jonnybischof

Désolé, mais je ne sais pas comment aider avec ça. Je pense qu'il est possible de "reduir la quantité des polygones" avec un logiciel de dessin en 3D - moi, je connais seulement Google Sketchup qui manque cette fonction. Peut-être il faut quelque chose plus sophistiquée... Je pense que si tu configures Cura avec les paramètres "fix horrible" corrects, ç'est égal si le mesh n'est pas propre. Mais ça pourrait avoir un effet sur la performance de Cura - peut-être même amener le plantage de Cura que tu as décrit. Pour le moment il n'est pas possible de lancer le slicing manuellement - c'est une chose qui m'énerve aussi... cordialement, Jonny

The heater2 output is coupled to the heater2 temperature sensor. If you set the heater2 to 100°C target temperature, but the temperature reading never reaches 100°C, then the output will always be switched on Of course you need a firmware that enables the heater2 output. And you need to solder in some fixed resistors on the heater2 temperature input so that it will always read the same temperature. -> When the print is done, target temperature will be set to 0°C so the heater will switch off. Make sure heater2 temperature doesn't read below zero degrees

Yes, it should work. If you supply the UM with 20V, this will also increase the printhead heater power a little bit. I guess this won't matter much, though. You can easily calculate how much power the HBP will draw at whatever voltage: U = R * I means: Voltage (U) equals Resistance (R ) * Current (I). Units are Volt (voltage), Ohms (resistance) and Amperes (current). And, second formula: P = U * I means: Power (P) equals Voltage (U) * Current (I). Units are Watts (power), Volts (voltage) and Ampere (current). Example 1: A 12V, 200W power supply can deliver 16.7 Amps of current. Example 2: A heated bed which says "12V, 100W" will draw 8.3 Amps of current and have around 1.5 Ohms resistance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The MK3 heated bed says "1.4 to 1.6 Ohms for 12V" -> that makes 8 Amps of current = 96 Watts It also says "5.0 to 5.4 Ohms for 24V". That makes 4.6 Amps of current = 110 Watts. So I guess the target power of the MK3 heatbed is 100 Watts. You shouldn't go much higher than that. If you take a 20 V PSU and use the 24V configuration, than you get 20V divided by 5.2 Ohms = 3.8 Amps. That makes 20V times 3.8 Amps = 77 Watts. So you lose almost 30% of power. If you take the 12V configuration with a 20V PSU, you get 13 Amps = 260 Watts -> this will most probably make the MK3 go up in smoke... As Owen already said: Always leave some headroom for the PSU. If you take a 200 Watts PSU and draw 200W from it, it will run hot and possibly not live as long as it should. It depends on the PSU, but usually the ideal load for a switching PSU is 65 - 80%. Go for that range and you shouldn't have any problems with that. /edit corrected a calculation error on the second example...

Maybe something else to think about: What if you put a thin and flexible sheet on top of the existing platform (for example one made of Lexan ) When your print is finished, you take off the printed part together with said topmost sheet. Bend the sheet slightly and your printed part should just pop off. Doesn't work for heated beds I'm afraid... /edit: I could actually imagine doing just that on my printers. Even if you have a heated bed, just don't heat it when you use the flexible sheet... All you need is some way to fix the sheet on the platform and you'll need to adjust your levelling / z-endstop.

Cura n'est pas le seul, mais le meilleur soft pour UM Est'ce que to connais la vue "X-Ray" de Cura? Si tu vois des faces rouges là, ça veut dire que ton stl n'est pas "propre". Généralement, on peut fixer ça avec les "fix horrible" paramètres dans les "expert settings". Essaye "Combine everything (Type-A)" ou les autres si ça ne va pas. Aussi, il faut faire attention que Cura va ignorer tous les choses qui mésurent moins que 0.4mm (c'est à dire: moins que ce que tu as mise pour "nozzle diameter" dans la configuration). Je n'ai pas utilisé mon Français pour trop long o.O /edit: Je m'assume que tu utilises la version mise a jour?

