Throwing my hat in the sled modification ring

Probably too much with a 5/16 bolt, With a 5/16 2" bolt, and the hold and wiggle with a ruler technique, maybe a 16th at the bolt end, but it looks like it’s all slop in the 8mm hole. Good enough for a wine bottle cutter or 3D printer idler but not this. Couldn’t find an 8mm bolt (know I have some…) to test. Could always tighten them up with some loctite but that might put it off center. Bronze bushings might be tighter, not like they’re going to get any appreciable wear.

My bolt holes are less than a 64th, drilled at 1/4 and needed a bit of hand reaming with the bit to get them from jam them on to turning in the hole, didn’t break out the adjustable reamer. Of course, anything made out of wood will change dimensions anyway.

Wonder what waterjet or laser cut steel would cost for a sled and arms if made in quantity? Prove (or disprove) the design in wood, do a pre-buy for metal parts. Not feasible here, don’t know of a job shop that has one, and CNC Bridgeport is likely spendy.

How do you fiddle the calibration numbers for the 3 (really 4) arm balanced sled?

Got do do some more floor breaking and wood cutting first, Mrs. Moose is coming back home in the next day or two and need to show some more woodpile progress before having fun. 7C down, 35 to go, although 10 will make it through the winter unless it’s back in the -20s F.

Thanks for a good, thorough review.
I’ve wondered about the hoop approach and the 80 degree limit with regard to the ring top mounting point. My napkin calculation suggests that at 80 degrees on a 6” hoop, the chain needs to reach about 1” from full vertical. That would mean that the sheave radius plus half the width of the top mount would need to be less than 1”. Does that sound right? This wouldn’t be an issue with the single-sheave and ring approach you suggested, even if the full ring were used, as the upper mount would only need to clear one direction.
Moving the motors farther outboard, or accepting a narrower work area would be options too, I guess - but who likes compromises?

a couple ways

  1. connect the fixed chain at the same distance from the bit as the moving one

  2. lie to the machine about the chain position :slight_smile:

    since each link is 1/4", if your fixed chain is 1" further out than the moving
    one, move it 4 links further out when you start paying it out.

1 Like

For us visual learners:

In an ideal world this appears to work just fine even at the extremes of the current Maslow set up. This is based on motor measurements provided by several of you, and a work surface of 4’x8’.

Note, the distance between the two anchor points does NOT need to equal the distance from the lower anchor point and the center of the router. As has been mentioned before (by myself, @dlang, and likely others) the distances between the top two pivot points on the vertical members must equal the distance between the two anchor points and the distance between the lower pivot point and the chain attachment point on the vertical members must equal the distance between the lower anchor point and the router center. The length of the horizontal members is relatively arbitrary, though in this drawing they are about 5.36" between pivots (I forgot to label that one). Edit: Sled is 18", I forgot to mark that too…

Personally I think I’d be quite happy with this or the 45˚ design.
-Logan

1 Like

Here’s a symmetrical 45˚ design that should have no problems:

Here’s a slightly more complicated version but it’s more compact by a couple inches if that’s what you’re after:

3 Likes

Not sure if I can describe this, but given the other posts about the difficulty of “side loading” the pivots and having different heights on the chains (above the sled)…

Could you have some one of the upper arms from the router to the pivot be “single” and it’s opposite be “double” so that they interleave?

Have one arm:


And the other:



With the single layer arm going in the gap of the double. If you alternated single and double between the sides, you would get around some of the side loading on the pivots, and allow for them to slide between each other.

Maybe - I’m going to have to find some sticks and build a mockup before anybody can understand this one, I expect :slight_smile:

2 Likes

I think @krkeegan has a perfect example of what you are talking about here: Throwing my hat in the sled modification ring

If not then maybe I misunderstood your question…

1 Like

Right you are… I’m going to give up trying to have good ideas, all you smart guys beat me to them.

