How do we both encourage RepRap mutations and stay focussed?

Hottest of the press AFAIK is mendelmax, but that is a design in quite a different direction than the printers for all africans approach.

Prusa like printers are still pretty current with lm8uu based slides becoming quite popular.

A little late to the conversation here. I've been thinking about what the next RepRap could be and I'm thinking about an enclosed wooden box for a frame and enough oomph to route plywood (1/4"?). It would be able to reproduce itself, and it would add more materials and another process to the the RepRap repertoire. At a guess, I don't think it would cost much more to get it extruding plastic, and adding a Dremel for routing shouldn't be terrible.

I've only recently started thinking about it, and haven't worked out any details yet. I hope to start design work this winter.

Greg Frost Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prusa like printers are still pretty current with
> lm8uu based slides becoming quite popular.

Interesting. So, we should probably start by looking at what upgrades people install in their printers and extrapolate a 'standard' Mendel/Prusa/Huxley2.0 from that data. Then, an 'official' [Post Mendel] could be designed which includes those upgrades and some more.


Moving to a combination of standardised connections and a more modular design would enable you to just choose HotEnd A, ColdEnd D, XCarriage F, e.t.c. ... withouth having to care about compabillity issues. It would make it easier to try out different combinations, decrease the cost of parts in the long run and enable the exchange of different parts between different repraps. I think the vertical x axis standard is a great step in the right direction. (http://reprap.org/wiki/Vertical_X_Axis_Standard)

Having an open ended modular design would also allow new reprappers to start small and expand their RepRap over time, e.g. adding an automatic tool head changer, different tool heads, automatic build bed cleaner, fuzzy dice or whatever they can come up with (Ok, they already can, but addon modules would be easier to install than hacking the current design to include feature xyz).

Quote

So, we should probably start by looking at what upgrades people install in their printers and extrapolate a 'standard' Mendel/Prusa/Huxley2.0 from that data. Then, an 'official' [Post Mendel] could be designed which includes those upgrades and some more.

Standardisation undoubtly brings the costs down, but you get an standardized Mendel instead of a Post-Mendel, then.

Designing new approaches almost always requires deviation from current standards. That said, it's usually a good idea to not redesign the entire machine, but only parts of it, so one can keep the other (standardized) parts. Like the MendelMax, for example: new frame, but same X-carriage, Y-carriage, extruder, motors and electronics.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Um, I'm redesigning the entire machine....

Vik :v)

I just found this page in the wiki: [reprap.org]
Seems like the problem we're discussing is not new.

What's really missing is the overview.

Once you decide on a base model (e.g. Prusa), getting an overview over the available variants and upgrades (e.g. the LME8UU bearing upgrade) involves not only excessive wikiwalking, searching the forum and visits to thingiverse, you'll also need to scrounge through a load of blogs.

If you could see the variants/upgrades in one place, it would stop people from reiventing the wheel ("Oh, there's already a Variant of [Part X] that does [Y]") and allow new developments to take off faster ("No [whatsit] so far? Then I'll create one! And I know already what I'll use as a base.").

In addition, reprap mutations often suffer from insufficient documentation. Many a project doesn't specify how it differs from the base model and/or doesn't state the goal of the project. Often, both could be archieved in one or two sentences.
(e.g. "ExampleRap is a project that demonstrates the definition of precise and irrelevant goals. It is based on Prusa and adds a robot arm equipped with a whip which automatically punishes the user for procuring insufficient documentation.")


So, how doe we prevent users from reinventing the wheel (for purposes other than learning about reinventing the wheel)?
How do we encourage users to upload their projects and cad-files to the 'official' wiki (or at least to thingiverse, tagged as [reprap] or something)?
How do we encourage them to document their projects properly (at least so far that they cover the basics)?

Good questions, SarahMiller. To some extents I (try to) get acclimated to the fact people don't care about collaboration. They prefer to reinvent that wheel with their own name on instead of improving something existing (with another name on). RepRap might be not a project on it's own, but a big bunch of tiny, individual projects. Famous example: it's not the "RepRap Mendel II", but the "Prusa Mendel".

