Control Theory Spellcasting Banishes The 3D Printing Ghosts

December 24, 2020 by Sonya Vasquez 43 Comments

It seems as though we still can’t hit the ceiling on better control schemes for 3D Printers. Input Shaping is the latest technique to land on our radar, a form of resonance compensation that all but eliminates the ghosting (aka: vertical ringing) artifacts we see on the walls of printed parts. While the technique has been around for decades, only recently did [Dmitry Butyugin] both apply it to 3D printer control and merge their hard work into the open source firmware package Klipper. Once tuned, the results are simply astonishing–especially since this scheme can augment the print quality of even the most budget printer.

A Split A/B Test with and without Klipper’s Input Shaping feature courtesy of [@LukesLaboratory]

Assuming your 3D printer isn’t infinitely stiff, when your nozzle moves from point to point or changes direction, it vibrates in response to having its speed altered. The result is that the nozzle wobbles along the ideal path it’s trying to track. The result is ghosting, an aesthetic blemish that looks like vertical waves on the sides of your printed part.

Input Shaping is a feed-forward controls technique for cancelling the mechanical vibrations that create ghosting. The idea is that, if we wanted to move the machine from point to point, we send it two impulses. The first impulse kicks the machine into moving and the second impulse follows up at a precise time to cancel the vibrations we would see when the machine comes to a stop. Albeit, moving any machine by sending it two impulses is pretty crude, so we take these impulses, adjust their amplitudes so that they sum to 1, and convolve them with a control input signal that we’d actually like to send it. The result is that the resonance cancellation part of the signal seamlessly “mixes” into the control input signal, and the machine moves from point to point with significantly less vibration at the end of the travel move. For more info on the maths behind this process, have a look at the first four pages of this paper from [Singh and Singhose].

The only hiccup is that you need to do some up-front system characterization of your 3D Printer running Klipper before you can take advantage of this technique. Thankfully the Klipper update comes with a set of step-by-step instructions for characterizing your machine up-front. After a couple test prints to measure the periodicity of your ringing, you can simply apply your measurement results to your config file, and you’re set.

Input Shaping is a prime example of “just wrap a computer around it!“–fixing hardware by characterizing and cancelling unwanted behaviors with software. If you’re hungry for more clever, characterized hardware control schemes, look no further than this Anti-Cogging algorithm for BLDC Motors. And for a video walkthrough of the Klipper implementation, have a look at [eddietheengineer]’s breakdown after the break.

Does your 3D Printer run Klipper? We’d love to see some of your Input Shaping results in the comments.

Continue reading “Control Theory Spellcasting Banishes The 3D Printing Ghosts” →

Hackaday Links: December 20, 2020

December 20, 2020 by Dan Maloney 11 Comments

If development platforms were people, Google would be one of the most prolific serial killers in history. Android Things, Google’s attempt at an OS for IoT devices, will officially start shutting down on January 5, 2021, and the plug will be pulled for good a year later. Android Things, which was basically a stripped-down version of the popular phone operating system, had promise, especially considering that Google was pitching it as a secure alternative in the IoT space, where security is often an afterthought. We haven’t exactly seen a lot of projects using Android Things, so the loss is probably not huge, but the list of projects snuffed by Google and the number of developers and users left high and dry by these changes continues to grow. Continue reading “Hackaday Links: December 20, 2020” →

Creality WiFi Takes On Octoprint

December 13, 2020 by Al Williams 78 Comments

A very common hack to a 3D printer is to connect a Raspberry Pi to your printer and then load Octoprint or a similar program and send your files to the printer via the network. [Teaching Tech] noticed that Creality now has an inexpensive WiFi interface that promises to replace Octoprint and decided to give it a quick review.

You might wonder why you’d want this system when Octoprint exists? Mainly, the value proposition is the price. You can buy the Creality box for about $20. A Raspberry Pi with a similar case would be at least twice that price. In addition, the box integrates with a Thingiverse-like library and does cloud slicing, which is attractive when you have a very small computer connected to your printer.

However, [Teaching Tech] found some issues. The box was pretty picky about connecting to printers and there were many other problems. The 3D model library wasn’t very comprehensive, although that could change if the thing got very popular. Worse, the slicer didn’t really produce stellar results.

We have to admit, an attractive network interface for $20 would be of interest. But it is hard to see how this would be a better value than Octoprint unless you were very short on cash and had no Raspberry Pi surplus laying around. You still need an SD card and a power supply, so those extras are a wash.

On the other hand, if Creality fixes the problems and expands the 3D model library, we’d buy one. But it remains to be seen if either of those things will happen, much less both of them. We do wish [Teaching Tech] had opened the thing up for us. Maybe next time.

Continue reading “Creality WiFi Takes On Octoprint” →

SLA 3D Printed Vortex Cooled Rocket Engine

December 8, 2020 by Danie Conradie 16 Comments

3D printing is an incredible tool for prototyping and development, but the properties of the materials can be a limiting factor for functional parts. [Sam Rogers] and colleagues at [AX Technologies] have been testing and developing a small liquid-fueled rocket engine and successfully used vortex cooling to protect a resin 3D printed combustion chamber. (Video, embedded below.)

Vortex cooling works by injecting oxygen into the combustion chamber tangentially, just inside the nozzle of the engine, which creates a cooling, swirling vortex boundary layer along the chamber wall. The oxygen moves to the front end of the combustion chamber where it mixes with the fuel and ignites in the center. This does not protect the nozzle itself, which only lasts a few seconds before becoming unusable. However, thanks to the modular design of the test engine, only the small nozzle section had to be reprinted for every test. While this part could be manufactured using a metal 3D printer, the costs are still very high, especially at this experimental stage. The clear resin parts also allow the combustion observed and more accurate conclusions to be drawn from every test.

