Quantcast
Channel: Reprap Forum - CoreXY Machines
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 550

CoreXY "Arm" Variant (2 replies)

$
0
0
In an attempt to eliminate belt crossings, I've hit upon this variant of the CoreXY concept:

[attachment 89033 Scrappy-CoreXY-Layout.jpg]

Excuse my poor attempt at a drawing.

Solid pink - top "A" belt.
Solid black - top "B" belt
Dashed lines - moving carriages

The CoreXY belts are driven by co-located steppers (the circles with a "dot" in them) at the top left.

The Y axis (vertical) belts are tensioned on either side of the Y axis smooth rod.

The X axis (horizontal) belts are tensioned centered on the X axis smooth rods.

The left cap of the X axis is mounted on the Y axis smooth rod with a UU style bearing.

The right cap of the X axis rods is 'floating' - the 4 bearings are on a carriage that rests on a smooth rod, with no UU style bearing.

The bottom cap of the Y axis contains separate tension adjustment for each belt.

Since the A and B belts are isolated in Z, there is no 'crossing' of the belts.

Since the right X cap is floating, there is no "competing load" on two UU style bearings on the Y axis rods.

Sacrifices:

* Co-located stepper mounting is a bit of bear.
* The 'floating' right side of the X axis won't exert pressure as much on minor blobs as a UU bearing, so it could lead to 'blob mountains' - I'll need to test that
* If I don't get the tension just right, this assembly will probably torque out of calibration

Has anyone seen a similar CoreXY variant? If so, what can I learn from it before I spent more time on my variant?

Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 550

Trending Articles



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>