Pages

Friday, April 22, 2011

New Extruder Design


I have (finally) finished my 1.75mm filament extruder design for RepRap.

I say RepRap - in fact, by simply changing its adapter plate (called base_plate in the design), it should go on virtually any 3D printer.  The standard design fits Mendel (both the standard one and Prusa).   I will shortly do a plate for Huxley too.


It features:
  1. Very compact high-torque NEMA 11 motor
  2. Active ducted fan cooling for high reliability
  3. Wade-style hobbed bolt filament transport
  4. Wing-nut drive to spread the torque loading on the plastic gears
  5. Push-fit hot-end parts - no thread cutting
  6. Easily replaced PTFE liner for the hot end
  7. A single M3-threaded rod cut to lengths makes all the fixings
  8. Lightweight: 420g (about 60% the weight of this extruder)
  9. Compact design (110 mm x 90 mm x 80 mm)
It's all here on the RepRap Wiki.

And here's a video of it printing itself:


RepRap Universal Mini Extruder from Adrian Bowyer on Vimeo.

10 comments:

  1. I've been using shorter lengths of Peek insulator and Brass extruder. Looking at other extruders like the Up, Ultimaker, E-Makers extruders they are also using shorter parts.

    I've searched the WIKI for formula to define/calculate the length of these parts the REPRAP extruders seem to be quite long. This reduces the maximum print height.

    Is there a specific reason for these parts being longer?

    ReplyDelete
  2. As they are, they only just reach through the standard X carriage.

    The PEEK needs to be a reasonable length, I think, if it fits in a reprapped part at the top - you don't want that going soft. Machined parts can take higher temperatures, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you, that makes sence I have been using MDF and Perspex to mount the Peek through.
    The Huxley E-Maker Extruder seen at MakerFair had printed parts in very close proximity dont think it had an insulator either.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Will you at some stage, alter it to utilize a NEMA 17 motor?
    Just so that it can still be just as ubiquitous as the Wade extruder.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not sure I follow. Why would one size of motor make it more ubiquitous than another? And a NEM17 would be pretty overpowered, as well as bulkier.

    ReplyDelete
  6. NEMA17 seems to be the cheapest size. Both bigger and smaller get more expensive.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Instead of going to a smaller (more expensive) motor I'm pushing towards a direct drive system, mostly caused by the difficulty that gears creates for all the machines that I have (Darwin, Sells mendel and a vik mendel). Anything which eliminates gears is my objective.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hello Adrian,
    One of the big problems I faced here in NZ wen putting together an extruder, was the lack of easily obtainable parts.
    I got a set of parts for your your earlier extruder, bt I couldn't justify procurring a brass spline from overseas.
    Which is why I went with the Wade extruder, the parts were easily obtainable (except for the hot end, still no real easy place to get those bits).
    This new design, which I like uses parts which aren't really obtainable locally, like the Nema 11 motor, and the bearings.
    Nearest supplier is in Australia.
    Which is why I am wondering if you would alter the design to use locally available non replicatable bits.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rather coincidentally I am currently in the process of fitting my Wade extruder with a NEMA-17 motor on my huxley x-bar carriage...

    I am certainly looking forward to your OpenScad or STL-design files huxleys x-carriage to mount your smaller form-factor extruder on the Huxley.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Grogyan - I fully take what you say about part availability. But I was trying to make a small light extruder...

    However, it shouldn't be too hard to hack the OpenSCAD design do that the motor size is a parameter.

    ReplyDelete