The Y-axis is slightly different so we will need a new y-axis assembly jig
- Mentioned In
- rTAZQUIVER955c326e658a: Merge branch 'master' into T3608
rTAZQUIVER685a3cf3e262: Widened holes for Y Corners due to interference T3608
rTAZQUIVERd1027c1ecece: Merge branch 'T3608'
rTAZQUIVER986573dfa258: Merge branch 'master' into T3608
rTAZQUIVER03b3c677afbe: Updated y-axis-assembly_withjig for part/grouping in model tree T3608
T4716: Production jigs
rTAZQUIVER5554570c5cf6: Added y-axis_assemblyjig_v2 and assembly T3608
rTAZQUIVER74bc2a436d8e: Added y-axis_assembly-jig and assembly draft to jigs/tooling/y…
- Mentioned Here
- rTAZQUIVERd1027c1ecece: Merge branch 'T3608'
@logan I think it would be good to have features that hold the x-motor in place during tightening of the mounting screws. The holes in the plate are over sized a little and we want to minimize the variance of the position of the pulley. The idler isn't as critical since the position is more determined by the position of the tensioner's threaded hole.
I know now that you're referring to the Y-Motor Mount printed part's relation to the Y-End Plate
Based on the size of the holes vs the size of the fasteners, we have about 0.8mm of available variance in that placement.
Is that enough to worry about? What would be the affect on print quality?
@tutley I added two little posts to line up the end plate. Could you take a look at the assembly in the above commit when you have a moment?
I am concerned with how close I have placed the smooth rods to the jig, might have to print a few to find the happy medium as far as material expansion is concerned.
Why are we positioning the motor mount relative to the Y end plate based on one hole? The part could be up to 1.5mm off if we locate it on that hole. And aligning it with that hole wont position the belt to be straight since the belt mount holes have a +- 0.75 alone +- the tolerance stack. It seems like we are adding an extra step and complexity for not much result, while removing adjustment to make up for the stack
Why are we positioning the motor mount relative to the Y end plate based on one hole? The part could be up to 1.5mm off if we locate it on that hole. And aligning it with that hole wont position the belt to be straight since the belt mount holes have a +- 0.75 alone +- the tolerance stack. It seems like we are adding an extra step and complexity for not much result
@kent suggested that we should make a fixture for placing the Y-Motor Mount on the Y-End Plate. I just couldn't think of another way to constrain the part as requested. How do you figure we could be off by 1.5mm? The example pictured was to illustrate the concept. The idea was to have the hole tapered and sized to a dowel pin that would fit through the threaded hole in the end plate.
With the Y assembly jig, I see where you are going with it but I think it would be better to position the extrusions and base everything off of that, the extrusions should set the position of everything
Is there a good reason to do it any differently than TAZ 6? The goal of this jig was to accomplish the same task as the similar jig currently in use for TAZ 6.
Are you thinking just a spacer jig between the two extrusions? Then the issue of locating the end plates would require yet another part to that.
Is it possible that we're over-thinking this?
Is there an issue with the current method of assembly that we're not addressing, or are we purely theorizing on how tight these tolerances need to be? Because a lot of the free play we're trying to constrain here is not being controlled on TAZ 6. We are really just making sure the extrusions are flat, the rods evenly spaced, and the Y-Ends are level (the plate rests on the printed jig). We're not controlling whether or not the Y-Ends are centered in relation to the extrusions, or the position of the Y-Idler/Motor mounts in relation to the end plate. Has this caused any known issues? What issues could this potentially cause for TAZ 7?
We dont square the plate in relation to the axis either as far as I can tell. I can't see why it would be necessary though.
While holding the rods in against the jig, and pushing down on the Y-End plate, yes.
I can add material to hold the spacing between the extrusions more similar to the current jig if that would suffice. That is the only difference.
At that rate I might just redraw the current jig in new part design and modify any needed dimensions.
We'll print the next set out of PLA, but I think it is best to keep a slightly tighter fit and let the jig wear in a bit.
In short, I think this is good to review/merge, confirmed working through alpha and is photographed for OHAI.
$ git diff master --summary create mode 100644 production_parts/jigs/tooling/y-axis_assembly_jig/y-axis-assembly_withjig.fcstd create mode 100644 production_parts/jigs/tooling/y-axis_assembly_jig/y-axis_assemblyjig_v2.fcstd create mode 100644 production_parts/jigs/tooling/y-axis_assembly_jig/y-axis_assemblyjig_v2.stl
Getting a closer look at this today after printing one in PLA, I noticed some damage to the Y Corner printed parts from forcing them into the jig. I think it will be best to open those sections up a bit.