- User Since
- Feb 4 2017, 5:27 PM (132 w, 2 d)
@west Do you think we could do with a 3in*lbs torque spec vs 5in*lbs?
My thought process is that there isn't a big ol gap in the model, so we should be able to print it without one.
Have you tried a different wall printing order? I think those would both be treated as outer walls.
@david.hall Since I haven't had any requests and we've moved past the development stage I'm going to go ahead and close this ticket. If anything arises please feel free to open a new ticket.
No I haven't been working on it, I already tried everything I could think of
The updated gcodes are present on T8953 and will be included in that merge
@west any ideas? I don't have any ideas as far as what the cause might be or how to solve this one.
Thu, Aug 15
Talked to Rob at Final this morning and they've had 1 or 2 of these appear at final but were able to fix it with adjustments, so I was told these shouldn't be reaching calibration anymore.
@robert how has this been for you since Tuesday?
These gcodes are being pushed to T8953 branch so that only one branch need be merged later. Sending prints to cluster now, should know by tomorrow.
This has been updated here: https://ohai.lulzbot.com/project/packaging-taz-workhorse/taz-workhorse/
I have packagers looking it over for feedback now but this was developed with them so I don't expect many issues.
@zachah that looks great!
Wed, Aug 14
It looks better than the video I posted, and is the simplest potential solution.
@adam Do we need a CO for something so simple that should probably have already been there? This seems more like a quick correction than something we should submit a CO for IMO.
Tue, Aug 13
@TyTh So is that ticket an inability to read the SD card, or the LCD actually freezing? I don't see anything about the LCD freezing.
Working on this with @robert today we found a machine that had a drag of ~15N with the rear tool head mount fastener loose, and ~22N with the fastener torqued to spec. We ran the octogear on this machine and it failed circular dimension accuracy. @robert then increased X-Belt tension to the high end of the specified range and the resulting print passed circular dimension accuracy.
So in this case 22-25N is acceptable if the belt tension is increased towards the high end of the spec.
That catching on the bottom rear extrusion was reported in T7791 also
Hm I don't see anything in this ticket that matches the title.
@bigmansas was wondering, what if we zip tied the 2 harnesses together maybe 2-3 inches behind the Y Cable Mount? On his unit anyway, only the one harness is drooping. Do you think that might help?
I have not been able to get my hands on a unit exhibiting this issue, but I have gathered feedback from calibrators and final assemblers regarding what they are doing to fix it.
Rob at Final said that he has seen this, and when he does he removes the tool head and adjusts bushing compression and spacing. This morning he said that it happens most often when the front 2 button head fasteners (spacing between upper and lower) are not torqued to spec or otherwise left loose.
Feedback from calibrators (@paulette @robert @gregh @duncan) was that they are able to fix it by adjusting the compression hardware and spacing as well, just that it is time consuming for them.
Would moving that face back make the bend at home even sharper? How will this prevent the cable from drooping into the frame as shown in the video?
@adam it is possible that these could fail in the field. We've taken a video that shows how this cable may have been damaged. However the cable in the video is the bed harness not the bed power harness. The bed power harness in the video is the new replacement.
Pulling back the braided loom, there is a prominent kink and/or bulge. I believe this location on the harness was right at the rear of the Y Cable Mount, due to the length of the braided loom on this harness.
Here is a pic of the curve of it once removed
The external bed harness was the failure here. One line reads open loop once removed, on the machine it was giving us odd readings.
Mon, Aug 12
@eBeardslee the process is very similar to TAZ Pro. Assuming they wont have strapping, as long as they get the printer/foam in the box they'll be fine.
Haven't taken any photos yet. I'll try to get this going
Fri, Aug 9
@karrad I cant think of anything else that should be there, looks good to me.
Thu, Aug 8
If they're worse than the ones we've seen I can see that being possible, but not likely at the bend photographed. I understand the concerns, I just want the best possible solution all around; customers, assemblers, tech support, repair techs should all be considered.
I know to do it best would require a rev of the RAMBo which isn't anywhere near painless financially.
Some testing may be required but this decision is looking to be above my position, I'd like some input from @Steven and @cmerot regarding which option we should pursue/test.
How easily could it be removed in the event of rework? Would customers replacing a RAMBo need a new E1 harness every time?
Looking at it, its basically superglue and a curing accelerant right?
@tutley I understand your concern, but if you push it all the way down can you still connect a populated 2 pin connector to it?
We bend electrical connections elsewhere like endstop switches, is the slight bend here of that much concern? Its not like it will be bending back and forth.
Hm, I didn't think there'd be that much variance between PCBs. That isn't the case on the ones I've tried here. How bad of a bend are we talking about? Is it enough to cause concern?
Which option thats been presented here would our customers appreciate more?
Hot glue and super glue reminds me of TAZ 5 CB Assembly, and is something I personally would not be appreciative of as a customer, just as much as it falling off in the first place.
@tutley I didn't see that on the one that I applied. A populated connector connected to it without issue.
Its possible, but I don't know how to confirm that. It may be that the zip tie is just insufficient in accomplishing the original intent.
CO Submitted: T9548
I will be training assemblers in Presub and implementing this today due to the current process in place not working correctly. This will save parts and allow us to keep moving.
Looks like the zip tie here might not be working as well as expected through shipping vibrations, though it did pass a drop test.
I made a jig that will make this process rather quick and it works well. The bushing is held firmly in the printed part with the gap set to 1.6mm.
Place ring of jig on middle finger
Grab part, place jig over compression fastener and tighten until it grabs the jig with some resistance
Pull jig out of part
Wed, Aug 7
Tue, Aug 6
@adam I know we spoke with preferred already, is there a change order for this?
@draubach Lets go ahead and say anything over 425mm is usable.
Your second question would be best answered by supply chain but a bit more info would be helpful; Are the ones you have from CCX out of spec? How many?
@DaniAO anywhere else these should be pushed?
For now we will have to rework what we have, any where the loom is shorter than 420-425mm should probably be rejected.
How much do you think we should lengthen it by? 15mm to be safe?
It seems to be working out, but may not be ideal. It would be best from our perspective to lengthen the loom by 10mm or more so that they can be tied like the OHAI shows
@west Yeah that's pretty much whats happening, essentially what I'm doing is stretching the loom some and pushing the wires back so the end of the connectors reach the same point.
After re-securing it as described above, here is a 425mm and a 430mm:
One of the ones I pulled is 425mm
@west they all look the same as far as I can tell. We haven't removed any yet, but I can. Can you measure some of what they have over there?
Ah I see what you're saying. @paulette can you try that and see if you can still get the last zip tie on without stressing wires?
@west as you photographed would not allow the zip tie that goes around those wires per T7987, see last photo of step 4 here: https://ohai.lulzbot.com/project/calibration-taz-workhorse/taz-workhorse/
Fixed on T9304 branch
@adam This is not updated in the OHAI yet
Mon, Aug 5
Switched to the new wiper mount and double dipped ABS pads and this issue is not present
Possibly, would require some testing. That is pretty typical CuraLE behavior and can't always be corrected, see T8843
I can try to make sure combing is turned off, but outside of that I'm not sure what else to try since CuraLE is pretty bad with Z-seams right now.
I'm thinking that may have actually been coming from the Z Left Motor, the print after that was really short in Z dimensionally so I started checking pulleys and found the left one had come loose.
I'll run some more of that same print today and see what happens.
Thu, Aug 1
looks good @franklin