Levi Zurcher wrote:
It wouldn’t be too hard for me to just lower the upper beam to make it symmetrical. With the old Maslow, I set the top beam higher, which improved accuracy at the expense of reducing the maximum working width to 6ft. With the Maslow 4, maybe that is no longer a concern?
The constraints are different, you can take a look at
http://lang.hm/maslow/maslow4_frame.html to play around and get a better feel
for the sweet spot of the maslow 4. It’s not that it doesn’t work outside the
green area, but that outside that area errors start to creep in that we haven’t
fully analyzed yet. you can go a bit out of the green area with no problems, but
going a long way out will cause strange things to happen.
Thanks for the tips. It would be nice to be able to run calibration based on an arbitrary starting point, like just jogging it over to roughly the center of the work piece and hitting calibrate. It seems like this would be theoretically possible since the Maslow should know the length of the belts, but maybe there’s a good reason not to do that.
I also wonder how a calibration routine would look that focuses on the extreme
edges (trying to keep in the green area of the above plot) rather than building
out from the center where you have the most (relatively speaking) errors in the
calculation.
The current approach is designed to be hands-off and not really require much in
the way of understanding about what it happening (plug-n-play)
I think a branch that let you jog around and then tell it to tighten up and take
measurements for a point would be useful for experimentation. The big problem
would be the handling of loose belts, making sure that they don’t tangle, get
caught in gears, or just spool back on incorrectly.
I also have a way for you to take manual measurements and get the anchor
positions
David Lang