6 ms·

You have no idea how much this question has been vexing me! I gave up on the development of a public good product because I couldn’t answer that very question (

You have no idea how much this question has been vexing me! I gave up on the development of a public good product because I couldn’t answer that very question (low cost braille reader). I couldn’t get it to work seamlessly without high precision and couldn’t achieve high precision at low cost. Bought a couple of cheap inkjets and stripped them for parts, found proprietary optical strips and encoders, but still couldn’t figure out how they managed to machine/manufacture the plastic/nylon/POM parts to such high precision and still make a profit. In the end, I surmised they don't make a profit off the parts (though selling at a loss is illegal in the EU?) and rely on the cartridges to make money, but the bigger part of the equation is that they probably have those parts manufactured in massive numbers and with highly tuned and optimized designs carefully matched to the manufacturing process and the application. I even put out ads trying to hire someone that’s worked as an (electro)mechanical engineer at an inkjet company to hire on a contract basis but got no responses. It’s possible those are mainly outsourced - or that the know how turned into domain knowledge that can’t be reproduced these days!

jacquesm 3y ago
Making things in prototype form: easy. Making things production grade: hard. Making things economically production grade: super hard.
kragen 3y ago
i don't think the nylon and delrin parts have to be high precision; the way i see it, all that matters is that the displacement between the optical sensor and the print head is constant and that the plastic tape isn't stretched so far that the printed page looks wrong, and that the print head stays more or less the same height off the paper and, more importantly, exactly the same angle backlash, variable friction, motor power variation due to voltage, belt stretch, most flexions of the frame — all of that should just be 'external disturbances' that the negative feedback system automatically corrects. only the position feedback itself (and the time of actuation of the inkjets) has to be precise, that's the magic of negative feedback as for the optical strips and encoders, i figured that a 600dpi laser printer printing on laser printer transparency film should be able to print a light/dark transition every 42μm, though it might take some fiddling to get that to actually work. supposedly 1200×1200 dpi laser printers also exist on the market for US$300. the standard way inkjet printers do this seems to be with a slit that's only slightly wider than the size of a single stripe, but a second transparency with the same 50% black pattern would also work, producing a moiré pattern (though with a viewing angle of only 25° or so due to the thicknesses of the transparent films). let me know if this is unclear, i'll make an animation or something with a quadrature cycle (as the inkjet printer sensors seem to use, according to the datasheets i've managed to find) every 84μm you get a full cycle, so you get a transition every 21μm and you know your position ±10.5μm. that's half a thou, good enough for machining a piston if you don't truncate the brightness to one bit, though, you can measure the phase within the cycle to probably within a tenth of a cycle, so you get ±4μm as for who did the mechanical engineering, i suspect that it's something like ten people in the world, half of them retired. dissecting printers from different decades i see an astounding degree of similarity from one decade to the next
- jacquesm 3y ago
  The one exception is probably if you want to screw bolts straight in without any kind of prep work (tapping) on the hole. Then accuracy matters, too much slop and your bolt won't hold or it will strip the material, too little and you may well end up snapping the bolt, especially a thin one. Apropos machining pistons: the bigger issue with anything that needs a reliable 'Z' dimension on any kind of cutter like this (essentially a two-dimensional device) is that that third dimension is really only well specified at the point of focus. Outside of that it is more or less conical depending on the kind of cutter and the optics in case of a laser. Waterjet, plasma and laser all have different characteristics depending on what you cut with and in case of a laser the construction of the head and the kind of optics installed. Plasma also has work hardening effects that can not be ignored. The only economical way to accurately cut large pieces of thick material is by using a heavy gantry mill or an EDM machine. Both will still be very costly and this sort of use is probably outside of the hobby arena anyway. If you need that kind of work piece I would suggest outsourcing it.
  - kragen 3y ago
    yeah, those inkjets always seem to use metal machine screws to hold everything together. i don't know how to tell how the screws (and, in many cases, nuts) are made but they do seem pretty precise but i didn't mean to say that cheap inkjets contain no tight tolerances; they contain lots of tight tolerances. (the ones on the nozzles and on the traces on the integrated circuits are a lot smaller than the ones on the screws.) i meant to say that the in-operation movements of most of the parts of the printer don't have to be precise because negative feedback compensates for any errors they introduce the printer doesn't make any screws or any holes in anything or screw in any screws, it just squirts ink onto paper, so there isn't a question of how precise the holes it makes are
  - ComputerGuru 3y ago
    I read your response until near the very end and was itching to replying "but EDM!" before I got to your last paragraph! I actually was lucky enough to be able to use EDM for my initial prototype and I remain absolutely confounded as to what degree of accuracy, precision, and repeatability we're able to get out of this fairly old machining technique (and one that also avoids the z-depth issues you pointed out), but it has its drawbacks. It's insanely slow (though I don't know if machines made this side of 1990 are appreciably any faster) and it's too expensive for anything other than prototyping or one-off bespoke designs, and of course there are limitations to what materials you can cut. > The only economical way to accurately cut large pieces of thick material [..] Fortunately for most real-world applications the old maxim about size and required precision being inversely correlated tends to hold. I was a die-hard subtractive machining zealot but I've slowly come around to appreciating 3D printers and they've made incredible strides in terms of capabilities and accuracy over the past decade. The hobbyist stuff still has some ways to go, but the exponential improvements are hard to ignore and I think it's become a viable suggestion for a lot of things were 2D machining used to reign king, at least where the end goal is to make something and not specifically to machine something.

