I would like to initiate a discussion about an project idea - the creation of a multifunctional CNC machine. This idea arose from my desire to create a versatile and expandable tool capable of performing various tasks with high precision and quality, which I can place at home, next to the bookshelf and flowers on the windowsill. It is important to note that currently, this is just an idea, and I do not have the time or resources to implement this project. However, I believe that discussing this idea will help identify its potential drawbacks and determine ways to improve it before I am ready to undertake its implementation. Goal: Create a multifunctional CNC machine capable of performing 3D printing, milling, EDM, laser engraving, and other tasks with high precision and quality. Main Modules: The machine features interchangeable head modules that it can automatically switch between. Similar to the Prusa XL. Typical set of head modules: CNC module for milling, engraving, drilling, and other machining tasks. Module for 3D printing using FDM technology(first). Module for 3D printing using FDM technology(second). EDM module for cutting parts from aluminum and other conductive materials. Laser engraving module. Space for an additional module. Space for an additional module. Likely additional modules: Soldering module. Drawing module. Module for ceramic. Coupling mechanism with the main module has a lidar and camera for manual control of the working head and tracking of operations. Variable tables: Different technologies require different working surfaces. Presumably, different technologies won't be used simultaneously, so the tables are changed manually. Standard table sets: 3D printing table: Magnetic base for PEI or glass plate Load cells for auto-leveling Heating Vacuum table: Workpiece fixation Versatility for CNC work Milling table: Working surface with holes and T-slots Tooling fixtures for milling Rotary chuck table: Vertical rotation of the part for lathe machining or grinding Possibility of 5-axis milling (if equipped with a head with a tool tilt system) EDM table: bath with dielectric circulation Kinematics and chamber and other CoreXY Vibration calibration like Bamboo. Closed chamber with heating and circulation Air filters Water cooling system used for tools Pump with coarse filters and charcoal filters for dust and smoke. Used for milling and laser. Soundproofing (so I don't get kicked out of the house) Chamber insulation and recuperation system to minimize heating the room in summer Dielectric chamber Strong chamber capable of withstanding debris in case of milling failur Wi-Fi and Ethernet Principles Multifunctionality: Utilized for 3D printing, milling, EDM, laser engraving, and other tasks. Precision and Quality: High precision and quality in printing, milling, EDM, laser engraving, and other tasks. Flexibility: Capability to utilize various modules, tables, and materials. Ability to add or replace modules as needed. Safety: Enclosed fireproof chamber, fire sensor, drainage system. Dielectric coating of the working chamber. Protection from laser radiation on transparent surfaces. Features Filament Auto Change and Storage System (FACS): Time and material-saving feature. Installed separately. Positioned beneath the printer. Equipped with an integrated air drying system. Weight sensor on the spool to estimate remaining filament quantity. NFC tag recognition on spools. Interchangeable table: Swift and secure table swapping. Soundproofing: Noise reduction utilizing a "box within a box" principle. Heat Recuperate: Decreases room heating. Backup Power and Automatic Suspension System: Built with LTO batteries for operation in sub-zero temperatures. Reliable Emergency Stop System: Crucial as the machine has autonomous power and can't be simply turned off from the socket. Large Workspace: At least 55*55*75cm. Target audience: Enthusiasts and hobbyists seeking a versatile, compact, and expandable machine. Small businesses and workshops in need of a multifunctional machine for various tasks. Educational institutions and research laboratories requiring a versatile machine for educational and scientific purposes.
in general this is a bad idea CNC cutting needs relatively slow speeds and *power* to drive the tool through the material laser/3D printing needs high speeds and very little power since there is no contact with the material. EDM is very slow, precise movement with low power requirements sicne there is no contact these 3 things are in conflict and though a machine that works can be built, there will always be conflict and compromise, meaning you are better off with a 3d printer/laser and a CNC mill/EDM as 2 separate machines.
