Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by JohnInOttawa

  1. Good morning everyone. I suspect this question has been asked and answered in various forms but I'm just not finding it today. Here's the idea: On my CNC (Gcode driven of course), programming tool changes is routine. These can be implemented without an automatic tool changer, the machine goes to safe and waits for the operator to advise when ready to proceed (after the tool change is complete). In my software (Mach3), you can change the tool, reset zero and move the gantry position if needed (to the zero reference), and when you hit the continue prompt, the machine returns to the correct position at safe, then descends and continues the job with the correct bit. Soooo, let's say I want to run a 3 color job on my UM3, for example a name plate background in black, with two colors (say red and white) embossing a logo on top. I only need black up to the point I am going to start with color so there would be no overlap (but I would need to get the exact layer correct). I'm aware of 'Pause at height' but the last I heard about that feature it was not working correctly and it was unclear to me if one could combine pause at height with a filament change and get good results. Maybe there is a plugin somehere? Thanks in advance! John
  2. Thanks for the verification @PaulK and @SandervG! Best wishes to you and yours in 2019! John
  3. So to be clear, the clicking happens mid travel, and not during a direction change of any kind? If it is mid travel, and once per rev, that suggests interference somewhere, two hard surfaces are contacting somehow. Barring something sticking out and hitting something, i'd wonder if there is a rod-end bearing behind that clicking. j
  4. That's discouraging to hear that the alternate print head is encountering issues. But at the same time, your testing methods seem robust to the point you can isolate it to the filament. It does sound like shelf life or humidity could be factors. I have not seen anyone try to chill filament and don't know what would happen if one tried. Certainly a refridgerator could be a low humidity environment and keeping the filament as cold as possible during print might delay softening just long enough to get the material through the 'danger zone'. Or it could just fail. I also don't know how rapidly the filament would warm to room temperature along the bowden tube. I have one of those electric coolers that should hold a spool. I may have to give it a try. Maybe colorfabb can lend some expertise.... John
  5. I'll be setting up for testing shortly. Thank you for the profile. One thing I am trying to locate in the threads is minimum nozzle size. I know the CC red is 0.6. Is that assumed to be the minimum nozzle diameter? I have a potential application that would go all the way down to .25 (hardcore/everlast). I appreciate this would be experimental. Thoughts? John
  6. While this filament makes for a pretty expensive 'try and see' test, running with 0.6 for a while to see how long it takes for trouble to recur would likely confirm your suspicions. If you are able to move volume at a rate that keeps up with heat creep and the heat absorption characteristics of the filament upstream of the nozzle, then it would seem certain that it's a cooling problem within the core and filament combination. I'm trying to think of other filaments that might print at that temperature but don't have as good heat conduction. maybe polycarb or high temp nylon without additives. I'm still trying to figure out the heat path - whether it is just along the metal path from nozzle through heat break then cooling tower and heating the filament the whole way, or if the primary contributor is within the filament itself. The rapid onset of problems suggests it's likely the former. I wonder why the number of cooling fins was reduced. Hmmmm. John
  7. That's an excellent analysis. I had not noticed the different cooling fin configuration. Are you heating both print cores for this work? I don't know of any way to get a temperature reading on the print core fins. A thermal imager would be best as it would not interfere with airflow like a probe would, but with the fan in place and lateral airflow affecting boundary conditions that's impossible. Indirect measurement like exhaust air temperature would be misleading if the problem is that the fins can't shed heat fast enough. A direct contact measurement would carry all sorts of risks, not least of which would be detachment and collision with one of the fans. I don't know of a practical way to feed colder air into that fan. It sounds like 3D Solex has been actively engaged, I know @gr5 would have a wealth of technical knowledge on these cores, hopefully there is a path forward from their help. Thanks again for sharing - it will ultimately help everyone. John
