|
Mister Sinewave posted:Wow, slick in that it actually mounts to the rail and looks actually properly designed Yeah, it attaches to a rail mounted below the barrel. You can see the rail here:  Mister Sinewave posted:Curved surfaces are black magic to me Spazzle posted:Next up: Colored Lighting ...Oh...oh yeah! Anta fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Sep 25, 2012 |
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
Well, I just ordered most of the stuff I'll need for this Hadron. It hurt my wallet, and I know I've missed some odds and ends (bolts, spacers for the heat bed, silicon thermal paste, probably a few misc wires, etc), but it's still coming in at under half of the cost of a Replicator, so I'm happy. I still haven't done a full inventory of the mechanical kit from Automation Technology Inc. The major parts seem to line up with the design docs, although I can't quite figure out how it only has 4 MakerSlide pieces when I look at the picture... time to dig into the design documents more. *edit* And I have one intermediate MakerSlide between 330 and 420. Huh. *edit2* How DO you do this with four pieces of slide?  
Locus fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Sep 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
Locus posted:although I can't quite figure out how it only has 4 MakerSlide pieces when I look at the picture... 2 for the Z axis, 1 for the X, 1 for the Y. The gantry's bottom is just a 20x40 piece of extrusion from Misumi. The Makerslide V-rails would get in the way if you tried to use Makerslide for that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
Obsurveyor posted:2 for the Z axis, 1 for the X, 1 for the Y. The gantry's bottom is just a 20x40 piece of extrusion from Misumi. The Makerslide V-rails would get in the way if you tried to use Makerslide for that. Ah, I see. Ok, looks like I am missing a piece of 330mm MakerSlide then. I mistook the 370mm 20x40 Misumi extrusion for one of them. *edit* Automation Technology emailed me back a couple hours later and they're sending me the missing piece. I also grabbed a RAMPS board from them, very nice pricing, and it has 5 stepper drivers on it (not that I'm planning on installing a dual extruder anytime soon though). Locus fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Sep 25, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 25, 2012 17:38
|
|
|
Check out the formlabs machine- it's like a b9, but with lasers- http://formlabs.com/ I'm seriously thinking of buying one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
cultureulterior posted:Check out the formlabs machine- it's like a b9, but with lasers- http://formlabs.com/ JUST as I was about to pre order a B9....NOW THIS. drat this fast paced technology! This one does look really cool though! And that build volume :O
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 02:31
|
|
|
Claes Oldenburger posted:JUST as I was about to pre order a B9....NOW THIS. drat this fast paced technology! This one does look really cool though! And that build volume :O Well, the b9 looks like it's capable of higher resolutions than that thing (50-100 microns in the x/y plane, as opposed to 300 for the Formlabs machine). Plus the projector would expose an entire layer at once, which should be faster than moving a laser back and forth.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:Well, the b9 looks like it's capable of higher resolutions than that thing (50-100 microns in the x/y plane, as opposed to 300 for the Formlabs machine). Doesn't it say the layer thickness is 25 microns though? EDIT: What is the difference between layer thickness and "smallest feature size"?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
I don't like that stereolithography uses the same material, in the same final solid form, for both the supports and the print itself. Plus, how much does that goop cost / how hazardous is it and how hard is it to ship / store.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
Claes Oldenburger posted:doesn't it say the layer thickness is 25 microns though? Yeah, it's the feature size that is 300 microns.  Dunno what that means, though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 02:49
|
|
|
Claes Oldenburger posted:Doesn't it say the layer thickness is 25 microns though? Layer thickness is resolution on the Z axis, feature size is resolution on X/Y Edit: well, technically resolution could still be higher than feature size. For example on a FDM printer, the nozzle size might be .5mm, while the X/Y steppers might still be able to move in smaller increments than that (say .1mm). Even though the resolution is high, you can't have a feature that is thinner than .5mm The width of the laser beam should affect the feature size, but there might also be some diffusion of the light when the laser hits the resin, which could make the feature size significantly larger than the beam itself. peepsalot fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Sep 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
