- User Since
- May 30 2017, 1:22 PM (79 w, 5 d)
Fri, Dec 7
Wed, Dec 5
Tue, Dec 4
This was done with T3783
This was done with T3813
Wed, Nov 28
The general problem is the spacing on the built in supports is heavily influenced by the layer height. When we utilize the built in support in Cura there are settings which allow me to treat the support as its own entity, not to mention this allows testing for those features in Cura in house. Using the support feature in gives more control for print order and speeds. Where the modeled in support will over produce structures that are wasted material. In short, it is easier to slice without modeled in support.
Tue, Nov 27
While slicing we noticed there is an overhand which prints in mid air, and a thin wall that is not easily registered in cura, I had to drop nozzle diameter to 0.25 for it to recognize it.
Mon, Nov 26
@Steven I am sure a higher passing rate would happen off of TAZ machines; however, part of the reason for the part change was to open the opportunity to print it on mini which is the majority of cluster. The primary reason I see lift is usually due to the corners getting neglected when sanding in cluster, which makes sense, the majority of parts have their critical geometries in the center of the bed while printing.
Wed, Nov 21
@west Yep. Thanks for the advice though. It is roughly 20% of prints right now, and the same issues we typically see with thin wall parts with ABS. The z-lowers suffer from the same issue commonly.
From the small sample that I had (3 prints) I saw an improvement on lifting. The areas that lifted were much less severe with the helpers in place. I think a combination of slice adjustments and those features will resolve my issues
Tue, Nov 20
The main concern I have is the cost associated with running this inside cluster. It changes from being a fixed cost from a vendor to being a variable cost that is reliant on our own competence. There are benefits to manufacturing our own parts for lead times and whatnot, but I fear we would be paying well over what the piece is worth by manufacturing our own in terms of printed part fallout and general assembly, in addition to the testing that is required for printed part evaluation and cosmetic approval process. Material wise it would probably be cheaper to manufacture our own; but there is an opportunity cost we are not evaluating by adding this to cluster's print list.
Mon, Nov 19
@logan @west to clarify what is actually warping, the outside fasteners that screw into the t-slot extrusion. The part is angled to fit on a mini bed and as a result those features are at the coldest part of the bed.
Fri, Nov 16
Thu, Nov 15
Wed, Nov 14
Tue, Nov 13
@west I placed some of the parts on your desk. The vr_x_motor_v4.6.stl will need a chamfer for the bearing retention ring to avoid the print artifact that is in that area. I am re-slicing that part to try and reduce the amount of stringing in the bearing channel. X_motor_v3.2.5_chain_mount_double_shear.stl had print failures initially, I also mis-printed that part with supports so it will also be re-sliced.
Mon, Nov 12
@west I am getting different version numbers for a few of these:
Nov 9 2018
Nov 6 2018
Nov 1 2018
Oct 30 2018
Currently the horizontal expansion test prints have not been successful in achieving the tolerance desired. As suspected adjustments are being made to the entire print, a good visual is as if all of the walls are inflated slightly to achieve the smaller bore. The problem with this is it will influence the retaining ring slots, m3 screws, and how far the bearing sits off of the x carriage. I believe a model change will be a faster fix as slicing adjustments are a lot of trial and error and waiting for printers to finish in order to verify the change.
Oct 29 2018
@tutley @kent with @logan's help, we were able to confirm that the model inner diameter was measured at 16.6 in both FreeCAD and Blender. We are attempting some horizontal expansion changes to see if the issue can be resolved through the slice still.
@logan I can probably get the measurement achieved via slicing; however, I am not sure I can guarantee the adjustments I would do in cura wouldn't negatively affect other parts of the model as well. Is it something that might need to mirror the y single bearing holder design? Reduce the number of parts needed for assembly to minimize variance between pieces.
Oct 25 2018
Oct 24 2018
@matth Unfortunately, that is not possible as I mentioned in the earlier comment, blender was used to demonstrate the fixes I was requesting.
I used blender to fix what I was having troubles with. Feel free to use them for reference. I am not very experienced with FreeCAD currently. The general function of the belt works great, easy to install and holds tension so far, I just had some troubles getting bloom to install and wanted more range of adjustment for the nylock cavities.
Oct 23 2018
Providing feedback from using the macro in a production sense:
Additionally, the nylock cavities will need a channel to allow for screw threads for adjustments. The window of workable tension is fairly small with current design.
@kent @matth The initial runs of new print will need to have the model adjusted to better fit inserts. 1 insert on the x belt tensioner is too shallow, bloom overtakes the threads when attempting to make the insert flush with the back of the part. The Y belt tensioner will have troubles fitting the nylock in the lower pocket, which can be worked around if desired. Please let me know if you need a set of parts to verify the issue.
Oct 17 2018
Oct 16 2018
Throwing my two cents in here, I don't think multiple would be required. Extrusion will need to be verified off of each nozzle, but the dimensional accuracy will only need 1 print since the entire tool-head is moving, there shouldn't be a difference in shape between the two prints. One print with a few layers of the other tool head in the middle will let us know if the offsets are in place and give general information on extrusion. This is what I believe @oliver is getting at with the original comment. Printing multiple is redundant.
Oct 12 2018
Oct 11 2018
@Galadriel Thank you for snapping those for me. If possible can you pull out the screw from its assembly and measure the threads with a ruler? It should measure a total of about 29 mm
@Galadriel The washers you are adding are on the back screw right? do you happen to have a picture of that screw? It should be the same distance as a regular aerostruder v2. @adam had me clean out the plastic in the threads of the initial beta units, but I don't think all 15 were brought to me.
Oct 10 2018
@logan last I checked, they were all still in place with no issues under normal operation.
Oct 8 2018
Oct 5 2018
Oct 4 2018
Insert and strength testing:
Oct 3 2018
Oct 2 2018
Oct 1 2018
Could not push to testing
Sep 28 2018
@david.hall I have pulled the folders from cluster production. As soon as the new model is ready I can begin getting a new slice underway
@adam It is pushed and available for cluster to print. I haven't gotten the chance to evaluate if the bed orientation and model change have improved passing on older tool-heads. It will be something to keep an eye out for but I think the new file will work much better for fallout
Insert and strength testing: