Very impressive. I’m glad both your skills and motivation are up to the challenge.
BTW, apparently I was editing my prior post while you were already replying to it, so you probably missed it. So, I deleted it there and am re-posting it here:
What were those printers? It’s useful context, and even if you may (?) have said it already somewhere, not everyone will have seen it. Some have compared the results they got with their MK3, but it wasn’t quite apples-to-apples, because they were comparing the MK3 at its much slower print speed with an X1C at its much higher print speed. Come to think of it, I don’t remember ever seeing a quality comparison when the X1C was slowed down to match the MK3’s print speed. That would be very interesting.
Yes, sorry. If I had my druthers, I would just add another post, but some people insist I should just edit the existing post if it hasn’t been responded to yet. Occasionally that breaks and results with the two ships crossing in the night effect.
Since you’re designing an improved x-axis to overcome the deformation that you’ve identified, maybe as part of that you may also need/want to consider how to avoid excessive skew when/after you install it? i.e. maybe you would want to add some kind of deliberate fine adjustability that would allow you to dial-out skew? There was a recent end-user effort to possibly do xy skew compensation in firmware, but ultimately making that happen will depend on whether or not BBL implements it, since the firmware is closed-source. So if your upgraded physical hardware just happened in passing to also solve the skew problem, then there would exist at least one workable solution regardless of what BBL decides regarding its proprietary firmware.
Shook me, ever since my first 2021/22 X1C the amount of changes they’ve made behind the scenes in their manufacturing line is WILD… Inside & Out they’ve pretty much added changed or removed certain parts of the printer as well the little partnered AMS in the combo.
2nd gen AMS my lid has never closed flush into the seal simply dropping it and the 1st & 4th slot active rollers are wedged by the warping of the internal frame. 3rd gen though i mean the thing closes into the seal flush all the way down by itself, no wedged slot rollers, I wouldn’t doubt they’ve changed other details I’ve missed.
Latest discovery obviously is the v3 heat bed which imo is a big change since it shifts the power cables from riding alongside the rear Z screw to where they should’ve been in the first place and not getting pinched along the bottom like the v1 & 2 beds… It’s really felt like I’ve paid for R&D products ever since discovering BL lol. At least when I buy a new iphone I know the next model is going to be somewhat different versus I’m over here buying the same series of the machine only to find out I get a handful of different components than I did the last time
What material are you planning to print your parts in? You might be interested in the results of CNC kitchen’s creep test (not sure whether or not he has yet released the results):
Hmmmm. Maybe I misinterpreted what you were planning to do. I had thought you were going to redesign the end parts so they don’t deform under belt tension load and either print the new parts or have them milled, but on re-reading, I guess maybe you are limiting your efforts to stiffening the factory parts with dowel pins:
Oh! Is that where you start with a carbon fiber billet and then mill it out of that,
or are you literally using epoxy to manually laminate carbon fiber onto some other substructure to stiffen it that way, similar to how fiber glass is sometimes done.
Anyhow, I’ll try not to bother you with any more questions. I look forward to hearing whatever it is that you manage to do.
Like it or not: Those tubes are not really random.
They have to into tight fitting and very precise connectors, in my case brass or stainless steel for my big kites.
Those rods are available in several standard ID/OD combinations, depending on the required strength and weight limitations.
I measured one of my in use 10mm rods over the entire 73cm length.
The OD had a variation from 10.12 to 10.48mm.
However: My rods come with a protective and abrasion resistant coating, the ends that go into the connectors have to stripped of this coating in order to fit.
There the 14 rod ends (IN USE ONES!) had a variation ranging from 9.86 to 10.02mm depending on their level of wear.
Don’t know, but for the few bucks they cost well worth trying.
And if need much greater precision and strength check out modern carbon fibre arrow shafts
They cost a bit more in those diameters than kit rods but you can’t beat their precision as a base for custom rods.
Just saying, knowing that in some parts of the world access to precision parts can be easier than where I am…
I don’t know about other rods but mine came with a hard PU based resin coating.
The resin itself softens with Acetone and can then be scraped off the rods if, for example you would have to fix a broken rod.
In terms of friction I never tested or worried about it as it is not something affecting things for a kite.
All I know is that using connectors large enough to allow for the use of the rods without removing the coating requires constant pressure to keep them in.
Even with a near air tight fit they just slide out.
A abrasion protection is I think more for the fabric.
Standard acrylic based coatings tend to crack with the constant bending and the nylon fabric of the kite quickly wears the coating of contact areas.
I think the main problem with our carbon rods are those over-simplified bushings the head runs on.
So far I encountered three main types of carbon rods.
Just spun carbon fibre strands.
Easy to identified if uncoated or clear coated as you can see the nice woven pattern.
They are produce by winding the strands in meaningful patterns around a dowel of sorts.
A coating prevents the resin to bind with it for better removal.
Fibre core with spun outer layer.
Similar process only that the strands are woven around a rod made by vacuum forming and baking a blend of resin, different lengths of fibres and carbon particles.
Plain carbon rods with a smooth or linear finish.
These are usually high precision rods for specific applications, like abusing them as linear rails.
With the linear finish you can see how rather long and well aligned fibres were used.
For the smooth finish it is either just the outer layer or entire rod that is made out of blend of mainly short fibres and particle sizes optimised for the intended usage of the rods.
They all come with their own benefits and drawbacks.
Take machining rods with orientated fibres - near impossible to prevent chipping then, ripping them out and to a get an actually smooth surface.
On the other hand you can machine a smooth carbon with great precision and a good surface finish if you do it right.
Either way the main problem is the created dust and sharp fibres filling the air.
Not all wet lubricants/coolants can be used and using suction for the dust while the tool runs dry can quickly created excessive heat and certainly wears our most tools quickly.
If you ask me then a compromise would be ideal.
Stick with carbon rods to save weight but pre-tension them and given then a tough hardcoat that is thick enough to be machined down to the required tolerances.
Like that and even with the additional wire to tension the rods the weight would be still be lower as thinner walls can be used.
If you then would replace those flimsy sliding rods in the head with a set of PU rollers neither friction nor wear and tear would be an issue.
Well, friction might well be an issue with PU. I had chatgpt do a comparison between POM wheels and PU wheels for 3D printing. It was quite long, so I won’t copy/paste all of it here, but the friction section was telling:
Friction and Smoothness of Motion:
POM Wheels:
Low Friction: POM has a naturally low coefficient of friction, which allows for smooth, quiet motion along V-slot or linear rails without the need for lubrication.
Precision Movement: The smooth motion of POM wheels ensures precise layer alignment, reducing the chance of surface artifacts in prints.
Polyurethane Wheels:
Higher Friction: Polyurethane has a higher friction coefficient than POM, which can make it less smooth in linear rail systems. This increased friction can lead to more wear on the wheels and rails over time.
Grip: Polyurethane provides better grip compared to POM, which can be useful in traction applications but is generally less desirable in sliding or rolling motion systems where low friction is preferred.
I haven’t vetted these claims, but at least on its face, if nothing else, it explains why 3D printers typically come with POM wheels and not PU wheels, and the higher friction throws some doubt as to whether PU would actually be a good coating for carbon rods if they are to be used in a X1C type setup.
