[quote=r00t4rd3d;1139089]I also had a non-flexable DumpsterCNC coupler on. When my new motor gets here it will be getting a flex coupler.[/quote]
At least the motors are pretty cheap!
Printable View
[quote=r00t4rd3d;1139089]I also had a non-flexable DumpsterCNC coupler on. When my new motor gets here it will be getting a flex coupler.[/quote]
At least the motors are pretty cheap!
[quote=tjb1;1139192]At least the motors are pretty cheap![/quote]
It was warrantied. New one on the way :cheers:
[quote=r00t4rd3d;1139089]I also had a non-flexable DumpsterCNC coupler on. When my new motor gets here it will be getting a flex coupler.[/quote]
The ones I use have a slot cut part way across the middle. It has some minor flexibility.
I have a regular flex coupler like below on my Y axis. I used the dumpstercnc coupler cause they sell them with one end threaded for threaded rod. I was not sure if a regular flex coupler with a 3/8's bore would hold good on threads.
All my new stuff came today. Motor, coupler, etc.
Putting the finishing touches on my upgraded gantry and z axis.
Here is what I ended up making in solidworks to replace the probotics mount. Good luck with your build!
Finally back together. Should be cutting again later on today :)
A couple of my test runs turned out okay. Also a pic of how my setup sits right now. I got one of those usb classic Nintendo controllers and I can manually control all 3 axis with it :)
More playing with Microcarve........
Grinding away at CAD/CAM programs.
Table clamps.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/7YO6R.jpg[/IMG]
:D
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc3-5MiWTcE&feature=plcp"]CNC Router - YouTube
First job. They had the logo already. For a hunting camp.
Second job, my design.
Feels pretty cool to do stuff this doesn't it? :) Congratulations, keep at it.
[quote=CarveOne;1149134]Feels pretty cool to do this stuff doesn't it? :) [/quote]
Very much so. If you looked at my first set of images and thought that thing was ever going to make me money, I would have laughed with you.
Test cut on a clock face in scrap I made from an image. The cut came out good, my staining...bla. I am going to make a few of these I think. 8"X8".
Ill attach the dxf if anyone wants it. I had to zip it cause it was bigger then 500kb.
This looks like fun! I see you have chosen 'IV', instead of 'IIII' that seems more common. Any particular reason? 'IV' looks right to me, but some folks worry more about the aesthetics and symmetry of the clock face.
If I could make a suggestion, a larger gap between the inner circle and the letters may make it more legible and distinct.
Cheers!
pr
[quote=PaulRowntree;1149694]If I could make a suggestion, a larger gap between the inner circle and the letters may make it more legible and distinct.[/quote]
I made some adjustments :D
[quote=PaulRowntree;1149694]This looks like fun! I see you have chosen 'IV', instead of 'IIII' that seems more common. Any particular reason? 'IV' looks right to me, but some folks worry more about the aesthetics and symmetry of the clock face.
If I could make a suggestion, a larger gap between the inner circle and the letters may make it more legible and distinct.
Cheers!
pr[/quote]
I rarely see a Roman numeral clock nowadays. I looked at a battery movement I got from Woodcraft and it has the IIII, V, VI VII, and VIII. At first I questioned whether they were supposed to be inverted on the lower half of the face. This clock movement has them inverted.
You are right, my home 'big' clock has arabic values, and all are right-side up. One of my all time favourite clocks had no numbers, no ticks marks, and the single hour-hand was about 2' long, with the motor embedded in a wall. Elegant simplicity.
I like the roman numerals look though, esp. on a large face like these.
Wikipedia has an interesting discussion of the IIII vs IV 'controversy' ... [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#.22IIII.22_on_clocks]Roman numerals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]
[INDENT]"IIII" on clocks
Clock faces that are labeled using Roman numerals conventionally show IIII for four o'clock and IX for nine o'clock, using the subtractive principle in one case and not the other. There are many suggested explanations for this:
Many clocks use IIII because that was the tradition established by the earliest surviving clock, the Wells Cathedral clock built between 1386 and 1392. It used IIII because that was the typical method used to denote 4 in contemporary manuscripts (as iiij or iiii). That clock had an asymmetrical 24-hour dial and used Arabic numerals for a minute dial and a moon dial, so theories depending on a symmetrical 12-hour clock face do not apply.[22]
Perhaps IV was avoided because IV represented the Roman god Jupiter, whose Latin name, IVPPITER, begins with IV. This suggestion has been attributed to Isaac Asimov.[23]
Louis XIV, king of France, who preferred IIII over IV, ordered his clockmakers to produce clocks with IIII and not IV, and thus it has remained.[24]
Using standard numerals, two sets of figures would be similar and therefore confusable by children and others unused to reading clockfaces: IV and VI are similar, as are IX and XI. As the first pair are upside down on the face, an additional level of confusion would be introduced—a confusion avoided by using IIII to provide a clear distinction from VI.
The four-character form IIII creates a visual symmetry with the VIII on the other side, which the two-character IV would not.
With IIII, the number of symbols on the clock totals twenty Is, four Vs, and four Xs,[25] so clock makers need only a single mould with a V, five Is, and an X in order to make the correct number of numerals for their clocks: VIIIIIX. This is cast four times for each clock and the twelve required numerals are separated:
V IIII IX
VI II IIX
VII III X
VIII I IX
The IIX and one of the IXs are rotated 180° to form XI and XII. The alternative with IV uses seventeen Is, five Vs, and four Xs, requiring the clock maker to have several different patterns.
Only the I symbol would be seen in the first four hours of the clock, the V symbol would only appear in the next four hours, and the X symbol only in the last four hours. This would add to the clock's radial symmetry.[/INDENT]