[1Jumper10]

The second pour was just like the first. The last pour filled it up and we barely got the end plate on before it expanded out the top. The manufacturer says that if you contain it in the vessel, it will achieve even higher density. I didn't exactly plan it like this but the end plate I don't think is ever coming off again.

When we un masked it, we saw this one little bubble about half way down the tube. Evidently there was a pin hole there where we had welded in a cross brace.

We'll see if doing this yielded any benefit. The Secure set was only $43 delivered to my door. Small price to pay to test a theory in my opinion.

[1Jumper10]

Thanks for the explanation. I am thinking if going with the helical r&p myself. Did you get yours from Automation Overstock?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Yes. I bought it at the same time I got me linear bearings.

[1Jumper10]

Here are the results.

I cant tell much difference in the air chisel test but I think I see a significant difference in the dead blow hammer test? I repeated it twice just to be sure. The first strike was the hardest of any of them pre or post foam filling. The second strike with the deadblow hammer was more consistent with the pre-foam deadblow hammer strike. Subjective I know... But the first deadblow hammer strike before the foam recorded 8gs. After foam both strikes were just over 2gs. I think that's a big improvement...??

The air chisel results were less conclusive. They look about the same. But maybe a deep analysis by someone smarter than me could see a change.

Anyway, there it is. I'll upload the ".csv" files of the data in case anyone wants to analyze it.

[NIC 77]

I had a look through your csv files. A few things I noticed. In many of the files, the time of the reading isn't noted with enough accuracy to graph. That is to say you have the exact same time reading for 40 measurements. But it looks as if there are about 40 readings total in 0.1 seconds. So, we can estimate that the readings are taken about 0.0025 seconds apart? Is that right? Also, it doesn't appear that over the entire length of the samples (about 10 seconds) there is any significant damping to note in any of the results as far as I could tell? So I gave you the results for the first 20 readings. If I had noticed any significant changes over time, I would have done it differently. I did this very quickly so I may have missed something.

I'm not really sure what program you used, or what I'm really looking at as far as the results go, but my initial thoughts are that there doesn't seem to be any difference in your results with or without foam.

Attachment 365204

[NIC 77]

Hmmm, I'm just not seeing any correlation between the data I graphed and he pictures you posted. It would be nice to know what exactly that data is supposed to mean? Where is this 2G you speak of? LOL. Oh well, if you can feel it resonating less, well, that's good.

[ger21]

His "pre-foam" pic shows an 8G spike from the hammer blow, and the "post-foam" pic shows a ±2G spike.

[1Jumper10]

The graph auto-scales. If you look at the numbers on the left of the graphs I posted you'll see that the amplitude of the deadblow hammer strike is significantly reduced after the foam. And, like you said, the wave form looks the same in all of them. The amplitude reduction of the deadblow strike was the only change I noticed in all of them. The auto scaling feature is probably why you can't tell any difference when you graph the values like I asked. I guess you would have to compare the amplitude of specific peaks. If you could isolate the same ones over both tests.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[NIC 77]

The graph auto-scales.

So the values in the .csv files are scaled values? That would explain why they all look the same. LOL.

[1Jumper10]

Haha. Yep. I guess that would affect things. Sorry I forgot to mention that. And thanks for graphing them anyway.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[ger21]

They didn't come with any unfortunately. I'll have to look into getting some. They should be protected somewhat being side mounted but I'm sure they'll collect some debris nonetheless.

I may have some I can send you. What size are the holes in your rails? Automation Overstock sent me the wrong size caps initially, and I had a bag of caps that were too large. I'll see if I can find them, but won't be able to look until Monday.

[1Jumper10]

I may have some I can send you. What size are the holes in your rails? Automation Overstock sent me the wrong size caps initially, and I had a bag of caps that were too large. I'll see if I can find them, but won't be able to look until Monday.

Thanks Gerry that's very nice of you. The holes are 14mm.

[1Jumper10]

Did a little more analysis of the deadblow hammer strikes. I set the scale of the graphs equal and took a screen shot of them. Each graph is scaled from 0 to 10g's. The first graph is the deadblow hammer strike baseline on the gantry tube before we filled it. The second graph is the deadblow hammer strike #2 after the foam. Pretty clear improvement.

[1Jumper10]

Thanks for the explanation. I am thinking if going with the helical r&p myself. Did you get yours from Automation Overstock?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

YNNEK - That info about the helical R&P I was referring to is found in this thread - http://www.cnczone.com/forums/genera...ck-pinion.html

[1Jumper10]

Cut out my Z adapter plate today. The finish turned out much better than the motor mounts. I'll attach the Z axis tomorrow and do a little fitment.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[NIC 77]

How thick is that plate?

Always nice to see your progress....

[ynnek]

How thick is that plate?

Always nice to see your progress....

I was wondering the same. Looks a bit thin especially after the machining.

[1Jumper10]

The plate is 3/8" and the pocket is 1/8". The plate doesn't provide any strength to the design, it just gives me a mounting surface perpendicular to the cutting bed across the bearing span. There are 5mm holes in the pocket that are hard to see that line up with the Z axis linear actuator.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

[1Jumper10]

Mounted the Z-axis today. Had to do some fitting to get it running smooth but it looks pretty good. Still have to paint the top bracket. It should be very close to perpendicular to the bed in all directions. Will be able to measure after the epoxy is down.

[NIC 77]

That looks very nice.

I see you have a servo in your pic. Did you end up buying servos? If so, what did you get?

[1Jumper10]

Thanks.
Just the one servo is all I have at the moment. I had to have a Nema 23 servo on the linear actuator. The ballscrew was there already and so those factors made it easy to spec. It's the high torque "D" series like I used before but this one is a 3 stack servo. My friends is a 2 stack.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk