What is the motivation for this? Is it to retain the dynamic performance of the delta effector while greatly shortening the Bowden extruder? If so, surely by approx doubling the moving mass while using the same linear guides and structure and move profiles you risk dropping the lowest resonant frequency of the end effector by about 40%?
Would it not make more sense to stiffen-up the components in the dynamic load loop instead, and just mount a direct-drive extruder to the end-effector? You could use top and bottom parallel motors for sure, or you could:
- switch to steel-reinforced AT3 or AT5 belts and pulleys and NEMA 23 400 step/rev motors.
- substitute linear guide profiles that are far stiffer in bending, and do a little triangulation between them if possible
- replace delta link plastic or magnetic ball joints with either high articulation metal ball joints or universal joints
- triangulate the main structure to react tower bending and shear loads down into the base.
It seems to me that this sort of issue is a fundamental weakness of Delta printers, because the delta arms are attached to the structure near the top, not near ground level. Unless the structure is also redesigned for larger loads, how does separating the payload into two closely-spaced components moving in parallel going to address the underlying problem?
Tony