Thanks Paul. Oh no I don’t hate it . Just would like to do it off the lathe. The guy I saw had a homemade indexing jig . I can bring it to work and possibly get my indexing done at work , and not tie up my lathe.
Thanks Larry . I need something small and light , portable.
Sorry, I haven't seen that. Do you remember what publication? Could it be this:
From a quick glance it looks like Curt Fuller is using polar graph paper to define the divisions. Could you use some? (I think I have a stash of polar and nearly every other kind of graph paper made - anyone need some log-log?)
I do have a Alisam indexer for the wood lathe (on the advise of John Lucas) but I don't think it has enough divisions for the faux baskets.
Now for something way out in left field...
I use a precision rotary table for my milling machine and I've used it, not for illusive baskets but for laying out patterns for chip carving on round things. A bit pricey but extremely precise. Not something easily made at home!
A rotary table is extremely handy at the mill!
For example, I mounted a vise on it and used it to mill the precise angles for this logo on a chunk of bronze.
A friend wanted to make a branding iron for her dad's woodworking - with the family sheep farm logo.
A rotary table is one of those things that once you use it you can't live without it.
View attachment 78000
View attachment 78001
View attachment 78002
JKJ
Hmm... I have a rotary attachment for my laser that I can get a "chuck" for. I may need to try some experiments.
It can work well on things that are more spindle-like. As you get to more bowl/plate pieces you end up having to make non-orthogonal lines, so you need a machine that can change tool position. In my video you might even notice the laser angle actually follows the profile of the piece.
This is just simple segmentation. My program can define how many segments are created over any particular length, so you can approximate a woven basket. Doing it over each coil would be be tedious and since by definition it is an illusion, there is no reason to make it exactly as a woven basket.
This is done with the LatheEngraver. It does a whole bunch of things. You can do some searching or click on the link below this (or in the profile picture area).
No, doing it over each coil would not be tremendously tedious on a programmable device such as a CNC. Only a bit more effort than what you've shown.
www.sherline.com
edelkrone.com
Spoken like someone that is thinking about it theoretically, but not in practice. You have to know the diameter of each coil/bead. You have to know the distance across each bead, which may not be consistent over the whole piece. To do it "right" you also need to know the normal angle of the bead. Multiply that by however many beads are on the piece and you've just spent a non-trivial amount of time just getting measurements.
Let's not assume the piece itself was made on a CNC. I love using CNC methods in woodturning, but I for one (and nearly everyone else) still likes turning by hand.
I've designed and built a 4-axis CNC machine with woodturning in mind (embellishments, not automated turning). It makes sense, but I posit that what you have described is still theoretical.
This is basically the motorized aluminum extrusion version of what you are describing. 12" 1.25-8 threaded rod from McMaster. The only specialized pieces are are pockets cut in the upright extrusion for bearings to hold the spindle. An indexing-only setup could get away with just holes drilled through. Everything else is just off the shelf hardware (spindle nuts are 3D printed because 1.25" nuts are quite expensive).
Yeah I like that. I’d buy the nuts - I don’t have a 3D printer. I’d probably just trap an indexing wheel between the chuck and spindle nut, rather than the indexer/ controller for a portable unit. Then you can set up anywhere without needing power…….. although if you are using a burner pen, I guess you need power anyhow…..hmmm some options.
I sell that unit (minus the motor and motor mount) for ~$200.
Then please show us your basket illusion.
Thanks for putting that in quotes.
You missed my point entirely. It isn't the accuracy of your probe, it is the ability to accurately identify the positions of the valleys between the beads (where the laser would need to traverse). You have to have a tiny tip on your probe and you have to have a very high sample count to find those accurately. If you get those positions wrong, it looks bad. With your 3-axis mill I would argue you would never be able to get those accurate enough because you would need the probe to be very close to normal to the surface of the bowl.
I do it for fun and I want other people to have fun without it costing them a fortune.
This clearly shows that you aren't familiar with the machine I've built. It isn't expensive and it can do things that your factory built CNC cannot do at a fraction of the cost and much greater simplicity. This is because I designed it around woodturning applications.
You can make shallow basket illusions. The limited work space between the cutter and the table of your CNC is a problem. To increase that space the rigidity of the machine has to increase exponentially which could make your CNC unaffordable.
That would be awesome! Thank you so much!