This engine intended to be used as a torch igniter for a much larger rocket engine. Fuel is injected into the front of the combustion chamber, where a spark plug is located to ignite the oxygen-fuel mixture. The flow of the oxygen and fuel is controlled by two servo-operated valves connected to a microcontroller, which is mounted with the engine on linear rails. This allows the test engine to move freely, and push against a load cell to measure thrust. The spark is created before the valves are opened to prevent a delayed ignition, which can blow up the engine, and getting the valve sequence and timing correct is critical. Many iterations and destroyed parts later, the [AX Technologies] team achieved successful ignition, with a clear supersonic Mach diamond pattern in the exhaust.

This is just one more example of 3D printing and cheap electronics allowing impressive progress on a limited budget. Another example is [Joe Barnard]’s progress in getting a model rocket to land itself with a solid fuel engine. Companies and organisations have been using 3D printed components in rocket engines for a few years now, and we’ve even seen an open source version.

Food Safe Printing Techniques

December 7, 2020 by Al Williams 10 Comments

One thing that always provokes spirited debate around the Hackaday bunker is just how dangerous is it to use 3D printed plastic in contact with food. We mostly agree it isn’t a good thing, but we also know some people do it regularly and they don’t drop dead instantly, either. [Jakub] decided to do some testing and make some recommendations. There’s even a video explaining the results.

Unlike a lot of what we’ve read about this topic in the past, [Jakub’s] post is well-researched and does actual testing including growing bacteria cultures from cups used for milk. He starts out identifying the EU and US regulations about what you can call food-grade. There’s also recognition that while a base plastic might be safe for contact with food, there’s no way to know exactly what additives and other things are in the plastic to change its properties and color.

Continue reading “Food Safe Printing Techniques” →

How To Get Into Lost Wax Casting (with A Dash Of 3D Printing)

December 7, 2020 by Adam Zeloof 24 Comments

I’ve always thought that there are three things you can do with metal: cut it, bend it, and join it. Sure, I knew you could melt it, but that was always something that happened in big foundries- you design something and ship it off to be cast in some large angular building churning out smoke. After all, melting most metals is hard. Silver melts at 1,763 °F. Copper at 1,983 °F. Not only do you need to create an environment that can hit those temperatures, but you need to build it from materials that can withstand them.

Turns out, melting metal is not so bad. Surprisingly, I’ve found that the hardest part of the process for an engineer like myself at least, is creating the pattern to be replicated in metal. That part is pure art, but thankfully I learned that we can use technology to cheat a bit.

When I decided to take up casting earlier this year, I knew pretty much nothing about it. Before we dive into the details here, let’s go through a quick rundown to save you the first day I spent researching the process. At it’s core, here are the steps involved in lost wax, or investment, casting:

Make a pattern: a wax or plastic replica of the part you’d like to create in metal
Make a mold: pour plaster around the pattern, then burn out the wax to leave a hollow cavity
Pour the metal: melt some metal and pour it into the cavity

I had been kicking around the idea of trying this since last fall, but didn’t really know where to begin. There seemed to be a lot of equipment involved, and I’m no sculptor, so I knew that making patterns would be a challenge. I had heard that you could 3D-print wax patterns instead of carving them by hand, but the best machine for the job is an SLA printer which is prohibitively expensive, or so I thought. Continue reading “How To Get Into Lost Wax Casting (with A Dash Of 3D Printing)” →

These Micro Mice Have Macro Control

December 6, 2020 by Kerry Scharfglass 7 Comments

Few things fascinate a simple Hackaday writer as much as a tiny robot. We’ve been watching [Keri]’s utterly beguiling micromouse builds for a while now, but the fifth version of the KERISE series (machine translation) of ‘bots takes the design to new heights.

A family of mice v1 (largest) to v5 (smallest)

For context, micromouse is a competition where robots complete to solve mazes of varying pattern but standardized size by driving through them with no guidance or compute offboard of the robot itself. Historically the mazes were 3 meter squares composed of a 16 x 16 grid of cells, each 180mm on a side and 50mm tall, which puts bounds on the size of the robots involved.

What are the hallmarks of a [Keri] micromouse design? Well this is micromouse, so everything is pretty small. But [Keri]’s attention to detail in forming miniaturized mechanisms and 3D structures out of PCBs really stands out. They’ve been building micromouse robots since 2016, testing new design features with each iteration. Versions three and four had a wild suction fan to improve traction for faster maneuvering, but the KERISE v5 removes this to emphasize light weight and small size. The resulting vehicle is a shocking 30mm x 32mm! We’re following along through a translation to English, but we gather that [Keri] feels that there is still plenty of space on the main PCBA now that the fan is gone.

The processor is a now familiar ESP32-PICO-D4, though the wireless radios are unused so far. As far as environmental sensing is concerned the v5 has an impressive compliment given its micro size. For position sensing there are custom magnetic encoders and a 3 DOF IMU. And for sensing the maze there are four side-looking IR emitter/receiver pairs and one forward-looking VL6180X laser rangefinder for measurements out to 100 or 150mm. Most of these sensors are mounted on little PCB ‘blades’ which are double sided (check out how the PCB shields the IR emitter from it’s receiver!) and soldered into slots perpendicular to the PCBA that makes up the main chassis. It goes without saying that the rest of the frame is built up of custom 3D printed parts and gearboxes.

If you’d like to build a KERISE yourself, [Keri] has what looks to be complete mechanical, electrical, and firmware sources for v1, v2, and v3 on their Github. To see the KERISE v5 dance on a spinning sheet of paper, check out the video after the break. You don’t want to miss it!

Continue reading “These Micro Mice Have Macro Control” →