Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

JazzyMT — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:09:47 -0400

sminnee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One way to deal with the chicken and egg problem
> of getting a standard established is not to call
> it "the standard", but merely "a standard". For
> example, bryanandaimee might come up with a set
> standards that define "B&A Compatible"
> customisations. The challenge is then to get that
> standard adopted. No-one is going to be forced to
> use your standard, and so you need to make it
> easier for people to adopt. Things that will
> help:

I like this approach a lot. It puts the onus on someone to submit a proposal and it doesn't claim to be king - it just points out what's required to mate up to a design (or set of designs). I'd add that in addition - if you want to submit a proposal - you might add in some design methodology too so that "intent" is understood as well as implementation. For example, "On the x axis I located the motor opposite to the belt with the gears between to maintain as close a possible a neutral weight distribution and avoid unwanted torque loads on the bearings." This could be far more useful than simply stating where something is in maintaining future compatibility.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

JazzyMT — Thu, 29 Mar 2012 12:01:51 -0400

Buback Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First of all, This is silly "This entire page is a
> horrible, terrible idea, and you should be shot
> for creating it."

I saw that too - It's beyond silly - it's infantile and unwelcome. I just deleted it. I had issues with calling it a Standard, but harassment or name calling is a truly stupid way to participate. Stable Build is fine w/me.

Regarding incentives and standards - I tend to agree that as a new developer, I'd be more inclined to read standards (so far as they pertain to cross-compatibility) and participate in their development on the wiki. A proposal is much more effective than a request.

That said - I consider myself a fairly experienced engineer - I'm going to make design decision that very well could rule out conformance to all standards anyway. But - if I don't have some well documented reference to consider going into the design process, you can be sure I'm not going to download & build every other design out there in an effort to conform - honestly it's just too much work for too little reward.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

Buback — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 12:29:22 -0400

First of all, This is silly "This entire page is a horrible, terrible idea, and you should be shot for creating it."

I have no ill will against anybody in this forum. If you or anyone thought my words were heated or too antagonistic, I apologize.

Regarding your point: I don't mind if it's an openSCAD standard or a blueprint plan drawing. My point was that even a .scad file describing a parametric machine is still a standard that others have to base development off of. I don't see anything wrong with acknowledging that fact.

I would prefer some firm numbers for certain variables. However, that doesn't mean I'd suggest a newbie build Sells Mendel, and I have no problem suggesting Mendel90, even as a "standard" reprap (once there are a bunch out in the wild).

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

ScribbleJ — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 10:37:48 -0400

Quote
buback
Aren't you implicitly defining a standard? It is based on standard parts and it is all a defined algorithm in your OpenScad file. Others will need to refer to your .scad file in order to make alterations. (and it basically restricts designers to using openscad)

That's EXACTLY how the Prusa Mendel (the one you recommend as a standard, remember?) works. You probably ought to know that.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

dean448 — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 05:39:22 -0400

Someone put this in the comments section of that Hack a day article on saving reprap. Seems to also define the technical politics of those in favor and against the notion of developing standards.

Its interesting that this discussion is being posted in a 'Develoment' section.
I think it belongs in a 'Standards' section.

To quote the always useful WikiWikiWeb:

“Standards and methodologies don’t work!” says the developer.

“How would you know?” says the Standards and Methodology Guy. “You have never followed them.”

“Neither have you.” responded the developer.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

Andrew Diehl — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 20:42:34 -0400

Standards are always useful.

Since I've iterated a few designs over the months a surprising number of minor (though important) design decisions are purely arbitrary. Having some standard simplifies those decisions, and also makes things more compatible.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

bryanandaimee — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 12:56:10 -0400

Interestingly, the main comment I get from designers that are using the vertical X axis standard is that the standard is not detailed enough to ensure compatibility of the various designs. We didn't specify things like belt anchor points, and X to Z bar spacing. That was intentional since we wanted to leave as much freedom as possible while still hoping for basic compatibility, but I thought it interesting to note that the designers are often the ones that want standards they can design to, and push for detail in the standard.

