Gentlemen, we could be in the midst of an RMA: Revolution of Maker Affairs! (Stolen from military history) My brain is still collecting the fragments from it being blown up by this work! This is very cool!
This forum is amazing! I enjoy being in the company of all you smart fellers! Keep tinkering!
5 Likes
I have read all 121 post’s from here. This is definitely a “Must try” this would save me ton of time with manual repetitive task in my shop with aluminum composite panels v-grooving and cutting
Jamie, you are a Mad scientist 
.
Now let’s start thinking about my lr3 build (im keeping the lr2 because it cuts extruded pvc non stop!!!
Will this run in grbl-fluidnc?
1 Like
I don’t think grbl has dual-x-carriage functionality, whereas Marlin has had it for dual extrusion. For Marlin I only had to enable it whereas you might have to do a lot of software work to add it to grbl.
That said, I don’t follow grbl developments at all and it’s possible that it’s been done and I’m not aware of it.
1 Like
I still have around my skr pro 1.2 do you think it will work with this?
1 Like
It has six drivers, so yes the SKR Pro 1.2 can work, but it will require edits to the pins file. The octopus can do it with edits strictly to the Confguration.h and Configuration_adv.h but practically speaking it’s not much different in difficulty to edit the pins file too.
1 Like
I haven´t read the whole thread but I like the idea.
Well that good there is another option, if you do it please add it here so we can all learn!
1 Like
It’s not obvious to me whether this covers the “IDEX” use scenario or if it’s only for a toolchanger. For example, the E3D toolchanger will drop one tool and pick up another tool.
The difference is whether there are two X carriages with independent X motors and independent X homing (carriage 1 homes left, carriage 2 homes right).
Controlling the individual spindles appropriately is part of the solution. In my case I used separate SSRs to power the individual routers and GPIO commands to enable each one at the right time. I think this is analogous to the multi-spindle function you linked.
But the spindle control alone is not enough. The other part is switching the X axis motion between two X motors. It would be great if it were implemented, but I am not seeing anything yet for two independent X carriages on grbl.
1 Like
Hi Jamie,
I really like your IDEX build as its a great option for the use case you built it for. The tool swap.
The cost and complexity of a tool changer is most likly out of the reach of 99% of us, but with the IDEX build and a bit more thinking about tool selection we get MOST of the benifits of the tool changer.
So as one person that will be doing this, i want to say thanks !
2 Likes
Im aware of that and in the discord of fluidnc there is something about this and thats another blackhole… I’ll try your approach after i chew some chips with the lr3
I think there was a thread with two gantries and two cores also? But I can´t find it.
Is it easier too have two gantries and two separate cores or the two IDEX cores?
I have not see one with two independent gantries. I would imagine that only one would be used at a time, while the other is parked, or it becomes complicated to avoid collisions. So I think the usability would be nearly the same. The IDEX style takes advantage of existing software so I think it is easier to implement, plus there is less extra hardware.
Just uses one extra stepper, and an extra Core? Could SKR1.2 boards with pin file updates be IDEX enabled?
Did you wire up individual SSR to auto power routers on and off?
A removable 2nd Core (partly 3D printed and Milled using the first stock Core) would be a nice mod…
Yes, extra stepper and extra core, and an endstop at the X+ end. And yes, I have two SSRs, one for each tool. SKR 1.2 with pins.h update should work since it has six drivers.
Removing second core is a bit tricky because the belt has to be threaded through the X motor, so you have to unhook the belt. Maybe you can come up with a clever way to leave the belt threaded through the pulley and remove everything else so you gain back almost all the space without messing with the X belt.
I haven´t completed my first “stock” LR3 yet but I like the idea.
Would it be possible to have two routers on 1 core? Or is that a stupid idea? Due to the additional weight? Or some other reason?
EDIT: Seems like cross contamination would be the biggest issue?
you mean like add another router with an independent z axis and simply map the offset between them?
With IDEX, they run mutually exclusive anyway right? … since there is never a time they are cutting simultaneously… could you in theory put a second core on the primo on the opposite quadrant and have 2 routers on it… fixed offset, but independent z axes? the difference between them is the tooling offset. I don’t have the bandwidth for this, but it sounds interesting…
Not sure how IDEX works to be honest but I think they are mutually exclusive.
Another idea would be to have one gantry, and two cores. One core on each side facing in opposite directions?
Someone was theorizing about two gantries on an LR2. Ther is some utility in that, but they would not be coordinated. The cost would be similar to having two entire machines. At that point, it is probably easier, and a lot more flexible, to just have two machines.
IDEX is a decent middle ground. Not nearly as much as 2x price/space, but significantly more capability.
1 Like
The idea of a single core with 2 independent z axis makes more sense to me.
Run tool A until that job is complete. Lift that z out of the way, then lower tool B and run that code.
X and Y would be the same, just two separate z with an offset. Only one core, so only one set of steppers except for the Z steppers.
You could even do it with the same Z and just have a solenoid lift the respective tools a few mm out of the way.
1 Like