BuildLog.Net - Document your builds!


Buildlog Title: Quantum ORD Alternative

newest first oldest first
Builder: Pazu
Member Since: 2011-06-17
reader comment Comment from: flickerfly on Wednesday, May 8th 2013 - 2:08 AM
Looks like you're using a bowden extruder. Have you had any problems with that?

Thursday, July 5th 2012 - 12:51 AM

Getting good prints.

The ORD bot has given me new found reliability. I can now confidently leave my prints unattended.

Prints not adhering well to the print bed has always been an issue for me. Either the print would totally fail to stick or lifting would occur soon as the print go a few mm high.

Using the ABS juice method initially gave me good results but large prints still lift. Reading thru the thread, I decided to try nophead's method. I pre-heat the bed to 130C and print the first layer and have the bed reduced to 100C after. This together with brimming completely fixed my lifting issue! I think there is also a variation in how you apply the ABS juice. I apply mine now on a cold bed using moderate thickness. It's definitely not as thin as how nophead described his.

Anyway, just want to share some nice prints.
Image
Image

My next problem was de-lamination. Using the previous 0.5mm nozzle, I never had problems with this printing at 0.25mm layer. The layers were always very well bonded. I also always use only 2 loop perimeter.

As I switched to a new nozzle (0.35mm, or maybe it's 0.3mm???) and continued to print as before, delamination of prints is a big issue.

I printed this monitor mount and decided to give it a simple strength test and the part broken without effort.
Image

To solve this, I now print at 0.2mm with 4 loops perimeter for parts that need strength. Also I think it'd better to orientate the parts so that it will not fail on layering axis.
Image

Comparing the quality with previous sprinter, Marlin is visibly superior. Also emaker's version of the software produced a lot of surface bumps.
Image

I went a bit over-zealous with the flame polishing!
Image

I think this concludes my build log. Thanks to bart for the great design.

add commentadd comment in the forum

Monday, July 2nd 2012 - 2:10 AM

LOL. I'm using mostly default values from Slic3r except for the retracts. :)

Now that I look at it again, the traverse is pretty damn good!

add commentadd comment in the forum

reader comment Comment from: Liberty4Ever on Monday, July 2nd 2012 - 1:35 AM
mattrsch wrote:At about 30 seconds in your second video it looks like your printers XY system operates by creating localized space-time distortions :)

Bwa ha ha.

Slow printing... goofy fast traverses!
reader comment Comment from: mattrsch on Monday, July 2nd 2012 - 1:23 AM
:lol:
At about 30 seconds in your second video it looks like your printers XY system operates by creating localized space-time distortions :)

Monday, July 2nd 2012 - 12:58 AM

Commissioned!!

Finally got all my parts in and commissioned the printer. I had to replace the original 2 Z-axis NEMA14 for new 5.5kg/cm NEMA17 because the gantry is much too heavy. Other than that, the rest worked out fine. Current build volume is 140X x 90Y x 100Z. It's a little weird I guess but I have to wait till I get my hands on some MakerSlide before I can get the original build volume I want.

Anyway here's some videos.



The finished Herringbone gears.
Image

This was the very first print. http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:20996
Image

With the extruder tuned-in.
Image

I also upgraded my nozzle from 0.5mm to 0.35mm. Upgraded to Marlin and Slic3r!

DONE!

add commentadd comment in the forum

reader comment Comment from: Liberty4Ever on Wednesday, June 6th 2012 - 7:09 AM
Pazu wrote:@Liberty4Ever: You are right that the slot cuts are extra work. But I actually did them so that I can use NEMA17 instead of the NEMA14 for the standard Quantum bot in the future.

I just realized my mistake and came back here to fix it. What I should have said is that I'd have drilled the holes for the NEMA 17 instead of making the slots for the NEMA 14 and NEMA 17, if I knew I was only going to use the NEMA 17 motors.

I do look forward to hearing more about your project, including seeing the finished product, hopefully in a video printing parts!

Tuesday, June 5th 2012 - 6:21 AM

@Liberty4Ever: You are right that the slot cuts are extra work. But I actually did them so that I can use NEMA17 instead of the NEMA14 for the standard Quantum bot in the future.

Would surely report back when I start printing.

add commentadd comment in the forum

reader comment Comment from: naPS on Tuesday, June 5th 2012 - 6:04 AM
Yeah, most of the wiggle will be in X as the machine is zipping back and forth, but I honestly thing that a lot of the Z wobble is made worse by the relatively weak support at the bottom of the vertical columns. If there was some easy way to turn these things 45 degrees, I think it would improve the overall stiffness of the bot immensely, and really help cut down on the Z wobble issues folks are having.

Hmmm... this has me thinking about this now, as I know Misumi makes adjustable brackets... or at least ones on a 45. They also have the metal plate fabricating service... I wonder if this is something that can actually be done relatively easily.
reader comment Comment from: Liberty4Ever on Tuesday, June 5th 2012 - 4:29 AM
Dang, some people just can't follow instructions. :D

I'd guess that your arrangement with the vertical MakerSlide rotated 90 degrees would result in a weaker frame as the X axis is zipping back and forth, but more beefy corner brackets and the general over design of the stout aluminum extrusion is still overkill. Similarly, the extrusion head mass on the gantry cantilevered farther out in space is inherently a weaker design, but again, aluminum extrusion is a helluva drug, so you'll probably be OK. It does look more compact and space saving. I'm anxious to see a video of it running, and read your impressions of how well it works, and whether there were any problems resulting from your coloring outside the lines.

Nice manual hacking on aluminum with hand tools. Ugh. Glad I'm not doing that. I'd have definitely drilled the holes for the NEMA 17 and not gone fancy and made the NEMA 17 to NEMA 23 slots unless I was fairly certain I'd be upgrading to NEMA 23 motors. That's a lot of extra fabrication by hand, presumably with no extra gain if you're only using NEMA 17 motors.

