Hello all, I just designed a base for my Maslow 4 on its way and I wanted to see if anyone saw any problem with placing material vertically to save footprint in my shop. It would be on casters and also clamp to the wall for stability when in use. The base would also contain a backdraft dust collection system that would also serve to half the material flat and secure.
Here is a download link for a SketchUp file: Dropbox - Maslow 4 Base.skp - Simplify your life
And here is a picture of it:
no problem with that approach, it just gets really tall. To cut an 4x8 sheet of plywood you will want a 8x12 frame
Beautiful drawings! It is a very clearly articulated idea.
Thanks Bar, we can’t wait to get the Maslow 4 working for us to fabricate small run custom millwork. We will post our work as soon as it gets here.
Seems like sag will be slightly less with vertical format if that even matters, and with the vacuum behind the work we hope to be able to control z axis work where we will mill out shallow detents for accurate and fast positioning of drawer slides.
I show an 9” perimeter on all four sides of the 4x8 sheet. The holes will also double as chock locations for smaller pieces and any unplugged holes will get a cover to preserve vacuum.
By the way I have the slant at 10°
Seems like sag will be slightly less with vertical format if that even matters, and with the vacuum behind the work we hope to be able to control z axis work where we will mill out shallow detents for accurate and fast positioning of drawer slides.
the belt angles are better
I show an 9” perimeter on all four sides of the 4x8 sheet. The holes will also double as chock locations for smaller pieces and any unplugged holes will get a cover to preserve vacuum.
the current recommendataion is for 24" perimeter around the sheet. It’s unknown
how much this can be pushed (especially if you have the belts parallel to the
workpiece), but 9" will be restricting out near the edge)
By the way I have the slant at 10°
That will probably work, the original maslow aimed for 15, and we know 20 is too
much and 5 is too little, the thing to watch for is if the router lifts away
from the workpiece as you plunge the bit into it. If it does, angle it more so
tht gravity help more.
David Lang
Thanks. Good tips.
Would you be willing to share your design with the community, perhaps in the Community Garden? I’m sure there will be other users who will want to save floor space by doing this.
Having watched Bar’s update video, I should perhaps say, "Would you be willing to eventually share your design, once it has been optimized. As Bar points out, we don’t want a bunch of gung-ho people building frames that are sub-optimal because we released the designs too soon.
Yes, absolutely! Once I get the geometry right I will be honored to share it with dimensions.
But I want to test it in real life first! And optimize it.
I will also want to build it as soon as possible and test the vacuum / dust collection to make sure it works reasonably well.
Nice looking design!
You might consider adding vacuum holes up towards the middle of the section walls or at least add one in each section off/above the sill plates. The reasoning is if for any reason one of the bottom holes gets clogged then the chamber is still getting vacuum. These added holes could even be much smaller than the existing ones.
Hi. Seeing how the Maslow 4 is shaking out with all the trial videos is this a viable solution?
Looks great
I don’t see why not. The work area needs to be 15 degrees or more from vertical, but I haven’t heard anything preventing the portrait orientation. In fact, I could see this design being a little easier on the upper drive motors as they would be supporting the sled using a narrower span. This will require less force than a wide span.
Of course if you are designing this frame for a 4’x8’ plywood sheet it would be tall, so it wouldn’t fit in a lot of people’s workshops. But for those with taller ceilings, this could be a real space-saver.
If you’re seeing an issue with it that I’m not seeing, feel free to speak up. This community is built on everyone’s contribution.
people have done portrait orientation in the past, works just fine.
David Lang
I would like to know how you are attaching the front to the vacuum chambers. I built a horizontal sanding table with a vacuum attached and dust accumulated in the corners inside. I glued and screwed the top on and I have to shake the stupid thing with the vacuum hose attached to get the dust out after done. I have slanted boards inside to “direct the dust to the vacuum port” but it still accumulates sanding dust in corners. Just curious how you will deal with dust that just doesn’t move to your vacuum. dmac257
Is it possible to do this with a landscape orientation instead of portrait due to the height being a potential issue in a lot of structures? It would be a great design if that was possible.
Yes. That’s how I have mine set up.
I’ve seen conversations about setting up a portrait orientation, but I’ve never heard of anyone doing it.
I’m working on (not there yet) a no-compromise design that breaks down easily and avoids geometric constraints (it’s a bit bigger, but within reason for belt lengths). I prefer laying it flat, but I’ve operated both ways with my standard frame.
