[he1957]

From what you describe, the binding is being introduced by the dips in the steel frames where the rails mount. This is causing the gantry riser mounts to apply inwards pressure on the bearing blocks when you tighten the gantry. You mentioned you also have not looked at the risers/columns to bearing block mounting screws.

This is the first place I'd look. Bottom up rather than top down.

If the risers are not perpendicular to provide a flat mounting surface for the gantry beam, tightening will cause the binding you are seeing. Shim the bearing block to gantry columns to get them perpendicular, this will allow the block to slide on the rail even with the tapered angles and provide a flat surface for the gantry beam. Do both sides if/as needed.

Using the reference/master rail, square the gantry, tighten the bolts (a bit) then go tighten the slave gantry side (a bit). Re-check square because non-square will amplify the binding by exerting additional up+down (and possibly Y +/-) pressure at opposite ends of the bearing blocks. When this moves smoothly you'll have the risers square to vertical and the gantry square to horizontal and to Y travel. If binding still occurs when tightening the gantry, there may be a slight twist in the gantry beam so you might need shims between the gantry and risers. The rail face of the gantry also needs to be square to the table for the spindle to be plumb.

With power off, Engage the R+P drive on the master side, then power on. On the slave side, engage the R+P such that it meshes cleanly without moving the slave side gantry. If it does not mesh cleanly/fully, power off and rotate the slave motor a bit and re-test. The idea here is to find the best full-step mesh for the slave in relation to the master. This will then hold squareness as it should.

Your test descriptions all indicate mechanical binding without motor, R+P engaged, so next step will be to test this but if the R+P's engage as they should this is probably moot except I've seen others mention the pinion teeth do not fully engage with the racks but this is a different issue and assuming the rails and racks are parallel and square it should not affect what you've described so far.

[GME]

People have vastly different expectations. What's perfectly acceptable to some, might be completely unacceptable to others.

A resounding +1, Gerry.

It makes no difference if the tube is dished or welded out of square does it? You just need a solution what part of my plate does not fix it?

Bill,

You read too much into my reply. You commented that you thought the tilt was from dished tubing. I pointed out that it was a welding issue. I said nothing about whether your proposed fix would address it. Clearly, it would.

BTW, as you probably know, the steel you mentioned has a tolerance of +0, - .003. Depending on what you want to do, that is plenty close enough. Get into dovetail joinery and it can get dicey. Errors can become cumulative. Leveling the addon plate has plenty of potential for slight errors. A few thousands here on top of a few thousands there. It all adds up. All depends upon what you want to do and your personal tolerance level. See Gerry's comment.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that some, or even all of the high end machines have some degree of deviation. They probably do. On the other hand, the makers appear to strive to attain the highest degree of accuracy they can. Why? Because their purchasers want or expect it. I don't see anything wrong with that. The Saturn was not sold as a high precision machine, but it was, and is, advertised as having a .01mm (just under .004") build tolerance. Clearly that's not what FLA is delivering. I find it concerning that the advertising hasn't changed, at least as of this reply. These days, 2.5mm (.100") seems closer to reality.

IMO, the user has a lot to do with how accurately a machine cuts. Users have to figure out what feeds and speeds, cut depths, etc. work best with their machines to produce the quality they want. Sometimes compromises may mean shorter tool life, but that the price you pay for the machine choices you make. An aluminum extrusion machine is never going to be anywhere near as rigid as a welded machine. You have to accommodate it, or risk being disappointed in the end product. IMO, it all works better if you start with as good of a foundation as is consistent with your personal expectations. Just my two cents.

Gary

[GME]

From what you describe, the binding is being introduced by the dips in the steel frames where the rails mount. This is causing the gantry riser mounts to apply inwards pressure on the bearing blocks when you tighten the gantry. You mentioned you also have not looked at the risers/columns to bearing block mounting screws.

This is the first place I'd look. Bottom up rather than top down.

If the risers are not perpendicular to provide a flat mounting surface for the gantry beam, tightening will cause the binding you are seeing. Shim the bearing block to gantry columns to get them perpendicular, this will allow the block to slide on the rail even with the tapered angles and provide a flat surface for the gantry beam. Do both sides if/as needed.

