Zach Kaplan linked to a 1.5k spindle. I asked about weight and was told you are running a water-cooled spindle in your shop - implying weight wasn’t an issue. So I ordered one. (it’s on the FEDEX truck for delivery today). Apparently a lot of other people did too - that spindle/vfd combo is now sold out on Amazon.
Now you’re saying you’re using a .8kw spindle in the shop.
Please tell me there is another X-Carve in your lab, and it is running a 1.5kw spindle.
I spent $270 on a spindle that he linked to. I spent another $45 on a mount for it. I spent 4 hours in my workshop yesterday shaving that mount down in size, and drilling the holes necessary to mount it. If I find out today that it’s wrong then I’m going to be one of the loudest most obnoxious disgruntled customers you have ever seen in your life.
Because it is heavy. The standard “quiet and powerful” 24V 300W spindle that started this rodeo weighs in at 1lb 13oz - including the mount/backplate.
The mount for an 80mm wide spindle weighed 3 pounds. When I got done shaving it down to size, it weighs 2 pounds 2 ounces. I haven’t even mounted the spindle and it’s 50% heavier. The spindle weighs 6-8 pounds.
Some of those routers people put on their machines look pretty heavy and they seems to work well. Anyways good luck! I’ll be interested to see how yours turns out since I would want to do the 1.5kW spindle in the future.
Yes, in fact I have stronger ones than come with the kit.
But it doesn’t mean diddly, or squat.
Because with just the spindle installed on the X-Carve, and stationed in the middle of the table equidistant from both ends, the two makerslides that form the gantry sag in the middle.
3/32nd of an inch.
And it twists forward. I don’t have any way of measuring that without hunting down my protractor but the back top edge moves forward just under 1/16th of an inch.
I made a mistake. I linked to the wrong one. I am sorry @JoeMeyer. We will cover the costs for that spindle you bought and send you one that is like the one we bought or the Dewalt 611 and the new mount when it comes in.
If you just want to be done we can also offer you a 100% refund on the machine. This is 100% my fault not yours.
Had an engineer at my company do a quick analysis of a 1000mm maker slide (2 maker slides, back to back). With 15 lbs point load at the dead center, the rail should only deflect 0.0723mm (0.003in) which seems very reasonably.
Did your engineer use a 3D model of the maker slide or 2 beams 20X40X1000mm. If we look an end view of maker slide it is mostly air. There is not a solid web on either side of the material so it is going to behave a lot different than a solid beam will.
Rusty, Is that Algor? If not it sure looks like Algor looked 7 years ago.
This issue looks like it will be resolved, but I like the exercise of looking at this from an FEA standpoint, but I do have a few questions.
That actually seems a bit low to me, Rusty, do you mind me asking what you used as an " I " value? And when you say that you placed the maker slide extrusions back to back, did you treat them as one solid, or as two seperate pieces? I’m not sure they are attachd enough to treat them as 1 unit. But with that being said, it’s not going to change the calc a whole lot in that direction, it would have a greater effect in there 20mm direction.
To be honest this is actually a fairly easy beam problem if we know the I value. Also I may have put a bit more weight on, since you have the X and Z stepper motors and all there hardware, maybe go up to 25 lbs of load.
I treated them like one piece, but got the section properties of the actual profile. That being said, it may skew the results of the deflection in the X direction, since the load case didn’t take in account any side loading I don’t think it would have mattered much.
I can’t remember the Iy value off the top of my head and I left all my print outs at work, I can check on it once I get back in next week.
Even if you double the load (30lbs) since we are no where near yield and assume the deflection will occur in a linear fashion (up until yield) even 0.14 mm is quite small.
And yes this was done in “Algor” which is actually AutoDesk Simulation as of 2014 I think (this is Simulation 2015, nothing but the best!).
Cool, thanks for the extra insight. I haven’t been paying much atention to the industry the last several years and hadn’t realized Autodesk had gobbled up Algor. The funny thing is it doesn’t look that differant from when I first used it 16 years ago. I guess they felt it wasn’t broke, so it didn’t need fixin.
If I got real board I’m guessing I could find those I values online somewhere, but I’m not that board right now. How did you constrain the ends?