[Tool changer] Which dock concept will you select?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 окт 2024
- #Voron #3dprinting #toolchanger
This video is about the concepts of tool changer dock design. I will introduce three different concepts. And which one will you pick? Why? Leave a comment down below.
Did you enjoy the video? How about becoming a supporter
Patreon:
/ slow_engineering
PayPal:
paypal.me/Slow...
![[Tool changer] Which reduction unit do you prefer?](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tKcEgkiYbcQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Tool changer] Which reduction unit do you prefer?](/img/tr.png)
![BabyChiefDoit - Too Slow (feat. STAR BANDZ) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zayaxws7RPg/mqdefault.jpg)
Great doc the blower design is unique 👌
Putting the toolheads on the door would require quite long toolhead cables and bowden tubes so the door can still be opened.
Yes, the cable length needs to cover the door's rotating distance to ensure the tool heads won't fall. And the cables will squeeze into the hinge side once the door is opened.
You should consider a CAN Bus breakout board because then you can lose the cable chains and thus have less mass on the toolhead and thus it will be able to go faster. In spite of how cool they are, they offer disadvantage and losing them if possible would be better.
Did you mean like the BTT CEB board?
This is awesome good job
id go for a fixed one, since theres less issues with alignement, and its easier to dock (not so much a problem of the stealthchanger system imo), or one with a liftbar, fixed keeps the xy printable area while a liftbar and the sorts would need the AB idlers moved back and thus the area decreases from bottom to top entirely
Yes, you are right. The fixed docks are much more reliable, and the liftbar or floating bar reduces the print volume. However, my purpose is to enhance the efficiency of the tool change process. I want to make the floating bar keep chasing the gantry when the z height is changed but also help the gantry swap tool heads. I considered having the fixed docks as a plan B if the floating system is not as reliable as expected. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
I wonder if you can change the mechanism of docking to be up/sideways/down instead of front/sideways/back. That way you could put the bar above the flying gantry and for the cost of some z-height the other extruder tools don't need to move anywhere, they will just stay at a static position. You did mention putting it on the roof of the printed as one of the options, and that the "problem" with it is the head needing to move a lot on z to reach it. I don't think it is such a huge concern, can probably just make z movements be faster and with the four belts and four steppers there is no shortage of power on a 2.4 for those movements.
If I understand how you mentioned it, it is more likely the TapChanger. The docks are at the printer's top, and the printhead needs to go up for tool changing. It is a promising way to have the toolheads. My concept is to reduce the movements and quickly change at a certain height. It will be more complex, but it will be more efficient once it works.
I'm just throwing out a random thought. What if the homing switches for the bar were on the ends of the flying gantry. The bar would essentially home at each tool change and end up at the same spot. Then move back whatever the traveled distance was. This may not work at all with the code limitations, but maybe it will spark an idea.
My original thought is that the end stops are at the bar ends and engage with the front gantry. The bar keeps homing to align with the gantry when printing, which means the bar only has relative movements to the gantry. It only provides the necessary movements to swap the tool heads and has the shortest path for swapping. I might add a lift movement for the bar when the prints are finished.
Great work! Curious to see what you end up choosing. Take a look at our optical calibration tool. It can help you calibrate when you get there and also test your tool dock and pickip repeatability 🔥
You guys have a tool for XY offset calibration using visual images. Interesting!
@@SlowEngineering Yup! Makes calibration easy, more accurate and its firmware agnostic 🙂. It's also a powerful tool for checking repeatability for tool changers. RUclips won't be happy if I drop a link here, but you can check it out on our website!
How to connect multiple CAN boards to octopus ?
There are two choices for connecting. A dedicated USB-CAN adapter or USB-CAN-bridge Klipper on the mainboard(Octopus). I suggest you read this website for more details. canbus.esoterical.online/
why does it sound like you are having a stroke LMAO
Foreigners exist.
Speech impediments exist.
Why does this surprise you?
Well, I'm not a native English speaker. I am still tuning the voice for a better experience. What can I improve?
@@SlowEngineering ye sorry I was a bit rude...
I dont know tbh
@ichwillzaster It's okay. I am more curious about what experience is more comfortable for viewers.
@@SlowEngineering first of all, i love this discussion haha,
i have to agree with him, stroke part is referring to slow speech, monotonic, a bit like Eeyore (winnie the pooh)
im not even it sure you should improve it, for a non native english speaker it sounds very clear and is very easy to understand! the channel is also called SlowEngineering so i feel like it fits, its unique after all
i bet that, someone who doesnt subscribe, and stumbles back onto your videos at a later time, is much more likely to remember you
I like the idea of a front tool rack for several reasons. But why not mount the tool holder rack directly onto the A and B idler assemblies at the front of the Y axis rails? That way it would run up and down with the whole gantry, using the Z system that already exists. And most critically, that way it would be ALWAYS in perfect XYZ alignment and position relative to the tool carriage. Here are some thoughts:
- the tool holder rail could be aluminum DIN mounting rail, bridging from A to B idler assemblies.
- mounted upright (like this ] ) to prevent sag in the Z axis
- mounted with printed end brackets that interlock with the A and B idler assemblies, which would probably need to be modified as well
- modify the tool holders to mount onto DIN rail
- between tool holders, have printed spacers to secure the tool holders in the X axis, and stiffen the rail in the Y axis
- assuming A (left side) is the X axis home, that end would drop into place on the A idler with a locating pin to be fixed in XYZ relative to the A idler
- the B mounting bracket would use a slot to anchor it in Z and Y, but free in X so it would not put X axis forces on the Y axis rails
- magnets or latches could hold the entire tool rail in place during operation, but it could be easily removed
- strong magnets or printed brackets mounted on the front door would allow the entire tool rack to hang on the door for easy access
- printed brackets could be mounted high on the frame to hold the tool rail in fixed position when not in use
Thank you for leaving me with many suggestions. I introduce some background I saw before. A video showed the directly mounted rack to the front Z belts. The developer called it MissChanger. It is an excellent way to align the bar with the Z axes without tolerance. However, the inconvenience I saw was that he needed to detach the rack whenever he wanted to access the finished print. I also saw the TapChanger developer showing the latest liftbar design. It looks good, but still, something can be better.
I considered the DIN rail. The choice of the DIN rail or the profile is not restricted. It depends on the surrounding components and the loads. The bar shares the detaching force with the gantry.
I'm not sure about what you mean by mounting upright. Do you mean an L-shaped part with two fixes with the axis parallel to the Z-axis? In theory, the Z-axis should be normal to the gantry. However, the gantry is leveled with the bed, which probably does not perfectly align with the frame. That is why I plan to mount two optical switches and run two steppers independently. Another reason I picked the optical switches is to prevent any collision between the bar and the gantry. As a result, the bar should align with the gantry, not vertically to its axis.
For the spacers, yes, in the future, there will be spacers to align the docks or tool holders to ensure the same spacing.
I saw you suggested using a locating pin and slot design to fix the bar with the Z-axis front side. I make them separately because I don't want extra loads on the gantry. Adding weight to the gantry would negatively impact speed or print quality. But I admit that directly installing the bar on the gantry is the easiest way to ensure they are synchronized perfectly.