attrezzopox Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Lanthan
>
> > do you think the current variability of boards &
> configs would allow for practical automatization
> of config testing?
>
> Yes I do. The utility I'm suggesting would be used
> on arduino based hardware, I assume other
> micro-controllers would have to deal with the
> issue on their own. And I wouldn't consider the
> process "automated" in the sense that no one is at
> the controls. I would consider it step-by-step
> troubleshooting. A software walkthrough (with some
> intelligence) getting a rep rapper started in
> first verifying everything works, then printing
> out a working example of pinouts, and then
> possibly making calibration measurements to help
> downstream firmware devs make corrections at the
> firmware level, I'm specifically thinking of skew.
As we all know, technical / practical culture seems to be waning in many western countries. The causes are multifactorial, but schools and teachers, and a certain "technophobic" attitude have much to do with it, automation may have also contributed its share.
To the point that major engineering schools have been alarmed, and launched initiatives trying to reverse the trend.
I see in the diffusion of repraps & hacklabs & similar (including Arduino, and the good tutorials of Adafruit, etc), the whole make movement, a superb occasion to distill back some systematics & good practices into (motivated) people.
Consequences depend on the tool. If you're not systematic enough with a mill or a lathe, even a mini lathe, it may easily chew a finger or two off you. Some tools call for respect: "DO learn good practices before using me".
The mendel isn't impressive enough in that way. There's little major damage you can do to yourself messing with a reprap. But it is a good opportunity to get some method onboard.
Yes, software may help. but many people will inevitably get to the shortcut: if they can just use the software and avoid reading the d... tutorial and avoid having to think about it, they will do. It is mostly self-defeating.
On the other hands, if they have to fetch different utilities form a bootstrapping "get started with your mendel" tutorial, this requires more active (and persistent) learning.
Yes, you could even automate the tutorial itself, for example with a processing front-end and firmata on the arduino side.
But I'd go the wiki, generic way, first and above all because mendel is not a fixed design, but a moving target. more on this later.
>
> > I see more value in suggesting to people a well
> crafted, step by step method/routine to do that.
> > (= many uses in future tinkerings. If they do
> not get to do it by hand at least once, they won't
> learn)
>
> I'm suggesting that as well. The "automated"
> portion of this is just that it's a program that
> steps you through the process and activates
> motors/heaters etc at the right time.
>
>
> > and much of the value of current firmware is
> that it is still... quite simple.
> > ppl hesitate to get into hacking mode with more
> complex stuff.
>
> My point exactly. I don't see this as the end-all
> be all. Quite the opposite. When you're done using
> this program, you know all of your hardware works,
> you can choose your firmware with some
> intelligence
another moving target.
> and know where to start if you need
> to troubleshoot. Additionally, it takes a chunk of
> work out of firmware dev's hands by offering up a
> standard set of variables that accurately define
> pins and may even calculate basic variables to
> help calculate flow-rate etc.
hum... some stuff is better layered. (have we defined our OSI layers equivalent?)
> They can choose to
> use the output, or not. No one is (obviously)
> going to force anyone.
then you have to create something so enticing that most developers will adopt it.
>
> >And those can vary significantly if you have,
> say, an ultimaker and a darwin
>
> Sorry I was specifically talking about prusa to
> prusa or mendel to mendel. As it is each printer
> is a little different even if it's a few mm
> difference just because of nature of assembly and
> human eyes and hands being involved
>
there are signs that a correctly adjusted mendel (nonobstant stiffness issues) works OK.
the emphasis is on "correctly adjusted". I found the mendel much fiddlier to adjust than a routerized/asercut design.
Yet you absolutely need to do this for the further stages. Error multiplies faster than rabbits.
> As far as jigs, measurement, and slopp are
> concerned. I think it's entirely reasonable to
> assume that someone might not have the ability to
> accurately cut a jig,
For the many people buying kits out there (many of them with lasercut parts), the minimum they should be asking for the money they pay is to be getting a couple of convenient lasercut jigs. It seems some kits at least include such.
>or won't be able to
> accurately measure to the .01 of a millimeter.
cheap, easy to use capacitive calipers with that accuracy are a reality. Anyone with a taste for tinkering should have one, or get one. With a reprap, this is an item for everyday's use (let alone for checking prints, calibration and the much variable filament diameter)
>If
> you can correct that without forcing them to buy a
> good pair of calipers
they should get calipers (USD 10 to 30 depending on the sources). They'll find many, many good uses for them. Although it won't make mechanic engineers out of 'em, it is part of the most basic tooling.
