Prusa i3 Where Are You?

Video Of Prusa i3



I have found it very difficult to follow the development of the Prusa printer.

It took me a while to really realize that there was an official version 2 in the wild; and now videos of Joseph Prusa and his Prusa i3 are surfacing.

Why is there no mention or separation of these versions (that I can find at least) on the RepRap wiki?

Is i3 available to print now?

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/02/2012 11:56PM by Idolcrasher.

Looks Mendel90sh, bukobotish, printerbotish to me. Proof positive of Medel90's sturdy design (+ easier to get parts).

How thick is that machined aluminum plate? looks like at least 1/4"

What sort of motor couplers are those?! Very interested.

royco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Looks Mendel90sh, bukobotish, printerbotish to me.
> Proof positive of Medel90's sturdy design (+
> easier to get parts).
>
> How thick is that machined aluminum plate? looks
> like at least 1/4"


Yeah

That has been the gut reaction I have heard from a few folks now.

Have no idea about the machining.

I am sure someone will want to punch me in the mouth for saying this... But the Prusa Mendel's development is not well documented.

Last time I grabbed everything from the Prusa Mendel V2 GitHub (a month ago) I was not able to sort out the changes. The instruction manual seemed to be barely started too.

It looks like we are straight into iteration 3 (i3) without V2 even being completely sorted out...

Did Prusa dump the V2 design due to Mendel90 inspiration?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2012 03:46AM by Idolcrasher.

Pazu Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What sort of motor couplers are those?! Very
> interested.


Yeah. Is that heat shrink being used as a coupler? I can't tell what it is.

... heat shrink isn't stable enough - I've used hydraulic tubes with slightly smaller ID - look here for some images: [forums.reprap.org]

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

Idolcrasher - V2 has been around since last year and I found it quite clear to print from github. The announcement was on the RepRap blog here:

[blog.reprap.org]

Since its release I've barely seen anyone selling parts for the original Prusa.

The RepRap wiki is useless, I've seen people complaining about it for years but the advice is to always fix it yourself, which is obviously no small task! The only way to keep track is to use IRC or perhaps the developers mailing list.

I hope i3 makes some nice changes of its own, right now it looks like a mish-mash of this years popular printers, which I guess is not a bad thing.

Quote

The RepRap wiki is useless, I've seen people complaining about it for years but the advice is to always fix it yourself, which is obviously no small task!

Writing in the wiki is as simple as posting here. You have to find a better excuse

Regarding the i3, I fear it has the same design mistake as the PrintrBot: a hinge-like connection, in this case between Y axis and the X frame. An issue which can be solved, though. For example, by clamping the Y axis to the table.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Hi Traumflug,
Can you clarify what you view as the design weakness? I'm interested to understand your statement more clearly. I can see how the Printrbot design could be said to have a weak Y, with it's unsupported Y-rod, but the i3 Y-rod has the benefit of the vertical plate to support it, which in turn is held vertically by the z-motor mounts and motors and the horizontal threaded rods bolted through it. Securing it to a base board would indeed add further rigidity.
What do you mean by 'a hinge-like connection'?
Thanks.

Traumflug Wrote:
>
> Regarding the i3, I fear it has the same design
> mistake as the PrintrBot: a hinge-like connection,
> in this case between Y axis and the X frame. An
> issue which can be solved, though. For example, by
> clamping the Y axis to the table.

---

[numbersixreprap.blogspot.com]

Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The RepRap wiki is useless, I've seen people
> complaining about it for years but the advice is
> to always fix it yourself, which is obviously no
> small task!
>
> Writing in the wiki is as simple as posting here.
> You have to find a better excuse
>
> Regarding the i3, I fear it has the same design
> mistake as the PrintrBot: a hinge-like connection,
> in this case between Y axis and the X frame. An
> issue which can be solved, though. For example, by
> clamping the Y axis to the table.
I am involved with Wikipedia and LOTRO's plus DDO's Wiki and changing/updating the wiki is not as easy as writing on here (special codes of the modern wiki I still don't understand as I am still used to the older wiki format codes) but is easy overall.

IMHO The RepRap Wiki and RepRapsite are in need of some pretty serious modernization. The strength of the community depends on how well we can communicate here. Not sure how to make that happen; but I could envision something like a kickstarter raising funds to hire/contract that effort.

With regard to updating the Wiki; I understand that anyone can write there, but the average RepRapper is probably not bold enough to just bust in and start chronicling the development of the Prusa printer... We wern't there.

