Is it because you don’t have enough pins that you don’t have encoders on the angle/pivot of each motor? It would double te encoders needed but should the motor angle not say alot about the anchor point position? Or actually i think it should be potentiometers then because they give values without a home/zero value and the values are always directly linked to the body of the router. The question is if it is more accurate than your mad math wizarding you do now
Also why did you change the motor type for maslow 4 against the motors with encoders used on previous models? Whats the benefit?
I was thinking (not that i have the time for it) but would it be possible to reverse engineer the maslow 4 back to the original?
Adding 2 extra motors and chains on the bottom. Leaving the electronics on the back of the board because I don’t need portability, getting a motordriver for 5 motors?
Should be more or less the same right?
My maslow is now sitting there collecting dust because i don’t have time to fix it and recalibrate it and i always had trouble with calibrating so it cost me more time than do it by hand.
I would hate it to just sell it or something because it is a great machine……
(Otherwise it will become a small metal x/y 60x60cm plasmacutter cnc……… Maybe someday…)
Is it because you don’t have enough pins that you don’t have encoders on the angle/pivot of each motor? It would double te encoders needed but should the motor angle not say alot about the anchor point position? Or actually i think it should be potentiometers then because they give values without a home/zero value and the values are always directly linked to the body of the router. The question is if it is more accurate than your mad math wizarding you do now
the angle isn’t of much use when the arm is 10 ft, a 16k position angle encoder
would still have an error of > 1mm at that distance
Also why did you change the motor type for maslow 4 against the motors with encoders used on previous models? Whats the benefit?
it’s still motors and encoders, but having the encoders separate from the motors
lets the encoders measure the actual belt movement while the motors are driving
the spools that the belt winds up on. if you tried to measure just the movement
of the spools, you have to worry about how tightly the belt packs on the spool
(how many layers, how much tension was it under as it was wound, etc) to figure
out how much belt was on the spool.
by measuring it separately, all spool related errors can be completely ignored.
I was thinking (not that i have the time for it) but would it be possible to reverse engineer the maslow 4 back to the original?
Adding 2 extra motors and chains on the bottom. Leaving the electronics on the back of the board because I don’t need portability, getting a motordriver for 5 motors?
Should be more or less the same right?
yes you could do that, with a full 360 degree ring.
you would have some errors that the maslow 4 wouldn’t have
stretch of the chain (more than the stretch of the belts per measurement)
cogging of the chain on the sprockets
and the difficulty in defining the starting chain lengths.
it depends on the precision you need.
Is it possible to do V-carving with the new Maslow 4?
what I’m really asking is, can Z move up and down when doing X and Y cuts ?
Hope this Question makes sense…
Yes, it is possible, and the maslow4 has a much, much faster Z axis so it will
do so better than the older maslow
the limitation is that the maslow rides on it’s sled, so if you carve away too
much of the surface so that the sled drops into the cut area, you will be in
trouble.
About as much as the router you’re using produces when you use it manually. Maslow itself (at least the first version) doesn’t produce much sound; I don’t see why that would change with M4.
Makes sense! I don’t suppose anyone has made any sort of container that reduces the noise output of the machine with the original version? I’ll be using it in an open garage and don’t want to cause too much annoyance haha.
Very interesting. Many thanks for sharing that. Would be interested to see if anyone has gotten round to using actual noise insulation within an enclosure?
by far the two biggest sources of noise are the router moter and the cutter.
Some people have replaced the router with a spindle motor as they tend to be
much quieter
I already posted this on KS Forum - I have a question about the Router-Clamp: Can I use an adapter to mount a 65mm Router, for example a Makita or Katsu or MakerMade?
A detailed pic of the Router-Clamp mechanism would be very helpful and instructive - and much appreciated!
the maslow 4 is using the smaller trim routers. There is one that Bar
specifically listed, but a lot of people are looking at the new Kobalt router
that’s designed for CNC work as probably being preferred. We just don’t know for
sure how it will fit.
@bar given the better speed range and the ER-11 collet, it may be worth picking one up from your local lowes and checking it’s fit (and especially what it would take to do bit changes with it)