I’ve just pre-ordered new prusa XL
https://www.prusa3d.com/product/original-prusa-xl-2/
I really dig the tool change option. If this one serves me as good as mk3, I can’t see how it won’t become a new standard in 3d printing. It is a pricey peace of hardware, ecpecially 5 tool version.
Started on the plan to build a little support for these lads, looking for some sanity checks. Prints are done in PETG, I can do TPU as well if the flex would be better for impacts but I don’t think it would do as well with the small features.
I’m trying to keep clear of the bigish inductor on the near side in that pic. Any other obvious pitfalls to keep in mind?
V1 I completely botched the dimensions so it’s irrelevant, V2 just had its supports removed now
edit: aaaand I made a mess of v2 as well. Good thing it’s like a 20 minute print. I made a large block and carved out a pocket to form the legs, and forgot that a drawing from the bottom would be flipped when it was right side up.
Also I haven’t checked the e-steps on my printer but it seems the dimensional accuracy is way off for models this small? I took some of the measurements for V2 by physically cutting down V1 after it was printed, but after it printed it (V2) came out too small so it seems the printer is being difficult
Edit 2:
V3 looks better and indeed fits faairly well, but as a result of bad measurements or bad machine cal the radius of the capacitor’s seat is just a little too small.
Why not print it standing up? Should use less support and give you a much smoother curve for the cap.
ah I hadn’t thought of that. When I run it through Prusa it actually generates a slower print, with what looks like more support material. When I paint on custom supports it’s still a minute or two slower, though this might be to do with more Z moves rather than more material.
You’re right on the curve, but I don’t think it’s that important
Success! Sort of… Looks like the design fits capacitors for 2 phases, and I need a different one for the third that sits on top of the connectors. I’m also working on a support for the corner of the board that’s otherwise unsupported
Tried again and decided it was a good idea to pause the print to answer a phone call. The ender did not agree so we’ve got failed print number 2
Looks better than the first one tho. I think it might have finished OK had it not been interrupted.
Yup after a couple more basic mistakes, another attempt got 90% of the way there before losing bed adhesion because it’s a bit too tall and narrow. I think I’m gonna use that sort of failed print though because it functions fine and the tip won’t be visible
A brim would probably solve that issue, and they’re generally not that much hassle to remove.
I usually leave brims on by default, since they don’t take up that much extra time or material, but save iffy prints pretty reliably. Helps with warping as well.
I’m trying to make an annoyingly big riser as a stop gap until some bigger wheels get here and was wondering about these tactics for wasting less material. I intend to use 96A TPU but if I’ve misunderstood I could use PETG instead
Why chamfer the bolt holes? Won’t they be up against the deck anyway?
yeah there’s no huge reason, I think it was partly to guide the screw in if I was a little out of alignment and partly because I was just chamfering everything (the big cutout came after and I didn’t go back and add it to that)
Higher wall count will help reinforce the bolt holes. Don’t skimp on infill when it’s a crucial failure point. I’d print that at no less than 85% infill and would do 95% if it were me.
Sounds good thanks, any thoughts on the material removed from the middle of the model? I know the bolts are the source of a lot of the compression but the load is spread through two big plates on either side so I can’t tell if it’s efficient or just asking for trouble
I would fillet or chamfer the edges around the square posts for some reinforcement but I used a very similar riser on my circuit board build for a long time on petg and routed cables through the gap which was nice.
Thanks, I did the same on an earlier angled channel PETG riser but having dug out the gcode for that it looks like I went very light on the infill so oops. That part is getting removed tonight and I’ll make a call on whether I’m bothered to mess with topology optimisation or just go with the chunky version
Right I got 20% of the way through the print before I realised a simple square-ish part with a high density gyroid infill means the print head runs in extended grid-like lines oscillating quickly side to side. ie, vibrates to hell. Didn’t feel like subjecting my poor bastard housemates to 9 hours overnight of that run through an undamped, non-silent stepper machine so it’s cancelled until tomorrow when I can start it again with a different infill
