In this era of cheap turn-key machines, the idea of actually building your own desktop 3D printer might seem odd to some. But if you’re looking for a challenge, and want to end up with a printer that legitimately sets itself apart from what they’re stocking on Amazon these days, then take a look at the Lemontron.
We’ve been keeping tabs on the development of this open source 3D printer for some time now, and just before Christmas, the files finally were released for anyone who wants to try putting one together themselves. There’s currently no formal kit available, but once you’ve printed out all the parts, there’s a very nice bill of materials you can find on the website which will tell you everything you need to complete the assembly — and critically — where you can get it.
The hotend and heated bed come from KB-3D, while the bulk of the rest of the components are sourced from AliExpress with a bit of DigiKey sprinkled in. There’s also a custom PCB you’ll want to pick up from your favorite board house. All told, building the Lemontron should cost you somewhat north of $400 USD. Of course, that assumes your time is free. But since you’re reading this on Hackaday, it’s probably a safe bet that you’ll enjoy your time.
You can check out the video below for an expedited look at assembling the printer. It’s not a step-by-step guide exactly, but it should give you a good idea of what to expect before you commit to building the thing. It also provides a look at the design philosophy behind the Lemontron, which largely eschews custom components and relies on off-the-shelf bits to tie all the printed parts together.
If you’re wondering were these upside-down 3D printers came from, the Lemontron is ultimately evolved from the Positron that we first covered back in 2021.
$400 is pretty expensive for what you end up with…AND you already need to have a decent printer to print a bunch of parts.
I can appreciate the effort and engineering that went into this but it does not make any sense to build one. (unless they put together kits and can undercut the Bambu Labs A1 mini)
That’s not the point of the printer, ofc it’s cheaper to buy an A1 mini since it’s a mass produced printer that had multiple price cuts. The point of this printer is to have a little portable printer that gives you a pretty big print volume and still be carriable in a bag.
For a printer that fits in a filament box it’s not too bad. I don’t think it compares to any other printer. This is a printer you can take with you on a train / plane ride.
Considering the positron kit is 800€ in Europe, this printer ain’t too bad.
But of course this is a very niche use case, as much as I appreciate the design and engineering of this device, I find it equally hard to justify its cost.
Ah I can see that.
Especially since I collect UMPCs which are always much more expensive and usually lower spec than say a laptop.
Wasn’t thinking along those lines before.
The files released on MakerWorld have a non-commercial license and therefore are NOT open source. First rule of open source is to not restrict the source, otherwise it wouldn’t make any sense to have open source.
Also CC-BY-NC-SA is based on copyright law which doesn’t support functional objects (like a 3D printer). So this license is not valid and can’t protect sales from others. The only way to protect sales is to make a patent.
If open source required no restrictions on the source then we wouldn’t have the plethora of licenses out there that do just that. I’d agree the CC-BY-NC-SA choice may not be ideal for hardware but it is better than some of the other options out there.
Heck, if open source required no restrictions on the source, you don’t need a license, you just release it into public domain. The entire point of an open source licenses is to restrict use of the source.
And only in the F3D proprietary format. Why are we calling this open source when it’s not?
I expect this from lesser outlets, but not Hackaday.
The file format that the design is distrubuted by has no bearing on whether the design itself is open source. And because it is open source, anyone can convert it and share it in another format if they so wish.
Not being open source because it’s designed in fusion is akin to a python program not being open source because it was crafted in PyCharm.
That’s being stringent in the wrong direction. True it doesn’t really qualify as FOSS/H since it’s gratis-“Free as in beer” but not libre-“Free as in speech”, and it may not even be in line with some Open Source community conventions, but the source is freely and legally available, and Hackaday (and even OP) used the lowercase “open source” indicating such, and not the titlecase implying adherence to prescriptions of the community. The first rule of open source is opening access to the source; the hundreds of licenses out there are debates over how to best achieve this.
Open source has no strict definition. If the IP owner identifies their use as open source, it’s open source.
I don’t believe just because there was an attempt to restrict commercial use that this is not open source. Without going to the formal OSI definition of open source, I believe the intent is really that an individual can do what they want with the source. But because what the creator wants can vary, there are all sorts of licenses to cover that. And in this instance, he wants the users to do what they want for free – and is preventing the plans and any derivatives of them from being sold.
There’s a good deal of humour in his videos. Very enjoyable to watch his development process against laudable goals of keeping the cost down and other objectives. I’m not sure I’d build one but I certainly appreciate the design.