So far, this model of understanding RepRap works well. Exceptions exist, and I'll continue to support these exceptions as much as I can. For example, by using the wiki instead of a dedicated web site.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

I haven't been around as long as Traumflug but I sort of have a different view of the causes of the situation. It seems to me that there might be two things going on. First reprap doesn't "do" official. So in what way could an improved design be incorporated into the "official" next gen mendel? It seems that there aren't any obvious ways for new developers to contribute to the next mendel version of hardware. So they are left with the wiki or thingiverse as means to publish their designs. Possibly some of these new designs will work their way into mendel II (if there ever is one) but I can't see any obvious way to collaborate on bringing that about. Secondly most of us wouldn't presume to call our design variations mendel II, and so we stick stuff out there with our own names on it to let people know they are not "official" even though reprap doesn't "do" "official" (except for darwin, mendel, and possibly huxley) I don't think it is entirely ego driven. Possibly the opposite. Also a collaborative project still needs a team leader in most cases to get it to work, so while many people might be working on the Prusa mendel, the initiator of the project still gets the last word, otherwise it's chaos. You still need someone to say "Hey, here's a design that I think wold solve x,y,z problems, try it out, hack on it, let me know what needs changing, or better yet change it yourself and join the team." I don't see that for a hypothetical mendel II. And forking is extremely common in open source projects. It's a sign of a healthy community. Since the core team seems to be taking the hands off "lets see what ideas rise to the top" approach, I'm not sure what else developers could do but what they are doing.

The forking is normal, and only a reflection of the fact that we, as ppls, are infinitely different, and as a result, we see things differently, have different preferences, choices, etc. This way, many forks only means there are lots of ppls working around the area. And the diversity of designs and models etc, only reflect same thing.

There was an attempt to give electronics sets a number in their name like generation3 or 6 or 7 or etc. Numbers are a very poor and lame way to characterize anything. Any statistical indicators for example drop 90+% of all information in favor of a very few and narrow significance. Any classification learned in school is lame because it drops 90+% of information, in favor of only one or a very few things used in classification. So first of all its important to know that numbers and classifications usually have a very limited and contextual meaning, and do not reflect how world is. In spite of what school teaches ppls, these are very limited and lame tools, and only worth doing in a school as exercise of mind. One cant and should not expect the real world to fit within boundaries like these.

Second, everything is a trade off. Every line has 2 sides. Cant have yin without yang. Its generalized. But most tangible example is feature x versus price. If you want a better feature, it will come invariably at a cost. A bit more plastic, a bit more vitamins, etc. Valor has to be met with value. Where does one settle? Choose something that fits you best. Thats why world has more than only one automobile model, more types of houses, clothes and everything else, etc. And apparently its how it should be. In spite of everything, from time to time a young one shows up with a deep wish to have everybody in the world think just like them. I had exactly same feeling at my time wishing to make everybody think just like myself but eventually i realized that i dont have money to pay for the 6 billion lobotomies required.

Though I think if the core team were to come up with some sort of problem set for the next gen mendel to solve (faster printing, quicker replication, using third world available bulding materials etc...) and requested all hands to submit proposed parts/do research they would get quite a bit of collaboration.

As for Sarah's observation about alternative parts, I don't see why the prusa/sells mendel pages couldn't have an addendum that references many of the alternative parts with a quick description for each. There is a small section in the Prusa pages for improvements/hacks, but it only has one thing in it. Maybe Mr. Prusa just needs to make it clear that alternative part designs are welcome in that section, then designers wouldn't be too shy to edit that part of the page and add their stuff. Or Sarah could create a separate page and stick the link in that spot, then add as many designs as she can find with an invitation to all designers to post their alternate part designs there.

The Sells mendel pages seems to have a couple of catch-all links to improved/alternate parts (like a link to thingiverse tag reprap, and a link to all the dev pages in the wiki) but that's not really helpfull for those wishing to limit wikicrawling and just get to the important info.

As for insufficient documentation, good luck with that. Most of the designers would far rather print and tinker than document. (cause it's more fun). But for popular projects, the documentation will come in time. It helps if newbs are less shy and more willing to just get in and edit the wiki. So go ahead Sarah, you have my permission.

Quote
NoobMan
If you want a better feature, it will come invariably at a cost.

Not neccessarily. One design can be better than another design, at the same, or even at a lower price.