Here's another thought, for those who spend their entire life on reprap and create full machines from scratch like mendel90 and mendelmax, a standard is not as usefull, but for those who might spend a small amount of time hacking on an extruder or something, standards really are a benefit.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

nophead — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:09:11 -0400

Quote

One thing that I am struggling with, as a newcomer, is trying to work out which of the experiments out there are worth incorporating into my own machine, and which are invalidated or failed experiments.

Some things work for some people and not for others. I experimented with lever based extruders long before Greg published his. My levers all broke so I abandoned the idea. They obviously work for some people as his design has become very popular.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

sminnee — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 06:10:50 -0400

> Having done some of the work to get a vertical X
> axis standard put together, I agree with what the
> last few posts have pointed out, and I might even
> go a bit further. There may be some worry that
> creating standards will suppress creativity, which
> I can't imagine considering the new designs coming
> out every day or so, but there is another side to
> the story. The reprap community is now supporting
> a fairly large marketplace as well. It's not just
> design space any more.

One way to deal with the chicken and egg problem of getting a standard established is not to call it "the standard", but merely "a standard". For example, bryanandaimee might come up with a set standards that define "B&A Compatible" customisations. The challenge is then to get that standard adopted. No-one is going to be forced to use your standard, and so you need to make it easier for people to adopt. Things that will help:

* Make the standard match as many of the most promising customisations as possible
* Catalog the customisations that already meet it
* Talk to the people who made those customisations to let them know that you like some aspect of their design so much that you want to make it a standard
* Create variations of incompatible yet promising customisations so that they meet the standard. Contact the creators of the originals, explaining what you're doing, and seeing if they buy in.

Someone who is interesting in developing standards should just make one - well, a v0.1 of one. Discussing it in the abstract is unlikely to go very far. Having a specific recommendation that people can say "I like it" or "I don't" will likely do much more good - best case scenario, you can take on the recommendations that people come up with before making v1.0.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

sminnee — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 05:52:51 -0400

One thing that I am struggling with, as a newcomer, is trying to work out which of the experiments out there are worth incorporating into my own machine, and which are invalidated or failed experiments.

For example - what am I to make of this? [www.thingiverse.com]

It would be great to see more of the incremental improvements that various people have come up, and the community consensus as to their value, make their way to the wiki. Is this a desire that others share?

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

bryanandaimee — Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:16:51 -0500

Having done some of the work to get a vertical X axis standard put together, I agree with what the last few posts have pointed out, and I might even go a bit further. There may be some worry that creating standards will suppress creativity, which I can't imagine considering the new designs coming out every day or so, but there is another side to the story. The reprap community is now supporting a fairly large marketplace as well. It's not just design space any more.

Lanthan did a good job describing the effects of standards on the marketplace, but I don't think he went quite far enough. The truth is standards benefit only the consumer. Designers and retailers benefit from specialization and product lock in. Yes a standard expands the market, but it also brings prices down and causes increased competition and comoditization (Which retailers hate). So if we really care about bringing 3D printers to the masses then standards are a good step in that direction. If on the other hand we care more about making money for the designers and retailers then it's better to have a bunch of incompatible competing machines.

On the other hand we're never going to see any very restrictive standards anyway here in RepRap land, so I don't think talk of standards is a threat to anyone. Everyone is free to follow a standard or not. The only pressure would be from consumers if a standard is adopted by a large number of customers. And that's the good kind of pressure, it means lots of people want reprap stuff.

And since this thread is about incentivizing development, what better incentive can there be than broad compatibility of a new design with the existing customer base. If for instance there were a standard describing basic compatibility rules for hot end mounting, then a designer could design for the whole reprap community rather than having to produce 2 or 3 different designs for the different extruder types out there. That is a big incentive right there.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

Lanthan — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:19:30 -0500

The whole point of having, for example, known "standard" distances between axes is to be able to exchange key parts of design A with design B, should you find that A is not up to the task. "Interoperativity".

