Jump to content

chopmeister

Dormant
  • Posts

    188
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by chopmeister

  1. Hi guys, nice to see somebody talking about this. I also had similar ideas, but went along a slightly different path. I made a blog post about it http://chopmeister.blogspot.com/2013/11/road-to-fanless-printhead-diy-radial.html. Basically I made a 3d printed high-pressure radial blower. Much smaller than a compressor I would dare say. It's all pretty simple stuff, but I think it could do the job. I suck at electronics personally, but I would wager it can't be too hard to convert the normal PWM signal to something a brushless motor would understand, and it should work out-of the box with a normal brushed DC motor (I suppose). I tried it out and it blows like crazy, I just haven't had time to try and connect it to the UM.
  2. You can just use patents.google.com, I'd wager that's the easiest way. Just type in "Stratasys" or "3d systems", and you can see all their patents and sort them by filing date.
  3. The absolute best way of making a D-shaped spline at home is with an oscillating multi-tool. Like http://www.boschmultix.com/mx25e.html. You clamp the motor shaft in a bench vise, in such a way that the shaft is parallel with the clamps but a part of it protrudes upwards. With a digital caliper measure how much it protrudes at the start and end, and adjust until it is parallel. Then you take your multi tool, put the cutting bit parallel to the clamps, and start cutting slowly from the end of the shaft. You get a perfectly flat and very accurate D shape this way. And I would recommend buying one of these tools to everybody. They are an awesome thing to have at home or in the workshop.
  4. http://stores.ebay.com/pi3d That's the store. He cuts it to 1m increments, ie. 1 unit=1m which suited me fine. He also has 100% positive feedback which is always nice. I'm not using it on the UM per se, I ordered it for http://chopmeister.blogspot.com/2013/11/haddon.html.
  5. Unfortunately, the filing date is the one that counts here, not the publication date, and that is May 17, 2013. I checked on the USPTO and this application is still under review so there is still time to send evidence of prior art. Sending up to three examples per person is free, but they MUST be carefully selected and well described. The goal is not to spam the patent inspector, but to give the best possible examples of prior art. Remember, there are three main ways to disprove a patent like this: 1. prior art (which is the best way) 2. obviousness to those skilled in the art 3. lack of novelty I will try to spread the word on all of this as best as I can, and coordinate with EFF to post a claim for prior art on AskPatents on both of these patents. I think lots more of patent applications like these will start to be published soon, this is just the beginning. I would love to hear thoughts on all of this by someone from Ultimaker, if they are reading this by any chance. PS. A "non-final rejection" for the H-bot patent means that the application is rejected in it's current form, but the applicant still has an option of changing the claims so that it circumvents the issues stated by the patent inspector. So it's good, but not great.
  6. I ordered a GT2 belt cut to size from a Spanish guy on ebay. That should work for you right? I'll try to find a link and post it. I also bought some pulleys from him and everything seems pretty well made.
  7. I got nothing. I'm not Dutch, but I do work with architects (I'm a architecture drop-out myself ) and that could be anything. Especially since they're stacked one on front of the other like that. Rack cabinets would need access space I presume. Notice that the CV has a line connecting it with a RC on the left, so it's definitely some sort of installation. The MK has a door, so it must be some sort of cabinet. Judging by that, the RC things must either be installed in the floor, or the ceiling, since the door of the MK cabinet couldn't otherwise work.
  8. Can you post a screenshot? That would probably help.
  9. I keep my spools freely rolling on the floor for 2 years now. Never a single problem due to tangling, or underextrusion for that matter. Here and there I unwind it a bit, but even if I forget, it still prints fine. The spool holder on the UM is something I got rid of some two days after I assembled my printer. It gets in the way all the time, some spools don't fit etc. Never found spool holders all that useful but YMMV.
  10. I'm not sure but it seems that specific the patent application will be rejected anyway. There is a method of submitting prior art claims for published patent applications such as this one, and I registered with the US Patent Office and tried to submit, but I got a reply that this application has a "non-final rejection" already issued. I am currently inquiring about what exactly that is. I'll keep you posted. And yes, my next step will be contacting the EFF, I am aware of their efforts. I made a little sarcastic manifesto about the whole deal on my blog. It's here. Share it with your 3d printing friends if you like, it would be nice to get a critical mass of users who would boycott MakerBot.
  11. It is still just a patent application, and not accepted yet. But the problem is that the application is intentionally misleading about the state of prior art, and when you submit a patent, you are required to sign a declaration that you are not aware of any related prior art. Which considering the size and position of Stratasys in the development of 3d printing machines is just a blatant and obvious lie, but one which patent inspectors may not be aware of. I was advised to file an official complaint to the US Patent Office, which anybody can do, and it is free to include up to three examples of such prior art, but it seems that I am a month too late unfortunately. I am exploring other options though.
