msurunner
-
Posts
274 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Forums
Events
3D Prints
Posts posted by msurunner
-
-
Just for fun. I did not adjust the emissivity. The PEEK is not hotter thAn the brass.
Sorry, I cannot do it, the extension bmt is not allowed.
But your pic shows the PEEK being hotter than the brass??? I'm really confused as to what you are trying to show. And when in the process has this been taken? If I were to guess, I'm assuming ten minutes or so after a print, which makes a lot more sense as to why the PEEK would be hotter than the brass. Because brass has a higher thermal conductivity it will heat more easily, AND cool more easily. Thus, even though the PEEK wouldn't get as hot as the brass, it would hold it's temp longer than the brass.
-
I would say that in addition to what everyone else has said, there needs to be a plan to get some profile inputs from users to get some settings close on a secondary release for people with different machines. Daid did a great job when writing the defaults for Cura to get people fairly close out of the box. KISSLICER kinda works if you know someone that has some decent profiles. If the plan is for utilizing this as an Ultimaker-only slicer, then hey, that ought to be pretty easy, especially if the backend works well enough for people to convert. I think it'd be cool though to get some other machine profiles in there, too.
-
Are you running a hybrid nozzle setup? If so, you will probably have to tighten things up a couple times as you heat and cool the hot end to get a good mesh between the brass pieces or you'll get leakage in the areas you are seeing.
-
What is the context in which this picture is taken? ie, after a print? Before a print? Ambient?
-
Hi,
i had a similar problem. The solution was, after cleaning the hot End, that i had mounted the brass pipe in the wrong direction.
That could also be a reason for your issues with the V2 hotend. I don't see any pictures of your V2 setup, but there should be a gap somewhere, and it is supposed to be between the heater block and the brass sleeve around the bottom of the PEEK part. The other thing you may choose to do if you are feeling mechanically inclined, go for the V1/V2 hybrid. Alaris, Ian and I are all very pleased with how it's working, though none of us seem to be 100% sure why it's working as well as it is.
Here's the thread.
-
Bottom left is speed, Bottom right is percentage of the SDcard file completed. Which setting are you looking for? Most stuff for preparation can be found in the prepare section (move axis contains extrude to prime your print head) and most tuning options are in the Control/Tune section (flow rate, temp, fan control, etc). If your slicing settings are good, you shouldn't need to touch these very often...
-
Nor I SG, but I was not liking the tweaking I was having to do to get the flow right in my V2 and figured I would just toss the opened up nozzle in there and see what happens. I was very pleasantly surprised! I haven't checked things out but the two theories I would have would be the V2 nozzle has a shorter overall height, perhaps the internal chamber has the same steeper taper that the outside has, thus changing the flow slightly. The second would be, particularly with my setup with an extra nut on the brass tube, that you are creating a larger molten PLA reservoir. That may lead to a more consistent flow from printhead???
Here's my setup btw... Messy since I didn't clean the print head off before snapping the pic but it conveys what's going on...
-
My first thought would be that if you bumped up your steps per e in effort to get a different flow, you actually have overdone it and are essentially pulling semi-molten PLA/ABS up into the PEEK/PFTE area during retraction and it's creating a plug there. I would say bump your steps back down and change your filament diameter size so that it's creating a "larger" volume. It will then not want to push as much of it out the hotend. But changing that steps per e will affect your retraction speed and distance as well as your flow, so I think that's not a wise means of adjusting flow... Since you are only getting the problem during retraction, I would say that is your likely culprit. The test for it would be to turn your steps per e back down to where it should be and turn your filament diameter up until it matches the flow you want. Then try your retraction again and see if that produces the same failure. Just my two cents though!!!
-
AutoCAD simply has the command "UNION"... might be similar in Archicad...
-
All we need is snowy to pop in now and say he too has one!
-
I wanted a larger diameter nozzle and didn't want to wait for/buy another one when I had the old V1 nozzle sitting right there. I did just as you said, except I put another nut on the brass tube between the nozzle and the block to create more of a lock between the tube and the nozzle, to avoid the potential nozzle twist off with the tube still in the block that Daid is referring to. I also have been quite happy with the results...
-
I have a hard time thinking it's backlash since it only occurs in the one part of the print and it exceeds drawn dimensions in only the one area, not in the smaller square on top where the machine would have to make quicker movements... But I will double check my short belts, the long ones twang.
-
I think this is a SF issue, but I figured I would check to see what you guys thought and if there was a fix.
I'm getting prints where the walls aren't where they should be and thus the parts dimensions are off as are the infill connections. Here are a couple pics to illustrate my "failure".
As you can see, the hardware side of things appears to be fine, else you would see the "failure" in other areas. Also, though the part is drawn at 19 mm cube sections, the part next to the failure measures about 19.2 mm while the rest of the 19 mm pieces measure the 18.8 you would expect from shrinkage. THOUGHTS???
-
I like that simple solution on the on/off... Might have to implement that... It makes sense too because you wouldn't want to have the printer head hot and "trying" to print if the z can't go down any farther...
-
Idk either, maybe post a couple more times
Where are you in the US? -
Flip the short belt you already have on to the pulley. Then put two more pulleys with two long belts on them on the rod and slide it into the bearing on the other side. Then make sure you get the opposite sides' rod through the belts before you slide it into the bearing cap.
-
what time today is the new cura being released?
Im like Mister Smithers in simpsons looking for the next barbie doll... i want it.... i want it...
i want it... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Ian
Haha, here was more my feelings!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1pm4fQRl72k
Pins and needles Daid!!!
-
Did you print that solid???
-
Gotcha, I hadn't realized SF didn't have that capability. Boy, not a fan of Slic3r... at least not after having had Cura. I do like some of the features it contains at first glance, but Daid, you were absolutely right in creating a more user friendly GUI... Also, not a fan of the lack of model view/gcode preview. Any joker ought to know what the rough out line of the part would look like...
-
So the release was quicker than anticipated!
-
So I thought I saw in another topic that there's going to be a new release of Cura soonish? Any differences that we can expect? A couple of things I now that I would like to see would be a concentric fill, where it would follow the walls inward, and a scroll window for the slicing results so that if you load five or so models, the model/gcode view pane doesn't continue to decrease each time it slices another model. Slight tweaks I would imagine. Just some thoughts..
-
Perhaps I'm missing the boat here. Why wouldn't you be able to keep the software the same? GCODE works in it gives a the firmware a command, ie heat up, cooldown, move here, print here, etc. There are a bunch of these M-codes that are followed by coordinates or temperatures or other values. They do not set parameters like steps per mm. Those come from the firmware's interpretation of the GCODE, ie Marlin. In Cura, you can change the size of your build platform in preferences, so that covers any change you could have there. Then I'm assuming you are planning on running Marlin firmware? If so, then all you need to do is plug in the corresponding steps per mm in the builder on Daid's github. Correct me if I'm wrong here Daid, but Cura's print function doesn't care if you are a custom RepRap or an Ultimaker. If it's running Marlin firware, it should work. If you are running a UltiController or similar setup, again, it should work. The basic thing is GCode doesn't care about your steps per mm...
-
Thanks, I was curious if we are using similar thread pitches and sizes on our(the 3D printing community) nozzles. Sounds like that's pretty much the case?
-
Somewhat related note... Anybody know of a good source for larger diameter nozzles? I'm looking for something in the order of .6 or bigger...
Where are you in the US?
a brand new slicer - does what YOU want?
in UltiMaker Cura
Posted
I would add to the desired list concentric infill!