Duet3D announces new tool board at FormNext

dc42

We are pleased to announce our new Revo Roto Tool board (TOOL1RR). We designed this to match the new Revo Roto lightweight extruder from E3D but there is nothing to stop you using it with other extruders. Features include:

Compact size to fit on small tool heads
One TMC2240 stepper driver
Hot end heater output and sensor input
Cold end temperature sensor input
Accelerometer
Scanning Z probe with thermistor for temperature compensation
Addional I/O for fans, other Z probes, endstops, docking switches, filament monitoring etc.

See https://www.duet3d.com/Duet3RotoToolboard for photo. Documentation to follow.

o_lampe

@dc42 The TMC2240 can handle 36V.
Is the toolboard ready for it and does the Revo Roto come with a matching heater cartridge and fan?

elmoret

@o_lampe Roto uses regular Revo heatercores, so 12v/24v. You could optionally use a Hemera heatbreak or their Revo HT heaterblock to use a regular heater cartridge.

Fan is 5v.

This post is deleted!

fcwilt

@Herve_Smith

You consider the prices to be an issue?

The money I spend on hardware is dwarfed by the money I spend on filament.

Frederick

@Herve_Smith

Lets see, nearest competitor is the BD sensor, runs around $30 plus many weeks delay to get shipped here. And a toolboard, either the Ebb36 or fly run around $45+. Then I would get to integrate it into the controller board/Raspberry Pi ecosystem ( Pi boards are dropping in price but still expensive ) that is needed along with the work needed to control all the parts. Make sure you RTFM before you ask any questions if you get stuck. And praise Klipper to high heaven on any post.

So a Duet setup Toolboard/Scanning sensor that does not use the Pi will be cheaper and much easier to setup.

But you will get the Klipper Smug factor to throw around if you go that route

I bought a PandaPi BDsensor awhile back to play with and installed it on an Ender 3 running Marlin that was later donated . Its actually a decent device and works well but did involve a few ( many ) curse words.. I imagine the Duet board will be much easier to set up .

This post is deleted!

Surgikill

@fcwilt said in Duet3D announces new tool board at FormNext:

@Herve_Smith

You consider the prices to be an issue?

The money I spend on hardware is dwarfed by the money I spend on filament.

Frederick

Toolboards are primarily made for tool changer setups, so multiply your cost difference by the number of toolheads. I'm currently building a tool changer, and each toolhead is going to run me close to $400. At some point, cost becomes a favor. When my toolhead alone is over double the cost of an ender 3 you have to take a step back and reevaluate.

fcwilt

@Herve_Smith

Makes sense.

But if the cost of filament is passed along to customers surely the cost of maintaining the equipment is also passed along.

Frederick

Surgikill

@dc42 can you give us the exterior dimensions of the board? I'm trying to see how it will fit in my printer.

fcwilt

@Surgikill

Very true.

But comparing a custom made 4 tool printer to a "mass produced" Ender 3 made in China is really comparing apples to aardvarks.

Not the same thing at all.

Good luck with the printer.

I've only installed 2 of the tools on my E3D MS/TC.

Frederick

This post is deleted!

fcwilt

@Herve_Smith said in Duet3D announces new tool board at FormNext:

upto a point, i only print for money to allow me to offset the cost printing for myself.

Ah, I was thinking that printing for customers was your primary business. Understand now.

as you dont need to create a levelling mesh map very often ( you only need to ask @deckingman to beat that drum)

His machines are impressive. If I tried to build a printer like that I might find myself single again, as the wife would be most upset.

Frederick

deckingman

@fcwilt said in Duet3D announces new tool board at FormNext:

............................ If I tried to build a printer like that I might find myself single again, as the wife would be most upset.

I saw my name mentioned so...............

Actually the latest iteration of my machine has a larger print area in X and Y but less in Z and with just a single reel of filament the overall "envelope" is smaller. And being fully enclosed it's near silent outside of the room that it sits in so " 'er in doors" is reasonably content.

