From RepRap
Jump to: navigation, search


There are multiple, different milling toolheads that should have different pages describing that one specific toolhead in the section Development:Toolheads
There can be a central page about PCB-milling and one about 3D-milling but they use different mills, have a different creator, can be attached to different cartesian bots and a different version-history.
Merging them only creates confusion. Marcus --MarcusWolschon 12:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please forgive my confusion.
In general I agree that each distinct toolhead should have its own distinct page.
However, from what little I could glean from reading the DremelFlexShaftHolder and Flex Shaft milling-toolhead articles,
both toolheads are the toolhead and so both pages are about exactly the same toolhead, and so therefore should be merged.
Dear reader, if you know which of these 2 articles is *not* the toolhead, would you please edit that article to point out what it is instead, and perhaps mention some specific difference between the two toolheads.
Thank you. --DavidCary 06:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
How did you get the idea that both are thing1883? DremelFlexShaftHolder states that it is thing#1703 and Flex Shaft milling-toolhead states that it is thing#1832 . --MarcusWolschon 07:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Ooops. Sorry. When I saw articles had that same link in them, I somehow I got that idea in my head. Reading the articles again showed me I had jumped to an incorrect conclusion.
Thank you for straightening me out.
I'm going to try to make it even more clear for the next person -- please feel free to revert if I've still got things backwards. --DavidCary 03:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Why did you delete the history of this development and state that it does not fit? It CAN be made to fit and would vibrate less then the other one due to the tighter fitting. --MarcusWolschon 04:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I moved text that appeared to be talking about Dremel holders in general to Dremel Holder. Apparently I thought that text was not specific to this development, but was more relevant elsewhere.
The "challenge to convert this ... to the RepRap Mendel" section is confusing to me.
It gives me the impression that this part "does not fit" a Mendel, so people who have a Mendel should print out that other part (or perhaps an even more recent improved part) rather than this one.
Is there some way to improve that section of the article to prevent people like me from getting that incorrect impression? --DavidCary 02:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Of cause it does not fit the Mendel. Mendel is not the only RepRap generation out there and it does have advantages over the later variations when it comes to vibration.
It clearly states what device it is for in the very first sentence AND in the info-box AND on the thingiverse-page AND it is obvious from the photos and the design itself. --MarcusWolschon 04:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Dear MarcusWolschon,
Thank you very much for designing this DremelFlexShaftHolder.
Yes, I see that this was designed for the RepMan. RepMan, RepMan, RepMan. Yes, that is obvious.
Alas, I don't *have* a RepMan! Yes, that's my own fault.
There are a few things things that were designed for the Darwin or the RepMan that also work great with the Mendel.
Is DremelFlexShaftHolder one of those few things? That's not so obvious to me.
I hope you can see how hearing both "It CAN be made to fit" and "Of course it does not fit" left me confused.
Would the DremelFlexShaftHolder page be better if it clearly told Mendel owners "This design has some advantages over "thing:1832 : Flexy Shaft holder for Mendel", but there are a few things that need to change to get an adaptation of this design to fit on Mendel."? --DavidCary 05:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Sure that can be done. Just take the cone and add a different attachment-plate. Make sure it fits between or to the side of the x-carriage and it should work fine on a Mendel. --MarcusWolschon 06:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)