Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [multimachine] Re: CAD Modeling

Expand Messages
  • Bill Wood
    Hello, Whats the significance of Mazak ? Bill ... Hello, Whats the significance of Mazak ? Bill On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Gordon Haag
    Message 1 of 18 , Sep 8, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Hello,

      Whats the significance of Mazak ?

      Bill


      On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Gordon Haag <mr.meker@...> wrote:
       

      Here is a quick model https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5q1pkFIyUokcG5MV0FrOVFBaUk I did using this http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/3A4sUk9dOs6T-YKJ3_3sIIRIIrp8TJJBVl_wlazny9ytg7FAr2mmmafdqdHamYBfg7BNX-0cPTyOh57yMudvVQT21R3p4OAUSVERGb1jzm9yxvKEjaXJ5w/MM%20drawings/body.pdf. There is no specification for the ways so I chose 2" mild steel tube, 3/8" wall.

      You can see that there are a few problems with this design as it currently is. The first is that the safety factor where the ways enter the concrete is only 1.47 with a load of 500lbs/way in the middle. I am going to see if this can be mitigated by putting a radius on the edge of the concrete,

      Another issue that might need to be addressed is flex in the ways. The simulation gave a figure of 0.004" under 500lbs. I know that we had a discussion about this a few months ago but I cannot remember what the consensus was about small deflections.

      I am going to play around and see what I can do about the deflection by decreasing the ID of the ways.

      Gordon


      On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Pat Delany <rigmatch@...> wrote:
       

      Many thanks!

      Yeah, my Mazak obsession!

      My ideas change every hour. What does not change is my fixation that most of us cannot maintain accuracy through many changes between affordable (cheap) chucks and vises. Of course it can be done, but what a waste of time!

      This will probably end as one of my less than good ideas but I got two things from the Romig universal machine.
      Being able to turn the headstock 90 degrees means that the aux. spindle does not have to move to the side of the side of the workpiece. This greatly simplifies construction.

      Romig also shows a POSSIBLE way of powering the aux spindle. His strange overhead device would let us power the whole machine with just one motor.

      The aux spindle could be made just like the headstock. If fact his idea shows a good way of transferring power to a headstock that can be turned.
      I wonder where we could get cheap spur gears like his?

      Room for many new ideas here.

      Pat


      Sent: Friday, September 6, 2013 5:35 PM
      Subject: Re: [multimachine] Re: CAD Modeling

       
      Ah, the Mazak like machine for the regular person. I've been looking at screw adjustment along a linear access to determine error and having that compensated through software. The upshot is that high accuracy can be done on a really bent frame(like my mill for instance).
      I'll look at the files you mentioned and try some drawings of that too. I love all the romig stuff.
      It's not at the level of commercially available stuff, but when you are in need of a machine anything is better than nothing!

      Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone





    • oldstudentmsgt
      Bill, Mazak is a company that makes multi-axis CNC machines. They combine lathe, mill, tool and workholding to make some fantastic stuff. See the link below:
      Message 2 of 18 , Sep 8, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Bill, Mazak is a company that makes multi-axis CNC machines. They combine lathe, mill, tool and workholding to make some fantastic stuff. See the link below:

        <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=du8gCMP4Aus>

        Hope this helps!

