I was looking at that this morning, 70% infill is better but not as good as it can be. 3 bearings would help but once the space is taken up on the parts, kinda might as well use 4. It is hard to judge just one side so I might just build up the other side to make more informed choices. In the end, this is clearly the weakest link at this point and finding that before even using it means I am going to do my best to take care of it.
On the positive note, it should be fairly easy to change in my CAD model.
Well I just finished some coffee, my brain is now in the game. I have two options to try before adding bearings and size. I think it was one of those āduhā moments.
Did someone say VERTICAL??? Lol. I found nema 17 steppers with electric brakeā¦ oh the floor space saving possibilitiesā¦ maybe someday .
Lol. Looking forward to the new design.
What we need is an inverted LR. That way we can just run it upside down on the ceiling. All the dust would fall to the floor, so no more issues with it building up on the machine I really donāt know why no oneās thought of this sooner.
Just happened upon a vacuum device for lifting sheets of material. Brand new and set to go in dumpster (company next door is moving out). Possible vacuum table coming up!
I just got my first wiggles on the new build as a complete rolling machine (no belts)ā¦Awesome.
I am still on the fence about the second set of bearings, I believe it will make it more rigidā¦I am just not convinced it is needed. Or I can replace the bearing mount with something more rigid, like wood or metal, the current printed part has all the bells and whistles to make it more rigid (internal features and high density infill).
So now the bad part is it looks like even thought the footprint is overall smaller, you lose about 3" of cutting width as compared to a LR2 table. At least as it stands right now. I do have one more trick up my sleeve that could possibly cut that down significantly. I know that sucks for some of you. Hopefully the design choice I made makes it worth it.
You do gain about 2" in the Y.
I know this is a really late piece of input and maybe itās me not understanding how to do this properly. Maybe itās not even necessary for most people butā¦
Ability to tram the router from the top?
Iāve trammed the router once to do some live edge surfacing but it seemed to work cleanly for only one surfacing job.
Iām using a Makita in the sleeve it came with and a 1/2" dovetail bit.
I had to loosen the router from the base plate by slightly unscrewing the screws from the bottom. Then I put a little shim under a corner of the sleeve on the top. Then I tighten the screw on the bottom again and lower the z to see how the adjustment worked. Raise, loosen, shim, tighten, lowerā¦
Is there a different way to set this up so that the router could be loosened from the top? Or maybe thereās an easier way already that Iām missing and itās not a Lowrider design constraint.
I was thinking a second plate that the router was attached to that was then attached to the base.
But maybe all of this is resolved in the new version!
Related, I have been contemplating a quick-change tool mount that is very stiff but still toolless. I havenāt begun on a design but at the abstract level I think such a thing should be possible with a 3D printed toggle mechanism (like toggle clamps or vise grips) and maybe R-clips for retention if youāre paranoid.
A quick change mount would be awesome, especially since this new one will not use the manufacturerās quick change mounts any longer. I think I am very near being able to release a blank tool mount if you want to look at the available space on the new LR.
When I build/design them I make them square in hopes that IF you need to tram them you only have to do so by a very small amount with any sort of shim. Building in adjustability can take up a huge amount of space and could lead to lost rigidity. So for me, I am perfectly fine with shims if that means the machine is always 5% faster (as a wild example pulled out of thin air).
Is the sled/gantry/tool mount flat plate/what ever we call that doohickey going to largely be the same style?
For my own plasma touch mounting purposes Iāve been thinking about a second flat plate (probably skeletonized) that sits on top the bearing parts (forgot their name) to give my floating torch mount a bit more rigidity with that heavy lead swinging around in the air.
.
I really donāt know why no oneās thought of this sooner.
