Universal 3D printing filament spool standard 2014

Fair enough, but I see two other problems here:
1) if you're making standard spool, then you need to think about standard mount. Mounting should be on the core, not flange.
2) if you use 1mm cardboard, yes, it will be like a paper. if you use 3mm compressed cardboard on the other hand, it's a different story... I'm doing the latter.

Marcin

OK. As I see we are down to the final nuts and bolts of this.
So far we have come up with:

Bore: 52mm
Hub: 100mm OD, 5mm wall
Flange: 200mm OD, 3mm wall
Width: 50mm ID
Composition High Density compressed cardboard

This has sufficient capacity for up to 1kg of ABS, which is the lightest.
And would be the 1W configuration.

RichRap, you have not posted in awhile. Would you care to weigh in on this and let us know your feelings and what input you have been getting from the manufacturers?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/05/2014 07:26AM by eades850.

Quote
eades850
OK. As I see we are down to the final nuts and bolts of this.
So far we have come up with:

Bore: 52mm
Hub: 100mm OD, 5mm wall
Flange: 200mm OD, 3mm wall
Width: 50mm ID
Composition High Density compressed cardboard

This has sufficient capacity for up to 1kg of ABS, which is the lightest.
And would be the 1W configuration.

RichRap, you have not posted in awhile. Would you care to weigh in on this and let us know your feelings and what input you have been getting from the manufacturers?

I'm actually still torn between the above and:
Bore: 52mm ID
Hub: 110mm OD
Flange: 220mm OD
Width: 50mm ID

I've asked my supplier to make both for me and will do some "testing" soon.

Marcin

Hi All,

I'm planning to make some prototypes based on the above at home. Did any of you do that actually by hand? Any tips on where to start? How to accurately cut the cardboard?

Regards,
Tamas

I like the path that we are going right now but is there any reason why we are not just going with the new Makerbot spools? They have over 20% of the desktop printing marketplace and if anyone should dictate industry standard why wouldn't it be the industry leader? It might be an unpopular opinion but it may be the harsh reality.

I saw the patent pending mark on the makerbot spool from Makerstash's pictures, so that might be a reason to not just go with the flow. Patenting a spool........sigh....

Patenting some thing as obvious as a spool + dozens of other related patents = patent troll.

There should be a law to prevent that.

1) Makerbot are not 'industry leaders'; more like desktop fdm marketing leaders, if anything.
2) their choice is based on their interests only; also, their design isn't particularly good.

Marcin

Quote
A2
Patenting some thing as obvious as a spool + dozens of other related patents = patent troll.

There should be a law to prevent that.

You can patent the design, so the physical appearance of it; not the spool itself...

Marcin

Interesting discussion, and I wonder if a standard is a good idea, or even possible. I think that an open evolution will eventually result in better spools.

Then there are also the cardridge based spools...

What happenes with empty spools, are they collected and re-used, or trashed and recycled, or worse ...landfill?
How much energy is involved when collected and shipped back to the factory vs. scrap and recycle?

Cardboard seems a good option.

That said, I think something like VD wire (Electrical wire) style boxes might be an option.

http://www.elektroshop.nl/images/thumbnails/280/280/detailed/7/elektra-draad-2-5mm-bruin-100-meter-goedkoop.jpg


They unwind from the inside out, and yes that also has disadvantages if you are not used to it.

Though the advantagers to store, ship, recycle etc. might just make this option more logical then plastic spools.
And it needs a few clever solutions to deal with the disadvatages in place before people start to use this, else everyone starts to flip out and move away from this option just because it is different then the current 'standard'.

Quote
eades850
A followon to uGen's comment would be to use a biodegradable/compostable core tube of set diameter and span without sideplates, the coil being shrinkwrapped or tiewrapped to it. This core/filament package could slide onto a split-apart spool prior to unwrapping. This would combine the best of both worlds concerning production costs while minimizing disposable/returnable materials.
You can go to Lowes or Home Depot and get an idea of this technique by looking at coils of shrinkwrapped Romex residential wire.
We take these coils and slide them onto split spools for coil perimeter feeding, or lay them on a "Spinner Table" which is basically a big Lazy Susan when we want to feed from the coil center. Both techniques work very well, but my preference is the spinner table as it keeps the coil packaging intact. Using this technique with shrinkwrapped filament would help minimize dust accumulation from static buildup during use and would eliminate coil free-wheeling which can occur when perimeter feeding. And, if you have any old 16mm theater film cans you have a ready-made dust/moisture proof storage container. (Yes, I'm that old).