        Bill in OKC

        --- In multimachine@yahoogroups.com, Bill Wood <steamingbill@...> wrote:
        >
        > Hello,
        >
        > Whats the significance of Mazak ?
        >
        > Bill
        >
        >
        > On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Gordon Haag <mr.meker@...> wrote:
        >
        > > **
        > >
        > >
        > > Here is a quick model
        > > https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5q1pkFIyUokcG5MV0FrOVFBaUk I did using
        > > this
        > > http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/3A4sUk9dOs6T-YKJ3_3sIIRIIrp8TJJBVl_wlazny9ytg7FAr2mmmafdqdHamYBfg7BNX-0cPTyOh57yMudvVQT21R3p4OAUSVERGb1jzm9yxvKEjaXJ5w/MM%20drawings/body.pdf.
        > > There is no specification for the ways so I chose 2" mild steel tube, 3/8"
        > > wall.
        > >
        > > You can see that there are a few problems with this design as it currently
        > > is. The first is that the safety factor where the ways enter the concrete
        > > is only 1.47 with a load of 500lbs/way in the middle. I am going to see if
        > > this can be mitigated by putting a radius on the edge of the concrete,
        > >
        > > Another issue that might need to be addressed is flex in the ways. The
        > > simulation gave a figure of 0.004" under 500lbs. I know that we had a
        > > discussion about this a few months ago but I cannot remember what the
        > > consensus was about small deflections.
        > >
        > > I am going to play around and see what I can do about the deflection by
        > > decreasing the ID of the ways.
        > >
        > > Gordon
        > >
        > >
        > > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Pat Delany <rigmatch@...> wrote:
        > >
        > >> **
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> Many thanks!
        > >>
        > >> Yeah, my Mazak obsession!
        > >>
        > >> My ideas change every hour. What does not change is my fixation that most
        > >> of us cannot maintain accuracy through many changes between affordable
        > >> (cheap) chucks and vises. Of course it can be done, but what a waste of
        > >> time!
        > >>
        > >> This will probably end as one of my less than good ideas but I got two
        > >> things from the Romig universal machine.
        > >> Being able to turn the headstock 90 degrees means that the aux. spindle
        > >> does not have to move to the side of the side of the workpiece. This
        > >> greatly simplifies construction.
        > >>
        > >> Romig also shows a POSSIBLE way of powering the aux spindle. His strange
        > >> overhead device would let us power the whole machine with just one motor.
        > >>
        > >> The aux spindle could be made just like the headstock. If fact his idea
        > >> shows a good way of transferring power to a headstock that can be turned.
        > >> I wonder where we could get cheap spur gears like his?
        > >>
        > >> Room for many new ideas here.
        > >>
        > >> Pat
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> *From:* "nojoeco@..." <nojoeco@...>
        > >> *To:* multimachine@yahoogroups.com
        > >> *Sent:* Friday, September 6, 2013 5:35 PM
        > >> *Subject:* Re: [multimachine] Re: CAD Modeling
        > >>
        > >>
        > >> Ah, the Mazak like machine for the regular person. I've been looking at
        > >> screw adjustment along a linear access to determine error and having that
        > >> compensated through software. The upshot is that high accuracy can be done
        > >> on a really bent frame(like my mill for instance).
        > >> I'll look at the files you mentioned and try some drawings of that too. I
        > >> love all the romig stuff.
        > >> It's not at the level of commercially available stuff, but when you are
        > >> in need of a machine anything is better than nothing!
        > >>
        > >> Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >>
        > >
        > >
        >
      • Pat Delany
        Hello Bill The MAZAK piece is nothing more than a fantasy of mine. It is an extremely complex workpiece that MAZAK chose for advertising videos for a half
        Message 3 of 18 , Sep 8, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello Bill

          The MAZAK piece is nothing more than a fantasy of mine. It is an extremely complex workpiece that MAZAK chose for advertising videos for a half million dollar machining center. No one is likely to run across a job like this in real life but I think it is cool to be able to do any combination of similar operations on a home built machine that could cost a few hundred bucks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=139z62o6OhA&NR=1&feature=fvwp

          Pat


          From: Bill Wood <steamingbill@...>
          To: multimachine@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2013 2:03 AM
          Subject: Re: [multimachine] Re: CAD Modeling

           
          Hello,

          Whats the significance of Mazak ?