  12. I posted some questions about this on AskPatents, and I'm waiting for replies from people who know about patent laws more than me. (Which is basically everyone) I think a prior art claim could be made for the Hbot patent, since there are enough examples of prior art if you google H-bot from mid 2011 backwards. And placing the gantry in a printing CNC machine, instead of a milling CNC machine can hardly be considered novelty. It is nice how the patent itself never refers to the gantry as an H-bot setup thus making a search for prior art very difficult. As for boycotting everything Stratasys, I agree. Some awareness needs to be raised before they choke the whole 3d printing community with this. As Stratasys itself sells mostly to bigger clients who don't really care about our problem, I think Makerbot is the place to strike.
  13. http://www.3ders.org/articles/20131125-stratasys-brings-patent-infringement-suit-against-afinia.html Now the interesting thing I found on another site where the reporter says: "One Stratasys patent is about the rate at which liquid material is sprayed to give the model different degrees of hollowness between its layers. A different patent is a method for keeping freshly sprayed material above the temperature at which it would solidify. Another patent covers the control of the temperature of the material before it is sprayed. Still another is for a method for concealing the seams caused by layering sprayed material." So I went on to see what patents they are actually talking about. One of them is this: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20130095303 That's the "method for concealing the seams caused by layering sprayed material" one. I mean really? They patented all the possible ways two thick curves can meet? If it weren't true it would be really funny. That led me to discover this one: http://www.faqs.org/patents/imgfull/20130078073_01 So 6 months ago Stratasys patented an H-bot? How!?!? It was filed in September 2011, but this page, for example, is older than that: http://www.edn.com/design/other/4389023/So-you-want-to-build-an-H-Bot-, and so are others. All of this is very scary. If they win this one, everybody (except makerbot of course, now we see why they bought them) is in danger. (All their other patents are here if anybody else is interested: http://www.faqs.org/patents/assignee/stratasys-inc/) Oh, I almost forgot, the patented bathing printed objects in acetone too. I'm waiting till they patent "linear bearings, when used within an additive layer manufacturing apparatus". What a load of cr@p.
  14. I would also advise printing with hotter temps. I never print anything at 190, the layers don't bond well, and it's too unreliable. I use 195 as the bare minimum, and only with certain filaments which flow really well. But I keep mostly in the 205-235 range, depending on the speed. Also, It saying 190C may not even be 190C. On my old hotend, the thermocouple was consistently off by a few degrees. Try checking it with a temp probe at the nozzle. Take a pic of that custom hobbed bolt of yours, it may not be the source of the problem, but it may be contributing to it.
  15. Ah. Since this is the first such object I'm printing since the old Cura versions, I wasn't aware that infill can kick in even if it is set to 0%, so I presumed it was randomly welding those. I'll give Spiralize a try, but still, I would love 0% infill to actually do no infill whatsoever. Thanks for the clarification!
  16. As I understand, Cura welds perimeters with small gaps between them by rapidly zigzagging the printhead throughout those gaps. Can that feature be switched off? Besides sometimes doing that when completely unnecessary or unimportant, I just tried to print a thin walled (double perimeter) object for the first time with Cura 13.11 and it completely destroyed the inner skin of the object. It seems that for some reason those welds appear on the inner side of the walls as can be seen in the picture. The result was of course a totally messed up print. I do like the feature for most prints, but I would like it even more if I can shut it off sometimes.
  17. Thanks jumpmobile! I'm asking because since I installed the E3D, I'm getting massive temp overshoots. Like more than 20 degrees. And the temperature is very unstable. I've reduced the max current to the heater by half, and it's a bit better, but still not good. And after dozens of PID tuning cycles, I can't get it to work reliably. I am using the UM's thermocouple, and it worked fine with the old nozzle and heater. If anybody has any ideas, it would be much appreciated.
