4 ms·

This is really interesting. In my opinion, Prusa is the best in class printer to purchase for a turnkey machine. If you want to scale up a printfarm. Add more P

This is really interesting. In my opinion, Prusa is the best in class printer to purchase for a turnkey machine. If you want to scale up a printfarm. Add more Prusa's and some humans to tend them. But there was never really a way to run the print farm lights out. As in queue up the job for 7 days. Then have humans show up at the end of the week and package ship orders. If there was an OTS machine that could contend Prusa for production value per dollar. This looks to be it. I'll be buying one of these when they are out. For the patent comment, I think Stratasys has a patent on it, but one of the claims is that the machine prints with orthogonal axes. Angle the print head and now its good? https://www.stratasys.com/3d-printers/continuous-build-3d-printer https://www.stratasys.com/3d-printers/continuous-build-3d-pr...

mrfusion 6y ago
Does angling offer any benefit?
- cellular 6y ago
  For a single motor, you get: a height axis, and ability for long prints, and multiple unmanned prints. Looks stiffer too.
  - mrfusion 6y ago
    But doesn’t the belt give you those things? Why also print at an angle?
    - cellular 6y ago
      Oops, my reply is above.
    - makerofspoons 6y ago
      It has been speculated that it helped them circumvent MakerBot's patent on conveyor belts on additive 3D printers: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8668859B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US8668859B2/en
      - imtringued 6y ago
        This is definitively one of the reasons.
  - cellular 6y ago
    I suppose you could although the print path might be discontinuous. Think of printing an 8' long rectangle that is 2 layers high. If you print diagonally, the cross section is always the same. If you print on a level, you get the 8' length divided into smaller sections that are pieced together. The cross sections are not equal.
    - mrfusion 6y ago
      I’m still not getting it :-( What’s the harm in printing at the normal angle and moving the belt as needed?
      - cellular 6y ago
        I don't print so I can't say for sure but I think path consistency is key for high quality, strong, low tolerance parts. In-fill might have a weak point if not done consistently. I'll let someone with experience verify, or add to my inexperienced opinion... But also, only 1 motor instead of 2 (1 for z and 1 for belt). Ie 1 axis = more stiff.
      - sitkack 6y ago
        If you have a belt that move perpendicular to the print head, then the extrusion path is in in the plane of the of the belt. If you try and print something that is longer than the travel path of the print head then it will have to stitch the end of the object with the new material as the object moves off the end of the belt. By being at an angle, the print head has full access to the entire end of the object that is being formed. Think of the point where the print head makes contact with the object surface as the extrusion plane. The belt and printing at an angle enables the extrusion plane to never be occluded by the part itself. It is like an infinitely tall hang printer that can move up forever, only it is on its side so it can continuously bond the print belt and the part. This design allows for parts to be made that fill the x-y projected area of the printer while being arbitrarily long in z, the belt can feed into a tray that allows the part to rest at the belt height. You could use this to make forms for sail planes, foils, spars, etc. I can't wait for this to get out into the hands of the mhackers to see what they come up with. The next phase is when something like this is multi-material, so one can have say a water soluble support material and an impregnated nylon in the same continuous part. As it is now, the primary purpose would be for small scale manufacturing and cosplay swords (like the demo).
serf 6y ago
I've played with belt systems similar to this. It's great for high-volume small quick-to-print pieces. I would have loved to have used such a system when I was printing first-response medical protective gear early on during the pandemic; I needed high volume and the pieces were small. It sucks for large pieces that require good bed adhesion. A bit of background: A common problem with certain materials, like PETG, is that the nozzle tends to weep. If that's the case, during a large print there may be a buildup of plastic that offsets the nozzle a small amount. At the top layers of the print, where leverage is the highest, if that offset on the nozzle makes contact with the print, it's probably game-over. The nozzle+offset will probably knock the print off of the bed, destroying the part. I experienced two problems with a belt-bed system like this. For one, bed adhesion is generally lower, so events like described above are basically never survived, whereas with a steel insert bed like a Prusa, the part stays bonded to the work surface, but the offset may cause damage to the top of the part, or the offset may contact it and be pushed aside, allowing a healthy print or a negligibly damaged print, rather than a total failure. Secondly : if you print anything complex, requiring thin or small support structures or brims -- it's a good chance the brim or support material is going to stay on the belt for the ride til the next lap. The system I used had a brush that contacted the bed, but it wasn't enough. PETG brims would work their way back up to the printing area, and be printed on top of. In most cases, that's actually ok -- rarely is the bottom of a print important aesthetically -- but if the work surface is offset by the thickness of the brim, then it increases the likeliness that we'll experience the ooze/weep offset described above, given that there is less clearance now for the nozzle to stay away from it. I think belt systems are the way forward, but I think they need to 1) offer better and more consistent bed adherence; the system I used had 2 or 3 slick spots that we avoided because things didn't like to stick, and 2) offer absolute rigidity -- the belt system I got to play with felt like it'd likely stretch over time and enough part removals.
- cellular 6y ago
  Is "nozzle weep" just extra plastic that hardens on the nozzle? Can a printer do a clean nozzle function every so often, like the ink jets, to clean off the nozzle?
- leon_sbt 6y ago

mrfusion 6y ago

Does angling offer any benefit?