It's definetly better to use 2 PSUs. I don't know about the UM warranty policy, but I think that if you decide to use a different PSU than the one supplied (absolutely no matter whether it's almost the same or something completely different), you will void your warranty for the electronics, which is 200 Euros if you have to replace them. -> I may be off with that policy thingy, but that's the standard. Also, if I'm allowed to say that, the UM1 electronics board is not really suited to drive a high current heated bed, even if there were a sufficiently powerful PSU. I'll take the standard low-power switch which is used to switch the DC supply on the electronics on and off as an example. This thing already sparks enough as it is when flipping. So, the best way to go is using a relay (or even better: a MosFET switch, maybe tonight I get around to posting something about that) and a second PSU. A standard 200W industrial PSU that you can get on Ebay or a more decent electronics shop is usually small enough to fit under the printer (print some extended feet for the UM if necessary) and is pretty cheap.

I've ordered an UM1 kit this week (monday I think?) and it was already shipped out two days later. So, to answer your question: No, it doesn't always take this long. I guess they have lots of orders which is always difficult to handle for smaller companies. (My company usually has less than 10 orders at a time and still manages to make a mess out of it - luckily I'm not involved in the sales process) Isn't it possible to call them by phone? That's usually the quickest way to solve problems like that. Many shops get hundreds of E-Mails per day, so I wonder how anyone can manage that without having 10 people working on it... My advice is: Don't order stuff that isn't in stock, except if you don't have an alternative source for it. This shortens the processing time a lot: orders can be shipped as soon as payment is complete. It also simplifies things for the shop if there aren't 1000 orders pending and they don't have to keep all the partly completed orders somewhere in their stock. There's a well-known online shop for computer stuff in Switzerland. They started with only a few people, a clever shop system and low prices. By now, they have 430 employees ONLY for selling stuff inside the small country of Switzerland. They don't even do product design (except for some PCs they sell, which is not much of a task), that is just sales and support (and management and accounting, yes yes). Ultimaking sells only one product line that they completely design and support themselves, including hardware and software design. Plus, they ship worldwide. If their customer support is to be as good as the shop I described above, they need a big staff of employees just for sales and support. All employees want their monthly loan, so this goes directly into the price of their products... But what am I babbling about, actually I just want to say: Don't be too harsh on a small company that as we all know tries its best to sell an amazing product at a competitive price (actually the Replicator 2 costs more than double than the UM1, while delivering inferior quality). Instead, try to help where you can: - One phone call (provided there is a customer support by phone) can replace 5 E-Mails. - Don't spam the customer support with unnecessary E-mails (this DOESN'T mean you demontd!) I know there's people who write 3 Mails just for asking one question. I know that because I used to be like that, too Usually, most questions could even be answered by just asking Google or reading the FAQ's, maybe search the forums. Someone has to read all these E-Mails, and the more there are, the higher the chance that something goes under in the flood. Simple calculation: Let's say it takes 10 minutes to answer a question. If we have 100 people with a question, and they all ask one person, then this person needs almost 17 hours to answer all these questions. So if only half of the people find their answer elsewhere (which usually could be the case), then the poor guy having to answer all the rest of the questions already saved himself a full business day... Many, if not most, companies just simply ignore anything they deem "help-yourself-able", which may seem rude but that's how you cope with a flood of questions... /edit: Actually, I have just used up half an hour of my lunch-break to answer that question... Maybe I was a bit too thorough o.O

