Thanks. That's exactly what I have ordered to make all the assembly RA4 resitant, but I use it inverted. The tubing is stainless steel and the rods POM or PETG. I want to avoid to cut, file and/or mill steel, as you need dedicated and clean cutting blades. The 316 steel tubes come pre cutted. If you cut 316 steel with contaminated (if used to cut carbon or machine steel) blades it can set rust in RA4 environement.
Chemical grade PVC is about as good an option as possible for resilience against photo chemicals - with 316 stainless (or better) for metal parts. The SPSE handbook has an extensive table covering materials suitable for processor construction.
Printers' engineers will be able to make roller squeegees of the right durometer & chemical resistance on a suitable core that you supply.
Kind of cost-prohibitive for a hobby project, though. At least last time I checked. Recoating existing rollers with a suitable PU lining was north of €40 per piece. Costs won't be much lower if you supply a brand new rod/core. It might be worth it if you order a batch size of 1000pcs or so in China.
Local here, not stateside; I forgot the name; I'd have to look them up again. The quoted price was for 20cm rollers, 18" would probably cost a bit more but I don't doubt they'd do them as well.What company were you getting these quotes from?
No, for this DIY project (the RA4 printo clone) it's not necessary. Anything that will not warp and withstand the chemical environment would be A-OK.I believe with negative processors they use some sort of poly that helps ensures dust sticks to the rollers instead of the emulsion, which also may be needed for this DIY project.
What's the SPCE handbook? Who and where are these engineers you speak of? Do you happen to know the durometer and chemical makeup of the proper sleeves? I've been looking and calling all over for this info for 2 days, then I find this guy in Switzerland cooking up entire processors (except for the sleeves) in his kitchen lol.
What company were you getting these quotes from? That's not bad at all if they can do 18" rollers for that amount. But I would need someone stateside, if I can determine the precise PU to use.
I believe with negative processors they use some sort of poly that helps ensures dust sticks to the rollers instead of the emulsion, which also may be needed for this DIY project.
haha, that's just so ridiculously affordable! This really illustrates the relevance of this kind of project in making not only a machine accessible to just about anyone, but also spare parts for existing machines. Your roller concept could easily be used for e.g. replacement rollers of RCP's.The price of one of my drive rollers is approximately $3.50
Local here, not stateside; I forgot the name; I'd have to look them up again. The quoted price was for 20cm rollers, 18" would probably cost a bit more but I don't doubt they'd do them as well.
No, for this DIY project (the RA4 printo clone) it's not necessary. Anything that will not warp and withstand the chemical environment would be A-OK.
Might be worth looking up and posting that info. Not many companies recovering photo rollers these days so if you know someone with the know-how and ability to do it someone is sure to find that info valuable.
It is definitely necessary to know for my purposes exactly what sleeves were used on RA processors so I can have mine recovered properly.
I'd just use some kind of low impedance line driver. Shielding generally helps as well, but limits choice of cables. Decoupling and filtering of the VCC rails helps too as it's likely the transients on that line that create the EMF that your control lines suffer from.Maybe I need an end teminal plug with capacitors and step-down resistors to filter noise on the digital lines for the stepper controllers.
Till now it's fine. I will see when and if I add a 3rd module if there is noise with longer cable lenght. Then I will may go for shielded twisted pair cable, by ripping away the insulation of a cat 5/6 cable adding the power line ouside the shield and wrapping it again. An elco on the power lines would be a good idea too.I'd just use some kind of low impedance line driver. Shielding generally helps as well, but limits choice of cables. Decoupling and filtering of the VCC rails helps too as it's likely the transients on that line that create the EMF that your control lines suffer from.
Thanks man. Steppers are now working stable. I use regular no-name A4988 drivers. The main problem was a weird cable going from the driver to the stepper itself (so not the STEP/DIR signal from the Arduino Nano to the A4988 I assumed initially wrongly to have troubles). I needed short stepper cables and bought really cheap ones. After traying any noise cancellation on the STEP/DIR lines I tested the long stepper cables (80cm). And everything worked fine. So I used these ones and shortened them. Maybe the cross section of the small cables could not handle the higher 12V current. I will try 24v for sure as it was my initial plan and see what happens. I used 12V at some point because I initially planned to feed the Arduino Nano with the same main power for the steppers and the internal step-down converter of the Arduino was expected to handle 12V. It wasn't. For some obscure reason I fried 3 Nano's after trying to add pull-up resistors to the STEP/DIR lines (I was trying to solve the noise issue, but I wasn't still aware about the stepper feeding cable problem). So I added a 3A buck/step-down converter to give the Arduino directly 5V. I can use easily 24V now. It also reflects my experiance with Arduinos if possible to never use the VIN and go with directly properly stabilized direct 5V feed. In a waste mayority of my projects this was really the best practice.Fantastic project. Congratulations! The result is excellent.
I would try going the simple route first. What I found with steppers is that performance increases rapidly with supply voltage increase. Going to 24V, 48V or even higher resolves more than a few issues. S/N performance increase can be dramatic.
Power should be definitely shielded from STEP/DIR signals. I like using Shielded cable for STEP/DIR. You could use shielded cable for STEP/DIR and run unshielded cable for voltage right after the GX-17. You can use a small capacitor directly in the aviation connector on the power. Steppers can do strange things and produce lots of noise. At low supply voltage to the stepper drivers they can get really finicky without careful noise and shielding management. Maybe I missed it but didn't see the stepper driver you're using. I can't hear the distinct stepper noise from cheaper drivers so you're probably fine. Better drivers can also make a significant difference.
Thanks man. Steppers are now working stable. I use regular no-name A4988 drivers. The main problem was a weird cable going from the driver to the stepper itself (so not the STEP/DIR signal from the Arduino Nano to the A4988 I assumed initially wrongly to have troubles). I needed short stepper cables and bought really cheap ones. After traying any noise cancellation on the STEP/DIR lines I tested the long stepper cables (80cm). And everything worked fine. So I used these ones and shortened them. Maybe the cross section of the small cables could not handle the higher 12V current. I will try 24v for sure as it was my initial plan and see what happens. I used 12V at some point because I initially planned to feed the Arduino Nano with the same main power for the steppers and the internal step-down converter of the Arduino was expected to handle 12V. It wasn't. For some obscure reason I fried 3 Nano's after trying to add pull-up resistors to the STEP/DIR lines (I was trying to solve the noise issue, but I wasn't still aware about the stepper feeding cable problem). So I added a 3A buck/step-down converter to give the Arduino directly 5V. I can use easily 24V now. It also reflects my experiance with Arduinos if possible to never use the VIN and go with directly properly stabilized direct 5V feed. In a waste mayority of my projects this was really the best practice.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?