But yeah, who needs a scanning bed probe when, if the machine is built correctly (which is neither difficult nor expensive to do) all one needs to do is home Z?

fcwilt

@deckingman said in Duet3D announces new tool board at FormNext:

Actually the latest iteration of my machine has a larger print area in X and Y but less in Z and with just a single reel of filament the overall "envelope" is smaller. And being fully enclosed it's near silent outside of the room that it sits in so " 'er in doors" is reasonably content.

Is there a link to any pictures or videos?

But yeah, who needs a scanning bed probe when, if the machine is built correctly (which is neither difficult nor expensive to do) all one needs to do is home Z?

How do you cope with bed irregularities? On my three most used printers the bed flatness varies by appx 0.25mm. That is in excess of two layers when layer height is 0.1mm. I have not found an alternative to using mesh bed compensation.

Thanks.

Frederick

deckingman

@fcwilt said in Duet3D announces new tool board at FormNext:

Is there a link to any pictures or videos?

I documented the entire build from design to completion on my YT channel and even created a play list of the 14 videos which were spread over about 3 months. I took somewhere between 200 and 300 pictures and the videos contain most of those still images. My YT channel is linked in my signature.

How do you cope with bed irregularities? On my three most used printers the bed flatness varies by appx 0.25mm. That is in excess of two layers when layer height is 0.1mm. I have not found an alternative to using mesh bed compensation.

You've done something wrong then. Either you haven't used cast machined tooling plate, or you've mounted it in such a way as to distort it, or you haven't got the XY gantry "tram" with the plane of the bed. Watch part 7 of my build https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLLdK7Bu464. With a DTI fixed in place of the print head, after levelling the bed and "tramming" the gantry the results showed a maximum deviation of 0.03mm over the entire 400mm x 400mm surface of the bed. I've done numerous near edge to edge prints ever since and never yet had a first layer that wasn't perfect.

fcwilt

@deckingman said in Duet3D announces new tool board at FormNext:

Either you haven't used cast machined tooling plate

The flatness of typically available plate is appx 0.40mm for plate less than 12mm thick. For 12mm or thicker it drops to appx 0.14.

So what did you use to obtain 0.03?

My machinist has nothing as flat as that.

Frederick

Surgikill

@fcwilt Just to add onto this, here is the spec sheet for ATP-5 where they list the flatness tolerance. >1/2" is 0.127mm, <=1/2" is 0.381mm.

https://www.midweststeelsupply.com/store/ATP5Flyer.pdf

fcwilt

@Surgikill said in Duet3D announces new tool board at FormNext:

Just to add onto this, here is the spec sheet for ATP-5 where they list the flatness tolerance. >1/2" is 0.127mm, <=1/2" is 0.381mm.

Thanks. Those values are similar. Perhaps it depends on the manufacture of the plate.

I had a bed custom made and it measured out as flat within 0.09 but the add-on build surface product spoiled it and, overall, it ended up flat within appx 0.25.

Now mesh bed compensation makes the printer work just fine.

I wonder how d-man achieved 0.03 flatness over 400mm by 400mm, my machinist was pleased with the 0.09 figure over 250mm by 250mm

Frederick

Surgikill

@fcwilt I watched the video that was linked. I don't think the entire bed was measured. I saw 5 dial indicator test points, one at bed center, and then one at each corner of the bed. Maximum measurement was 0.04mm, minimum was -0.03, so total flatness from those 5 points would be 0.07mm (Flatness is defined as two parallel planes on either side of the flat surface as the tolerance zone for the surface. All the points on the specified surface must lie between these two planes.)

I'm not sure if the entire bed was measured in a grid to determine any high spots, but you can't really determine the flatness of a material by measuring 5 points and then assuming the rest of the bed falls within that tolerance.

On the other hand, I believe the tooling plate comes in 6'x12' stock sizes, and I believe that flatness tolerance is for the entire 6'x12' stock, so you might get a tighter tolerance than specified seeing as we are only using a small portion of that large stock size, but I wouldn't bet money on it.