The point is, that you may can also slate everithing on toilet paper.
A little more complicated:
Typically, god certificate has a small number at the end of the paper. But Certificates can be self-issued as well. If they have a small number, they are normaly (may not always) the issuing company is checked oder under controle of an accredited body, and so on. Ultimately, a company how sined can even have a pure Chinese website and can by have a registered office in Panama - paper always accepts everything, and asbestos was legal in Canada until 2012âŚI want the numbers in black and white and then Iâll see who confirmed the numbers. Before that, I`m not interested in colored logos.
And as a side note:
It`s not even matter. Even if the printer prints cleanly, the Bambu Lab printing material is very expensive; has no papers in Black and withe; the Fillament made in Europe is even cheaper or better proved. It is even a snapshot only; theyâll have to decide for themself what to do after the test.My printers are in a separate room or have an exhaust system â so before I look at anything else, I want a printer that delivers and is easy to maintain.
So currently, TĂźv SĂźd has been audited on the following points true DAKKS on the following points:
Testing Laboratory (69 Retrievable certificate with detailed description of the test field)
Calibration Laboratory (7 Retrievable certificate with detailed description of the test field)
Medical Laboratory (1 Retrievable certificate with detailed description of the test field)
Inspection Body (17 Retrievable certificate with detailed description of the test field)
Certification Body for Products (25 Retrievable certificate with detailed description of the test field)
Certification Body for Management Systems (9 Retrievable certificate with detailed description of the test field)
Certification Body for Persons (4 Retrievable certificate with detailed description of the test field)
Verification Body (1 Retrievable certificate with detailed description of the test field)
Of cours the DAKKS will acapt also companies Certificated by a national Body as the SAS. So at least someone check what they check. Nobody still knows how and for which values ââthe tests were carried out.
As I said, I want a printer that prints; anything else can be also stamped on toilet paper or will coste money.
Well, may somewere still in use, but ther was a CE called âChina Exprotâ. With a little more distance between C and the E.
In the meantime â and certainly not limited to China â the documents are either available for download right next to the product or they arenât available there (If they are not there is usually allready the statement needed). Searching for them is usually pointless; Those who have them will post them online anyway (because then theyâll show how well theyâve done it). There are exceptions.
e.G. document decripting special purooses of filaments, printers von Medical aplications and so on. If not, keep the Product or use it for unencessari things.
And as a side note and if it matters, let say fillament for FDA @neverdie e.g. skin contact of TPU - I also want to know when the test was conducted (once or repeatedly), and who pulled the sample to be tested from production: an internal person in production, an internal person from a QM department, an external person⌠and if external, what level of monitoring was involved. Depends entirely on the degree of danger and the number of people at risk.
So⌠Wondermaker added new type for their kickstarter printer: ZR Ultra-S - which is enclosed (sealed as they call it) ZR Ultra with heated chamberâŚ
Iâve checked the price: In order to get the âsealedâ version one has to take âultra + enclosure kitâ which comes to about 719 EUR⌠Which makes it cheaper than even Enclosed Sovol SV08 (not including cost of tools)âŚ
TPU is not the only printing material that plays in the top league with its intended use case - but it is may the cheapest of those.
Fortunately, itâs not my top priority and the S1 doesnât manage it the way I would imagine, the ACE can but is in my way may too unstable, too insensitive and I stopped using it (but I wouldnât give up the printer under any circumstances, even if I only work with USB sticks for the sake of simplicity).
Why am I saying this here, and Iâve been thinking this for a long time:
I think TPU will be the field where FDM has a good chance in the long run. Itâs the only thing that can compete at an extremely high level (Also in terms of casting and injection molding), and itâs not something that I never ever should be limited in its range of applications or confined to a single supplier. Were I should use suppliers with clean Paperwork.
