Collaboration, copyleft for hardware

Let's face it: currently RepRappers don't really collaborate. We start from scratch over and over again, thousands of times so far. No surprise, design mistakes are also made over and over again.

Open Source software has no such strong tendency. They reasonably agree on a common concept and improve this incrementally. Much less work, superior result.

Here's an interesting reading on why this doesn't happen so far with hardware, from the CERN OHL mailing list:

Quote

Success of copyleft in hardware is linked to the same factors as in
software, the most important of which is the existence of high-quality
non-trivial projects where it makes more sense to modify than to start
all over.

The GNU project not only gave the world the GPL but also a range of
tools and libraries which were the embryo of a complete software system.
So far I see no equivalent in the hardware world. Opencores.org is the
one that comes closest in the *gateware* world but the degree of quality
and usefulness of the cores hosted there varies widely.

We have seen copyleft work in some of our hardware designs in ohwr.org.
So it can work.

Is it possibly that it just looks like designing a printer is simple? Those who tried likely know it's not. It requires quite some engineering and experience to design a printer which actually works well. Frame stiffness vs. acceleration forces, speed vs. accuracy, speed vs. extruder capabilities, etc. etc.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

I disagree open source software has no such tendency. The hundreds of linux flavors out there tend to disagree with that statement. We collaborate and share our findings. Some good practices get adopted some not so good do as well.

We have different printer types and goals. Each of us contributes in one way or another. My particular flavor is delta, I find them fascinating, and decided to build one. With my own thought process. Some of my thoughts may get adopted, some not. Remember each flavor printer and sub flavor have different design goals.

I do agree we need to find standards. One of my biggest gripes is having different sized filament spools. Why not settle on a 90mm core or something similar?

The other big gripe like you is torsional strength of the majority of the printers out there is laughable. However its up to the builder to improve it.

---

My Personal Blog. Build blog.
[engineerd3d.ddns.net]

Modicum V1 sold on e-bay user jaguarking11

Quote
jaguarking11
The hundreds of linux flavors out there tend to disagree with that statement.

It's entirely true that there are many distributions, but there is only one kernel, only two C compilers, only 2 or 3 desktop environments, only a small number of shells, ... seen as such, distributions are just remixes of the same. Nobody would start a new compiler just because a new chip architecture came to the market. Instead, existing ones are improved.

Quote
jaguarking11
We collaborate and share our findings.

Uhm, where? There's no repository, no bug reporter, not even a single official RepRap printer model. Forum is full of fixing chinese counterfeits instructions and wiki is full of advertising for commercial printers.

Sounds gloomy? That's why we can learn :-)

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

I think open sourcing of hardware is a little different from software because everyone starts with different capabilities, budgets, shop tools, etc. A lot of what I see here is people doing what they can rather than what they might really want to be doing (e.g. Berrybot). However, even though I've designed a bunch of printers wildly different from any "standard" reprap models, I've learned a ton of useful information from what other people have done and made open source. Sometimes even just knowing that something is possible (e.g. 0.05mm layer printing) is hugely helpful.

Quote
Traumflug

Quote
jaguarking11
The hundreds of linux flavors out there tend to disagree with that statement.

It's entirely true that there are many distributions, but there is only one kernel, only two C compilers, only 2 or 3 desktop environments, only a small number of shells, ... seen as such, distributions are just remixes of the same. Nobody would start a new compiler just because a new chip architecture came to the market. Instead, existing ones are improved.

Quote
jaguarking11
We collaborate and share our findings.

Uhm, where? There's no repository, no bug reporter, not even a single official RepRap printer model. Forum is full of fixing chinese counterfeits instructions and wiki is full of advertising for commercial printers.

Sounds gloomy? That's why we can learn :-)

If you search github, there are a bunch of hardware files out there. Including everyone's favorite ramps board.

As for there only being one kernel? Are you absolutely sure? Oracle has their own version of the linux kernel. Although its based on redhat/centos binaries. A bunch of other distros have compiled their own kernel with modifications. Not all of those modifications fully documented either. I am in no way knocking linux, but open source is just that open, everyone is free to modify as they see fit. As a matter of fact I earn a living due to my linux/unix skills.....

