The issue with Weller is their price in a competitive market.
Considering no alternative the entry level Weller is fine. Ersa has their awesome itool with this really short distance between soldering iron tipp and finger grip: https://ts.kurtzersa.com/electronics-production-equipment/soldering-tools-accessories/soldering-desoldering-stations/produkt-details/i-con-pico-1.html
Performance: Weller and Ersa are more or less equal. For generic solder joints both are great. If there are high thermal mass and it isn't possible to use a large tipp than the Hakko T12 is the superior technology. Changing tips on the Ersa (while not recommended by the manufacturer) can be done with the iron heated up and tool free within 5 seconds.
Ergonomics: 100% Ersa. The only reason it has been my daily driver for half a decade and is here to stay. Before this station I actually had a Weller.
JBC has a similar tool handle to the Ersa but those are very expensive with little benefit.
The price to performance king are genuine Hakko T12 tipps with a China station.
How about a 3D-printer that prints its own z-axis?
The disclaimer says they’re trying to get it approved which implies they believe it could be
That's a tough one and I doubt they will succeed with this. As far as I know, they would need to certify a material + process (3d-printer & settings, slicer-software & settings) + 3D-model combination. Far easier to certify a product containing 3D-printed parts than a 3D model/file.
Plastic is the wrong material due to moisture building up inside and some other pitfalls.
First of all: Legal is the bare minimum.
If you run a contest or sweepstakes and set out rules you are bound to them. Ignoring them like Prusa did exposes you up to liability claims.
You’re mad that the contest was moderated?
More the opposite. The sloppy way they moderate it to the point where they don't even bother to remove comment spam below the contest description page.
Voters voted on the submissions they liked the most. Get over it. Voters voted on the submissions they liked the most. Get over it.
That's not how it works. There is no public vote.
Honestly I stopped reading. Something about a paid part integration that you got mad about because it’s heavily discounted and you can submit photos even if you don’t have one or something?
Just read the comments here: https://blog.prusa3d.com/contest-experiential-robotics-challenge_97306/
Dozens feel like this isn't a good choice.
Btw. I don't take part in them but it is still very ugly what they do. Similiar you don't need to buy Nestle to understand that Nestle might be problematic in some aspect.
Currently, Prusa is doing a terrible job with the Printables competition, to the point where they could be in legal trouble if someone were to push for it.
A few examples to prove this statement (5th is in my opinion the worst):
-
insect hotel -> canceled due to security concerns. Great work, but why not look into it before you start and provide a design guideline? https://www.printables.com/contest/436-insect-hotels
-
Bathtub toys -> Mentioned explicitly: "Safety is our top priority, so make sure your creations are child-friendly, [...]". As these are bath toys, one might assume that they mean safety standards for young children. https://www.printables.com/contest/428-bathtub-toys
Great. Safety is a top priority. So let's see how they moderate it. They haven't... If you scroll through the valid submissions, there are dozens that aren't safe for children. Prusa is EU, so I would expect them to be familiar with the basic EU regulations for children's toys when they say we want safety first. There are very strict test requirements that a toy has to meet. The simplest one is a bin/cylinder that a part cannot fit into (choking hazard). Does every design meet this very basic design rule? No. Next comes impact resistance and the like. Does the design meet these requirements? no.
You could say that it's just not feasible to review every submission, so let's take a look at the winning entries that they definitely looked at: Rubber Band Submarine. I'm not a toy designer, but I'm pretty sure that an exposed rubber band is not safe for small children, who are the target audience for bath toys.
-
fish tank tweaks: Recommending PLA for prints that are permanently submerged ("It is usually recommended to use ABS or specific food-safe PLA..."). Seriously???? These days they are PLA under these conditions is rubbish within a year. Discoloration and expansion destroy some PLA blends/filaments.
-
soldering aid: Seeing this design as a winning soldering aid raises serious questions as to whether the person involved has any practical experience in assembling electronics. Placing a PCB 2cm in the air with sharp objects around the mounting holes is the opposite of ergonomic and comfortable SMD soldering: https://www.printables.com/model/740818-parametric-stackable-pcb-standoffs-m2-m14-holes
****5. This contest had questionable practices and here's where things get wild. Now we're not just talking about knowledge gaps, we're talking about breaking your own rules, which could be a legal problem. One of the contest rules states: "A valid entry may change its slope, altitude or distance." Simple. Right? Not for Prusa: https://www.printables.com/model/837104-the-rig-r11-diy-helper-stand-for-testing-electroni
This is a winning entry that can't do any of those things, and would probably qualify as a generic holder (also not a valid entry).
