Maslow Home Maslow Community Garden

Maslow Writ Small


#1

Since I started a thread on a large Maslow, I thought I’d start another on a really small Maslow. I’m interested in people’s thoughts on how small the Maslow could go along with what changes would be needed to the design to make it work. Unlike the large Maslow, which I think could be very large with only a few modifications. I believe a very small Maslow would need smaller components just to fit together.

So any ideas how to miniaturize a Maslow?


Micro or Mini Maslow
#2

I was also playing with that idea,

a workspace of 122x61 cm (imperial 4’x2’)
and a smaller router (makita compact for instance) Trying to stay away from dremel-ish routers.

I’m also still playing with the inkjet motors to try and build a plotter, but i can’t figure out the encoders… The measurements don’t make sense, and i don’t want to fry them by trial and error since i only have 2 of these…


#3

making a small maslow isn’t that hard, others have shrunk it a bit anyway.

until you get really small, you don’t even have to worry about shrinkin the
parts.

The problem is that you don’t save much in terms ofthe vertical and horizontal
offsets of the motors from the corners of your work area.

If you play around with the v-plotter software (http://lang.hm/maslow/) you can
tweak the dimensions and see how far down from the motors you have to be to have
your workpiece to be in the white area.

Now, when you start changing motors, you have to fiddle with some more
parameters (min and max tensions), you may also need to fiddle with the min step
size if you are using different encoders

weaker motors will have lower max tensions, so the blue area near the top will
dip down more.

If the encoders don’t give you enough resolution then you will have another band
of dark blue at the top that is a no-go region due to accuracy rather than chain
tension.

If you want to tell me what sizes you are talking about, I can produce various
plots.


#4

On a small machine i would also consider to use gt belts instead of chains if there is less weight on the effector.

the portrait style config would make a lot of sense with a smaller machine.


#5

again, how small of a machine are you looking for

with 3’ between the motors, this is what you would get something able to go up to ~6’ tall


#6

I have bin playing with thought about using a threaded rod. to avoid guide rail on a small dremmel desk router


#7

Acme or trapezoidal screws work a lot better than threaded rod, but you’ll still need some kind of guide mechanism. Many different methods have been used. Google is your friend…

Of course it’s no longer a maslow


#8

Are there area’s that have less precision? Or is the precision in the white area more or less the same in the entire space.

I mean, if you need to do some work that needs very high accuracy, would it then make sense to pick a specific area to place the worksheet? (I’m not going to cut PCB’s on this, but would that level of precision be possible?) The smaller the machine, usually the more detail people want to make with it, but does thismake sense for a router like Maslow? The gear ratio seems to be very high so my first guess is that there is a high level of accuracy.


#9

play around with the simulation mode in ground control

with the default maslow, the encoders have such a high resolution that the
theoretical accuracy is very good everywhere.

In practice, there are some distoritions from errors in measurements that end up
being larger away from the center.

There is also the problem that as the chains get less tension on them (bottom
corners are especially bad), they start to sag a little and the sled doesn’t
move as well, so the bottom corners will have slightly less accurach

the question isn’t where the best accuracy is, but rather is the accuracy of the
machine good enough for what you are trying to build everywhere.


#10

So from that respect a landscape configuration would be better then a portrait config right?
Hmm, need to recycle some thoughts on this …

Upper regions more accuracy when chains are short.

I try to think of several different situations.

A static full size machine in the shed.
A portable 4’x2’ config (that ideally can scavenge the electronics from the shed machine) so that I can meet up with people without having to much extra costs.
I have more brainwaves going… But not realistic enough to fit in the bigger picture.
In a way it would be best to have a static machine, and not mess with it. But being flexible has many advantages. So the more odd stuff i know the better.

Ideally some kind autocalibration would really make a difference. Just have 2 motors on some kind of clamp, hang them on a random size sheet and press calibrate. And from there be ready to go.

A no brainer, just like any powertool, put it in a box and drag it along to wherever you need to cut some plywood.


#11

So from that respect a landscape configuration would be better then a portrait config right?

not neccessarily, in landscape mode you have the chains closer to horizontal
(less tension) in the far bottom corners.