You're right in that one shouldn't try to "convince" people to align with other opinions. Still, encouragement to pull into the same direction, or in a countable set of directions, is a good thing, as one person can only do that much. Getting similar minded people to work on the same goal is very efficient. To express it with your example: there are many different cars, but not as many designs as car owners. You need several hundred people working together to get one (type of) car built.


Bryanandaimee, how did you vertical X axis contest work out regarding collaboration? If RepRap doesn't want to do "official", such small sub-projects could be the right track to get people into some focus on common goals.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

I am just a n00b, but maybe there could be sub-groups working and sub-projects under the RepRap umbrella ?

I am trying to figure out which reprap to build, and it is kind of little confusing right now.

Maybe RepRap could kind off a ''Standard Holder'', which doesn't build configurations, but have a set of standards (performance benchmark, costs, easy of maintenance, price, etc) to which each design of the sub-groups has to submit in order to have the privilege to have a ''RepRap Certified design''.

Think of it like a RepRap ISO standard.

The vertical X axis contest is going great. Much better than I expected. I have 10 contestants working on some impressive designs. The end of the contest was extended to Dec 12 by vote of the contestants so hopefully even more designs will be forthcoming. The Vertical X standard setting thread on this forum got good participation, and I think we came up with a useful standard. Though for the life of me I can't think of any other physical standards that would be useful. The frame size and configuration doesn't really matter for interoperability. I guess Y rod spacing might matter if we want to have printed Y carriages, but that doesn't seem too important to me as designs could easily be adjustable (and probably should be) Hot end to extruder attachment points might be a good standard to hash out, but there are a lot of commercial designs now, so a contest would likely not be very effective there, and I think it's pretty standard now anyway seeing as how they all have to attach to the current carriage.
Some connector, and pinout standards for electronics might be a good idea. There are a few different motor connector types out there, and similar situation for endstops. That's a hard sell too though I think as there are some commercial designs that may be resistant to a change this late in the game.

[reprap.org]

[reprap.org]

Standardising the mount of the toolhead/coldend/hotend would definately be a first step towards automatic/easier tool changes.
The standard could define a hybrid mounting system: it can be used like normal (fasten the toolhead with screws) or it can be used as a quick-snap system where the toolhead latches into the mount.
Obviously, it would need to be compatible to either, e.g. any 'standardised' tool should fit the current extruder mount and vice versa.
Mhh.. actually, with vertical rails in the right place, it might be possible to exchange the whole extruder mount independently from the x carriage.

... i'm going another way to 'standardisation' of toolheads - my CNC-mill has a T-slot-plate on the Z-axis for mounting the spindle.

For fixing laserheads or extruders (or other toolheads) i have only to add an adapter with one or two bores in the right distance so it fits to the T-slots.

Changing the toolhead is a matter of some ten seconds ... maybe something more, when i have to place wires, tubes (dispenser) or filament (extruder) ...

---

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

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

I would like to see a build registration database. One could compile data based on the parts chosen most. The next question though would be how to prevent fraudulent votes.

If you follow the current activity for a bit, it becomes pretty clear that the RepRap Prusa has already de facto grabbed the title of next generation RepRap.

Regardless of that, the reprap.org wiki still clearly states that the original Mendel is the RepRap II and the Huxley is the RepRap III. Neither of these seem to have the drive of the Prusa development – but even so, the main wiki pages present Prusa as just a cheaper and easier Mendel, not even worthy of a number in the official RepRap lineage. In fact, what the next generation (i.e. the RepRap IV, which would be the next generation after RepRap III, the Huxley) is supposed to be is a complete mystery even after browsing the wiki for some time...

Quote

the main wiki pages present Prusa as just a cheaper and easier Mendel, not even worthy of a number in the official RepRap lineage

Keep in mind the main page is written by and locked down by Adrian himself and while he allows a community to develop, he's apparently pleased by the idea RepRap's success is mostly his work, less the result of a great community. The Prusa isn't his design, but the Huxley is.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Well... (after cutting a cupcake and building a Mendel... current impressions...)
Prusa Mendel and successors may certainly be called a "success" in terms of fast breeding. Also good for people into plastic sales.
From the tinkerer-user point of view, I am not so sure I'd call that thing "a success". It just has too many shortcuts in its design that insult the mind and tend to fail on you one after another like Tetris bricks.