Considering that the Prusa Mendel is branded the "Model T" of RepRap printers, I would expect a pretty intense breakdown of its development...

But hey; I expect delta bot style printers to "railroad" the Prusa design anyway

As far as I can tell, the design process of i3 (and really most printers) is not public nor is every little thing continuously documented because it's in rapid development, and doing that would only slow the process down. The slowdown would come less from the time to document, and more from the constant nagging from everybody about when it's finished. ^_^

Relax, guys. Prusa i3 is done when it's done. Rushing it helps nobody at all. Meanwhile you can build a Sturdy Mendel90 if you want a solid workhorse or a Rostock if you want to experiment.

The couplings are, afaik, PVC tube like we use in nopheads Prusa coupling, but since the leadscrew is smaller there's no need for the printed parts, and zip ties will do.

---

--
-Nudel
Blog with RepRap Comic

Idolcrasher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> IMHO The RepRap Wiki and RepRapsite are in need of
> some pretty serious modernization. The strength
> of the community depends on how well we can
> communicate here. Not sure how to make that
> happen; but I could envision something like a
> kickstarter raising funds to hire/contract that
> effort.
>
> With regard to updating the Wiki; I understand
> that anyone can write there, but the average
> RepRapper is probably not bold enough to just bust
> in and start chronicling the development of the
> Prusa printer... We wern't there.
>
> Considering that the Prusa Mendel is branded the
> "Model T" of RepRap printers, I would expect a
> pretty intense breakdown of its development...
>
> But hey; I expect delta bot style printers to
> "railroad" the Prusa design anyway

We will see but I am not holding my breath.

Now there is one thing that I hate about Wiki which is also its greatest strength (That which makes you may also break you- Mr. Rhythm, D.C. Cab) and that is people can just mess up everything you wrote. I have been updating wikis for many games in the past and even the Wikipedia but when I started updating DDO's wiki every single time I did it (within minutes sometimes) the same person would change it and sometimes change it with wrong info that I know was wrong 100% after in game testing. Was almost like he had a vendetta on any section he had touched (mine, mine all mine syndrome). so I stopped updating the Wiki pretty much and all thanks to one person.

OT, but to answer previous comments...

I am putting together a Prusa V2 including Greg's Wade Guidler, Hyena hobbed bolt, GT2 belts & pulleys, LM8UU bearings, and Jhead V-B.

Firstly, could not find the relevant thread for the Prusa - asked for a seperate Prusa thread or change Mendel to Mendel & Prusa (done).

While not everything is documented and certainly not in one place, this link
[docs.google.com]
helped. Most of the changes from V1 are fairly straight forward. I have not even needed to ask the supplier of the kit - I found most of my own vitamins.

The difficult parts...
1. The 608 bearing covers were together and I didn't realise they pulled apart to insert the bearing.
2. The idler wheel for the X axis - need smaller OD washers to space the bearing from the plate.
3. The belt fasteners on the X axis are a little confusing.
4. Vitamins list is not accurate so some of my nuts/screws/washers are not correct meaning more trips to the shop (30km away)

I am not finished yet (need more time)

I did not know the scad files were released for Prusa i3
[github.com]

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/05/2012 09:16PM by peddiparth.

As far I was aware Prusa just took all the best mods then integrated them into one design.

As much as I love the Mendel90 design, I think it moves away too much from the RepRap concept as the backplate increases the volume of non-printable's on the machine.
Especially if you look at i2 vs i3.

Still its one to watch.

---

My Reprap blog

jds-reprap.blogspot.com

JoeDaStudd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As much as I love the Mendel90 design, I think it
> moves away too much from the RepRap concept as the
> backplate increases the volume of non-printable's
> on the machine.

I personally think that it actually moves closer to the RepRap concept, as the sheets are generally more available than threaded rod. Especially since you can use just about any stiff sheet material: acrylic, wood, plywood, mdf, aluminum, dibond, abs, PE, etc.

---

Help improve the RepRap wiki! Just click "Edit" in the top-right corner of the page and start typing. Anyone can edit the wiki!