Another winning entry that wouldn't be a valid entry if Prusa followed the contest rules: "Skip the organisers: We love a tidy workplace, but today we're focusing on ergonomic improvements": https://www.printables.com/model/808502-heat-insert-press
Want a third from the same competition? Here it is: https://www.printables.com/model/808502-heat-insert-press "Specific adaptability: Designs must provide flexibility in the user's interaction with the tool or aid (height, tilt, distance or orientation adjustments). Simply accommodating different sizes of objects doesn't quite fit the bill".
To recapitulate, Prusa broke the rules not once, not twice, but three times within this competition (which, being EU, has some legal requirements on how you can and can't run competitions) by awarding prizes with monetary value and talking them away from other competitions that followed the rules.
There is more wrong with how this was organized/done, but I think this is damning enough. Never assume evil, so I would kindly call it Prusa being utterly incompetent.****
- The current XPR challenge. Design a part for a robotics kit. Sounds exciting. First bummer, it's $115 + tax, but that wouldn't be noteworthy enough to write this:
6.1 To design for it a.) either buy it (providing a $35 discount if you do so) or b.) try to work with whatever this is: https://www.printables.com/model/576581-xrp-robot-part-of-the-experiential-consortia/files the picture shows a complete model with PCB and sensors (some connectors and wiring are missing) but would be workable. What do they actually deliver? The frame with no electronics or components. Good luck working with that.
6.2 While this may or may not go in the direction of predatory, there is more: "Photo quality - Well lit, in focus and clear photos will help showcase your work and help us choose the best designs." Quick questions: How do I take good and compelling photos without the $115 robot kit? | Prusa: "This also means that you don't need to own a 3D printer to enter". Question: "How do you make photos without a 3D print to show of? the wording is very clear that they mean photos and not computer 3d-Render. Just by looking at these two aspects, this thing has a $115 + tax ticket to improve the "chance" of winning.
6.3 Moral issues: This work is unpaid to begin with. Does Prusa really expect people to spend tens of manhours working on a good design, printing it, taking pictures, writing instructions and text, when they have absolutely no use for it themselves, since this kit has probably only been sold a handful of times to end users. There is only a small chance of wining something (remember exhibit 5 where they didn't even follow their own rules)?
Last but not least: "Popularity – Share your model to increase its popularity, and prove that users appreciate such a model." This is fairly common for some events and I always dislike it as this asking for free advertisement. Prusa at least limits it to the model itself while others use a broader approach where it is for the entire project/organization. Regardless such terms always have a negative impact. Just remember all the MakerWorld spam everywhere after they launched with high rewards.
For Germean voters there is the WahloMat to help with the voting choice (a dozen of questions and in the end shows how much overlap there is with all the parties): https://www.wahl-o-mat.de/europawahl2024/app/main_app.html
The major issue is that if you care about CopyRight: Party A. Easier to comply with regulation: Party B. Migration: Party C. Environment: Party D.
And all of the choices (A-D) have some very removed, prominent positions that you strongly oppose and in the end, have no clue what to elect and choose the least worst option and hope for the best.
I don’t lube the rails, it attracts too much dust. I still oil them to prevent rust.
The 50km figure is out of the HiWin application note at 30% load capacity. Even with 0% load it won't go above 150km.
Looking at the Thompson-Link: It is for the self-lubrication block (long-term lubrication unit) which indeed has a much higher endurance. Raising maintenance intervals to roughly once per year. As far as I know, they are only available for MGN15 and larger.
has a maximum flow rate of 22 mm^3/s which limits it to about 250mm/s for 0.2mm layer height.
Divide the number by 5 which would be roughly every 100 print hour or two weeks of printing.
Marlin has this feature (time based) but most manefacturer didn't enabled it.
Duet doesn't have it
Klipper doesn't (has a time counter so you could implement it easily).
Printers are pushing significantly faster acceleration these days with upto 50k mm^2/s and 1m/s is already real.
