JohnInOttawa

One question I have about this, and other new, exotic (my term) filaments centers on the high cost of trying it out. The only way I can access most filaments here in Canada is to buy the smallest retail roll, which is too much for a trial and has a high risk of being wasted if I don't store it properly or it sits too long before I have a project big enough to consume the whole roll. This creates a bit of a vicious cycle - I won't quote on a job using filament I'm not sure will work for me, and I can't justify the cost of buying filament to try out unless I have work for the amount I plan to buy. How about a half-retail size (or something like that) trial roll or coil so we can get used to the filament? Thanks for arranging this AMA! John

FWIW, a second on 0.6. I haven't run my copperfill through it yet, but woodfill surface finish at 0.6 is excellent and no clogs. Cheers J

Thank you! Not only for replying, but for your innovations. Cheers John

With apologies if I am way behind the times. Reading the great article on the origin of the ruby tip, I found the choice of material interesting. Is this filament in use outside of the research sphere? What is it best for? Thanks in advance. John

Welcome! I think you are pointing to the silicone nozzle cover. It is a consumable. Melting is normal and OK. After a while you might like to replace it though. That is not normally needed very often, but it depends I suppose on the printing temperatures you tend to run. In Canada, it is a $3 part. I keep a couple of them back. You might find this article of use. https://ultimaker.com/en/resources/52502-check-the-quality-of-the-silicone-nozzle-cover I hope this helps! Cheers John

Good morning. Looking at the second print image, I see three areas where the print appears to flare out - the interface with the plate, the other side of the main plate, but also the bottom of the 'foot' (my term). I just want to first confirm the upper surface in that image is what is against the build plate and that there are, in fact, three levels where there is widening. Can you verify which Cura version was used for this print? Has it changed since you last did this successfully? If so, any chance something in the profile got changed without your input? I'd think about things that affect flow rate, anything like speeds or settings affecting top layers, changes to temperature for the top layer or mid print, stuff like that. A couple of things you have likely already checked - belts, rods, lubrication, even Z screw cleanliness and lube... Finally, and this may seem strange - have you measured to ensure that the wide areas are the problem and not that the narrow areas are somehow undersize? I ask this because the warping suggests something is shrinking as it cools beyond the limits of adhesion. I appreciate none of this actually solves your issue. Just things I'd look at.

Part of a sceptre or orb?

Well, it's usually the pros that share like this, in just about any industry I've worked in. They've figured things out to the point that they are already thinking past their experience to help out the next person. So thanks, but I think you need to not connect this to noobiness. Yur setting the noob bar too friggin high man ? We have a saying, 'there's them's that have, and them's that are about to'. The older I get, the more I get to live both sides of that saying at the same time..... Thanks again for the heads up. Good advice. John

I couldn't tell whether you had taken any steps to cover the front and top of the printer to provide a stable, high air temperature in the print area. FWIW John

So, I think this should go without saying, but this forum is a place where we tackle issues, and not people, right? I see individuals leaving the discussion just when we need their input the most. If we truly want the best out of this product, the only way I can see that happening is if we use our resources - that relies on engagement. Not to disagree with anyone's level of frustration. But I do not think the energy from that should be aimed at a person. FWIW John

FWIW I just took delivery of my DDG kit last evening. I will provide feedback as soon as I have it up and running. My decision was based on my intended use and constraints on the printer. I've had no issues with my existing feeders but would like to print abrasives and also thought the bondtec gripping might do better with difficult filaments like TPU and PETG. That's not yet proven. I looked at the QR kit but in my case, it was more invasive than I needed to achieve my improvements. Now, if anyone knows a good way to recycle UM3 feeders on a UMO ? John

OK. I think 'message received' would sum up a lot of what I have read. This cannot have been an easy ride from any seat. As someone who hasn't done anything perfectly in recent memory (except eating dinner - the weigh scales say I excel at that) - I think perhaps, with a plan in hand, it is time to let the humans in the middle of this arena off the mat for a bit and let them do their thing. It was probably inevitable that the evolution from a plywood kit to an industrial machine would involve a shear at some point. The needs of an open source hobbiest can be very different from someone running a print farm as a primary revenue stream. Losing a couple of hours and a few metres of relatively cheap PLA on a Saturday is very different than having a carbon fibre print fail at hour 23 with a client waiting. Meeting the needs at both poles is not a small challenge. But this is a good team full of smart people. You've got this! All the best for smoother rides ahead. John