As a user, I do not really care about who or what process generates that, but I do benefit from having a variety of choices without having to reprint or refurbish the whole gizmo.
On the other hand, the more "unique and special" a design is, the more Inclined I'd be to do the mods myself, and to hell with publishing the mods: limited exchange and diffusion, the medieval way.
Some degree of interoperability would help create the market.

Manufacturers and marketers have fought "bureaucratic, imposed standards" since times immemorial yet much of it is orented to generating a real market for consumers, and this market expansion has in turn obviously benefited manufacturers and marketers.

I have now some doubts about the usefulness of a survey if makers would just see it as "bureaucratic" stuff. Either you believe this stuff is automagically self-regulating (many industries advance similar pretensions), or you think some degree of planning and concertation might help overcome certain limitations. But then no one would want to pay for that overhead.

My take is that as long as there is massive information assymetry, this won't converge to equilibrium without some organization, culling, and, to say it bluntly, policing. The scene reminds me a lot of the early nineties when clever boys would overclock 386s and 486s and re-sell the stuff (undeclared as overclocked) to users-suckers, because "to run a word processor you don't really care". More than one made his first million that way. Of course machine crashes and unstabilities were blamed on "that crappy OS". In some cases the processors were summarily tested with loop-running Doom sequences. Yeah, entrepreneurship at a peak of creativity.
When I see some hardware being sold in the reprap ecology (fortunately not the majority fr now AFAIK!), I have that same old impression.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

Buback — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:08:06 -0500

Exactly. People can, and do, build non standard machines.
Having a standard (or baseline, scientific control, benchmark, normalized, common, stock, whatever word you want to use) places no restrictions on those individuals that want to innovate.

(I apologize if I'm harping on this, as it's a digression, but I would like to see a baseline established. if somebody doesn't agree with the choices we decide upon, then they don't have to follow them. It's not like we're making laws here.)

anyway, I'd like to see a graph of print area practicality. something like cm^3 over (plastic cost for the total filled area), or cm^3 over print time. something like that would help us identify the bounds for a practical machine. It would also help us compare various alternative build methods, like powder bed and binder fluid, or powder bed and sintering laser or UV epoxy and laser, etc.

Correspondingly, i think that is the real power standards; we need some baseline machines in order to do some quantitative comparisons.

the survey is another piece of the puzzle. If people really want a large machine (and some clearly do), then we need a way to make it practical. Maybe "the masses" want a small bookshelf machine, or a cheap-and-simple machine. Standards and surveys are just data points for those interested in them. I, for one, am eager to see the results

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

Traumflug — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 03:06:27 -0500

Perhaps the word "standard" is too hard. How about "recommendations"?

After all, it doesn't make sense to have one pair of rods 50 mm apart while the next one has 55 mm. Still, with a recommendation there's nothing stopping one from making them 100 mm apart if this gives a technical advantage.

We already have such recommendations, just not written down. For example, to use bipolar stepper motors. Unipolar ones would be quite doable, but electronics would no longer fit. The usage of G-code is a standard. Unfortunately all those extra G- and M-codes are quite a bit messy, as they aren't discussed. Discussing these extensions would help a bit cleaning up the situation without doing any harm.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

richrap — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:47:31 -0500

It's not as complicated as all this, I don't think anyone is trying to define a standard at this stage, this discussion should hopefully be leading to feedback (survey / comments) on all the masses of existing designs and printers out there. Their weaknesses and strengths, highlight mods and changes people have made (both released and work in progress) - and maybe if we are lucky a few interesting ideas and wish-lists people would like to see in the future -

Then when we have all this maybe start with some of the weaknesses and consider the alternatives.

*- For example the 8mm smooth rods issue, maybe all 'new' designs should be able to handle both 8mm or 10mm with a simple insert or reversible clamp? That's not defining a standard, just saying that 8mm rods can bend on long carriages, 10mm works better, but can cost more so use the 8mm rods you already have and upgrade to 10mm by just reversing the clamp if your printer grows in the future.

Then maybe some of the more interesting modifications -
Dual Extruders -
We need, a dual carriage, Firmware, slicer support, modeller output (maybe STL is going to limit us doing this well) - all good stuff we can then discuss.