> and spend a couple of hours
> measuring and re-measureing why not? The big theme
> now is that everyone is building parts that help
> them AVOID taking apart their printer. That's kind
> of a travesty in my opinion.
I too got mildly pissed off with the fiddly frame adjustment. I cut myself a jig, but that possibility stems from the initial assessment of the whole project. And I have also designed parts for the mendel in such ways that I do not need to get again in frame adjustment mode. I believe those design changes do not result in any loss of key structural qualities, so I see no problem there.
The mendel frame is a compromise: you regenerate accuracy lost in plastic replication by fiddling with studs and jigs. that makes it sort of "self replicating" as in other designs you must use a meta- source of accuracy (laser cutter, cnc mill or router etc) as a master.
Anyway, there may be a problem with that frame design (actually there are several, but none of them overwhelming).
Should this design get too much in the way, I might switch to another frame. I like nophead's design in another thread. The point is: I do not see the mendel's current frame (however kewl its looks) as _the_ definitive answer for a diy 3D printer frame. Eventually, the community may move on to other frame designs at some future point.
> What good is a
> tinkerer when he is inventing things to AVOID
> tinkering?
This is a basic motor of innovation: you invent ways to get around the unsavory tasks.
> It seems to come down to the fact that
> once you take apart a working reprap you give
> yourself a headache trying to get your print
> quality back to whatever you've spent months
> tweaking it to.
I have yet to see many cases of that illness reported in the forums.
> Aside from user error, it's even MORE reasonable
> to assume the printed parts could be misprints.
> I'm just starting out with my first reprap. I
> don't know anyone with the ability to print or cnc
> the reprapable parts so I ordered my set for $100
> bucks on ebay. I'm not about to chuck 'em because
> when I get them I realize they cause my x-axis to
> skew 3mms.
I hope you complained loudly and reported the sloppy irresponsible seller (after discussing the matter and unsuccsessfully trying to get replacement parts of course). Good pictures, schemes, and a technically accurate description of what is wrong may help. Please go ahead!
> If I can fix it with software, bygod I
First get the sloppy seller fixed. Others may thank you.
> will, and then I'll print a better set of parts.
>
> Finally, set aside from those to arguments is what
> I'll call the arduino mentality. Even now,
> hardcore electronic engineers and tinkerers spit
> fire about the "bane" of the arduino and how
> inefficient it is. How horrible it is they cut so
> many corners so that the users don't even know how
> to burn a set of fuses. And so many people talk
> about trying to re-educate these lost souls on
> "REAL" microcontrollers.
Yeah I have heard parts of this very same discourse in friends teaching electronics.
Arduino is insanely great because as an ecosystem it has helped masses of people get bootstraped into the microcontrollers realm. Whish I had had this in the eighties!
It's not just the open source hardware & software, it's the tutorials, the forums, the connexions with processing & openframeworks & matlab...
At some point - especially if you are supposed to get into electronics as a professional- you'll need more than Arduino. But that is a wholly different purpose. The point is, there is an upgrade and learning path from arduino.
Also, inside the Arduino, you may start with the standard board, then get into more involved things like, for example, gen7 electronics.
But let's not mix mechanics and electronics. You can fix, swap, replace program electronics (thanks to the arduino thing) in easier ways than you can mess with structures.
> But, the proof is in the pudding. Arduino is
> successful specifically for all of those reasons,
> and was designed to get people who aren't
> interested in burning fuses and learning assembly
> to use a microcontroller. I think reprap is
> ideally of the same camp.
notice that Arduino does not have that much ready-for-purpose code as it has tutorials, howtos and specific-point examples. Solutions do not come pre-cooked, and even if you are to adapt some existing code, you have to dig deep enough in the libraries documentation. There's a gap between the Arduino and the NXT...
>All reprapers shouldn't
> be mechanical engineers.
no, but, as said in the beginning, as happens with the arduino, with convenient help & tutorials, you do not have to be a mech engineer to understand a very basic structure, or the workings of a stepper, or (hopefully) to adapt parts design to mechanic & accuracy constraints.
>We need a few that skip
> to just making random crap on thingiverse we may
> never find useful. Like a dremel centrifuge for
> field biologists, or a planting medium for
> aeroponics.
personally I have more issues with the gangsta crap or the self-promoting company logos (some would say it is the same vein). But I wouldn't want to discourage you. Maybe you're on the way to lay the foundations of the micro$oft of 3D printing (no offense intended)
as anybody who intends to replace accuracy and materials and learning with software will get quite some attention from potential investors.