Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts

ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 403
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited) · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

And about using a one nozzle multi extrusion approach, there's one big limitation: temperature. Both materials need to have very similar temperatures. If it wasn't for that, it would definitely be the best option in my opinion. :D

 

Having some personal experience with the "multiple tubes into a single nozzle" way of doing things that Prusa is now selling. I wouldn't recommend it. I had a hard time getting to work it somewhat reliable on a single machine with just PLA.

Example of people reporting same issues:

And that's besides the whole "mixing of different materials could be problematic" issue.

XY offset calibration takes 17 minutes if you take instant action when required (oddly specific? we measured), in which it does a print. So that includes heating up the bed and active-leveling.

The AA-BB combination comes factory calibrated right now. The AA-AA not. You really only need to do this once. One of the major things in the development of the printhead was making sure the PrintCores end up at exactly the same point in the head every single insertion.

Not having the XY offset calibrated does not prevent you from printing, however, you will get bad results. So you will get a warning of you try to do this.

You can enter the XY offset values directly in the menu as well, so if you want to use/develop an alternative method, that is possible.

Edited by SandervG
  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted (edited) · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

     

    And about using a one nozzle multi extrusion approach, there's one big limitation: temperature. Both materials need to have very similar temperatures. If it wasn't for that, it would definitely be the best option in my opinion. :D

     

    Having some personal experience with the "multiple tubes into a single nozzle" way of doing things that Prusa is now selling. I wouldn't recommend it. I had a hard time getting to work it somewhat reliable on a single machine with just PLA.

    Example of people reporting same issues:

    And that's besides the whole "mixing of different materials could be problematic" issue.

    XY offset calibration takes 17 minutes if you take instant action when required (oddly specific? we measured), in which it does a print. So that includes heating up the bed and active-leveling.

    The AA-BB combination comes factory calibrated right now. The AA-AA not. You really only need to do this once. One of the major things in the development of the printhead was making sure the PrintCores end up at exactly the same point in the head every single insertion.

    Not having the XY offset calibrated does not prevent you from printing, however, you will get bad results. So you will get a warning of you try to do this.

    You can enter the XY offset values directly in the menu as well, so if you want to use/develop an alternative method, that is possible.

     

    Not directly related to that but somehow related.

    It could be nice if after doing a calibration the system doesn't force the cooldown, because if all is 'hot' that also means that it should be ready to print. So it could be nice to avoid the cooling down part, specially the bed, the cores ain't important since UM3 cores do heat really really fast. BUT ofc I know that since the user it's suppose to take out the full glass make sense, but also, after doing it 1-2 times is really easy to just take a look or using a phone to make a photo to see the lines faster.

    Also, related to heat/cold. I saw on all versions that if someone preheats the cores, the startup sequence force a cooldown to around 60-90C  (can't remember the number exactly). Why is that? I mean, if they are already both hot, where's the need to wait for them to cool? Is to have a more precise first purge? (really just wondering not a rant a all).

    Also, calibration. I think it could be better (IMO) if the calibration routine would use the advantage of bridging, to make a more clear lines (thin) by using a bridge between the squares that contain the calibration diagram. It doesn't even need to do two passes to make a small 2 layer bridge, just extrude a 0.4 height for the base and go back to 0.1-0.2 for the calibration lines. Something like:

    5a33236588b07_Capturadepantalla2016-11-04alas22_28_55.thumb.png.f31b69a2ab371524aa50037ffee82c39.png

    5a33236588b07_Capturadepantalla2016-11-04alas22_28_55.thumb.png.f31b69a2ab371524aa50037ffee82c39.png

    Edited by Guest
  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted (edited) · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

    So it could be nice to avoid the cooling down part, specially the bed,

     

    Ultimaker manual adviced to take out the glass and put it on top of the calibration card, in this case a cool down is needed.

    I just look at the calibrated print in the machine and have the card at hand to read of the numbers, it's pretty simple, but taking the glass out is probably more "monkey proof"

    Anyhow not a very important discussion as you hardly ever calibrate xy

    Edited by Guest
    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

     

    So it could be nice to avoid the cooling down part, specially the bed,

     

    Ultimaker manual adviced to take out the glass and put it on top of the calibration card, in this case a cool down is needed.

    I just look at the calibrated print in the machine and have the card at hand to read of the numbers, it's pretty simple, but taking the glass out is probably more "monkey proof"

    Anyhow not a very important discussion as you hardly ever calibrate xy

     

    so I got the machine before the manual was there ;)

    what i was expecting, and what I was thinking of, is to have a hole in the calibration sheet, so you can just lay the sheet over the glass plate. you don't have to take the glass plate out then.. you can just overlay it..