Then finally we could consider the more contentious issues, like choice of frame style and material - and most probably we will still decide that you can build it however you see fit, in whatever material you like.

We are trying to build an open knowledge base, not a closed one, the one thing we don't seem to do enough of is share our discoveries when we discover them, it's usually only when someone else posts that they are having a similar problem.

This process does not need to be hard, it should be the exact opposite and we should all learn more from it, both to help ourselves and the 3D printing community. Can we at least try to gather pro's and con's in a honest and pro-active critical way.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

bwevans — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:38:57 -0500

I've noticed quite a bit recently that reprap developers (and I am as guilty as everyone else) have a ridiculous amount of hubris. The "I can do better" attitude, cousin to "how hard could it be", which started the platform to begin with. Attempting to presume a standardized distance for all x carriages, by way of example, is an extreme exercise in futility and imposing the hubris ever more.

I think nophead's approach is the most user friendly in design strategies allowing those streaks of "I can do better" to be massaged if desired. However, Bubacks argument seems to suggest nophead plans for the mendel 90 to be the one design to rule them all which I don't see.

My point earlier is that unless handled with kid gloves by a very small and very dedicated (even insightful and lucky) locked-in core team then standards and impositions placed on an open source project will stifle creativity and limit the chance for a projects greater success. Consider the evolutionary theme given to this project by Dr. Bowyer - time will be the true judge of what design elements win out in the end. If a design is truly successful other designs will start to fade away. This very thing happened to the Arduino in that all the fakes while still out there are not sharing in the same success that the primogenitor is.

Maybe I have misunderstood something but it seems that rather than create a standards base development process, we all benefit by encouraging diversity and growth and contributing not through top down design decisions but instead by making - making improvements, making derivatives, making more printers, and making new designs.Yes that might mean 50 different x carriages for the time being but give it another 4 or 5 years and this will inevitably begin to narrow.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

Buback — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:09:40 -0500

Aren't you implicitly defining a standard? It is based on standard parts and it is all a defined algorithm in your OpenScad file. Others will need to refer to your .scad file in order to make alterations. (and it basically restricts designers to using openscad)

even bespoke suits were based on standard styles, after all.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

nophead — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 18:24:16 -0500

With Mendel90 I have the opposite approach. You select the vitamins you want to use and it works out all the sizes of things. Nothing is compatible with Mendel except the extruder mount holes as I consider that separate from the Cartesian bot. I don't actually know what my X bar spacing is but it came out a bit bigger than Mendel.

I think standards were good in Whitworth's day and enabled mass production but a big point of 3D printing is everything can now be bespoke and customised.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

Buback — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:14:04 -0500

I think your mischaracterizing what we are talking about. We aren't trying to establish standards as a way to lock down the design. In fact I think it's the opposite, we need standards so that people can base their development on something. If you want to design a new x carriage (for more than just yourself) you need to know how far apart the x rods are, and where the belt runs, and where the endstop is, etc. Take your Arduino example: If they changed the pin headers, all the shields would be worthless and need a redesign.

I would rather not have 50 Mendel copies with slightly different distances between the x rods, and 50 different standards for x carriages. If I release a carriage, I'd be bound to have someone asking me to redesign it to fit on his N-mendel.
Another example: we've learned, since mendel's release, that 8mm rod is too flexible for a mendel-sized machine. If we are going to break compatibility and move to a larger diameter smooth rod, we'd better agree on some stuff before people go out and invest some money on hardware. I don't want to chase off a brilliant designer just because he's wasted too much money heading down the wrong rabbit hole.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

bwevans — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 13:48:00 -0500

All of this talk recently about standards, established goals, 'grading criteria' for designs, and even the suggestion of certification, presupposes a group consensus on a type of project that will benefit all parties. The thing is these conversations while seemingly new to the RepRap community are not only rooted in the early days of open source software, but they have been happening with quite some intensity regarding open source hardware in general and the specific design at one time by the Arduino Foundation (before that was officially a thing) to only release the schematic of the Arduino and not the design files. While this decision was eventually reversed, it sparked quite a lot of reverse engineering to make a whole crop of Arduino clones.

