A hex shaft could work as well. Even two shaft clamps on a round shaft would work. I know from error that a single shaft on the leadscrew is very prone to slipping!
Another thing you have possibly not considered is phasing the cuts. By rotating the cam on the shaft you can get different starting points of your pattern. This creates a large array of what appears to be complicated effects that are very simple to duplicate. I disagree about timing being a problem. With gears or chain either work well enough in the real world. Paul Cler used gears and chain on his early machines. Gears where used back in the 1800's, why reinvent the wheel:-) Tim On Dec 12, 2018, 6:36 AM, at 6:36 AM, 'joe biunno' via Legacy Ornamental Mills <legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com> wrote: >Hey Tim!... thanks for the reply!... a response and some ideas to >consider... the design I seem to be considering will always be in >place, >ready to be used, with minimal time to setup... the hex spindle being >considered would always be in its position of above and forward of the >Legacy lead screw, which would not be ideal as far as using the Legacy >as >it was originally intended... i.e. you would have to lean over and >reach in >to make adjustments... not ideal, but like you said, to remove the >"accessory" and reattach it every time you wanted to use it, would >certainly be a P.I.T.A. … I considered putting the hex rod on the >backside >of the machine, but it is critical that the rod and Legacy lead screw >be in >somewhat perfect unison... and the further apart they might be, the >harder >it is to achieve that unison... so I choose the front mount design, >with >chain and sprockets going down to the lead screw... the hex would be >the >same length as the lead screw, so all of the components would stay on >the >machine through all operations... the cam "assembly" would be easily >detachable from the router carriage, and slid down to the end of the >machine, where it hopefully would not be in the way of normal machine >use... and the chain and sprockets would remain as a one-to-one ratio, >without change... certainly you could start playing with the diameters >of >the sprockets for different ratios, which would be easy enough, but >that is >something I MIGHT! think could be considered down the road... once the >mod >was completed(if it ever is completed!), a lot could be done to expand >on >it's capabilities... I just want to see if the basics could be up and >running for the moment... I could really push these ideas forward if I >had >daily access to my machine, bit it is currently in my warehouse in >upstate >NY(ready to be used, but not really on a Monday-to-Friday basis)… so >this >mod is going to take some time... even considering obtaining a >dedicated >machine(1200? or 1500?) for this project if I could find one in a price > >range that would make sense to go that route... that way I could have >daily >access to the project... again, thanks for sharing your experiences... >it >is informative... Joe > > >>>>>>> > >-- >You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >Groups "Legacy Ornamental Mills" group. >To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >an email to legacy-ornamental-mills+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >To post to this group, send email to >legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com. >Visit this group at >https://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills. >For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Legacy Ornamental Mills" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to legacy-ornamental-mills+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to legacy-ornamental-mills@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/legacy-ornamental-mills. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
