Home / Forum / Assembly / Any reason an MPCNC couldn't be built near vertically?

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
  • Profile photo of Tyler BletschTyler Bletsch
    Post count: 6
    #14831 |

    I’m finishing my machine, but I’m always looking for ways to save space. I wonder — has anyone tried mounting the machine at something like an 80 degree angle vertically, so it could be mounted to a wall? I feel like the Y axis should still be able to lift without issue, and you need to clamp material in order to mill anyway, right? As a bonus, all the dust would fall down into a stripe on the floor for easy cleanup.

    Before I start down this path, I wanted to ask — does anyone see a reason why that couldn’t work? Is this stupid?

    Profile photo of Benjamin ShawBenjamin Shaw
    Post count: 115
    #14833 |

    It’s either insane or genius. The two are often not far apart. I’m guessing the added strain from lifting the weight of the spindle sideways might not be good, possibly causing a backlash effect.

    Profile photo of vicious1vicious1
    Post count: 2649
    #14837 |

    It can work. The biggest down side is when the job stops the steppers eventually power down and you gantry will drop. A few of those and you will be causing some damage. Beyond that it is designed with gravity in mind, changing the direction in which gravity acts could cause some issues, the larger the machine the worse they would get a smaller machine wouldn’t have many issues. I think a better approach is just build it on a nice torsion box and put it on a table when you want to use it and shelve it or put it under a table when not in use.
    Gut feeling says it wouldn’t like it much.

    Profile photo of TeutTeut
    Post count: 5
    #14841 |

    Believe it has something to do with stepper motors generating electricity and backfeeding into the ramps/ drivers and burning them out. A number of companies offer brake add-ons for steppers..not sure how that would affect your ability to mount and cost however… And that would last only as long as it was powered. That said… way cool idea and if feasible… I can always use more space.

    For now I’m going to google torsion box and edumicate myself a bit

    Profile photo of Tyler BletschTyler Bletsch
    Post count: 6
    #14843 |

    I just tipped my machine over to test it. The axis does indeed slide down under gravity, but it does it slowly and smoothly. When energized, the steppers had no issue moving where they wanted. I didn’t do a job, though — just a “does this explode” test.

    I might try it later if space gets tight. My build is probably mediocre — it’s on a sheet of 1/2″ OSB on top of a frame of 2x4s, all mounted on a collapsable card table. The legs have wobble, but the actual mechanism on top is solid. I had to do it like that because it’s wide enough that I have to be able to collapse legs and carry it on its side to get it through doors (it’s 32″ square).

    For now, I’ll file my idea under “worth considering later” pile. I have a lot to do before that, though.

    Profile photo of Matt saegerMatt saeger
    Post count: 111
    #14853 |

    You could attach it to a table mounted to a wall that could fold up when not in use. I have seen that done with other cnc machines.

    Profile photo of Fred D PInczukFred D PInczuk
    Post count: 8
    #14943 |

    I could imagine a set of counterweights to offset the weight of the assembly as its moving up/down (say Y axis is moving in a vertical fashion). Simple pulley and adjustable weight system, so you can dial in the EOAT weight. Do the machine/Control. It would then seem as normal.

    X asis would need testing and not so simple to compensate as the weight would then pull “off” the conduit. Vs pushing down on them.

    Z axis would be recommended to mount as to “capture” the weight, meaning the EOAT would be mounted facing up, with the load pressing down into the holder.

Viewing 7 posts - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.