Dual Extrusion UM2. What is the best option?

[latreides 4]

I want to add dual extrusion to my UM2+

Currently (as far as I can tell) there are two projects that deal with Dual Extrusion on the UM2+

ULTICREATR 2X

http://www.shop.creatr.it/en/ulticreatr/164-ulticreatr-2x.html#/52-printer-ultimaker_2

Mark2

https://magnetic-tool-changer.com/

From what little I can gather, the Ulticreatr 2x setup would have issues with the nozzle hitting the part, the temperature from one nozzle creeping into the other, and oozing.  Is this really an issue with the Ulticreatr 2x? Does anyone have first hand experience with this setup?  The videos/images on their site are very pretty.

The Mark2 looks like it would reduce the printable area on the bed because it has to park the second carriage (it would also take longer to print if there are lots of color changes). Is this an accurate assessment?

Are these the only two options?

What does it take to build a Dual Extrusion setup?  If I were to build my own Dual Extrusion by utilizing the existing parts (similar to how the Ulticreatr 2x works) what more is needed other than a second extruder, motor, bowden, and a nozzle/heatblock set?  I guess this question is more of a: Why would I spend $705 USD on the Ulticreatr 2x when I can just buy the parts I need for half that?

Edited August 3, 2017 by Guest

[SandervG 1,521]

Between those 2, and I can't think of a great third option right away, hands down Mark 2. It is cost efficient, seems reliable and users seem to really like it. The amount of space you loose in the build volume seems to be like 0,5 or 1cm.

I would suggest to roam these forums for user experiences on both of these options, and I think the answer will become clear quite quickly.

[Dim3nsioneer 558]

Search a bit this forum for the two. I guess you will find that with the Mark2 you have a wide spread community for support which might not be the case for the other option.

[ultiarjan 1,223]

Just don't waste any time or money on any system that does not deal with getting the unused nozzle out of the way. Either with separate heads or a lifting system, whatever nice videos you may have seen......

Besides the mark2 there's a guy on this forum who build 2 nozzles in a um2 head with lifting and water-cooling. And I recently build a um3 head in a 'go' but for this you may have trouble getting the parts.

I'd say time and money wise the mark2 is your best option. Have a look a the BOM if you want to go for the most low budget option.

[foehnsturm 970]

As for the time question. Tool change movement takes approx. 1-2 sec. This is as fast as the UM3 nozzle lift sequence and much less time as for any other typical dual extrusion stuff (e.g. waiting for the nozzle to heat up if it was not perfectly pre-heated in time).

[latreides 4]

Just don't waste any time or money on any system that does not deal with getting the unused nozzle out of the way. Either with separate heads or a lifting system, whatever nice videos you may have seen......

The only ones I have seen have been the Mark2 and the Ulticreatr 2x. Both of these have pretty big downsides. Smaller bed size for Mark2, and a nozzle that gets in the way with the Ulticreatr 2x. Is there an UM3-like solution for the UM2? Preferably one that is not just one guy that made this one thing type of situation?

The amount of space you loose in the build volume seems to be like 0,5 or 1cm.

I am interested in the actual numbers because it appears that the Mark 2 would lose an equal amount of build area from the front and back of the build area; since the 2nd head couldn't print all the way in back just like the 1st head cannot print all the way in front. Actual numbers are important because a total loss of ~2cm would be ~10% of the build area. Thats not an acceptable loss for me.

If anyone has experience with either of these systems, or others, I would be very interested in hearing your opinions on the topic. I have browsed the forums for discussions (its how I found both of those mechanisms) but other than one topic for each of them, the rest just seems to be one off's, not tried and true solutions that at least dozens of community members have utilized.

[SandervG 1,521]

ah yes, the total amount of including areas the nozzles can't reach may be a little bit higher. My initial answer was triggered by your comment mentioning docking the second head. The full loss might be slightly higher.

I think @foehnsturm would be best to answer it. In this case, even though Foehnsturm had the original idea and the biggest stake in the development, the final 'product' is developed by multiple (knowledgeable!) people from the community.

I don't know what your usual sized prints are so I can't say if the loss in build volume is acceptable or not, however, you also gain a lot of functionality by being able to print with 2 materials. And single extrusion will stay the same, cause it is fairly easy to park the head outside of the frame. (meaning, with a single print you don't loose any build volume). But in the end, it is a trade-off. You gain some, you lose some.

[Razanur 0]

Hi,

sorry for zombie-ing this thread, but it is one of the first search results and very informative.

There is a new option available:

This seems to avoid the hitting and the loss of printarea problem. Only the sourcing of the materials seem to be hard. How do you think this compares to the aformentioned two?