Omg this is funny
Love this!!!
2 Likes
True for one plate. If more vertical freedom needed and using vertical rail, then, two plate instead of one.
Lol, I don’t care if something I suggested is used or not.
I care that we collectively arrive at a great solution via exploring and thinking, which, involves questioning to help spark great ideas from others.
My lower minded ego disagrees with the above statement, but we’re in a continuous struggle on stuff like this.
2 Likes
To be clear I am leaning towards vertical bearing block…but. I guess to put it in the simplest terms in my head. The rail is connected by a 12mm surface with fasteners at the centerline, the bearing block is 27mm wide with fasteners 20mm apart . If we are going to have to use plastic to make a 90 degree connection, I want it to be at the 27mm surface. So unless we come up with a good vertical rail plate it has to be horizontal.
1 Like
If we go with the horizontal then mount systems for every extruder hotend combination known to man is already out there. And from what I’ve seen all with step files for any needed edits like for the belts. If we turn the tail vertical now we are making up all our own stuff or having to use a 90° printed adapter to make it work. Just my .02
1 Like
Either way we still have a flat vertical surface to attach to.
There are quite a few printers with rail turned vertical, so I don’t think we are making up our own stuff in that regard any more than coming up with a mount for a Voron Trident or whatever.
I think we can make a toolhead that mounts roughly similar either way right?
So isn’t it really more, at this point, a question of how the rail connects to the Y Trucks?
2 Likes
Yup. It is going to be really hard to beat that single plate, so now I am looking at the belt connections as well to see if that adds complications on the other end. I have something basic on the horizontal CAD, Just need to play with the vertical now.
1 Like
For reference, Voron didn’t solve your problem either.
Their mount interfaces with the extrusion rather than the linear rail
That spreads the mounting load for sure.
Apparently I cant read… so call me an idiot!
OMG…Aza you had it, no third plate though.
If you make the red printed part come all the way down instead of the third plate.
You screw the rail into the printed part…the end of the printed part is secured with another M5.
So now back to how the belts terminate
1 Like
what about horizontal mount with a cnc cut aluminum flat bar for a backer… say 3/8-12"
possibly something more like this would be attainable
1 Like
You can do it that way if you want on a horizontal Linear bearing like you show, but it is expensive and I do not see it adding anything but weight and screws. It won’t work for vertical, though (on this design).
I moved the idlers up that gives enough room for the linear rail to mount.
It does not work the other direction, bearing facing back, because the screws that would hold it get in the way.
The belt splitting the plate is not good, because the plates would stop bing parametric and would need to be a specific size. That and it does not make attaching them any easier.
This sort of thing need a specific plate thickness, and really belt thickness kinda sorta comes into play.
This plate can be a printed part pretty easily, that sort of takes the fun out of it though.
This core piece is trickier than the trucks.
1 Like
That’s one of the reasons why I put the belts on different planes on my corexy. That and avoiding the twist part where I wasn’t confident both belts wouldn’t grind each other at higher speeds.
If you put the belts on different horizontal planes they can easily come aligned on the same vertical plane at the carriage, it makes the carriage attachment points a lot easier.
Is there a technical reason why you need the belts to be on the same horizontal plane?
the offset plane is how the V4 is already set up. It does work, but the single plane is today’s design challenge.
Just to add some more noise: I’m cool if we throw a dart at this point, pick a mount, and move on. I’m sure either way it will work just fine… whatever it is, I’d like it to be hard to break.
2 Likes
Sure, I get it, but what tangible improvement is this intended to achieve?
If it complicates things for no added benefit then maybe it’s not worth going this way.
The only benefit I can think of is a very slight reduction of printer height… Which is not really a concern anyway, printer height does not matter nearly a much as printer footprint, plus there’s usually some stuff going higher than the belts anyway (extruding system, filament and/or wiring).
Just questioning if it’s actually worth it, while it’s still relatively easy to go back.
2 Likes
Reliable 3D printed part will make most people happy? Guessing just a few people chasing high speed/temps will go to the trouble of milling Alu plate requiring more work than just making holes. Hopefully the part will make for a nice mini CNC project.
Like that slim layout is being tried out for fun, to experiment, and do something different. Similar mechanism layout could be used for non printer scenarios.
1 Like