Anyway, Ive been a part of the Grounding Open Source Hardware residency in 2009 and the Open Hardware Summit in 2011 and hear these conversations about standardizing open hardware projects all the time. The group formed at GOSH called OHANDA sought to create a certification process and registry that designs could be submitted to and granted the right to a logo so long as it met certain criteria. This has yet to even get off the ground despite fervent opinions that designs need to fill some criteria to join the club. The Open Hardware definition and license is the closest thing to any consensus that's been put out there on what makes a successful open hardware design and even this has to be broadly defined to allow for the greatest flexibility in individual's interests.

The real crux of the open hardware movement is the need for tangible things that cost real money to produce. Much of the reprap project is easy to obtain for most people but the extruder and electronics are still all just elaborate hacks. The only way to really move forward with the technology is to get some material science behind it and this needs the kind of money that Makerbot now has as opposed to what most of us working in our garage have. Look at Sparkfun, Adafruit, and Arduino. The Arduino has been successful for the small group that is its foundation that guides the direction of the platform whether most of us like it or not. The .1" pin headers have never been fixed and thats the way they like it. Essentially, consensus of the many is not a prerequisite.

I guess it seems unfortunate to me to hear this group wanting to pigeon hole these designs and to wrangle this beautiful and chaotic design process into some form of mold that the rest of us are stuck with. Maybe before those here begin creating these artificial constructs for the reprap project, begin first by looking at all of the work that has gone into the open hardware movement in the last 7 years or so and see how that's turned out.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

Lanthan — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 13:06:42 -0500

Buback Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not that interested in 1.4 unless you want to
> use it as a gauge for different design choices by
> the respective companies. Otherwise, that question
> sounds a bit too market-researchy to me. just my
> two cents

I'm not into marketing... all those emerging/struggling/just created companies are an interesting socio-technical phenomenon, anyway.
It is rather what you say first. But that question tests not only the models being offered, also the reputation...
>
> Otherwise it's great and should help us decide
> where to concentrate our efforts.

I'll sleep on it and re-read the whole thing at the end of the week. In the mean time I have added a couple questions about extruding. I hope to find the right balance between rather technical stuff and what appeals to the less technically inclined, since we will be receiving input from everybody and not just the experts.

I hope we do not find us in the same eddy currents as early car marketing research, where everyone wanted a speed bolid, but that was not the car most people actually bought. Need to model the mind of a reprapper/fabber/maker...

I project to run the survey on a server I have the keys, I'll probably ask the people at the institution anyway. Should we ask the Core Team demigods for the permission to use the green teardrop logo - limited to this particular use?

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

Buback — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 11:20:55 -0500

I'm not that interested in 1.4 unless you want to use it as a gauge for different design choices by the respective companies. Otherwise, that question sounds a bit too market-researchy to me. just my two cents

Otherwise it's great and should help us decide where to concentrate our efforts.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

richrap — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:38:21 -0500

I know the feeling.

Maybe we need to thrash out Extruder's soon then, I have built quite a few different types to test and experiment with, for me the most disappointing part is always the hobbed bolt or knurled/grooved/spiked/geared filament drive.

One thing I really want to try is a Hobbed wheel - Say a 60mm diameter disc/pulley hobbed all the way around and an Idler with a number of smaller bearings to push the filament into/around 1/4 of the circumference. Still needs lots of gearing from the motor drive and a good hot-end - Then if it works well the weakest point should be the hot-end and not the drive.

We may also need a quicker way to ramp up and down the power dumped into a hot-end, for slow and fast printing.

I agree, survey what's out there and what problems people have first.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

Lanthan — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 16:35:00 -0500

richrap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Lanthan - I bet your a programmer (:D

Not at all, alas. I'd love to, I get bored to near death in a corner of a normative, uncreative and strategically blocked domain. I do reprap to check if I'm still alive.

