Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/15/2018 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    How can the very latest, cutting-edge design software combine with a 5,000 year old manufacturing technique to deliver outstanding weight reduction opportunities? Designing for light-weight parts is becoming more important, and I’m a firm believer in the need to produce lighter weight, less over-engineered parts for the future. This is for sustainability reasons because we need to be using less raw materials and, in things like transportation, it impacts upon the energy usage of the product during it’s service life. Lighter products mean less fuel to move them around, which can make our fossil fuel reserves go further, or make more efficient use of the renewable energies that we’re now beginning to adopt. Generative Design (GD) is the very latest design software released by Autodesk and is now included in Fusion 360, which is at the heart of their "Future of Making Things" strategy for Design and Manufacturing. It changes the way we design things and can deliver very efficient designs that deliver structural performance with optimised use of material. The aerospace industry is expected to be one of the early adopters of this technology because in that industry the cost and environmental savings from improved fuel efficiency carry the greatest rewards. Also, I see interest from the automotive industry for the same fuel efficiency reasons, but in the long term the drive for lighter weight parts could benefit many industries, even those outside of transportation. Another example of the benefits of lighter weight alongside reduced material usage is that shipping costs for parts reduce as their weight reduces, which can therefore also deliver cost efficiencies. GD is targeted initially at metal parts where the biggest opportunity for light-weighting exists. The complex forms it generates though often means that parts conceived in this way cannot be made with conventional manufacturing routes. They therefore need to use Additive Manufacturing (AM) techniques to produce them. The route of using high energy, laser-based AM to do this comes with associated high costs because of the specialised set-up knowledge required together with expensive processing, and post processing, to deliver a quality-assured part. This project explores the possibility of a more cost-effective route to a metal GD part which, even though at this stage may be just used for a small quantity of evaluation prototypes, can act as an enabler for understanding the potential that GD has to offer. This is the baseline design for this project. It is an aluminium bracket design similar to those used in aerospace applications to mount control surfaces, and in this form has not been optimised for weight. This design would weigh 383 grams in the intended material, aluminium A356. After processing this through Generative Design in Fusion 360 it’s time to review and evaluate the many alternative design options presented and decide upon the design that is considered the most appropriate taking into the other factors that have an influence on design selection such as manufacturability, aesthetics etc. This was the design option chosen for this part and Fusion 360 was used to create the final version of the model. The bio-mimicry that’s evident in most of the designs created by GD is interesting to see, in this case the design of the part can be seen as essentially a swept I-beam (which engineers, especially those in construction, are taught is a strong section), but with tendon-like attachments back to the mounting points to carry the tensile loading that’s created by the applied loading conditions What GD does is to turn the standard design workflow that we’re familiar with on it’s head. Traditionally we design a part and then stress test it virtually to determine if it fulfils the required structural performance. Any failures seen during this process require an iterative loop back to the design to correct them. With GD the stress analysis is a core part of the design synthesis, and happens as the part design iterates, which means that the output at the end should meet the requirements of the intended loading requirements. The software is searching for an optimal solution where the stress is ideally evenly distributed across the part as can be seen above. To prove that everything is good with the finalised design this part has then been virtually tested again in Fusion 360 to confirm that the original loading requirements are still met So we've created our lightweight part design, and maybe now we need to produce that in aluminium A356 to do some physical testing, but don’t want the expense of using a metal AM process. What follows is a way of achieving this where FDM 3D printing can play a role as an “enabler” to help create the final parts in conjunction with a very old (if not ancient) manufacturing technique called investment casting. This technique is 5,000 years old according to Wikipedia. The company involved with casting this project is Sylatech who have been using Ultimaker 3D printers as part of their process for investment casting of prototype parts Sylatech took the .stl file of this model and used it to create a 3D print of the part on an Ultimaker 3 in PLA. This PLA part was then used as the pattern in the investment casting process where it is submerged in plaster under vacuum conditions to ensure that all air is excluded from the mould and creates an accurate reproduction of the surfaces of the part. The picture below shows a display box which demonstrates the set up of the 3D printed parts partially encased in plaster. Once the plaster has hardened the casting box is put into a furnace at very high temperature in order to burn out the PLA, leaving behind a cavity into which molten aluminium can be cast. After solidification of the metal, and cooling of the mould, the plaster is broken away from the parts, and then they can be quickly and easily removed from the material feed gate resulting in these aluminium A356 versions of the PLA original. The final part weighs 122 grams which is a weight saving of 68% over the original baseline part, which shows the potential that GD has to make significant reductions in weight and material usage. Using this method we now we have an excellent quality physical part made very quickly in the final intended material in order to commence some physical testing.This is a different route to get to that physical test part in metal at a fraction of the cost of having it metal additively manufactured. It also shows how a brand new, cutting edge piece of software that only became available in May 2018 can combine with FDM 3D printing (which many people still see as a new technology even though it’s been around for over 20 years) and a 5,000 year old manufacturing technique to deliver potentially huge benefits in weight and material usage. Using the investment casting route in this case study is why I chose the title for this article, and shows that we can effectively go “Back To (Deliver) The Future”. Do you see the need for lighter weight parts in what you do, and can you see the potential benefits of using Generative Design and this method of producing metal parts? I'd welcome comments, suggestions, and discussion about any aspects of the above article, the next steps that I'm looking at are how this process could scale up to batch production of the parts using 3D printing techniques that could support low volume production quantities
  2. 2 points
    That may be true, but a fair amount of code was added after the release of 3.5.0-BETA that was not community tested; both the Settings Guide plugin and part of the Cura Connect rework was added after the beta was released, and both of these "break" with the dark theme. Perhaps having a second beta and/or one or more release candidates would be a good idea.