  8. Hmmm. That sounds like a frustrating challenge. So is the print core suffering excessive heat creep up the heat break, or is the filament loitering in the print core too long, or is the nozzle itself experiencing some sort of local clogging at the tip that is causing things to back up? I see Colorfabb recommends a minimum layer height of 0.2 which is a bit higher than you are using. I know when I printed Colorfabb Copperfill, I created a similar problem for myself when I went to a layer height below 0.2, of interest I was also using a 3D Solex print core, but with a steel nozzle. I was able to print for about 90 minutes before things clogged. I know there is a warning about copperfill conducting heat so one needs to keep it moving at a pretty fair clip. Maybe the minimum layer height and width for the 0.6 nozzle is intended to mitigate the heat migration by keeping a fresh supply of relatively cool material flowing into the heat break? Just curious, I imagine you are using an enclosure on the front. Anything on top? I wonder if there is any chance the bowden tube is pre-heating - not to nozzle temp of course, but even a delta of 10C would put it that much closer to its softening regime upon entry into the print core. Final thought, if this is straight up heat creep in the print core, any chance the print core cooling fan is encountering issues or blockage? Wish I could provide you something more definitive. Hopefully someone more knowledgable can wade in shortly. John
  9. Are you able to share your print settings? temps, layer heights, speeds? On the UM3, what is the extruder configuration? Standard? bondtech? something else? Thanks John
  10. @SandervG, you have a tough job some days. I think it is great to show transparency that the attempt to create this feature simply did not go as expected. I think it is also appropriate to thank those who have purchased the S5. In terms of understanding, it is a two way street. The users of the S5 are, from what I can tell, able to understand the technical challenge. The other side, for UM leadership to truly appreciate what this change means to the user base, seems to still be a work in progress. At least I hope it is still in progress. A second glass plate might have been an appropriate goodwill offering for the delayed aluminum plate, at least for the early adopters who have been waiting the longest. Holding the price constant going forward and substituting with a second glass plate? Well, that gets complicated. Considering that the S5 was aimed at professional users, I presume that, as in my case, there would have been a cost/benefit analysis behind nearly every purchase of this unit. Why an S5 and not a UM3 or UM3 extended for thousands less? We still see that discussion as active this week. I can't speak for anyone else. My own decision for the S5 was very much a 'wait and see' cycle. Honestly, what I was waiting for was whether the aluminum plate offered damage-free printing of certain materials that tend to chip my glass, or better adhesion of some of the exotics that the S5 also supported. I had not yet made a case for the extra build volume. It really came down to that plate. So, in my case, the $3300 (CDN) premium of the S5 over the UM3 ($2200 over the UM3X) just does not add up. And believe me, I wanted it to. I imagine you guys will still sell many S5's, one more sale here or there will not affect the bottom line. I fully get the frustration the technical team must be feeling and you are sandwiched as the messenger. Still, to me, it feels like the marketers still want a price premium without offering the level of premium content any more. I wonder what that means for the future. I'll leave it there: again, I know this is not an outcome Ultimaker desired and I have no sense that this is anything other than an honest effort that ended in frustration. The discussion is really, how best to move forward. I know you are listening and I hope you're supported as you pass the feedback up the line. All the best John
  11. Well. pricing strategy is yours to choose. It's your product. If it were up to me (and it is not), I would consider at least throwing in a CC red print core or something on that scale. That would be a bit closer to the enhanced mission of the S5. That said, the existing S5 community probably has a much better idea of what the S5 brings to the table. Thanks for engaging on a tough subject and staying in the discussion. Best of the season to you and yours! John
