Search Results for 'robox head'

[AimdyParticipant]

@zander2772 you may need to do a manual purge, it is possible that some PLA material is still stuck in the head preventing the ABS material from being properly loaded. The steps for the manual purge are explained in the link below:

https://robox.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/1000074670-manual-purge

Moh

[StreatSiParticipant]

@omega64 i understand your frustration but give them a bit of a slack. they have gone from a kickstarter project to having 6000 + units out there in a very short space of time and have well documented its been a struggle for them going from nothing to something so big in such a short amount of time and if you look at forums all the 3d printers out there have their problems and issues especially at this teething stage. We have also just had the Christmas period which has meant disruption to service and they are busy training extra support and technicians up.
saying they have time for writing a review but not doing support is a bit stupid in the first place as its not like they are using tchnicians to write this stuff.
instead of just saying your going to try suing them, how about trying to call them up to escalate your frustration. Its not like this is a massive company - as far as i can tell there are about 8-10 people max now. I totatlly appreciate you have also spent good money and expect a certain quality etc but pleas do look at the wider picture. everyone is quick to have a go at them but ther are also many experiences of people who have had delays and then experienced great support, but as with any review site you hear that a lot less as people prefer to give teh bad reviews.
i have been part of the robox experience from the begining as a beta backer and yes there have been problems along the way, some from quality inspections from the factory making them in china (have also had leaking heads etc) delays in getting support response due to them getting so many support tickets but this also includes people with no 3d printing or 3d experience who are asking things that can be found out by reading the user manual on the forum or the unofficial forum http://roboxing.com/ as well as then getting problems that they haven’t even encountered before as it is still so new, but it has already developed massively and its potential is awesome especially from being lucky enough to be using the latest software before the major release due this week i believe. yes i believe they coudl do better with just basic updates such as we are working on your problem, or robox recieved etc, but again its a small company and i’m sure they woill be working on systems like this but at the moment the full focus is on getting things right on teh software and hardware and these bits will come especially once tehy can grow their team better.
I hope your issue is solved quickly so you can experience the joy of the robox but also please look at the bigger picture and give them a bit of a chance.

[Omega64Participant]

And hopefully it will work, too! Unlike that guy that got 3 faulty heads in a row (long row of course, as CEL delays even just in answering tickets are well known now).

Good luck, I really hope your Robox will finally work now though.

Like mine, brand new, was supposed to do - and from the start.

I think it will all end with a class action, it’s only a matter of time. Meanwhile, I’m checking how much it will cost me from Italy to sue an UK company.

 

[BHudsonParticipant]

@mattface I would not print a replacement for several reasons, the most important that the wiper is an elastomer and replacing it with a solid version will damage your Y motion and possibly the head as the nozzles are yanked over a now-unyielding wall. The second is that the ABS and PLA materials will melt onto the nozzles and can cause them to be fouled.

I would find a piece of silicone rubber .080 inches thick by 1.175 inches long and .480 inches tall and use that. The Robox wiper tapers to .040 thick at the top with the taper being .125 inches long. The taper is on both sides. You may be able to cut the tape with a sharp knife if you are careful.

I am not affiliated with CEL; I operate two Betas and one Production Robox.

[clickParticipant]

@mistsoul thank you!

@chanyufei I think someone just did ask really interesting question: what for? (not judging, just being very curious!).

One way, I’ve done in the past, to modify gcode and send it to the printer was to start a print. Stop it, find xxxx_robox.gcode file in CEL Robox/PrintJobs (pick, of course, the latest file), modify it, and then click on print again. It (AM) would re-transmit the file and it will do what was modified in side of the gcode. Only thing is that I don’t know if it is still doing it. Alternative is to turn to my command line tools. Let me know if you really need and I don’t mind help you setting it up on your machine.

Also, to change nozzle temperature, would fine line:

M103 ; Set & heat first layer nozzle temp.

and replace it with

M103 S190 ; Set & heat first layer nozzle temp.

I suspect for you it would be

M103 S260 (or S270…)

But, I wouldn’t recommend it without any good reason and, maybe, consultation with CEL (through a ticket, of course). I suspect that head is perfectly capable doing it, but I don’t know what might the consequences be… Before you start tinkering with sending new gcode file you can send just a single gcode instruction and monitor what is going on. I would send a code and immediately prepare next gcode command to lower it:

(type) MS103 S275 (send)

(type) M103 S200

and wait - if you think something is going terribly badly - stop it immediately.

Also, don’t forget the fan on the head (don’t know form a top of my head what’s the gcode command).