Using the reference/master rail, square the gantry, tighten the bolts (a bit) then go tighten the slave gantry side (a bit). Re-check square because non-square will amplify the binding by exerting additional up+down (and possibly Y +/-) pressure at opposite ends of the bearing blocks. When this moves smoothly you'll have the risers square to vertical and the gantry square to horizontal and to Y travel. If binding still occurs when tightening the gantry, there may be a slight twist in the gantry beam so you might need shims between the gantry and risers. The rail face of the gantry also needs to be square to the table for the spindle to be plumb.

With power off, Engage the R+P drive on the master side, then power on. On the slave side, engage the R+P such that it meshes cleanly without moving the slave side gantry. If it does not mesh cleanly/fully, power off and rotate the slave motor a bit and re-test. The idea here is to find the best full-step mesh for the slave in relation to the master. This will then hold squareness as it should.

Your test descriptions all indicate mechanical binding without motor, R+P engaged, so next step will be to test this but if the R+P's engage as they should this is probably moot except I've seen others mention the pinion teeth do not fully engage with the racks but this is a different issue and assuming the rails and racks are parallel and square it should not affect what you've described so far.

Risers? There are no risers between the linear rails and gantry. There are interface/mounting plates, but not risers, at least as I understand the term. Riser height is accomplished by the frame design - base rail, 5 steel tubes welded on end, followed by a top welded rail. I guess I am not understanding your use of the term "risers."

I believe Leon's machine is like mine was, i.e. the top frame rail, the one the linear rails are mounted to, was welded angled inward. The problem may have been exacerbated by concavity of the steel tubing, but it wasn't concavity alone. In any event, shimming alone won't solve everything, because the linear rail are way out in terms of parallelism. That where all of the talk about addon on plates comes from.

Gary

[wackocrash5150]

I think I have a good idea of what you're getting at here and seems to be a pretty sound idea; but ....

...but this is a different issue and assuming the rails and racks are parallel and square it should not affect what you've described so far.

I can confirm they are not parallel. Out by about 3/32" from first bolt to last bolt across the axis. <bummer>
I'm curious after looking at a pic on this forum from someone who pulled off one of the bolt caps, how much I could jimmy the rail(s) into parallel alignment. That would give a starting point for this idea.

Bill's idea of the plate too seems sound as well. The one thing I would not look forward to would be drilling and tapping all those holes in the frame rail for the plate. I assume you'd want one on either side of the rail, multiply by 19 bolt holes in the rail, times 2 rails and through 4mm steel... Not impossible but I'm sure there would be some hair-pulling, tool-throwing moments ... lol

I get the impression that Gary seems to be of the "take it back" camp (forgive me Gary if I'm mistaken as I mean no offence). That makes sense as well, as these may not be minor adjustments or solutions. Driving back to Lebanon, PA is still an option if need be as my uncle can get use of the trailer again. If I went that avenue, I'd lean towards a replacement assuming that proper assurances were made. I'd know more of what to look for upon inspection.

Hard to say without hearing back from Nate yet.

[Ntl]

From what you describe, the binding is being introduced by the dips in the steel frames where the rails mount. This is causing the gantry riser mounts to apply inwards pressure on the bearing blocks when you tighten the gantry. You mentioned you also have not looked at the risers/columns to bearing block mounting screws.

This is the first place I'd look. Bottom up rather than top down.

If the risers are not perpendicular to provide a flat mounting surface for the gantry beam, tightening will cause the binding you are seeing. Shim the bearing block to gantry columns to get them perpendicular, this will allow the block to slide on the rail even with the tapered angles and provide a flat surface for the gantry beam. Do both sides if/as needed.