Ideally some kind autocalibration would really make a difference. Just have 2
motors on some kind of clamp, hang them on a random size sheet and press
calibrate. And from there be ready to go.

That’s what we’re trying for :slight_smile:

it’s FAR easier with the triangular kinematics (pantograph or ring aproach)

look at the alternate frame designs (musings topic) and think about mounting the
motors to telescoping metal tubes (I posted a link to the imsmetal listing), you
could move that from one machine to another, collapsing/expanding as needed to
fit the rest of the frame.


#12

Modulair to the MAX! that’s somehing to look forward to. :smiley:

I’m also thinkng of a frame that needs less space. My shed is kinda small, though I should just be able to squeese full size maslow inthere. So i will need to figure out something flexible to get the most out of that little space. I eventually could temporary move outside on a sunny day. :sunglasses: And then that autocalibration will make the difference.

Where can i find drawings or pictures of that pantograph kinemetics approach???

I also thought of hanging a router on 3 chains on the ceiling and use the floor as workspace. :slight_smile:
This then could do many other tasks… in full 3d space
or inverted 3 chais floormounted and a 4th chain for z axis. In a tetrahedron space. :slight_smile: That would make the machine big in respect to the effective workspace, but open up a range of possibillities.


#13

These are great thoughts, but my fellow Maslowians, what about the hobbyist who wants to engrave his pogs? What about the poor Yorkshireman who lives in a paper bag by the side of the road?* A 4’ x 2’ build area is too big for them. You know what they say, “Go small or go home!”** So just how small can we go with the Maslow design?

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo
**Okay, I don’t know anyone who’s actually said that


#14

Modulair to the MAX! that’s somehing to look forward to. :smiley:

I’m also thinkng of a frame that needs less space. My shed is kinda small, though I should just be able to squeese full size maslow inthere. So i will need to figure out something flexible to get the most out of that little space. I eventually could temporary move outside on a sunny day. :sunglasses: And then that autocalibration will make the difference.

Where can i find drawings or pictures of that pantograph kinemetics approach???

in the topic “throwing my hat…”

I also thought of hanging a router on 3 chains on the ceiling and use the floor as workspace. :slight_smile:
This then could do many other tasks… in full 3d space
or inverted 3 chais floormounted and a 4th chain for z axis. In a tetrahedron space. :slight_smile: That would make the machine big in respect to the effective workspace, but open up a range of possibillities.

you should look at the hangprinter project


#15

The “Throwing my hat…” thread is huge, if you don’t feel like sorting through 500+ posts I think this post specifically might help (post 292): Throwing my hat in the sled modification ring

It should at least get you started in the right direction.
The design is pretty simple so you can certainly make the linkages yourself! Or, if you don’t want to deal with making accurate parts I make laser cut kits too that come with all the needed hardware (link).

I especially love seeing other people’s version so if you do make one please post pictures!!


#16

Yorkshire is too wet to be keeping them, or the accompanying Yorkshireman, in a paper bag. You’d never be able to get your pog disk to your pub pog.


#17

O, ok i misunderstood thatone, what i had in mind was pantographe arms instead of chains :smiley: but that just add new hurdles


#18

Oh! Were you picturing linkages only without any chains? That’s an interesting thought…

@bdillahu has posted pictures of his finished and assembled linkage set-up that he built using one of the laser cut kits. So you can see how it actually looks on a real Maslow:

So it still uses the chains and motors to control the sled location but the way the chains interact with the sled means that instead of having a mathematically quadrilateral shape and trying to calculate where the router bit is (which is how stock Maslow works) the linkages make it so that the chains always point directly at the router bit. This means we now have a mathematical triangle! We always know the exact length of all three sides so it becomes much much easier to calculate and drive sled location. Plus the sled itself is more stable and not prone to wobble.


#19

The Yorkshireman said to me, “If you tell that to young people today, they won’t believe you.” I guess he was right.


#20

He’s a smart man. The young often must learn through mistakes rather than the advice of their elders. It’s why they haven’t earned the right to take their pogs to their pog