User talk:Redwizard

From RepRap
Revision as of 04:33, 9 January 2011 by Redwizard (talk | contribs) (welcome)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

welcome

Welcome to RepRap, Redwizard!

The RedBot looks like it has great potential. A few 2D sheets of wood and some fixit blocks looks just as rigid and looks much quicker to assemble than a bunch of cross-braces and their associated nuts and bolts. Perhaps this line of development will, someday, lead to RepStraps that take less than 9 months to put together :-).

What do you think about the relative merits of these drive trains:

  • "X axis riding on Y axis" (Darwin) vs.
  • "Both X and Y axis bolted directly to the rigid frame" (Columbus)

? --DavidCary 13:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the words of support David, I've taken 5 months to develop it to this level so far. The design was born from the fact i tried (and failed) to create wooden (Mendel) parts which was purely because i lacked the tools and associated skills to create the parts within the tolerances required. to date the only complex cut i've had to make is for the y axis assembly which rides on the x axis and due to bearings overhanging the X rails required bearings mounted at 45 degrees to the rods. V2 will hopefully avoid this problem!

As to your question, i really dont know. X riding on Y(or Y on X as on RedBot) was a choice born of what i'd already seen 5 months ago(i've yet to properly look at darwin). The X and Y axis bolted to the frame sounds like it might be more stable but at the same time (especially with the dimensions of RedBot]) i get the feeling theres going to be some sagging. My choice to fit the X axis rods the way i did was so i could support the underside of the x axis with the middle vertex pieces to avoid sagging. I've yet to figure out how to avoid it on the Y axis.

--RedWizard 09:32, 9 January 2011 (GMT)