I suggest using these instead, as they allow to fit a lot more wires into the slots. They can be easily cut to size and they can be removed and put back super easily.
I use them on all my machines:
Actually for rigidity the best thing is really to have some rods at 45 degree. Adding one horizontal frame bar is better than nothing of course, but one rod placed at 45 degree would probably give ten times more rigidity. I wouldn’t add one at the front, for obvious ease of access reasons, but one at the rear would do the trick. The ideal being at least one on each plane.
That can also help slightly to adjust the frame squareness.
someone posted about using a zenxy for a laser. Cool. and I got to thinking about that a little. The only difference between the zenxy and a 3d printer (besides heaters and stuff) from a motion standpoint is that the printer has z motors and a cube while the zen could in theory have the same top end movement. Would it ever make sense to make a single setup for the top that could do either. I’m not saying you’d put a sand table on top of your 3d printer… but hey, there’s an idea i bet nobody tried before. but you could build a zen or build a zen and with the rest of the 3d printing hardware, make a printer out of it so it is 2 machines from the same bones.
does that make any sense or are the tolerances so much different between them that it is a stupid idea?
One problem is scale. the Zen isn’t designed to run particularly fast, though it can run a lot faster in the V2 version than the V1 would have ever managed. Using the conduit as rail works very well for the large size, but generally takes more room than the linear rail does.
Another issue is mounting the extruder. Again, the core of the ZenXY is larger than the car of a linear rail. It does have the CoreXY belt mounts integrated which helps, but when you add on an extruder (And probe and fans…) it gets unwieldy big.
On the flipside, MGN12 rail (or equivalent) in the kinds of sizes that we might want to make a ZenXY table is stupid expensive when compared to conduit and a few POM wheels.
The X Y Linear rails vs EMT is the biggest cost difference. in terms of size the Zen is focused on an optimized footprint to use as much area as possible.
They must’ve changed something in the matrix. I swear I posted a reply to this, but it has vanished.
V6 in a bowden configuration is probably the minimum. Though something like the E3D REVO micro might actually package just a bit smaller.
An H2 or hemera might be the largest for a single extruder.
But, it would be good to have a reasonable option for a dual bowden REVO Mini or dual orbiter direct drive.
Also, having acommodations to fit a EBB style CAN board on the carriage would be really great. This significantly simplifies and cleans up wiring to the carriage.
It would also be great to have an option for a rigid mount like the AlumiCore 2.0 that @niget2002 is fiddling around with
Looking at the sizes I just posted A regular hemera is 78mm wide. I am assuming anything will fit in that envelope. Do you think that is a good maximum width?
This is the part where things are going to start stacking up so I am trying very hard to break this down to one choice at a time. We can revisit things later as this progresses if things start to get in a conflict or a better way pops up.
Yes. Seems fair that anyone wanting to do something special should have to do some special planning for it. Seems fair that you design for Hemera since that’s something you trust and use most?
Haven’t checked, but guessing that max is wider than typical voron hotend width.
Not at all just trying to break this down to what is really important. While I sit in CAD I have several dimensions in mind…and really I need to focus on one oat a time. Not figure it all out simultaneously.
Well I was voting to go smaller as default but seeing as it only adds 4mm on each side, I think it is a fair target, and that will give any other side fans on other extruders more room to breathe.
Personally, I’m likely to stick with a Hemera now that I have 2 up and running, with some spare parts around for them. As such, that would be good to support for me.
I’m not averse to the H2, the price point is good, I could see myself switching if the opportunity arises, but so far, I’m happy with the Hemera when Im not using that stupid filament that always jams…
Which way should the X rail go? Just so we have rough numbers a MGN12 is 27mm wide (across the bearing face) or 13mm thick (mounting surface to bearing surface)?
I have been roughing in a couple of things that are not set in stone.
This is just showing what the vertical rail looks like with a 78mm wide plate facing forward.
The belts can move, so don’t pay too much attention to them, the gap between the across the front is mostly fixed though.
Facing the way it is shown, you need to also offset for screw head thickness from plate to bearing.
Facing the other way you need to make an extruder holder that comes around the rail.
Laying the rail flat (the V4 way) you need to make a 90 degree corner. Horizontal (bearing face) to vertical (extruder orientation). It does not cost much in terms of space so if any so other than that what are your thoughts? To me either way is fine, I like the idea of a single flat plate for the main core, but we have a lot of options at this point.
I have really been trying to make a good plate based system for the trucks, hoping it would shed some light on the core design. Nothing spectacular yet, but there are options.
The way you have it should be ok. If you were going to move it flat like the V4 I would invert it with the bearing block on top. But I don’t see an issue with it on the face