Using the reference/master rail, square the gantry, tighten the bolts (a bit) then go tighten the slave gantry side (a bit). Re-check square because non-square will amplify the binding by exerting additional up+down (and possibly Y +/-) pressure at opposite ends of the bearing blocks. When this moves smoothly you'll have the risers square to vertical and the gantry square to horizontal and to Y travel. If binding still occurs when tightening the gantry, there may be a slight twist in the gantry beam so you might need shims between the gantry and risers. The rail face of the gantry also needs to be square to the table for the spindle to be plumb.

With power off, Engage the R+P drive on the master side, then power on. On the slave side, engage the R+P such that it meshes cleanly without moving the slave side gantry. If it does not mesh cleanly/fully, power off and rotate the slave motor a bit and re-test. The idea here is to find the best full-step mesh for the slave in relation to the master. This will then hold squareness as it should.

Your test descriptions all indicate mechanical binding without motor, R+P engaged, so next step will be to test this but if the R+P's engage as they should this is probably moot except I've seen others mention the pinion teeth do not fully engage with the racks but this is a different issue and assuming the rails and racks are parallel and square it should not affect what you've described so far.

Yep this is exactly what I did with my router minus the shims because the y rails have high and low points... It's bad enough that if my gantry doesn't float it will create binding do to the waves in the steel that the liniar rail is bolted to. Basically the only way it's going to be right is by installing a flat bar that can be leveled that the liniar rail can bolt to or spend a lot of time messing with trying to shim the liniar rails so that they are level and no longer wavy. I would bet that if I popped out the plugs and loosened up the bolts there would be gaps in different places. I'm personally waiting for the manufacturer to address the issue and send out parts to fix the issue that alot of us are experiencing. Or they can just expect to have to deal with bearing failure after a short period of time if the machines are being used regularly.

[wmgeorge]

Maybe its because of the fact not only did I help wire these production lines being installed I worked around a lot of very qualified professional tool and die, machinists and millwrights and saw it done quickly and accurately. I saw problems or issues solved on the spot. No Gerry21 I did not work to a lower standard nor did any of the others. It got done. I was not a production worker or machine operator. The machines I helped install were very accurate, well at least the newer ones anyway. Some ran so fast you needed a strobe to slow things down to see what was happening. The older ones required a lot of shimming and more to help them function accurately. Some of the older machines were 60-70 years old and had been moved from plant to plant.

Gary, I also see you have the idea that since your machine had this wrong X with it, therefore all machines must be flawed and be returned. Otherwise why no feasible solution or in the field fixes that pass your criteria?

Bottom line this should be a FLA fix.

[he1957]

Risers? There are no risers between the linear rails and gantry. There are interface/mounting plates, but not risers, at least as I understand the term. Riser height is accomplished by the frame design - base rail, 5 steel tubes welded on end, followed by a top welded rail. I guess I am not understanding your use of the term "risers."
...

Gary

Same meat different gravy; mechanically for motion and gantry mounting, it is one in the same :-)

If as is said the Y rails are out of parallel by the quoted amount then that is a real problem and needs to be fixed by the manufacturer.

As a side note, everyone is talking about drilling/tapping the mounting holes on the top surface (ignoring the dished characteristic of the tubing); another option, as "ugly" as it may be to allow for the material "thinness" would be to drill larger through holes (top and bottom of tubes) and use through bolts. One could bolt down the master/reference rail and use the gantry to get the slave side parallel. With or without the add-on "plates"

Ugly but interesting?

Bottom line is the machine has been built out of "acceptable for use" (and published) specifications.

[GME]

Gary, I also see you have the idea that since your machine had this wrong X with it, therefore all machines must be flawed and be returned. Otherwise why no feasible solution or in the field fixes that pass your criteria?

Bill, I resent your comment. It's just plain wrong. I acknowledge that there are machines out there that are okay. No reason to send them back. There may also be machines going out today that are just fine, although I have a healthy skepticism about that. It looks like a crap shoot at best from where I sit. There are other machines put together badly - we've seen it on this formum. I do not for a minute believe that the one's we are hearing about here are all of them with serious defects. There are bound to be folks out there who don't know what to look for or don't understand the ramifications of the problems. I believe ger21 commented at one point to the effect that we may be hearing from only a fraction of those who have Saturns.