As for the forum being full of fixing chinese counterfit parts.... Let me put it this way, the reson those parts exist is because the hardware is open source. Some are better produced some are not. However calling them counterfit is a bit harsh. You certainly get what you pay for, but not always. 3d Printers have become very acessible to people when they realise they can get all the electronic parts for ~150USD + some hardware store parts + some scrounging.

We all see this in a different manner, I agree that the documentation is hard to pin down, its hard to navigate and sometimes inacurate. Same goes with the source files. A central repository on github with a reprap trunk would be wonderful.

---

My Personal Blog. Build blog.
[engineerd3d.ddns.net]

Modicum V1 sold on e-bay user jaguarking11

A counterfeit product is one that clams to be something it isn't. This would specifically include Arduino boards that use the Arduino trademark, logos, etc with the intent being the user thinks it's an Arduino product. A clone or open source derivative like an iduino or Funduino is made from the open source parts of the design as is the concept of open source. It's not counterfeit just another variant of the hardware. IOW, what open source is supposed to be.

I'd argue that Reprap builders do indeed collaborate just not in the same manner that software devs collaborate. Reprap collaboration is through iteration of the designs. For example going from Jo's vanilla i3 single plate to the Rework to the Hephestos. Hardware isn't software and requires different skills, tools and sensibilities.

Quote
Traumflug
but there is only one kernel, only two C compilers, only 2 or 3 desktop environments, only a small number of shells, ...

No, there's not one kernel. There's one LINUX kernel. There's OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Mach, OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana...

No there isn't just two C compilers. There a bunch even if you only look at open source. GCC just happens to be the biggest.

No there isn't 2 or 3 desktop enviroments. There may be 2 or 3 popular ones, but there are others that aren't just simply forks with a little tweaking.

As for shells, there's the original sh, Almquist shell (ash, used by *BSD and derivitives), Bourne Shell, Bourne-again shell (bash), Korn Shell, C Shell, BusyBox (if you want to stretch a bit what a shell is/does)

I see the open source software ecosystem a lot like the reprap ecosystem. For each category there are a a couple of major players or designs, but there are many not-as-popular designs that exist and there's nothing wrong with that. Sure collaboration between everyone would be great, but sometimes there are just philosophical differences between projects that aren't conducive for widespread collaboration. Why did you create the Gen 7 electronics instead of making an "incremental improvement" to say RAMPS?

Quote
cdru

Quote
Traumflug
but there is only one kernel, only two C compilers, only 2 or 3 desktop environments, only a small number of shells, ...

No, there's not one kernel. There's one LINUX kernel. There's OpenBSD, FreeBSD, Mach, OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana...

No there isn't just two C compilers. There a bunch even if you only look at open source. GCC just happens to be the biggest.

No there isn't 2 or 3 desktop enviroments. There may be 2 or 3 popular ones, but there are others that aren't just simply forks with a little tweaking.

As for shells, there's the original sh, Almquist shell (ash, used by *BSD and derivitives), Bourne Shell, Bourne-again shell (bash), Korn Shell, C Shell, BusyBox (if you want to stretch a bit what a shell is/does)

I see the open source software ecosystem a lot like the reprap ecosystem. For each category there are a a couple of major players or designs, but there are many not-as-popular designs that exist and there's nothing wrong with that. Sure collaboration between everyone would be great, but sometimes there are just philosophical differences between projects that aren't conducive for widespread collaboration. Why did you create the Gen 7 electronics instead of making an "incremental improvement" to say RAMPS?

FYI openindiana/opensolaris is dead in the water. Its been forked and left to die a slow painful death. You also forget nexenta core in there. I did not want to elaborate as much as you just did, but it rings true. There is a method to the chaos. Working with developers of any level is like herding cats..... The thing is in these forums there are a bunch of devs, in many levels. If you simply bought a kit and did not modify yourself then your basically a user. But any modification is development work, you can choose to share or not.

Like I said before, I agree with the OP to a certain degree. We need centralized repos where people can contribute. The problem is that those repos need to contain everything from software to hardware design and specs, to mechanical designs and specs. With rights for any user to fork off those main repos. This way we can have a stream of development being done while still benefiting from upstream development. At least my thoughts on the subject. The real design of a centralized repo should be capable of handling, and displaying STL's as well as cad design and pictures while still managing to read source code. I believe this will go into that direction eventually. However as of right now, people want to capitalize on their research and development so they open source designs to some degree while others don't...

I am looking at designing a central repo for my own tweaks and designs. Posting parts on thingiverse etc etc is not exactly my cup of tea.