Claes Oldenburger posted:doesn't it say the layer thickness is 25 microns though? The b9 can go as low as 10 microns. Tres Burritos posted:I don't like that stereolithography uses the same material, in the same final solid form, for both the supports and the print itself. Plus, how much does that goop cost / how hazardous is it and how hard is it to ship / store. And will each machine end up requiring resin formulated specifically for it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 02:53
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:The b9 can go as low as 10 microns. I assume they will, dlp would cure its resin at one wavelength where the laser would cure it at another (I think.) The goop is 149 a litre, apparently about 16ish cents per cubic centimeter. They say it's about as much of a hazard as bleach, probably shouldn't be washing your hands with it but having it around isn't bad. When it's cured it's apparently safe though. I need sub 40 microns (lost wax casting puts about a 40 micron texture onto everything) so anything lower than that is cool but not entirely necessary. I wish I could see tests of a layer thickness of 25 with varying x/y resolutions to see how much it actually changes. EDIT: Looking at the fancy printers they don't seem to have a "feature size" or X/Y resolution. It does however give an X/Y/Z dpi, can I convert that somehow to x/y resolution? Claes Oldenburger fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Sep 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 03:02
|
|
|
One of the talks at this week's Toronto 3D Printers meeting showed off a cool solution for anyone with a bowden tube-equipped printer that has trouble with kinked/bent filament. Kym Watts' filament straightener:  Available on Thingiverse: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:30733
|
|
#
?
Sep 27, 2012 10:54
|
|
|
Form1 has a really professional (and successful!) kickstarter going on: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/formlabs/form-1-an-affordable-professional-3d-printer I'd be getting backer's remorse sooner or later backing one then wanting to back another at the rate stuff's coming out 
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 16:54
|
|
|
I wonder what sort of print quality you could get if you built something like the B9 printer but with a 4K projector. Though that would obviously have to wait for 4K projectors to get much less expensive and much smaller.Claes Oldenburger posted:EDIT: Looking at the fancy printers they don't seem to have a "feature size" or X/Y resolution. It does however give an X/Y/Z dpi, can I convert that somehow to x/y resolution? Sure: 1/dpi = feature size in inches, which you can then convert into metric units.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:I wonder what sort of print quality you could get if you built something like the B9 printer but with a 4K projector. Though that would obviously have to wait for 4K projectors to get much less expensive and much smaller. I don't think a 4k would actually make much of a difference, with both the form1 and the B9 the issue both times is 'bleed' from the light refracting further into the goo then the projected line goes (This bleed is also what makes the prints so smooth though, so it's not all a bad thing). Higher accuracy prints would require a more opaque and/or reactive goo (more opacity means that the light does not penetrate as deeply, more reactive means you can use less light to get the same amount of hardening. Conversely you could potentially go with much MORE intense for much shorter exposure and that might reduce the bleed, it could also increase the print speed; but I am not sure how viable that is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:I wonder what sort of print quality you could get if you built something like the B9 printer but with a 4K projector. Though that would obviously have to wait for 4K projectors to get much less expensive and much smaller. Oh snap! This crazy 50,000 printer has a feature size of 67 microns. I would have thought it was smaller. Thanks! I actually asked the guy who made the B9 what the chances were of keeping that 50 micron resolution but making the build area larger and he said the only thing that was limiting him was the fact that he would need a 4k projector that he would then modify for the short distance.
|
|
#
?
