Відео

I directly asked an OEM to provide me with the filter.

I've actually been wondering this, the Ikea air purifiers and Airthings Renew all put the carbon filter after the HEPA filter. The Airthings Renew also uses a HEPA 13 filter which is often a bit difficult to find on air purifiers. I have a 3-4 particle sensors and under normal circumstances they often hover around 2-4 PPM both for 2.5nm and 1nm particles , so I'm unsure if having the carbon filter after the HEPA filter actually does release carbon particulates.

@@MrGemeco "... the Ikea air purifiers and Airthings Renew all put the carbon filter after the HEPA filter...." They usually wash it so it does not dust off too much. And of course they want to save money =) My air purifier also has it´s carbon filter after the HEPA filter but I wouldn´t do it for a DIY solution. You can never clean your carbon that well.

The sequence can be switched to carbon first, then the HEPA.

1. Air Removal Creates Negative Pressure ◆When the fan actively sucks air out of the chamber, it removes air faster than it can naturally flow back in. This creates a temporary low-pressure zone inside the chamber. ◆Even if the air is circulated back, the fan continuously pulls air out, maintaining a lower pressure inside the chamber relative to the outside. 2. Flow Resistance in Circulation ◆The air being circulated back into the chamber typically passes through ducts, filters, or other components. These elements create resistance to airflow, slowing the rate at which air re-enters the chamber. ◆This resistance prevents the re-circulated air from fully balancing the air removed, keeping the chamber under negative pressure. 3. Concept of Airflow Balance ◆The rate of air removal by the fan is greater than or equal to the rate of air returning to the chamber. As long as the removal rate exceeds the return rate (even slightly), negative pressure will persist. ◆Circulation alone cannot eliminate the pressure difference because the fan continuously "dominates" the airflow. 4. Analogy for Clarity Imagine a vacuum cleaner sucking air out of a sealed box but with a small hose feeding some air back in: ◆The vacuum cleaner pulls air faster than the small hose can supply it, so the pressure inside the box stays lower than outside. ◆Even if you connect the hose to the exhaust of the vacuum cleaner (creating a "circulation"), the resistance in the hose keeps the box in negative pressure. 5. Application to 3D Printer Chambers In the 3D printer chamber: ◆The fan removes air, reducing the pressure. ◆The re-circulated air flows back but encounters resistance (through filters or ducts), making it slower to return. ◆This results in a persistent negative pressure, ensuring fumes or particles are pulled into the filtration system rather than leaking out of the chamber.

Thank you. I'll integrate them to make them easier to use.

擠出機？一些機台有雙擠出。當然也可以自己改

Have you checked the total weight of your design? If you plan to tape all the sheets together, remember to consider the thickness of the tape as well. Be cautious about the edges of the sheets, and good luck!

很多賣3D列印零件的都會有賣

Thank you! It’s been holding up well over time. I only needed to vacuum particulate matter and chips to keep it clean, which worked perfectly.

R15

42HS79-8004S1

The shredder is based on the Precious Plastic shredder and was modified by me. The shredder itself is bought from the Bazar.

Yes, I'll consider having one if I need more analysis. Thank you for your advice.

I agree-the Voron Trident has a more adaptable architecture for building a tool changer, much like the Prusa XL, despite how it handles connecting and detaching toolheads. I went with the Voron 2 because it’s my main printer, and I wanted to leverage what I already had. Plus, adding the floating bar has really boosted the efficiency of my setup. Thanks for the input-it's great to compare approaches!

Thanks! I'm excited to get there, too. I'm currently working on another subproject related to this one, the tophat with multiple air systems. Once that's finished, these will come together as a complete system. It's taking some time, but I hope I will no longer breathe smelly fumes.

Yes, I'm familiar with both of them, and you're right-some features of my system were inspired by them. However, I've also incorporated my own ideas, so there are differences as well. Feel free to check out my other videos where I highlight those unique aspects! I’d love to hear your thoughts and any ideas you might have for improvement.

I did that because the XY gantry is leveled with the bed. The bed might not perfectly align with the frame when heated. Therefore, the floating bar aligns with the gantry, not the frame, to swap the toolheads. I hope this can answer your question.

@@SlowEngineering makes perfect sense

Thanks! I'm excited to get there too. I'm currently working on another subproject, the tophat system, related to this one. Once that's finished, these two will come together as part of a complete system. It's taking some time, but I can't wait to share the final result!

@@SlowEngineering nice! How are you planning to calibrate and test repeatability of the tool grabbing?

Yes, there are a couple of candidate ideas about the calibration. I need detailed plans to test them.

@@SlowEngineering good luck! Let me know if you want to try optical calibration with our tool...happy to give you a discount 🙂

I think the same concept of forming two bearings and a grinder bit can still solve the problem. A kind of spool rack supports the filament spool on the edges instead of the center. It features two-point contact with the spool. This concept can be applied to the idea I showed in the opposite way to make the cylinder slim with a 2-stage process, too.

