CoreXE, will it work?

Hi, I'm designing a new budget tool changing 3dprinter, (BOM so far: [docs.google.com])

The issue is that instead of going for the planned CoreXY with 10mm belts, I'm debating something, just using regulars Cartesian for Y and then running belts in a CoreXY style for X, expect the other belt path will have a continuous belt and be connected to the extruder. (I'll potentially use a clutch to lock my tools with the same motor using the pins to engage the gears into another position, however this has more wear/parts and takes a ton of space so I haven't decided yet)

i found basically no info on this, any ideas? will such a long belt (probably 1m~) Cause me issues? the idea is to have the belt with a gear on the extrude and connect to each individual tool upon pickup (it's very easy to do and works with a motor attached permanently to the carriage, but I wanna save weigh!)
maybe I should do the "zero gravity" extruder but that requires those square rods and takes space and makes enclosing etc harder and adds more components I think? it's just not as "neat"

why not use a zesty nimble drive? well those limit speeds etc and cost a ton.
also I'm aware that a lot of people discussed this before (I googled a lot!) but they're like from 2017 and nobody seemed to actually have shared their experiences with having tried it? only one person did but it was on a really bad janky printer. my current version (hevo upgrade) already prints at 0.15mm tolerances and has good everything, I don't wanna lose extrusion accuracy for just some acceleration. but if it's not bad it'll be AMAZING! plus i can put a big high torque motor for 8$ and not worry about anything either but extrusion is very sensitive and all that

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/09/2021 07:16AM by AmyTheBun.

A drawing would help visualize what you are proposing, it doesn't sound particularly feasible or practical to me.

Quote
obelisk79
A drawing would help visualize what you are proposing, it doesn't sound particularly feasible or practical to me.

This forum decided to delete my messsage when i quoted you >.<



here's the drawing! The benefit would be to save 70g of weight in comparison to an orbiter setup! I'm not sure how much of a real life benefit that'd provide but it doesn't sound bad tbh.
also this is rotated around for some reason here, but if you open it it's the right way up!

also as I was saying that i realized this unique kinematics needs code, and it's gonna take so much effort!

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2021 06:17AM by AmyTheBun.

Seems overly complex for just 70g of weight savings, another thing to consider is what additional cost would be involved with this type of configuration. Have you done a cost-benefit analysis between this (extra belts, extra pulleys etc) and a nimble or flex3drive setup? I don't believe the nimble is that speed limiting unless you are using a big nozzle like 0.8mm with comparably chonky layer height. Not only that, but you could add a step up gear at the motor end of a flex3drive/nimble to increase your potential max throughput if you reached the limit of what those could provide.

Also, to answer the original question, I think you could get this to work and would probably be a fun intellectual endeavor doing something out of the norm, but if you are just wanting a fast/light printer I'm not sure this would be a practical direction to go.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 10/11/2021 10:57AM by obelisk79.