  3. 2 points
    Diese Länge ist in der Firmware hardcoded. Je nach Druckermodell kann man natürlich die Quelle herunterladen, die Länge anpassen und neu kompilieren. Wenn Du nur einen oder zwei Zentimeter gekürzt hast, dann sollte das aber mit etwas weniger weit reinschieben beim Laden kompensierbar sein. Mehr würde ich sowieso nicht kürzen, da sonst die Bowden Tube Knicke bekommen kann. Die Bowden Tube gibt es bei Ultimaker Resellern als Ersatzteil; ein Austausch wäre da empfohlen.
  4. 2 points
    Stunning, @cloakfiend! Seriously loving all the post-processing you do on your prints. Gorgeous work. This is my latest print (STL, not mine). I may attempt to paint it, but don't have high hopes for a nice paint job (my hand-eye coordination is lacking).
  5. 1 point
    They meant this: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2688672
  6. 1 point
    True, in that case I do see your point - and I agree. A friend just bought an S5 and it is very expensive. Not unreasonable to expect 1st rate software to go along with it.
  7. 1 point
    What ages? What grades? Nothing motivates like a project. Have them ask their parents what would be useful to print. A soap dish maybe? Something practical. The numbers on the mail box. A coaster for drinks. Something to hold something that needs holding - some kind of fastener - is the most common. Knobs. Ask them what broke in their house and is small (preferably under 2 inches in all dimensions so it doesn't take as long to print). Then for software, I hear tinkercad is really good for beginners. They can design on their ipad or iphone or mac or pc and then open it on the mac and convert it to STL on your communal mac. Before they do that step though I recommend you review the designs for overhangs. ONLY AFTER they have made their first design they need to read this article and make changes/redesigns: http://support.3dverkstan.se/article/38-designing-for-3d-printing Let me tell you they will be so proud of the thing they make even it's a simple wedge or cylinder. It will be a cylinder that they designed! To their exacting specifications. It will be like no other cylinder in the world! (well similar but slightly different for sure). ?
  8. 1 point
    I'm not sure whether Simplify3D will make you more happy, though. The fact that it's paid doesn't mean it's better.
  9. 1 point
    Is there a timline, when version 3.5.1 will be released? I couldn't use Cura 3.5 with my MK3, because of the wrong temperature in the gocde. On GitHub they wrote thye will fix it with 3.5.1
  10. 1 point
    For now you can simply disable Connect Infill Polygons and Connect Skin Polygons
  11. 1 point
    And, to further prove not all is rosy in Kman's PVA land, I did have to find a way to do hot pulls during midprint. I have seen my PVA go from good to horrible within an hour of opening doors when the humidity has risen.
  12. 1 point
    I would agree with that. That could very well be the fly in the ointment. But it does strike as being an odd practice at best.
  13. 1 point
    That sound good but then it relies on one or more point releases being made. I guess if no showstoppers appear within a month or so of a new release then it could be fairly safe to upgrade anyway.
  14. 1 point
    Same holds for fixing Connect Polygons https://github.com/Ultimaker/CuraEngine/pull/843
  15. 1 point
    The remarks here don't do justice to all the hard work the Cura team and system testing is putting into making sure every release is more stable than the previous one. It is certainly not the case that we don't test stuff and 'just put it out there'. We followed the same development and testing process for 3.5.0 as we did for all previous 3.*.* releases. With an expanding automated test I would even argue we tested 3.5.0 better than the previous releases. During the 3.5.0-BETA we got very little bug reports so we assumed 3.5.0 was ready to be released. From our point of view 3.5.0-BETA was ready to be released to the public. When looking into the crash reports, we see that two bugs (crash in the Lockfile and a TypeError when searching for containers) contribute for 88% of the crashes we see. Without these two we would have a a new record low of startup crashes. Of course we want to reach 0, but we have to do this in steps. We are finishing up 3.5.1 and think all major bugs are fixed but of course it is difficult to determine if it is fixed when we can 't reproduce it, we haven't seen these two bugs at any system here at Ultimaker.
  16. 1 point
    La courroie est pas au top mais je pense que ça ne doit pas être ton soucis Clairement problème d'adhérence dans ton cas. Déjà, il y a trop de colle, il faut vraiment une couche très fine. Faire un niveau manuel correcte du plateau puis en auto ça peut aider. Tu peux aussi faire une premiere couche plus fine, par défaut c'est 0.27mm je trouve que c'est trop, teste en mettant 0.2mm par exemple
  17. 1 point
    For example, the gyroid infill feature that should be available to all in the future probably took the best part of a working week to bring it to the point where I thought it was OK to submit for inclusion in a release. I spent a lot of time on the details because although I had something working quite soon, it was obvious that it could be better and that's what took the time. Testing and thinking. Testing and thinking. Is it perfect? Almost certainly not but I am happy enough for people to try it out.
