Thu, Feb 21
Jan 17 2019
Nov 5 2018
Athena is too full of old research and baggage. We are going to wrap this up and start fresh with Brizo - this will likely become a ticket for Brizo, but we need to review and update the spec sheet before recreating on that workboard.
@kforrest excellent work collecting this information.
Athena has too much baggage so we're closing it where it is and moving on to Brizo. We will probably reference this ticket when we start getting into manufacturability of Brizo.
Athena is done - moving to Brizo
Athena is going to the great data log in the sky and we're moving on to Brizo - closing as wontfix
Oct 17 2018
Aug 23 2018
We also talked to her here at Lago. All this information might not be relevant to product planning but it is insightful none the less.
Another interesting bit of feedback was to pay attention to the accessibility of the filament - some comments have been made about how Ultimaker putting them on the back of the machine is a pain point for users.
Recent conversation with industrial vendor rep noted that customers are looking for build volume 14" x 14" in X and Y and resolution is a very powerful sales tool. Advanced materials are something that the engineers think they want initially, but a quick conversation (started with what you need to print ___ material for?) gets them on the track of smart multi-material printing (infill/perimeter, specific contact surfaces in differing materials, etc). HEPA filters are looking more like an OSHA requirement in the future so a well built enclosure with filter compatibility if not filter installed will be important. Looking into metal filled filament that are capable of being sintered into metal parts - we don't need to offer the sintering as long as we can show that we can print it (TAZ and MIni can both do this now - it might be worth printing something and having it sintered as a good trade show example "Yes of course our printers can print in stainless steel, let me show you how").
Aug 6 2018
This is an absolute worst case scenario re-build of a TAZ 6: 289m 23.670s
Jul 31 2018
I think the high price of those materials is a good reason to consider supporting some of them but not carrying inventory. This is another chicken or egg question. Generally, someone looking for these materials knows why, and has a good understanding of how these materials behave. If they then see that our max print temp is 290-300C, and that our printer is open to outside air, the conversation may never happen. Once we have a printer that can reach those temps, that opens the door for more conversation to find out what people actually need.
Jul 25 2018
Another thing we need to think about and eventually make a decision on is the number of high temp materials we want to support at release. We won't be able to do any testing or profile work until we have functioning prototypes at least so we are very constrained on how much testing time we will have.
@benmalouf @eBeardslee @Megan can you get some idea on what our prospective customers want for build size and if/what they will pay for the really high temp materials (e.g. PAEK, PEEK, PEI, etc.)? Some of these materials are upwards of $600/kg FYI
TAZ 6 re-leveling out of square frame(#2): 21m8.844s
TAZ 6 drive rod replacement with loctite on the couplers: 19m 55.731s
Jul 24 2018
TAZ 6 Rambo replacement: 10 mins
To answer @samantha here is some research combined with thinking out loud.
In order to package the printer safely we have to assume 3.5" (89mm) of foam (or other packaging material) on each side. In order to ship regular ground we have to keep the package below a combined girth of 165" (L+2*W+2*H). We can play a little bit with shortening up one side to lengthen another, but we have to stay under the combined 165". Our max cube sub our foam allowance is then 26x26x26" (660x660x660mm).
Based on stated build volumes subtracted from stated machine dimensions (machines in our target price/volume bracket with similar motion systems) we get an average of 180mm in width, 230mm in depth, and 360mm in height lost to motion system, electronics, and frame components necessary to make the printer work.
After massaging the numbers a little bit, we can use a final packaged size of 965x686x737mm (38x27x29") which after our subtractions for expected packaging and average component dimensions we can hit @benmalouf suggestion of 610x305x305mm (24x12x12"). This should also give us a little wiggle room in how much space tool switching will utilize (those math people following along can confirm that we have another 178mm to play with in depth before hitting our max shipping dimension). The question now before us is: do we feel comfortable setting the minimum build size in the spec sheet as 610x305x305mm and allowing that the design process may give us access to a little bit more? Do we want to cut back on the maximum single axis dimension for a build area that is equidistant in X and Y? I know at least one of our customers is looking for a machine that can handle a very large object in a single dimension, but have we heard similar needs from our other customers?
V3 Dual Hotend replacement: 7m 6.454s
Jul 23 2018
TAZ 6 RAMBo replacement(#2): 9m 1.208s
Of those questions, the ones I feel need to be answered before R&D can get moving, are the machine size and serviceability. The question of servicing could have an impact to both the printer size and the design, if we go the modular approach put forward here. I am fine with coming to a conclusion here without needing a meeting, if that is actually faster.
Yes, we are good to move forward on this. My input:
I'm on board with moving forward as-is and answering questions here.
I'm on board with moving forward as-is and answering questions here. I agree with @kent and @benmalouf that this is a new and different product, but that it also makes sense to not force a brand name change at this point. I think a standard tool head and one other (TBD what that may be) to enhance the user experience. Perhaps even the second tool head has an option aspect, where the user chooses which second tool head they prefer for their application. I would like to see us use more modularity to package and ship the printer as suggested previously; I think this will be expected for a larger, more industrial printer, and will not limit us to the maximum package size for shipping as well as making repairs and warranty easier to execute.
Feature sheet looks good.
I'm all for moving this forward regardless of the remaining questions.
TAZ 6 standard hotend replacement: 4m 34.956s
TAZ 6 re-leveling out of square frame: 23m 1.718s
Jul 20 2018
We decided to work backwards a bit and took the largest shipping box that would still go small package (cube 33" on a side) and we can subtract packaging materials and that will give us our overall frame size to fill however we want. My personal guess is that 600x600 is going to be too ambitious, but 500x500 should be doable depending on electronic and hardware configuration.
Jul 19 2018
My two cents would be getting votes on these digitally, then holding a meeting if there are significant gaps that need to be resolved.
Trying to get this moving again to minimize the delay in release. I still have four main questions to be answered from all the feedback from our other spec sheet meetings, but I think we can move into Concept Development while we continue research on them. I would like to give R&D as much time as possible to work on this. To my mind the only question that cannot be answered concurrently with R&D work is the printer's target dimensions. Do we need a meeting to discuss all this or does everyone feel comfortable using this medium to reach a decision and sign off on the next stage?
- Is this a LulzBot?
- What tool heads should come with the printer? (customer survey of nozzle sizes and capability)
- What is the max size of this printer? (largest box that can still ship small package is a cube 33" on a side which costs $215.56 to ship inside US)
- Can service and warranty repairs be handled by shipping back the printer?
Jul 18 2018
TAZ 6 RAMBo replacement: 8m 36.526s
Mini Hexagon hotend replacement: 6m 47.814s
Heatbed replacement: 1m 45.449s
Repair time for Mini X-motor end: 19m 47.323s
repair time for Mini Gladiola X-idler end: 8m 38.576s
Jul 17 2018
Repair time for Mini AERO hotend only: 8m 15.351s
Statement is acknowledged.
Jul 9 2018
Jun 25 2018
Still making tweaks to the feature sheet. The major stumbling blocks right now are overall build size, service of the machine, printable requirements, and minimum release needs for tool head and material support/profiles.
Jun 20 2018
I have requested pricing from both NPH & Tempco on 400mmx400mm, 500mmx500mm, and 600mmx600mm heaters.