  12. I appreciate this has been a tough road for Ultimaker technical. That said. Ultimaker marketing has some explaining to do. I am pretty certain that part of the pricing strategy / premium of the S5 was based on having technology the 3 did not. The builld plate was really the stand-out there. Yes, the interface was improved, filament handling and hardened extruders, size clearly, but did those changes alone justify the price delta? It didn't quite, for me at least. I have been procrastinating on the S5 since its release. Now? Ultimaker should consider whether the asking price for the S5, now that the build plate will be glass only, is fair. It may be that a price drop is in order. Other manufacturers have done this (The Sinterit Lisa comes to mind) without a loss of capability. Those who purchased on the reasonable (but regrettably not deliverable) expectation of an aluminum plate may need to alter their intended long term plans for this machine. IMO it would not be outrageous to offer these purchasers a rebate equal to the delta between the old and new price. If, on the other hand, Ultimaker elects to retain the price, I would not be surprised to see a goodwill impact on sales. The Cura issues are not that far behind us. None of this changes the fact that an entire team of people at Ultimaker likely feels pretty badly about their efforts and the decision to halt progress. Any maker or techhie here can and should take a moment to send some good karma their way. It would not be the first time that operations picked up the tab for marketing. So let me close with a shout out to the tech team, thanks for trying. I am sure a great deal has been learned and will come back around in a future product. Better days ahead! John
  13. Sadly I will miss this, would dearly love to see it. Will the webinar be available as a podcast or something similar afterwards? Thanks! John
  14. Thanks. I think perhaps you answered a different question (or questions) though. I'll try to think about a better way to ask this question. John
  15. So I printed a cooling hood for a fan today...*sigh* You guys are on a level I can't even see. I feel like a termite watching an aircraft take off. Still, it is inspiring and like our own private art gallery. Thanks for sharing! J
  16. Good morning! This might have been covered elsewhere, but my search didn't reveal it, so apologies for any repetition. I've got a range of nozzle sizes with my HardCores as well as a number of non UM materials that don't neatly fit the mold, such as hi temp PLA, etc. I've read at least some of the threads that provide guidance on selecting layer width based on nozzle size, but in most cases there seems to be a bit of a recursive loop as one determines the correct temperature, layer height and print speed to go along with that width. Some here have already done the homework and identified filament volume for a given nozzle diameter and temperature. I'd like to understand the process for finding that volume for any filament. My hope is that having this volume would allow me to dial in the correct combination of line width and layer height for given applications - for example, if I want a strong part with simple geometry in a carbon fibre filled nylon filament, I probably want the widest lines I can manage - so what would be the correct layer height to avoid under or over extrusion? Knowing this would probably have saved me the fun of unclogging my print core after my last Copperfill print. Thank you in advance for your thoughts and forebearance in the case this is a re-hash. John
  17. My experience with the 0.6 was woodfill only and I didn't get finer than 0.1 with that particular run - that said, I had no problems with standard speeds. I'm still learning what I can expect from these Bondtech feeders, but I ran at 50 for everything with a print temp of 205 with no issues. In terms of clogging, this is probably the most severe case I have encountered on my equipment, and I'm still unsure if it was just down to the nozzle diameter. I suspect dialing down the layer height might have played a role. I was running with an 80% infill as these were extremely thin and I needed as much strength as I could get. I would not recommend more than that, I get the sense that having some space for any ooze to escape internally helped delay trouble. I kept the print that clogged, will post that, along with a woodfill example, next time I'm at the printer. Good luck, will look forward to seeing your results! Cheers John
  18. I know there have been a few question about user experience with Colorfabb Copperfill and Woodfill. I thought I would post my experience. First off, surface texture for both filament is excellent. Copperfill density adds a nice feel to parts. I started off with a 0.6 nozzle on the woodfill, that went fine, so I dialed back to 0.4, still fine, but the detail needed finer yet. At the same time I decided to switch to Copperfill as the model (earrings) would benefit from that. So my results on Copperfill are from a 3DSolex Hardcore, 0.25 steel nozzle. 