Starting this thread is a good idea. Just a thought - it might be that Ultimaker sells to a world full of freeloaders, or perhaps the user community perceives barriers or risk in beta testing. I know most of the time my printers are running there's a commitment or deadline in sight. Can I make more time to test things? Probably. Would I know how to do so methodically and effectively, without testing the same 25% of features that everyone else uses and totally missing the corner case that ruins the mood? Probably not. Then there's background. Would I, personally, think of running a beta version of CNC milling control software? Not a chance. The risk of having a head crash with a 15000 rpm bit disintegrating is too great. Not the same level of threat here, but my point is, we tend to develop an approach to testing depending on where we come from. All this to say: Is there a need to better engage the user community in beta testing and proving? Yes? Then why don't we build that bridge as a community? Rather than relying on random chance for a user out there to stumble on something, even in Beta, and then complain, is there a way to identify what features are up for change in advance so those who use those sections can take notice, set aside the time and shake down the product? Maybe there is specific data that needs to be reported in a usable format following even a successful test. Just thinking out loud. I agree with you, these products are only as good as we let them be. New features mean more complex testing and more edges for something to maybe catch on. Let's help each other be a better testing community. How do we do that? -John

Ok. Anything changing during your print, perhaps a fan setting? I had a thin walled item with a similar type of PLA and print temperature, the level at which the fan came on started something vaguely similar. Again, guessing, not sure how your print fan is oriented or controlled. John

Are you using Cura as your slicer? Can you see this in layer mode and see if there is any indication of an issue? J

Not sure what printer type you are using. I'm assuming PLA and it's dry? Any chance your z screw is dirty? This also has the look of underextrusion. Any chance your filament feed is suffering from increased tension (maybe a spool isn't feeding as expected or filament is getting hung up)? I'm sure someone here will recognise this and come up with better advice, but perhaps this will give you a place to start. John

Hard to tell if this is a gcode or firmware thing. Which printer type you are using? John

You've raised a number of different issues here. I can only partially address the airborne ones. Part fatigue and resistance to aerodynamic loading and shock (I will share your disclaimer on terminology) is sometimes actually worsened by excessive material. It's a funny paradox, but here is an example. We had a small aircraft manufacturer whose design developed an in-service issue with flap asymmetry. So, flaps extended to the selected value on one side, but only partially to that extent on the other. This introduced roll forces that, while within the normal roll control capability of the aircraft, presented an unacceptable level of threat. The initial investigation pointed to an actuator assembly that appeared to be failing due to unexpected shock loading when taxying with flaps extended, over a rough surface. The load path up the gear and through the gear to wing attach point amplified the forces experienced when hitting a bump. The manufacturer elected to address the problem by beefing up the actuator assembly. The service performance worsened! Adding new material inadvertently reinforced a previously unknown load path directly to the failure point. The entirety of the issue was, however revealed, as the new version's material deformation along the load path pointed to the issue. The fix was to go with less material, but designed to ensure the loads followed the expected load path. There's also a saying we often use with passengers, especially when we are travelling in uniform, in the cabin, during turbulence. One of the most frequent questions concerns all of the wing flexing going on out the window. That which flexes as designed doesn't break and doesn't simply pass all of that load into the cabin as a stiffer implementation might. Again, more material tends to mean more stiffness, so fighting forces rather than directing them. I have been amazed at some of the organic designs showing up these days, where a part that is intended to provide rigidity in one plane also has significant flex in another axis, specifically to provide resillience against off-axis jolts, or others where metal constantly flexes without risk of fatigue effects throughout its design life. I have a harmonic drive sitting on my desk, all steel, but the spline flexes like it could be made of TPU. I am told that this is designed below the fatigue threshold of the metal (Steve, you will have the right term for it), so the steel can flex like this 24/7 for the rest of my life with no issues. Sorry for the long post, it reflects just how fascinating this subject is, how important these concerns are to an end user like me. BTW, nice shots of the vortices. One of the reasons we take delays on departure is for wake separation, minimum times and distances depending on the aircraft mix. This separation is a primary reason for long taxi to takeoff at major hubs during peak periods. Something to pass the time thinking about next time you're number 20 in line at Heathrow, Toronto or Atlanta. If you ever have a chance watch an A380 punch through cloud on departure, you might want to compare. That aircraft can shake traffic 20 miles behind it.. Great thread! John

Say @gr5, speaking of the UMO. Any thought of you or your partners putting together a heated bed kit, now that Ultimaker no longer makes one? I know there are options out of Asia, but frankly, so hit and miss, perhaps others like me would prefer to pay a premium and get something trustworthy. Thoughts? John

I only wish I had the neurons to process the breath of this discussion. You're clearly on a solid path to important change. Thanks for bringing that discussion here. Inspiring! Now, perhaps you can help me find a less discouraging way to explain to our maintenance and engineering staff how we signed out their airplane in perfectly good shape, but returned it broken.... There really is no good way to say, 'the lavatory flush needs repair' and 'have a good one' in the same sentence. J

