Can you elaborate on “one being the filament”?
Once we’ve decided on a near-term course of action I can host some classes on digital design and 3D printing. I want to make sure we’ve got the beginnings of operation and maintenance on the wiki before proposing a class.
JP B
the 3mm (2.85) filament.
So I dont know about with the custom setup we have, but it appears a basic UM2 can be switched to 1.75 just by changing some of the settings.
https://learn.adafruit.com/using-1-dot-75mm-filament-on-ultimaker-2/overview
I don’t feel you’ve made a compelling argument for 1.75 mm filament for this application. I also don’t find your argument that the Ultimaker running 2.85 mm filament is damning to be applicable to the majority of people wanting to use a communal tool like this one. In my experience managing these kinds of tools in these kinds of environments, people want to be able to run these tools with the profiles which come with Cura and will by the material necessary to do so more often than not.
For a printer which needs to operate predictably and reliably in corner conditions I don’t view Adafruit’s solution as applicable.
The reliable performance of the machine in those corner conditions are also something to consider. If I bring in a high nylon, or CPE, or TPU will hive’s Ultimaker print it reliably? Much of my support in previous roles has involved material selection for parts which need to be more than aesthetic.
With a normal Ultimaker 2+ there are profiles available for these kinds of materials, so the membership can bring in these materials and have an expectation of printability.
JP B
Okay. So here’s the history:
I bought the Ultimaker machine new and brought it down to Hive as a donation. I can certainly sign it over at this point if the board wants to give me the paperwork. It is a technicality, at the moment, though, that it’s not 100% hive property. It will be 100% hive’s own – I won’t take it back, nor do I care how it is modified after I leave Hive13 and move back home to New Mexico.
Ultimaker 2 extruder sucked. Notoriously bad with filament slipping, overheating and warping the PTFE coupling, no geared extruder, only 0.4mm extruder head (non-changeable nozzles). So please be aware it has been improved over “stock”. Everything printed on there is from Taulman Nylon and TECH-G. So don’t get me started about filament quality.
The belted extruder design is my own variation of a well known design. It increases speed and reduces filament slip. It is also easier to load. Most UM2 have the printed “robert’s” drive, like this machine.
Bowden has been upgraded to real PTFE, not kinda-slippery plastic that looks cooler.
I added the “olssen block” nozzle and hotend, which allows e3d size nozzles to attach.
Coupler to nozzle has been upgraded to a thermoplastic that allows printing to 260 degrees & doesn’t warp.
The pneumatic couplers (part that wore out) are far better than the stock.
Replaced the springs with bushings.
Replaced 20W hot end element with 40W element.
Plenty of other things I forget now.
I still have some spare parts including the printed parts so ask if something got busted and needs a replacement.
In this config, I can get it to print at 150mm^3/sec or more. Best it could do stock was 70 or 80. The firmware is an updated fork with lots of safety features. I had fun doing all of this, and it’s a hackerspace after-all, so it is hacked. Don’t misinterpret this as me expecting a pat on the back. Rather, it just ain’t easy to make a printer really “perform”, and takes detailed setup, maintenance, etc. The ultimaker is about as easy as it gets for ongoing maintenance. Before making changes, though, do ask some old-timers what the track history has been, though. I think Kevin S and Ryan H will attest that it’s better in current form than it was stock.
Only one harsh thing to say (and I don’t mean it to be too harsh): I haven’t seen anyone take the time to drive this printer a quarter as hard or well as a few of us did 4 years ago. So, before buying a new mustang, let’s try driving over 30mph first. I apologize, Jeffery, if I’m getting this wrong and you’ve been doing this – I haven’t been around a lot lately.
Anyway, a lot has happened in 4 years in 3d printer land, so this machine is solid, but older. A new printer might make more sense if folks want current features like 32 bit controller, etc. Could trade it in or sell it, maybe…
Lastly, Dave V, Jim D, and myself are going to resume building Hive’s next printer once Dave gets back from Europe and etc… It will happen. I don’t have this box of 15 0.9 degree steppers sitting on my desk for nothing…
So, I vote “abstain”, as it is Hive’s printer, and I’m not going to be around after August. Anyone may do what they will with it. However, I think some details are getting left out somewhere. I’d endorse anything that makes it work better than before, but first wouldn’t it be reasonable to see how well it can work now, and then thinking about spending money on it?
Opinionated-ly yours,
Lorin
P.S. 1.75mm filament smokes 3mm in most areas. The retraction issues, availability, reliability, etc were all issues in 2012-2013 (I preferred 3mm then). Nowadays, better drivers, geared extruders, better hotends, consistent filament, better steppers, etc have made this possible since 2013. 3mm filament has a greater circumference in the bowden making more friction. The pressure required to squeeze sausage out of an orifice of 0.4mm or 0.25mm is substantial. This pressure, on the hob, bwden, motor, etc is reduced many fold by narrower filament (it’s easier to squeeze a thin thing into a thinner thing than a thick thing into the same).
Daniel,
All that’s needed for 1.75 on the current extruder and hot end is:
1x 2mm ID ptfe Bowden tube.
1x tfm coupler for 1.75mm (https://thegr5store.com/store/index.php/um2-175.html)
2x 4mm pneumatic press fit connectors
1x 1.75mm e3d style nozzles
I have plenty of extra ptfe tube and probably have the push-fits too. I can donate what I have. The tfm coupler is specialized, so would need to be ordered.
