mastory

On the early UMO's, I don't think there was a teflon coupler. The Bowden had to be cut very accurately and the end of the tube was jammed down against the brass tube that passed from the nozzle thru the heater block and into the PEEK insulator. Heat migration up the brass tube would cause deformation of the end of the bowden, and cause a bottleneck for feeding filament. Also the brass tube tended to have a very long melt zone which was prone to clogging. Do not leave your machine with the hot end at printing temp for more than a few minutes when not printing. Another problem was retaining the end of the bowden against the hot end. The extrusion forces will tend to pop the bowden out of the hot end. Once it pops a couple times, the retainer clip will not bite into the bowden well and the bowden will need shortening to grip. There are a couple printable user developed add-ons that remedy this. Owens bowden clamp is one My recommendation is to upgrade both the hot end and the feeder to something aftermarket. I found the original hardware for the filament delivery to be problematic and unreliable. After cleaning my nozzle out 3-4 times, replacing it once, I upgraded the nozzle. This is exacerbated by the fact that the hot end is not easy to disassemble and reassemble. Personally, I went with a Geohagan extruder (outdated or hard to find parts for now) and a home built hot end. There are much better and inexpensive options out there today. You will probably need to alter your firmware and possibly machine wiring for a different hot end.

I like the idea. A skin layer immediately over infill could be regarded as if it were a bridge layer. To insure a smooth top with ABS, I have been printing a minimum of 6 top layers

Found it. Settings / Printer / Manage Printer / General / Automatically drop models to build plate I see you responded as I was typing Smithy. Thanks

Normally the model snapping to the build plate is a good thing. I found a case where I want to suspend a item above the build plate for cooling purposes, and only print support in this area for most of the print. How do I turn off the function of the model auto snapping to the build plate in CURA? I have seen the option before, just can't find it. I am running 3.4.1 atm. Thanks

Personally speaking, I don't consider backward compatibility of profiles to be an issue. At some point we as users have to understand and accept that the development direction is forward. Should I expect that a profile made in 3.6, with many more and different options, should work within 3.4 or 3.1. Where should we draw the line? If we happen to be lucky and it does work then great, but zero reverse compatibility is acceptable to me. Mainstream software developers are not concerned in the least with backward compatibility. That's why there are newer and hopefully better versions constantly coming. Issues with forward compatibility are more legitimate, but even then sometimes the road forward must sacrifice some functionality in the name of progress. Don't forget this software is free for the asking as a great value added if you happen to be a UM buyer.

Back a page or so I asked about upgrading to the latest version and establish a clean install without the influence of my previous version. The answer seemed pretty simple, move or rename a folder in the previous version for a clean install. Nallath's last post makes me wonder how far back I need to go with moving/ranaming settings folders. I currently have several versions installed. Does the install routine look for settings in any of "X-range" of versions before conducting the upgrade? Do I need to do more than disturb the order of my most recent install to get an unmolested 3.6? Thanks for the great work you're doing!

I am still running my UMO. It has been very reliable for quite a while. I have made a lot of improvements to get there. an Ulticontroller or equivalent is a must have. For me, the first upgrade I needed to make, and the most beneficial was replacing the hot end. Mine originally was an early version that had a threaded brass tube, the bowden had to be cut just right to create a seal and the brass tube was very prone to clogging. My solution was a home built hot end that requires special parts or a lathe. Today, I would replace with one of the several commercially available that offer nozzle exchanging. The second thing I did was replace the extruder drive. The original was temperamental keeping the proper tension, prone to clogging and stripping the filament with high retraction counts. My solution was the Geo Hagen extruder which may still be viable with some self sourced parts. Very happy with it, but again, if I were to do it today I would look to one of the many commercial extruder drives. To get the Z level to be repeatable in squareness and position I did a couple things. First was to mount the Z home switch on a threaded adjustable mount so the switch can be shifted with the turn of a single screw like this one. Next I made a very effective improvement to the Z stage by using an UM2 metal platform. It drops in pretty easy with the same shaft centers as the UMO, and fits the same guide shafts. You also have to supply new bearings of a different type and adapt your Z nut. This change removed much of the variability of the Z stage height due to the wooden platform flexing causing near constant re-leveling and Z switch fiddling. Lastly, I self sourced a heated bed. Mine is constructed with 1/4" MIC6 aluminum plate which is very flat. It's controlled with the UMO 1.5.7 bed outputs triggering an SSR relay, switching 120VAC and 250W silicone heater. I clip normal window pane glass on top to print on. It is very cheap allowing multiple spares. If they fail I just replace for a few $. I found the thickness very constant, not affecting Z height when changing. Using hair spray and printing ABS, a large print can easily pull the glass surface away. Each piece can be used until both surfaces are chipped. If your patient for the cooling, the parts usually pop off with no trouble. A simple thing to keep in mind on all print bed upgrades, always defer to 3 point leveling systems over 4 point.

