yes this is a big issue rigidity and vibration damning have 
traditionally been done by increasing the mass and by using cast iron 
that has a natural tendency to absorb and dissipate vibration.

You can build very rigid light wait structures but most of these have 
harmonics like a tuning fork. These vibrations would not be good for 
your surface finish and on the other hand if you built every thing out 
of cast iron with a mass of several thousand kg your speed and 
acceleration are limited.

The trick is to build a rigid machine with light moving parts that 
absorbs vibration. Every thing is a compromise trying to find a 
compromise that will accomplish what you need is where the fun is.

linden




On 15-11-08 10:10 AM, Kyle Kerr wrote:
> Re: homing. Delta printers usually home at the top of their travel. When I
> asked my CNC instructor about a delta mill he said the lack of rigidity
> would kill accuracy.
>
> On Sat, Nov 7, 2015, 7:38 PM linden <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for taking the time to look at the pictures and read through my
>> chicken scratch notes. Now I know that Linuxcnc should be able to
>> control something like this and we have a potential solution for
>> homing.  I will keep going. I really need a real Internet connection or
>> some card board to start pushing shapes around simulating to see how
>> they interact with each other. One dimension is not to bad but trying to
>> picture things in my head in 3 dimensions and 6 dof freedom is a bit
>> much for my little brain sometimes. lol
>>
>> I am having second thoughts about using the lower set of trucks and
>> additional links associated with them. The original idea and thought be
>> hide this approach was it would give me a larger translational working
>> area relative to overall tool hight and may help with rigidity. looking
>> at the videos suggested earlier about rigidity and with the abb picker I
>> am having second thought. I have also seen a Russian you tube model that
>> has given me some ideas. once I have modled and thought a bit more I
>> would like to pick your collective brains again.
>>
>> all the best,
>>
>> Linden
>>
>> On 15-11-07 06:30 PM, Philipp Burch wrote:
>>> Hi Linden!
>>>
>>> On 07.11.2015 00:55, linden wrote:
>>>> Hello All,
>>>>
>>>> I have progressed a little with the design and modeling of the machine I
>>>> asked for help simulating. It has evolved a little over the last few
>>>> weeks. have a look at the pdf attached for pictures Another month and I
>>>> will be back to the world of fast Internet and I should be able to try
>>>> some of the previous suggestions for simulation.
>>> Looks nice :)
>>> Since you have 6 actuators, your design will definitely be
>>> overconstrained if you only want 5 degrees of freedom. But I have the
>>> feeling that you could actually get 6 DOF by having the nominal angle in
>>> C about 60° (or even 90°) rotated in respect to the picture you
>>> attached. Since you can control the distance between all the joints on
>>> the center plate to their slides, this will allow you to rotate the tool
>>> plate as well.
>>> Even if you don't need rotation around C, I'd suggest to implement this
>>> angular offset, as it will most probably make the system more robust
>>> against torsional forces. Similar to how hexapods are done.
>>>
>>>>    The big question is:
>>>>
>>>> Could linuxCNC something control this? or do I have 2 many variables
>>>> with no fixed base position?
>>> When you get the kinematics right (which I'd expect to be about midways
>>> between the complexity of a delta kins and a hexapod), this should be no
>>> problem.
>>>
>>>> A few other questions and thoughts I would like to pick your collective
>>>> brains on.
>>>>
>>>> How would you home something like this?
>>> As with a hexapod, forward kins are complicated and may have many
>>> (practically) invalid joint positions. I'd suggest to have the following
>>> homing switches:
>>>
>>> 1. One for every pole at the top end, which gets activated when the
>>> upper slide reaches the top limit.
>>>
>>> 2. One between every two slides on a pole which is closed when the
>>> slides are closer than the nominal position (shown in your PDF) and open
>>> otherwise. This must NOT be limit switches, as movement in both
>>> directions over the activation point must be possible.
>>>
>>> Additionally, it will help to have an approximation of the distance
>>> between every two slides on a pole. This could be done rather easily by
>>> using a linear potentiometer.
>>>
>>> You could then implement the homing about as follows, using coordinated
>>> movements in the XYZABC space (not on a joint basis):
>>>
>>> 1. When the system gets turned on, all you know is that it must be in
>>> some mechanically feasible position. So start by a linear move towards
>>> Z+, meaning that all slides run synchronously upwards. Stop as soon as
>>> one upper slide reaches the top homing switch.
>>>
>>> 2. Use the feedback from the pots as an initial guess of the slide
>>> distances for the kinematics. Using those, perform a move in the XY
>>> plane perpendicularly away from the joint which has it's top slide
>>> homed, i.e. moving approximately towards the center position. Stop as
>>> soon as the second upper slide hits the top homing switch. Since this
>>> movement will also adjust the distance of the slides on a pole, you may
>>> also detect one or the other homing switch edge of those. Use this
>>> information to correct the joint position guesses.
>>>
>>> 3. Do the same as in step 2, but this time with a movement perpendicular
>>> to the connecting line of the two homed poles. So you should eventually
>>> also reach the top homing switch of the third pole, meaning that all
>>> upper slides know their positions and the tool is roughly centered.
>>>
>>> 4. Move all slides down by a few millimeters to get some "working range"
>>> for the last step (i.e. coordinated move towards Z-).
>>>
>>> 5. Perform a movement to X0Y0A0B0C0, i.e. to the approximate nominal
>>> position with an aligned tool base. This is possible using the
>>> information form the pots.
>>>
>>> 6. Perform moves from C-30 to C30 (or less, depending on the accuracy of
>>> your potentiometer feedbacks), so that all homing switches of the lower
>>> slides see at least one edge. As soon as this happens, all joints are
>> homed.
>>> All this will require that the tool can rotate around a C axis (which in
>>> my terminology is perpendicular to the machine table, NOT aligned to the
>>> tool axis). This means that it will be required to have this angular
>>> offset of the tool base plate as described above.
>>>
>>>> I stile haven't simulated the movement digitally yet or built a complete
>>>> cardboard and drinking straw model, but i think i have finally settled
>>>> on approximate geometry any questions or comments are gladly welcome.
>>>> Has any one seen any thing like this before I am sure I am not the
>>>> first? Is there any grate big flaw with this logic that I have missed?
>>> At least from my feeling, I think that this should work with the
>>> mentioned adaptation. I'm not very familiar with complex machine
>>> kinematics, however.
>>>
>>> I find it a cool construction :) No idea if someone else already built
>> that.
>>> Good luck!
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Philipp
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Emc-users mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> _______________________________________________
>> Emc-users mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Emc-users mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Emc-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users

Reply via email to