Thanks for all the input! So you can buy leadscrews from UM? That's good to know, thanks! Ok, scissor lift is dead then Also, adding unsupported rods in the front is a no-go. Thanks for clarifying! About putting the motor on top: I honestly don't get why that would make any difference Supporting the leadscrew on the opposite side of the motor is one thing to be fixed, but what good is it to reverse it? I'd say for now there are three different, promising approaches that came up. I'll try to sort them by simplicity, simplest modification first. 1. Simply increase the length of the linear bearings, and make the z-stage's arm more rigid. + Very simple to design and put to reality. No changes to the firmware or the function of the machine in general. -/+ I'm not sure yet whether it would fully solve the rigidity issues. 2. Use belts instead of leadscrews, as chopmeister (this time I get the name right!!!) suggested. + Even distribution of forces: minimal odd tension -/+ Changes the z-stage behavior. But this should be manageable without problems -/+ I dare to question the stability: Isn't belt stretching an issue? 3. Use 3 leadscrews, make a complex coupling system, and use linear rods for x-y stability. Synchronize the leadscrews (either with 3 steppers wired together, or by using timing belts) + Unquestionably the most stable solution z wise, while... - ...a bit more difficult to get a rattle free x-y plane -/+ I don't know what a UM leadscrew costs, but I guess it's somewhere around 20 Euros. Plus there is more hardware needed. So this will get rather expensive. 4. Go totally crazy and use 3 leadscrews, control them independently and use them to level the build platform in software. + Same stability as (3) + Very easy levelling process, can be driven up to the point where the user doesn't have to care about levelling at all. - Needs a complete redesign of the electronics and major firmware modification - EXPENSIVE - rough guess 100 Euros for the hardware, 200 Euros for the new electronics. Plus many hours of programming. My thoughts so far: I will give #1 a shot first, just because it's so simple that it would really be stupid not to try and compare. Maybe it's totally good enough, and that's what I want to have in the end. I'm not sure about #2. It sounds promising but it's rather hard for me to imagine it in detail.. The total lack of sturdy leadscrews is somewhat disturbing Also, it might be difficult to realize that project without making too many irreversible modifications to the frame - so if it fails, you have a somewhat wasted or "stained" UM... Maybe if there was detailed 3D sketches, this would become more attractive? # 3 and 4 are a bigger project. I think I want to wait for results of #1 before I make this more than brainstorming. Also, I shouldn't over-estimate my abilities... But if #1 fails, I'd love to do a community project in that direction! It's probably too much for one person alone, but if only a few of you amazing guys collaborate, this should be peanuts # 4 can be done as an (optional!) upgrade to #3, so the "EXPENSIVE" part can really be made a completely optional upgrade to an otherwise perfectly functioning #3.

I Like that copter! Got the verey same motors at home (Didn't yet get around to build the quadcopter though..)

Interesting proposition... That would make the levelling process a lot easier, and it would eliminate the straight rods + linear bearings altogether (see below why). You could even go really crazy and put in two more steppers instead of connecting the leadscrews. Then you could completely do levelling in software Use an inductive sensor and the software can automatically level the platform as a standard procedure on startup... Some thoughts: -> You can't leave the straight rods and do levelling with the leadscrews, because then you would create tension between the leadscrews and the rods. Okay, it's possible to work around that by using ball-joints on the leadscrew-mounts. But that's going to be complicated. But maybe still worth it? Have to think about that... But this introduces another problem: The z-stage would probably rattle in the x-y plane because the nuts connecting to the leadscrews are (afaik) not as tight as the linear bearings... *is there smoke coming out of my head already?* How about leaving the two straight rods in the back where they are. They will fix the platform x-y wise. Then, connect the back leadscrew with a balljoint. Add two leadscrews in the front corners, connected with balljoints. Every leadscrew gets it's own stepper motor. That means I have to make a new electronics board (which will be expensive, but otherwise easy provided there's some free I/Os on the Arduino) Add a positioning sensor to the printhead that can measure distances with 0.05mm accuracy. Shouldn't be too difficult, again provided there are more free I/Os on the Arduino. Then there's going to be some tinkering with the firmware (that'll hurt...). But the result would be a completely self-levelling and extremely sturdy z-stage like the world has never seen before /edit: !!! :-P :-P :-P

What? That's not linear? Didn't give it much thought I'm afraid But this kills the design idea imho... If the Arduino can't compute the formula exactly, then it introduces a new and unnecessary error to the movement... No go :(

I was referring to Xeno's AppleTV remote stand: https://www.youmagine.com/designs/apple-tv-remote-stand#!design-documents I guess he exported that with LOTS of polygons ^^

That's an interesting point. The UM1 z-stage has some headroom upwards for increasing the length of the bearings (meaning: adding another bearing on top of the existing one). That could be done without losing any build height. Another thing to prevent canting (thanks for the word ) could be to provide a counterweight on the opposite side of the rods. I've seen that on other machines. But there is little space on the UM1 to do something like that. And it increases the friction on the leadscrew because the whole z-stage would be even heavier. So... Do you guys think it would suffice to just double up the linear bearings on the rear rods? That would be great of course, KISS I'd also design a sturdier platform arm with 3-point levelling, but that's detail for now. /edit: That picture shows your custom z-stage, not the UM2, right? Did you replace the rod + linear bearing with a rail system? It kinda looks like it...

