Portable e-NABLE Lab Proposal

Ok, I now understand a bit more what your plan is, but I am still a bit sceptic. All parts that you will use on the prototype should be something that can be purchased in almost all countries. Also 3D printers are almost always not made for carrying around. I worry that a lot of effort must be made to tune the printer again, before it runs smoothly again. So I am doubting if this project will be succesfull. Maybe you should explain more about what you intent to do. Maybe you can convince me that this can be succesfull and of benefit of all e-NABLE Community.

Hi Sandra. the ultimaker go is designed with a portable bag to be carried around and no retuning is required apart from bed leveling occasionally . Though it is a much better and sturdier printer than the ender 3. I guess part of this proposal is to create a cheaper alternative to the ultimaker go?

@adamarmfield Hi Adam, thanks for the comment. I wasn't familiar with the Ultimaker Go, but this is a good indication of the utility of a portable 3D printer. Though it's small, I wonder how well it truly travels great distances? I agree, part of the proposal is to create an inexpensive portable printer that anyone can feel confident to build with a few modifications of an off-the-shelf Ender-3. Aside from the printer itself, a big part of the portable e-NABLE lab proposal is having all necessary functionality, tools, and materials to make an e-NABLE hand right in the suitcase. For example, I have a few ideas for borrowing heat from the print bed for thermoforming gauntlets, etc. I'll look forward to discussing more ideas with you if the process moves forward.

Hi Sandra, thank you for the thoughts. I agree that it is importance to be able to source needed parts in most countries, and I'll keep that in mind. True robustness balanced with portability is key. I will be populating a Google Doc (link can be found in the project proposal) with intentions, sketches, and other ideas which will further flesh out the plan over the coming days and weeks. I look forward to more thoughts and feedback on the portable e-NABLE lab proposal.

I really appreciate the discussion, everyone. And personally agree with Sandra that EnableFund projects should benefit the larger community.

Since Rochester Enable Lab is the presumed custodian of this device, I'll share some thoughts about how this project could benefit the whole community.

1) If it proves successful, the device would be a loaner. If a volunteer can pay shipping and perhaps recalibration costs, wants to borrow it for an e-NABLE-appropriate activity, we would be happy to take responsiblity for packing and shipping.

2) if a borrower wants to acquire one of these, we could

..a) remind them that our documentation should make it easy for them to make their own.

..b1) offer to sell them the one they have fallen in love with

..b2) build a new one in the lab, incorporating what we have learned and updating documentation.

..b3) employ our student lab techs to do the building and calibration.

If this would win your vote @sandradermisek , I think Kyle would write it in to the proposal...

Generally feel positive about this project so don't let the my questions discourage you. A few thoughts:

• Is the Ender 3 widely used in the eNABLE community and generally considered a safe and robust printer? Can it print flexibles (that are becoming more widely used) out-of-box? Price just seems awfully cheap for something that will primarily be a "prosthetic" hand printer.

• Will the folding hardware be metal or 3D printed?

• Is two weeks enough time to iron out all kinks?

• Lastly, what will define success quantitatively? If eNABLE is going to sponsor this, would love to see a more robust outcome measure. Like standard Ender3 vs backpack printer (w/ 'X' mins assembly) on standard benchmark prints (benchy/torture test/etc).

@jasonbender Hi Jason, these are great comments. I have had many years of experience with Ultimaker, MakerBot, and delta-style 3D printers and have incorporated robust design features from these styles of printer into my own bioprinters. The Creality line of printers are Prusa-esque, and I've gotten to know the Ender-3 Pro as I've been working in the Rochester e-NABLE Lab. Unlike many printers in the Ultimaker or MakerBot style with a rigid 6-panel frame (box), I believe printers in the Prusa style lend themselves to be hinged for folding the unit up, or broken apart into two pieces (upper XZ and lower Y) for transport. I like the aluminum extrusion construction of the Ender for ease of attaching additional hardware or modifying its construction with basic hand tools. The Prusa's rod and bearing construction is arguably more robust than the Ender's wheels, but I was concerned they may get jostled or bent in transport.

I haven't decided on hardware yet, or even if it will indeed fold. I am considering multiple options that will be finalized when I have the parts in front of me and I can test different configurations. If we go the folded route, we could borrow John Diamond's partially 3D printer hinging system, or find a metal alternative.

While I'm requesting two weeks of build time, I will be working on design considerations from now until the time construction begins. I believe it will be enough based on previous experience creating new types of 3D printers.

That is a great suggestion. I imagine we will run the printer through standard tests in the lab, and make sure it prints well when dialed in under ideal conditions. I'd then like to pack it up and transport it somewhere, perhaps to someones garage and run through some standard prints in a 'field test' simulation. I welcome any additional quantitative and qualitative test suggestions.

Thanks for the response. I'm a little confused about when the funds
get used, are they only for the construction and documentation of the
final product, or are some of the funds for design & testing, and some
for construction & documentation?

If the first case (only construction & docs), I would say funding
should wait until a functional prototype is demonstrated. If the
second case (funds design & construction phases), could the
disbursement be split into two--one to get to a working prototype, and
a second (w/ successful prototype) to complete construction and
document?

This would help to minimize risk on the part of eNABLE.

Hi @kylereeser,

You clearly know your business. I hadn't heard of this, but he does have some excellent ideas.
* Here's a good description for everyone about John Diamond's folding 3D printer: https://blog.hackster.io/this-3d-printer-was-designed-from-the-ground-up-to-be-truly-portable-2dc82e78380b
* It says that it folds down and locks in place. So there should be no way for anything to get bent. Unless a rod falls out of the package and gets stepped on or something. But if it's locked in, that should be impossible.
* Which makes me think that one consideration should be that it is clearly locked or unlocked, preferably via "icons" that are exposed/hidden when operating the latch mechanism (both close and open).
That single feature should prevent 99% of user-errors before shipping it back to e-NABLE -- or anywhere.
* Also note he includes a small spool of filament right inside the case. Looks like there might be room for a couple of large ones. (??)
* I've not looked at the full build log of this one, yet, which you probably know is here: https://www.instructables.com/id/Bergen-Makerspace-Transportable-3D-Printer/

I'm just throwing out observations/suggestions as they hit me. I hope some of them help. :sunglasses:

Gracias!🖖😎

@lelandgreen Thanks Leland, John does great work. I'll look into this more. I like the suggestion of "user error-proofing" the system in some way. I'll look into ways to make the system intuitive and mitigate user errors, and incorporate those ideas into the design plans. Cheers!