Twinfinity - Larger Faster Machine?

If this setup is possible, it would nearly double the work space and half the time.

1 Like

I see no reason you could not make this work. Vcarve and Aspire both have great support for tilling. You’d just be running T1 and T2 simultaneously.

You left out a couple of important doublings, though. Required space and cash outflow.

You also have the “wife/girlfriend paradox” it’s all good fun until they meet! You’d have to make sure the XZ gantry’s never ended up meeting in the middle.

Also, I’d mount them front to back instead of face to face. That way, the only big challenge is working out a zeroing routine. The way you have them shown, you have to manipulate the files somehow.


Thank you, Mark. I agree a number of important doublings were left out, including noise. I have yet to receive my woodworker and was uncertain if mounting them face to face would be possible, or if offsetting them was the only option. Face to face would double the work space, and reduce the coding issues.
I am tempted to order a second machine to further explore this possibility with my students.
At the same time, my conversations with Onefinity professionals have done nothing but increase my confidence in this platform, and I am super excited to see what new accessories, modifications, and or models will be available in the future.

I don’t know if you are understanding and stating wrong or don’t understand but face to face would INCREASE your coding issues. Front to back, no issues I can see other than zeroing and a small loss of X range.

Agreed, yes, front to back. Thanks again for your input.

1 Like

While definitely doable and short of having highly advanced PLC interlock programming, I think you’d be spending more time & effort with program planning & setup than run-time savings would merit. Might be worth looking into if you were running production on the same parts all the time.

The ingenuity and creativity of the folks on this forum continue to amaze and inspire me.


Hello! I came across this old post today and was excited because I just had the exact same idea! I am curious if you ever tried this out?? Did you have success?


I would be interested to hear as well. However, with the need to handshake between the two x & y axis during operation would nessitate adding a revised control system to eliminate physical interferences. That along with the doubling the hardware cost and specialized software makes the idea less inviting than just using a dual X axis CNC designed with that intent.

If you were that concerned with running efficiently and were running that much work, I think two separate machines would make more sense. This would only be helpful if you were working on stuff that’s bigger than the actual envelope and would be annoying if you weren’t.

Two machines you could be doubling up on jobs and tiling.

Is there some advantage here? I don’t really see it. Unless you were working on one custom job at a time and didn’t have a 2nd job to run, in which case it seems like you wouldn’t need to get it done that fast anyway.

What happens in the orange danger zone??? :smiley:

Spindle war and headachs :mechanical_arm: :boom:

I love the idea but to be honest this could be solved simply with longer linear rails and ball screws to extend the current machine. Would still be a beast :+1:. Now inn fortunately this would eliminate spindle jousting competitions but hey :joy:.

That would default to my earlier comment regarding PLC interlock programming. I used to deal with this type of scenario when I worked with weld robots at Toyota. It took some planning & interlock programming to ensure they didn’t crash. To quote a line from a well-known movie: “It would be bad.”

1 Like