          Bill


          On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Gordon Haag <mr.meker@...> wrote:
           
          Here is a quick model https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5q1pkFIyUokcG5MV0FrOVFBaUk I did using this http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/3A4sUk9dOs6T-YKJ3_3sIIRIIrp8TJJBVl_wlazny9ytg7FAr2mmmafdqdHamYBfg7BNX-0cPTyOh57yMudvVQT21R3p4OAUSVERGb1jzm9yxvKEjaXJ5w/MM%20drawings/body.pdf. There is no specification for the ways so I chose 2" mild steel tube, 3/8" wall.

          You can see that there are a few problems with this design as it currently is. The first is that the safety factor where the ways enter the concrete is only 1.47 with a load of 500lbs/way in the middle. I am going to see if this can be mitigated by putting a radius on the edge of the concrete,

          Another issue that might need to be addressed is flex in the ways. The simulation gave a figure of 0.004" under 500lbs. I know that we had a discussion about this a few months ago but I cannot remember what the consensus was about small deflections.

          I am going to play around and see what I can do about the deflection by decreasing the ID of the ways.

          Gordon


          On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Pat Delany <rigmatch@...> wrote:
           
          Many thanks!

          Yeah, my Mazak obsession!

          My ideas change every hour. What does not change is my fixation that most of us cannot maintain accuracy through many changes between affordable (cheap) chucks and vises. Of course it can be done, but what a waste of time!

          This will probably end as one of my less than good ideas but I got two things from the Romig universal machine.
          Being able to turn the headstock 90 degrees means that the aux. spindle does not have to move to the side of the side of the workpiece. This greatly simplifies construction.

          Romig also shows a POSSIBLE way of powering the aux spindle. His strange overhead device would let us power the whole machine with just one motor.

          The aux spindle could be made just like the headstock. If fact his idea shows a good way of transferring power to a headstock that can be turned.
          I wonder where we could get cheap spur gears like his?

          Room for many new ideas here.

          Pat


          Sent: Friday, September 6, 2013 5:35 PM
          Subject: Re: [multimachine] Re: CAD Modeling

           
          Ah, the Mazak like machine for the regular person. I've been looking at screw adjustment along a linear access to determine error and having that compensated through software. The upshot is that high accuracy can be done on a really bent frame(like my mill for instance).
          I'll look at the files you mentioned and try some drawings of that too. I love all the romig stuff.
          It's not at the level of commercially available stuff, but when you are in need of a machine anything is better than nothing!

          Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone







        • Pat
          Wonderful job!!!!! 3 points Somewhere, the way size for a small lathe is listed (I think) at 1 5/16 (why is a long story). Because of the carriage angle iron
          Message 4 of 18 , Sep 8, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Wonderful job!!!!!

            3 points
            Somewhere, the way size for a small lathe is listed (I think) at 1 5/16" (why is a long story). Because of the carriage angle iron "shoe" that slides on the ways, A small increase in ways diameter can cause a much larger increase in machine width and weight. (A good demo project in itself!)

            Even though Tyler was an engineer, I could never get across to him the importance of bevels instead of right angles in building things with concrete (and most other things).

            Remember that a 1/4" steel support bar runs under the the whole length of the ways.