Oct 1, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
Linux Assassin posted:Conversely you could potentially go with much MORE intense for much shorter exposure and that might reduce the bleed, it could also increase the print speed; but I am not sure how viable that is. It may be possible to do that by using a laser like the Formlabs machine, except more powerful and with a more tightly focused beam.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
The PandaBot has launched: http://blog.ponoko.com/2012/10/04/pandabot-3d-printer-launches-on-kickstarter/ The software right now is Slic3r, but will eventually be a completely custom setup when the units start shipping. I'm really happy to finally see a Canadian-designed printer take the stage! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Oh, man, oh, man, oh man,  I can't wait. So the resolution is about 100 microns, but you don't have to touch anything? This thing can't come out fast enough.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:34
|
|
|
Wait wait, has Kickstarter lifted being  -only?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:35
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:Wait wait, has Kickstarter lifted being No, Panda has a Seattle office in addition to the Toronto one. But the main designer is Canadian! When we ran a Kickstarter at Site 3 for the Super Street Fire project we were able to do do because we have some members with US addresses and bank accounts. (At least I think that's how it worked.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
I wondered because the campaign isn't "from" their Seattle office, it's pretty clearly branded Toronto. But I was just reading up on it, you need a card(s)-carrying all-American to set up for the Amazon payments and stuff, but I guess as long as you have that sorted then it's blue skies ahead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2012 18:01
|
|
|
techknight posted:The PandaBot has launched: http://blog.ponoko.com/2012/10/04/pandabot-3d-printer-launches-on-kickstarter/ The panda-bot looks (frame wise) and sounds fantastic, but the two pictures they have for sample prints look rather terrible, which is sad. On a side note my M2 is still on delay and I'm starting to really chomp at the bit looking at the other manufacturers offerings and question if I made the best choice.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 05:39
|
|
|
Linux Assassin posted:The panda-bot looks (frame wise) and sounds fantastic, but the two pictures they have for sample prints look rather terrible, which is sad. Those two pictures are a before-and-after, though, so the first one looking terrible shouldn't have any bearing on what the product can achieve now, only the second one, which really doesn't look that bad.  And other sample prints from their kickstarter page: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 05:56
|
|
|
That's still a terrible picture though. It's so poorly lit you cant make out any detail at all and see the supposed improvement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 05:59
|
|
|
Linux Assassin posted:The panda-bot looks (frame wise) and sounds fantastic, but the two pictures they have for sample prints look rather terrible, which is sad. They explained to me that there were compromises made in getting the initial prototype built that affect how much quality can be achieved on it. They say that the final hardware design has all that stuff taken care of, it's just a matter of raising the funds to start cranking them out. I mean it's always good be skeptical, but I'm confident that they'll deliver something really good. SynthOrange posted:That's still a terrible picture though. It's so poorly lit you cant make out any detail at all and see the supposed improvement. Sorry about that - I took several pictures and that second model just didn't show up well in macro focus. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
SynthOrange posted:That's still a terrible picture though. It's so poorly lit you cant make out any detail at all and see the supposed improvement. It looks like they have a lot of Z and X(or Y) wobble.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 12:11
|
|
|
techknight posted:They explained to me that there were compromises made in getting the initial prototype built that affect how much quality can be achieved on it. They say that the final hardware design has all that stuff taken care of, it's just a matter of raising the funds to start cranking them out.  I'm probably preaching to the choir, but this is a bad way to try to sell... anything, really. "Yeah, this versions's not good but the versions that we build with your money will be much better."
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 13:01
|
|
|
Splizwarf posted:I'm probably preaching to the choir, but this is a bad way to try to sell... anything, really. "Yeah, this versions's not good but the versions that we build with your money will be much better." But that's exactly what Kickstarter is for, isn't it? You show what you've done, talk about what you're going to do, and seek investments to get it done.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
