Duet3D announces new tool board at FormNext
-
@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.
-
@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
Printers: a small Utilmaker style, a small CoreXY and a E3D MS/TC setup. Various hotends. Using Duet 3 hardware running 3.4.6
-
@dc42 can you give us the exterior dimensions of the board? I'm trying to see how it will fit in my printer.
-
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! -
@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
-
@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?
-
@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
-
@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.
-
@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
Printers: a small Utilmaker style, a small CoreXY and a E3D MS/TC setup. Various hotends. Using Duet 3 hardware running 3.4.6
-
@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.
-
@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
-
@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.
-
I haven't seen the video.
I will have to call Midwest and see if they can clarify the issue with regards to the size of the piece.
And when they cut a piece do they perhaps deform it in the process?
The custom bed I had made was measured by the machinist and it was, as I mentioned, flat with 0.09. I did not ask him how he measured that. I should.
I have another bed on order being made from a stainless steel which the machinist says will produce the best results. Time will tell on that.
Thanks much.
Frederick
-
@fcwilt That guaranteed flatness is before and after sawing. They are most likely giving themselves some buffer in that number. I would imagine that your machinist probably used a surface plate, something like this setup. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WwUqPiQ9JAQ
-
-
It matters not a jot to me whether you believe me or not because I know for a fact that my bed is both flat and level within +- 0.03mm at any point over the entire surface, and that I can print edge to edge with no firmware compensation of any kind.
Except that maybe you are calling me a liar to which I object very strongly.
This video was shot many years ago using the exact same build plate and before mesh compensation had been added to the firmware. Also, I use a single motor and continuous belt driving 3 lead screws so automatic bed leveling is not possible.
https://youtu.be/U733PMTou7M?si=cgGvQHLgwxZdXike
How do you explain that if I'm the liar that you are implying that I am?
-
@fcwilt said in Duet3D announces new tool board at FormNext:
@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
The tolerance is usually quoted as the cast plate tolerance prior to machining and covers the entire sheet size (usually 1.2M x 2.4M). So a 400m x 40mm machined section will always be more flat than the quoted tolerance.
Most "keyboard engineers" think that anything bought to a specified tolerance WILL vary by that tolerance whereas the tolerance is the MAXIMUM variation that the supplier uses to be able to guarantee the product.
According to my DTI, mine is actually flat better than +_ 0.01mm. The +_ 0.03 variation is due to imperfection in levelling (which I could get better if I spent more time tramming the gantry).
-
@Surgikill said in Duet3D announces new tool board at FormNext:
Toolboards are primarily made for tool changer setups, so multiply your cost difference by the number of toolheads.
I'm not entirely sure if you'd need a scanning probe on every tool head? If I understood Tony correctly, they are also working on a nozzle coil which would be stationary and after a toolchange you'd level your nozzle there (just like the contact probes on CNC machines)
-
@deckingman in your video that you linked your dial indicator shows +0.04 and - 0.03 as the maximum and minimum values. It's there pain as day.
I never said you were lying, but your flatness tolerance is wrong by definition. It's either 0.07mm, according to the video, or 0.06mm according to you. A +/- is not applied to a flatness tolerance. If you only measured those 5 points in the video then it's really a moot point.
I'm not trying to sound pompous, but I'm a degreed mechanical engineer, not a "keyboard engineer". Using the wrong terminology can be misleading at best and disingenuous at worst. Instead of getting emotional about being incorrect, it would be beneficial to everybody if you used it as a learning opportunity. Nobody is perfect, myself included.