  18. Could anybody using the E3D currently please share their PID settings?
  19. Ian you're such a spammer, hehe Could you explain a bit how exactly your STL were corrupted by thingiverse?
  20. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is absolutely nothing unfair about the way Ultimaker did what they did with the UM2. (And no, I am not affiliated with UM in any way) It's a different machine, but I wouldn't easily call it better, nor would I call the UM original out of date. If I were buying a new printer now, I would still buy the original one first. The price difference between the kit you bought and the UM2 is almost double, and exchanging a kit somebody tampered with is something no company in the world would ever do, no matter what their support polices are. Go tell a car manufacturer you want the newer model of the car you just bought and see what they tell you. It's not a problem of company policy, it's a problem of unreasonable expectations. UM's willingness to even discuss such issues is miles beyond what any other company would do for you, because they actually care. There's loads of us here who've been dealing with Ultimaker for years and almost all of us love our printers and the company. It's unfair to call their support bad, based on your limited experience with them, heavily influenced by the fact they are really busy at this given moment. It's a small company which is trying their very best to give something to the community and not just sell their product. That is why we all respect them so much. As for the assembly, I had no prior experience with such machines and assembled mine alone in less than 6 hours. So I don't consider that statement to be false, but it's unreasonable to expect absolutely everybody can do it in that time. My intention here is not to be harsh about your problems, so please don't take it as such, it's just that if you give them some time, and take some time to learn and understand the nuances of the product you bought, you will come to understand that absolutely no harm has been done to you with the release of UM2, and that you haven't lost anything by buying the original one. And I'm sorry that you perceived it that way. I hope you will come to enjoy your Ultimaker as the beautiful machine it is.
  21. I really love the simplicity of the new extruder design. I can't wait to see first tests from forum members, especially with nylon, polycarbonate and such. I guess the little slide switches there are for tension adjustment?
  22. +1, I've been meaning to ask that myself. I'd love to see it.
  23. Personally, I would love an option of open and closed projects. For example, I have several projects that are semi-functional or in the finishing stages already. For those, I would like input from specific people from the community who know certain areas better than me (be it electronics, or programming or whatever), or whomever I think could help realize the idea. I have a huge problem with too much input and too much participants when doing team projects. It tends to produce a bunch of clutter which in turn takes too much time to wade through, and eventually leads to chaos. Some people, and some ideas benefit from the open approach, but in my experience, designing stuff rarely works that way. If I wanted to redesign, I don't know, a printbed, I don't think I would like to see comments and files from 50 people. When something is (almost) finished, it could then be "opened" for all to see and comment, so that the final touches can be polished and implemented easily, since there is a solid base to work on. And yes, chat is a must. Comments are just too slow sometimes. Well, an oversimplified version of all the serious teamwork I've done would go like this: In the idea phase, there will be brainstorming, sketches, stuff like that. When everybody agrees that the concept is sound, and the idea is defined enough to make a plan who should make what and in what order, it becomes a project. Then actual work starts being done. By actual work I mean when everyone fires up their respective software tools and starts producing files which will enable a test of the concept or produce the first prototype or whatever the final result requires.
  24. Ok, after playing with youmagine a bit, here's some stuff I noticed, in no particular order: 1. I miss an "instructions" section, which should either be collapsible (and collapsed by default) when viewing a design, or a separate tab. A good deal of stuff requires assembly and/or other parts or tools in order to function. It's really bothersome to include it in the single "description" section. If a separate tab, it should only appear if there really are instructions for the design. 2. "Documents" should really be renamed to just "Files". There will be all sorts of files there, and most of them won't actually be documents, so it's unnecessarily confusing. 3. I would really like the "Featured", "Trending" and other categories to be links to expanded lists of said categories. I usually don't care for the latest 6 designs, or the three most popular, rather I would like the option to scroll through more models based on the selected category. 4. The preview button doesn't work (at least not in Opera or Chrome) but you probably know that one already . Sometimes it throws out the error page, sometimes it's just blank. 5. The unpublished designs have no reason to clutter the main page. Ever. It makes you think that you published an unfinished design by accident every time. I get the "invisible" icon and all, but it's really useless. I won't be browsing the main page in order to stumble upon my own unpublished design. 6. For us nerds, it would be nice to have the default avatar resolution written somewhere around the "upload avatar" button, so that it looks nice and sharp. (this isn't really top priority, I know, but I just can't help it ) 7. "Designers" needs some sorting capabilities. (alphabetical, newest, number of designs, random, that sort of thing) 8. The titles of all the designs are a bit on the thin side, it's a bit hard on the eyes. Kick it up a notch. 9. I'm not really a fan of the whole "yellow on blue" STL preview color scheme. Your new "cyan on white" combo would work much better I imagine. This is all mostly functional stuff, nothing really innovative, but general user friendliness could be improved a bit, at least in my humble opinion. Otherwise, as I'm sure I've already said somewhere, congrats on taking up this project. I'm sure it will grow into a big, happy and open place.
  25. I'm very anxious to see the internal structure of the new extruder and a section of the new hotend! Looks promising. I do have one question for the UM staff though. I see the new hotend is "almost completely metal". So what's the max temp it can reliably go to? On a side note, you boys have been very busy it seems! I love the new site design and the store. The UM2 looks really nice also, I'll be sure to watch the presentation tonight.
×
×
  • Create New...