Fundraiser for new 3D printers (and my sanity)

FabLab 3D Printing
21

Agreed! Another, maybe even two more are needed.

Also, education is needed. Teaching others more than a few simple maintenance tips to help with keeping the printers going would help with the on going issues.

Agreed that we could make our own but an out of box with warranty is best for a group like ours. We can, once the new one is in place build others.

I like, no love, the idea of a bank of printers that are the same. From parts to maintenance to education that solution is so much easier and quicker.

As stated the most reliable printer is by far the best choice. Not worth saving money building our own if we are having to fix them “all the time”.

I would help buy a new a new one. I could make or help make something to donate or just help with manpower or donate or whatever. I believe strongly that another printer is needed and I believe that two printers are needed.

Have you contacted the supplier or manufacture and ask if they could discount or supplement the cost (in anyway) given that this is a nonprofit since it could be a tax write off for them?

Thanks and thank you for your work.

22

The state of Kansas has a matching fund for Art organizations to purchase tools they need up to $7500. I think this would be a great choice for that program. @Fundraising

1 Like
23

Could anyone who has created artwork on the 3D printers please contact @Fundraising with a picture or two and a short story about what you did?

1 Like
24

I would consider the scanning people did of their heads and then printing it artwork. I know @jameslancaster did this.

1 Like
25

I think @Erik did a seascape and didn’t we have one member making a form of his child for a statue… did that actually get made?

26

Is that up to $7500 for one tool, or for multiple machines?

…like could we use that to help cover the last of the funding for the emco mill and plasma cutter projects?

I know we have several art pieces laying around from the plasma cutter.

27

@Fundraising

I sculpted and printed this sea turtle a few years ago. It was my first 3D print though I have done lots and lots of 3d modeling and sculpting.

There were no support structures for the printing of this model. Instead I divided it into a total of 4 prints. The turtle was cut directly in 2 and keyed. That way I could use the fins as the supports in the front half and the back half wouldnt need any supports at all. The keys make it easy to glue them back together in the correct position after they’re printed.

The coral was 1 print. A modeller only needs to ensure there is no more than a 45 degree overhang at any point on the model for our extrusion type printers to print it without supports with no problems. Some areas of the coral wouldve looked cooler if I weren’t boxed in by the 45 degree rule, but I thought the trade off was worth it for no supports. The turtle is attached to a small cut out in the coral designed specifically to hold the turtle.

The base was the 4th print. The model is fiction fit into the base. I made a miniscule enlargement of the model base for the boolean operation because I wasnt sure how much gap was needed. Otherwise it was basically a lathe object. Total there are 2 tiny spots of glue holding it together 1 holding the turtle together and 1 holding the turtle to the coral.

I considered doing vapor baths or other smoothing options but honestly I like the printer lines on this. It doesn’t hurt the overall look and it’s a reminder to me of the process and the state of the technology used to do it. It was printed on the Ultimaker.

20210822_094039
20210822_0940391920×3950 271 KB

20210822_094048
20210822_0940481960×4032 246 KB

20210822_094110
20210822_0941101920×3950 218 KB

7 Likes
28

Considering the fundraising push for new printers… we did this about 3 years ago for new printers. Of course members chipped in and I believe makeict org matched fund raising at the time. But I was thinking…

Maybe the 3d printing committee/group could add a surcharge to filament prices with the purpose of acquiring new printers every few years? Funds could be used for upgrades or repairs or adding new tech like resin printers and finishing stations. I wouldn’t think it would need to be much of an additional charge. Seems like 3d printing technology makes massive leaps all the time and the desire to upgrade/ replace them will never really end.

1 Like
29

I think we should consider the resources available within this group. I am not the most qualified here…but I have designed and built industrial equipment and automation solutions for over 20 years. In my shop I have built a number of machines and a 3D printer is one of the more simple. There are several guys here who had built printers long ago who are capable of making a quality printer.

When I design I am looking to improve upon another’s work. In this case I started with a Prusa i3 MK3S concept and designed all new parts making improvements where I saw opportunities. All manufacturers balance design features and cost to get a product you will buy and make themselves a profit. In every case that I have been a part of, there are features that “would be nice” or would be “improvements” that are removed to reduce cost and improve sales. MTTR, MTBF and key metrics I am considering in equipment design.

An example of this (in my eyes) is the X-axis motor mount for the Prusa i3 MK3S. It’s not great. But it gets the job done and it a relatively cheap part to make.

As for warranty…Prusa does have a one year warranty. Creality has a 30 day return. I don’t see this as a factor. The main risk would be losing a control board.

If we went down this road I would expect a design review with all of those interested. We can pick apart the design and look for improvements. Additionally, I am building two of this design now. So, we can put one at the space and test the performance.