NewPerfection Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JoeDaStudd Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > As much as I love the Mendel90 design, I think
> it
> > moves away too much from the RepRap concept as
> the
> > backplate increases the volume of
> non-printable's
> > on the machine.
>
> I personally think that it actually moves closer
> to the RepRap concept, as the sheets are generally
> more available than threaded rod. Especially
> since you can use just about any stiff sheet
> material: acrylic, wood, plywood, mdf, aluminum,
> dibond, abs, PE, etc.
I personally like what I saw of the Mendel 90 but he is right in the purest sense but only what we have now. What Adrian envision is that one day a RepRap will be able to completely make another RepRap (think Skynet in the Terminator movies) and even the Mendel 90 could be done like that. That MDF could be replaced with a sheet of plastic that was printed via another RepRap machine but that RepRap (all RepRaps imo) needs to move into a bigger layout. This puny 200mmx200mm or 300mmx300mm is not going to cut it. 900mmx900mm and beyond is what we need to make this truly viable, imo, because what we have now is simply a toy.

Dark Alchemist Wrote:
> This puny 200mmx200mm or
> 300mmx300mm is not going to cut it. 900mmx900mm
> and beyond is what we need to make this truly
> viable, imo, because what we have now is simply a
> toy.

My "toy" makes useful things on a regular basis.

And a 1m+ cube reprap sounds like it belongs in your office next to the computer. No, no it doesn't. What other machine in your house is that size? The washer, dryer, stove and fridge. But the utility of those machines far outpace that of a reprap. When was the last time you needed to print something >=900mm^3? And how much filament would that take, let alone time and energy poured into the print. And what if is wrong? The costs involved with printing on that scale are very high. Couple that with the print failure rate and the supa-size reprap a moot point.

There is a sweet spot for sure, but I don't think we've struck on it just yet...

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

A standard RepRap we have now is pretty, shiny, makes little items but when you need the real stuff you are still stuck going back to the man. Hell, a RepRap can never ever 100% repro itself if it remains as small as it is now. How in the hell would you print a screw for the X, Y, Z? Glue it? Not a good idea. Dove tail them together and then glue it? Still not a good idea.

Really, until we have larger printing surfaces and more accuracy than what the programs give now Adrian's dream can never be. It is as simple as the laws of nature. Sure, you are afraid if something goes wrong, yada yada but that was part of my point because that fear, at its very core, shows that RepRap is a toy. Sure the toy can make nice things but it needs to advance, along with the software, and think larger than something that is relegated to making knick-knacks and whatnots if it is to really be a valuable tool/asset.

I think if your ascertion were true, then the bulk of parts I printed would be a significant portion of the 200x200 bed I have and they simply aren't.
I doubt most use much more that 20% of it, hell a 5x5 print area would cover almost everything I do with it.
Lets look at my other "toy" a 1000+lb CNC mill the best that can do is an envelope of 200x~350, and I rarely run into the size limitation on that.

I'd love a laser cutter in the 2x4ft range, because it would be useful, I'm not sure a 3DPrinter in that size would be.

Justifying an envelope of 900x900 to me means demonstrating it's actually useful, what exactly do you want to print on your 900x900 3D printer?

@polygonhell,

the print area could most likely be justifed, the print area 900X900X900 or better yet 1000mm cubed would be very useful, things like entire computer cases, chairs, modular water tanks I'd probably be able to drum up enough work for it to keep one busy for weeks, a build size even bigger really opens up the doors to some more interesting stuff , bed tables parts of houses,

although it would be nice to scale everything up, i'd probably scale up the nozzle size as well to maybe a full 1mm,
printing in abs would be interesting so i imagine either objects would have to be fairly low on the infill or printed in another material,

it's really more a cost/kg in material that is the issue, when the cost of filament either goes down even further or a granule extruder that you can print with become a reality they bigger build sizes will most likely be on the table

I guess that's part of my point, I can see printing all of those things, but not with current print times, material costs and without someway to deal with shrinkage.

Also just because I can't print a chair doesn't make a 200x200 printer a toy, a lot of big machine tools have working areas no bigger, and that doesn't turn them into toys, nor does it make them useless.

I have to admit when I started building my first printer I immediately designed a 300x300 printer, because I felt the work envelope was so restrictive, having actually used a printer to print mostly functional parts I have a different perspective and my current printer designs are all based on the 200x200 footprint.

thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @polygonhell,
>
> the print area could most likely be justifed, the
> print area 900X900X900 or better yet 1000mm cubed
> would be very useful, things like entire computer
> cases, chairs, modular water tanks I'd probably be
> able to drum up enough work for it to keep one
> busy for weeks, a build size even bigger really
> opens up the doors to some more interesting stuff
> , bed tables parts of houses,
>
> although it would be nice to scale everything up,
> i'd probably scale up the nozzle size as well to
> maybe a full 1mm,
> printing in abs would be interesting so i imagine
> either objects would have to be fairly low on the
> infill or printed in another material,
>
> it's really more a cost/kg in material that is the
> issue, when the cost of filament either goes down
> even further or a granule extruder that you can
> print with become a reality they bigger build
> sizes will most likely be on the table
Exactly.

