Jump to content

geert_2

Ambassador
  • Content Count

    1,340
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

geert_2 last won the day on October 16

geert_2 had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

347 Excellent

2 Followers

Personal Information

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I have used this concept before when printing large overhangs. It was based on an idea of another user, but I forgot his name (might have been smartavionics?). It works very well, even with only a few connecting strands. My strands were 1mm long, 0.5mm wide, and 0.2mm high (=2 layers of 0.1mm). Inverted triangles to generate support do not work well for small layer-heights of 0.1mm: they tend to curl up too much. Inverted staircases (1mm steps) worked better for me. See the pics. So, depending on the design, this method can be very usefull. Inverted triangles curl up too much. Basic concept: Long bridge with hanging support, so the text below does not get damaged by the supports. All plates are 1mm thick in this test. The little ribs on top of the support are 0.5mm wide, separated 1mm. The result. The supports can easily be removed, and they do very little damage to the walls.
  2. I tried doing this manually: cut both ends at 90° angles, hold them together in a custom device (see pic below), heat a knife in a flame, put the hot knife inbetween both filament ends and melt them, remove knife, push both molten ends together, and let cool. Then you need to grind away the flange at the seam, otherwise it will not pass through the bowden tube and nozzle. You need to melt both ends to get a good bonding, then it is almost as strong as new. This method works and can especially be usefull for artistic purposes: to melt lots of different colors together. But it is not worth the time and hassle for me. So I use the left-over ends for doing atomic pulls, or for other purposes where I need a bit of plastic. For example you can heat a left-over strand, and ply it around something else (think of cable binders). Or ply them into hooks or clamps, or whatever.
  3. Maybe there are different infill patterns, or infill percentages, in which the nozzle follows a different traject with less starts and stops, and less jumps? I don't know if this is possible, but just guessing. Check this in layer view in Cura, before printing.
  4. It appears that OpenGL is coming with the graphics drivers. OpenGL is a specification to which drivers and hardware have to adhere, it is not a driver by itself. I am just echoing what I read on internet here (and hope it is correct), I am not a programmer. :-) So the latest graphics driver should give the latest version, if the hardware supports it. And if the manufacturer delivers new drivers for your system. Search for: "windows how to update opengl". Also there might be incompatible or buggy drivers, so in such cases you might need to try a different version, higher or lower than your current version. I am not sure, but I vaguely remember something that this was the case with some Intel laptop drivers?
  5. On the older spools I have the material is indicated: PS (=polystyreen). Other spools might be ABS, PC,... I don't know about the newest spools. So yes, these old ones should be recyclable. (But I am not an Ultimaker representative, but just a user, so this is not official.) But even if the spool would not be recycled, but only recollected in the general "rest" fraction of garbage, and be burned, it is probably still way more environmentally friendly than glass or cardboard. Cardboard requires killing lots of trees to produce it. And glass requires 100x more energy to melt it than plastic. And you don't get any energy back from it at the end of its lifecycle (which for glass bottles is only 6x re-use, plus a lot of dangerous chemical cleaning liquids in-between). Modern burning-installations use the heat from burning garbage to produce electricity and warmth for heating buildings, or for industrial processes (for which otherwise other energy sources would have to be found). The exhaust gasses CO2 and H2O (carbondioxide and water vapour) are food for the plants and trees. Today there is not enough CO2 in the air, only 0.03% to 0.04%, and most plants are on the edge of extinction. Ideally, there should be between 4x and 10x more CO2 for optimal plant growth. Yes, way more CO2, not less. Which is scientifically proven in every glass greenhouse: they inject a lot of CO2 in their greenhouses to increase growth and production. The rule is: 10x more CO2 gives 6x to 7x more green, without you needing to do anything. Plants grow by themself. Then all deserts world-wide would become green again, automatically. The problem is not "lack of water" in the deserts, no, the problem is lack of CO2 to enable plant growth. If there is 10x more CO2, then plants don't have to open their pores as much to breathe in enough