The fact that I decided to return my Saturn 2 does not mean that everyone should. I toyed with fixing it, but decided it wasn't for me. I was sure I could improve it, but was far from certain that I would be happy with it in the end. If Leon, or anyone else, wants to go the rehab route, I wish them well and hope they succeed. If, along the way, I can provide useful information, I'll be happy to do it.

You seem pretty rigid in your points of view, and sometimes boarder on the defensive - like someone disagreeing with you amounts to a personal attack. As for me, I've disagreed with you, but I've never gone on the attack. I generally adopt a more conciliatory posture, e.g., we all have our perspectives and preferences, and favoring one or the other doesn't make anyone wrong, or going down the right path. We are all just different, and I respect that. In my pre-retirement work life, my job was all about argument, controversy, winning vs. losing, defending one's position to the death, etc - the stuff early graves are made of. It's behind me now and I'm not about jump back into that sort of thing. To be clear, this quibbling between the two of us over. We can talk about things we can agree on, but I'm done arguing.

Back to Leon's situation. I agree that fixing his machine will involve adding flat bar to the top tube. Whether it's welded and milled, bolted on, or whatever, it's up to Leon. Neither is a wrong nor right choice. Although I believe that most would find the weld and mill option to be the best choice in a perfect world, compromises must often be made. There are a menu of options, none of them necessarily right or wrong. I agree that the bolt-on option should work. I also agree that it shimming will be required to get things coplanar. What other options may employed is Leon's call. He can go for super precision, sloppy fit, or anything in between. His call, and no skin off my nose. I am invested in helping, not pushing an agenda. From there, epoxy or no epoxy is just a personal choice. I like one that you want to fight over. You favor the other, and it simply doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I would go a step further than your proposal, and add a plate to the sides to correct the disrelationship with the rack that will necessarily occur by adding the top plate. You can agree or disagree. What you and I may think or doesn't matter in the least. The only thing that's important is what Leon thinks.

Gary

[Ntl]

Same meat different gravy; mechanically for motion and gantry mounting, it is one in the same :-)

If as is said the Y rails are out of parallel by the quoted amount then that is a real problem and needs to be fixed by the manufacturer.

As a side note, everyone is talking about drilling/tapping the mounting holes on the top surface (ignoring the dished characteristic of the tubing); another option, as "ugly" as it may be to allow for the material "thinness" would be to drill larger through holes (top and bottom of tubes) and use through bolts. One could bolt down the master/reference rail and use the gantry to get the slave side parallel. With or without the add-on "plates"

Ugly but interesting?

Bottom line is the machine has been built out of "acceptable for use" (and published) specifications.

Not ignoring, the tube is dished and the 3" flat bar would bridge the gap. 1/4" 4130 with 1" hardened liniar rail attached to it isn't going to flex in the middle the flat bar would be thicker than the square tube it would be attached to. It's a very simple fix for the problem and can easily be leveled, if Finline wants to pay for it I'll have a set made and will install them on my table and send him the cad file. I just don't want to spend any more money fixing things that shouldn't need fixing.

[wmgeorge]

GME Gary there was no offense meant toward you, I was just following up a comment made by Crash along those same lines. So Gary what was your solution to the issue at hand?

[wmgeorge]

Not ignoring, the tube is dished and the 3" flat bar would bridge the gap. 1/4" 4130 with 1" hardened liniar rail attached to it isn't going to flex in the middle the flat bar would be thicker than the square tube it would be attached to. It's a very simple fix for the problem and can easily be leveled, if Finline wants to pay for it I'll have a set made and will install them on my table and send him the cad file. I just don't want to spend any more money fixing things that shouldn't need fixing.

Especially since the gantry weight is what 200lb or 300lbs, /2 on each rail 100 - 150 lbs? . It would be difficult for some to drill and tap those holes for the plate. I think 1/4-20 Allen head cap screws would do the job. When Enco was in business I ordered a dozen (on sale) or more 2 flute gun taps (I think thats what they were called) and they work like a dream. Some good quality #7 drill bits and a lot of time your in business.