cellular 6y ago
For a single motor, you get: a height axis, and ability for long prints, and multiple unmanned prints. Looks stiffer too.
- mrfusion 6y ago
  But doesn’t the belt give you those things? Why also print at an angle?
  - cellular 6y ago
    Oops, my reply is above.
  - makerofspoons 6y ago
    It has been speculated that it helped them circumvent MakerBot's patent on conveyor belts on additive 3D printers: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8668859B2/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US8668859B2/en
    - imtringued 6y ago
      This is definitively one of the reasons.
- cellular 6y ago
  I suppose you could although the print path might be discontinuous. Think of printing an 8' long rectangle that is 2 layers high. If you print diagonally, the cross section is always the same. If you print on a level, you get the 8' length divided into smaller sections that are pieced together. The cross sections are not equal.
  - mrfusion 6y ago
    I’m still not getting it :-( What’s the harm in printing at the normal angle and moving the belt as needed?
    - cellular 6y ago
      I don't print so I can't say for sure but I think path consistency is key for high quality, strong, low tolerance parts. In-fill might have a weak point if not done consistently. I'll let someone with experience verify, or add to my inexperienced opinion... But also, only 1 motor instead of 2 (1 for z and 1 for belt). Ie 1 axis = more stiff.
    - sitkack 6y ago
      If you have a belt that move perpendicular to the print head, then the extrusion path is in in the plane of the of the belt. If you try and print something that is longer than the travel path of the print head then it will have to stitch the end of the object with the new material as the object moves off the end of the belt. By being at an angle, the print head has full access to the entire end of the object that is being formed. Think of the point where the print head makes contact with the object surface as the extrusion plane. The belt and printing at an angle enables the extrusion plane to never be occluded by the part itself. It is like an infinitely tall hang printer that can move up forever, only it is on its side so it can continuously bond the print belt and the part. This design allows for parts to be made that fill the x-y projected area of the printer while being arbitrarily long in z, the belt can feed into a tray that allows the part to rest at the belt height. You could use this to make forms for sail planes, foils, spars, etc. I can't wait for this to get out into the hands of the mhackers to see what they come up with. The next phase is when something like this is multi-material, so one can have say a water soluble support material and an impregnated nylon in the same continuous part. As it is now, the primary purpose would be for small scale manufacturing and cosplay swords (like the demo).

serf 6y ago

I've played with belt systems similar to this. It's great for high-volume small quick-to-print pieces. I would have loved to have used such a system when I was printing first-response medical protective gear early on during the pandemic; I needed high volume and the pieces were small. It sucks for large pieces that require good bed adhesion. A bit of background: A common problem with certain materials, like PETG, is that the nozzle tends to weep. If that's the case, during a large print there may be a buildup of plastic that offsets the nozzle a small amount. At the top layers of the print, where leverage is the highest, if that offset on the nozzle makes contact with the print, it's probably game-over. The nozzle+offset will probably knock the print off of the bed, destroying the part. I experienced two problems with a belt-bed system like this. For one, bed adhesion is generally lower, so events like described above are basically never survived, whereas with a steel insert bed like a Prusa, the part stays bonded to the work surface, but the offset may cause damage to the top of the part, or the offset may contact it and be pushed aside, allowing a healthy print or a negligibly damaged print, rather than a total failure. Secondly : if you print anything complex, requiring thin or small support structures or brims -- it's a good chance the brim or support material is going to stay on the belt for the ride til the next lap. The system I used had a brush that contacted the bed, but it wasn't enough. PETG brims would work their way back up to the printing area, and be printed on top of. In most cases, that's actually ok -- rarely is the bottom of a print important aesthetically -- but if the work surface is offset by the thickness of the brim, then it increases the likeliness that we'll experience the ooze/weep offset described above, given that there is less clearance now for the nozzle to stay away from it. I think belt systems are the way forward, but I think they need to 1) offer better and more consistent bed adherence; the system I used had 2 or 3 slick spots that we avoided because things didn't like to stick, and 2) offer absolute rigidity -- the belt system I got to play with felt like it'd likely stretch over time and enough part removals.

cellular 6y ago
Is "nozzle weep" just extra plastic that hardens on the nozzle? Can a printer do a clean nozzle function every so often, like the ink jets, to clean off the nozzle?
leon_sbt 6y ago