> That's a really good start, It gets interesting at
> section 3, and 5.1 made me smile and 5.4 made me
> think... I spend almost all my waking hours
> thinking about RepRap ! (and some of the sleeping
> ones).

This is normal ;) at least, here.

> I think it needs a section on Extruders &
> hot-ends, it would be good to get some feedback on
> what's working for people and what issues are
> still causing problems with extruders and hot-ends
> (lots I bet).

Yeah. This is where I need your expert help, because from my point of vew, the various hotends and pushing systems are pretty much the same, and we seem to have reached a ceiling of extrusion rates.

At the very least, to know how many of them are extruding 3mm, 1.75 mm and the nominal nozzle sizes. Then, if they are using a bowden, an internally geared, a Wade...

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

richrap — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 15:41:05 -0500

@Lanthan - I bet your a programmer (:D

That's a really good start, It gets interesting at section 3, and 5.1 made me smile and 5.4 made me think... I spend almost all my waking hours thinking about RepRap ! (and some of the sleeping ones).

I think it needs a section on Extruders & hot-ends, it would be good to get some feedback on what's working for people and what issues are still causing problems with extruders and hot-ends (lots I bet).

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

Lanthan — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:48:19 -0500

Draft for a reprap survey
=========================
Request for comments submitted to the reprap form
by lanthan lanthanid at gmail dot com

Rationale:
This survey should provide developers and fellow reprappers with fresh information on the current user base, practice and expectations. This might help deciding on priorities setting about design, research, initiatives and reachout.

Privacy: At the closure of the survey, the data set will be made public _stripped of any IP data or aything allowing to trace back the individual answers_ . Data will be in CSV format, with import tags for the R statistical computing environment.

The survey should be announced/advertised at least in
- the reprap forums and lists
- thingiverse
...

By all means this is not finished nor ready. Please comment, add, substract, amend... what would you like to know?
We should aim to keep it short, the response is inversely proportional to the length of surveys.

-----------------------------------
Section 1: Access

1.1 Access to resources
(check all that apply)

- I own a reprap, repstrap or similar contraption
- I have access to a reprap, repstrap or similar
- I own a laser cutter
- I have access to a laser cutter
- I own a CNC router/mill
- I have access to a CNC router/mill
- I own a selective sintering system
- I have access to a selective sintering system
- I own a drill press
- I have access to a drill press

1.2 building and purchases
(check all that apply)

- I am currently building a reprap, repstrap or similar
- I plan to build a reprap, repstrap or similar
- I plan to purchase an assembled 3D printer
- I am currently building a laser cutter
- I plan to build a laser cutter
- I plan to purchase an assembled laser cutter
- I am currently building a CNC router/mill
- I plan to build a CNC router/mill
- I plan to buy an assembled CNC router/mill
- I am currently building a selective sintering system
- I plan to build a selective sintering system
- I plan to buy an assembled selective sintering system

1.3 Preferences in case of a build (reprap, repstrap or similar).
(check one)

- Self-sourcing and making
- Print parts at a friend or organization (non-commercial/barter)
- Buy parts online
- Buy a full kit (unassembled)
- Buy a full kit (fully assembled)

1.4 If buying a full kit, which is your first choice for a provider:
(check one)

- Makerbot
- Mendel-parts (Orca or Mendel)
- eMaker
- reprapPro Huxley
- GRRF
- Makergear (Mosaic)
- Makergear (Mendel)
- Botmill
- LulzBot
- Ultimaker
- TechZone
- SeeMeCNC
- Romscraj
- 3Dstuffmaker
- Ac123dc
- Thefutureis3d
- Kent's strapper
- SKB-Kiparis
- A2APrinter
- FlemingCNC
- MixShop
- Open-hard-und-soft

Note to all: should we include the upcoming kit sources (Buback, Kludgineer, Nophead... ? Feedback PLZ)

1.5 My budget for getting printing is:

(int) (what units should we use: euros, USD, Yuans, F-coins?)

