Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral
  1. Many thanks, Martin. I had the same problem with Cura filling what it should not and could not get it solved until I did this. The problem is the default is that overlapping volumes will be unioned and nowhere is it mentioned that that is the case. I just un-checked that box and model prints as I specified it.
  2. I was mentioning the same thing, I have had the spool get jammed. Also, for head cleaning given the problems you have been having I would remove the head and clean it and verify its 100% clear. There are various instruction pages on how to do that.
  3. Heres an idea or two. Set the feeder tension several notches higher and see what happens. If that doesn't work set it several notches lower. Don't go by the indicator, it could be off. I have a UMO+ so am not as familiar with the UM2 feeder but I had mine set too loose when I first got the printer and it would grind due to not gripping tightly enough. Lastly make sure the spool itself is feeding, I have also had the problem that the filament got tangled on the spool in long prints. Next time it is printing bad you can cut the filament right above the feeder and hand-feed it in (don't stop
  4. Bob, the shank is a taper going right to left in the picture, it is for friction insertion in the instrument. Every dimension of it is constrained by either the instrument or the acoustics, there is no room for any variation until you get to about the middle when the outside is no longer in the instrument. The print of the shank is accurate, the only glitch is about 6cm from the left end when the wall gets to a certain thinness there is a little bump. Its almost not visible in the picture and easy to file out. And its on the outside which is not the critical bit. I have done a couple more
  5. Heres a couple shots for the record.. the shaft and inner bowl are nearly perfect, and you can see there are small defects on the outside of the bowl.
  6. OK, the first upside-down print failed, I added a support base to the design since its standing on the narrow shank but did not make it thick enough and it wobbled. So I redid it with a 2mm thick base and got a fantastic print - the bowl in particular has zero glitches inside. All the glitches that were inside the bowl are now outside since that is where the overhang is. I could see it is where the printer head is doing a 180 degree turn is where the "wave" is forming. Most importantly there is no deformation at all in the bowl, I don't need to sand it out to fix it anymore. Re: temp, sin
  7. Bob, great minds think alike I am in fact right now running a print upside-down since the overhang will then be on the outside. So far it looks a bit better on the shaft. I don't really care how the outside looks at all, in fact the design there is something I just made up in about 2 minutes. Its all about the shape of the inside. @Labern, I will try an even lower temp to see how that does. I will bring the outer and inner closer; I want to optimize for outer and as long as its hot enough to feed the inner I will be OK but I will probably slow it down a bit. I should say I'm not sure I
  8. OK here is a print at 200C nozzle temp. I used 20mm/s on outer line of shell and 60mm/s on inner ones. I also had 1500 max acceleration. On the above print I used 15 outside / 30 inside. Clearly this is better. It has the discontinuity of the earlier fast prints but not quite as bad. The bowl has a very tiny "wave" in it but I don't feel it with my finger so it can't be too bad So for the above print the temperature was clearly too high. I don't know if there is any way to improve on the discontinuities when the printer shifts modes due to the thinning wall. The mouthpieces have to b
  9. The bumps covering most of the shank only happened at the slower speed. Maybe reduce the printer head heat given the slow extrusion rate? This print fed the filament through very slowly so the filament is getting much more time to melt (10x more than a normal quality print) so hopefully it would be OK at say 200C. The rings on the shank end also happened only at the slower speed, I just had one big dropoff there when printing the same file at 100% speed. Unfortunately I sanded down all the higher speed prints already so don't have one to post. In some ways they were better; they looked li
  10. I am printing mouthpieces for trumpet/cornet and any small glitch will change the acoustics. So, I want to get as close as I possibly can to a 100% copy of the original measurements. This is on a UMO+. So far I have worked on shrinkage and found that I can usually use a constant of .15mm added to the radius measurements will give a copy generally measuring to within .1mm of the original. Two places where some additional correction are needed are at the rim, where it shrinks a touch more, and in the narrowest part of the bore, where it shrinks more. I also found as I decrease the layer hei
  11. I also just got a reply about the parts. It looks like they had several of us with the same issue. TinyDancer, the wrong parts were extras and I thought if the drilling worked I could get the printer working quickly instead of waiting for parts. No such luck. Scott
  12. Thanks, four days is OK. I did drill them out but the jig I rigged to hold them on the drill press was a little "under designed" shall we say and they didn't come out perfectly straight. I could do some grinding/shimming and get them to work OK, and might do that if the parts take a long time to show. Scott
  13. We are building our UMO+ kit and some key parts are incorrect, namely some pulleys are the wrong internal diameter. I submitted a ticket a few days ago but have not heard anything. How responsive if at all has been the ticket system for you? Scott
  • Create New...