            Pat


            --- In multimachine@yahoogroups.com, Gordon Haag <mr.meker@...> wrote:
            >
            > Here is a quick model
            > https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5q1pkFIyUokcG5MV0FrOVFBaUk I did using
            > this
            > http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/3A4sUk9dOs6T-YKJ3_3sIIRIIrp8TJJBVl_wlazny9ytg7FAr2mmmafdqdHamYBfg7BNX-0cPTyOh57yMudvVQT21R3p4OAUSVERGb1jzm9yxvKEjaXJ5w/MM%20drawings/body.pdf.
            > There is no specification for the ways so I chose 2" mild steel tube, 3/8"
            > wall.
            >
            > You can see that there are a few problems with this design as it currently
            > is. The first is that the safety factor where the ways enter the concrete
            > is only 1.47 with a load of 500lbs/way in the middle. I am going to see if
            > this can be mitigated by putting a radius on the edge of the concrete,
            >
            > Another issue that might need to be addressed is flex in the ways. The
            > simulation gave a figure of 0.004" under 500lbs. I know that we had a
            > discussion about this a few months ago but I cannot remember what the
            > consensus was about small deflections.
            >
            > I am going to play around and see what I can do about the deflection by
            > decreasing the ID of the ways.
            >
            > Gordon
            >
            >
            > On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Pat Delany <rigmatch@...> wrote:
            >
            > > **
            > >
            > >
            > > Many thanks!
            > >
            > > Yeah, my Mazak obsession!
            > >
            > > My ideas change every hour. What does not change is my fixation that most
            > > of us cannot maintain accuracy through many changes between affordable
            > > (cheap) chucks and vises. Of course it can be done, but what a waste of
            > > time!
            > >
            > > This will probably end as one of my less than good ideas but I got two
            > > things from the Romig universal machine.
            > > Being able to turn the headstock 90 degrees means that the aux. spindle
            > > does not have to move to the side of the side of the workpiece. This
            > > greatly simplifies construction.
            > >
            > > Romig also shows a POSSIBLE way of powering the aux spindle. His strange
            > > overhead device would let us power the whole machine with just one motor.
            > >
            > > The aux spindle could be made just like the headstock. If fact his idea
            > > shows a good way of transferring power to a headstock that can be turned.
            > > I wonder where we could get cheap spur gears like his?
            > >
            > > Room for many new ideas here.
            > >
            > > Pat
            > >
            > >
            > > *From:* "nojoeco@..." <nojoeco@...>
            > > *To:* multimachine@yahoogroups.com
            > > *Sent:* Friday, September 6, 2013 5:35 PM
            > > *Subject:* Re: [multimachine] Re: CAD Modeling
            > >
            > >
            > > Ah, the Mazak like machine for the regular person. I've been looking at
            > > screw adjustment along a linear access to determine error and having that
            > > compensated through software. The upshot is that high accuracy can be done
            > > on a really bent frame(like my mill for instance).
            > > I'll look at the files you mentioned and try some drawings of that too. I
            > > love all the romig stuff.
            > > It's not at the level of commercially available stuff, but when you are in
            > > need of a machine anything is better than nothing!
            > >
            > > Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > >
            >
          • Shannon DeWolfe
            Howdy Gordon, I certainly appreciate the time and effort to do the stress analysis on the concrete lathe body. But, that model is not entirely accurate. The
            Message 5 of 18 , Sep 8, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Howdy Gordon,

              I certainly appreciate the time and effort to do the stress analysis on
              the concrete lathe body. But, that model is not entirely accurate. The
              drawing you used from the files section of the group does not show the
              angle iron used to secure the pipe ways in the head and tail nor the
              angle iron used to support the center 1/3 of the ways. Both the brackets
              and the supports would change the loading on the concrete and the
              deflection of the ways.

              Would it be difficult to incorporate those into the model? Take a look
              at the animation that Tyler did a couple of years ago:

              http://vimeo.com/27493189

              The angle brackets and supports are clearly visible in that fly-by. The
              forces would transmit through the bolts on the brackets and through the
              bolts to the flat surface of the ways supports on the concrete surface.
              I reckon a safe assumption would be that the bolts are probably
              all-thread rod embedded into the concrete to a depth of 100mm at a
              minimum. Notice too, that the concrete body is modified (raised) to
              accommodate the ways supports.

              For anyone who cannot reach the drawing of the body that Gordon used
              (the link was temporary), just go the files section of this group. It is
              named simply "body.pdf".

              Regards,

              Mr. Shannon DeWolfe
              --I've taken to using Mr. because my name misleads folks on the WWW. I am a 57 year old fat man.