CO2, so they don't evaporate and lose as much moisture. Then the current amount of water in the desert is sufficient. This has been proven over and over again in test-environments. And if all deserts would be green again, covered in forest, earth temperature would go down a bit and then stabilise. Because the sunlight is absorbed by the trees and turned into wood and leafs, so it is used-up, and can no longer heat the surface. Wood is stored solar energy. And if the whole earth would be green again, with 6...7x more plants than now, there is enough food for everyone, and for all animals. This would be very benificial, obviously. The chemical formula is: CO2 + H2O + lots of sunlight energy ---> long C-H-O chains (=wood + leafs + juices) + O2. In words: carbondioxide and water are turned into wood, leafs, and juices, if there is enough sunlight as energy source. And oxygen is released. The O2 is the oxygen we need to breath. So we do exactly the opposite as plants: we eat green (vegetables, fruits, wheat, nuts,...; thus we eat stored solar energy) and we breathe oxygen in. Out of this we produce energy to move and to keep our body on temperature. And we exhaust CO2 and H2O. So, solar energy is first stored in plants, and then we eat these plants to release that solar energy in our body. We are running on "indirect solar energy". Any process that consumes oil, or gass, and that produces CO2, greatly helps the growth of trees and plants. CO2 is the most important life-gas on earth, without which no life would be possible. So, don't feel bad when you need to burn oil, gas or plastic. As long as you burn it cleanly, without producing too much sooth and particles. You are greening the planet and improving life. Long ago, the whole earth was covered in green. But bit by bit, the leafs felt on the ground, and all this carbon got entrapped under the surface of the land, in the form of coal, brown coal, oil and gas. So it could no longer be part of the life cycle. Today there is not enough carbon in the life-cycle anymore, on the surface, so life is dying. We should dig up all this entrapped carbon (coal, oil, gas,...), and burn it so it can be part of the life-cycle again. And so that we can make the whole earth green again. Yes, I know that my vision is not "politically correct", but it is definitely and absolutely scientifically correct. Life is dying because of lack of CO2: there is only 0.03 to 0.04%. Below 0.02%, plant growth is no longer possible. We are at the lower edge, plants are in CO2-hunger, and we need to dramatically increase CO2 output to survive. You can easily search for, and verify these things. This is basic high-school science. So, clearly, plastic is a very good product, even if not perfect. As long as you don't throw it in the environment, but you recycle it or cleanly burn it to regain its energy. Don't feel bad for using plastic, and for burning gas and oil. Don't feel bad for improving plant life and saving the earth.
  6. You will have to do that in a 3D-CAD program. Cura is a slicer, not a 3D-editor.
  7. I have no solution for a smooth bottom plate on top of supports, for a single-nozzle printer (like my UM2). The underside where the support was, is always a bit rough. Except design changes: cutting the model in half, printing both halves on their flat cut side, and glueing both parts together afterwards. But you will see the seam. Or making the model asymmetrical, so that one side can be laid flat on the glass without need of support (if the design or function allows this). I once made testpieces for supports to try to minimize this roughness, and still be able to get the support off. A custom support with ribs gave the best result, but some roughness is still there. (See pic below: the numbers indicate the vertical gap in mm between the support ribs and the underside of the top plate. The ribs are 0.5mm, separated 1mm.) For testing, I recommend making a design with only the features under test, for example when testing the clamps, only print these clamps without the rest. Until you get this perfect. Idem for the supports: make a small test plate with just that. So you don't waste too much material and time.
  8. The PET I have does similar things: - While printing, it accumulates on the nozzle. This goo then gets brown, and sags onto the model, and is deposited as big brown blobs. The brown color is clearly visible on white, but it may not be visible on black. These blobs also tend to cause fine hairs in the print, both when the blob sags from the nozzle, and when the nozzle passes through previously deposited blobs. - When bridging, it does not pull a nice bridge. But the strand rather tends to snap like chewing gum and fold back onto itself, causing a blob under the nozzle. This is then deposited onto the next wall upon arriving there. - When traveling through air, the nozzle leaks a little bit (overpressure in the nozzle that is releasing), also causing a little blob or "insect antenna" onto the next wall. It looks quite similar to what you have. Watch carefully while printing, and you can see it happen. Printing slow and cool reduces these effects in my models, but I can't totally eliminate them.