This is right. Combining a CNC mill, laser device, and 3D printer can create conflicts in terms of speed, power, and accuracy, as each technology has its own requirements. In such a combination, compromises will be necessary to ensure the effective operation of all machine functions. I see this as a reduction in speed and increase in the power of the mechanics. Separate machines specialized in specific processes more efficient for respective tasks. However, our goal is to create a versatile home machine where space, convenience, and multifunctionality matter more than maximum speed. A serious issue I see now is in managing all this because different software is used for this purpose. It may be necessary to use several control programs. At least I don't see a better solution.
Quote: It is important to note that currently, this is just an idea, and I do not have the time or resources to implement this project End/ I don't quite understand. What you're suggesting could take a company's R&D department months, even years to develop and could cost tens of thousands of dollars to achieve its goal. And that, I think, is where it really belongs. Nice ideas though!
Yes, I understand. The sooner we start, the sooner we'll finish. Pre-planning might not be as fun as hands-on work, but it saves a lot of money and time
This sounds very similar to the Snapmaker 3-n-1 concept, it is a "jack of all trades master of none". It ends up an expensive limited piece after all the R&D, you can pretty much have decent purpose built machines for near the end price. I have a couple(bought 2nd hand) and they are very well thought out and built but are limited, as mentioned the different functions require different demands that conflict and makes a thought out well built machine just average. It has leadscrews so is extremely slow @ 3D printing which is even a slow process on most purpose build machines waiting hours for something to finish. It is not rigid enough or have enough spindle power for anything but the simplest milling in soft materials. It is slow and the working space is limited for laser projects Having one machine that has different functions is great for someone that is VERY space limited or just likes to tinker or new to the hobby looking to try the different functions to see if they are into it but is expensive and grows limited fast. It is interesting to read ads for used ones and how many mention unused modules, it seems many end up using for just printing or just laser projects.
Interesting concept, but it's a bit different. I don't want the user to buy everything at once. Rather, it's a protected frame adapted for a regular home where kids play, which can be expanded with modules without taking up space on a separate workstation. Later on, I'll publish the chamber drawing when I'm near the my computer. In general, I want to make a welded steel frame from 4*4 squares. I've used such a frame before in another product, and it proved to be rigid and vandal-resistant. Leadscrews are an issue. I work with outdoor equipment, and we have Dyneema material. It's very strong, hardly stretches, and I can buy it in bulk cheaply due to local production in Ukraine. I want to try making a strap out of it later. However, I have questions about the durability of such a strap. Dyneema is sensitive to heat from friction and bending, but if it's within acceptable limits, it might solve the problem. Another solution is to install an additional system to track the actual position of the head, regardless of the strap tension. It's more complicated, and I have many questions in my mind about how exactly to do it. Maybe laser rangefinders could solve this or an accelerometer. I don't have any ideas yet. Hoping for Dyneema.
While I was out running errands, I was pondering the issue with belts. Is the problem in the inaccuracy? As long as the belts haven't stretched to a certain extent, they function. So, the problem lies in the incorrect distance the head will travel, right? One could attempt to calibrate this by setting limit switches at the edges of the frame. By running the head from one sensor to another, we can calculate the error before operation. Perhaps I'm mistaken. I haven't dealt with such long belts before.
Have you considered two opposing X-axis gantry beams, one for speed and one for strength, one set back parked while the other operates? Belts on the speed gantry and lead screws on the strength gantry? Next thought would be no Z-axis on the X-axis trolley. Use an elevating bed instead. This allows strength at shallow distances and depth where strength doesn’t matter.