              On 9/8/2013 12:46 AM, Gordon Haag wrote:
              > Here is a quick model
              > https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5q1pkFIyUokcG5MV0FrOVFBaUk I did
              > using this
              > http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/3A4sUk9dOs6T-YKJ3_3sIIRIIrp8TJJBVl_wlazny9ytg7FAr2mmmafdqdHamYBfg7BNX-0cPTyOh57yMudvVQT21R3p4OAUSVERGb1jzm9yxvKEjaXJ5w/MM%20drawings/body.pdf.
              > There is no specification for the ways so I chose 2" mild steel tube,
              > 3/8" wall.
            • David G. LeVine
              ... Any point load (and the entry way LOOKS like a point load) is a potential stress riser. A chamfer or radius allows the load to spread over a larger area,
              Message 6 of 18 , Sep 8, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                On 09/08/2013 01:46 AM, Gordon Haag wrote:
                > You can see that there are a few problems with this design as it
                > currently is. The first is that the safety factor where the ways enter
                > the concrete is only 1.47 with a load of 500lbs/way in the middle. I
                > am going to see if this can be mitigated by putting a radius on the
                > edge of the concrete,

                Any point load (and the entry way LOOKS like a point load) is a
                potential stress riser. A chamfer or radius allows the load to spread
                over a larger area, reducing the risk of a stress riser causing
                fractures. So, yes, you did find something interesting and proposed a
                reasonable solution. This is why ways are generally supported.

                Dave 8{)

                --

                "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the
                advice."

                Bill Cosby
              • David G. LeVine
                ... For modest sized work (as in 1 plus) 0.005 deflection will give a diameter change of SQRT(1^2 +0.005^2) - 1 inches, or about 12 MILLIONTHS of an inch,
                Message 7 of 18 , Sep 8, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  On 09/08/2013 01:46 AM, Gordon Haag wrote:
                  >
                  > Another issue that might need to be addressed is flex in the ways. The
                  > simulation gave a figure of 0.004" under 500lbs. I know that we had a
                  > discussion about this a few months ago but I cannot remember what the
                  > consensus was about small deflections.
                  For modest sized work (as in 1" plus) 0.005" deflection will give a
                  diameter change of SQRT(1^2 +0.005^2) - 1 inches, or about 12 MILLIONTHS
                  of an inch, which is well within acceptable error, at least at my skill
                  level.

                  Dave 8{)

                  --

                  "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the
                  advice."

                  Bill Cosby
                • Pat Delany
                  Dave, Really don t know what I would do without you and Shannon!!!! Pat ________________________________ From: David G. LeVine To:
                  Message 8 of 18 , Sep 8, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Dave,

                    Really don't know what I would do without you and Shannon!!!!

                    Pat


                    From: David G. LeVine <dlevine@...>
                    To: multimachine@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2013 11:57 AM
                    Subject: Re: [multimachine] Re: CAD Modeling

                    On 09/08/2013 01:46 AM, Gordon Haag wrote:
                    >
                    > Another issue that might need to be addressed is flex in the ways. The
                    > simulation gave a figure of 0.004" under 500lbs. I know that we had a
                    > discussion about this a few months ago but I cannot remember what the
                    > consensus was about small deflections.
                    For modest sized work (as in 1" plus) 0.005" deflection will give a
                    diameter change of SQRT(1^2 +0.005^2) - 1 inches, or about 12 MILLIONTHS
                    of an inch, which is well within acceptable error, at least at my skill
                    level.

                    Dave  8{)

                    --

                    "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the
                    advice."

                    Bill Cosby


                    ------------------------------------

                    -------------
                    We have a sister site for files and pictures dedicated to concrete machine framed machine tools. You will find a great deal of information about concrete based machines and the inventor of the concrete frame lathe, Lucian Ingraham Yeomans. Go to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Multimachine-Concrete-Machine-Tools/

                    Also visit the Joseph V. Romig group for even more concrete tool construction, shop notes, stories, and wisdom from the early 20th Century.
                    http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/romig_designs/
                    -------------Yahoo! Groups Links

                    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/multimachine/

                    <*> Your email settings:
                        Individual Email | Traditional

                    <*> To change settings online go to:
                        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/multimachine/join
                        (Yahoo! ID required)

