Alternatives to Z lift design?
Posted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 6:23 pm
I like the Z lift designs discussed in other posts and can certainly appreciate the engineering and craftsmanship being presented.
I'd like to present a couple of options to the design for discussion:
1) Use no adjustable table at all. This what full spectrum engineering does when it modifies a typical small Chinese laser. They remove the table lift assembly completely and support the cutting surface, or the material, with 123 blocks and printed circuit board shims for fine adjustments. This provides a bit more than 2.5 " of extra cutting area since the threaded rods are no longer blocking the use of 11 inch material. This is cheap and seems pretty flexible. It seems to me that most materials would fall into one of maybe 5 or 6 thicknesses for which you could have precisely the right length of risers and shims. Simple, cheap, larger cutting area with no bridges burnt if you want to go back to a lift assembly. Keeping the material square to the X-Y axes and having a repeatable positioning capability would want to be resolved but shouldn't be too hard.
2) Another way to increase the cutting area of a small Chinese laser might be to have the cutting platform supported by the ends of the threaded rods but not having them protruding through the platform. The nuts could be fastened to the case bottom and the screws could extend into an area created under the laser in a new box attached under the old laser case. This would be the equivalent of turning the current design on its head. The ends of the threaded rod would support the cutting platform but would screw down into the new addition to the case. I guess to work properly, the nuts would be attached to the case bottom in a way that the could be rotated by a belt and stepper.
As you can see number 2 is harder and not as well developed (at least in my mind). The advantage to either of these approaches is that larger stock can be passed through the laser without hitting the protruding threaded rods and for small Chinese lasers you can get a nice increase in cutting area. If I wanted to alter my Artcut jsm40 I would do number 1. For the new build, approach #2 may be more trouble than it is worth since I can control the size of the platform and the location of the screws as Bart has done in his design.
Any ideas on other puts and takes for either approach?
Sorry for rambling. This was written in between a dozen phone calls and conferences.
- Leon
I'd like to present a couple of options to the design for discussion:
1) Use no adjustable table at all. This what full spectrum engineering does when it modifies a typical small Chinese laser. They remove the table lift assembly completely and support the cutting surface, or the material, with 123 blocks and printed circuit board shims for fine adjustments. This provides a bit more than 2.5 " of extra cutting area since the threaded rods are no longer blocking the use of 11 inch material. This is cheap and seems pretty flexible. It seems to me that most materials would fall into one of maybe 5 or 6 thicknesses for which you could have precisely the right length of risers and shims. Simple, cheap, larger cutting area with no bridges burnt if you want to go back to a lift assembly. Keeping the material square to the X-Y axes and having a repeatable positioning capability would want to be resolved but shouldn't be too hard.
2) Another way to increase the cutting area of a small Chinese laser might be to have the cutting platform supported by the ends of the threaded rods but not having them protruding through the platform. The nuts could be fastened to the case bottom and the screws could extend into an area created under the laser in a new box attached under the old laser case. This would be the equivalent of turning the current design on its head. The ends of the threaded rod would support the cutting platform but would screw down into the new addition to the case. I guess to work properly, the nuts would be attached to the case bottom in a way that the could be rotated by a belt and stepper.
As you can see number 2 is harder and not as well developed (at least in my mind). The advantage to either of these approaches is that larger stock can be passed through the laser without hitting the protruding threaded rods and for small Chinese lasers you can get a nice increase in cutting area. If I wanted to alter my Artcut jsm40 I would do number 1. For the new build, approach #2 may be more trouble than it is worth since I can control the size of the platform and the location of the screws as Bart has done in his design.
Any ideas on other puts and takes for either approach?
Sorry for rambling. This was written in between a dozen phone calls and conferences.
- Leon