---

My Personal Blog. Build blog.
[engineerd3d.ddns.net]

Modicum V1 sold on e-bay user jaguarking11

Quote
jaguarking11

Like I said before, I agree with the OP to a certain degree. We need centralized repos where people can contribute. The problem is that those repos need to contain everything from software to hardware design and specs, to mechanical designs and specs. With rights for any user to fork off those main repos. This way we can have a stream of development being done while still benefiting from upstream development. At least my thoughts on the subject. The real design of a centralized repo should be capable of handling, and displaying STL's as well as cad design and pictures while still managing to read source code. I believe this will go into that direction eventually. However as of right now, people want to capitalize on their research and development so they open source designs to some degree while others don't...

I am looking at designing a central repo for my own tweaks and designs. Posting parts on thingiverse etc etc is not exactly my cup of tea.

OpenBuilds is the sort of repo you mention in your post. There are some others as well. Open hardware is still pretty new and it's a great deal more than 3D printers. Hardware developers don't work in the same way software developers work. That's why tools like GitHub aren't the best choices. When one is writing software the source is human readable. Not so with design projects and to add to that there are a myriad of different design programs, formats and methodologies. The toolset and workflow is considerably different as is the approach. At the enthusiast level there is more experimentation with iterating the hardware rather than documenting and modeling it.

Another difference is how projects work. They are mostly one person shows or a close team of a few people. They don't work in a contributor model like software. With software the devs can each build whatever changes are made with a complier. With hardware you have to bulld the part eventually. Modeling only isn't enough and until you prototype a round or two it may not be clear that the design will work. For printed parts doing it remotely isn't too bad but not all the structures are printed. The mechanical parts and electronics are among the most difficult to remotely design and prototype. You need to be designing near where you are prototyping.

Then there is the issue of change tracking and deciding who gets to commit. With software source control knowing the diffs between the files are and can more or less easily roll back if need be. For hardware designs that is handled with a vault type workflow which works differently from a pull request/commit workflow. In hardware the concept of collaboration is different in that if you see something you want to change you typically fork it and go your own way. Many of the devs aren't particularly interested in making the design process a community effort. Defects though are approached my like the way bigs in software are approached though many have no formal methodolgy to track them though some use the issue tracking in Github.

Most that are involved in the open hardware movement are builders and hardware hackers and aren't devs per se though do development primarily for their own reasons. Hardware is different and needs to be approached differently. These are basiclly small CNC machine tools and as such the workflow for not only the development of the tool but also the use of the tool is considerably different than it is for software. I see a larger issue being lack of documentation and a tool chain at times that can be fragmented and has the potential for a more cohesive user experience. Colaboration needs to happen organically. It's not something that can be foisted upon developers. I would add that it's not the groupwork toolset that is the cause of people not collaborating. It's that they don't want to and a best of breed toolset isn't going to change that. It's got to come from the people.

Quote
vegasloki
Another difference is how projects work. They are mostly one person shows or a close team of a few people. They don't work in a contributor model like software.

Actually, that's not a god-given, but a major part of the problem and needs tackling.

If you remember how open source software started, you might also remember that in the early years of computing, software was more or less free. Source code was handed out liberally if you asked for it or it came as part of the manual. Then companies discovered ways to earn money not only with hardware, but also with software. Closed source software was born, it followed natural behaviour of programmers and their employers. One doesn't have to stretch too much to see the similar patterns in today's RepRap hardware.

This development did upset Richard Stallman enough to make him think on how to re-gain freedom. One fundamental conclusion was (and still is), accepting natural behaviour as unchangeable fact doesn't work out. As we all know, he came along with a pretty complex set of rules, a set which we today know as GPL. This wasn't popular at all back then, 99% software developers just laughed. But after many years with RMS' long breath, it started to succeed.

Now, I'm not aiming for me or anybody else to become RMS II. But I'm pretty sure that accepting developers' natural behaviour as an unchangeable law of nature works just as bad as it did with software development. To get Open Hardware out of the toy status, we need rules. There have to be advantages for those following the rules over them who don't. Big classics of such advantages are contributions. Trying to get away without contributions is pointless, a way has to be found to make them work.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
Traumflug
Now, I'm not aiming for me or anybody else to become RMS II. But I'm pretty sure that accepting developers' natural behaviour as an unchangeable law of nature works just as bad as it did with software development. To get Open Hardware out of the toy status, we need rules. There have to be advantages for those following the rules over them who don't. Big classics of such advantages are contributions. Trying to get away without contributions is pointless, a way has to be found to make them work.