 

 

[clickParticipant]

I am pretty sure Kickstart campaign said something about it:

<b>”Quick-Change Head</b> – The removable head system allows you to change the function of Robox quickly and easily. Upgrade your Robox to become a dual material printer, stylus cutter, milling head or 3D scanner, the possibilities are endless!”

Now, maybe around 2018 we’ll be able to etch our circuit boards on Robox, too!

[AimdyParticipant]

@nigelberry I just gave it a try in solidworks and it does not work. Doing some research online it seems like this is very difficult to achieve

http://www.transmagicuk.com/support/faqs/how-do-i-convert-stl-to-iges/

I had read some time ago on the solidworks forum that there is a way to reverse engineer the file but it gave me a headache so I stop reading =).Maybe if you let us know what your objective in wanting to change the format of the file we may be able to suggest a workaround.

you could also try this link below, but the instal failed on my machine so I could not test it

http://www.anycad.net/the-free-3d-model-converter-anycad-exchange3d.html

Moh

[Omega64Participant]

Thank you Clicky, at least you are replying.

I leveled the gantry manually (as doing it automatically will give much worse results) and measured actual, real Z from the aluminium bed (with PEI removed, as it’s warped).

It’s not linear, for example given Y75 fixed, @X30 Z is found @ 1.9mm, @X111 Z is found @1.8mm, but @X190 Z is found @ 2.3mm

What could be the cause? Clearly the gantry cannot be leveled in any way, neither manually, as the relationship is not linear. I.e. if I leveled to have Z equal @X30 and @X190, then it would be way off @X111 anyway (which is even worse). I shall repeat and stress that this is without the PEI.. so either the aluminium bed is warped too, or it’s the horizontal rails that are bent.

Perhaps, I say perhaps, the Z axis got damaged during a banal homing operation: try to raise the Head all up to 100mm’s and then Home it, and you’ll see hell. I’m not the only one who has discovered this horrible bug (although the Robox even has a Z+ switch which could be used to prevent it!), read here for example.
It happened two times, the 2nd one the left Z axis got even stuck and instead of being horizontal, the Z axis went diagonal , for say 10 degrees, not nice to see at all. However even after removal of the side covers I cannot see any damage, besides the lash but you said that it’s by design (how can this guarantee 20 microns resolution is beyond my imagination though, as also backlash is present).

With kind regards,
Fabio Bizzetti - Omega64

[gidParticipant]

Yep. Agreed.

I’m playing the long game here: my desire is to see Robox develop into the best product it can be. As it’s a hobby device for me, I’m not in a hurry to spend a big stack of money on a new printer anytime soon, so the expandability of Robox is what appeals to me. Getting to that point is another matter, and I figure the best thing I can do is try to support them with their efforts. That’s why I might come off as an apologist or cheerleader sometimes.

Customers do have the right to demand certain things promised to them, which CEL have struggled to deliver on so far for various reasons: especially service and support, but also the print quality Robox should be capable of. However, when you see them as a small group of talented guys doing their very best to deliver and support a complicated and ambitious product (as any hardware is, let alone something cutting-edge like a 3D printer, and let alone a particularly ambitious design like Robox) I think it’s better to forget about the things you have the right to demand and start thinking about what’s practical for them to deliver, under the assumption that such support will enable them to deliver the bigger things in time.

They’re not just thumb-twiddling and counting the piles of money coming in the door; I know they’re really working very hard there, so I can forgive their lapses like not answering forum posts and such, in the hope that it’ll let them clear tickets and release AM 1.01 sooner.

I do agree that if they’d OSS’ed sooner rather than later it’s possible we’d be ahead of where we are by now, but that’s not a certainty. Doing it now wouldn’t be the immediate panacea we might wish for, but I do think it’d be best for us and for CEL in the longer term. In the meantime, I’d love it if they could start this conversation, but I’m happy with them just getting on with things for the time being.

Tom Gidden -- Bristol, UK -- New Roboxer? Check out the wiki, and add yourself to the map! http://roboxing.com/user_locations

[gidParticipant]

@clicky I agree… I think open-sourcing is a good thing with most enterprises, although I’m more pragmatic than some of my peers, in that I do believe some things are better kept closed-source. Professionally, I open-source things that aren’t critical to the company, but our core code stays private.

When Robox was originally being designed, if you wanted to do 3D printing at this price point, you had to do a lot of work: assemble your own toolchain of slicer, host, etc.; get a supplier of consumables figured out; work out your own filament parameters; tape up the print bed in different ways depending on experience/material/parameters; sacrifice a small goat on alternate wednesdays; and so forth.

It seems to me that Robox was intended to eliminate all that, in favour of a monolithic approach: a single standard piece of hardware; a single software app that encompassed all functions other than CAD; a single parts and consumables supplier; and so forth. It’s clearly a reaction to the DIY school of thought of, say, the RepRap, which Robox seems to have been influenced by.

