On Jun 13, 2011, at 5:15 PM, Ed Nisley wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 11:38 -0700, Mike Payson wrote:
>> has the benefits you want
>> along with the ease and low-cost that I demand
>
> Now *that* will be a wonder to behold!
>
> Looking forward to it, indeed...
How far away is this from avail
On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 14:33 -0700, Mike Payson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Ed Nisley wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 23:54 -0700, Mike Payson wrote:
> > > that is a limitation of the Makerbot firmware.
> >
> > As nearly as I can tell, ReplicatorG has become sufficiently
> > inte
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Colin K wrote:
>
> On Jun 12, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Mike Payson wrote:
>
> > That said, if you want to build one, I _strongly_ recommend you start
> with a
> > standard Prusa Mendel (http://reprap.org/wiki/Prusa) and only start
> > experimenting after you have got t
On Jun 12, 2011, at 8:23 PM, Mike Payson wrote:
> That said, if you want to build one, I _strongly_ recommend you start with a
> standard Prusa Mendel (http://reprap.org/wiki/Prusa) and only start
> experimenting after you have got that up and running. The current design has
> it's limitations,
On Mon, 2011-06-13 at 11:38 -0700, Mike Payson wrote:
> has the benefits you want
> along with the ease and low-cost that I demand
Now *that* will be a wonder to behold!
Looking forward to it, indeed...
--
Ed
http://softsolder.com
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 7:35 PM, Ed Nisley wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 14:33 -0700, Mike Payson wrote:
> > a bit of a Makerbot champion
>
> The *idea* behind the Thing-O-Matic is great, but the *implementation*,
> well, not so much. Plus, all the things on the their wishlist seem to be
> done
On Sun, 2011-06-12 at 14:33 -0700, Mike Payson wrote:
> a bit of a Makerbot champion
The *idea* behind the Thing-O-Matic is great, but the *implementation*,
well, not so much. Plus, all the things on the their wishlist seem to be
done deals with EMC2, but I digress.
> "ship it, then sell them an
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Colin K wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Mike Payson wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Colin K wrote:
> > >
> > > For a long time I was very skeptical of the whole "machine that makes
> its
> > > own parts" aspect as I thought, "why bother,
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 5:46 PM, Mike Payson wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Colin K wrote:
> >
> > For a long time I was very skeptical of the whole "machine that makes its
> > own parts" aspect as I thought, "why bother, aluminum extrusion is
> cheap?"
> >
>
> I am actually working o
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 1:31 PM, Colin K wrote:
>
> For a long time I was very skeptical of the whole "machine that makes its
> own parts" aspect as I thought, "why bother, aluminum extrusion is cheap?"
>
I am actually working on a design that uses the printed parts, but replaces
the threaded rod
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Ed Nisley wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 23:54 -0700, Mike Payson wrote:
> > that is a limitation of the Makerbot firmware.
>
> As nearly as I can tell, ReplicatorG has become sufficiently
> intertwingled with the firmware that it's best to not stray too far from
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Ed Nisley wrote:
>
> The fact that the "computer" inside the printer is a PC running EMC2,
> instead of a microcontroller running something else, is largely
> irrelevant. From the outside, you feed either printer with G-Code from
> Skeinforge it produces parts; th
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 23:54 -0700, Mike Payson wrote:
> that is a limitation of the Makerbot firmware.
As nearly as I can tell, ReplicatorG has become sufficiently
intertwingled with the firmware that it's best to not stray too far from
the beaten path, so I'll continue to use the 2.7 firmware un
I am not a big fan of the various hybrid machines and repstraps (for people
unfamiliar with the terminology, a reprap is a printer made from printer
parts ("REProducing RApid Prototyper"), and a RepStrap is a printer made
without printed parts (in theory used to make the printed parts for a real
Re
I have been looking at this technology myself and have a
machine half built - I found a design via the reprap page
which incorporates a milling head as well as an extruder so
that, in theory, the parts can be 'finished' in situ after
they are made or maybe even as they are being built. I have
Ed,
I am not certain I am interpreting your comment "The firmware doesn't apply
acceleration limiting, which I regard as a major limitation on performance
and dependability" correctly, but if you mean that the firmware doesn't do
acceleration at all (it is either full speed or not moving), that i
On 6/11/2011 7:17 PM, Colin K wrote:
> The big thing stopping me from jumping in was the sense that you were lucky
> if you got a part one out of three runs on one of these things. It seems
> like the past year or two, things have improved a lot in terms of the
> extruder designs becoming somewhat
On Sat, 2011-06-11 at 19:17 -0400, Colin K wrote:
> you can make very complex geometries
> without multiple setups or fixtures
That's why I got a Thing-O-Matic: create near-net parts that don't need
much finishing. This one came out perfectly:
http://softsolder.com/2011/05/27/thing-o-matic-cali
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 4:52 PM, Edward Bernard wrote:
> Well, you stated the things I found lacking: surface finish, extraneous
> blobs,
> process reliability and speed. I'm sure there are applications where
> surface
> finish are not important and that the technology is improving. So, I'm
> stil
lternative technology.
I should also amend my statement: I am impressed by the process, it's just not
far enough along to get me to jump in yet.
From: Colin K
To: Enhanced Machine Controller (EMC)
Sent: Sat, June 11, 2011 6:17:42 PM
Subject: [Emc-users]
2011/6/12 Colin K :
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Edward Bernard
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Sounds very interesting, Jon. I've looked at extrusion based RPS and have
>> not
>> been impressed with the results.
>>
>
> Edward,
>
> Care to share any of your thoughts on this? I'm curious to see what aspect
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 5:06 PM, Edward Bernard
wrote:
>
> Sounds very interesting, Jon. I've looked at extrusion based RPS and have
> not
> been impressed with the results.
>
Edward,
Care to share any of your thoughts on this? I'm curious to see what aspects
of it you've found lacking.
I fel
22 matches
Mail list logo