Really? That never happened to me before Lexan is a quite expensive brand material, whereas generally "acrylic" sheets are some cheap noname stuff of baaaaad quality...

Hi community For my "Ultimaker Black Edition" I want to make an improved z-stage which must be more rugged and stable, less prone to constant re-levelling and easier to level in general. Also, I don't want to lose too much build space (none if possible) and I want to keep at least the front of the printer open for accessibility. So, that's quite a task because there's many requirements to be met. Also, I'm not a trained mechanical engineer, so I appreciate any help from you guys! I figured that the main problem with the current design is, that the whole z-stage rests only on one side (the back) without any support on the front. This works well as long as there is no increase in weight. But with pretty much any HBP, the weight IS increased so more stability would be appreciated. So, imho it is necessary to add support for the z-stage in the front of the stage. Meaning either just two more straight rods + linear bearings, or even a whole second leadscrew. Now of course it's easier to just put in two more rods with bearings, but are these bearings made to carry that kind of force? I don't think so - but I lack the experience to judge on that... To give some numbers: I want to design the z-stage for a maximum total weight of 5 kg. This gives headroom for most builds. When using a really heavy HBP like qu-bd's Basalt plate which weighs 2kg, there is not too much headroom at all. So, if there are only two straight rods on the front, and the z-stage connects to them with linear ball bearings (same as for the back of the machine), then the z-stage's weight will put a "lever force" on the bearings instead of a proper "straight downwards force" because the front lacks a support point: Now, 1st: Is that a problem for the bearings? Most ball bearings are clearly made for only one particular direction of force. (usually the axis). Twisting, shearing, pulling is usually bad for the bearing. What about linear bearings? And 2nd: Would that setup run without friction? -> My guess is that this introduces friction on the linear bearings which may lead to the bearing hanging / slipping instead of running smoothly: There are reports of "hanging / slipping" z-stages (no movement even though the leadscrew turns, later it suddenly jumps to the intended position). This must absolutely be avoided! Comments on that part? I think it would be more stable to not only add two rods to the front, but also a second leadscrew. Now, this makes the build MUCH more complicated because not only do the leadscrews need to be synchronised (meaning coupled), but the front leadscrew would ideally sit right in the middle part of the front, where there is supposed to be a window to reach into the printer and take your prints out. That would be a serious "SIGH" for the looks of the machine going down the ditch. So I want to avoid that if possible. But if it's necessary... I think it would be too much trouble to switch the rods and leadscrews from the "front - rear" to the "left - right" sides. Besides, I probably want to add a crossflow-fan which blocks an entire side and also complicates things on the other side a bit (need a rounded wall to guide the air). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think rather than breaking my head over the last solution, it would be better to think about something entirely different. For example: Why not put the z-stage on 4 rods (each corner, held with linear bearings) and move it up / down with timing belts: One belt in every corner, both front belts as well as both rear belts connected by another rod in the bottom, and both rods coupled to the Z-motor. The four timing belts would be close and parallel to the supporting rods, so the platform's weight force is straight downwards - clean without any friction. This eliminates the leadscrew entirely by replacing it with a different system. It also means that there needs to be some kind of gearing for the motor in order to get a good positioning resolution (as well as lower the necessary torque the motor needs to deliver). Imho this system would be cleaner and easier to achieve than adding a second leadscrew. This is mostly because getting a second leadscrew which is exactly the same as the original one might get tricky, whether as getting some belts, pulleys and straight rods is easy and required anyways. Also, if you think about it, the actual design of the z-stage would be pretty simple. It doesn't even need to be extremely sturdy because it's supported in all four corners, which is where the weight of the bed connects anyways. Or, how about that: Maybe, if that can be constructed sturdily enough, there is no need for belts nor additional leadscrews, and the whole mechanism is just underneath the build plate instead of around it.