Sorry @krkeegan - I wasn’t trying to steal your thoughts :slight_smile:

Well, it does seem to work!

Now I need to build one…

2 Likes

Ha! Don’t apologize for having good ideas! We are all working on this thing together, brainstorming like this only works if there are multiple brains in the storm.

5 Likes

One big benefit to the 45˚ version over the top mounted version is that the chain shackle for mounting the chain would not need to be anything special. You can see in the Top Mounted version that the shackle would need to be pretty long in order to clear. You could easily make a home-made shackle with two pieces of wood and two pins (basically another bar)… but the simplicity of being able to use a pre-made $.75 part might be nice.

1 Like

In this 3-Bar 45 degree design, the slop of the pivots like the slop of the chain links can be counted as part of the chain measurement, because these slop points are always under tension. The tension varies, it’s true, but I think the difference would be less than the 1/64” Target. Am I missing something?

2 Likes

minor note, the angle can get down to just under 10 degrees from horizontal when you are at the far top.

The router base is 6" diameter, but the motor is only 4" in diameter (but you do have the Z axis, handles dust collector adding to this on the sides and bottom)

the chain has a minimum length of ~2 ft from the sprocket to the center of the bit, so call it about a foot to the arms.

roller chain can handle a fair bit of angle (think about how it angles on a 10 speed bike), so a little bit won’t bother anything.

If this is done with 3/16 metal, I wouldn’t bother trying to do anything about the different heights. Doing this with 3/4" thick wood, you still have to figure out how to attach the chain to the wood, attach it to the top on one side and the bottom on the other side and the resulting difference is almost nothing.

actually, both approaches need care for the chain. It’s easier on the 45 version as the chain goes from +45 to -45 instead of from 10 to 90 (relative to the bar it’s attached to), see the onshape pictures I posted about 2 days ago.

45 bar

top mount bar

The first one is harder to see in the post, it’s got an interesting shape in the center where the chain attaches.

yes it is under tension, so it should be fairly consistant, but it will be fairly consistant at 2x the slop (once for the holes in the mount, once for the hole where the bars join)

and interesting ‘feature’ of the top mount is that the error is based on the ratio between the upper and lower portion of the vertical bars. With the upper portion 2x the lower portion, the error is the same (I don’t know how much it varies based on different positions), if you were to make the upper portion 4x the lower, the error would actually be half as much.

1 Like

So that slop amount can be added to the length of chain as a static measurement. It will be included when one measures from the bit to the sprocket while under tension. The same is true of the 3-bar balanced version as well.
Once the slop is accounted for in the measurements it shouldn’t affect the kniematics.

1 Like

If the mounting point for the chain is in the middle of the cross bar, such as in the 45 degree version, aren’t the side arms always parallel to the chain? And isn’t the cross bar always perpendicular to the chain?

If I am right about that, then why does the 45 degree version need any special chain mounting?

I get what you are saying but I’m actually saying that only the Top Mounted design needs care for the chain. I’m not talking about modifying the bars to accommodate the chain. I’m suggesting using simple shackles to connect the chain to the bar:

My point is that for the 45˚ version there is no interference with such a shackle (you can look at them in use in the pictures I posted the other day). With the top mounted version they will have the propensity to hit the bar if the bar is of sufficient width and nothing else is done about it.
Shackle + 45˚ design = no problem.
Shackle + Top Mount design = problem.
That’s all I’m saying.

Obviously we could design more complicated bars with cutouts and offsets to account for the chain (as you have shown in your drawings) but I’m trying to keep it as simple as possible (i.e. straight, smooth bars).

With the shackles I used in my mockups I can easily achieve a 27˚ internal angle without interference. On the 45˚ linkage design the minimum chain angle from the bar is 62.07˚ if the sled is at top center and 66˚ if the sled is in the lowest corner.

The internal chain angle for the Top Mounted design is 10˚ when the sled is in the lower corner, which would cause interference.