About long spans, there are two thoughts. One is a long arch or truss to support long spans, as is done for bridges, with rails affixed to this structure. This would be a rather simple detail. Alternatively, additional vertical traverse screws could be added to support the mid-span. This would allow for indefinitely long spans, but each screw would require a series of additional components. A dual kinematics system is a significant complication and initially seemed to me as unnecessary. However, after waking up and sipping coffee, it appears to be a raw but intriguing idea. The device's head mostly moves short distances, so short belts can be installed for local quick movements and screws for long-distance travel. Perhaps their movement can even be combined if there are no strong vibrations. Undoubtedly, this would provide more resilience to the belts, but it complicates the design and significantly increases the cost. This needs further consideration. The idea is undoubtedly interesting. Table movement along axis Z. I don't want to make the this because the variability of the table is very high. While on the XY frame, we only change the main modules, resulting in visible limits of mass, dimensions, and the direction of the detail relative to the main tool. For example, if I am working in lathe mode with the workpiece rotating along the Y-axis, lifting the entire table with the workpiece, motor, tailstock, and lathe chuck is not the most convenient idea. It's simpler to make the XY frame move along the Z-axis using screws. Speed for the Z-axis is not as crucial.
This is an external rigid frame, roughly as I see it. External dimensions are 550*1500*830. There are crossbars at the corners. I haven't painted all of them; they are present in every corner. In my other rigidity project, there was enough rigidity without crossbars to dance on a similar frame. Here, they are for attaching magnets that hold sound-absorbing walls. In addition to this, the walls will have simple levers to prevent children from accidentally opening it. The front panel will have a long window at the top. This panel will open upwards using a lift. This will take up less space than opening it at an angle. Note the two sections at the bottom of the chamber. The small section is for stationary installation. This will allow mounting some equipment there and tables regardless of this equipment. I see it as a place for a lathe chuck. It's convenient when switching between jobs. Also, the side walls may have holes with cylindrical plugs. Or they may not, as they can simply be removed. This is needed for working with long parts in lathe mode. The plugs will add more safety, reduce noise, and dust compared to open walls. This is just the work chamber. The electronics are housed in a separate unit under this frame. I also considered placing AMS and storage for interchangeable tables there.
After giving it some thought, I believe a rigidly ground perforated table from below would be the best idea. This versatile fixture would allow for the replacement and reliable fixation of the bottom tooling as needed by the user. I envision it with 16mm holes. Perhaps it's worth adding two long T-slots as well. I'm pondering on this. Right now, this idea seems to be the best to me. Additionally, a plastic tub with drainage will occupy the space under the perforated table. It might be necessary to provide lower access to its mounting because accidentally dropped tools are likely to end up there, and it would be beneficial to be able to remove it without dismantling the workstation. If the perforated table gets damaged, it can be removed and sent for grinding, which would also be quite convenient for workshops.
So, I'll stick with this version of the workstation for the equipment and will proceed to draw vertical screws along the Z-axis to understand the available space along the X-axis. In this version, we have a polished plate of 5mm thickness. Along the Y-axis, the edges of the plate rest on a rigid frame. Additionally, at the bottom center, the plate is supported by 2 angles of 25*25*3mm. Furthermore, the plate is screwed to the angles with two M6 screws to prevent accidental displacement. Along the X-axis, the plate has a distance of 5mm from the rigid frame, allowing her for replacement. Also, for safety reasons, the edges and corners of the plate are rounded. The plate has 16mm holes with a pitch of 76mm. Chamfers are removed from the upper part of the hole for safety reasons. At the bottom, drainage trays will also be attached to the angles, but I'll draw those later.
And, never say never. I sipped coffee and chatted with my welder. I asked a simple question, "How difficult will it be to make the corners co-linear?" And he says... there are standard corners at 35 and 37mm. So, we have a square of 40, a plate of 5, and a corner of 35. **** . 35+5=40. We'll just align the corner at the bottom of the square. It's more material but much easier work. There's some issue with the hole overlaps, but it'll be easy to fix by trimming the corner because the bearing area doesn't matter much here.
Contemplating the kinematics issue, I increasingly lean towards the belief that CoreXY isn't very suitable for this task. During this time, I've conducted several tests and considered many ideas, but I increasingly realize that Delta or Hexagon kinematics won't be more expensive than a complex CoreXY solution. I particularly like the precision of hexagon. Technical articles describe its challenge as computational complexity, but computational complexity in 2024? Don't make me laugh. Increasing processor power is cheaper than devising complex kinematics. The problem, as I see it, lies in finding sufficiently fast and compact actuators.
