A place to track all things related to the LulzBot TAZ 6
Jan 18 2019
Just talked with Patrick from Quattro and scrubbed the hexagon source with 6dc8aade581f96deda5ba25e90d00b9499552ae0 and added a couple more things to the sink and break. It needs to be reviewed and merged into master. In this case I just straight reverse engineered the existing design, but there are some major DFM questions.. For example, there is a piece of hardware that needs to go into the top of the heatsink that we don't need or use, so do we need the additional cost of processing? The heat break is going to be difficult to get quoted, since it requires a laser welding process that most of our usual suppliers don't have equipment for. Last thing is the tolerances required to get the fit between the break and the sink right are super tight and this will drive up the cost of these parts, both in terms of price and the cost of the difficulty of maintaining a reliable supply of parts.
@kent Where are we on this drawing? This is needed ASAP!
Jan 16 2019
@kent looks good
@samantha I incorporated those changes and pushed it to the branch can you review the drawing again?
Jan 9 2019
step file for heat sink also pushed now
@jessica I pushed a step file for the heat break to the branch for this ticket under taz-olive, exported from Kent's file
@kent PP-MP0113 feedback:
The A datum is a theoretical axis that is not based on anything physical, with everything related to it being measured off of it. This prevents it from being able to be used in any actual measurements. A physical feature will need to be selected as the A datum to generate that axis from.
@kent what file did you base the heat break drawing on?
Jan 8 2019
thank you both so so much!
@jessica I just finished re-drawing it, there were a few errors on the drawing I posted.
@samantha - can you please point me to the step file for the MP0112... I see one but its pretty old and I am unsure if it is correct or not.
@kent changes look good
I incorporated @samantha feedback on the break and pushed a new version. Here is a pdf with the incorporated changes:
No I don't think so @jessica
Jan 7 2019
@kent - is this good to send for quote yet?
Dec 21 2018
rev should be IR (initial revision) and not A
angles for V groove
Ok here is the drawing I made for the break:
Nov 26 2018
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?
Nov 21 2018
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.
Nov 14 2018
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.
Nov 13 2018
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(inserting reuseable silicon plugs like Rapid or PMM), or on our part(extra time and effort with clogged threads).
I suggest 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 much longer, but I'm not finding it to be very technically challenging. 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 any get stuck.
The Mini bed plates are also showing this problem, too much powder coat on the threads is requiring more processing time to get these to production.
Nov 12 2018
@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