I am curious how often do you service the linear rails on the 3D-printer:
- How often do you lubricate them (MGN9 or MGN12)?
- How do you lubricate them?
- What volume of lube do you use?
Explanation of how often you should do it (HIWIN Lubricating instructions for linear guideways and ballscrews)
Most 3D-printer use MGN12. Reading the HIWIN documentation they shall be lubricated every 20-50km (depends on a lot of factors).
How much is 50km in print time? Assuming an average speed of 300mm/s that would be approx. 46 hours!
In other words, the generic MGN12H carriage needs 1-2 times per week maintenance.
How much lube is suggested (horizontal mounting)? 70µL for MGN12H. For MGN9H it is 30µL!
Some aspects of Printables are "wrong". Contests are a total mess at the moment. I might make a serape post about it.
This? Looks like a glitch/bug. As far as I can tell this is only active on paid items which makes sense.
If cold pulls won't work get a new nozzle. Filament of choice for this procedure is Nylon.
One of the alternatives could be THF to dissolve the plastic and go from there. Don't know what Prusa charges for nozzles but it can't be that bad to make this procedure worth it. After all it is a Prusa and not some industrial machine.
Thanks. See the other comment for details how now performs.
Improved but still not a match to Ultimaker Cura.
Prusa is very slow compared to Cura as PrusaSlicer needs every option checked including Geometry handling accurate to sometimes get 7 pcs. matching Cura performance. If the result is 7 or 6 pcs. depends on where the part originally was placed on the print bed (or luck? run to run variance?). Not a reliable software for nesting.
With fast and balanced setting it only does 6 pcs.
fast:
balanced:
accurate:
Default settings. Where is the option to rotate it?
Providing it manually with 90° rotated and using the auto arrange instead of fill bed: 5 pcs. Still not a great result.
With mainsail and klipper, you can cancel one failed part mid-print and keep going on the rest of the parts.
There is an addon for Duet (RRF) but I can't get it working. Anyway, once it is time for a batch print the first testprint has been completed successfully and build plate adhesion is a non-issue on this printer.
You have to tell it the dimensions of your extruded head, so it doesn’t crash the part Ask me how I destroyed two z-endstops this year (very asymmetrical toolhead and Prusa can't be configured to reflect this and with a "radius" large enough it would block half of the printbed (60mm radius or so) meaning eyeballing is the best option).
I only use this option if I need the part before the entire batch is finished and don't want to start multiple prints. Which isn't frequent.
Short overview of how good the nesting capabilities of various 3D slicer are.
The task is simple: placing as many of these shapes on a 200x300mm printed as possible. Manual (quick and dirty for reference): 6 pcs.
Ranking:
- Ultimaker Cura: 7 pcs.
- human (me): 6 pcs.
- Orca slicer: 5 pcs.
- PrusaSlicer & BCN3D stratos: 4 pcs. By switching (for this particular part) from the worst (Prusa) to the best (Cura) slicer the nesting performance improved by a whopping 75%!
Ultimaker Cura:
Prusa:
BCN3D Stratos (forked from an old version of Cura):
OrcaSlicer:
Cars are a very high-vibration environment with km of wiring and some carrying high currents, flammable liquids and hot parts. With e-autos there is even more including a 50'000 Wh energy storage waiting to catch fire.
While cars do catch fire it is unlikely to the point where they don't need fire suppression systems.
Some cars have fire suppression systems but those are race cars. Built differently to maximize performance. (or military vehicles)
Similiar there are 3D-printer that might benefit from a fire suppression system but the run of the mil 3D-printer won't need it.
Not convinced? Look at CNC-mills or swiss lathes. Those are designed to run nonstop for years in a production environment at the highest speeds to maximize production. Most of them don't have a fire suppression system (they do have a mist extraction/collector to prevent them from exploding).
After half a dozen iterations, this was the first reasonably working, acceptable feeling, and good-sounding ratchet mechanism.
allows clockwise rotation blocks counterclockwise rotation
design features:
- allows for a large inner bore (e.g. rotary encoder shaft or 5.2mm screwdriver bit)
- printable with 0.4mm nozzle
- 2cm diameter
- no assembly required. Print in place.
To get a full ratchet: mirror the assembly and add a mechanism/part that pushes one of the springs out. In neutral both leavers are engaged and the ratchet is completely locked.