jacquesm 3y ago

Making things in prototype form: easy. Making things production grade: hard. Making things economically production grade: super hard.

kragen 3y ago

i don't think the nylon and delrin parts have to be high precision; the way i see it, all that matters is that the displacement between the optical sensor and the print head is constant and that the plastic tape isn't stretched so far that the printed page looks wrong, and that the print head stays more or less the same height off the paper and, more importantly, exactly the same angle backlash, variable friction, motor power variation due to voltage, belt stretch, most flexions of the frame — all of that should just be 'external disturbances' that the negative feedback system automatically corrects. only the position feedback itself (and the time of actuation of the inkjets) has to be precise, that's the magic of negative feedback as for the optical strips and encoders, i figured that a 600dpi laser printer printing on laser printer transparency film should be able to print a light/dark transition every 42μm, though it might take some fiddling to get that to actually work. supposedly 1200×1200 dpi laser printers also exist on the market for US$300. the standard way inkjet printers do this seems to be with a slit that's only slightly wider than the size of a single stripe, but a second transparency with the same 50% black pattern would also work, producing a moiré pattern (though with a viewing angle of only 25° or so due to the thicknesses of the transparent films). let me know if this is unclear, i'll make an animation or something with a quadrature cycle (as the inkjet printer sensors seem to use, according to the datasheets i've managed to find) every 84μm you get a full cycle, so you get a transition every 21μm and you know your position ±10.5μm. that's half a thou, good enough for machining a piston if you don't truncate the brightness to one bit, though, you can measure the phase within the cycle to probably within a tenth of a cycle, so you get ±4μm as for who did the mechanical engineering, i suspect that it's something like ten people in the world, half of them retired. dissecting printers from different decades i see an astounding degree of similarity from one decade to the next

jacquesm 3y ago
The one exception is probably if you want to screw bolts straight in without any kind of prep work (tapping) on the hole. Then accuracy matters, too much slop and your bolt won't hold or it will strip the material, too little and you may well end up snapping the bolt, especially a thin one. Apropos machining pistons: the bigger issue with anything that needs a reliable 'Z' dimension on any kind of cutter like this (essentially a two-dimensional device) is that that third dimension is really only well specified at the point of focus. Outside of that it is more or less conical depending on the kind of cutter and the optics in case of a laser. Waterjet, plasma and laser all have different characteristics depending on what you cut with and in case of a laser the construction of the head and the kind of optics installed. Plasma also has work hardening effects that can not be ignored. The only economical way to accurately cut large pieces of thick material is by using a heavy gantry mill or an EDM machine. Both will still be very costly and this sort of use is probably outside of the hobby arena anyway. If you need that kind of work piece I would suggest outsourcing it.
- kragen 3y ago
  yeah, those inkjets always seem to use metal machine screws to hold everything together. i don't know how to tell how the screws (and, in many cases, nuts) are made but they do seem pretty precise but i didn't mean to say that cheap inkjets contain no tight tolerances; they contain lots of tight tolerances. (the ones on the nozzles and on the traces on the integrated circuits are a lot smaller than the ones on the screws.) i meant to say that the in-operation movements of most of the parts of the printer don't have to be precise because negative feedback compensates for any errors they introduce the printer doesn't make any screws or any holes in anything or screw in any screws, it just squirts ink onto paper, so there isn't a question of how precise the holes it makes are
- ComputerGuru 3y ago
  I read your response until near the very end and was itching to replying "but EDM!" before I got to your last paragraph! I actually was lucky enough to be able to use EDM for my initial prototype and I remain absolutely confounded as to what degree of accuracy, precision, and repeatability we're able to get out of this fairly old machining technique (and one that also avoids the z-depth issues you pointed out), but it has its drawbacks. It's insanely slow (though I don't know if machines made this side of 1990 are appreciably any faster) and it's too expensive for anything other than prototyping or one-off bespoke designs, and of course there are limitations to what materials you can cut. > The only economical way to accurately cut large pieces of thick material [..] Fortunately for most real-world applications the old maxim about size and required precision being inversely correlated tends to hold. I was a die-hard subtractive machining zealot but I've slowly come around to appreciating 3D printers and they've made incredible strides in terms of capabilities and accuracy over the past decade. The hobbyist stuff still has some ways to go, but the exponential improvements are hard to ignore and I think it's become a viable suggestion for a lot of things were 2D machining used to reign king, at least where the end goal is to make something and not specifically to machine something.