8X11 Frame w/ 30" arms bolted on the corners (with pics)

Started with a 4X8 table that we had as a work surface at the shop.
Figured that a 8 X 11 frame worked slightly better than an 8X12 based on the excellent frame checker:
This meant that the angle of the arms needed to be 53.1 degrees.
So, I cut out a template on my small shapeoko and made a cutout in each of the corners using a router:

Installed some machine inserts and used some aluminum 8020 as arms, but the flex was way to great since the arms were 30" overhang.

So, made some wood reinforcement that the 8020 could sit in to stiffen it up, and shimmed where necessary to get a very tight fit against the table.

Results are not totally amazing, managed to get a .47 using the default 9X9 2000X1000 grid.

Couple of questions.
First, and most obvious, is that good enough to cut a full 4X8 sheet, and any suggestions on improving? I used that standard tensions, didn’t really change any settings except for the initial size measurement. I know I can just modify the acceptable calibration floor to get it to pass. :slight_smile:
Second, what are the benefits of using a larger grid vs a grid with more points in calibration? ie, is it better to maximize the size of grid, or increase the number of points. I have been scouring the forums for an answer that explains the relationship, but haven’t found one. If someone has a link to share that explains better, would love to see it.
Third, the frame is now quite stout in the x,y plane, but there is a bit of flex in the z direction due to the long moment arm. Is this an issue? My main goal is to be able to install/uninstall by just loosening the 2 screws holding the 8020 and sliding it out, as the arms really get in the way when not in use. I don’t see an obvious way to hold down the z without attaching it to the table with an angle bracket.
Fourth, I saw there was a frame flex check available with the 7.4.1 firmware. I didn’t really want to reinstall firmware, but I didn’t see this was incorporated into later versions. Am I missing it? Was wanting to see how stiff my frame was in relation to others.
Fifth, I saw that a .5 calibration means the cuts will be within 2 mm accuracy. I think I saw that .4 calibration results in a 3 mm accuracy? Is there a published table somewhere that shows accuracy as this number changes?
Finally, I would like to be able to move this from the shop at work to my garage at home where I plan to install concrete anchors, is there a way to save calibrations? Would it be as easy as having two maslow.yaml files and just renaming them depending on which one I want to use?

Other than that, the build directions were really excellent, my only questions that weren’t addressed in them were what to do with the crazy long belts. It wasn’t obvious that all that extra belt would wind up correctly, and I almost trimmed them, but saw a post recommending against doing that in case you wanted a larger frame. Once I hit the retract all I saw that it seemed to spool up pretty good.

Thanks for making such a great product. Not entirely sure what we will do with it, but it is really cool.

1 Like

Ed Williams wrote:

Couple of questions.

First, and most obvious, is that good enough to cut a full 4X8 sheet, and any
suggestions on improving? I used that standard tensions, didn’t really change
any settings except for the initial size measurement. I know I can just
modify the acceptable calibration floor to get it to pass. :slight_smile:

even a poor calibration can cut the full size, the question is if the result is
within the accuracy requirements for your project. for some people, being within
10mm is good enough, for others 1mm isn’t good enough

Second, what are the benefits of using a larger grid vs a grid with more
points in calibration? ie, is it better to maximize the size of grid, or
increase the number of points. I have been scouring the forums for an answer
that explains the relationship, but haven’t found one. If someone has a link
to share that explains better, would love to see it.

increasing the number of points gives the calculations more data to work with
(assuming the measurements are good and the belts weren’t slack at any point, or
flex, etc)

covering a wider area makes any errors in the estimates easier to detect.

The combination of these is why moving from the 2x2 up to a 9x9 gradually
results in worse fitness numbers, it’s not that it’s calculated frame size is
worse, it’s that it’s gathered more info and is better able to estimate how
accurate the calculation is.

Third, the frame is now quite stout in the x,y plane, but there is a bit of
flex in the z direction due to the long moment arm. Is this an issue? My
main goal is to be able to install/uninstall by just loosening the 2 screws
holding the 8020 and sliding it out, as the arms really get in the way when
not in use. I don’t see an obvious way to hold down the z without attaching
it to the table with an angle bracket.

it could be an issue, can you have something go down to the bottom of a leg to
give it triangular bracing?

Fourth, I saw there was a frame flex check available with the 7.4.1 firmware.
I didn’t really want to reinstall firmware, but I didn’t see this was
incorporated into later versions. Am I missing it? Was wanting to see how
stiff my frame was in relation to others.

0.74.1 it hasn’t been yet, it needs to be, but other issues have taken priority

Fifth, I saw that a .5 calibration means the cuts will be within 2 mm
accuracy. I think I saw that .4 calibration results in a 3 mm accuracy? Is
there a published table somewhere that shows accuracy as this number changes?

fitness = 1/average error

where average error is looking at each point and measuring the difference
between the belt lengths that it thinks it should have at that point with the
calculated frame size and the belt length measurements that it got at that
point.

Finally, I would like to be able to move this from the shop at work to my
garage at home where I plan to install concrete anchors, is there a way to
save calibrations? Would it be as easy as having two maslow.yaml files and
just renaming them depending on which one I want to use?

yes.

Calibration is just figuring out the coordinates of the anchors. If you have two
frames, all you would need to do is to swap out the coordinates in the yaml file

David Lang

So what I am hearing here is get off my butt, cut something, and see if that is good enough. I love it!

That’s super helpful. I am guessing that 9X9 2000X1000 then is a good compromise for now, and as I mentioned before I should just get to cutting.

I’m trying to figure out how to do something that would be a quick install and still be easy to store when not in use. The arms as they currently sit just stack on each other. I suppose a 45 degree 8020 could be quickly loosened and removed, just need a flat surface on one of the legs.

What a simple easy to understand measurement. Was wondering how the fitness got over 1, anything less than 1 mm would be > 1. Cool, I was assuming some crazy exponential formula.

So date night with my wife to Home Depot to pick up concrete anchors, got it!

Ed Williams wrote:

I’m trying to figure out how to do something that would be a quick install and
still be easy to store when not in use. The arms as they currently sit just
stack on each other. I suppose a 45 degree 8020 could be quickly loosened and
removed, just need a flat surface on one of the legs.

put the 45 degree brace into pockets at each end and use a ratchet strap to
tighen things down.

David Lang

I would venture that part of the decrease in fitness with a bigger grid is because most the little errors (for example frame flex and other effects that are not modeled in the calculations) are probably dependent on things that will vary across the calibration area. So the larger the calibration area, the harder it is to find values that are accurate everywhere. This suggests that if accuracy is really important to you, choose a calibration that just covers the size of your desired cuts. For most projects, though, it’s probably not worth using different calibrations for different cuts.


First test cut went pretty good. Will move on to actual projects now :slight_smile:

2 Likes

Looking good! :heart_eyes:

Congratulations!

1 Like