Btw. Good luck copying it without going through half a dozen of iterations. Going from it barely works to this isn't easy. For my part: Version 5 was working and close to the final design. It took another 10 rounds to get it usable and from there some more to fine-tune it.
Quick and dirty 5 minutes craft: Draw a rough shape, define the contact surfaces & load, click run, and get the optimized shape. The last step is converting the output to a printable shape and running one more simulation to double-check it is strong enough.
This particular holder is a filament spool holder designed to be loaded with up to 5.5kg of filament (1x2.5kg, 3x1kg).
Building a 3D printer is easy. Getting the details right to build a great 3D printer is hard, as this is where most companies fail. Why?
For example, on this printer, the bed is a three-point mount (two wheels for adjustment at the front of the printbed) and the printer's bed levelling dialogue doesn't show the height difference that needs to be adjusted (which most 3D printers do). It does show how much it needs to be turned, and the bed levelling wheels have 1/8th turn indicators, making it easy to get it perfect.
In short, instead of an arbitrary number like 0.3mm that has no meaning to the user, they tell the user to turn this knob 1/4 of a turn. An instruction the user can follow.
** Why is this so outstanding? It doesn't cost much, but it improves the user experience. Are companies blind to these improvements because the engineers are experienced, or is there a lack of testing during development?**
By the way, years ago I did such a fix/modification myself on a Tronxy XY2 pro by adding indicators on the wheel for 0.2mm height difference so I could convert the number to rotation: https://www.printables.com/model/301670-replacement-bed-leveling-wheel
With 3D printers like the Open-5x or tool changers (e.g. Prusa XL) both, 5-axis simultaneous 3D-printing as well as hybrid manufacturing (additive followed up by subtractive), is more accessible than they ever were.
For those already venturing into this endeavor: What is your toolchain/software?
Currently, I finish the additive/3D print before running a second gcode for the subtractive part (contact surfaces, threads, ...). This is far from an efficient and powerful process.
The extruder of the 3Dgence P255 3d-printer features a brush to clean the extruder gear.
Needed as soon as possible a spool holder for larger spools so printing anything that is dozens of hours was out of the question.
Solution? Looked at the heavy shelves and had an idea.
One remix later, a 1-hour print and with some round wood that was lying around this spool holder was born.
I like the position of the spool so much that it is here to stay.
With this particular model, Prusaslicer is very optimistic about bridging and support generation:
- the right side (dark blue) has no support that could help with load-bearing
- the entire layer will be connected to those two lines
- more than 5cm long bridges
I don't think this gcode will successfully print.
How do fix adjust the cura setting to generate a printable output?
The model in question is: https://www.delta-fan.com/Download/3D/BUB0612HJ-00.stp
What cameras did you add to your 3D printer? What is your favorite camera angle?
For me, the nozzle cam watching the first layer is my personal favorite (OV9281 image sensor).
As you might be aware BambuLab issued a recall for the BambuLab A1 3d-printer. In particular, the issue is the mains-voltage (230V AC) heat bed cable.
As a resolution, they offer two solutions:
- Ship the entire printer back to them and receive a replacement printer.
- They mail a new cable and you install it.
What BambuLab doesn't mention at all is the test according to EN 50678 (Verification of the effectiveness of protective measures of electrical equipment after repair). Unless you can perform this test I would recommend choosing the printer replacement.
Right now looking into bang for the buck workhorses with a small footprint/build volume. A description that fit the Prusa mini+ perfectly in the past, but it feels like Prusa is a dinosaur that hasn’t moved with the times.
So who is still buying the Prusa mini+ and why?
Personally: While Prusa has outstanding support, good data protection, and does good things but there is now the Bambu Lab A1 mini.
Prusa mini is at the moment 500€ plus 20€ for a filament sensor (sic., it’s nearly 2024 and that’s an paid upgrade on half a grand printer) and another 7€ for WiFi.
Bambu Lab on the other hand is 320€.
Looking at the specifications, the A1 looks like a clear winner: For maintenance, there are three tasks: 1. cleaning and lubricating the mechanics (both are the same in this respect); 2. cleaning the build surface (both are the same); 3. maintaining the hotend and here Bambu Lab is clearly the better system as you can replace the nozzle in just a few seconds compared to Prusa’s E3D v6 hotend, which requires hot tightening.