Adjustable reamers are options, too.

Adding and removing bearings are for the length. Maybe switching to the rods, which can slide, and fixing them like set screws, can achieve what you want. It would be more like an XY-plane movement. Thank you for your suggestion.

Clamping the rods might be another way to make them easy to use. However, I am concerned about the rigidity of this method. The rods should not move during the grinding process. What do you think?

@@SlowEngineering My first guess would be to print something like a tongue and groove mechanism for Z (direction of the spindle) with one or two locking screws to lock the mechanism. If you dont need free adjustment, which i guess it doesn't, you can integrate like two interfacing gear racks to increase the rigidity. The mechanism for the radial adjustment and the bearings would be on the moving part. This might be a bit bigger overall, but i think the adjustability is worth it. Also, prototyping is obviously very fast and easy with 3D printing. Edit: To answer your question: Clamping the rods should be stiff enough for this application if you don't use the smallest rods you can find (like 4mm and up should be fine) and you're clamping on a long enough stretch of the rods.

@terl0th The slide for the radial adjustment should be interchangeable for different hole sizes. Building another direction of movement should also be as easy as possible. After some deep thinking, I change my mind about sliding the rods. Sliding makes the tolerance, which affects the circularity. I prefer to replace the slide with different rod lengths. The tight fit between the rods and the printed slide is the key to keeping the circularity. A slight change to make the slide be replaced at the end should be okay for quick swapping.

那也可以 只要能達到目的

軟體? 如果是韌體錯了 找原來的版本灌回去 如果是切層軟體 改設定就可以了

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/

CANbus is a serial communication protocol. You chain everything on the same physical port. The different tools need to be programmed with different (unique) CAN identifier to be adressed by the main board.

I suggest not using extrusions as the frame. I tested it, and it suffers from connection reliability. More on ua-cam.com/video/jf_Z_3qvc1E/v-deo.html

Taiwan. Similar couplings are probably available in your region. Search "HRC coupling" and buy them from your local supplier.

There are lots of similar things.

Thank you!

Thank you. I'll let you know if I need some help.

@@SlowEngineering Any time!

No. Once the prototype works, I'll release it. I still want to implement some functions, like the tophat with LEDs, ventilation systems, etc.

Did you mean like the BTT CEB board?

理論上可以，你必須要先知道使用的晶片是什麼，自行設定Marlin的configuration.h與configuration_adv.h檔案，然後flash覆蓋掉原來的firmware。多數的MCU在Marlin中應該都有，但不一定有設定板子的部分，如果知道板子的型號也可以在board.h中查看看

@@SlowEngineering 好的，非常謝謝你

That is great. It means the current developing path works.

One of the tool changer's most important advantages is for various materials simultaneously, as you said. Different temperatures or properties of materials can be combined into a print without worrying about clogging the nozzles. The current system is still in development, like how the wires go. I also want to deal with the fumes from ABS printing. Everything that comes together will need more consideration.

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.

The purpose of the floating bar is to reduce the time needed to change tools and the total printing time. If using a stationary bar, in most cases, the bar is at the top of the printer, which causes the tool to change up and down constantly. Some models have already shown how they work. The floating bar tracks the gantry and eliminates most travel to enhance efficiency. However, your suggestion is indeed a less complicated solution. Thank you.

I think the Voron Trident is much easier than the 2.4 for having tool changer modifications. People build tool changers on 2.4 because of the printers most people already have.

Thank you

Thank you

It would be different with some additives. I already have some tests on the P150 and PA12CF. However, I don't have a chance to try some "matte" filament. What kind of application needs it?

是自己設定的marlin還是使用出廠設定? 是都沒有資訊顯示還是只有M92沒有? 有些出廠可能沒有開啟顯示M92

@@SlowEngineering出廠的⋯沒法令它顯示？

如果是很早期版本的Marlin沒有EEPROM所以無法，如果不是早期版本要顯示就必須要自己設定修改configuration.h跟configuration_adv.h檔案後重新生成新的bin檔後刷新機台的韌體

@@SlowEngineering 有什麼方法得知是舊版？

M115會回報版本

I don't use regular gear because of the backlash. I have seen the rope drive. It looks amazing.

I use two bearings to center the output shaft. I agree that poor surface qualities and tolerance will cause more resistance. In my opinion, the flex spline needs to be more solid to reduce the energy absorption for deformation. For drive current, I have already reached the recommended limit for the TMC2209 and the stepper with peak current in the 2A setting or 1.42 as the rms current.

Many factors cause the strain wave gear to be inefficient, including surface quality, tooth shape, and flex spline material. Fewer teeth allow larger teeth to mate with each other, helping transmit torque with a larger contact surface, although fewer teeth might cause some ratcheting movement. I understand cycloidal drives can have similar features, like low backlash; the reason I didn't choose them first is their complexity. The design needs to be rebuilt easily and reliably by others. The strain wave gear has fewer parts compared to the cycloidal drive. Since the strain wave gear failed, I just stayed with the belts in this application.