Can I install a newer version than my current (3.4.1) which would be fresh from any influence from previous installed versions? Might be a good time to go back to default settings, attempt to apply the material templates as they are intended, and sort of purge all the settings changes that I have accumulated over the past couple years.

My limited experience printing nylon has shown me the paramount importance of keeping nylon in a dry condition - to a greater extent than other materials. Does Xstrand retain this requirement? What are the storage requirements with xstrand to achieve reliable print results? Is there a recommended procedure to keep opened filament dry? A procedure to dry out material that has been compromised by environmental exposure? Where are some pictures of some xstrand printed parts? Is xstrand resistant to gasoline and/or mineral oils? Recommended printing temperature and cooling settings? Nozzle, bed and chamber temps? Does a heated chamber help or hurt? Thanks

If your models are so close in size/fit, that the slicer combines them, I doubt that any common printer will print accurately enough to get a result with separate bodies, even if the slicer recognized the boundary surfaces. Can you live with a little more clearance?

You could save the *.asm as a single *.stl, review the options before hitting save. Select "save all components of an assembly in a single file". It may differ on other versions. I am referencing my 2012 version selections Open the stl from the file menu within Cura

This is a well discussed topic. You might start here: Dimensional accuracy

Depending on the scale of the part, you can start with parts that have a very slight interference, and hand sand them with emery paper to get the exact fit you want. I have found that when used carefully in controlled manner I can hand sand parts to a quite high precision. An OD can be sanded evenly by wrapping the entire OD with a band of 220 grit and carefully and evenly turning the part while keeping even tension across the width of the band. ID's can be done similarly by winding the band just smaller than the bore, inserting and counter rotating the part in such a way that the paper tries to unwind against the inner surface. You could print a custom sanding tool that is like in ID collet that holds the paper and also expands.. I have done alot precision square or flat parts with a full sheet of sand paper on top of a marble floor tile. Here you drag the part across the lapping surface with even and slow strokes, measuring often, moderating pressure to attain squareness...

Geometrically speaking honeycomb pattern an efficient use of 2D space when your trying to make an structure to house a bunch of basically round pupae. I think of it as circles packed tight, without the lost space between. I've never bothered with it due to all the jerking required to print. My favorite infill for strength is Cubic. It is a triangular (also results in hexagons) pattern that on subsequent layers, each line also shifts, creating sloping line that form tetrahedrons inside your part. Since it is straight lines, it prints fast. It seems cubic would be the best candidate for gradual increasing infill (or support) as you print up. I say this because each new infill wall could be placed such that it has support starting off an existing infill wall. On the other hand, gradually denser grid or line infill (or other straight vertical infill), always result in a lot of unsupported overhangs at the start height of a new course. Am I making sense i that explanation? Cubic Subdivision, Octet, and Quarter Cubic are similar in that the infill walls are sloped, and should also yield the same benefit to gradually increasing infill. I can't distinguish the difference between Octet and Quarter Cubic or between Cubic and Cubic Subdivision.

