I do not know if they are all interrelated? My board angle is 20 degrees. All the belts retract all the way. There is such a big discrepancy in belt spool height to the anchor point. 40 mm upper rt 113 mm lower rt. I would think keeping the belt parallel to the would be preferable lessening off-center torque on the tool body and lessen edge on the belts. Any way I am stuck. Not being able to get beyond calibration. Even after complete install of v.75 firmware.
1 Like
Thomas Ward wrote:
I do not know if they are all interrelated? My board angle is 20 degrees. All
the belts retract all the way. There is such a big discrepancy in belt spool
height to the anchor point. 40 mm upper rt 113 mm lower rt. I would think
keeping the belt parallel to the would be preferable lessening off-center
torque on the tool body and lessen edge on the belts. Any way I am stuck. Not
being able to get beyond calibration. Even after complete install of v.75
firmware.
the spool height is accounted for separately for each belt, and configurable in
the maslow.yaml, so having the arms at different heights is accounted for.
I believe that having the belts parallel to the workpiece for flat frames will
work better as it won’t be adding downforce (with the added friction this
causes)
when hanging vertically, it will depend on how far the center of force is from
the center of gravity.
David Lang
1 Like
Have you double-checked that your arms are installed in the correct order? I just re-assembled mine and the @jwolter illustration is so much better than the first go round where I started them out upside down or something. Was saved that time by in-person build. Don’t know if you’ve checked that and/or already confirmed.
I’ve managed to calibrate 3 Maslow’s so far on the same 2 frames. This one needs re-calibration which I’ll be trying soon.
I had one go from failing to passing after remembering to lower the z-axis all the way down (had to remove the bit).
It also helped to lower fitness threshold from .5 to .4 (mentioned in one of bars posts somewhere that .5 was aggressive). We’ve been cutting fine at .4something. The aforementioned z-axis went from .3 something and failing to .4 and passing after I lowered the z-axis.
And, we had one belt that was stiff and wasn’t retracting so I had upped the current to 2400, then backed it down to 1800, and not-thinking, I had set the calibration current at 1800 as well. I think the too strong calibration was really tweaking/flexing the frame more than necessary and causing errors.
Stepping away I realized that the higher current needed during retract was likely due to new build tightness and the too-long belt issue, but when calibrating the belts are out quite a ways so that is less of a problem so went back to the 1500 default on that.
These are all running on frames on the floor however. ymmv, good luck.
1 Like
I printed and installed the belt guards and reassembled the arms using the diagram. That seems to have done the trick. Calibration complete. Thank you so much for your time and solution.
2 Likes