krys

Well, I got mine with the 2+ upgrade and so I also switched to the Olson block. If you have that then certainly they should work. If not, then I am not sure. I would imagine it might be possible to request the correct one, or at least confirm it with your local supplier and/or ask on the forum. 3DSolex has their own version, not sure if it is the same, but I think they will adjust the size if you ask. (I think I got the idea from them!) If you do get TFM, I suggest you replace the spring with the spacer ring (again 2+). I am pretty sure you can get it too. The spring puts a lot of pressure on the coupler and can contribute to it deforming faster, that is why they switched to the ring, I believe. There are 3D printable spacer rings too, though. But metal is better. Anyway, wordy answer. But hope it helps.

Lol! Well, what do I know? Never mind then! Thanks for letting me know.

Lol! Fair enough! Though, I should think that a UM3 test would be comparable.

Are you only testing it on UMO, or are you planning on testing it on UM2(+) as well? @Gudo, yours is mounted on an UM2(+) right? How dramatic of an improvement did/do you see? (If you are willing to talk about your experiences with it, that is.)

Hi to all! Hi Neotko! Great ! that would damper well the bed vibrations and I hope that will improve your print results Hi @Gudo, Are you sharing (or willing to share) your bed stabilizer publicly and/or are you planning to sell kits? I would be interested in getting/making one too, if @neotko says it improves prints. I have M6 threaded rod so I do not mind making it. Thanks and Happy New Year!

Hi there, I am more than a year on and my belts are still tight. For maintenance, I find it useful to clean out the nozzle from time to time. I atomic pulls using nylon, ideally, but PLA does a decent job too. I also occasionally put that eSun cleaning filament through, just for good measure. It catches stuff that even the nylon misses. This kind of stuff is good to do when changing from dark colours to light colours and/or when switching materials. But I do not always do that. If I see dark specks show up in my light prints, this is the solution to that. Cleaning the bed with alcohol periodically is good for a fresh reset of the build plate. Some people just leave the glue on, for example, and keep adding more. I have found that too much glue can also cause bad adhesion, so periodic cleaning is good. And lastly, it is good to check on the TFM coupler (UM2+, no spring) once and a while. Doubly so if you still have the PTFE coupler (UM2, with spring). If it looks warped or very burned inside, then it might be due for replacement. It is considered a consumable part, though the TFM ones last considerably longer. For the most part, that is it for maintenance. Most of these things I only do with I think they need it or when settings that used to work, are not so perfect anymore. I suppose this is just stuff I picked up from reading the forums, reading about the issues/problems others have and see what answers come. I agree that it should be all written down in a proper document though. Anyway, hope this helps. Happy New Year!

I agree. I like it better too. Clearly a single number measurement like my air flow readings cannot capture the whole story. I was just sharing some experiences I have had. I did not think about comparing weights though! Good observation! Happy New Year!

Just a follow up on this topic. I little while ago I did end up printing a new @Labern shroud as part of my polycarbonate experiments and I have been using it up until now. Just today I had the occasion to measure and compare the Labern shroud with the stock UM2+ shroud with my (inexpensive) anemometer. My measurements were 1.9m/s for Labern's and 1.8m/s for stock. And those were consistently measured from 0mm to 1cm distances below the nozzle tip. So, yeah, Labern's is ever so slightly better than stock, but not much. It is also a bit louder however too. Side note: I lined the inside of the Labern shroud with Kapton tape and I have been able to print other polycarbonate stuff at 300C with the Labern shroud, and there was no warping of the shroud. Anyway, just sharing some observations in case anyone finds it useful.

Hi Skippy7, I have had this too where some old/cheap/bad PLA was too brittle to use for atomic pulls. I have also had troubles with co-polyester filaments (T-Glase, XT) for atomic pulls. I suggest try pulling with whatever your newest high quality PLA filament is and see if that works better for your atomic pulls. Or nylon. Nylon works great! But play with the temperature. Too cold and lots of force will make any filament break. Too hot and it with stretch and be stringy and not do what you want. Not saying that will fix your issue, mind you. Just commenting on some subtleties with atomic pulls. Hope it helps. Good luck!

I thought I saw it listed at @Gr5's store not long ago, along with a Sapphire nozzle too. But now I do not see them listed. Edit: Woops! Maybe it was at fabrc8 that I saw it.

You guys lost me a bit there. Me = nozzle neophyte. I get that the 3DSolex nozzles are different than E3D ones. But is that what the UM2(+)/Upgrade Kit ships with as stock? Or are the JET RSB nozzles further different than what Ultimaker ships, even though they look the same? (I get that the Matchless stuff is a whole different thing.) I guess I also wonder that's the difference between the UM3 AA & BB cores and how do they map on to my UM2/Olson Block brain. This is a bit off topic, but if I want good PVA capability, I would like to have a clear(er) understanding. Plus a quick forum search did not turn up any nice descriptions that I could find easily. Would you great and powerful UM wizards care to share your wisdom? Thanks very much.

Hi foehnsturm, Looks excellent! So I guess this means you have PVA working and adhering successfully. And tips for PVA on the UM2(+) (i.e. *not* UM3)? Thanks.