I was prejudgmental. Please accept my appology. Matt

I don't think trying to be secretive about some great idea is going to benefit anyone except possibly yourself. The thing is, the whole of Cura is opensource. There are no secrets hidden there to a person with the programming and printing know how and a work ethic to understand it. This is where the strength is in the organization model. Holding an idea secret is withholding information from the group who has done so much to help one another in this community driven effort. Sharing some break through idea here among experts and novices may be the best way to move it forward via feedback and brainstorming which would undoubtedly improve on the base. What could be the possible harm? So what if some other slicer or company grabs the idea? Posting it here prevents any party from monopolizing such ideas by establishing prior art. I think the whole post is more likely some kind of baiting exercise...

As the title says. Hopefully someone has prior knowledge or easy access to this info. I would like to explain my need to know. Some time ago I rigged my hot end up with a print cooling manifold that's supplied by compressed air. It's lighter and provides improved cooling capacity with an even 'spray'. It's connected to my air compressor at about 60psi and supplied by a hose added to the bowden bundle. The weakness of the setup is that the only means of control is by manually adjusting a small thumb screw needle valve. It can range from off to a lot of cooling I want to buy an industrial PWM (proportional) flow control valve and connect it thru the existing print fan circuit. Thus the need to start with an understanding of the target circuits capacities. I think I can find the right valve for $125 or less. Depending on the PWM signal, a small converter device may be needed for a boost. Anyone? Thanks in advance.. P.S. Being able to only select from a predefined set of thread tags seems very limiting. Can threads be searched by their tag definitions? Feasible or useful to have user defined tags?

Model name and incremented (slice) version number. A version number may not be feasible, so instead maybe a time and date code.

Ricky, in addition to the backlash in the bowden tube cause by the different diameters, the filament is acting as a compression spring and the tube an extension spring. When decelerating or retracting, these spring deflections must also relax. The nozzle pressure when extruding is the same if printing with a bowden or direct extruder. The bowden printer must compensate for the backlash and the spring effect.

I now nothing about programming. I only try to understand how to direct Cura to get the most desirable results, help others in the same when possible and provide feedback to the programmers when I feel well enough informed to speak intelligently.

A recent topic my be of interest to this discussion Printing a Solid 1.2mm wide wall

I personally have not heard of the 7/8 nozzle size thing. It does seem a good rule of thumb. I frequently tweak my line size up and more often down (as much as 3/4) to achieve solid walled parts such as the OP seems to be aiming for. Very often, I intentionally design parts with walls in multiples of my nozzle size. The results shown in the OP's last image are hard to rationalize for the casual/new user. Worse, is the overall effect on exterior finish where the inner walls start and stop, seemingly at random locations. It can get a little frustrating when an altered line width works well for one area of a print and not for another area. Would it be possible for the slicer to ignore the floating point error to a limited degree to allow these type of part profiles to be printed with a whole number of walls? On occasions when I get the part shape to play nice with an even number of walls, the part quality is outstanding.

Thanks for that @jonnybischof Great idea

Try defining your line width fractionally less than .4mm, and the shell thickness a multiple of the line width. Results may differ in the sloped area due to the true horizontal thickness being slightly greater than the thickness as measured normal to the inner/outer surfaces.

No soy un hablante de español. Muy a menudo, cuando las impresiones no se pegan bien, el problema está relacionado con la altura de la boquilla y / o la nivelación de la cama, luego la temperatura de la cama. Verifique estos factores en ese orden. La primera capa debe ser aplastada en la cama para obtener una buena adhesión. Incluso si crees que está lo suficientemente cerca, intenta ajustar la cama aún más cerca de la boquilla. Verifique que la boquilla esté a una distancia constante del vidrio en las cuatro esquinas del área de impresión, usando un trozo de papel como un calibrador de espesores. Debe arrastrar con fuerza cuando se desliza, casi atrapa. ¿Estás usando el pegamento correcto para el filamento? ¿Es la cama la temperatura correcta? Si imprime con PLA, puede intentar imprimir en una cinta de pintores con la cama a temperatura ambiente y sin pegamento. ¿Es el filamento un filamento de marca de calidad? El dinero gastado en filamentos de bajo costo no se gasta bien.