                    <*> To change settings via email:
                        multimachine-digest@yahoogroups.com
                        multimachine-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                        multimachine-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

                    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                        http://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/



                  • David G. LeVine
                    ... Probably live a more boring life. :c) Dave 8{) -- A word to the wise ain t necessary - it s the stupid ones that need the advice. Bill Cosby
                    Message 9 of 18 , Sep 8, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      On 09/08/2013 01:35 PM, Pat Delany wrote:

                      Dave,

                      Really don't know what I would do without you and Shannon!!!!

                      Pat

                      Probably live a more boring life.  :c) 

                      Dave  8{)

                      --

                      "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice."

                      Bill Cosby
                    • Gordon Haag
                      Are there any drawings depicting this? I hear Pat say that he is sending hand drawings of the machine around, but I haven t seen any. Gordon
                      Message 10 of 18 , Sep 8, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Are there any drawings depicting this? I hear Pat say that he is sending hand drawings of the machine around, but I haven't seen any.

                        Gordon

                        On Sunday, September 8, 2013, David G. LeVine wrote:
                         

                        On 09/08/2013 01:35 PM, Pat Delany wrote:

                        Dave,

                        Really don't know what I would do without you and Shannon!!!!

                        Pat

                        Probably live a more boring life.  :c) 

                        Dave  8{)

                        --

                        "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice."

                        Bill Cosby

                      • Shannon DeWolfe
                        Gordon, I knew you were going to ask that question. ;-) I have not seen any .dwg drawings. In the 01 How to Build folder in the files section of this group
                        Message 11 of 18 , Sep 9, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Gordon,

                          I knew you were going to ask that question. ;-)

                          I have not seen any .dwg drawings. In the "01 How to Build" folder in
                          the files section of this group is the PDF of the build sequence. There
                          are several drawings that show close-up views. Notice that on that
                          version the raise portion of the concrete bed extends from the headstock
                          end. In at least one, multiple angle iron supports running the length of
                          the lathe are shown. Basically, the edge of the angle iron is used to
                          support the underside of the pipes.

                          Regards,

                          Mr. Shannon DeWolfe
                          --I've taken to using Mr. because my name misleads folks on the WWW. I am a 57 year old fat man.

                          On 9/9/2013 1:39 AM, Gordon Haag wrote:
                          >
                          > Are there any drawings depicting this? I hear Pat say that he is
                          > sending hand drawings of the machine around, but I haven't seen any.
                          >
                          >
                          > Gordon
                          >
                          > On Sunday, September 8, 2013, David G. LeVine wrote:
                          >
                          > On 09/08/2013 01:35 PM, Pat Delany wrote:
                          >>
                          >> Dave,
                          >>
                          >> Really don't know what I would do without you and Shannon!!!!
                          >>
                          >> Pat
                          >
                          > Probably live a more boring life. :c)
                          >
                          > Dave 8{)
                          >
                          > --
                          >
                          > "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that
                          > need the advice."
                          >
                          > Bill Cosby
                          >
                          >
                        • Pat Delany
                          Hi Gordon Still making changes. I m trying to figure out if a rotating headstock is worth  problems in construction, rigidity and accuracy. I think not unless
                          Message 12 of 18 , Sep 9, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hi Gordon
                            Still making changes. I'm trying to figure out if a rotating headstock is worth  problems in construction, rigidity and accuracy. I think not unless someone comes up with an elegant way of doing it in the home shop setting.

                            The important part, a practical method of powering the aux. spindle by a cogbelt and outboard shaft will stay even though it will not work when milling/drilling the side of the workpiece.

                            The cogbelt will need some kind of an automotive belt tensioner added.