For example, right now I can see those Z axes dangling with all their weights from the motors, even if fitted with "the good couplers", slowly slowly slipping out of the motor shafts, messing with the Z calibration et al. and I can predict the exact moment I am going to take out the coupler re-insert the plastic tubing and maybe drop some methacrylate or epoxy there, remount, recalibrate...

So Prusa Mendel is without doubts a very successful design to get you into thinking of a better design. Probably it was a needed stage in mass dissemination. Like some early car models, it spends too much time in the repair room, has something slightly disgusting into it, yet still manages to keep the imagination going. Let us not call that "the next generation".

Good that evolution never stops. I think we will be seeing the beginning of some "cambrian diversity explosion": differenciation, speciation, specialisation according to the evolving needs. High speed printing, smaller nozzles and attention to fine detail do call for more rigid frame designs.

Then amazing software improvements like Marlin remind us that software can also have big effects on evolution.

My bet on next winning low cost configuration: Something around Nophead's Mendel90 (definitely a deep meditation on what really works while keeping very frugal needs), pronterface/pronsole and a simplified, trimmed down Marlin.

Hello all, I am new here. This seems awfully quiet for such an important topic? Are we talking about modularity, ie. the mechanicals being modular to enable a printer to be build from modular parts that will fit no matter where it was made? If we have a modular control system, any control system will work if it conforms to the interface standard and the system does the same thing in more or less the same way?

Regards
PS: Sorry for my poor grammar, English is my second Language.

Probably the topic is simply obsolete. RepRap diverges more and more into a number of parallel universes, most of them being commercial.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Surely the rest of the community and the developers, commercial or not, can see the benefits of modularity or having a few common build platform sizes or making the head carrige so its modular and you can use any hot end on there by just bolting it on by having a single bolt hole pattern etc?

Rgrds

---

Sarel Wagner
www.microafrica.co.za
Tinkerer and designer/inventor

In practice a lot of the modularity just happens because people rarely design everything from scratch. Unless your doing something very different It's easier to just design something that uses the PRUSA carriage or similar.
OpenSCAD takes some of this away, since you can just tweak the parameters.
Right now there seems to be a lot of motion towards gantry type designs and on those there isn't a lot of value in being compatible with the none gantry type machines.
This coupled with the prevalence of lasercut parts, has shifted the playing field somewhat, especially for the commercial designs.
I'm not sure we're at a place as a community where standards make any sense, there is still a lot of messing around with the motion platform itself, if you're changing that, I'm not sure what standards make sense.

I'm experimenting with an asymetric cantilever at the moment, and developing a screw-driven variant first, belt version to follow. Just to be different Actually, there are a lot of people for whom finding matching belt & pulleys goes in the "too hard" pile, so I hope to get them started reprapping.

Vik :v)

If we take 2D printers, by all commercial vendors, the printing sizes are well defined, you can put A4 or Letter or Legal sized paper in any one and they can print on it. Same is not true when we look at 3D printers. The build envelope and build volume is all over the place.

The heated print bed size as far as I can see is not the same dimensions for different kits in the same category (build envelope size). We have square beds of 120mm, 125mm, 127mm and then a few 140mm square, others are not square at all, 150 * 200 or 160*200mm beds. Printer comparison, sorted for build envelope

This is my idea: The size of any printer is defined by the size of its printing output, even more so for a 3D printer. If you have a printer capable of printing a cube of 6" you need all the axis to be capable of moving the 6". To be able to do that you would need a printing platform of at least 6" per side, plus some extra.

Lets take a 4" per side cube (101mm) to be printed, that is 64 cubic inches (1048.7cc or 1.048 liter) If we now want a cube 4 times this size (256 ci or 4 liters) we need a platform 6.3" or 160mm per side. Lets do that again and we now need 1024 ci or 16.78 liters volume. This requires a printing platform with sides of almost 10.1" (256mm)

Considering that this is a cube the height must be the same as the sides of the printing platform.

Why did I use 4" for a start? That would be what I believe the smallest size required for a viable and less expensive 3D printer (entry level if you like, or for educational purposes). If we scale the required printing volume 4 times we can now print a significantly bigger object, do that again... you get the idea.

Why is this even significant at all? Well the printing platform bed or table size determines the overall size of the printer. Bigger printing tables means heavier tables and that requires beefier support mechanicals and stronger electronics and motors.

