 2 gantries improved my cut quality significantly. Especially when I was doing high resolution cutting of acrylic and aluminum sheet.
Reply With Quote
  #136  
Old Fri 24 July 2015, 18:38
IMMark
Just call me: Mark #119
 
Columbus Ohio
United States of America
Hi Sean,
When you mention the mass of number 5, are you saying you went heavier than weight of the "standard, per plans" build?
If so, could one add ballast to the gantry? Just got me thinking?
Good to see you are still hanging around
Mark
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old Tue 28 July 2015, 20:58
pblackburn
Just call me: Pete #98
 
South-Central Pennsylvania
United States of America
Mark, the heavier the gantry the more it resists the upward forces that naturally occur while cutting. This helps remove the resonance that is transmitted into the lighter materials however there is a downside to a heavy gantry. You soon exceed the workable range of a stepper and now have to move to a servo. So while the cost increases, your cut quality improves as well. With proper planning and implementation that is.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old Wed 29 July 2015, 05:24
MetalHead
Just call me: Mike
 
Columbiana AL
United States of America
You want the mass. You think you may be making a good choice saving a few buck on a lighter frame by using thinner steel. But in the long run, you will be glad you have a heavier machine. If you want mobility, build a bolt together frame. But I found moving a MM is actually pretty easy even on a fully welded base.
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old Thu 30 July 2015, 09:15
abengineering
Just call me: AB
 
St Louis
United States of America
This is not meant for any controversy, but just exploring a new idea according to everyone's needs. A lighter machine may have some advantages like: economy (cheaper steel and electronics), better portability and easier construction. On the other hand, a lighter machine may not be able to handle heavy duty jobs and that applies, not only to Mechmate, but to any CNC machine. Can we think of a "Mechmate light version"?
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old Thu 30 July 2015, 09:21
pblackburn
Just call me: Pete #98
 
South-Central Pennsylvania
United States of America
If you want less weight. ...use titanium.

Joking aside, you do need the weight to help compensate for the forces generated by cutting fast. Unless you gusset and mount solid to concrete footing.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old Thu 30 July 2015, 18:33
darren salyer
Just call me: Darren #101
 
Wentzville mo
United States of America
AB, design it. Build it. Do whatever YOU want to do with it. We've given you our opinion of it.
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old Wed 05 August 2015, 13:51
abengineering
Just call me: AB
 
St Louis
United States of America
Gerald,

Can you please take a look at this? Parts of the same color are welded, the rest is bolt assembled. Any advice?
http://www.mechmate.com/forums/attac...1&d=1438804233
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Table_Perspective.jpg (12.4 KB, 240 views)
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old Wed 05 August 2015, 14:48
Alan_c
Just call me: Alan (#11)
 
Cape Town (Western Cape)
South Africa
Send a message via Skype™ to Alan_c
I dont wish to appear rude, but thats going to rock more than Elvis, needs lots more bracing!
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old Wed 05 August 2015, 15:05
darren salyer
Just call me: Darren #101
 
Wentzville mo
United States of America
I'm in agreement with Alan.
I doubt you'll get a lot of interest from Gerald in designing a lighter machine.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old Wed 05 August 2015, 16:58
pblackburn
Just call me: Pete #98
 
South-Central Pennsylvania
United States of America
I don't know about rocking, that normally applies to when something is solid and is moving up off the surface at different contact points. I would say you would have a sway problem. You need sway bracing across the Y and the sway bracing in the X also functions for upward support of the longitudinal beams. Steel will sag and more than you think even with a little weight. I have walked across 50 ton bridge cranes with 3 foot I beams when I inspected hoist and cranes, just walking and the steel will react (no I am not that big either). You can build lighter but with lighter the complex angles of the bracing that will be required are normally outside the capabilities of the average person.

I will say I prefer the concept of Gerald's design and it can be built upon. I will not knock you for trying something different because if nobody ever did, nothing new would be conceived. If you are to proceed with this I would make some changes as the sway braying and sag prevention is not provided yet in this concept. Welding the saddle to the horses you have would be good idea also. In the end, I think the stuff needed will weigh more than the original design. Just my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old Thu 06 August 2015, 01:46
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
AB, I am not going to get sucked into a discussion like this.
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old Thu 06 August 2015, 09:35
bradm
Just call me: Brad #10
 
Somerville(MA)
United States of America
Cable brace it. After a little careful tuning, you'll have the first symphonic MechMate.

(Not a serious suggestion)
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old Thu 06 August 2015, 09:57
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
I think I still have an offer open for a MechMate singing a recognisable tune
The one pictured above will be good for low bass notes
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old Thu 06 August 2015, 10:16
darren salyer
Just call me: Darren #101
 
Wentzville mo
United States of America
You guys crack me up.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old Thu 06 August 2015, 10:30
abengineering
Just call me: AB
 
St Louis
United States of America
Thanks Pete for your input.
I realize that more weight for a sturdy machine cannot be avoided. I tried however to make simple and bolting parts instead of welding is much more easier to handle smaller parts and also adds more precision. The table may be easily dismantled and moved to a different place (keeping upper part and rails adjusted) so all is needed in re assembly is table leveling by acting on threaded rod of the shoe plate. Overall weight is about 325 kg.

Thanks Brad for your symphonic compliment.

Thanks to all objectives inputs. Sorry for those who are upset.

Attached is a higher resolution image.

[IMG][/IMG]
Reply With Quote
Reply

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 00:22.


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