Hello Guest it is April 04, 2020, 08:08:34 PM

Author Topic: Size of a table..  (Read 16618 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ger21

  • *
  •  6,279 6,279
    • View Profile
    • The CNC Woodworker
Re: Size of a table..
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2007, 06:40:41 PM »
Hi Art
Thanks for a great article; a couple questions though. Has anyone considered turning the table on its side in order to reduce the floor space footprint? I would have thought that as long as the table is slightly angled and some thought was given to the machining operation it could give many advantages. Do you know if anyone has done this?


2010 Screenset

JointCAM Dovetail and Box Joint software
Re: Size of a table..
« Reply #11 on: February 16, 2007, 07:07:27 PM »
I have done this in the past with a big format foam router.

the heavy axis goes completely up and down, ITS HEAVY, and it is counterbalanced.
It works great.
I think the only down side is that even though the counterbalances help the load, you still have huge amounts of inertia.

Re: Size of a table..
« Reply #12 on: July 17, 2007, 11:30:04 AM »
Instead of a large counter balancing mass that fights acceleration and deceleration use an air cylinder to do the job.

Stephen I. Molnar
It is not that I am afraid to die!  ...I just don't want to be there when it happens!

Offline Tweakie.CNC

  • *
  •  8,193 8,193
  • Super Kitty
    • View Profile
    • Tweakie.CNC
Re: Size of a table..
« Reply #13 on: February 18, 2008, 09:08:50 AM »
Hi Mark,

With regard to the resolution issue :-

I use direct drive on 5mm pitch ballscrews in preference to geared belt drive. Here's why - 'Microstepping'. In my earlier days of X-Y control, microstepping had not even been thought of so steps per mm were at a premium (only for the acceleration / deceleration and mass of the moving parts). Modern electronics means that I get 200 x 8 steps per 5mm or 320 steps/mm which overcomes the acceleration of mass problems and although the microsteps are perhaps not that accurate the zero backlash of the ballscrews more than compensates.

I suggest You go for whichever solution is easiest for you to implement and do not worry too much about steps per mm.

Cheers, Cooperman.