For the “cutting the final frame bit”, I think it would be handy to cut the final router sled first, then install/recalibrate (can you skip to the “router sled length” piece in GC?), and then cut the rest of the frame. I’m finding that my router wants to tip out during the cuts (so I’ve ordered an upcut bit to see if that’ll suck it to the wood), so I’m thinking adding the bricks sooner is better.
That’s what I did. The temporary sled was pretty worthless.
If your router is trying to tip away from the frame, you have the chains
attached too close to the base, so the weight isn’t centered on the chains (in
the Z axis)
While adding bricks helps (as it brings the center of gravity closer to the
sled), you should be able to adjust the chains to drastically reduce the
Yeah, it really is. I think in the next batch I’m going to try to get rid of it entirely. Sorry!
We need to really go over everything for the next batch.
Since we are hoping to start with triangular kinematics, that will greatly improve things.
I’d also like to see us go with a ‘top beam’ style frame (pretty much eliminates any possibility of the frame flexing as we are measuring things), potentially even recommending/encouraging a unistrut beam.
and the combination of these two (and some simple processes, like a shop-made router circle cutter) should make it possible to bypass a lot of the current bootstrapping.
I’ll have to re-write my book in this area if it changes. :o
It’s all good.
I also agree with changing the frame design. I looked at the final design and used that as a template and if I would have found it sooner I would have built the “top beam” style.
Since everybody has to have a router to use the CNS they should all be able to cut a round sled really easy with a simple jig.
There are many possible designs. The documented one is a suggestion. I don’t agree it should be changed to a totally different design. What I would suggest is we start a space in the Wiki for alternate design(s) one is allready documented there. Each can be there and people can choose. Each should be well documented including a BOM. The Maslow is an open design allowing anyone to modify it as they see fit.
This is just my own opinion.
everyone is always allowed to do what they want
But shouldn’t the basic instructions that are given to newbies who don’t know
enough to do the research and weight the different options be aimed to give them
the best possible chance of succeeding?
The current instructions (with the 45 degree arms screwed to a piece of plywood
with the motors extended several inches out from the arms, with the quad
kinematics sled) are a very poor option.
any variation that gives good rigidity between the motors would be a huge win,
and it’s hard to get simpler than a single straight piece of material, aka a
’top beam’ design
triangular kinematics are another huge win. As Bar said, he greatly under
estimated how much work it would be to measure quad kinematics accurately
enough. Triangular kinematics simplify things drastically
we should givethese simplifications to every future maslow owner by default, not
limit them to only people who can research and understand the options.
Now, I’m not saying that there won’t be even more improvement, but these are
pretty drastic improvements.
by the way, I think we do still want to come up with a version that is as much
of a bootstrap as possible.
It should not require laser cut parts (out of wood or metal) to build a maslow
It should be possible to build a maslow with two worm-gear motors (with encoders
and some way to hold them in place), a motor controller board (andcomputer to
run it), two sprockets that fit the motors, enough chain that fits the
sprockets, and lumber (plus a router and some tools)
In theory, the motors and sprockets don’t even need to match
If i manage to get started on my sled, i’ll try to make a movie, or take a lot of pictures, and try to not use anything but a drill and my router so everyone has the tools to make it. It makes sense to make the sled before everything else.