As far as aligning, you could make a T square and use 2 linear bearings at the top of the T and the long end of the square could be mounted a dial indicater adjusted as needed to just touch the other rail. You saw the video I posted of the Chinese tech doing something similar. After all you can used those linear bearings for the T as spares

[Ntl]

Especially since the gantry weight is what 200lb or 300lbs, /2 on each rail 100 - 150 lbs? . It would be difficult for some to drill and tap those holes for the plate. I think 1/4-20 Allen head cap screws would do the job. When Enco was in business I ordered a dozen or more 2 flute gun taps (I think thats what they were called) and they work like a dream. Some good quality #7 drill bits and a lot of time your in business.

I would draw them up and have them either machined or water jet and then just tap the holes that the rail mounts to by hand. Have the other holes slotted that would bolt to the frame, easy to get parallel. And would have holes on either side of the liniar rail that are tapped as well that you can use set screws to level the rail. All very simple and not very expensive. The only thing the owner would have to do is unbolt the liniar rails slide the flat bar under it bolt the rail to the flatbar then drill and tap the frame. Once installed you would have all the adjustments you could ever want or need.

Very simple fix I just have no desire to pay for it myself.

[GME]

I think I have a good idea of what you're getting at here and seems to be a pretty sound idea; but ....



I can confirm they are not parallel. Out by about 3/32" from first bolt to last bolt across the axis. <bummer>
I'm curious after looking at a pic on this forum from someone who pulled off one of the bolt caps, how much I could jimmy the rail(s) into parallel alignment. That would give a starting point for this idea.

Bill's idea of the plate too seems sound as well. The one thing I would not look forward to would be drilling and tapping all those holes in the frame rail for the plate. I assume you'd want one on either side of the rail, multiply by 19 bolt holes in the rail, times 2 rails and through 4mm steel... Not impossible but I'm sure there would be some hair-pulling, tool-throwing moments ... lol

I get the impression that Gary seems to be of the "take it back" camp (forgive me Gary if I'm mistaken as I mean no offence). That makes sense as well, as these may not be minor adjustments or solutions. Driving back to Lebanon, PA is still an option if need be as my uncle can get use of the trailer again. If I went that avenue, I'd lean towards a replacement assuming that proper assurances were made. I'd know more of what to look for upon inspection.

Hard to say without hearing back from Nate yet.

Leon,

As I recall, you have an M8 mounting cap screw and and a 9mm hole in the rail that the screw passes through That's a 1mm difference, or .5mm of adjustment on each side of the screw, assuming it's centered in the hole. Unfortunately, not nearly enough to get things parallel.

Your impression about the camp I'm in is correct. No reason for me to take offense. I was exactly where you are now not all that long ago. I looked at the same options you're considering. The choice I made as good for me, so I would naturally fall in that camp. However, what was right for me may not be right for you. Not that you need it, but I'll support you in whatever decision you make.

+1 on knowing what to look for if you go for a replacement. That was an option I briefly considered. For me, it would involve a cross country trip from Washington State. I thought about how angry I would be paying for a round trip airline ticket, motel, rental car etc, only to find out there were problems with all machines and it was all for nothing. My wife argued strenuously against an exchange, and I didn't have much to argue against her. At the end of the day, the cost was too likely to exceed the benefit. Personally, I would be reluctant to trust assurances. The website gave me plenty of assurances that were just plain false, and Nate had to know it before he sent out our machines. The shims were the dead giveaway. I believe he added the shims.

IMO, under the best of circumstances, you'd be facing a trust but verify situation. I'd take all of my measurement equipment with me and perform a compete quality check at Nate's shop. He could have some tools you don't, which would be a plus. If everything checks out, you're golden. If not, you've returned the machine, can wait for the next shipment, make another trip to PA, and try it all again. I'm sure that's an ugly thought.

Something you might try is asking Nate make all the measurements you want made and video the process. A lot of fudging would still be possible, but it stands a better chance of being objective. If he can't come up with a suitable machine, you've limited your trips. Be prepared that you could be waiting for months. No telling how often he places orders, and at what frequency he receive them. If he shows you he has one, you can go behind him and confirm his representations. With the travel and all, I would want to confirm everything. Too much at stake, especially given the travel situation.