Having used my first computer in 1983, owned my first in 1985 and first got on the Internet in 1989 to what would eventually become our first Internet business that started from a Majordomo script in 1993 my experience with the genesis of open software differs from yours. I had the opportunity to hear Stallman (as well as Raymond and others) on several occasions back in the day. In the personal computing realm once it hit critical mass (IBM PC, Apple II, etc) software from source for most users wasn't the norm. That growth was driven by shrinkwrap software and freeware. If one were *nix hacker there was enough source to set up an ISP or data enter but that was only a very small percentage of the users. Open source really didn't take hold commercially until the 2nd Internet boom in the late 90s. It was when large corporations started supporting development by having their devs use and develop apps and services. At one point we had developers contributing to both the kernel list and Apache projects. The commercial involvement is still the key to growth in open source hardware as it was in software. For example Ultimaker is driving development on Marlin and Cura, Autodesk for open hardware SLA applications, Ultimachine with RAMPS and Rambo.

Hardware isn't software and it's not developed in the same manner, particularly mechanical hardware. Electronics follow a similar pattern to software but that's driven mostly by the need for firmware. Using methodologies that work for software without recognizing the differences with hardware is a recipe for failure. There were quite a few that have a great depth of experience making that same point at Maker Faire Bay Area this year and at other conferences, papers, etc.

I'd also disagree that open source hardware is a "toy" as you put it or needs any sort of "rules" to gain more acceptance. It is early in the curve though there are some projects that show a great deal of promise. Where are all these contributors ready to add to these existing projects? I don't see them out there. Rather than blaming/shaming the devs where all all these people that can contribute? I don't think it's appropriate to complain about people contributing when you are going to restrict how the contributions to the project are to be used. During my Internet years the upside of a company to invest in open development was we were able to use those in conjunction with the operation of the company. The use of a so called NC license on hardware (which legally does not exist) does more damage to the open hardware movement than any perceived lack of contribution or collaboration or any sort of "rules" that may or may not exist. That's fine if some don't wish to share their designs. It's certainly their choice. However, just showing the files doesn't make the project open. Not restricting the use does. You don't have to open it but don't call it open if the uses are restricted.

Quote
vegasloki
It is early in the curve though there are some projects that show a great deal of promise.

Maybe somewhere, but RepRap isn't part of that. 3D printing flourishes, RepRap sinks.

Quote
vegasloki
The use of a so called NC license [...]

I knew you'd come around with this old broken record, even without it being topic here. Thanks for the conversation.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
jaguarking11
I do agree we need to find standards. One of my biggest gripes is having different sized filament spools. Why not settle on a 90mm core or something similar?

We do now have a proposed and open 3D Printing Filament Spool Standard - And before you ask why it's not on the RepRap Wiki - I just find it easier to use platforms like Youmagine, GitHub or blogs rather than an enormous Wiki.

3D Printing Filament Spool Standard

Reading this thread indicates a few of the reasons why people just do their own thing and get on with collaboration (or not) in their own way.

People have to want to collaborate on a thing, problem or idea before anything is likely to happen. Someone usually needs to start a thing going and interested people (and some trolls) will want to get involved. >>> Keep on going and get to a result. Together if possible, or on your own if not.

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

I gotta ask this, is there a practical reason why we have licences at all? , it's not like the counterfeiters are actually obeying them anyway, in the history of arguments over licencing types has anything constructive actually come out of it? most of the time it's a pointless argument over opinion anyway.

the easiest way to get around the problem is to simply not use a licence at all. it doesn't get any more "open" than that.......