---------------------------------
Section 2: My current devices and uses

2.1 I estimate I print

(int)

_meters_ of filament per month

2.2. I use my devices for
(check all that apply)

- Hobby (entertainment, mashups)
- Hobby (crafts, utilitary, machine parts)
- Business (self developed)
- Business (employee)
- Business (Artistic creation)

--------------------------------
Section 3: My priorities

3.1 I rank the following concerns about my next reprap:
(to be implemented with a single ranking scale OR several 10 point Likert scales)

- easy to source locally
- easy to build with simple tools
- availability of a full kit
- designed for low cost
- designed for high precision
- designed for high speed
- capability to print support
- capability to extrude multiple (>2) colors
- availability of community support
- availability of dedicated commercial support
- compatibility with pe-existing hardware I own
- good documentation
- compliance with standards and best practices

What other aspects seem important according to you

(long text field)

3.3 If fresh resources were available to the whole reprap domain, I think they should be affected primarily to:
(to be decided: check one or rank)

- the development of selective sintering systems (including metallicarap)
- the scaling up of extruding systems (concrete, etc)
- the development of multi-color / multi-material capable extruders
- The development of a plastic recycling system
- the development and standardization of a modular, universal frame and drive systems
- The development of closed loop linear positioning systems
- The improvement of the electronic subsystems
- reachout initiatives to implicate more educational institutions
- streamlining relations with business & industrial partners
- improvement of the documentary resources (wiki etc)
- reachout initiatives with technology transfer & fablab networks
- reachout initiatives with reycling and durable development concerns

other: (long text field)

3.4 My material of choice for a frame is:
(check one)

- threaded rod (<8 mm)
- threaded rod (8mm)
- threaded rod (>8 mm)
- aluminium T-slot (20mm)
- aluminium T-slot (30 mm)
- aluminium T-slot (>30 mm)
- aluminium L profiles
- welded iron profiles
- MDF (mendel90)
- plywood (makerbot, ultimaker etc.)
- acrylic (mendel90, Prusa Air etc.)
- Other (text field)

3.5 My preferred choice for the slide system:

- bearings (a la Selis Mendel)
- sleeve bearings (LM8UU and smaller)
- sleeve bearings (LM10UU and larger)
- Bushings, bronze
- Bushings, plastic
- Busings, printed
- linear sliders (a la Mosaic)
- other (text)

3.6 My preferred solution for the X & Y drive system

- belts (T5 and similar tooth size)
- belts (T2, T2.5 and similar tooth size)
- rack and pinion
- acme threaded rod and similar w/Delrin nuts

3.6 My preferred solution for the Z drive system

- M8 threaded rod
- acme threaded rod and similar w/Delrin nuts

3.7 My preferred print area is

- smaller than 200x200 mm
- 200x200 mm
- larger than 200x200 mm

--------------------------------
Section 5: About self

5.1 I am a:

- male
- female
- sentient printer
- cat

(check one)

5.2 Year of birth

(int)

5.3 What best describes my main professional activity:
(check one)

- self-employed
- administration and services (private sector)
- administration and services ( public sector)
- technology, engineering
- agriculture
- publishing and media
- banking and finance
- teaching, educational (primary / secundary)
- teaching, educational (university / tech institute / high school)
- no professional activity (unemployed)
- no professional activity (student)
- no professional activity (pensioner)

5.4 I spend

(int) hours per week

making and dealing with reprapping concerns

5.5 I have been interested with reprapping for

... months

5.6 I first discovered reprap from:
* Internet search
* A blog or forum
* An article (e-zine, journal...)
* A friend
* School
* Other:

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

nophead — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:02:10 -0500

The problem is the optimum axis arrangement changes at about the 200 x 200 size. Above that you probably want moving head like Ultimaker and below moving table. At 200mm there isn't much difference so a combination of both works as well and is simpler, hence Mendel.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

Buback — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 13:43:50 -0500

I've been thinking about some of the ways we can define different spec machines, and how those definitions will help us define dimensions/constraints.

I imagine a small machine should be lowest cost/ least experience, while a large machine should be highest quality/ most advanced.

