I am working on a smaller sibling to Maslow 4.1 that will hopefully take us one step closer to having a tool which you can just take out of the box and use!
The goal isn’t to make something which replaces Maslow 4.1, more of another option that has a lower barrier to entry. Hopefully I’ll have some prototypes to show off soon and I’ll post files for anyone who wants to 3D print their own prototype at home.
Generally as always I would love feedback on what we can make better.
I really like the idea of a cute little maslette. It just sounds fun. Cool. Looking forward to details.
1/8" only for the bits means (to me) much more of a concentration on cutting rather than forming/engraving. Because smaller range of interesting bit profiles and much longer times for hogging anything out. So it sounds like you could think about how much vertical range you’ll need and what speeds this should operate at. (Also potentially a lot less load on the motors and possibility to have UHMW PE for the bottom of the sled?) But you might need more deadweight on the sled to make it work, or maybe different geometry?
Whatever comes out of it, definitely sounds cool!
Is it going to have z axis independent of the spools? I think that the z axis with spools is a complicated problem that is hard to get perfect when setting up the machine. The more simple the better.
Oooo, exciting!
1/8th bits is a good idea - I think even with the full sized Maslow it’s the sweet spot in terms of the routers used.
And 3D printed prototypes, that sounds like something I’d be keen to beta test, as you might guess 
sounds very interesting
I can hope for a non-moving Z, spindle instead of router and arms that have a wider swing 
David Lang
Exactly, the goal is to have the arms not move with the z-axis at all. I’ve got some really interesting ways to make that happen that I’m excited to share 
I’ve just got to build it so I can show it 
It may be more realistic to separate the belt spools and motors off the sled and have it as part of each anchor. This would allow a free z axis, keep all belts on an equal plane, minimize spool with beam interference at certain angles. I think a simple ring system akin to the original would work great with 4 belts. The only problem with this set up is cable management out to each motor.
@bar I hope this doesn’t mean that you would be abandoning the M4 or software improvements for the M4.
Absolutely not. M4 will always be a bigger and more powerful machine that I think will exist at the same time. They will both run the same firmware/software…There’s no way I’m trying to maintain two different firmware versions 
Tim Seidlitz wrote:
It may be more realistic to separate the belt spools and motors off the sled
and have it as part of each anchor. This would allow a free z axis, keep all
belts on an equal plane, minimize spool with beam interference at certain
angles. I think a simple ring system akin to the original would work great
with 4 belts. The only problem with this set up is cable management out to
each motor.
the 1st gen maslow did this and the move to the maslow 4 greatly simplified
setup. Being able to use a maslow 4 on a temporary setup where the anchors can
be trivial things (bolts in the ground, small brackets on the walls, etc) is a
HUGE advantage
David Lang
Totally understand the move to make it more portable for the M4. You need bracket mounts either way (even if it’s a concrete bolt) I think that a mount integrated with the spool can be designed with portability in mind, you just won’t have everything contained on the sled.
I am curious how many M4 users actually use the portability. Mine was “permanently” mounted on the old classic frame.
Portability is what makes it work for me. I don’t have a permanent place where I can set it up.
Tim Seidlitz wrote:
I am curious how many M4 users actually use the portability. Mine was “permanently” mounted on the old classic frame.
my guess is just about everyone who uses bolts in the ground
yes, you could have wires to every anchor location, but then you have to deal
with how to extend the wires, hot to keep the long wires from tangling,
interference picked up by the wires, etc
it really does simplify a lot to have everything self contained on the sled
Bar wrote:
Exactly, the goal is to have the arms not move with the z-axis at all. I’ve got some really interesting ways to make that happen that I’m excited to share
I’ve just got to build it so I can show it
I’ll also note that the motors do not need to move with the arms. the only thing
that needs to rotate is the encoder. you would just need to have the gear teeth
on the inside of the spool.
hmm, have to draft this up in CAD
David Lang
That is a fun thought. Could have a stationary (on the sled) motor and spool stack and then an encoder on a ring or something. I guess I would worry about tension internally pulling the encoder a bit sideways. Looking forward to what you come up with. and also looking forward to whatever Bar is playing with.
wouldchuck wrote:
That is a fun thought. Could have a stationary (on the sled) motor and spool
stack and then an encoder on a ring or something. I guess I would worry about
tension internally pulling the encoder a bit sideways. Looking forward to
what you come up with. and also looking forward to whatever Bar is playing
with.
there should be pretty much no tension on the encoder.
it occures to me that the belt may not be aimed at the center of the bit, but
instead oat the edge of the spool. that could be a subtle source of error. it
may not mattermuch, but something to check on.
David Lang
Does the baby version need full-resolution Z control, or can it simply have cutting and not-cutting states, with endstops to deal with those positions?
rp1007 wrote:
Does the baby version need full-resolution Z control, or can it simply have
cutting and not-cutting states, with endstops to deal with those positions?
it will need full resolution Z, you don’t know how long the bit is, how thick
the material is, you may have to cut in multiple passes, and you may want to
engrave rather than cut all the way through.
for the bit (Z home) you want to do a touch sensor, but having a limit switch
for setting Z zero would sure be nice.
David Lang
That makes sense. The bit length and thickness you could set by hand(maybe) but the multiple passes pretty much does for that idea. Oh well.
I wonder whether there’s some trick that you could do messing with the belt path so the belt attachment/pivot point is all the way next to the router rather than constrained to the outside of the rings.