Uploaded October 2014 | Updated September 2026, 1 hour ago
After reviewing the naive errors in my thinking (see link below), I've concluded that my idea for simplifying the belt path will not work. So, a revised prototype has been built, now using 3D-printed belt idlers on the loops, and only straight & symmetric lines on the essential parts of the belt path.
So, I'm no longer chasing the not-crossing belt path that FAtotum uses, instead going with a conventional, two-level CoreXY. There is now a crossing path on the belts, but the belts run on two separate levels, so there is no parts where the belt is forced to move in ways it's not designed to do.
Post about my flaws:
http://defcon.no/mech/flaws-in-my-simplified-corexy-idea/
Previously:
youtube.com/watch?v=cdTB0t-0FW8
youtube.com/watch?v=h4HQlSZROQ8
Parts: thingiverse.com/thing:1418153
I hope you can notice the increased speed of moves after these modifications :)
After reviewing the naive errors in my thinking (see link below), I've concluded that my idea for simplifying the belt path will not work. So, a revised prototype has been built, now using 3D-printed belt idlers on the loops, and only straight & symmetric lines on the essential parts of the belt path.
So, I'm no longer chasing the not-crossing belt path that FAtotum uses, instead going with a conventional, two-level CoreXY. There is now a crossing path on the belts, but the belts run on two separate levels, so there is no parts where the belt is forced to move in ways it's not designed to do.
Post about my flaws:
http://defcon.no/mech/flaws-in-my-simplified-corexy-idea/
Previously:
youtube.com/watch?v=cdTB0t-0FW8
youtube.com/watch?v=h4HQlSZROQ8
Parts: thingiverse.com/thing:1418153
I hope you can notice the increased speed of moves after these modifications :)