Quote
Traumflug
Let's face it: currently RepRappers don't really collaborate. We start from scratch over and over again, thousands of times so far. No surprise, design mistakes are also made over and over again.

we seem to have formed small groups which don't really intercommunicate and all with individual agendas and usually unless your part of the group your contributions unless inline with the agenda usually fall of deaf ears or just get ignored, and it's becoming the same with issues and bug reports

the reprap project was started with the view of being a "biological system" which is it quite successful at being, however it's not complete in that sense, in it's current form the "biological system" for lack of any other way of putting it has no "immune system" instead as a "biological system" we have allowed both the good and the bad to survive, i not only refer to counterfeit and clones but also certain types of behaviour.

because of this lack of an "immune system" we now have a situation where most of the common components used in our printers are available for very cheap prices from people who don't necessarily have any interest in the reprap movement to any degree, what we have seen is that while it provides a low entry cost into the movement the cost is really development slowing down and ultimately leading to developers spending less and less of their own money and time on projects.

if we don't want developers giving up and going onto other things we need to look after them better as a community, why are we rewarding online sellers who knowingly sell counterfeit jheads or ramps boards where they have skimped on the copper thickness and components selection? we have no obligation to maintain links in the wiki to them, some of these people are even protected with this argument that what they are selling is opensource and they can according to the licence while ignoring the fact that what they are selling is strictly speaking nothing like what it is claimed to be and is realistically a variant...

i propose that if we want see more collaboration between developers and more meaning full progress then we need to look after developers a lot better, and the first thing we should do stop rewarding the counterfeiters and re-sellers of counterfeiters by removing them completely from the wiki and forums. in other word clean the bad parts of the biological system....

Quote
richrap
And before you ask why it's not on the RepRap Wiki

But that's the essential question. Some individual defining his personal favourite as standard somewhere on some web page is entirely pointless.

We have RepRap Interface Standard. Please pick your number, compare your favourite to the most commonly used spools (commonly used ones are much more likely to succeed) and enter this stuff there. A good next step would be to tag spools and spool holders in the wiki wether they're compatible to this standard, so people can see what they get.

P.S.: if you don't feel comfortable with RepRap wiki, please identify what could be improved, so it can be done.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/27/2014 12:06PM by Traumflug.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
Traumflug

But that's the essential question. Some individual defining his personal favourite as standard somewhere on some web page is entirely pointless.

I'm not sure if you are stating my effort is 'entirely pointless' or even that you think it's 'my' personal favourite that I have put forward as a 'standard' - Even if that was not directed at me, it's not a positive view to take. I have personally spent almost 8 months talking to real people and manufacturers and I have absolutely no personal agenda or 'favourite type' I'm simply frustrated by all the different types and wanted to try and see if anyone else was also. Then try to document a way forwards.

I do personally believe in the power of one, so I don't see any single person's effort as 'entirely pointless' - Regardless of how they do their work, what tools they use or how they share their results and IP with others.

Quote
Traumflug
compare your favourite to the most commonly used spools (commonly used ones are much more likely to succeed) and enter this stuff there

After research and discussion I don't believe a "commonly used ones are much more likely to succeed" in this case.

All of the filament PLA/ABS manufacturers I talked too (I can't think of one who didn't) felt their choice of spool was 'good' or should be 'the standard' they all wished to do something better, make them lighter, easier for the user and easy to store, so that's what was talked about in the standard document.

I started out expecting to 'promote' the idea of a cardboard spool (or at least expecting people to think it was a sensible starting point), but I'm very happy I now know why that's not such a great idea after all.

Quote
Traumflug
P.S.: if you don't feel comfortable with RepRap wiki, please identify what could be improved, so it can be done.

Maybe that's another very good thing to work together on, I do have views on the RepRap Wiki and also would like to help fix some of them. I would suggest that's another conversation.

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

Quote
richrap

Quote
Traumflug
P.S.: if you don't feel comfortable with RepRap wiki, please identify what could be improved, so it can be done.

Maybe that's another very good thing to work together on, I do have views on the RepRap Wiki and also would like to help fix some of them. I would suggest that's another conversation.

I like the RepRap Wiki, but I know it has problems. It would be great to have a conversation about how to improve it. I took the liberty to start a new thread about it here.

Quote
richrap
I have personally spent almost 8 months talking to real people and manufacturers

That's excellent!

Quote
richrap
All of the filament PLA/ABS manufacturers I talked too (I can't think of one who didn't) felt their choice of spool was 'good' or should be 'the standard'

You see? That's why a one-person effort is unlikely to work. Now we have not only 56 manufacturer spools standards, but 57 standards.

I think there are two possible ways:

- You find a design which fits many existing spools. If some have a 80 mm hole at the center and others have a 70 mm one, go for the 70 mm one and upload an adapter for the 80 mm ones.

