A place to track all things related to the LulzBot TAZ 6
Mon, Nov 26
I updated the drawing number.
I generated a .step and added it to the ticket branch, which has been sent along to PMM (who emailed me directly looking for it.)
Both PMM and Quattro need a STP file. I am not seeing one, am I missing it?
Wed, Nov 21
Change order in process to change this back. @jessica has already spoken to Weiser about this and we may see a few pieces here and there going forward, but it shouldn't be much.
Wed, Nov 14
Thank you all so much for getting this done so quickly!!
ok @jessica the drawing for the hexagon heaterblock can be found here http://devel.lulzbot.com/TAZ/Olive/production_parts/machined_parts/lulzbot_edition_hexagon_hotend-0.5mm/ao-hex_heater-block_revA.pdf
@kent get a proper rev letter on there and its good to go
I was thinking it would be easier for our supplier (and by proxy easier on us) to put masking dots on both sides of each hole so that they wouldn't have to mask the threads separately. This would mean that there would be a non-functional spot of metal on the bottom of the plates, but I don't forsee this causing any issues. I'd like some input from rd on this before moving forward.
Assembly currently has 2 guys through through all the mini beds and chasing the threads with taps. I talked to @jessica today and was told that Weiser has been informed and they agreed to continue to masking the threads, we may see a few stragglers come through but we should start see the threads masked again. We should just need to revert the change on the designs or update them and we should be good to go.
@samantha any other feedback on this drawing? I think we addressed everything.
Tue, Nov 13
I do think the extra time and effort constitutes post-processing on our part(for Production). At some stage, each hole has to be dealt with either by the supplier(inserts reuseable silicon plugs like Rapid or PMM), or on our part(extra time and effort with clogged threads).
I would doing starting the fasteners by hand and doing the first few turns by hand. Using the driver alone is more likely to result in putting the fastener in at an angle, which causes cross-threading. Also, viewing from multiple angles as the first few threads are cleared allows you to make sure it is going in completely straight. This process takes longer, but I'm not finding it to be very difficult. Eventually wrist fatigue will likely happen to whoever is doing this though, because it does take a bit more hand strength to put the fasteners in. In my hand fastening tests, I haven't had get stuck.
The Mini bed plates are also showing this powder coat.
Mon, Nov 12
@samantha I talked with some people in production and they told me they built 37 beds today. So 29/37 got re-worked.
@oliver is that 29 the full number of beds worked with today, or were there any outside of that 29 that were ok?
End of the day update: At the end of the day assembly saw 29 beds with the screws being too tight or required more time in order to get them in. 4 holes had to actually be tapped because there were no threads to grip on too and 1 screw got stripped and the easy out had to be used to back it out.
Update: I just talked with Wolf and assembly is having to add an extra process on every TAZ bed plate that is coming through. In order to keep up production, Wolf was going to put one of the Temps on clearing out all the holes.
Nov 8 2018
ok, I put the depth callout and added the angles.
@kent the depth callout on the hole should go at the end of the line of the callout it is to be applied to. so, it should come after "thread" here. Since it is at the end of everything it could be interpreted to apply to the chamfer as well. Since the angle of the chamfer is not specified, this would then mean its a very steeply angled chamfer of that depth that comes to the specified diameter. Also, you should probably specify the angle of the chamfers.
@kent sounds good. I think we should verify the tolerance on the heaters with E3d
fwiw, the previous version of this drawing (which I am unable to locate the source for) specs the hole at 6.10 which means holes in the range from 6.85 to 6.35 would be acceptable, even though we know they are not.
@tutley that's why I put it at four places in the rev before last. I haven't taken a huge sample or done any control chart for it, but based on a hand full of measurements of the heater cartridges, the average is 5.95mm with some as low as 5.9mm and some as high as 6.00mm so I think the +/-.1mm on the 6.1mm dimension should fit the large majority of the heater cartridges.
@kent this latest change allows the minimum diameter of the heater cartridge hole to be 6mm which is the nominal diameter of the heater cartridge. The heater cartridge will have some tolerance as well, and could be greater than 6mm in diameter. On E3d's drawing for the cartridge they have it called out as 6.00 but there is no tolerance block or reference for ISO so I'm not sure what the tolerance is on those. We will just want to make sure that the largest diameter heaters we get will still fit in the block.
Ok, I updated the tolerance @tutley
@kent im not sure what the tolerance is on the diameter of the heater cartridge, but i think the tolerance you specify on the heater cartridge hole is too tight at 4 places
Nov 7 2018
Ok, I added a depth callout to that hole @west
should there be a depth specified for the M3 set screw hole?
Ok, re-numbered and fixed the tolerance on the heater cartridge hole. Only thing I'm a little uneasy about is that we might be over-specifying the hole for the thermistor on the top view because we call out the radius and the position of the edge but I think they might be specifying different things.
@kent The notes are numbered 1,2,4
Ok I tightened most everything up. Please check it.
@kent the only thing i see that i think should be corrected now is that the tolerances are pretty loose. you will likely want to move most everything to 2 decimal places and probably some of it to 3 places
changes made based on redline, please check it again @samantha thanks!
Ok, I've made some changes, please take a look again.
Some feedback on the chamfer dimension:
I've been rejecting chamfers over 6.64mm, so I think 6.4mm chamfer size limit in the drawing would work well. Specifying it well under 6.64(the highest diameter we know works with the Reprap nozzles) will make inspection much quicker and keep fallout to a minimum. Due to the size variance in Reprap nozzles, 6.4mm as a chamfer diameter limit will hopefully eliminate all nozzle leaks going forward.
@AOJAS for reference
I have left a redlined printout for @kent. Let me know when updates are ready for a second round of redlines, or if there are any questions.
@kent here is some initial feedback on this drawing.
i think in the notes instead of "remove all burrs and shavings", and "no additional finishes or coatings" this should be changed to "break all edges" and "parts must be clean, free of oil and debris" for consistency across all our drawings
This drawing is missing a call out for the location of the thermistor slot. The heater cartridge hole diameter and location is not fully called out. There is no call out for the chamfer just a note that it cannot exceed a 6.4mm diameter on the surface. The 6.4mm hole that gets tapped is called out too large. if they drill to 6.4mm then try and tap it with m6 threads there will be basically no threads. the recommended drill size for an m6 tap is 5.2mm.
Nov 6 2018
@jessica I created a drawing to help with second sourcing this block. We will want to have it reviewed before sending it to anyone. I've attached the current version of the drawing here.
Nov 1 2018
Sep 14 2018
verified all TAZ 6 machines have proper start gcode: https://code.alephobjects.com/rCT0196b14f9c0fefb55e4bb376f62155d8d4348201 and https://code.alephobjects.com/rCT7b13c7e4aada37477019d1da518f20d4e2d0d594
Sep 13 2018
This problem was supposed to have been addressed in start GCODE by placing a "M420 S0" (disable bed leveling) at the start of the start GCODE, and a "M420 S1" (enable bed leveling) right after "G29". It is possible not all start GCODEs were updated in this manner, could you check whether your start GCODE has those?