I mentioned a variation earlier using filament coils that are shrink wrapped and fed from the center. (see above) This is akin to what you suggest, and I still like it as the most cost effective route.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2014 06:06PM by eades850.

Unfortunately the idea with pulling it out of the box won't work with current 3D printers, since it's coiled, and by pulling it it would effectively go into the extruder twisted. But it won't untwist there, because it will hold it tight -- so it will create more tight coils inside the box, leading to entanglement in the end.
An alternative way would be to pack it into the box in the 8-shape (series of right and left twists produce straight wire), but the box would have to be really large (or: wide), and I don't think this is a very good idea.

m.

I'm just going to throw it out there that I think MatterHacker's spools are perfect the way they are. The white ones are the lower quality, while the black ones [also slimmer] are higher quality. I can tell, just by looking, what I am buying, and each gives their own feel of quality. I've only used one printer so I can't say anything about size, but it's just right for me.

Quote
nothinman
Unfortunately the idea with pulling it out of the box won't work with current 3D printers, since it's coiled, and by pulling it it would effectively go into the extruder twisted. But it won't untwist there, because it will hold it tight -- so it will create more tight coils inside the box, leading to entanglement in the end.
An alternative way would be to pack it into the box in the 8-shape (series of right and left twists produce straight wire), but the box would have to be really large (or: wide), and I don't think this is a very good idea.

m.

That's why i said in the last 2 lines:

And it needs a few clever solutions to deal with the disadvatages in place before people start to use this, else everyone starts to flip out and move away from this option just because it is different then the current 'standard'.

My point is this: Boxes are more easy to store and transport then spools.
Cardboard is more easy to recycle

Entanglement can be avoided/solved just by providing a proper unwinding mechanism. Some printers use cardridges and they have no problems like you discribed. It's almost the same as with a carcbord box. It's more a matter of making the box in such a way that it would work with fillament. And a plateau or box holder that helps to unwind in a way that the fillament doesn't twist.

Once i have my printer up and running i will give this a try, though for now others might have a look at it. :-)

BTW, I'd also like to see a sticker on each spool with the material propperties.

Material, Melt temperature, production date, shelf life, ideal storing temerature, etc., etc.

Quote
BackEMF
BTW, I'd also like to see a sticker on each spool with the material propperties.

Material, Melt temperature, production date, shelf life, ideal storing temerature, etc., etc.

Look into the Universal Filament Identification (UFID) project.

[plus.google.com]
[UFIDs.org]
[github.com]

---

[whosawhatsis.com]

Nice one Whosawhatis!

I will have a deeper look into this tomorrow, thank you!

First things that come to mind are

What about:
- material density (kg/m3)
- crimp propperties? ABS crimps when it cools down how much percent or mm of crimp per meter or is this for all ABS the same?
though i supect that all the materials like PET, PE, PC, Flex, etc have different crimp caracteristics. This could eventually be helpful to be able to figure out if a material is more likely to ruin a print due to warping. The bigger the crimp the bigger the warp. and the bigger you print the more likely to cause issues.
- surface smoothness / friction, is it an option to use this material as a printed bearing
- water absorbant propperties. (do i need to store it in a closed container)
- shelflife, brandnew ABS is flexible, after a year or so it becomes brittle.
- chemical composition
- food / non-food grade material
- toxicity
- bio-degradable in x years
- is it recycled source or virgin plasic
- in case of woodfill, what type of wood is used

I hope i'm not suggesting things that are already sugessted.

Some of these subjects have already been discussed at length. A few of the others were dismissed as data that is not useful to the printer. This is, ultimately, a system to tell the printer everything it needs to know to print a material, so that a single gcode file can be used without modification to print in any compatible material.

Anyway, this is off-topic here. I recommend joining the G+ group and maybe reading over some of the previous discussions there.

---

[whosawhatsis.com]

i cut round a very cheap wood (i suppose it is plywood) and in the middle is a pvc pipe diameter 70mm .Outside plywood is 200mm





[www.youtube.com]

Have there been any new developments in regards to the communications with the filament manufacturers/suppliers? All of our discussions are for naught if the filament makers aren't on board.