It’s akin to Apple’s approach: we’ll build you a great product, but you’ll use it our way, with our parts, OS, apps, etc. Many users hate this about Apple, and may choose to think it’s because Apple are evil. Some just don’t like it, as they prefer to have full control over their device, even if it means spending late nights recompiling the kernel and patching source code. Others — like myself — are capable of recompiling kernels, etc., but prefer to spend their time doing more productive work and so are happy to play by Apple’s rules.

For whatever motives one may ascribe to Apple, it is clear that the fact that there’s a very limited number of models of iPhone / Mac makes it much easier to support, and much easier to supply an entire working package: a one-stop shop to buy a single package with the hardware, the OS, the apps (from the App Store), and even the content (from the iTunes Store), and a support desk (the Genius Bar) that are in a position to support all that without blaming a third-party supplier.

(Not that I want to get into a fight about whether this is a _good_ thing or not. I’m just saying that it’s clearly Apple’s business plan to have a walled garden for all of this, and their balance sheet proves that it works!)

It’s clear to me that this is the model CEL were aiming for with Robox: a reaction to the chaos of RepRap, for example.

Now, open-sourcing the software doesn’t necessary preclude the monolithic approach. However, it’s not directly in line with the monolithic roadmap.

There’s the priorities of: producing the “It Just Works” package (which we can probably agree they haven’t delivered in full yet), and getting the most out of the unique design features (eg. the fine/fill nozzle arrangement for performance without sacrificing quality), while still keeping an eye on future expansion, and trying to get this all done before someone in China clones the whole thing.

Again, none of that really precludes open-sourcing, but it’s definitely a distraction, regardless of whether that distraction is worth it or not. In the short term, open-sourcing the software will definitely add risk and a time investment; eg. to separate out the secret bits that need to be kept closed, in order to deter simple cloning; to clear up / document the code.

For CEL to also gain the benefits of open-source beyond making a small minority of the users happy, they’d also need to sort out an integration process and allocate resources to feed back in the changes, which — believe me — is not a trivial task. They’d also need to resource a certain amount of support to cope with the posts where newbies have ignored warnings _and_ common-sense and installed some cutting-edge branch of AM without understanding it, and messed everything up.

Now, as armchair developers here, we can happily claim that the benefits of open-sourcing it outweigh those risks and time investments, but personally I think it’s a lot more complicated than that. Doing so while they’re under the current time pressure is even harder.

I have no idea how CEL feel about open-sourcing AM. They may love it and are frustrated they haven’t got around to it. They may hate it with a passion and intend to DRM everything to hell and back. Or maybe they’d just like it to be closed-source but with a very capable API. If I were them, my only reservations about open-sourcing AM would be to protect the clever bits, eg. dealing with dual nozzles; calculations to do with fluid flow; the firmware; and so forth.

Regardless, if they don’t want to open-source anything for whatever reason, that’s their decision. Robox was never (to my knowledge) advertised as being Open Source or Open Hardware, and it’s clear to me that their priority was some form of the Apple model. That’s not to say that opening things up and having community input and participation isn’t going to happen: just that it doesn’t seem to be the priority.

Personally I believe that in the long term open-sourcing AM would be the best way to go. The potential benefits of community involvement are too great to ignore.

Once things calm down and CEL get the ticket backlog under control and clearly start concentrating on the next version / the dual head / whatever, then I’d definitely be up for evangelising OSS to CEL, if that is indeed necessary. However, while they still — evidently — don’t have time to participate on the forum to the extent that they sometimes have in the past, then I’m not going to bother them about it. If you want to do so, feel free. I just think it’s counter-productive at this time.

I think out of all the users, you guys (@pelgrim, @clicky and @miffmaster) have demonstrated the most technical talent and enthusiasm about the project, and would probably make extremely valuable contributions to Robox if your efforts could be exploited in the best way.

Tom Gidden -- Bristol, UK -- New Roboxer? Check out the wiki, and add yourself to the map! http://roboxing.com/user_locations

[AlainParticipant]

I filled the hollow with an adhesive resin.
It works for now, but I no longer use this filament
I’m afraid it uses the print head … it would be more problematic

what is the opinion of engineers of Robox ???

[AimdyParticipant]

@azk13 you can access the x-belt by removing the head, the area where the belt connects sits behind the head. For the y-belt you need to remove the bottom cover of robox, do not over tighten the belt otherwise you may have some accuracy issues with your prints. It is a bit suggestive but you can follow the link below for the tightness.

https://robox.freshdesk.com/support/solutions/articles/1000128392-belt-tension-and-connections-and-access-to-rear-of-gantry-

Moh