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 Fri 25 November 2005, 09:20
Gerald_D
Just call me:
 
Drawing problems - Archived 27 June 2008

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.
  #2  
Old Mon 31 December 2007, 17:50
DMS
Just call me: Sharma #9 India
 
Rajasthan
India
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 ?
  #3  
Old Tue 01 January 2008, 09:27
cobra427mnsi
Just call me: Paul
 
Leamington, Ontario
Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMS View Post
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
  #4  
Old Sun 06 January 2008, 12:00
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMS View Post
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.
  #5  
Old Thu 10 January 2008, 04:06
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMS View Post
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/showt...3&postcount=22

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

Sorry for the mistake.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf M510314PB.pdf (60.6 KB, 240 views)
  #6  
Old Fri 11 January 2008, 06:10
Alan_c
Just call me: Alan (#11)
 
Grabouw (Western Cape)
South Africa
Send a message via Skype™ to Alan_c
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.
  #7  
Old Mon 14 January 2008, 00:55
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
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])
  #8  
Old Mon 14 January 2008, 03:35
Alan_c
Just call me: Alan (#11)
 
Grabouw (Western Cape)
South Africa
Send a message via Skype™ to Alan_c
At least you have the potential for an aircon, our power has only just come on again after an Eskom induced blackout... 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
  #9  
Old Wed 20 February 2008, 21:52
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
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.
  #10  
Old Thu 21 February 2008, 04:46
smreish
Just call me: Sean - #5, 28, 58 and others
 
Orlando, Florida
United States of America
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.
  #11  
Old Fri 22 February 2008, 19:41
smreish
Just call me: Sean - #5, 28, 58 and others
 
Orlando, Florida
United States of America
Pics located here (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.

Last edited by smreish; Fri 22 February 2008 at 20:02..
  #12  
Old Thu 06 March 2008, 06:40
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
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
  #13  
Old Thu 06 March 2008, 07:47
domino11
Just call me: Heath
 
Cornwall, Ontario
Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald D View Post
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.
  #14  
Old Thu 06 March 2008, 10:02
sailfl
Just call me: Nils #12
 
Winter Park, FL
United States of America
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.
  #15  
Old Tue 08 April 2008, 05:30
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Note to self: M1 20 100 A mentions slimming the nut to M1 20 141 T which was never created.
  #16  
Old Fri 11 April 2008, 13:48
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
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
  #17  
Old Fri 11 April 2008, 14:20
dmoore
Just call me:
 
Drawing problems - please report here

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:


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



It also appears there is a US/inch version and a worldwide/metric model.
  #18  
Old Tue 15 April 2008, 22:18
dmoore
Just call me:
 
10 10 302 S & 10 10 306 S - Naming of title block

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
  #19  
Old Tue 15 April 2008, 22:40
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
10 306 S should have been Lower Cross Brace, or something like that. Thanks!
  #20  
Old Tue 15 April 2008, 23:44
lunaj76
Just call me: Justin #24
 
Littleton, (Colorado)
United States of America
Send a message via Skype™ to lunaj76
Geared motor mounts not working with carrier plate?

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,

Attachment 1172

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra427mnsi View Post
. . . But , with the DXF drawing M 10 314 overlaid, it is a different size and the swing hole does not match.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg motor mounting issue.jpg (12.9 KB, 501 views)
  #21  
Old Wed 16 April 2008, 02:06
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
Thanks Justin (and Paul), you have spotted a bad (not fatal) slip on my part. The slots are for revA of M510314P.


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.
Attached Images
File Type: gif Clipboard01.gif (3.8 KB, 490 views)
  #22  
Old Wed 16 April 2008, 10:19
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
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.
  #23  
Old Fri 18 April 2008, 22:06
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
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)
  #24  
Old Sun 20 April 2008, 09:35
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
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
  #25  
Old Mon 21 April 2008, 12:21
dmoore
Just call me:
 
Place "0,0 Corner" (from 10 10 300 W) onto....

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)
  #26  
Old Mon 21 April 2008, 12:38
dmoore
Just call me:
 
Misc corrections to sheet 10 00 000 A

(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
  #27  
Old Mon 21 April 2008, 12:44
dmoore
Just call me:
 
Closing in on perfection!

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
  #28  
Old Mon 21 April 2008, 13:32
Gerald D
Just call me: Gerald (retired)
 
Cape Town
South Africa
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.
  #29  
Old Mon 21 April 2008, 14:40
dmoore
Just call me:
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald D View Post
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerald D View Post
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).
  #30  
Old Mon 28 April 2008, 11:49
Kobus_Joubert
Just call me: Kobus #6
 
Dalview
South Africa
Send a message via Yahoo to Kobus_Joubert Send a message via Skype™ to Kobus_Joubert
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 ?
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 06:07.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.