0.05 layer height. Copperfill print settings and retractions were used, I did slow the print speed down, and am now running Bondtec feeders, which for reasons that became clear later, made quite a difference, especially with the copper. First, the good news. The detail with Copperfill at 0.25 was better than even stock Ultimaker white PLA. I had to leave an area on the underside to accommodate an earring post, so used PVA for support. The earring on the left is straight off the printer, the one on the right has only had light sanding and a couple of mild runs with a copper scouring pad. The 'other news'. As expected, clogging is a significant issue with this fine a nozzle. Each earring took about an hour. The first print went as planned, clogging occured about 30% of the way through the second attempt, a significant clog that took a number of techniques to clear. I suspect a combination of the particulates and heat creep. Clearing copperfill using the standard 'hot pull' maintenance setting did not work as the temperature was not high enough. I finally had success with some high temp PLA at between 230 and 240, working relatively quicky so I didn't soften the PLA too much. What I then decided was to do this modified hot pull after each print, and again at the end so there was nothing contaminating the nozzle for the next job. This actually worked very nicely. I've included an (obsolete) Canadian penny for reference on size and colour. My bride is very happy, which means so am I 🙂 John
  19. That's encouraging progress! I know the manufacturer is recommending XSTRAND for the supports as well, but given all of the issues, I'm wondering if another material that is known to do well as a support would work better. I haven't worked with Breakaway and I'm not sure if PVA could tolerate the temperature environment without just degrading. Would PLA be a possibility? John
  20. Thank you for this thread. I'm paying close attention and learning from your experience. I have to agree though. That is a lot of expense for testing. I hope you get a 'pioneer's premium' for doing this beta work. John
  21. Wow. Hopefully Owens-Corning can engage. That's just painful. John
  22. Just to add: The UM3 with either of the Bondtec upgrades can feed abrasive filament, so can then safely support either the CC or 3DSolex as noted above. If you do go with the feeder and hardcore mods, the interchangeable nozzles are nice for other things, like woodfill, or those times when you'd like to try a few different nozzle sizes to dial in resolution and test whether clogging is going to be an issue. Price-wise, I was able to get the 3DSolex for less than the CC core, but by the time you add in a range of abrasive nozzles, it does start to add up. Still, looking at the price of some of these filaments, the whole exercise is a pain in the pocket book. (edited for public reading) J
  23. Yes, inter-material compatibility is something I wonder about. If the PLA change will happen regardless of environment, then I guess my next question would be whether that more brittle state leads to increased risk of internal failure or whether the internal matrix is protected from loads relevant to that change. Related, there is a wide price range now of CF reinforced filaments. Perhaps the answer is to go with a more generic filament internally that lacks the surface toughness or print quality of the exotic stuff, but is still good enough to be used internally. Cost effectiveness would certainly be a factor dependent on what was being built. And of course, if the internal fill material was also abrasive, now (on the UM3), we would be talking about two CC cores or Hardcores, which would drive costs somewhat. J
  24. Good morning! It is a balmy -25C with the windchill outside, so what better time to concentrate on the indoor to do list? My usual disclaimer: I'm clearly not an engineer. I work in the end of the field that tries really hard not to break the nice toys that the engineers design for us. As I look at the growing variety of materials and prepare to set up a test environment, I was looking at the torsion boxes I've built to hold some of my heavier equipment and began to wonder - I know that infill works on a very similar principle, but if I am aiming for the strongest, truest surface to withstand loads at the lowest cost, can I expect (and predict) strength and performance improvements for given combinations of infill and skin materials? For example. We know that PLA can be very stiff but isn't particularly strong on its own and subject to longer term 'embrittlement' (pardon my abuse of the term). But what happens, say, if we embed a PLA grid inside a nylon/CF box skin? The skin provides stiffness and protection from UV, while the PLA should, in theory (depending on print orientation), serve pretty well to support the central area of the box against compression loads. I recall that some torson boxes use corrugated cardboard for their internal structures and achieve amazing load bearing capacities. Where am I going with all of this? Some of the newer materials provide us with new levels of strength and stiffness - but the cost makes using these for larger prints a serious challenge. If I was able to use an exotic filament for the skin to protect a less expensive but adequately strong matrix (and my question is really about determining 'adequately'), then all of a sudden these new materials start to look cost effective for a broader range of applications. Looking forward to your thoughts! John
  • Create New...