                            Pat


                            From: Gordon Haag <mr.meker@...>
                            To: "multimachine@yahoogroups.com" <multimachine@yahoogroups.com>
                            Sent: Monday, September 9, 2013 1:39 AM
                            Subject: [multimachine] Re: CAD Modeling

                             
                            Are there any drawings depicting this? I hear Pat say that he is sending hand drawings of the machine around, but I haven't seen any.

                            Gordon

                            On Sunday, September 8, 2013, David G. LeVine wrote:
                             
                            On 09/08/2013 01:35 PM, Pat Delany wrote:

                            Dave,

                            Really don't know what I would do without you and Shannon!!!!

                            Pat

                            Probably live a more boring life.  :c) 

                            Dave  8{)

                            --

                            "A word to the wise ain't necessary - it's the stupid ones that need the advice."

                            Bill Cosby


                          • keith gutshall
                            Hi Gordon  How did you figure the weight , from a single point or from the lenght of the  carriage. the weight would be divided on both ways.    Keith
                            Message 13 of 18 , Sep 9, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Gordon
                               How did you figure the weight , from a single point or from the lenght of the
                               carriage. the weight would be divided on both ways.
                               
                               Keith
                               
                              Deep Run Portage
                              Back Shop
                              " The Lizard Works"
                              From: Gordon Haag <mr.meker@...>
                              To: "multimachine@yahoogroups.com" <multimachine@yahoogroups.com>
                              Sent: Sunday, September 8, 2013 12:46 AM
                              Subject: Re: [multimachine] Re: CAD Modeling
                               
                              Here is a quick model https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5q1pkFIyUokcG5MV0FrOVFBaUk I did using this http://f1.grp.yahoofs.com/v1/3A4sUk9dOs6T-YKJ3_3sIIRIIrp8TJJBVl_wlazny9ytg7FAr2mmmafdqdHamYBfg7BNX-0cPTyOh57yMudvVQT21R3p4OAUSVERGb1jzm9yxvKEjaXJ5w/MM%20drawings/body.pdf. There is no specification for the ways so I chose 2" mild steel tube, 3/8" wall.

                              You can see that there are a few problems with this design as it currently is. The first is that the safety factor where the ways enter the concrete is only 1.47 with a load of 500lbs/way in the middle. I am going to see if this can be mitigated by putting a radius on the edge of the concrete,

                              Another issue that might need to be addressed is flex in the ways. The simulation gave a figure of 0.004" under 500lbs. I know that we had a discussion about this a few months ago but I cannot remember what the consensus was about small deflections.

                              I am going to play around and see what I can do about the deflection by decreasing the ID of the ways.

                              Gordon
                              On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Pat Delany <rigmatch@...> wrote:
                               
                              Many thanks!

                              Yeah, my Mazak obsession!

                              My ideas change every hour. What does not change is my fixation that most of us cannot maintain accuracy through many changes between affordable (cheap) chucks and vises. Of course it can be done, but what a waste of time!

                              This will probably end as one of my less than good ideas but I got two things from the Romig universal machine.
                              Being able to turn the headstock 90 degrees means that the aux. spindle does not have to move to the side of the side of the workpiece. This greatly simplifies construction.

                              Romig also shows a POSSIBLE way of powering the aux spindle. His strange overhead device would let us power the whole machine with just one motor.

                              The aux spindle could be made just like the headstock. If fact his idea shows a good way of transferring power to a headstock that can be turned.
                              I wonder where we could get cheap spur gears like his?

                              Room for many new ideas here.

                              Pat


                              Sent: Friday, September 6, 2013 5:35 PM
                              Subject: Re: [multimachine] Re: CAD Modeling
                               
                              Ah, the Mazak like machine for the regular person. I've been looking at screw adjustment along a linear access to determine error and having that compensated through software. The upshot is that high accuracy can be done on a really bent frame(like my mill for instance).
                              I'll look at the files you mentioned and try some drawings of that too. I love all the romig stuff.
                              It's not at the level of commercially available stuff, but when you are in need of a machine anything is better than nothing!

                              Sent from my HTC One™ X, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.