- User Since
- Jun 9 2015, 10:48 PM (182 w, 6 d)
@tutley yeah we could. I think there may be a number of designs that are available and freely licenced. I don't see it as something that absolutely needs to happen, but it was something that I noticed so I made a ticket for it, mostly for logging purposes. It's pretty frequent that months and months after the release of a product, someone will point out an issue that was already thought about and determined not to do anything about. In situations like that it might seem like negligence. This way, we can look back and remind ourselves exactly why we decided not to do anything. Not doing anything is a valid thing to do in some cases, including this one I think.
This is the case with any heatsink fan. If we covered the fan, it could reduce airflow going to the heatsink and require another printed part that would be cosmetic heavy
Yeah we can do that. To determine which version we ship on the Alphas, we need to decide if the tight axis due to the deformation of the y-bearing is a critical design failure. If it is, we have to change it to the new version for the alpha builds. If it is not, we ship it with the alpha version of that part.
Other thing I've noticed in the same vein is that if you move the printer across a desk and bump one of the feet, it will come out of alignment even if it was in alignment to begin with.
Wait... no to what?
@west I'm confused by the phrasing of the question. Are you asking if it is possible, or requesting that I print these for you?
this changed would actually be painful
Fri, Dec 7
It also seems to be rubbing on the front of the idler. I think it is because the Idler bolt is not sitting straight in the idler. @west is there some means for adjustment or something to check for if this is happening?
Thu, Dec 6
Wed, Dec 5
Tue, Dec 4
Mon, Dec 3
I realized that there is an issue with the frame fixture design that makes it so the top extrusions will not be flush with the tops of the left and right extrusions.
Ok I reviewed the changes, merged them to master, and removed the branch.
Steps 10 and 11 should be updated here to add a washer, I think this will solve this issue. https://ohai.lulzbot.com/project/dual-extruder-v3/hot-end-tool-head-assembly/
Fri, Nov 30
Thu, Nov 29
One thing we need to make sure to check is that the steel idlers are threaded thru all the way and that the threads are co-helical.
Ok I just spoke with the designer he is using alibre design expert (whatever that is) and it was not opening certain parts of the assemblies for some reason. I recommended FreeCAD, which he installed, and is now able to open the .step files using that. I showed him how to measure distances in the part workbench, and walked him though some of the concerning parts. He did point out that the y-cable chain parts were not in the step nor was any of the filament runout sensor. If possible, I would like to send him files with those two added, but I told him he might just have to work from the photos and the physical model at first.
Wed, Nov 28
@west right, that's true. What I think I'm seeing is that the changes made in this branch don't add the 35 and 36, they add the 36 and 37 which is not what we want.
OK, I merged this in and deleted the branch.
@west ok in that case, I think we are good to merge it.
I don't think this is ready to merge yet. @west comment above says we need to add AS-HE0035 and AS-HE0036, but I am showing that the BoM in branch T4651 has added AS-HE0036 and AS-HE0037. The latter of those is an assembly, so we don't want it on the flat BOM I don't think.
Ok I reviewed this and this is what I found:
We need a pulley spacer for each pulley. If they are all the same then that would be great, but if not one for each.
Tue, Nov 27
Ok I checked that it is on the BOM now and merged it in.
I tested the part you dropped off and was able to get the zipties into place without too much difficulty, so I think the task that the ticket was created to address is complete and this is ready to be merged.
@samantha @west @tutley @Steven @jessica I just forwarded an email to this effect, but for the sake of the ticket, our packaging designer is having trouble and I'm not sure we can count on them to design the packaging we need in time. To that end, I think we need to design packaging for the printer (within the existing capability of the manufacturing processes of our current supplier).
I don't see any major issues with the existing design, let's print one out and test it.
Yes, but in an effort to reduce the chances of re-doing work we should wait until later. Maybe pre-beta or mid-beta.
The task in the OP is completed, however, there is still TH0 and TH1 and Servo0 and Servo1. I think this could be updated for consistency.
@Steven I did a
git checkout T4642
and confirmed the part numbers are updated as well as the BOM in that branch. AFAICT the changes in this branch complete the task that this ticket was created for, so this is ready to merge.
Ok will pick
Mon, Nov 26
From @tutley comment above:
I updated the drawing number.
See @tutley comment above.
The additional connector adds parts and another possible point of failure.
this one is in e3d's court atm. We can open it back up if it continues to be an issue.
@oliver did some experiments and concluded that this does not make as much a difference as originally suspected.
This will need to happen, but not until we are ready to make the beta tag.
I think all that needs to happen on this one is to add it to the BOM and order it for the beta/production run. @logan when you have a minute, can you make sure both these things get done?
I think we can keep this as the part number it is without too much more wasted time.
Wed, Nov 21
PP-MP0216 I don't think is ready until T4502 is either resolved or wontfixed. Other than that, I don't have any concerns about the parts that have a Y in the release column.
Tue, Nov 20
@west this is true, however, we have heard that this is difficult and time consuming to manufacture for our suppliers. Not only that, but the method used to mask the threads is not always very effective. The idea here is that putting a masking dot onto every threaded hole on both sides is easier and more effective than putting in plugs. This is especially true for the holes that mount the bed washers, since they have a masking dot on one side and not on the other which makes it hard for the plug to stay in there during powder coating.
Mon, Nov 19
Here's a plot of the data @logan
Fri, Nov 16
Based on the SPC data, I think a .4mm slot will allow adequate motion of the secondary guide rod.
If there is a way to remove the setscrew that would be good because I think the slot won't accomplish it's purpose of allowing translational motion of the guide rod. Maybe there is a way to cap each end of the rod in the slot to keep it from moving up or down. It would help too to shorten the interface between the motor mount and the guide rod in the slotted hole to reduce the constraint on rotation about the y-axis. The goal is that the fixed rod constrains rotation and translation about the x and y axis (4 constraints) and the other rod in the slot constrains only rotation about the z-axis (1 constraint).
@Steven the parts we have here in MER are rev C for the chassis and rev B for the cover.
Here are the control charts for the spacing of the holes for the rods. A couple things that we noticed is that the mean spacing is different between the two and the variance is low while the tolerance is high. I haven't checked, but I suspect that if the top spacing was towards the top of the band and the bottom spacing was towards the bottom of the band it would bind pretty bad while still being 100% in spec, so we probably want to take a look at these and review these tolerances.
Thu, Nov 15
@kforrest Here is an updated BOM with the hardware broken out on the third tab.