With FDM i think there is an approximate maximum single part size. I know there are lots of factors, but if you consider that there is a size above which you don't want to go just because of the risk of warping, and the cost of time and plastic involved, that is a functional maximum size. A general purpose spec for the high end machine shouldn't go larger than that since it will increase machine cost for little (general purpose) benifit. I would hazard a guess that that's probably around 300 mm^3 (as a best case maximum). and since even a Mendel should have larger diameter smooth rods, maybe 12mm rods as standard. (a quick search makes me believe linear bushings at 12mm are cheaper than 10mm)

On the other end of the scale, the smallest machine should use as many recyclable parts as possible. If you can get your hands on laser printer toner or drum cartridges, you can usually find some smooth rods in them. They probably won't be longer than a piece of paper is wide, so maybe around 250mm. There's a particular Brother cartridge that i've found that has 8mm 250mm rods in it that I've been collecting for use at some point. you won't get much travel on such short rods, so they will help define the bed area.
A small machine should also have a somewhat defined upgrade path, so part-reusability should be a consideration. maybe stick with NEMA 17 for all machines, and the same pulleys for all machines.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

nophead — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 09:47:21 -0500

I don't use Marlin and the extruder is my limiting factor on speed. I can't get more than 40mm/s out of a Wade's with a 0.4mm nozzle and ABS. That will be something I concentrate on soon when I finish work.

No machines vibrate more than HydraRaptor throwing 8Kg around but after years of that there is no sign of the MDF turning back into dust. I should really seal my machines but I always forget and then haven't the patience to strip them down again and rebuild them.

I have yet to find a metal pulley I can buy that doesn't need a lathe to bore it out.

Re: Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

Lanthan — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 08:49:31 -0500

@Richrap:

Yes indeed I do not feel limited in upgradeability with the current Mendel frame. Especially if the addons are "clamp on" rather than "rod thru".
(noticed a a trend among the finer kits being proposed to revert to the old clamping system that provides a larger area of contact)
Most of the "improve precision" can be proposed as addons.
I see the same ecology perpetuating in the mendel90 - be it MDF or acrylic-
MDF should be stabilized anyway, not only because of atmospheric variations, but because repeated vibrations tend to turn it back to the primal sawdust. Two solutions, alkydic paint & varnish (on the cheap side), epoxy (on the higher priced side). An epoxy-stabilized frame becomes almost as immortal as HeLa cancer cells. ;)

Speed: with improved speeds (Marlin...all hail the wonderful Marlin...) our main hobbed-bolt-powered extruding system (direct drive, internally or eternally geared: all very close variations of the same stuff) is showing signs of being the limiting element. The switch to 1.75 mm filament might be part of the response, now that many sources are proposing the thinner filament at the same price (per weight) as the 3 mm one.
Let us keep in mind that high speeds need also high quality (so more expensive) filament, lest starting to love mauling gaps in the infill.

Electronics: Pololus/RAMPS/Arduino as well as Gen7 are clear winners as compared to the previous -unsatisfactory and pricey- situation. They might still be the main staple for a year or more. I do not see any definite advantage given by a more oomphy controller until we sort out the extruder(s) bottleneck. Standalone is not a main concern now that discarded good pcs are everywhere in the thrashbins. Each one of those can simultaneously drive 2, maybe 4 or 6 pinters. Better compatibility of existing host software with X11 distant sessions might be a plus for controlling things through ethernet.

Printing area: don't know about printrbot, but makerbot has still a smallish printing area. The thinking line is, "reduce print area to keep costs low and the frame light" but it doesn't feel comfy after tasting the 200x200 area
The easiest to scale up would be Y with a mendel90 topology, and the lowest axis in a makerbot/superposed XY topology. With the current specs, maybe slightly wider belts, it would not be a major problem to go to 250x300 mm

One definite advantage of a reference design (even if there are many, many variations) is to send a clear signal to the market upstram: Metal pulleys used to be expensive and hard to source (at least in the part of the world I write from), when the specs settled new offers emerged. This makes a significant difference for any would-be builders.