Sometimes things go so fast, I love it.
Kenneth asked if I could create an effector for his Ultibots delta, with 43 mm ball spacing. 20 mins later he had the design.
A few hours later I see this photo on Facebook, with the comment that it is tiny!
Now that is a nice way to work together and get printing.
Happy printing!
Nice.
what is this and what does it do
It is an effector for an Ultibots delta printer, holding a E3D V6 hot end and the Nimble on top.
The Nimble is a remote direct drive extruder that combines all the benefits of bowden and direct drive with none of the drawbacks. It is the lightest extruder out there. Less than 27 grams.
The effector was printed using a SLA printer and uses magnetic ball joints for the arms. This is based on Haydns great joints.
The nimble is a nearly direct ripoff of the flex3d drive which the nimble team copied, then failed a kickstarter on.
Awesome end effector though!
I wouldn’t say direct ripoff. That’s a bit strong. I would say a different implementation of the same concept. In concept they are the same. Design wise they are very different. Their Kickstarter failing has nothing to do with anything so I’m not sure what made you feel like mentioning that.
Here we go again… someone complaining… they ripped it off.
Reality: flex3d drive was not a new concept, it was just retrofitting an already proven design concept onto a 3D Printer… this is getting so old.
How does it print?
@Craig_Durant licensed the overall design of the extruder from Mutley with terms exclusively for integration into their delta, then broke the terms by trying to sell it separately.
@peter_rowser It prints because the extruder is driven by a drive cable that is mounted on the frame. That is how we kept the weight as low as 27 grams. Because we use gearing inside the Nimble, we have no backlash or flex from the drive cable and retractions are usually done at 30mm/sec and 1 mm retraction. I have had my retraction up to 80 mm/sec setting with no issues.
@Jeff_DeMaagd Sorry Jeff, you have been misinformed. To correct a point, we did not licence only for a Delta. There is nothing in his agreement limiting us in any way. The contract includes the line: “Party A agrees to Party B utilising this knowledge for commercial gain without restriction or hindrance.”
“this knowledge” in the text refers to using a drive cable and worm/gear combination in an extruder. No designs were licensed or used.
Can you show us some comparison on print quality vs your older setup? It looks great but is it worth?
I don’t how there is any reason to say that though. they came to an agreement. And the other party (im assuming) signed it, and i’m sure they read it over to make sure they knew what they were signing. And if they didn’t, that’s definitely unfortunate for them. If there was a problem, why didn’t the other party do anything about it?
As far as the “letter of the law” vs. the “spirit of the law”, I think you need to do a little more digging before making that argument. Most laws have amendments or other laws to help close up loose ends to keep people from abusing the laws in a “spirit of the law” sort of way.
What I find to be the most disappointing is the public bashing. It sounds like there must be some bad blood here and if so, please take it to a private chat, not on the public forum. And as the owner of the group, you could have removed this post if you felt there was something wrong or didn’t agree with the authors post, not make it a point to show others this guys short comings.
This group’s all about showing off 3D printing and the amazing things you can do with it, not stifling innovation. I consider myself to be an ambassador of the technology and I would assume you do to, you are the owner after all. So maybe instead, try and offer to help come to a middle ground and help get the legal side of things figured out. God knows we already have enough legal problems with this technology anyway.
Out of curiosity, was there any agreement made and if so, how was it carried out?
We contacted the other party with a proposal for a license percentage, he rejected and demanded a lump sum, we agreed on the sum, the other party wrote the contract, we all singed and we transfered the money. We have stuck to the agreement, in letter and spirit.
Can we now please get back to 3d printing?
Thank you for the compliment on the effector. We have been designing so many it is becoming second nature.
Just to be totally clear. We bought one of his devices and did not ask or ever received support for it. For all sorts of reasons we decided to design our own device. Then we contacted him about an agreement.
Not commenting on agreement but yes these guys bought a flex3drive, received extened support and occupied lengthy engagement with me. There was an intent with the agreement, but these guys knew what game they were plaing all along, which is cool,
@Craig_Durant you stated “flex3d drive was not a new concept, it was just retrofitting an already proven design concept onto a 3D Printer” - can you please indicate or provide link to “already proven design”. AFAIK Flex3Drive was the first successfull reliable implementation of such a drive on 3D printers, and there are a number of non obvious nuances to the design that make it work so well. Also not sure what relevance that flexible shaft patent you posted has in regard to a Flex3Drive or other.
Just to be clear, im ok with competition, its nay issue for me. My sales have increased. However they are probably better off focusing on their fundamental tensioner and driveshaft issues. Sloppy on so many levels !
