Talk:Open Hybrid Mendel

From RepRap
Revision as of 10:02, 7 July 2014 by DavidCary (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Methinks we should put a zip of part models up here as soon as possible, both as a backup for us and as a reference for others.

--Joshj 07:15, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the OpenY still needs some experimenting. I am not sure it is sufficiently rigid enough on the side with the undercarriage arm. This leads to a skewing motion (like rotation about the z). there are a number of options in order to clear this up:

use two crossmembers- extensive redesign, more weight, more plastic, longer print time.

add an Arm_210 to both sides- harder to install, since it can't be 'clipped on' and requires threaded rod and bolts to tighten onto the rails, more weight, more plastic, little redesign.

use a rectangular aluminum crossmember- like a aluminum ruler. Probably the best way to go, but would require drilling holes and slots, and adjustment to get the bearings lined up might be a bit harder. flags and belt attachment would need redesign, (frankly everything would need redesign in order to do it right). weight, print time and plastic use would likely be similar.

Add two 180 (or 0) degree bearings to the X+ side- a quick and easy fix that would probably remove most of the skewing. no redesign or printing, but you'll need two more bearings.

move the belt attachment closer to the pivot point or center of gravity- pivot point is closer to the X- side. easy enough to do, but you'll need to identify and tune this for each machine, so not a great long term solution.

The print bed does add some rigidity, but since it's attached with springs, the skewing motion is still there. maybe use rubber spacers instead of springs?

I also think the carriage-struder should eventually replace the OpenX axis. I really hate the name, though. can't we call it just vertical X or VertX? VertX is clever, too, like vertex. --Buback 15:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

That's the exact issue we were dealing with, but having the same 90-180 arm on both sides seems to clear up the problem pretty well. There's still a concern we have with the 210 arm on both the OpenX and OpenY, but it hasn't been a big enough issue for us to really attack yet. --EtherDais 16:46, 31 August 2011 (EST)


I suggest merging OHM solidworks and RUG/Pennsylvania/State College/Solidworks OHM into Open Hybrid Mendel. They're all the same thing, right? --DavidCary (talk) 07:02, 7 July 2014 (PDT)