techknight posted:But that's exactly what Kickstarter is for, isn't it? You show what you've done, talk about what you're going to do, and seek investments to get it done. y'no? (word that is a combination of saying yes and no at the same time) I mean SOME kickstarters worked that way, but they were generally situations like 'we are the team that brought you <Awesome game X>, we want to build our backburner project <superawesome game y>, but development is expensive and we need to eat during the years this will take us; if you fund us you can get <superawesome game y> as we develop it' For people who are not coming in with a recognized amount of cred the general way this goes is 'I have built <awesome thing>, take a look how awesome it is <Show lots of pictures of what your thing is/does, they should be impressive by themselves>. It features <awesome features>, It cost me <big number> to make it by sourcing parts directly and individually, I believe that if I get <z> backers at <less big number> I can mass produce my awesome thing- give me funds and you can get an <awesome thing> for <less big number>' The B9 creator guy; showed tonnes of pictures of his FINISHED product and said he'd be able to mass produce them with backers- he got backers. Apparently he THEN was able to make it even more detailed/better, but he never promised that, because how could he, he had not tried it yet. The 'Lets rip off the replicator' guy, as well as being a colossal douche, went with 'if you throw money at me I am sure I can make this thing', no cred, no actual product before starting, no examples that what he had was not just vapor; he did not meet his target.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
There's also a certain amount of Craigslist flavor: "This car only needs a $20 part to get it running again! It's a 5-minute fix!" I mean, I'm sure they're nice people but if they don't do it right with the one they built to be the spearhead of their campaign, the one they built to show the world what they could do and how well they could do it, what suggestion is there that they'll do a significantly better job once they have our money?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
So in other words kickstarter can be used as basically a pre-order store ( ), or for raising crowdsourced 'venture' capital, or something in between.  I think we can all agree than one side of that spectrum is more successful for hardware like 3D printers, but it's not like one or the other end of it is inappropriate or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 20:31
|
|
|
techknight posted:Sorry about that - I took several pictures and that second model just didn't show up well in macro focus. Can't you just print that first model again and take another photograph?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 20:44
|
|
|
tunah posted:Can't you just print that first model again and take another photograph? No, I just stopped in for a visit. I write for Ponoko's blog, I don't work for Panda. But we'll both be set up with our own respective 3D printers (I'm still rocking a MakerBot Cupcake) at the children's own media museum this weekend, I might be able to snap some more pics. I printed out a couple of hundred moustache rings for it: http://www.techknight.com/blog/2012/10/3/next-appearance-the-childrens-own-media-museum-at-harbourfro.html 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2012 22:58
|
|
|
Haven't seen this pop up in the thread yet: http://www.core77.com/blog/digital_..._23591.asp#more Of all companies Disney has shown a technique of printing light tubes (think fiber optics built into a print). They show them being used as displays, sensors and lenses.    (The eyes are animated) Here's the video linked in the article above: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTeXTbXA6-Y Anyone have any experience printing with transparent materials? I've seen some fairly clear prints in polycarbonate but I'm wondering if anyone experimenting with dual extruders has tried anything like this.
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 00:54
|
|
|
That is loving cool  E: the sensors part is really cool too! The Eyes Have It fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Oct 6, 2012 |
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 21:33
|
|
|
Wow, cant believe Disney did that. Pretty amazing stuff!
|
|
#
?
Oct 6, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:47 |
|
|
I'm interested into getting into 3D printing, and read through the whole thread this weekend. I got a decade and a half of CAD/Modelling experience in the visual effects field, and it wouldn't be much work to bring over some ideas and have them setup for stl. I took a visit over to Pasadena to the Deezmaker store and met Diego [the guy behind Bukobot on kickstarter]. They had a bunch of printers generating tests, and bins full of test prints. It was nice to see a few results close up. I'll start showing up to user group meetings for folks in the area, there were a few people who dropped in who brought in their prints to show off when I was checking out the machines. My concern is the finish quality of many of the entry level printers... I want to design parts for the automotive industry for production, very small production runs, clips, small curved control panels and the like, but I need durability, so I would need decent ABS. Basically something to print out ABS consistently without much finishing labor. I was thinking of ordering a Makerbot replicator, but then I saw the Replicator 2 but that only handles PLA which I don't think would be suitable for my uses. The 2X Series may be an option, but at the $2700 price point I might as well expand my budget to include something higher end, the parts I'll make will pay for the printer itself within a short period of time. I was looking at this list: http://www.additive3d.com/3dpr_cht.htm It seems to be a decent breakdown but I'm sure not all printer models are represented. I was also thinking of going with something like Rolands subtractive mini mills: http://www.rolanddga.com/solutions/rapidPrototyping/ I'll take some pictures of what I plan to build and see what you guys think. Opensource isn't as important for me, unless I plan to have a custom machine built for my uses [such as an ultra wide build area but only 1-2" of z travel] What I may do is just pick up a printer first under $3000 to prototype and then lease a commercial unit for actual production.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2012 20:55
|
|