Well, I do not dry my fillament but I like if ones in a life time companies start using there head
Maybe an attachment for 2 kg spools, theyâll surely come to that at some point
Finally, the modular expandable option is being considered. Also the AMS 2 times on the X1C and so, unfortunately a bit late because I donât need the AMS2 anymore since the X1C already change into a back up (because of the price calculation).
Wondermaker posted video of their new printer in âworking modeâ + assembly line for printers. The video showed alignment issues, freezing etc. Currently a lot of comments on their kickstarter are mentioning dropping pledges due to print issues and lack of response from wondermaker team addressing the issues
Elyarchi kickstarter is âsuccessfulâ but due to issues pointed out by YGK3D a lot of components have to be changed on production machines, multiple people cancelled due to identified problems.
Iâm currently leaning towards thinking both will fail, the question is how badly.
On ânot failâ side however is Bondtech INDX - this will make âmulti-toolâ printers far more accessible and their timeline is saner than promissed by both Wondermaker & Elyarchi. Bondtech will make kits available for popular models of printers so that converting them into multi-tool will be nicer experience. Additionally, once final dimmensions and design is frozen, Bondtech will release CAD files so that people wanting to be ready on day 1 will be able to have ready printed parts.
On speculation side - there is/are embargoed news in 3D printer world in hands of reviewers (as always) so thereâll be some news soon.
Thereâs still a chance the Thinker X400 might deliver on its promises, even if itâs from an unknown printer manufacturer. If it runs plain vanilla Klipper, and not some fork of Klipper, then it will be âgame onâ. But, boy, did the price go up on it or what? The âpre-saleâ price is now $2,499. Is that because of tariffs or was it always that high? I donât remember. And for that price, itâs missing some obvious things, like a hotend that can go hotter than 300C. Also, it looks a bit old-school, it that itâs put together with sticks of extruded aluminum rather than steel, so it may be facing the usual racking issues once the belts get tightened, but more so because of the greater lengths of extruded aluminum.
Speaking of which, the tolerances on my H2D are just extreme. I had to replace the camera on mine (which was a success by the way) due to a failed live camera calibration. The camera PCB is screwed into and heat-staked into a piece of plastic that, as it happens, sits just over the top of one of the z-axis screws, with a plastic cap that serves no discernable purpose other than aesthetics. There is next to no clearance between that plastic cap (which is effectively âfloatingâ over the top of that z-axis screw) and the edge of the top of the screw (which is left unconstrained). If that screw were even slightly bent (like it surely would be on a, ahem, creality machine), then the metal of the screw would be squeeking against the plastic of the floating cap. But on the H2D the two donât rub, and it doesnât squeek. Very, very tight tolerances. Seems like needlessly tight for a mass produced machine, so I donât know whether to be impressed at their production or instead think that the design was inviting disaster that their manufacturing accuracy managed to skirt. Just one thing, but looking inside, the clearances on other parts look to be very tight as well. Maybe itâs this that makes it vulnerable to shipping damage. It seems like most of the people who got âlemonsâ actually got shipping damage rather than lemons per se. However, with such tight tolerances, Iâm a bit skeptical the end user can necessarily put humpty dumpty back together again. If something arrives bent just a little bit, it might require a return. Luckily mine seems to have arrived OK in that regard.
This too. All these loose filament strands. It stands out to me because I think about the ooze stopper strip thing for blocking the un-used nozzle. To me that seems like something that could potentially easily catch on something and cause damage. So when I see the messy strands, it just⌠ahh, is that gonna be a problem?!
@Josh-3D Iâd ticket that if I were you. The turnaround time on tickets is pretty good, at least if youâre in the beta program. Youâve got the photos already, so little more is required to submit your ticket. Given the complexity of the printhead, it might require an entire printhead replacement.
- I also want to know when the test was conducted (once or repeatedly), and who pulled the sample to be tested from production: an internal person in production, an internal person from a QM department, an external person⌠and if external, what level of monitoring was involved. Depends entirely on the degree of danger and the number of people at risk.