I've got black PLA (from ProtoParadigm via qu-bd.com) that will be matte if printed rather cool and glossy if printed hot. It's not easily controllable, but I've always used it to determine the optimal print temperature; guessing that matte isn't quite what it's supposed to be. Layer adhesion is also considerably worse if the particular brand stuff that I use is turning out matte. Maybe your temperature setting is a little too low? (Need to know what setting you use first...)

Maybe Lexan could be interesting? It's neither cheap nor easily available, but pretty much indestructible (safety "glass" application, going up to full ballistic protection). You could shoot your prints off the build plate (gun-wielding maniac in me speaking... ) There's lots of different types, and it's difficult to find datasheets, but there are definetly types that have a melting temperature above 100°C, so it may even be suitable as a HBP, at least for lower-temperature applications (PLA).

You would need to make custom changes to the firmware anyways - if you connect a switch to the Arduino (provided there's a free Input left) you still have to program the function that translates "button pressed" into "M600". That should be fairly easy, though... I wondered myself whether there are any free I/Os left on the Arduino? I'd have several uses I wanted to implement before but it can get very tricky if you have to work with a "foreign" software design...

Impressive!! I like the "back to work" button (because that's what I gotta do now o.O)

Ooops, fail (usually I read more thoroughly...) Ok so, I'm sorry but I have to correct that: mastory, you're my hero! If necessary, I can place orders in my company's name. It says on their homepage that there are no MOQ and no extra charges for small quantities. So at least it should be possible to make non-bulk orders.. /edit I didn't take a closer look on the pulleys yet, just saw the belts... Well, it would kinda suck if they don't have the right pulleys, but at least they have the belts in correct length - didn't find these anywhere else, and I'm not really keen on clamping belt ends together. /edit: They also have bearings, bushings and whatever other stuff for linear motion

I'll take some of that, too! I'm barely getting around with Sketchup 8 which is really made for the less talented people like me o.O

Looks great! The prices are very cheap and they supply exactly the lengths you specify o.O I guess I'll give this one a shot if I don't get a reply from Hertsch soon... I may need some help choosing the ideal settings, but first I should look a bit closer into it myself. Anyone knows a link that explains the "h5", "h6" etc. tolerance system? That's gotta mean something a normal person understands... Oh, and have you tried contacting them? OMG They have GT2 belts and EVERYTHING http://de.misumi-ec.com/eu/ItemDetail/10302190510.html (may come out in german but you'll get the idea...) You're my hero chopmeister!! I guess I have my supplier for most parts I'll ever need for the printer

Great to see you're working on YM! Just tried the new 3D vew with Xeno's huge (82MB) STL. It lagged like crazy and now even after I've closed YM the browser hangs and lags every 5 seconds. You might want to improve performance on that

Maybe that'll work better with a 3Doodler (Hope I'll get mine soon...) /edit Just to stay on-topic: my latest print: Nothing fancy I'm afraid, but still a big step for my UM1: This is the first part that I've printed more or less successfully with my new Basalt HBP. I printed it directly on the bed, no tape, no glue or anything. Just the bare HBP @ 52°C. The bed temperature needs to be adjusted very carefully, or the plastic either won't stick if it's too cold, or will warp right off the bed if it's too warm. I might get a problem with that when printing large parts because there's rather large temperature drift between the center and the corners of the HBP. The part itself is a gearbox for the needle-test-adapter I'm designing at work atm. Read gallery description if you're interested. This will be my trial by fire for the UM1. Need a high precision and durability in order to get this thing working...

Don't these feelers cost a fortune? Sadly, I don't have access to a fully equipped workshop anymore like I used to. Gotta pay for every tool I need... Didn't get a reply from Hertsch yet. I'd strongly prefer getting a rod already cut to the right length and chamfered with professional tools, even if that costs a lot. It will give the best possible result... By the way: One thing I love about the UM1, no waiting time