Filament RunOut Sensor on UM3

[PranavB 0]

I have been using UM3 for printing functional prototypes for various projects going on at NIH. As many parts I print require precision, I have to change the print parameters which result in large print times and increased material consumption. Many times, the prints are overnight and the printer runs out of material leaving the nozzle printing in air. It’s frustrating because I have to start whole print again wasting material and more importantly, time.

 

I noticed that the new Ultimaker S5 has something called Filament RunOut Sensor, and I have been reading on your community page that you guys have been working on developing something like that for long time. I would really appreciate it if you have figured out a way to install that on UM3 as it is the primary printer we use

 

Thanks!

[jffry7 12]

Hi and welcome to the forum.

 

First off lets be clear I am not from Ultimaker team. Anyway, lets also correct what you mentioned, Ultimaker had a filament runOut Sensor on UM3 but as @SandervG said they found that its reliability is not up to their standard and scrapped that idea for UM3. Community is more than welcome to reuse the existing cable on the extruder as it is still there. Got my UM3 a month ago and found that cable to still exist.

 

Anyway, @foehnsturm started a thread

To work on a filament flow sensor (and possibly runOut sensor) for UM2 and hoping maybe for UM3. But this is nowhere finish, I myself am attempting to see if I can recycle the existing code for the UM3 to use foehnsturm sensor. But I do this for a hobby and have a day job as well as kids so it might take me some time.

[PranavB 0]

I went through the threads of discussions with many community members working on it as a hobby. But as the new ultimaker s5, which is the most recent one, has the sensor implemented in it, i wanted to know if there is any way we can get that sensor module and try to fit it in UM3

[jffry7 12]

As you may have already read on the forum/community Ultimaker dont give parts list and BOM till 1yr of release. Also I dont remember any distributor/reseller selling this part separately so we wont know at this time. However, there are those who have both S5 and UM3 maybe they can test.

 

But considering that S5 have a different board I dont think it will be optimized for use in UM3. There is also what UM3 team mentioned that they did not find its reliability up to standard which could me that if they were indeed developed in parallel and if they have the same sensor then you will have more headache than the benefit of runout sensor.

 

One thing is for certain, the implementation needs to be reviewed but its not in UM radar to implement it. I could be wrong and I hope @SandervG or other UM team can comment on it.

[kmanstudios 1,120]

1 hour ago, jffry7 said:

There is also what UM3 team mentioned that they did not find its reliability up to standard which could me that if they were indeed developed in parallel and if they have the same sensor then you will have more headache than the benefit of runout sensor

Keep in mind that the UM3 series was release about 2 years ago. What may have not been ready then may  be ready now and that would be good for people to look at, either at UM or third party. I do know that the runout sensor on my S5 has really be effective. So, the basic tech has been sussed out. Whether that can apply to the UM3 Series is unknown at this time though.

 

I agree that we do need official word on how that goes. But a lot happens in 2 years, so, who knows? Ain't that the fun of looking forward to things to come?

[jffry7 12]

I would love that there would be a direct plugin to our UM3 but considering the S5 is not using the ultiboard 9correct me if I am wrong). It could be processing power that is preventing efficient way of implementing it in UM3. I could be wrong so really an official word would be nice.

 

For now, I need a kick on the back to start working on my code to use foehnsturm sensor on UM3. It would be nice if I actually have good coding skills ?

[kmanstudios 1,120]

Unfortunately, I only have as much conjecture as the next person. I am just hopeful :)

[nallath 1,120]

The flow sensor of the S5 won't fit in the casing of the UM3 feeder (at least, that's what the hardware engineers told me). But i guess it should be possible to backport it if you don't mind getting your hands dirty. You probably will need to drill some extra holes in your back panel though. 

[kmanstudios 1,120]

I have noticed that the UM2 sensor design they are testing is an external add-on. That could be an option.....

[jffry7 12]

If I can have access, probably we can just 3D print it. I got a adapter print to attached the polybox bowden to the extruder. It can easily be adapted to hold the sensor. But dont know where to buy it. And schematic wont be available any time soon unless you already have it ?

 

btw @Daid have mentioned i think on his Day4 Thread for the UM3 is that only the remains of the code are their but the main issue was mechanical. Tho I hope they dont re-purpose the port to the temp sensor they planned to measure room temp. Or maybe I misunderstood that part ?

 

Getting hands dirty is part of everything if you involve your self to 3d printers IMO ?

 

EDIT: Is the S5 sensor base on AS5048B or A1335? or neither? I mean they are Hall-Effect sensor but just curious. Thos I think foehnsturm solution will be better in reliabilty.

Edited July 26, 2018 by jffry7

[Daid 306]

The S5 sensor is a A1335.

 

The S5 and 3 are running on the same code base, so the older run-out code has been replaced with the newer S5 code (which works a lot better then what we had at the time of the 3)

[jffry7 12]

Thanks @Daid one of these days I will need to talk to you on getting the jedi-marlin code but I am waiting for the a new FW (in case its coming next month just speculating ? ). I think gr5 gave me the May version of marlin and thats what I am working on (crossing fingers).

[LexMaker 1]

Has there been any progress on this front??

[UlrichC-DE 109]

The solution to this is here:

 

In google the problem is more prominent than the solution. Hence the entry.