That's a great article Steve. Thank you. The benefits of the weight savings are incredible and the part looks nothing like I would imagine, so under the heading of 'thinking outside the box', this approach is game changing. Not only is there savings in building the part itself, but there is huge potential to save fuel, reduce emissions and, conversely, make parts much, much stronger than they are today for an equivalent weight. And guys like me are very partial to strong parts ? What follows is largely beyond the scope of the original discussion, but I see it as an inevitable crossroads as we refine these kinds or parts. One of the wild cards we seem to struggle with still is how to handle abuse cases in storage, handling, installation and in-service damage. We have an industry that grew up on over-built, over-engineered parts. An unintended benefit of some (not all) of these components is that they could withstand (often undocumented) conditions outside of the original design scope without exhibiting damage. (I need to be careful here as not all critical damage is visible and we know that big doesn't always equate to strong). Clearly there is limited excess material here by design. The 'armour effect' (my term) of redundant material is largely gone. We as an industry will need to adapt processes, procedures and reporting methods to safely use parts that have traditionally been seen as 'rough service' and assumed to be tough in all aspects, but now can be much more easily, critically impaired before installation. In terms of in-service threats - Using the context of aerospace operations, as a fellow involved in winter operations for much of my career, the first thing I look at when I see a part like this (or the 777 folding wing tip) is, how will this part withstand water and de-icing fluid ingress, freezing or, in the case of anti-icing fluids, high pressure rehydration ? While weight savings comes from material reduction, that means more holes or porous structures,. Some will be benign, others may introduce new vulnerabilities or stress points when a contaminant freezes or expands in rehydration. So a thought for the future - How does an engineer using this new capability train the generator to take a defensive approach with regard to handling or in-service abuse? Thanks again for expanding the knowledge base here. Always a worthy read. John

Like many here, I've looked into what it would take to convert a printcore to accept a replacement nozzle. I came to the conclusion that the 3DSolex implementation is, at present, the most logical implementation of any such approach and the downstream running costs make it far more cost effective to purchase than the time it would take me to hack a lesser solution. From what I can see, there are a number of critical tradeoffs made in the design of the UM printcore. Weight is a serious constraint on that print head, so building swappability into an original design, for the few who would actually use that feature, may have negatively impacted functionality for everyone else. Then there would have been the inevitable support channel as that is a part that takes the brunt of abuse. Do I wish it were a less expensive part? Certainly. Would it have been great to have nozzle changeout incorporated? Yes! Is there an opportunity for someone to set up a used/damaged print core refurbishment centre? Maybe. In the mean time, 3Dsolex saw an opportunity to fill that void and they (and the agent I deal with) provide excellent support for it. I have two hardcores and a suite of nozzles for normal, fine and abrasive materials. Each one can be programmed for either AA or BB. I presume CC though I haven't tried it. The purchase has already paid for itself. They aren't perfect, you can still clog them and changing nozzles has to be done with great care to avoid breaking the very fragile components, but it's a viable option. I hope this is of some use. Just for clarity, I don't work for anyone who builds or markets ultimaker or 3dSolex parts ? John

I'm not sure if this will help you, but I have a UM3 and, in preparation for printing nylon/CF I just ordered the Bondtech DDG upgrade kit. I believe the stock extruders' filament feed gears will wear at an accelerated rate with abrasive filaments. I've also read that the Bondtech feeders improve standard filament feed rates and reliability. I ordered mine from the gr5store. I see you are in the US, you might want to contact them. I've ordered from them a few times, a hardcore, everlast nozzles, bowden tubes, as well as the feeders. I've always been happy with the knowledge level, support and pricing. Disclaimer, I don't work for them, I'm not even in the same country. Here's a link. gr5 posts here as well. https://thegr5store.com/store/ Good luck! John

Well, three things related to this that would help me: 1) the ability to print three materials simultaneously, specifically to support two model materials plus support like breakaway or PVA. If the third nozzle was just for support, perhaps it would not need to be as feature rich as primary print heads/cores. 2) The ability to lay down continuous reinforcement in a manner similar to markforged, but of course respecting the boundaries of their patent. 3) From the beginning of the print core concept I have wondered about the potential to have a completely different process use a print core station - something like a laser engraver or a light duty mill to improve surface finish or dimensional tolerance. Hey, a man can dream, can't he? ? John

Thank you for sharing this information. This is a really great innovation. Given how easily UMO works with this system, I can see that printer will be with us for many more years to come, and that is a good thing!! Cheers John