Hey there,
Not sure if this is the right location for the question but here goes…
I’m curious as to whether or not you can use a 5x10 spoilboard and actually cut 5x10 sheets.
from the videos and design, the frame is actually looks bigger than 5x10 and the machine would seem to have the travel. I would think its just a matter of setting the X,Y permitter to a larger size?
thoughts?
thanks,
M
In theory 5’ x 10’ should be no problem. In practice, you might not have enough belt to get accurate, precise cuts especially near the midpoints of the sides of your work piece. You can use one of the tools to visualize the “danger zones”, but the only way to know for sure would be to try it. We’re definitely in terra incognita here.
There has been some talk in the forums of how you might be able to extend your belts beyond the capacity of the spools, but I don’t think anyone has tried that yet, and I’m pretty confident nothing has been added to the firmware to support that.
Agreed.
From what I saw on calibration videos, when the machine head is at that center point of the side you talk about, it seems to me that there is (again, seemingly) enough belt left to get a foot further outwards.
My thought is how taut (or vertical from each corner) can the belts get to without sacrificing accuracy.
I’ve own a large manufacturing business and had a couple of big CNC’s (Biesse High Speed 5 x 10 and a couple of smaller 2x3’s.
I definitely like this little rig.
It’s very enticing.
Even in a 4x8 it’s still great.
I would definitely install a 5x10 spoil board and test the limits…
That’s the spirit!
Mario wrote:
I’m curious as to whether or not you can use a 5x10 spoilboard and actually cut 5x10 sheets.
from the videos and design, the frame is actually looks bigger than 5x10 and the machine would seem to have the travel. I would think its just a matter of setting the X,Y permitter to a larger size?
you would need a bigger frame (we think the default 8x10 frame is actually too
small for 4x8 plywood) and extensions on the belt.
you can play around with the frame size calculater at
lang.hm/maslow/maslow4_frame.html
a quick look says a 14’ x 18’ frame with about a 2’ extension to each belt is
what you would need if the angles Bar provided are correct.
Measuring angles from the CAD indicates you can go a little smaller and with
some other tinkering, possibly get it as small as 12.5’ x 15’
If you are willing to accept some possible error in the corners, you can go a
lot smaller. (and we don’t have enough testing to know what ‘some possible
error’ means yet)
David Lang
Thanks for the reply David.
Are these belt extensions available (or longer unspliced belts that can be replaced?)
Mario
Mario wrote:
Are these belt extensions available (or longer unspliced belts that can be replaced?)
longer belts are available through Amazon, Aliexpress, etc. There have been
discussions of extensions for belts, but I don’t know anyone who has tried doing
this yet (This may require changing a config in the source and recompiling)
you would be venturing into untested territory, we (the community) will be happy
to help and I expect that Bar and Roman would be as well (I think Bar brought up
the possibility of extensions at one point.
David Lang
Is this based on a horizontal or vertical frame? If vertical, shouldn’t the bottom red arc fall away as the sled is gravity assisted?
H
Johann Cunningham wrote:
Is this based on a horizontal or vertical frame? If vertical, shouldn’t the
bottom red arc fall away as the sled is gravity assisted?
in the red arc, the angle to the two adjacent anchors make an angle that would
cause the motors on the arms to hit the upper bracket (for the bottom red arc,
this is the rod bushing anchors). At that point, the arms are no longer in line
with the belts, and the actual distance to the anchors will be less than the
machine thinks it is based on the amount of belt fed out. This will add tension
to the belts, and we don’t really know what will happen (in part it will depend
how far into that area you go)
gravity in the vertical orientation doesn’t change this. It’s not about the
angle not providing enough force, it’s about the belts becoming unpredictably
shorter (at least unpredictable to the current firmware)
David Lang
Thank you very much for the clarification.
Hans
As I said earlier, it’s not clear how big a problem these red/white areas are.
Bar and Roman didn’t notice any problems in their testing before shipping, even
though the calculator for a 4x8 workpiece on a 8x10 shows problems (and it turns
out that Bar’s wood frame is a bit shorter than 8’)
testing needed.
David Lang
I would think there would be some gravity effect on these angles. Thinking about the catenary shape it seems like the all four of the arms would reorient a little toward the floor in the vertical orientation. Of course, with the belt maslow, the catenary should be much less pronounced than in the chain Maslow. Am I thinking about this right?
John Wolter wrote:
I would think there would be some gravity effect on these angles. Thinking
about the catenary shape it seems like the all four of the arms would reorient
a little toward the floor in the vertical orientation. Of course, with the
belt maslow, the catenary should be much less pronounced than in the chain
Maslow. Am I thinking about this right?
some, but the belts are very light. I think stretch is more significant than
catenary droop.
David Lang
That makes sense. Does anyone know the elastic modulus of the belts?
John Wolter wrote:
That makes sense. Does anyone know the elastic modulus of the belts?
That would be a question for Bar
He commented that these had less stretch than similarly speced belts from other
manufacturers
David Lang
I added the data that I got from the manufacturer to the technical wiki, I don’t have that exact info but there is some data on stretch in there