I think of things that could be, and should be, while others only think what is now.

How about I print a plastic brick to make a house? What happens when my TV (which the older TVs were 3m squared easily) has break in the plastic? RepRap will sit idle in the corner that's what. What if I want to print a keyboard cause mine cracked? Yep, RepRap in the corner. How about printing a nice Acrylic fish tank? Nope, RepRap is still in the corner.

Once the machine can get larger, not saying everyone will grab one but 3m squared is nothing when you think of what we used to have in our homes and how big they were, only then can the dreams of breaking free from the corporations become a closer reality. Btw, a 1950's-1960's 25" TV was so big that people use them as decorations and fish tanks these days BUT not a soul said OMG, it is too big when they were out (almost every American household had one by the mid 1960's in their living room).

Think outside the box and think what could be not what is.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/06/2012 07:44PM by Dark Alchemist.

Polygonhell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess that's part of my point, I can see
> printing all of those things, but not with current
> print times, material costs and without someway to
> deal with shrinkage.
>
> Also just because I can't print a chair doesn't
> make a 200x200 printer a toy, a lot of big machine
> tools have working areas no bigger, and that
> doesn't turn them into toys, nor does it make them
> useless.
>
> I have to admit when I started building my first
> printer I immediately designed a 300x300 printer,
> because I felt the work envelope was so
> restrictive, having actually used a printer to
> print mostly functional parts I have a different
> perspective and my current printer designs are all
> based on the 200x200 footprint.

Do you know that something I was designing I ceased to work on because, in part, it was EXACTLY 200mm in one direction. I can't help it if that is how they are made as it was a reproduction of an actual item. Yes, I am into making actual items that people can print because my goal is to eliminate the corporations as quickly as I can. I know it will never happen but it is my goal because if you eliminate the corporations when you need a part you just eliminated a huge infrastructure that dates back to the 1800's and that is a structure that needs to go. My goal is to one day have a RepRap, or something, produce items where we no longer need anything but the raw material like a Star-Trek replicator. Start with a RepRap and grow from there changing the paradigm and status quo we have had for centuries.

Thats just means you have to design some way to make it fit. If you truly want it you can make it fit and work.

You can build the parts up from smaller aseemblies, it may not be ideal but if you want the reprap to print itself, there are going to be parts that you will have to segment. Maybe we need to origami some parts and figure out some new beautiful tricks but You aren't going to solve the problems by making bigger printers that you won't have with smaller images.

baslisks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thats just means you have to design some way to
> make it fit. If you truly want it you can make it
> fit and work.
>
> You can build the parts up from smaller
> aseemblies, it may not be ideal but if you want
> the reprap to print itself, there are going to be
> parts that you will have to segment. Maybe we need
> to origami some parts and figure out some new
> beautiful tricks but You aren't going to solve the
> problems by making bigger printers that you won't
> have with smaller images.

I disagree 100% and there is no way I want a piece that looks like crapola because it was done in pieces nor would I trust a brick (in my previous example) being segmented and stuck back together.

The part can look fine if you do it in pieces.

here is skimbal's portfolio on thingiverse.

[www.thingiverse.com]

those are multipart pieces that look wonderful and are usually larger than the build volume when completed.

I have seen other people print and assemble his work and they still look pretty damn good so it isn't so voodoo that he do but just good model design.

The structural integreity of a shape that is printed in pieces may be more so than one than it is one piece if you use different kinds of binding methods.

I think it would be cool if you have to screw something to gether and drop some super glue or doped acetone down the center of the bolt and it chemically welds itself to the other object.

These are just random ideas that I have had just thinking about it for a moment. I am well aware of the limitations, I have a cupcake from 2008 I have been using and finally got enough cash I scraped together to get a prusa going. My only real limits are 45 degree over hangs and again thats just tweaking and moving.

Well, when I mentioned the looks I was thinking about a keyboard for instance or a TV plastic piece. Now I know when I see something glued together I can't stand that look as it looks ugly to me. The only exception to that is an Acrylic tank because the glue is only in the four corners and I know it has to be stuck together somehow but for a RepRap it could be made as one piece if only....

You design the thing so the seams are a feature of the object and not a distraction.

Course it is awesome to build big things but we can achieve so much with the small.

Plus, who cares what your printer looks like as long as it works well?