This topic contains 22 replies, has 9 voices, and was last updated by gid 8 months ago.
-
Posts
-
@gid, I think there is a mistake on the length of X axis that there is no space to allow the second nozzle to reach the left & right edges. Since I dont have the unit yet, I checked the calibration video on youtube. When the print head moved all the way to the left, the nozzle on the right is still far away from the edge.
If this is a single nozzle system, it should able to utilize the whole bed. But on dual nozzle, the shaft for X axis need to be extended on both left & right sides. Also the whole cabinet need to be redesign. And may be thats why CEL choose to hide this and continue the production……
I doubt it’s that machiavellian. If not solvable in software, another way to solve it would be to redesign the head so the nozzle fully moves into the same place as the previous nozzle: a bit like the rotating wheel of interchangeable lenses on a typical desktop microscope. With that extra movement switching nozzles would be slower and the head a lot more complex and heavier, but it’d avoid a redesign of the cabinet, gantry or bed.
Tom Gidden -- Bristol, UK -- New Roboxer? Check out the wiki, and add yourself to the map! http://roboxing.com/user_locationsam I missing something obvious, wouldn’t a thicker PEI bed solve it?
-
This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by
Rob.
that resutls in less build height
java (EE), JavaFX, HTML, GIS) programmer, database wizard, framework inventor, looking for a job ! http://roboxing.com/wizards@bespokeproductdesign: I was thinking that but PEI’s not very heat conductive… a thicker sheet would take much longer than it currently does to heat up. Plus, with a nice, solid machined copper block (rather than flat sheet) it’d solve the PEI warping issue.
As far as the reduced build volume is concerned, yes, it would reduce build height by ~2mm, but that’s a lot less significant than the half-inch or so we’re talking on the other axes.
- This reply was modified 8 months ago by gid.
Tom Gidden -- Bristol, UK -- New Roboxer? Check out the wiki, and add yourself to the map! http://roboxing.com/user_locationsWell, I certainly stirred things up. If the problem in the Y axis is just the rim around the build plate plastic, then it could be solved as a kluge with a thicker plate. Speaking just for myself I would accept longer bed heating times ( my solidoodle takes 13 minutes) and reduced Z dimension. I would also accept a reduction in the X axis. I currently live with 15 * 15 cm. If an alternative build plate can solve the X axis, just for models that need 15 cm, that would work. I think we need some words from the energetic and articulate @pete. I would like to be on record as not wanting delivery of a machine without a solution to the issue. (weeps).
I’m not sure why the Y-axis needs reducing, but I’ll defer to @BHudson on that. The X-axis, on the other hand, does have limitations caused by the dual nozzle, although it’ll only be on one edge per nozzle: if you only use the fine (or coarse) nozzle, it’ll go close to either the left or the right.
Tom Gidden -- Bristol, UK -- New Roboxer? Check out the wiki, and add yourself to the map! http://roboxing.com/user_locationschange nozzle for each side of a print?
The reduction on the Y axis is to account for the taper in the nozzle. The position of the nozzle is center of feed hole and the nozzle is tapered out from the center at about 35 degrees. If you don’t stay off the bed frame by reducing the build area, you run the nozzle against the bed frame and the head moves upward, eliminating contact between the filament and the bed.
If you can only use one nozzle, it will help keep the build area larger.
I don’t have the measurements right now for the reduction in area so I didn’t give them since I dislike giving inaccurate data.
I am not affiliated with CEL; I operate two Betas and one Production Robox.Sure, but a quarter inch seems a bit much. The nozzle diameters are about a quarter inch, so the radius is 1/8″, so the clearance is actually a maximum of 1/8″ plus change. Since the edge is less than 1/8″ above the bed, the actual front-to-back clearance should be less than 1/8″ per edge, I think.
It’d still be better if the bed was flush with the edge… I guess that’s a remnant of the glass bed design with the presumably-thinner PEI causing the problem. Do we know if the production units have different edges from the betas? I’ve heard noises that the clips are different, but I’m not sure what they’re different from…
Tom Gidden -- Bristol, UK -- New Roboxer? Check out the wiki, and add yourself to the map! http://roboxing.com/user_locations@BHudson, @henrycasson: I just noticed the new bed design in the photo attached to @terrence‘s post here: http://www.cel-robox.com/forums/topic/purge/#post-6397
It looks like the PEI is flush with the top of the bed rim now, so maybe it’ll print closer now.
Now I want a new print bed
Tom Gidden -- Bristol, UK -- New Roboxer? Check out the wiki, and add yourself to the map! http://roboxing.com/user_locations -
This reply was modified 8 months, 1 week ago by
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