Another thought with this platform is we can have different extruders setup for different material types. We could have a few bowdens setup for general use and a couple of micro swiss direct drives for more difficult materials.

@SteveO I did a rough tally of purchased components with pricing on Amazon and estimate the cost to be $170-$230 without extruders, pis or extrusion. Of course we can source from cheaper suppliers than amazon. I can work on a more detailed BOM later.

Additionally, I would be willing to donate more than the extrusion. T-nuts, wire for switches, cable covers for a more professional look, PLA for printed parts, and threaded inserts are all parts I would be willing to to kick in. I am also willing to print all of the parts needed.

For those who are unfamiliar with building custom equipment…there is nothing magical about this. I sell custom systems much more complicated than these that go for seven or eight digits. The main reason to do this is: for the cost of two or three decent purchased printers we could have five good printers.

1 Like
30

I definitely agree with this. I’ve got a maintenance meeting scheduled for Tuesday 6-9pm to work on some of the current issues. Anyone who is interested is welcome to join. I plan to start doing this on a more regular basis. Having many different models of printer does make it harder to teach maintenance, though. Prusa has a good knowledgebase for troubleshooting and repair that can help a lot when people are starting out and need step-by-step instructions.

Good call, I hadn’t actually thought of that. It looks like they do offer a 5% educational discount, subject to approval. Prusa is based in the Czech Republic, so I’m not sure that our non-profit status means much to them.

That would be great. Let me know what info you need from me. When I send out the email I can add a request for people to share how they have used the printers for art.

I’ve thought about that a bit. I would want to get usage tracking (either through badge scans or Octoprint logins) in place before doing that so we can get a better picture of how much filament is being used/paid for. We wouldn’t want to increase it to the point that it deters people from using the machines, but we do currently charge much less than other local places. GoCreate charges 15¢/gram and the Advanced Learning Library charges 20¢/gram.

@SeanReed, I understand and appreciate the desire to make our own, but I strongly believe that in the long run purchasing a proven design with a large user base, millions of hours of use, years of incremental design improvements, and great build/troubleshooting guides will be much more sustainable for us. There is a lot of value in the large userbase and ecosystem surrounding these printers that we wouldn’t get with custom built machines.

That being said, I would certainly love to come check out your build and discuss the pros/cons.

3 Likes
31

I will have to find their information again and will post the link here

32

I really like what @SeanReed is doing with a redesign and that the makerspace could build twice as many for less cost than buying the commercial kit. I see some future potential if his design was licensed freely it could become another standard derivative of the original.

I also agree with @Christian that we benefit from a large community of makers using and sharing maintenance and modifications of an existing, mature design.

Over time we have purchased and built quite a variety of 3D printers, and experienced issues with parts availability, varying build quality, usability and reliability. Until now, ability to maintain hasn’t been prioritized, because many people had been willing and able to perform maintenance from the simplest tasks up to full rebuilds, not to mention extensive modifications.

Until fairly recently having a variety of machines was valued highly because no one design could be optimiser for every possible use. I am skeptical that there ever will be a time that we could accommodate all the possible desires that our members would want in a machine with one basic design.

Offsetting that is that 3D printers are much more affordable and reliable than they were just 5 years ago and for any specific uncommon use makers don’t have to rely on one at a makerspace, they can buy and setup one at home.

What seems to be an obvious choice now may seem quaint in a few years and maybe even misguided.

Probably, going forward, whatever happens will just work out fine and our members will want to explore the possible solutions available every time a decision will be made to devote resources towards new equipment. It’s at the core of the maker philosophy to never be satisfied completely with any equipment, commercially produced or home built from scratch (or somewhere in between).

Makers will make and users will use, and that’s just how things will always be and always have been.

Not sure what my point is except that it’s a healthy thing for us to take options offered to us into full consideration, then live with the decision until next time.

4 Likes
33

You sure you don’t want to go larger scale?

I do kind of have a shelved project for that… The goal was to build a machine that could print out a life sized human statue from recycled/failed prints, but I never figured out how to make a reliable auger to handle the pelletized scrap.

34

I can pitch in $50 for a Prusa. There are benefits to building our own but I think having something that is standardized and supported will reduce the overall cost of ownership. On the other hand, for this acquisition, perhaps we should start by stating our requirements, then decompose those requirements to capabilities. We should be able to state how many simultaneous jobs we want to support, how large the print area should be, what our mean time between failure and mean time to repair should be. Ease of use should factor in along with things like speed and accuracy. Once we’ve done that then we can make the best choice based on cost and performance.

3 Likes
35

@Christian you’re welcome anytime.

36

Any thoughts on getting several of the low-cost Prusa I3 Mk3S clones?