  9. Yes indeed. My models typically take 2...3 hours to print; I rarely have longer printing times. So I don't know how it would hold up for long prints that take a day.
  10. Yes indeed, "insect antennas". I see this on PET too. Printing slower and cooler helps a bit for me, since there is less pressure build-up in the nozzle, and it leaks less. But I don't know a way to eliminate it.
  11. I print PET on clean bare glass. Sometimes I use the "salt method", however this does not increase bonding for PET (contrary to for PLA), but rather reduces it slightly, but it makes it a lot easier to remove parts. To prevent warping, I use no cooling fans, or the absolute minimum. But no fans makes it more difficult to bridge gaps, so this is not suitable for every design. Most of my designs are long flat models without bridges. I tried dilluted white wood glue too a couple of times (ca. 10% glue in water), but this bonded way too strong: it tended to chip the glass while cooling, even before I started pulling the model off. So if you need a strong bond, this should work. :-) But the bed has to be hot enough: 60 or 70°C won't do for me. I need to set it to ca. 80...85°C. The photo below is what the bottom of my PET parts looks like: no corners lifting, and no problems making tiny holes. These are small models (see ruler behing in mm and cm), but it looks the same for my bigger models. Printed with the salt method to facilitate removal: you can see the tiny pits caused by the salt (looks like corrosion pits).
  12. What about changing your bonding method, so your prints can be removed easily? For PLA, I use the "salt method": wiping the glass with a tissue moistened with salt water, prior to printing. No glue. This gives good bonding while hot, but absolutely no bonding when the glass is cold. So, models can be taken off very easily. But this is only for PLA, and for low flat models (not for "lantern poles"). For my old manual, see here: https://www.uantwerpen.be/nl/personeel/geert-keteleer/manuals/ User neotko uses hairspray for bonding, and he removes his models by adding a few drops of window cleaner (if I remember well) when ready. This creeps under the models and dislodges them easily. This seems to work very well for his big models too. For wood glue, some people put the model and glass bed in the fridge, and then it pops off. Probably there will be other methods that are worth trying? With the salt method, I can easily print these models at 100% infill, without edges lifting, and without damaging them when taking off after completion.
  13. Another trick is to model in your CAD design a few dots outside of your model, sitting 1mm lower than the real model. So Cura will drop the dots onto the bed, and then the real model will float 1mm above the glass. This of course will require you to use supports for the floating part, otherwise it will print spaghetti.
  14. I guess the snap-areas are the two "keyhole" openings? First I would make the splits a bit wider, so the clamps would deform less while snapping over the rails. That should still give enough retention. Depending on the load it has to see, I would also use a higher infill, maybe 50...70% or so? And the layer-lines should definitely go in such a way that they cause no weaknesses. Just like when you cut wood along the grain. You also need to print hot enough, and slow, to get a good layer-bonding and no underextrusion. Personally, I have no problems with PET snap-fits, like these chains. In PLA they crack after some time, due to the PLA being too brittle and stiff. But PET is flexible enough. The cream ones are PLA, and they begin to crack and deform after repeated use. The green one is PET: no cracks, no deformation. For reference: text caps-height is 3.5mm (=hollow watermark in the model). I printed these solid 100% infill, at 215°C, and slow at 25mm/s, 0.1mm layers.
  15. For my (older) UM2 and PLA and PET materials, 25...30mm/s is slow enough to get good quality. At 50mm/s (default for PLA) quality is okay for most models, but not optimal for high details. Printing at 10mm/s is too slow: then the material is sitting too long in the nozzle and it starts to discolor and decompose (gets brown). It also depends on the temperature. Lower speed gives less ringing, cleaner corners, and better layer bonding. I would say, make a small test model with your typical features, and print that at various speeds and temperatures, and closely watch what happens while printing. This may cost a day of testing, but you will soon win that time back.
×
×
  • 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!