Originally shared by Nicholas Seward
My first mock-up of the CoreXZ. No major issues. I do have a list of minor edits to make before I publish the plans. This will be my work horse bot.
http://www.youtube.com/attribution_link?a=OTZ1igr_iYk&u=/watch?v%3DaPxX8slszdE%26feature%3Dshare
@Nicholas_Seward , yet another creative printer design!!
What are the pros and cons of this design?
@Hari_Wiguna There isn’t much on the con side. It is fast and accurate. Easy to put together. Easy to tune. It uses one less stepper than a typical RepRap. It is about as cheap as a rail bot can be.
I guess a con could be the bowden but there isn’t anything that would prevent this having the pusher stepper on the effector. The system is strong enough for that. One other slight negative is that when the steppers cut out the effector falls.
Was there any benefit to changing the core xy orientation? I’m using the core xy in my design and the main reason was to minimize bed movement as the bed is heavy and keeping the part motion minimal prevents the print from wobbling. By rotating the gantry design, the low inertia benefit of the major moving parts is lost, and some xz Artifacts may be introduced. Have you seen any issues with this? Very interesting idea though
@Eric_Moy It is just a lighter weight solution. A CoreXY needs a lot of work to get a good smooth level z. This is just easier to build on the cheap. This is really meant to replace the Mendel like machines. It is too early to say what artifacts are from this setup and what artifacts can be tuned away. I will say it does better than my Printrbot. Aditionally, the bed and the gantry are all very light so inertia isn’t a problem.
Again, a CoreXY bot would be better at the cost of a more complicated z that needs leveling in 2D.
Very nice printer. But the only benefits I see is auto Z calibration and 1 less motor. That’s about it. Speed is a wash compare to a Bowden Prusa3, there isn’t any dramatic improvement other than cool factor. CoreXY bot wouldn’t have a more complicated Z. The Z would be just as complicated as your Y. So it is pretty much even to me. But you lost speed on your Y compare to CoreXY.
@Danny_C If you check @Nicholas_Seward other post on this you’ll see he has plans for experimental interlocking layers. /\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\//\/ this pattern of layering would possibly prevent delamination and add better layer to layer adhesion. It would also require a fast z
@Danny_C I made this printer as a boring Cartesian work horse machine. I didn’t want to spend the money to buy any of the kits out there when I can build my own for less. Also, why not experiment at the same time. Even if this turned out to be a bad idea, we learn something.
Also, @D_Rob is exactly right. I need a quick z so I can do some 3D slicing. This has the potential to lock the layers together better and it might be able to improve overhangs a bit if you are a good enough programmer.
I took issue with the double z screws in most of the designs because it wastes two steppers on the axis that needs it the least. I also don’t like it when the gantry gets cattywampus when the screws get off. This printer addresses both of those issues. I would say that it is just about the same speed as most of the other printers out there. This should be cheaper and easier to build than a Prusa. (No belts, one less stepper, and zip ties together)
I would say that the Printrbot style Y that I use is simpler than any Z lift table you could come up with for a CoreXY. It just takes a lot more care to make sure it stays level.
Points taken. Again, it is a cool printer.