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
  #1  
Old Sun 21 March 2010, 04:02
rotorzoomer
Just call me: Account - DISABLED
 
Account - DISABLED
Australia
Opinions on table design using 100 x 100 box tubing

I am at the planning for the table stages for my MechMate project and was about to commit to using MattyZee's or AusMaddog's design when i came across an opportunity to purchase 100mm x 100mm @ 3mm thick box tubing at a reasonable price which prompting me to rethink the table design.

The PFC long beams i will use will be 100mm (Wide) x 180mm (High) which will match the table material so everything will sit on top nicely.

See the pictures below for an idea of the what i am talking about, i am making a table that suites 1200mm x 2400mm sheets which means that my main long beam will be 3040mm and gantry 1720mm.

Some questions?

- Do i need 6 legs or can i get away with only 4?
- Do i need any 45 or 60 degree cross supports?

Appreciate any opinions.
Attached Images
File Type: gif cnc.gif (40.1 KB, 458 views)
File Type: jpg table.jpg (16.9 KB, 452 views)
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old Sun 21 March 2010, 04:15
KenC
Just call me: Ken
 
Klang
Malaysia
Welcome Marco, I don't wish to start like this & I don't have ill intention nor do I wish to show off, just sharing what I learn during my build.

Its easy to get caught up in wanting to be different for the sake of wanting to be different by "customise personal signature feature" during planning stage. rather then out of necessity.

Since you don't have the capacity to answer such table design questions, Why not build to the original MM plan or acquire alternative plan from others who had build differently?

It is really easy to mix up wanting to design or to build a CNC Router.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old Sun 21 March 2010, 04:21
rotorzoomer
Just call me: Account - DISABLED
 
Account - DISABLED
Australia
The problem is that the place i am getting the steel from got scammed by a customer that ordered the 100mm x 100mm, got them cut to 4mt lengths for some weird architectural project and never picked them up.

It's massive overkill getting this steel but the price is desirable and will cost a little less than the standard MM table design.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old Sun 21 March 2010, 04:30
KenC
Just call me: Ken
 
Klang
Malaysia
Pardon me, how much will you save? I understand Aus1200 is the max price ceiling in Australia. does a few hundred dollars worth the trouble?
Have a look at the original design & try placing the 100mm Sq beam there & see what will it run into.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old Sun 21 March 2010, 06:20
gooberdog
Just call me: Chuck
 
Kansas City, MO
United States of America
It you are planning to use the 100x100 for the table structure, the only problem I can see is that the material is too thin to tap for bolting the bed down. Using the 100x180 for the X Rail beam would again have issues with bolting the rail to this beam, other than that you would have to take into account the additional width of the beam similar to if you used an I beam instead of channel. The gantry would cause more problems as the laser parts for the Y-Car are not as adjustable to a wider beam.

I would probably add the additional legs and diagonal bracing.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old Sun 21 March 2010, 06:21
MetalHead
Just call me: Mike
 
Columbiana AL
United States of America
I agree with Ken. I think the steel supplier probably tries to sell that steel to anyone who is "figuring out" what they want to do.

I am sure you could use some of it for building the base as many have done this. But the end result is the rail and side dementions match the plans so that the gantry and up are to spec and the standard parts are used.

Make your own choices, don't let the supplier talk you into something you don't really need.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old Sun 21 March 2010, 06:45
KenC
Just call me: Ken
 
Klang
Malaysia
Marco,
In a nut shell, critical material for building MM are well thought through, they are commonly available the world over & they won't cost an arm or leg.

I feel your present state of mind, because I was there too

After going through the design & build planning many times over, I eventually am convinced the easiest & most cost effective way to build it to plan.

There are plenty of opportunity for variance, but please resist the temptation to do so unless its a life & death situation or you have the capacity to deal with it yourself. And if you do so, you will eventually end up not much better off.

This forum will be with you all the way, you gotta trust someone sometime, this is the real deal. How I know? because they had been with me every step of the way.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old Sun 21 March 2010, 06:54
rotorzoomer
Just call me: Account - DISABLED
 
Account - DISABLED
Australia
Good advice folks, i will stay clear of that sized steel and revert back to the original design.

Besides, when the #$% hits the fan...the original plans can always be relied upon to double check rather than second guessing the new table design and how it relates to the Gantry e.t.c.

Thanks for the tips!
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old Tue 23 March 2010, 20:34
Temuba
Just call me: Dave
 
Vineland,NJ
United States of America
After spending months reading many of the hundreds of threads here if not more, I have noticed one thing, no two Mechmates are identical. Gerald designed the Mechmate with the 'masses' in mind not the individual. If he had he would've had to create hundreds if not thousands of posiibilities for his creation. With that said, his design, testified by many here have the ability and room for personal changes in design, function and material.

I have seen posted many variations of differnet aspects of a particular part of the Mechmate. One builder used 80/20 roughly 3"-4" square for the x-beam: it worked and still was a Mechmate. Another one redesigned the spider to create a taller "super spider" in order to have a longer Z travel.

I'm not trying to step on any ones toes, and I apologize if I do, but the design created was to build an economical machine by the average person to do a particular job. The two points to look at here is 'economical' and 'particular job'. If you have the financial means or not to change part of the design then so be it. If you wish to go beyond the original 'particular job' limits of the machine to do more, then so be it. From what I have read so far, the materials chosen suited the majority of the builders throughout the world because they were either readily available or lower cost. Not every builder falls into the general population here. While many may have limited resources to materials, others may have more resources and therefore more choices. Is it wrong to choose a different material or design change because you have the opportunity, desire or economics to do so? I don't think so.

I have seen many say "How much more would it cost or effort to just do it as the plans?" The correct answer should be left to the builder only and only after asking, reading, and learning if their different approach will work for them. In my case, do I stick to the plan and used the 'recommended' c-channel for the x-beams? Or do I save $60 and use 1/4" thick steel tubing? In my case I save $60 and use that money on another part of the project or upgrade. A few modification here and there, like many have done, and with the help of the many members here hopefully you, me and many others will get through it.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old Tue 23 March 2010, 20:44
Temuba
Just call me: Dave
 
Vineland,NJ
United States of America
Marco, by the way, I didn't mention it but I like your original idea of using the box tubing. Is that what I'm doing? No, but I still like your idea. With some thought and help the table portion of the project may work using this material. But in the end the decision is ultimatly yours. Do you save some money and have a different approach to the table or do you play it safe and "buid it like it has worked' before?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old Tue 23 March 2010, 23:49
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
When you are tempted to use alternative materials/sections, because they are available at a discount price, look carefully for the reason of the discount. Quite often the price is discounted because it is sub-standard or damaged. Is the material straight, square and flat faces, non-twisted, etc.?
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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BOM (Build Of Materials) Grind Head Assembly M6 10 100 AA (Rail Grinding Skate) skippy Rails & Rollers 1 Sun 01 November 2009 05:11
Table Design for twin spindle setup Travish General - MM Build 7 Fri 09 October 2009 19:08
Control box location ! - Wall vs Table base Robert M 70. Control Systems 13 Mon 07 September 2009 13:03
100" x 160" - Trondheim, Norway mrloeng Construction started, but not cutting yet 15 Fri 17 April 2009 11:34
The control box is completed and the painted table moves! - Ft. Worth, Texas kn6398 Construction started, but not cutting yet 52 Wed 04 March 2009 22:22


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:36.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.