Printing bed sizes is a neat way of classifying printers, so the printer bed defines the class of printer, as long as the printer can print a cube (all sides of equal length) The table size also drives the general printer size as is clear from the above. If the printer can print an object of 6"x6"x4" it is still only capable of printing a 4" cube so its classified with the 4" class printers.

If we increase the printer printable volume 4 times for each bigger sized printer, we will have 4" (100mm nominal) printers, 6" nominal(150mm), 10" (250mm) printers and so on.

Making any sense at all? What ya thinking?
Rgrds

---

Sarel Wagner
www.microafrica.co.za
Tinkerer and designer/inventor

The problem with standards like that is they do not match the typical print a plate of parts usage pattern, why classify by the smallest dimension when for most prints X and Y are more significant.
You start classifying like that (or in any recognized way) and you'll start to see gamesmanship in designs, compromises to get the classification a designer wants.

FWIW there is already a driver to standardize bed sizes, the availability of the Prusa heated bed circuit boards.
We are so far away from plug and play printing, with significant changes happening still relatively quickly,I'm just not sure standards make any sense.

Polygonhell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The problem with standards like that is they do
> not match the typical print a plate of parts usage
> pattern, why classify by the smallest dimension
> when for most prints X and Y are more significant.
>
> You start classifying like that (or in any
> recognized way) and you'll start to see
> gamesmanship in designs, compromises to get the
> classification a designer wants.
>
> FWIW there is already a driver to standardize bed
> sizes, the availability of the Prusa heated bed
> circuit boards.
> We are so far away from plug and play printing,
> with significant changes happening still
> relatively quickly,I'm just not sure standards
> make any sense.

Firstly, if anybody do not want to follow a standard, then don't, easy as that don't you agree? Standards do not have to hamper free thinking, nor hamper development, if you do not allow it to. It is not a question of a standard or nothing, both can exist, only that currently there are almost no standards if any. Here is one definition of standard: "something considered by an authority or by general consent as a basis of comparison"

We are talking about 3D printing are we not? XY is then surely only one plane, to get to 3D we need the Z plane. No matter how big the XY plane is, if Z is absent we have 2D, if Z is 0.01mm do we now have a 3D printer, I somehow doubt that seeing the current state of ABS and other thermo materials, we need at least a millimetre or a few. It is not about the smallest dimension, nor gamesmanship. Print a cube, the length of the cube walls determines the classification, no amount of gamesmanship can change the cube side length, if you can print a cube of X volume with side length Z then you can. No other shape can be used in the classification but a cube.

If we classify the printers as 4" or 6" or 10" and your cube is less than 6" (5.999") then its a 6" printer as it cannot print a cube bigger than 6". A 4" class printer can print up to 4" cubes. If the cube is more than 6.000" and less than 10.000" then it is a 10" class printer. What is the largest cube your printer can print, thank you. This does not dis-allow X and Y to be specified either, it just does not classify on those dimensions only. You may want to classify your printer in the 10" class, then design it to print a cube of between 6" and 10.000".

Why 4,6,10"? A 4" printer should be cheaper than a 6" printer and for educational purposes enough to teach new people about 3D printing in schools etc and we do want that don't we? A 6" cube is 4 times the print volume of a 4" cube and a 10" (10.1") is 4 times in volume that of the 6" cube. We can keep going by increasing the print volume beyond 10" cubes by 4 times again and keep going if we need to. Fairly large volume increase and aligned with the current crop of printers to some degree so the cube volumes seems reasonable. Please suggest otherwise with motivation and lets discuss.

So we have the Prussa heater boards, its a standard of some measure. Does the heater boards stifle the development of printers, no, it made it easier to design a new printer, create a new fork. It does not restrict the printer designer or the design at all. On that same board you may design a printer with a Z Axis of twice the X or Y. Will it be practical, hell no. We would rather have a X or Y twice as long. Does it make the printer print a CUBE of bigger volume, hell no, so the classification stays the same, the cube size determines that. If all axis are the same length, we get the biggest print volume (cube) and thus the optimised configuration from a materials usage point (Surface-to-Volume ratio). Apart from a sphere, a cube uses materials more efficiently than almost any other shape (excluding a few like Icosahedron and Dodecahedron to name some).