If there is universal 3d printing filament spool standard, it will be awesome But I really doubt its feasibility.

1 Different 3d printers uses different spools. For example, the spool which suit Makerbot does not suit PICASO. The spool is installed inside of Picaso 3d printer,which has a very strict on the
width of the spool.Any one over 65mm is not suitable.As far as I learned, there is another brand MYWELL which have the same design.

2 The bore requirement is also different,obviously Makerbot uses bore over 52mm.

3 The idea of filament in carton box is interesting, but for 3D printing filament factory, it is not easy to achieve. I will show you one photos of production below.

You can see the winding machine attached.

Quote
ecoreprap
If there is universal 3d printing filament spool standard, it will be awesome But I really doubt its feasibility.

1 Different 3d printers uses different spools. For example, the spool which suit Makerbot does not suit PICASO. The spool is installed inside of Picaso 3d printer,which has a very strict on the
width of the spool.Any one over 65mm is not suitable.As far as I learned, there is another brand MYWELL which have the same design.

2 The bore requirement is also different,obviously Makerbot uses bore over 52mm.

3 The idea of filament in carton box is interesting, but for 3D printing filament factory, it is not easy to achieve. I will show you one photos of production below.

The point of developing a standard is so that these systems can be built around that standard in the future. Obviously, those that have already been designed in a way that is not compatible with the standard will either have to be redesigned or remain incompatible, but it makes it less likely that there will be a further proliferation of designs that are not compatible with one another.

---

[whosawhatsis.com]

Excellent efforts! Please be aware of the upcoming RepRap Interface Standard. There we define not neccessarily specific designs, more interfaces to make sure things can be put together. In this case it would probably mean a spool mount and maximum spool diameter. Happy wiki editing!

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Quote
KingRahl
It would be nice to have a STANDARD. Although, there are many things to consider when asking the manufacturers to conform.

1. They may have a contract with a spool company and are obligated to use them.
2. They are specified to a machine that will now require that spool size and shape.
3. THEIR spool making machine can only make one kind.

I'd rather re-spool onto another. Such as filling a sewing machine bobbin or re-spooling fishing line on a reel.

I agree with KingRahl. I worked in Plastic Industries for 3 years. It's not that simple.
The spool is dependent of the extruder machine itself.
A professionnal extruder is an expensive machine, meant to work.more than 20 years the way it was buid for.
A new standard means a new extruding machine or a new manufacturing proces or at last some calibration. Any changes cost.
A factory is not going to accept a new standard unless its sales depend on it or unless the investment is redeemable.
A manufacturer use the best way to do for it's productivity or sales.

I think the topic takes the problem the wrong way.

Standards comes if most of the working machines need and/or use it.
The new Makerbot replicator Z18 (great printer through) uses a tray that only accept Makerbot's spools.
As far the M brand sales a lot of printers, it could become a standard.
But only if Makerbot generalize trays on all their machines, and manufacturers
want their products to be used into the most sold printers.
Then other 3d printer manufacturers, and maybe the Reprap community too, will start to consider this standard.
Even the Cube may reconsider its spool rack, because there's more Replicators than Cubes.

Today, there's so many different printers, that some are more adapted to one or another spool.
Appreciate a Kossel mini does not have the same specifications than a 10" Prusa I3v.
Some needs compact spools, other prefers large or thin ones.

Otherhand, if there's some difficuties to use both kind of spools,
maybe the spool holder in use is not universal enough ?

There's two ways to solve the problem.
You can make a standard spool, but I guess it's quite impossible.
Or you can work on a holder/storage system that works for all.


Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2014 04:13AM by Zavashier.

I'm piling in way late here, but I like the idea of shrinkwrapped coils on a single cardboard core (about 100mm diameter, no inner bore structure), which can be inserted into a pair of reusable spool-ends. It means minimising the packaging waste (just like shipping bare coils) but by placing the coil into a reusable/splittable spool, you retain all the usability of spools. If you're willing to print reusable spool end-plates, you could accomodate a wide range (say 90-120mm) of core diameters with little fuss, and likewise any width is valid because your plates would just slide along an axle and be clamped at the right width for whatever spool you bought.