I also have the original hotend and thermistor. It’s 0.4mm only, but there is room for an extra hotend on the um2 print head. The original nozzle could connect to 3mm Bowden and coupler. The current, olssen block side could be connected to 1.75mm Bowden. With this solution, both 1.75 and 3.0mm could be used on the same machine. The bowdens could be rigged to swap at the extruder or another, dedicated extruder could be used.
So cheaper cost & more options and more readily available filament isnt enough for you. Ok? Not my problem not going to argue with you over that. I advocate for more easily available filament. Settings can be made easily for 1.75 as well, so not sure how that’s an arguement either way.
Hi Lorin,
Thank you for bringing in the Ultimaker and thank you for taking the time to talk about its history.
Your 1.75 mm suggestions make the machine both less reliable, increase the learning curve, and makes printing that much more difficult by taking it further from loading Cura and hitting print.
I find the “it’s a hackerspace” reasoning to be somewhat flawed at best and gatekeeping at worst. A highly modified tool might be useful to you or to me or to Daniel, but what about a new member? Does the lesson start with “You need to change all of these parameters in an outdated version of Cura”? I don’t think that’s being good stewards of the process. I think members, and potential members, have an expectation of reliability, availability, and ease of use.
Modified tools are a higher learning curve for members learning a new process. Do you want people using the tools or tinkering with them? Does the membership expect reliable tools?
At hack.RVA we had a UM3 workhorse printer for which tinkering was verboten. We had two Prusas for which tinkering was encouraged. They almost never worked, but that was the point. They helped the membership climb the learning curve of printing.
Tinkering with, or modifying what should be a reliable printer is a bad idea.
The update I’m talking of addresses all of your Ultimaker 2 complaints. The 2+ upgrade replaces the extruder and the entire head.
JP B
My vote is no. The ultimaker is a workhorse and extremely reliable right now. I’m not sure why it would be so hard to post the profile for cura to the wiki. Someone only needs to download it and then it’s ready to go. As you said in your last response,
“Tinkering with, or modifying what should be a reliable printer is a bad idea.”
Why would we modify what is currently working? If it breaks and can’t be fixed, then maybe we address these issues.
Honestly the learning curve for the um3 is probably as small as it can be. Also, switching out some Bowden tubes is about as printer maintenance 101 as you can get. General maintenance should be part of education on any piece of equipment
We have a UM2. Not a UM3.
I don’t see “cheapest possible filament” to be a good argument for supporting the membership. I have yet to find material or mechanical requirements which can’t be filled in 2.85 mm filament.
I don’t see venturing further from default to be a good thing for the membership.
JP B
Thanks for correcting my typo, again I’m not arguing over these points. I dont see making something less accessible a good thing for the membership either.
Either way downgrading the um2 (which apparently my phone keeps trying to auto correct to um3) is a no vote from me.
Hi, Tiffany,
I don’t see downloading a profile or using the to be a problem in the short term, but I feel that lowering the barrier of entry is important. I don’t view a custom profile to be a good long term solution for a high reliability tool for the greater majority of the population.
I believe, and have experience to support, that changing the printer to Ultimaker 2+ specs, updating to the latest version of Cura, standardizing provided material, and improving documentation will make the printer more reliable not just with provided material or in a narrow use case for a narrow cross-section of the membership, but for anyone who wants to walk up to the printer and use it, in a variety of materials, with a high quality result.
JP B
Jeff,
has it been the case since you have been a member here that the UM2 has not been walk up usable? I personally have not used it yet, but have a part I need to print for the Roland CNC. Based on what I have been told recently by people just learning to use it, it IS “walk up and use it” friendly as-is. I will weigh in once I print that part and let you know if I have any issues.
Thanks,
Kevin
I know there was the one small repair of the fitting, but to my knowledge that was the first time it has messed up in over a year…
Yea Kevin as far as I know that’s been the only problem, beyond a clog here or there. (Equivalent of a paper jam, it happens.)
Hi Kevin,
I watched it printing some hurdy gurdy parts and they weren’t coming out as well as I’d expect from an Ultimaker.
When I asked about the state of the machine I was given unsure answers.
The computer next to the Ultimaker is running a very out of date version of Cura.
These all add up to a fragile state which is relatively inexpensive and uncontroversial to remedy.
I have presented what I feel will be the most robust solution that involves the least amount of down time for the machine and provide a known and documented state for future needs.
If the membership is of a “it’s not broken enough, don’t fix it” mind in this, then I agree that a plan for future changes to be executed upon failure would be a good compromise, but I believe a preemptive strike will involve less down time.
Tomorrow I can do some test prints in various materials to assess the hardware beyond the small prints I saw.
JP B
Jeffery did you just specify earlier you didnt like the dont modify something just because you can mentality? I think your exact quote was “I find the “it’s a hackerspace” reasoning to be somewhat flawed at best and gatekeeping at worst” Isnt modifying something thats working now doing exactly that?
Hi Daniel,
I did not find it working to an acceptable level. Others have said that they don’t mind the way it’s working now. If that’s the consensus, and the further consensus is that preventative action isn’t appropriate, then I feel establishing a contingency plan would be an appropriate action.
I feel there is also a difference between taking something that’s already been modified and putting it to a state that is more approachable to the population at large, and easier to diagnose keep performing to an acceptable level by those of us able and willing to do so is time and effort well spent.
It is time and effort I’m willing to put forward myself.
I am also willing to continue doing so to keep the 3d printing capability at hive going smoothly.
JP B