If we focus only on these two gantry kinematics without bringing in any other designs into the discussion:
MarkForged:
[
user-images.githubusercontent.com]
Stratasys:
[
ibb.co]
[
ibb.co]
[
ibb.co]
Which one is more effective design as far as both maintaining precision on long 24 hour prints and maintaining precision with minimal binding.
Markforged works well only because the built volume is 320mm x 150mm and it’s a Bowden design, so the distance on the X is short, and even then they advise to check the belt tension every 800 hours.
If we used MF design on a something like 350x 250 mm with direct drive, then compared it to the Stratasys kinematics it does becomes less effective, the question is by how much.
Is Stratasys more efficient? Sure it has longer belts and more idlers, so in theory each idler would increase the level of backlash, but to me binding is as important as back lash so with Markforged we are more prone to binding but maybe less backlash.
Would either of the two designs work better if the axis with extruder motor was the longest one in a 350x250 design?
Then we have the issue of synchronization on X,Y motors, Would Stratasys benefit from using an axis motor on the extruder axis so in this case we have the Y axis with it's own motor on in and not stationery in the corner, so we eliminate the issue of synchronization?
With Markforged having the X aid the Y with syncro in moving up and down is integral to maintain less binding. What about Stratasys, I’m straggling to understand if having the Y stationery and also is synchronization is necessary in aiding the X to move up and down vs. Markfoged design?
Cheers.