Gary

[wmgeorge]

NTL Very creative and the water jetting could be fast and not distort the metal. Like you pointed out once its mounted you can be as particular as you want because you have adjustment via shim up or down as needed and as parallel as you wanted, using the T square tool or a version of what I presented above, and a dial indicator.

It would be interesting to see if Nate would pay for it.

I had to do some editing somehow the posts got shifted around??

[Ntl]

Oh and Gary I already mentioned that I seriously doubt that the extra height will make a difference with the rack and pinion since I seriously doubt there were any calculations involved with the initial placement. If anything there would just need to be a longer bolt used or a different tension bracket designed. Super simple and non labor intensive fixes for the machine owners. Just a little bit of design work for the manufacturer.

[Ntl]

Very creative and the water jetting could be fast and not distort the metal. Like you pointed out once its mounted you can be as particular as you want because you have adjustment via shim up or down as needed and as parallel as you wanted, using the T square tool or a version of what I presented above, and a dial indicator.

It would be interesting to see if Nate would pay for it.

No shims needed the up down adjustment is done with the set screws, I've used it before with a different industrial application. Works great and is super easy. Here's a picture of what I'm talking about different application same concept, obviously the set screws would come in from the top side. Also the amount of gap would be a very small amount if any at all.

[wmgeorge]

No shims needed the up down adjustment is done with the set screws, I've used it before with a different industrial application. Works great and is super easy. Here's a picture of what I'm talking about different application same concept, obviously the set screws would come in from the top side. Also the amount of gap would be a very small amount if any at all.

Excellent. I have never used those but no reason why they would not work. Your correct of course also about the R&P drives, another 1/4 inch and its not rocket science... if you need a longer bolt just do it.
Gee once again, I wonder if Nate is willing to pay for a little R&D. I hope he is working on design changes, I really want him to make a success out of this.

[GME]

No shims needed the up down adjustment is done with the set screws, I've used it before with a different industrial application. Works great and is super easy. Here's a picture of what I'm talking about different application same concept, obviously the set screws would come in from the top side. Also the amount of gap would be a very small amount if any at all.

Any concern with the set screws working down into the paint over time? You mentioned that you believe the paint film thickness in some spots was enough to affect your linear rail height. Stripping the paint would ensure metal to metal contact, and take having to make future adjustments off the table. One advantage to shims, although I admit that set screws would be easier. Whichever method is used, it's going to be a fussy, hair pulling experience. I remember how it was when I used set screws to level the router plate in my cast iron router table.

Any thoughts about how to keep the master rail in a perfectly straight line, with bolt heads sticking all along the edges of the new plate? I'd use a clamped down precision ground straight edge as a reference, but with bold head sticking up, that wouldn't be a viable option.

[ger21]

Gerry21 I did not work to a lower standard nor did any of the others.

That's not at all what I said.

[Ntl]

Any concern with the set screws working down into the paint over time? You mentioned that you believe the paint film thickness in some spots was enough to affect your linear rail height. Stripping the paint would ensure metal to metal contact, and take having to make future adjustments off the table. One advantage to shims, although I admit that set screws would be easier. Whichever method is used, it's going to be a fussy, hair pulling experience. I remember how it was when I used set screws to level the router plate in my cast iron router table.

Any thoughts about how to keep the master rail in a perfectly straight line, with bolt heads sticking all along the edges of the new plate? I'd use a clamped down precision ground straight edge as a reference, but with bold head sticking up, that wouldn't be a viable option.

If you used set screws with a pointed tip it would cut through the paint and if your talking about the set screws sticking up they wouldn't. I would just use 1/4" long set screws. Same thickness as the bar so they would be recessed. The bolts that attach the flat bar could be countersunk or counterboard and the slots could be pocked. I honestly don't think they would be in the way regardless, but it would look cleaner. It's a super simple part I could draw it up in like 5 min.