Hey mate! I’m just curious about the durability of the p150 and how had you found it to print. I was hoping to form a material with similar strength and durability as delrin but I am not sure if that is necessarily possible..
The company sent me some sample packs to test the material. I also have another video to test the material in the application. ua-cam.com/video/BJkQQgXM2tc/v-deo.html
Your hotend is a method of fixing to the toolhead based on the Z axis. If the nozzle passes through the section where the filaments are clumped during printing, will the hot end not be separated? I'm also designing a tool changer. I'm thinking about the idea of how to fix the hotend with the Y axis for this reason, but it's hard to fix it. The method used in E3D in the past must be applied, but this method has the disadvantage of heavy toolhead. Anyway, all X, Y, and Z axes need to be firmly fixed, but it seems to be a difficult solution. I'll share any good ideas while watching your video.
I think it would be okay with this setup. I saw TapChanger and StealthChanger also using these z-axis release mechanisms. The key is to create a straight z-movement to detach the tool head. Any movement not straight upward will not detach the tool head because of the restriction of pins and bushings. A detaching process will need to go against the magnets to release. Two magnets on each side(shuttle & tool head) are firm and require some force to release, even with hands. I considered several models when I faced the same issue you mentioned. But, even the Voron Tap uses a rail to move the tool head in the z-axis, and it has two magnets to hold the tool head when printing. E3D and Prusa use the three-point fixing with their tool heads, which is highly repeatable. However, the connection is difficult to design and work with, especially if it involves a stepper or servo motor. At the same time, I also don't want to have too many custom CNC metal parts. These will drive the cost high and make them hard to replace. Thank you for leaving a comment to share your thoughts about the tool changer. I'm glad to have some feedback about my current design and what could be improved or different approaches.
@@SlowEngineering so how does it compare to the stealthchanger or TapChanger. I have tried both mechanisms now and only with the tapchanger I get close to stock (original toolhead) input shaper. Trying to optimize the material and design right now, but going with a diffrent design could be fun, as the tapchanger is quite heavy (with dragonburner toolhead, but i think it is designed this way, cause the toolhead doesnt come back down when tapping if I make the fit to tight
@SippoCoffee I saw their design, but I haven't used them before. My toolhead fitting tolerance is tight to secure any offset possibility in the XY directions, especially when the printhead is moving fast. My design doesn't use any tap mechanism; instead, it uses the regular PCB Klicky to eliminate any need for leaving tolerance for probing. This should make the toolhead on the printhead more stable. A solid fitting makes the printhead into a piece to make the input shaper more easy to tune. What do you think about it?
@@SlowEngineering Why I would agree: A tighter fit/tolerances would make it more rigid and therefore show better results in input shaper, I agree with that. Why I maybe wouldn't agree: in theory you can think of the toolhead (without the coupling mechanism) as one solid peace, this would be if the whole construction is fully rigid, but if it is greatly more rigid than the coupling mechanism, I think you can still make that assumption. in this case, if the nozzle hits the bed under the coupling mechanism (imagine all of them being in the same z-y-plane), there would be force applied only in the z direction, with the fit having an impact through the friction alone. So technically, the nozzle hitting the bed and the shuttle putting the toolhead back in the dock would be the same stress for your coupling parts (correct me if I'm wrong). As you pick up your toolhead without extra force (just the mass of the toolhead), probing with tap would be just like docking and picking the tool back up, again and again. I hated tap before I tried it, but now that I used it trough the tap- and stealthchanger mechanisms, I have to say, it is kinda really handy and easy (changing nozzle, hotend, or anything but the 2 coupling parts, just doesn't seem to matter for tap ^^). As a tap pcb is around 3$ on ali (that's where I got it) and you can just plug it in an arduino (or anything with 5v and GND) to see if it would work (lights change blue/red when triggered), you could just place a scale on your bed and babystep your toolhead onto it, to see at what load the probe would trigger (the hard part would be getting the probe onto the head without an adapter or redesigning).
Haven't tried messing with tolerances on the pin design, but on the bearing design I have made the fit way tighter, which resulted in better rigidity and in tap not working anymore (doesn't come back down), but it also meant I need an upper bumper on the dock, to apply the force so the tool can get pressed into the shuttle. Haven't tried that yet, but it would be interesting to see (and also require an extra probe so it can home, or with other words extra wirering 😅)
![[Tool changer] Which dock concept will you select?](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/9Vt6jjpux_E/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Tool changer] Which dock concept will you select?](/img/tr.png)
Great design
Hey mate! I’m just curious about the durability of the p150 and how had you found it to print. I was hoping to form a material with similar strength and durability as delrin but I am not sure if that is necessarily possible..