  18. 1 point
    That's because we all have a lot of experience in writing Cura code. I have worked on Cura full time for 3 years, while the Cura team is growing and so it also has some people who are newer to the code base. Also the Cura team might take on tasks which are more challenging or more bug-prone.
  19. 1 point
    I think so, last time i checked, but it wasn't as easy as I expected to get it in.....it might not even be in correctly! lol. at least its not falling off. I think there is a little lip on the bit to push in the gap in the middle...could be wrong though, I'm not in front of it at the mo, I'm at work. just something to think about, and check for yourself, I'm not entirely sure about this, but think im right?
  20. 1 point
    No since in showing negative feedback toward developers. Heck... even Microsoft with all it's deep pockets to hire the cream of the crop gets things wrong. They had to pull 2 separate patches this month. One for deleting users files and another because it was making HP desktop PCs either needing a restore or a full reinstall depending on how hard they were hit with the driver bug. We experienced this where I work and it was not fun. We need to encourage and not discourage. The software up to this point has been working really well for me. I have been experiencing issues but I have been using smartavionic's Gyroid alpha master build so I can't verify that any of my issues are in the 3.5 official build but i have been experiencing memory leaks when viewing the 'Monitor' screen after initiating a print through octoprint. It is severe when it happens and locks the PC up. Interestingly, if I catch it before it freezes up the PC, I can click on the Prepare tab and watch the memory go back down. If I switch back to the 'Prepare' screen before leaving the PC it doesn't seem to leak memory from what I have seen so far. That again is a non-official build so I can't comment on the 3.5 build even though it was compiled around the same time as the 3.5 release went official. I probably shouldn't even mention the behavior because of that really. One thing I hope Cura devs do is start releasing more beta builds for us to test before they release a final. Maybe that can help catch things like this. The more eyes the better. I do understand that it would likely increase the work and time that releases are done though.
  21. 1 point
    Unfortunately, there seems to be a heavy reliance upon 'user testing'. This presents an issue when people are involved in heavy projects that do not allow for testing with new software. Basically, if things are working, I am not going to interrupt a workflow just to test things. The projects I am working on are taking weeks to accomplish (and not even finished yet) and with what I am reading, happy I have not upgraded. Cura Devs do need to fully vet the software *and* take into account user tests. But, it would seem too much reliance on users to test for them before deployment is being employed. Oddly (or maybe not) the stuff that seems to be working, as I have read so far, is the stuff implemented by outside devs... *ahem* @bagel-orb, @smartavionics, @ahoeben (and others). In other words, the in-house stuff seems to be an issue by and large. Silly things like the dark interface not working on day one.
  22. 1 point
    Haha, thats awesome! Next time replace the printed model with another one ?
  23. 1 point
    That's a great article Steve. Thank you. The benefits of the weight savings are incredible and the part looks nothing like I would imagine, so under the heading of 'thinking outside the box', this approach is game changing. Not only is there savings in building the part itself, but there is huge potential to save fuel, reduce emissions and, conversely, make parts much, much stronger than they are today for an equivalent weight. And guys like me are very partial to strong parts ? What follows is largely beyond the scope of the original discussion, but I see it as an inevitable crossroads as we refine these kinds or parts. One of the wild cards we seem to struggle with still is how to handle abuse cases in storage, handling, installation and in-service damage. We have an industry that grew up on over-built, over-engineered parts. An unintended benefit of some (not all) of these components is that they could withstand (often undocumented) conditions outside of the original design scope without exhibiting damage. (I need to be careful here as not all critical damage is visible and we know that big doesn't always equate to strong). Clearly there is limited excess material here by design. The 'armour effect' (my term) of redundant material is largely gone. We as an industry will need to adapt processes, procedures and reporting methods to safely use parts that have traditionally been seen as 'rough service' and assumed to be tough in all aspects, but now can be much more easily, critically impaired before installation. In terms of in-service threats - Using the context of aerospace operations, as a fellow involved in winter operations for much of my career, the first thing I look at when I see a part like this (or the 777 folding wing tip) is, how will this part withstand water and de-icing fluid ingress, freezing or, in the case of anti-icing fluids, high pressure rehydration ? While weight savings comes from material reduction, that means more holes or porous structures,. Some will be benign, others may introduce new vulnerabilities or stress points when a contaminant freezes or expands in rehydration. So a thought for the future - How does an engineer using this new capability train the generator to take a defensive approach with regard to handling or in-service abuse? Thanks again for expanding the knowledge base here. Always a worthy read. John
  24. 1 point
    What's in the package: Flow sensor with mounted encoder, twist-lock adapter for UM2+ feeder, cable, some spare parts.
This leaderboard is set to Amsterdam/GMT+02:00
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Ultimaker Community of 3D printing experts. Visit the following links to read more about our Terms of Use or our Privacy Policy. Thank you!