The Future...

I have been thinking about the next generation RepRaps we might make.

What I think we might do is:

1. To refine Mendel into a multi-material machine, and
2. To develop a "minimal" RepRap Version III replicator (provisional
name: Huxley) based on the Mendel Mini.

Rhys has now got multi-materials working in Mendel; I think we'll be hard-pushed to cram them into a smaller machine, though. Plus Mendel is pretty reliable, but we should treat it like VW treated the Beetle design, continually refining, simplifying, and improving it.

I have a fairly clear view of how the mini could be made very simple
indeed, with a low part count, a very low cost (maybe under $200), a
very rapid replication time, but no multi-materials (except maybe a
pen plotter for PCBs).

Obviously a Mendel would be able to make a Huxley. We should ensure
that a Huxley can also make a Mendel.

Then - when we have had experience with multi-materials - we should go
on to develop RepRap IV, printable by Mendel, and taking advantage of
- and embodying - those multi-materials. Huxley would thus not be
able to print RepRap IV.

Also follow this discussion on: reprap-dev@lists.reprap.org

---

best wishes

Adrian

[reprap.org]
[reprapltd.com]

I'm working on a R4 and an R5. R4 uses PVC for the body and is polar arm based, but still attached to that pesky Z plate, R5 is the arm based R4 except it's collapsable and it can print on any flat hard surface. Details to come...but don't bet on it.

Thanks for the update Adrian.

A low entry point for Huxley would really help adoption of Reprap. I'm also sure Huxley would be a great standby machine (repstrap) for fixing Mendel.
Electronics for Huxley should be simple (basic) and not SM if possible, single pcb or better still off-the-shelf.

Good luck, you have lots of people ready and happy to help.

I wish the Mini-Mendel and the Mendel shared more of their BOM. The scenario I see happening is someone with a RepRap prints the parts required for a mini-machine and gives them to someone who wants a RepRap. That person buys all the stuff required for the build and builds it up. Then, the builder prints all the parts required for the Mendel and disassembles the mini-machine to get the non-printable parts to build the Mendel.

The reason I see this as beneficial is that people are more willing to spend time to get their own machine running well than to get parts made for someone else. Pushing the printing to a recyclable bootstrap machine moves the work to the person most motivated to do it.

The two biggest changes that I think are needed is to make the Mini-Mendel compatible with NEMA-17 motors and to use the same bearings. That just leaves the steel rods as something that needs to be bought twice. If the frame were printable, it would reduce the steel, but increase the print time. I'm not sure if that is the right solution.

So, I'm thinking of the RepRap III machine as a bootstrap machine. Of course anyone who is satisfied with its capabilities could just stick with the RepRap III until they need a Mendel.

---

---

Darwin clone, Gen 2 electronics, Arduino Duemilanove w/ AtMega328, 5D Firmware, Pinchwheel extruder
[www.codeerrors.com]

mccoyn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The two biggest changes that I think are needed is
> to make the Mini-Mendel compatible with NEMA-17
> motors and to use the same bearings. That just
> leaves the steel rods as something that needs to
> be bought twice. If the frame were printable, it
> would reduce the steel, but increase the print
> time. I'm not sure if that is the right
> solution.

The things that have really hamstrung RepRap to date has been, in order of destructiveness:

#1 Unavailability of RP Parts
#2 Unavailability of Electronics
#3 Complicated firmware and Electronics modification
#4 Underestimation of costs on the part of buildiers
#5 Scammy Mendel knockoffs

Luckily a lot of these issues are resolving themselves very quickly, but some seem to be getting worse.

As much as it deviates from Mini Mendel I hope that the Huxley has these characteristics:

6"x6"x6" or 150x150x150cm build area (large enough to be able to print all parts of Mendel with a full size raft
NEMA 17 motors (easiest & cheapest stepper motor available)
No Bowden Extruder (Geared extruder from the start)
Power resistor heater block
m4 bolts and m8 rods (only because both are easily exchangeable with 5/16 inch rod and #8 Machine screws in the US)
Bushings and 608 bearings can be bought locally anywhere. There are very few suppliers of the exotic bearings that Mendel uses, adding a huge amount to the build cost.


That's just my opinion

---

repraplogphase.blogspot.com

I myself am very excited for multimaterial support for the RepRap Mendel. I think this plays to the strengths of the technology, and is really essential in achieving a better overall design than Mendel which, despite refinements, is probably about as good as a single-material replicating printer can get.

Multi-material technology is something I'm keen to develop on the mechanical side. Support material (or other ways of printing overhangs) are almost a necessity, but I'm also excited about adding the ability to print objects with multiple materials for the wide range of mechanical possibilities it opens up. On the software side, it would also be excellent to be able to share multi-material files as complete assemblies rather than by mixing together separate files.

Jacob

I think the entry point (cost, complexity, availability) is the most critical issue. At the moment it's us nerds willing/able to make one but how many of us are there per square mile of city/suburb? Lower the entry point and ubiquity follows. The first home computers were simple in comparison to the commercial machines of the time. Beyond a certain point it was their accessibility that created a revolution not their functionality. Few people had use for an Altair 8800 in 1975 but by 1982 everybody wanted to play games on a Commodore 64.