- You find a design which has substantial advantages over most others. An already existing ISO standard (for cables?) or something might be such an advantage, because manufacturers can then simply order their spools from stock suppliers.

That said, the more important part for RepRap is a definition of the spool holder and the space required to allow the spool to be mounted.

For those laughing and talking about "define a standard and see how you just raise the number of standards by one": point of a standard is less that everybody uses the same (that's certainly desireable, but not neccessary), but that a description exists at all. Having a description means that spools as well as spool holders can be tagged to conform with this standard, so people see how things fit together before buying. The latter is the important point.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
Traumflug

Quote
richrap
I have personally spent almost 8 months talking to real people and manufacturers

That's excellent!

Quote
richrap
All of the filament PLA/ABS manufacturers I talked too (I can't think of one who didn't) felt their choice of spool was 'good' or should be 'the standard'

You see? That's why a one-person effort is unlikely to work. Now we have not only 56 manufacturer spools standards, but 57 standards.
.

I thought you has misquoted me, but I just didn't type it correctly in the first place ! - What I was trying to say was that NOT a single manufacturer I talked too thought their existing spools were 'good', they all had negative things to say about them. My original sentence read like they were all happy with what they had already, that's completely incorrect, If that would have been the case I would have given up in March when I started!

It should have been clear in the next line, but it depends on how you were reading it - "they all wished to do something better, make them lighter, easier for the user and easy to store, so that's what was talked about in the standard document."

And to clarify further, I did talk to other manufacturers who liked their spool, but these all had soft or flexible filaments. Like TPU or Nylon, so they didn't see too many issues other than mounting them in a standard way. That's why I specifically stated PLA/ABS above, because softer filaments don't need such specific inner coil diameters etc.

Sorry for that.

Not many/any of the existing spools solve all the issues, so it's not about making 'another' standard, but more about highlighting issues users have with existing spools being used.

Time will tell, if people adopt any Filament spool standard and if it becomes the most used and designed in to 3 printers, then I will feel it was a worthwhile exercise, as with many things like this, it's more about pointing out an issue that seems to be happening rather than telling people how to resolve it.

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

Had a look at your proposal now an, well, this is a (well done) spool design, not a standard. There's a difference between these two: a standard defines only what's neccessary for essential functionality and what's neccessary to connect it to other parts. Good standards allow different designs inside this envelope. All designs fitting into the envelope of the standard are interchangeable, then.

Examples: inner diameter of the spool doesn't matter in a standard. Also not, wether the spool can be splitted into halfs or how these halfs are joined. What matters is maximum outer diameter and width, so printer designers can leave sufficient room. Also diameter and length of the bore at the center, so they can design a holder that fits. Everything else is probably misplaced in a standard and should be freely choosable by the spool designer.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

One major issue that stands in the way of "open source" hardware is the inability to ACCURATELY duplicate it (or even document HOW to accurately duplicate it). Software / firmware / code can 100% be accurately duplicated with a drag and drop by a fairly well trained monkey. Hardware at the development (and even well beyond, depending on the complexity) requires both skill and knowledge to duplicate accurately and is mostly due to the skill and level of detail the documentation of the "open source" material MUST have for there to be ANY hope of success of the duplication process.

Software innovation and development is naturally made orders of magnitude easier due to this fact.

I know this is obvious, but it is often overlooked when comparing software design to hardware (mechanical) design.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/01/2014 11:50AM by dclarkm.

Inner diameter matters to printers as much as the outer diameter. The ID helps with binding and or filament warp. The mounting options are also very limited to ID. For example, I saw another thread where people were talking about the spool unwinding itself mid print and tangling. My solution to this is to put some small drag on the spool via my bearings. This has eliminated any tangles and has kept my sanity when printing 12inch tall parts. Who wants to babysit a printer during a 12 hour print, while I agree you should be in the vicinity, it should be a shoot and go practice not an exercise of patience that spans 12 hours.

To me what is really missing is an outline of standards, not as a handicap nor a exercise in monopolizing the environment.... I digress. I should know better, my first step was to make something people were not comfortable with, and I got allot of arguments of why it should not work... etc etc. While I am still tweaking my own printer, it sure as hell beats the pants of a makerbot.