They’re about $350 shipped, not including printed parts. (All to be printed in PETG, except the fan shroud - ABS or ASA recommended.) Even after factoring in filament/time for the printed parts, that’s still less than half of Prusa originals.

I have a clone Mk3S and an original Prusa I3 Mk2.5S. Both work perfectly.

Here is the one I purchased.

Here and here are a 2-part review of the “Bear upgrade” version of this same clone. (“Bear” replaces the aluminum plate with extrusions, for a stiffer frame.)

It’s currently cheaper to buy it shipped from the US ($348 shipped) than from China ($371 shipped - $343 + $56). Was the opposite when I bought it back in March.

The build quality of the clone was better than I expected. Power supply is a brand I recognized (Great Wall I think?), not a no-name crapbox. The only weak points were the low-quality hex wrenches and thin/weak zip ties. Both resolved at Harbor Freight with a $10 bill.

The following upgrades were performed before ever turning it on: Washed and greased all the linear bearings. (If anything fails prematurely, it will probably be these.) Replaced both fans with Prusa originals. Installed an E3D plated copper nozzle, and a plated copper heater block. (One printer has an E3D block, the other is a cheap clone. I can’t remember which is which - both work great.)

2 Likes
37

I wanted to ask a very similar question but hadn’t had time to research. How similar are the parts? Certain things won’t matter but others seem like they could cause maintenance issues if not the same.

1 Like
38

Even after reading the reviews, I was a little worried. But it arrived well-packed in a sturdy box with custom foam inserts for many parts, and I had no problems assembling it. The finish on the aluminum frame has a slightly different sheen, and none of the parts are stamped with “Prusa”. Otherwise it’s an exact clone in every way I can tell.
The screws all appear to be stainless steel, and none stripped during installation. A few extras of each screw size were included. Every hole lined up correctly and every threaded hole was tapped properly. All the extrusions were very close to being cut perfectly square. (Closer-to-perfect than some folks have reported assembling their original Prusa printers.) I did replace the fans, heater block and nozzle, so I can’t comment on the quality of those. But no obvious problems were seen. They’re all in my spare parts bin.

I guess it shouldn’t be too surprising that everything matches, as the I3 is open source with detailed CAD drawings available for the entire project.

For the printed parts, I purchased a roll of Filament PM-brand “Prusa Orange” (#2018) PETG from Amazon for $35, and it was an exact match for my original Prusa Mk 2.5S, as expected. (I understand that Filament PM supplies “Prusa Filament” but that “Prusament” filament is made in-house. Weird, I know.)

Here’s the link to the item I purchased, but color “2018” is not currently available on Amazon.
Original Prusa-brand orange is in stock, but it’s $57. :frowning:

I printed the parts from Prusa’s gcode, and everything assembled exactly as expected, using the Prusa online assembly guide.
Not sure what else to say - it was cheap, came with exactly that was described, and went together perfectly. Had no problems, but even if I did, the price was low enough to buy a lot of new parts and have it still be a win.

Let me know if you have any other Qs!

3 Likes
39

Isn’t most of the cost associated with a real prusa to pay for the support and dev costs? Neither of which you really get with any clone, at least not from the oem.

40

Yes, at least until we have reliable regular printers.

I don’t really have hard numbers on those things, but those things did factor into the choice. Might be interesting to do something more concrete, but I’m not sure how to quantify some of those factors.

My general thoughts on clones (and most low cost printers) are that they are typically of lower quality than the things they are cloning. They usually come with cheaper and less reliable bearings, motors, control board, etc. A lot of them print well initially but tend to degrade in quality and reliability more quickly. They can be great for low to moderate at home use, but start having issues pretty quickly in the makerspace due to higher use by less experienced users.

That’s part of it, but they do also use higher quality components than most cheaper printers use.

I think some people look at the cost of the MK3 and feel that it is particularly expensive. Sure, it’s more expensive than a lot of printers that you can buy, but it’s also a lot cheaper than many printers you can buy, even on the consumer/hobbyist side. Look at Ultimaker, Makerbot, Lulzbot for examples. While talking with people who run labs full of Makerbots I’ve heard very few good things about them. I don’t have much personal experience with Lulzbot (they seem to be decent), but the ratio of footprint to build volume is pretty bad. All of these printers are significantly more expensive than the MK3, roughly in the $1500-$5000 range. We spent $2,500 on the Ultimaker 2 and $1,000 on the Rostock Max V2, and neither of them was nearly as reliable as the MK3. The Ultimaker hotend/extruder were pretty garbage, and don’t even get me started on the Rostock.

That was maybe a bit of a tangent, but sometimes it feels like people think the MK3 is some unreasonably expensive machine. Sure, it’s not rock-bottom cheap, but it’s pretty hard to beat in terms of quality to price ratio.

5 Likes