The company sent me some sample packs to test the material. I also have another video to test the material in the application. ua-cam.com/video/BJkQQgXM2tc/v-deo.html
Your hotend is a method of fixing to the toolhead based on the Z axis.
If the nozzle passes through the section where the filaments are clumped during printing, will the hot end not be separated?
I'm also designing a tool changer.
I'm thinking about the idea of how to fix the hotend with the Y axis for this reason, but it's hard to fix it.
The method used in E3D in the past must be applied, but this method has the disadvantage of heavy toolhead.
Anyway, all X, Y, and Z axes need to be firmly fixed, but it seems to be a difficult solution.
I'll share any good ideas while watching your video.
I think it would be okay with this setup. I saw TapChanger and StealthChanger also using these z-axis release mechanisms. The key is to create a straight z-movement to detach the tool head. Any movement not straight upward will not detach the tool head because of the restriction of pins and bushings. A detaching process will need to go against the magnets to release. Two magnets on each side(shuttle & tool head) are firm and require some force to release, even with hands. I considered several models when I faced the same issue you mentioned. But, even the Voron Tap uses a rail to move the tool head in the z-axis, and it has two magnets to hold the tool head when printing.
E3D and Prusa use the three-point fixing with their tool heads, which is highly repeatable. However, the connection is difficult to design and work with, especially if it involves a stepper or servo motor. At the same time, I also don't want to have too many custom CNC metal parts. These will drive the cost high and make them hard to replace.
Thank you for leaving a comment to share your thoughts about the tool changer. I'm glad to have some feedback about my current design and what could be improved or different approaches.
@@SlowEngineering so how does it compare to the stealthchanger or TapChanger.
I have tried both mechanisms now and only with the tapchanger I get close to stock (original toolhead) input shaper. Trying to optimize the material and design right now, but going with a diffrent design could be fun, as the tapchanger is quite heavy (with dragonburner toolhead, but i think it is designed this way, cause the toolhead doesnt come back down when tapping if I make the fit to tight
@SippoCoffee I saw their design, but I haven't used them before. My toolhead fitting tolerance is tight to secure any offset possibility in the XY directions, especially when the printhead is moving fast. My design doesn't use any tap mechanism; instead, it uses the regular PCB Klicky to eliminate any need for leaving tolerance for probing. This should make the toolhead on the printhead more stable. A solid fitting makes the printhead into a piece to make the input shaper more easy to tune. What do you think about it?
@@SlowEngineering Why I would agree: A tighter fit/tolerances would make it more rigid and therefore show better results in input shaper, I agree with that.
Why I maybe wouldn't agree: in theory you can think of the toolhead (without the coupling mechanism) as one solid peace, this would be if the whole construction is fully rigid, but if it is greatly more rigid than the coupling mechanism, I think you can still make that assumption. in this case, if the nozzle hits the bed under the coupling mechanism (imagine all of them being in the same z-y-plane), there would be force applied only in the z direction, with the fit having an impact through the friction alone. So technically, the nozzle hitting the bed and the shuttle putting the toolhead back in the dock would be the same stress for your coupling parts (correct me if I'm wrong). As you pick up your toolhead without extra force (just the mass of the toolhead), probing with tap would be just like docking and picking the tool back up, again and again.
I hated tap before I tried it, but now that I used it trough the tap- and stealthchanger mechanisms, I have to say, it is kinda really handy and easy (changing nozzle, hotend, or anything but the 2 coupling parts, just doesn't seem to matter for tap ^^). As a tap pcb is around 3$ on ali (that's where I got it) and you can just plug it in an arduino (or anything with 5v and GND) to see if it would work (lights change blue/red when triggered), you could just place a scale on your bed and babystep your toolhead onto it, to see at what load the probe would trigger (the hard part would be getting the probe onto the head without an adapter or redesigning).
Haven't tried messing with tolerances on the pin design, but on the bearing design I have made the fit way tighter, which resulted in better rigidity and in tap not working anymore (doesn't come back down), but it also meant I need an upper bumper on the dock, to apply the force so the tool can get pressed into the shuttle. Haven't tried that yet, but it would be interesting to see (and also require an extra probe so it can home, or with other words extra wirering 😅)