The rest of my Hadron parts should be here this week. We'll see if I can resist the urge to redesign it once I'm staring at the parts. At least for now, my goal is to stay as close to the design intent as I can, given the fact that I was forced to scrounge for parts and do some fabricating of my own.

Tuesday, June 5th 2012 - 12:57 AM

Some progress. Slow as I had to fabricate some parts.

I don't have any electrical tools that can cut the part so I use mostly hand tools. Fret saw in this case.

Marking with printed templates.
Image

Sawing.
Image

Done.
Image
Image

Here's how it currently looks like. Initial fears about the poorer weight distribution was unfounded. The thing is as solid as a rock.
Image

add commentadd comment in the forum

Sunday, May 6th 2012 - 8:50 AM

Took a bit of a break from the build because the changed configuration requires additional L-brackets.

Here's how it's like now. I build it up very roughly to gauge the feasibility. Seems like it will work out.
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image

Next up is the extruder mount and I'll have to cut up the handle/electronics mount too. :D

add commentadd comment in the forum

reader comment Comment from: orcinus on Thursday, April 26th 2012 - 11:47 AM
Is there any way you can flip the plates around, mount the two v-wheels on the front and one v-wheel on the back? That would at least distribute the load on the wheels more evenly.
reader comment Comment from: naPS on Thursday, April 26th 2012 - 5:12 AM
Pazu wrote:I agree. It's definitely more weight for the z axis.

But the pivot isn't that much more forward and z axis doesn't really move much. Guess I'll find out when it's all done. :?


I hope it works good, it's innovative, and definitely a space saver.

Thursday, April 26th 2012 - 4:41 AM

I agree. It's definitely more weight for the z axis.

But the pivot isn't that much more forward and z axis doesn't really move much. Guess I'll find out when it's all done. :?

add commentadd comment in the forum

reader comment Comment from: naPS on Thursday, April 26th 2012 - 4:29 AM
Pazu wrote:I have concerns about throwing the weight forward too. But IMO, it's not putting any much more weight on the Z axis than the original. The Z nut blocks will still be mounted directly on the original plate, just shifted in position.


Right, it's not more weight, but it's the location of the weight. Think about a fat kid standing right at the end of the diving board where it's attached at the concrete. Now, think of that same fat kid standing on the end of the diving board that hangs out over the water. There's a significant difference in how the load is distributed, and quite a bit more force placed on the joint.

Thursday, April 26th 2012 - 3:34 AM

orcinus wrote:How's a single bolt more rigid than 4 spacers (w/ 4 bolts)?


Ah but now it's 4 bolts for the motor plus 1. :P Just feel that the spacers are too long and the lateral torque force might be an issue. Of course, all these are probably just my imagination.

I have concerns about throwing the weight forward too. But IMO, it's not putting any much more weight on the Z axis than the original. The Z nut blocks will still be mounted directly on the original plate, just shifted in position.

Like I said, not a better design. Just one that saves space. ;)

add commentadd comment in the forum

reader comment Comment from: naPS on Thursday, April 26th 2012 - 3:21 AM
orcinus wrote:PPS: Won't your arrangement strain the front and top Z-axis v-wheels too much? With enough weight, it's basically going to be like your gantry is hanging on 2x two wheels instead of 2x three. Plus, i imagine that might introduce some backlash in Z.


Yeah, it seems like it takes the portion of the machine that's moving the most and spaces it several inches off the supporting sections center of gravity. I would imagine it's going to put quite a load on the top wheels of the Z axis gantries. It's also going to make the spacers required to hold the threaded Z nuts fairly long, as they are going to have to meet with the center of the stepper motor, where as in the original design they are less than 1/2" thick. You would think that could introduce quite a bit of flex.

Interesting idea though, for sure. If you're in need of saving space, this could help.
reader comment Comment from: orcinus on Thursday, April 26th 2012 - 3:07 AM
How's a single bolt more rigid than 4 spacers (w/ 4 bolts)?

I must admit the spacers looked a bit weak to me too in the photos and drawings, but holding the assembly in hand, i really don't believe they are anymore. Vibration could be a problem for them, as would substantial tangential force, but this is a 3D printer, not a router. I might be completely off, though, as usual :)

PS: I dig the more compact look! Looks much neater.

PPS: Won't your arrangement strain the front and top Z-axis v-wheels too much? With enough weight, it's basically going to be like your gantry is hanging on 2x two wheels instead of 2x three. Plus, i imagine that might introduce some backlash in Z.

Thursday, April 26th 2012 - 2:23 AM

Here's my build log for the Quantum. ORD Alt., "odd odd"... Geddit? Hehee.... OK lame.

Right when I first knew the build volume of the ORD bot, I knew I'd have to mod it. While Bart designed it to be very extensible, the foot print is something that I can't quite stand. Take for example the Quantum's width is more than twice the build volume width. For the X-axis which is a gantry, my feel is that it should be more economical in terms of space comsumption.

My target build volume is 150mm (x) by 210mm (y) by 120mm (z). Y axis is of course, easily extensible. Z is already within the original build volume.

My idea is to rotate the vertical Makerslides so that I can reduce the overall size of the bot while giving more space for the build platform.

Another thing I couldn't stand is the way the X motor is mounted. Somehow the spacers don't seem very rigid. The motor bracket looks much better.

Anyway, here's my build currently.

Image
Image
Image

I have to say that I believe I didn't come up with a better design. Just one that saves more space. I'm certainly ending up having more parts.

Next up, I have to make a new gantry plate too.

add commentadd comment in the forum

About Us | Contact | 2010 BuildLog.Net