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

     

     

    So it could be nice to avoid the cooling down part, specially the bed,

     

    Ultimaker manual adviced to take out the glass and put it on top of the calibration card, in this case a cool down is needed.

    I just look at the calibrated print in the machine and have the card at hand to read of the numbers, it's pretty simple, but taking the glass out is probably more "monkey proof"

    Anyhow not a very important discussion as you hardly ever calibrate xy

     

    so I got the machine before the manual was there ;)

    what i was expecting, and what I was thinking of, is to have a hole in the calibration sheet, so you can just lay the sheet over the glass plate. you don't have to take the glass plate out then.. you can just overlay it..

     

    I actually already suggested that in the beta phase... hope someone will pick this idea up...

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

     

     

     

    So it could be nice to avoid the cooling down part, specially the bed,

     

    Ultimaker manual adviced to take out the glass and put it on top of the calibration card, in this case a cool down is needed.

    I just look at the calibrated print in the machine and have the card at hand to read of the numbers, it's pretty simple, but taking the glass out is probably more "monkey proof"

    Anyhow not a very important discussion as you hardly ever calibrate xy

     

    so I got the machine before the manual was there ;)

    what i was expecting, and what I was thinking of, is to have a hole in the calibration sheet, so you can just lay the sheet over the glass plate. you don't have to take the glass plate out then.. you can just overlay it..

     

    I actually already suggested that in the beta phase...  hope someone will pick this idea up...

     

    there is just 1 drawback with that approach..

    PVA is very hard to see.. so if you do it that way, the PVA would not be very visible against the aluminium background..

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

     

     

     

     

    So it could be nice to avoid the cooling down part, specially the bed,

     

    Ultimaker manual adviced to take out the glass and put it on top of the calibration card, in this case a cool down is needed.

    I just look at the calibrated print in the machine and have the card at hand to read of the numbers, it's pretty simple, but taking the glass out is probably more "monkey proof"

    Anyhow not a very important discussion as you hardly ever calibrate xy

     

    so I got the machine before the manual was there ;)

    what i was expecting, and what I was thinking of, is to have a hole in the calibration sheet, so you can just lay the sheet over the glass plate. you don't have to take the glass plate out then.. you can just overlay it..

     

    I actually already suggested that in the beta phase...  hope someone will pick this idea up...

     

    there is just 1 drawback with that approach..

    PVA is very hard to see.. so if you do it that way, the PVA would not be very visible against the aluminium background..

     

    You can pull the lever remove the pva and and insert some PLA for that calibration.

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

     

     

     

     

     

    So it could be nice to avoid the cooling down part, specially the bed,

     

    Ultimaker manual adviced to take out the glass and put it on top of the calibration card, in this case a cool down is needed.

    I just look at the calibrated print in the machine and have the card at hand to read of the numbers, it's pretty simple, but taking the glass out is probably more "monkey proof"

    Anyhow not a very important discussion as you hardly ever calibrate xy

     

    so I got the machine before the manual was there ;)

    what i was expecting, and what I was thinking of, is to have a hole in the calibration sheet, so you can just lay the sheet over the glass plate. you don't have to take the glass plate out then.. you can just overlay it..

     

    I actually already suggested that in the beta phase...  hope someone will pick this idea up...

     

    there is just 1 drawback with that approach..

    PVA is very hard to see.. so if you do it that way, the PVA would not be very visible against the aluminium background..

     

    You can pull the lever remove the pva and and insert some PLA for that calibration.

     

    i was told you should not run PLA through the PVA core.. is that incorrect?

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

    Yes you can. Not for quality prints ofc. And it's used yo atomic clean it.

    What you shouldn't do is put PVA on a AA core.

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

    Yes you can. Not for quality prints ofc. And it's used yo atomic clean it.

    What you shouldn't do is put PVA on a AA core.

     

    we learn something new every day.

    perhaps it's time to create a table for what in what but also which combos work and which combos won't,.. PLA and PVA works but I know PLA-PHA and PVA does not..

    • Like 1
    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

     

    Yes you can. Not for quality prints ofc. And it's used yo atomic clean it.

    What you shouldn't do is put PVA on a AA core.

     

    we learn something new every day.

    perhaps it's time to create a table for what in what but also which combos work and which combos won't,.. PLA and PVA works but I know PLA-PHA and PVA does not..

     

    Wait PLA-PHA doesn't work with PVA? Why? It should work, right? I mean, PHA isn't soluble in water.

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

    Wait PLA-PHA doesn't work with PVA? Why? It should work, right? I mean, PHA isn't soluble in water.