HA! You are right! I totally did not even notice that. Jan 2016, then nothing, then Dec 2016. (The sad part is I was wondering why Robert had not responded to all the messages we've been posting.) D'oh!

One observation I just thought of: How important is metric compatibility? If you just want threads, and you don't need a standard like metric, then I believe you can just use 45 degree equilateral triangles, spiraled up. Give a 0.2 or so arbitrary tolerance from nut to bolt, and the your done. Similar to the previously mentioned Poor Man's. In other words, you can make it easier on yourself and just choose values that work for you. It is trying to adhere to the metric standard that makes threading hard to model, I suggest. Then again, if you are trying to understand metric, specifically, then that is a different story. Anyway, just a thought. Hope it helps.

Hi there, My solution regarding heat was to just put a plastic tote box over the top of the printer, along with a front door/cover (copying someone brilliant on this forum ). For printing ABS and (cheap) polycarbonate and even XT, you only need the ambient temperature in the printer to be about 40-50C to get workable prints. So a full enclosure, from a heat perspective, might be a bit overkill. And as Arjan says, the heated bed, if you preheat for a while, will take care of the heating. But there might be another reason for fully enclosing the printer. Particulates and smells. ABS, polycarbonate and other non-PLA filaments often put out much more (and much worse) particulates that you, ideally, do not want to breath. Or, at least, there is at least one study that seems to indicate this. So, an enclosure would let you contain and either vent or scrub those out so you don't breath them. The problem with just venting to the outdoors, is that you are also losing all that lovely warm air as well, making it harder to keep a consistent ambient temperature. A scrubbing system with HEPA and carbon filters works better because it keeps/returns the heated air in/to the enclosure. There are some printable designs for these out there, but I cannot remember any details. Do some research on this if you are interested. All this is a much fancier setup than just enclosing though, and maybe containment is enough to minimise particulate breathing, if this is a concern for you. Plus, as Arjan says, you pretty much do not want/need any of that for PLA printing. I can take the tote box off for printing PLA and all is fine. Anyway, I will end by saying that I am no expert on this stuff and have not personally built a full enclosure. What I say above is only a summary from the research I did on this topic when I was considering an enclosure. I.e. What I read in these forums and elsewhere. Hope this helps. Caveat emptor. YMMV.

Oh of course, it was more for the challenge. It's nice to be able to print a model and print every part of it, including the screws Plus the printed ones are not as strong, even in ABS. But like you say, it's for the challenge and the fun of an all 3D printed project, even the screws. As a side thought, in electronics sometimes you don't want conductive fasteners and so plastic or nylon ones are a better choice. So 3D printing them can be useful in some contexts too. Though now, I think we have kind of hijacked Robert's thread and we should get back on topic. Sorry Robert!

Wow! Very nice! Now I have a new target to go after.

Agreed, or at least I was never able to make it work. (Though I did not try a 0.25 nozzle yet.) I got down to M5 working well, not sure about M4. M3 was a pile of goo. Then again, I was a novice back then and Robert is a printing god, so my money is on Robert!

I miss it too. It is not used often, but it was perfect when I needed it. Now I have to do something harder in a different tool. One simple case I ran across was on Thingiverse where someone created a multipart object, and trying to be helpful, they only shared whole plate multi object files. But I wanted to split it up and print fewer parts at a time. Oh and the 30 minute cube that came on the SD card of UM2, I have split that one as well (.amf) so that I could print 2 or 3 cube's worth of parts at once. Anyway, it's a useful function, even if it is slow. I would be nice if the new Cura (eventually), had all the same capabilities of the old one. That's just my vote, however.

Hey again, This new video about testing which filaments catch fire and which do not crossed my feed yesterday: Nothing about certifications, but I thought it might be useful. (Man, I am not looking for this stuff, but it just seems to be all appearing at the same time! ) Anyway, hope it helps.

Oh, good point! I do not know UM3. It is still new, but I assume eventually it will be able to do everything the UM2(+) can do and more.

You know, I have seen some nice magnet-based project on Thingiverse and YouMagine. Maybe it's time to make some magnetic (and dual-printed) gifts for family and friends!

Hi @SyntaxTerror, (I love your handle, BTW!) I am interested in taking you up on your offer. I will PM you and we can hammer out the details. Thanks very much! You are very kind!

I just saw this paragraph! I missed it first time. D'oh! If the magnets are press-fit, then the difference between 6.0 (+/- 0.1) and 6.35 (+/-) is huge. In which case I would suggest having version that accommodate North American people. If it is hard to locally get metric magnets in Canada, which is officially a metric country, just think of how difficult it would be for Americans. Then again, they have more scientists, so who knows, but still... If the magnets are glue-on, then designing for imperial would cover all bases, I would imagine. @SyntaxTerror has offered to hook me up, which is great, but I would still advocate for supporting imperial magnets just for ease of purchase worldwide. Just my $0.02. Thanks very much!

Hi! Its possible to buy hardened and/or stainless steel nozzles. There are also chrome-plated brass nozzles as well (assuming they are also plated inside). They change the settings you have to use to print, but it is not a show stopper, I would guess. I am no expert though!