The operation is not that different. Both support network, web interface, and automatic bed leveling probed at the nozzle. Bambu Lab has a camera built in, but this requires the printer to be connected to the BambuLab cloud, which may not be possible as the model data is shared with/uploaded to China. I would say this is still a strong point for Prusa as privacy is not an issue with their printers which means they can be easily deployed.
Performance should be close with input shaping enabled, but the A1 mini has the higher flow rate hotend, which means BambuLab is once again the winner (still no highflow at only 28 mm^3/s but twice the flow of a Prusa V6).
The build volume is identical and the footprint is also almost identical, so again no point where Prusa beats BambuLab.
Value? I have already mentioned it. 1.6 Bambulab for the price of 1 Prusa is a clear answer. If Prusa still had the 400€ original launch price and a filament runout sensor included, maybe the answer would be Prusa due to privacy/easier integration. The 200€/printer price difference is so significant that I don’t see who is still buying multiple Prusa mini+.
Btw. is there another printer on the market that just works paired with a small footprint and excellent value?
Today E3D launched their latest extruder. What's your thought on the Revo roto?
only/first Reviews: Made with layers (formally Thomas Sanladerer): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5UpN0QaxGY E3D launch video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6GxPZUM0k4 product page: https://e3d-online.com/products/roto-extruder
155 GBP (without tax) for the sensor version. Equipped with a normal brass nozzle and a low-power heater core.
The pushing force isn't great as it can't do more than 6mm/s (14mm^3/s, approx. 60g/hour) limiting it to 0.15, 0.25 and 0.4mm nozzles. That's significantly short of the E3D Hemera XS Revo performance they claimed this extruder matches.
Is 14mm^3/s enough for 200 USD+ extruder for 2024 and beyond if you could trade approx. 20g more weight for 4x the max. flowrate?
3D-model collections like Printables or Thingiverse are awesome. Required (ASAP) a CPU socket cover to ship the motherboard. Found it online and 15 minutes later I had the part on hand.
Three years ago I looked into properly wiring hotends with quick toolhead swapes and came up with this: Combining the entire hotend wiring into 3x shielded 4-conductor cables (thin cables for small drag chains with tiny bending radius) and options to terminate the shield. The static side features an USB-port to retrofit Raspberry Pis and a step down to generate the 5V supply from a single 12 or 24V power input.
For the moving side/hot-end PCB it's a similar story:
- stepdown to 12V for fans and LED lights
- stepdown to 3.3V and 5V
- selectable logic voltage (3.3V, 5V)
- temperature and humidity sensor (feedback for heated chambers: adding a measurement point close to the print or being able to measure any point within the chamber to check for uniformity during development)
Why did it all fall apart? BOM cost.
Those connectors with locking lever for easy removal cost a fortune and the 3D-printing world moved on to CAN. For the active version of this, it's a different story. Never figured out how to make it plug-and-play/foolproof (active circuit for safety features (contact resistance, overtemperature, fan failure, etc.) as well as preemptive maintenance (heater wear, fan bearing degradation, and more).
Years ago when I was building this CNC machine, I decided to design and print a NEMA23 stepper motor cover to wire the machine neatly. Today, I upgraded the stepper to an servo. All I took was a screwdriver.
If you want to build or remix it: https://www.printables.com/model/96550-nema23-stepper-cover-hut-wago-terminals
Have you ever wondered if the yellow/orange plastic windows that all resin/SLA 3D printers have are sufficient?
Here's your answer:
interesting data points:
- 500nm: 54.9% (transmission)
- 490nm: 37.9%
- 480nm: 16.9%
- 470nm: 1.6%
- 460nm: 0.3%
**What does this mean? Feel free to comment. **
My take:
First of all, this instrument is not designed to measure OD, so it can barely measure down to OD3. The actual value for 400-450nm could be lower (e.g. 0.001-0.0001% transmission).
SLA 3D printers work at 405nm. This means that the enclosure will likely protect you from the UV radiation of the printer. This is good news.
Does it also protect the resin from sunlight? To answer this question, it is important to understand how the resin behaves to wavelengths above 460nm (not measured). In my practical experience, it does not provide adequate protection. Clean the vat after each print or add another light-blocking layer for (short-term) storage.-