Let me put it this way, the groove mount has been adopted by most hot end manufacturers. This is a good start. Why not standardize the damn spool next? Filament has been standardized to some degree as well. Take your pick, 3mm or 1.75mm. Even the cheapest inland brand filament has been flawless ~15USD retail price per kilo...... The only way to achieve a standard is when you have a supply of filament that is consistent and predictable using the same spool. Inland seems to do just that. And that is the cheapest microcenter brand..... Vote with your wallet and a standard will be made for better or worse.

---

My Personal Blog. Build blog.
[engineerd3d.ddns.net]

Modicum V1 sold on e-bay user jaguarking11

Quote
jaguarking11
Inner diameter matters to printers as much as the outer diameter. The ID helps with binding and or filament warp. The mounting options are also very limited to ID. For example, I saw another thread where people were talking about the spool unwinding itself mid print and tangling. My solution to this is to put some small drag on the spool via my bearings. This has eliminated any tangles and has kept my sanity when printing 12inch tall parts. Who wants to babysit a printer during a 12 hour print, while I agree you should be in the vicinity, it should be a shoot and go practice not an exercise of patience that spans 12 hours.

To me what is really missing is an outline of standards, not as a handicap nor a exercise in monopolizing the environment.... I digress. I should know better, my first step was to make something people were not comfortable with, and I got allot of arguments of why it should not work... etc etc. While I am still tweaking my own printer, it sure as hell beats the pants of a makerbot.

Let me put it this way, the groove mount has been adopted by most hot end manufacturers. This is a good start. Why not standardize the damn spool next? Filament has been standardized to some degree as well. Take your pick, 3mm or 1.75mm. Even the cheapest inland brand filament has been flawless ~15USD retail price per kilo...... The only way to achieve a standard is when you have a supply of filament that is consistent and predictable using the same spool. Inland seems to do just that. And that is the cheapest microcenter brand..... Vote with your wallet and a standard will be made for better or worse.

the groove mount standardization was mostly out practical usability, once upon a time the groovemount feature on a hotend was mostly a consideration because people didn't want to have to redesign their cold end every time they decided to use a different hotend, although these days with design software becomming easier to use to a degree it's possible to veer away from the groove mount as a standard just like the E3d did.
if anything should be standardised next it's the connectors across all the electronics boards , mounting hole layout and interconnecting devices like lcd modules

---

-=( blog )=- -=( thingiverse )=- -=( 3Dindustries )=- -=( Aluhotend - mostly metal hotend)=--=( Facebook )=-

Quote
thejollygrimreaper

Quote
jaguarking11
the groove mount standardization was mostly out practical usability, once upon a time the groovemount feature on a hotend was mostly a consideration because people didn't want to have to redesign their cold end every time they decided to use a different hotend, although these days with design software becomming easier to use to a degree it's possible to veer away from the groove mount as a standard just like the E3d did.
if anything should be standardised next it's the connectors across all the electronics boards , mounting hole layout and interconnecting devices like lcd modules

If you want to standardise connectors those are readily available. The easiest type of connector for power at least would be the XT-60 used by lipo batteries. It would give the user flexibility and the option to just purchase a pigtail for a PSU and having a connector that cost 20c a piece with a 60A rating would be great. The other type of connectors seem to be less problematic.

---

My Personal Blog. Build blog.
[engineerd3d.ddns.net]

Modicum V1 sold on e-bay user jaguarking11

Quote
jaguarking11

Quote
thejollygrimreaper

Quote
jaguarking11
the groove mount standardization was mostly out practical usability, once upon a time the groovemount feature on a hotend was mostly a consideration because people didn't want to have to redesign their cold end every time they decided to use a different hotend, although these days with design software becomming easier to use to a degree it's possible to veer away from the groove mount as a standard just like the E3d did.
if anything should be standardised next it's the connectors across all the electronics boards , mounting hole layout and interconnecting devices like lcd modules

If you want to standardise connectors those are readily available. The easiest type of connector for power at least would be the XT-60 used by lipo batteries. It would give the user flexibility and the option to just purchase a pigtail for a PSU and having a connector that cost 20c a piece with a 60A rating would be great. The other type of connectors seem to be less problematic.

it's mostly the other connectors, currently on the rumba and ramps you can use the jst connectors for the motors , however this isn't always the case with other connectors for things like thermistors and limit switches,

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/02/2014 10:25AM by thejollygrimreaper.

---

-=( blog )=- -=( thingiverse )=- -=( 3Dindustries )=- -=( Aluhotend - mostly metal hotend)=--=( Facebook )=-