Can someone tell me if my idea makes any sense. I would like to build two printers in one frame. My idea is to go with a setup like the MPCNC where the y and z are on the X rod. I will add a second rod with an additional y and z on it for my second printer. Why? This way I can choose between one large frame or two smaller ones. Is this a possible setup?
How would you coordinate and avoid interference? and by interference I mean either with the other nozzle or with the printed object…
I’m dividing the frame in two. I’ll put an end stop half way
If they share the same build plate the slicer needs to synchronize the movements.
@Camerin_hahn two separate print heads on either half. There is no interaction between them. They are just using the same frame. Or at times become one.
I am a little confused. You say x and y are on the x rod and then you say y and z are on a second x rod. Not x and y?
If you meant y and z are on the x rods ( two sets) then you do something that I am not sure that I have seen before…until maybe yesterday. I wish you luck if you are actually going to try to move the x rod around with y sliding on the x rod and z going down from the y. Else than that mechanical stability and powering issue, it sound okay. I do think providing mechanical force and stability might be challenging though. Meanwhile, if you had a bed or x,y axis that moved to z heights, you would need both sides to always be printing at the same z so that would also be a challenge so I understand why you might want y and z on a moving x rod.
@NathanielStenzel corrected. Yes that’s what I meant. What do you mean about seeing it yesterday?
I could not find what I was looking for, but here is a printer that moves multiple heads around separately at the same time. https://vimeo.com/157523884#t=0s
The one that I wanted to show you had a telescoping piece coming out of the top of a black box.
@NathanielStenzel yes I’ve seen that and got some inspiration from there but it seems to rely heavily on software.
This was what I was looking for. It seems the Z is stationary though.
https://plus.google.com/+SpymanxxMike/posts/L6dS6jCWsPV
What you are proposing seems like a typical CNC mill/router and I do not think I saw it on a printer before.
I think you will want two sets of two y rods. Two rods per y axis for stability or use an aluminum extrusion and try your best to have the twisting of the aluminum extrusion tamed on the x axis mounting point…say about 3-4 inches long for the mounting bracket with bearings.
Uh, this sounds like the Y will be yoked together with the Z and X axis being independent of each other…?
Won’t there be overlapping belt issues? And won’t there be a lot of “dead time” because the yoked axis might not correlate with each other?
@NathanielStenzel You have seen the MPCNC?
@Francis_Lee Have a look at the mpcnc they manage to do just that. About the belt issues overlapping im unsure but maybe two separate belts or maybe no belts and just screw drive. like having two x rods on the same screw drive. Each rod is controlled by their onboard motor. Hey, it could very well be im not making any sense but I can dream
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YqM52bTn0Yo that does not fit your description. The X or Y would get in the way of the other X or Y.
This fits the bill. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V3Fu0B0G7X4 the Z would protrude down from the effector in the middle and you could have a second set of parts sliding on the x rods.
@Dovid_Teitelbaum you can’t use the same physical space for printing unless you closely synchronize the 2 prints
@Camerin_hahn he was planning on something like X of 0 to 100 for print A and X of 100+ padding for the Y carriage to 200 for print B. If the Y carriage takes up 50, print B would be 150-200.
Of course 200 mm would not be enough to justify things for the design. I would advise at least 300 mm but preferably around 500mm for X. Meawhile, Y could be something like 250mm if that is all that is desired. Either way, I would hope there is a heated bed and at least 3 walls. If you make a box shaped printer, there is no excuse to not have walls and 3 of them do not need to be see through.
@NathanielStenzel thanks for explaining. I’ll refresh my thoughts tomorrow.
@Camerin_hahn as Nathaniel explained. Although if someone was to write the software I guess it would be possible to synchronize so they don’t interfere with each other.