Jump to content

jens

Member
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About jens

  • Birthday 01/01/2015

Personal Information

  • Field of Work
    Engineering
  • Country
    DE
  • 3D printer
    Ultimaker 2
  1. Since some update my UM2 won't fuse wall layers (sideways layers) together. If I print vertical walls with more than one layer, those layers don't adhere to each other, like not at all. I can easily shove my finger nail in between without any resistance. It doesn't matter if I use external/internal walls or additional infill walls instead -- the result is the same. While that does lead to somewhat better (wall-)surface quality on a cosmetic level and less plastic gunk building up on the nozzle, the parts are way too weak. I didn't have that when Cura was still in the 10+ version numbers. Of course, there would often accumulate a bit more of plastic gunk on the nozzle, but I could print thick-walled parts that would really have one single thick wall (and not several separate layers like a stack of leaf springs). With the new Cura, I didn't find any option to make wall layers fuse together. Would someone please point me in the right direction? (Just in case: we're not talking about a mere underextrusion issue on the machine side of things. It's something with the slicing. I think it started somewhen with Cura jumping from 2-digit-dot-something to 1-digit-dot-something version numbers.)
  2. I'm sure it's already been discussed extensively - so forgive me for asking, but I didn't follow too closely ... Is the UM(2) electronics capable of handling another motor that you could use to lift the head parking area when in printing mode and only bring it back down for the tool change?
  3. For those situations, I usually leave holes in the part to press-fit/glue whatever (usually nuts or similar metal pieces) in. But just printing around the metal part is neat. How did you get the metal insert properly aligned on the bed? Pre-printing some thin "orientation lines", place the insert and start the actual print?
  4. Maybe it fits better here than in the truly-practical-thread ... All the same material (except for the brush head, of course, and the towel)
  5. Not sure if stuff related to wet shaving (you know, real soap and all that) is disqualified by definition ... Brush handle with an excessive amount of finishing work (still only looks rather used/vintage at best); Minimalistic shaving mug with some rough sanding and torch smoothing (except for the really bad cellulite, the inner surface is very rough for practical reasons) (Sorry, I can't make decent photos with my phone ... nor any other device)
  6. Additionally, you could try to go down with your temperatures. For me, heating the bed to no more than 60 °C did help, as did minimising nozzle temp (you have to find the minimum for your material where layer bonding is still sufficient). Also, I usually never go above 40...50 % with the cooling fans for parts of that size.
  7. No, it's an option but not needed, the metal one of UM2 will work fine. People change it because the UM2 version is not symetrical, as it was designed for dual extruders, which we now know will not happen on the UM2, so a symmetrical version in metal available from UM2 would still be very nice (@SandervG) Some people change it because the metal one of the UM2 just does not work fine with the Olsson block. I don't know if there are slight variations in the metal fan shrouds coming mounted on UM2s, but at least with mine the block just wouldn't fit without touching the metal.
  8. Erm. I didn't mean for this to get ... all emotional. Sorry. I don't know, if the program still uses the nozzle size, but, it doesn't need to. If you specify travel speed, line width and layer height, you get the volume per time that has to be extruded - it doesn't depend on the size of the hole it is pressed through (it could, if go deep deep into the effect of the nozzle size on the shape of the cross section of a single extruded line ... like, slightly rounder edges or whatever).
  9. Wall size was the wrong term. It's line width ... you put in all the line widths and numbers of lines to run for the perimeter resulting in a certain wall thickness. I do not see, where a parameter nozzle size would be required there anymore. But then again, I never ever used the new Cura to fully prep a printable file (as the program still crashes all the time; it's more like an open beta) - maybe with a simpler layout (not all the options enabled), the program falls back to nozzle size. Who knows.
  10. Just put 0.8 in as you wall size (for each wall size that you did enable in the settings)
  11. What do you mean by this? Something like this, I think: ... this goes also for joints where you would stick, let's say, one tube into another (there, you get surfaces closer to each other, if have them tapered)
  12. I asked for material stiffness (as in E modulus, not sure what the correct English term is) because I had a very thin part in mind. I use PETG a lot (still not sure if Colorfab XT is the same) - it's significantly more flexible than PLA.
  13. Hi, as the topic says: are there any filaments that are noticeably stiffer than PLA (without being much weaker)?
  14. The print looks like the heads need some x/y fine tuning, but promising!
  15. Uh ... I didn't see that. It looked like only half the tab was missing
×
×
  • 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!