     

    PHA might not stick to PVA? ABS has a bit of the same problem, it doesn't stick very well to PVA. It's a chemical problem, they don't form bonds. Which is why we think CPE and PVA is a much stronger combo.

    Our PLA, CPE and Nylon don't have this problem.

    (Naturally, we haven't tested every filament out there. So we can only talk for our own materials)

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

     

     

    Yes you can. Not for quality prints ofc. And it's used yo atomic clean it.

    What you shouldn't do is put PVA on a AA core.

     

    we learn something new every day.

    perhaps it's time to create a table for what in what but also which combos work and which combos won't,.. PLA and PVA works but I know PLA-PHA and PVA does not..

     

    Wait PLA-PHA doesn't work with PVA? Why? It should work, right? I mean, PHA isn't soluble in water.

     

    well, there's a difference between it works, and it " works" .

    sure, I can print PLA PHA on top of PVA. however, when going for complex objects where you need to lay down PVA on top of PLA, the PLA PHA is not sticky enough.. printing the same object with just PLA does not have this issue.. believe.. i tried..

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

    Oh no, Colorfabb! Those awesome colors won't work :(

    Will it work with nGen, then?

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

    Oh no, Colorfabb! Those awesome colors won't work :(

    Will it work with nGen, then?

     

    wait wait.. yes it will work with PLA-PHA.. however... you can;t use PVA support inside the object. PVA won't adhere well enough.. but I've used it with great succes as a support material below the object, that's not a problem!

    NGEN is a problem because it's a copolymer.. that doesn't play well with PVA..

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

    How well does E3D Scaffold work? It is PVA, but they say that it's specially formulated to adhere to various materials, and I've heard a lot of great things about it.

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

    Is it possible to read how many hours were used used in a core? So it could be easy to track which one is the most used?

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

    Is it possible to read how many hours were used used in a core? So it could be easy to track which one is the most used?

    I don't know if it records the hours, but since you will (probably) have one AA core in all the time and swap out the other one depending on the print job, that AA is probably going to suffer more. If you want to balance it out just swap the two AA's once in a while, so the one that was originally in the printhead all the time will become the secondary one.

    Sorry if that was unclear. Basically I mean that the one AA that is used in both the AA BB and AA AA combinations will suffer, so make the second AA take on its role.

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

    Is it possible to read how many hours were used used in a core? So it could be easy to track which one is the most used?

    I wrote the spec for what data is stored inside the core EEPROM. It can save material consumed & time heated (Time spent above (60? Not sure what number we ended up using).

    The data I got was that a printcore should survive 6 hours of printing a day for 2 years. It could be that this number changed, as that is rather old info (year old or so?)

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

    Is it possible to read how many hours were used used in a core? So it could be easy to track which one is the most used?

    I wrote the spec for what data is stored inside the core EEPROM. It can save material consumed & time heated (Time spent above (60? Not sure what number we ended up using).

    The data I got was that a printcore should survive 6 hours of printing a day for 2 years. It could be that this number changed, as that is rather old info (year old or so?)

    6 hours every day for 2 whole years? That's 4380 hours of printing! Impressive!

    And 2 years later there will probably already be an Ultimaker 5+ or something, so a lot of people would've already moved on by then......

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

    6 hours every day for 2 whole years? That's 4380 hours of printing! Impressive!

    And 2 years later there will probably already be an Ultimaker 5+ or something, so a lot of people would've already moved on by then......

    My original is still going strong with it's first hotend. But I don't know how many hours it has seen. It has seen its far share of abuse :-)

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

     

     

    Is it possible to read how many hours were used used in a core? So it could be easy to track which one is the most used?

     

    I wrote the spec for what data is stored inside the core EEPROM. It can save material consumed & time heated (Time spent above (60? Not sure what number we ended up using).

    The data I got was that a printcore should survive 6 hours of printing a day for 2 years. It could be that this number changed, as that is rather old info (year old or so?)

     

    6 hours every day for 2 whole years? That's 4380 hours of printing! Impressive!

    And 2 years later there will probably already be an Ultimaker 5+ or something, so a lot of people would've already moved on by then......

     

    History would tell another story.

    I think we will still be using UM3's with maybe a +

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

    UM3+ confirmed. Same printer, slight modification.... faster print time with PVA support?

    :p

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Posted · ULTIMAKER 3 (DUAL EXTRUSION?)

    UM3+ confirmed. Same printer, slight modification.... faster print time with PVA support?

    :p

     

    More nozzle sizes, greater reliability, more compact printhead, flexible filament printcores, etc.

    There's always room to grow :)

  • Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now

    ×
    ×
    • Create New...