A Project Quest

At the expense of added complexity, and hence cost.....

What about changing the orientation of the rack to a vertical primary axis? If there were a few tenths of side shift, the overall effect of machine accuracy would be less, since it is primary the vertical movement of the table, or "lift" as we are calling it would practically disappear. Then a spring loaded way of some sort, be it a vee way or some sort of linear bearing would nearly eliminate lift.

Just tossing it out there because it doesn't belong in the box.
 
I've followed both your guys' projects for a while and all have amazed me. The two of you collaborating on a project is awesome! I can't wait to see what you come up with.

Time for a question from the 'slow' group. Why not go with ball screws or a precision lead screw for the table drive? I'm sure it will make sense to me when explained (slowly) but I don't see it on my own.
 
Tony Wells said:
At the expense of added complexity, and hence cost.....

What about changing the orientation of the rack to a vertical primary axis? If there were a few tenths of side shift, the overall effect of machine accuracy would be less, since it is primary the vertical movement of the table, or "lift" as we are calling it would practically disappear. Then a spring loaded way of some sort, be it a vee way or some sort of linear bearing would nearly eliminate lift.

Just tossing it out there because it doesn't belong in the box.
Click to expand...
Good idea. It would require gearing, though.

My second suggestion would require making the rack and pinion, but would require no additional parts. Just make the rack with straight-sided teeth, profile the pinion teeth to minimize lift, and allow some backlash. If engagement is limited to the vertical faces of the rack teeth lift will be minimal.
 
Food for thought Tony. Always welcomed.

Valid point Rick. I need to think on that for a bit. Anyone else care to take a shot at Ricks' question?

"Billy G"
 
I think the handle spider on Grizzly machines is done purely for cost considerations.

Why not design a rack so it operates upside down? And use a second gear to correct for the backwards table feed.
 
All right, how about this: Put the pinion on top of the rack so if anything, it would add to the desired downforce? Again, more complex and probably expense. Plus redesigning the table to allow for additional length of the rack....etc.

Still thinking......



edit: good thought Andre
 
  • Like
Reactions: ome
Tony Wells said:
All right, how about this: Put the pinion on top of the rack so if anything, it would add to the desired downforce? Again, more complex and probably expense. Plus redesigning the table to allow for additional length of the rack....etc.

Still thinking......



edit: good thought Andre
Click to expand...
I thought that being able to lift the table off was a requirement.
 
John Hasler said:
I thought that being able to lift the table off was a requirement.
Click to expand...
I would think that a way to either run the table "off the end" would be pretty easy to make, or else a way to disengage the pinion by sliding it "out" would be possible. A single bolt holding a stop in place to keep the table from being run to far by mistake for safety on the first idea. A retaining clip that is easily accessible to keep the pinion shaft from working itself out inadvertently for the second...
 
I don't know about an actual requirement..........that's on the designers, lol..............but yes, it would sacrifice that. Personally I have not had many pressing needs to remove a SG table, and the work required that prompted the need far outweighed the inconvenience of stripping cables or whatever drive.

But, if that were a design requirement in this case, then some consideration might be made to make the driven section integral with the table and the drive easily removable in the case of table removal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top