Plug and Play (Pray is where we are at it seams from where I am looking) is so far away precisely because of the absence of some standards. If we have the printer hardware, no matter what printer hardware or how it looks, we currently have no hope of plugging in any but the specific printers electronics and have any hope of it working.

Rgrds, in the name of progress.

---

Sarel Wagner
www.microafrica.co.za
Tinkerer and designer/inventor

Good ideas, Sarel Wagner. Think also about things like "using bipolar stepper motors", having a common set of G-code commands and similar things.

Regarding doing things differently: getting a substantial advantage is always a reason to diverge from a standard. Or diverging just for fun. Still it would be a huge advantage if we could say something like: "This machine runs with any electronics complying to the RepRap Electronics Standard 1.2" or like "this firmware complies to RepRap G-code Standard 7.1, so any host complying to this as well, works fine with it". Same for extruder mounts, heated bed mounts, you name it.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Actually I absolutely agree on the GCode issue, and it seems to me like Marlin/Sprinter/Repetier has already pretty much dictated that, though I wish most firmware and slicers supported G2/3.

The cube issue is more it encourages a specific shape to the build volume, one that makes less and less sense as the X and Y dimensions get bigger, why not classify in cubic inches or cm's, calculated at XxYxZ. A standard is only useful it it conveys useful information, I'm not sure that the largest printable cube is in any way a useful metric.

Having said that I'd argue there already are conventions, just not written down anywhere, usually dictated by available high quality components mounting for extruders to carriage, width of the bars on the X axis.
What does a standard give you for the that Prusa compatible doesn't for most mechanical components?

Lets take X of 12" Y of 6" and Z of 7" and that give you a volume of 504 ci but the biggest CUBE would be 6" for a volume of 216 ci. Its a 6" class printer but that does not favour nor restrict the printer from printing a volume more than twice as big, you have to agree? It does not prevent you as a designer to make any of these choices, nor building it like that. Will it be compatible with other 6" or 10" printers? It may be or it may not be, that depends on if it conforms in one or more aspects to any other printer or standard. You have to agree that if it does use a standard bed, it has to conform to the max size of that bed as the plane it can print on will be limited to that size If it uses a custom bed that is not considered a standard. For a standard bed, other parts may now be standard, or not. The Axis spacing for example may be unique, now it does not follow a standard any more but it may create a new standard if others start building printers with the standard bed and your Axis spacing.

If I now select a standard bed from Prusa and the standard spacing for the Axis as well as a standard length, I do have a choice where to get it from as they conform. Assembly and subsequent operation is now almost a guarantee, much better for a noob or someone that do not want to design on the fly. For some people it is about the printing, for others it is the engineering and tinkering. The real benefit is in the use if you not into the engineering, most people buying ultimately are not into the engineering but in using the printer as a tool to print in 3D.

Not written down conventions? They mean as much as the paper they not written down on, or the non Web page they not written down on. How would the user that wants to buy/use the printer make a comparison? Where does he get the conventions? That is one of the biggest complaints from users, the difficulty in getting to a common understanding and finding data. See the standards definition in my earlier post. How would you like a magazine like Wired or Makezine to compare printers and make a summary and recommendation between the printers? How would you think an educator or parent may want to be presented with and fully understand what the capabilities of a printer are? Take cars as an example, A or B segment cars are normally compared in their class. TakeLINUX as another, very many flavours and Vanilla to boot, all using a standard kernal and mostly able to inter operate with applications and hardware.

Once again, if we take a large XY plane of 3' (feet) square we get a volume of 504 ci (cubic Inch) same as the printer in the first paragraph, at a Z Axis height of 0.38888" ( 9.87mm) high. A dedicated printer of some sort, not very flexible at all and rather specialised towards doing large flat objects. Useful for a few specific tasks yes, but not flexible at all. Would a potential customer like to know that, surely yes. The cube is only 9,87mm with a volume of 0.0586 ci compared to the first printer above with a cube volume of 216 ci (6" cube) but they both have a print volume of 504 ci

You are always welcome to adhere to a standard or to ignore it. The large plane example above illustrates why build volume is not a good candidate for classification in 3D printers and the cube is.
EDIT: When classifying, the cube volume as well as the build volume is given, only the cube volume determines the classification.

Rgrds in progress

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2012 07:20PM by sarel.wagner.

---

Sarel Wagner
www.microafrica.co.za
Tinkerer and designer/inventor