Even if there is no standard, building a spool holder to handle varying bore diameters by suspending the spool between a pair of printed cones is pretty easy. So I don't see any real need for a standard unless you want to make a super-compact printer or want to fit a large number of spools into a rack with absolutely minimal wasted space - in which case you've probably standardised on a supplier anyway.

All quiet here for a bit.

I am very much in favour of reducing waste. This will impact on the material choice. Cardstock or plastic are the most likely candidates. Wood and metal have merit as well.

I am not all together in favour of fibrous materials because they will cause dust and more importantly will store moisture thaat will require a lot of descicant to remove from the shipping container. The one exception to the moisture problem is if the spool is the dessicant in which case it would assist with keeping things dry.

Returning of spools is not likely to be viable unless you want to start a laser toner return program and that is done to take empties off the refilling market and not to promote landfill savings. However there is one possible way that I can see returns actually working and that is a knock-down/flat-pack spool that can have the flanges clipped off and the core split and unrolled flat. This will allow for less space in shipping of unspooled smaller fibre amounts with optional spool, reuse of spools when purchasing other small amounts of replacement fibre. It will also allow for the return shipping of 10 (or whatever will fit in a standard postal box) flat spools for credit with the filament supplier.

Care needs to be taken with postal sizes around the world, there are likely to be a couple of popular standard box sizes one does not want to exceed by just a little and pay the next highr postl rate. Having a standard Gross mass under the postal limits is also a nice idea because two coils could come in under the 2kg airmail limit and such like. This would tend to favour 750g portions.

Kalle

---

Kalle
--
Lahti, Finland
The only stable form of government is Open Source Government. - Kalle Pihlajasaari 2013

I had a look at my crude picture and thought, well that's sloppy, someone should tell him that those tabs are going to be a problem to insert and hold position repeatably. The tabs should be positively secured so that the filament cannot slip between the core and the side. See new attached picture for an upgrade.

The only drawback with this is that the two parts kind of need to be different materials to be economical. The side cheeks might work with foamcore or acryllic, translucent/clear is always nice to see how much filament remains. The core needs to be Nylon, polythene, cardstck or something. They can be laser or die-cut from flatsheet without too much pain for tests.

For ease of recycling I suppose ABS and Nylon might be the materials of choice. I suppose the parts could be printed as well with material savings due to thinner walls with ribs and a goove added on the side cheeks that will align the core strips. The pointy tongues on the core strips can be printed neatly staggered so the core is smooth if desired.

I added holes for the start and end of the stock filament and the security filament and slots to view the material remaining.
(file uploaded again, did not work properly the first time)

Oh, and before someone asks why the core is in two parts, it is so it can fit inside 200mm x200mm box or be printed on a regular RepRap.

A last edit to include an idea for joining the two core halves if they are printed, they could have inward facing hinge knuckles and use 3mm hinge pins to join the two core strips before fitting the side cheeks. This core should be easy enough to open and close on one side that it could be used to load loose filament.


How goes it with RichRaps mystery industry partner trials? I think we are going to get an expose one of these days.

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/02/2014 11:21AM by KalleP.

---

Kalle
--
Lahti, Finland
The only stable form of government is Open Source Government. - Kalle Pihlajasaari 2013

I strongly agree that we need to standardized the size of all spool.
This will make it much more easy to switch suppliers.

---

BotFeeder - Professional Manufactured 3D Filament

I think we should impliment standards, and the 2.2 kg spool is a nice size. Also I'm for cardboard with a plastic center. I also think the manufacturer should be stamped on the spool along with specs of the material. Just my two cents.

---

T.S. Elliot wrote: "Between the idea and the reality, falls the shadow..." It's in that shadow world great discoveries are made.

Good idea~
The manufacturer should stamp their name or ID, so people are able to track where is this spool coming from.
This way the manufacturer has more responsibility to make better filament products.

---

BotFeeder - Professional Manufactured 3D Filament

Another reel type that looks promising,

Tangle Free Bobbins

Same thing as used on many solder-wick products.

We would have to scale it up somewhat, and only one side needs to be flexible.
The flexible lip provides some drag, preventing pull-back and tangling in the spool.

They are generally polyproplene(PP or polyethelene(LDPE, milk jugs)). Could just as well be nylon too.