Product assembling retrofit kit for the Rostock Max

[senake]

Hello all,

Just to let you know, we have just launched a retrofit kit for the Rostock Max that enables the printer to be used for the production of more sophisticated, fully functional products. A limited number of early bird kits are available for £165 (around $250).

The Kickstarter can be found here - bit.ly/Cool3D. The animated GIF below shows the solution in action. The product update section also contains links to real time footage of the solution in action. A start to end product assembly video will be added shortly.

Our solution is targeted at individuals - adults and children - who want to get a head start learning to be next generation, home 3D printable products designers.

With the Rostock Max being my first and all time favourite 3D printer to date, it made sense to develop our first kit for this machines. The large build volume and travelling head - as opposed to print bed - make the Rostock a much better host machine than the other mainstream cartesian based machines on the market today...maybe this could be used to help with marketing?

Our own 'all singing, all dancing' printer - the Industrial Revolution III - seemed to have been too expensive an option at around $5,000. With the launch of the Mosaic Manufacturing Palette, it's possible to put down conductive, support and separation material with even a single nozzle.

We still need to do more development and testing before we can launch kits for other popular Cartesian and Delta machines, so this will be done in a separate Kickstarter planned for later this year.

Any feedback you have on our offering would be much appreciated.

[mvansomeren]

Perhaps you can explain the concept a bit more. I watched the animated gif but I'm trying to understand what, other than the coolness factor, this brings to the table. Is this more to be used as a teaching tool or is there a practical use for this? I mean I could drop that part in to a completed print by hand. I'm just trying to get a better handle on what this is for, or what I am missing.

[senake]

Hi there,

The current GIF just shows a print and a (rechargeable battery) module being placed into it. We will be posting video footage and a GIF showing the start to finish of this product - a working toy car and other products from early next week.

The idea behind the product is that a designer/maker will be able to use their printer to design products that can be 3D printed and assembled automatically by other 3D printers - ideally overnight whilst their owners are asleep. I currently use my Rostock overnight now and also have many years experience designing production line pick and place machinery, so I know how to make this work reliably without supervision.

The products would be printed with soft (Ecoflex PLA) layers so that the working modules could be retrieved and reused when the product was no longer wanted - after about a week in the case of my kid's toys - or if it breaks.

We believe that printers equipped with the retrofit would especially be of interest to schools and colleges to help turn students into next generation 3D printable product designers with global reach into the market - via people's home 3D printers.

The cost of the retrofits will fall and hopefully our tech will become OEM fitment into most 3D printers. The value of getting on board now is to be first - enabling our backers to build reputations whilst the market is still uncrowded.

What do you think?

[mvansomeren]

I look forward to seeing your video. I can imagine it printing and assembling one item but then what? Does it remove it from the build plate and start over?

I can see the benefit to schools and in learning environments.

[senake]

Hi again,

The solution is primarily intended to push the barriers and increase 3D printer adoption for mainstream consumers/home usage. Consumers would just take the fully assembled product off the print bed when it was ready.

Having said that, I do believe that a couple of guys have recently come up with a film roller type solution that can be retrofitted to a wide variety of printers. If an individual or business wanted to use it for batch production, then they could use that or a scraper type solution.

Pick and place is not an easy thing to do accurately and reliably so we've focused on limiting our solution's scope to ensure that it works well.

If it could help launch you (or your kid's if you have any) as first to market designers and we had a kit for the v2, would you back the Kickstarter?

[mvansomeren]

Although it's interesting, I don't see any practical value in my case so I would not back a kickstarter for this. But I'm just one person. Others may find a lot of value in it for them.

[626Pilot]

Alright, suppose I have a Rostock MAX (which I do) and a Palette (which I will when they start shipping). Suppose also that I have your kit.

What toolchain do I use to design a circuit board, with solder paste (or whatever) and some SMT components?

[senake]

Hi @626Pilot,

For 3D printing and local manufacturing to go mainstream, home spec 3D printable pocducts need to better those that are currently on the market at present in terms of function, form and/or cost. Ideally, we need to give the crowd the tools to come up with new products that have the potential to improve all of our lives. Probably, most importantly, we need to try and do this is a way that means that enables people to transition from earning a living in the current centralised, mass produced ecosystem that we have to doing the same in a more decentralised, grass roots innovation and production world.

It is for this reason, that we are focusing on standard format modules that incorporate all types of the (currently) non-printable items as opposed to just electronic components. It is also the reason that we have offered a platform for collaborative product development and merit based revenue sharing. We love the current open source and open hardware movements, but think that if there is a way to guarantee that a small share of the revenue generated by an innovator's idea is reliably fed back to them, then it will incentivize more people to choose innovative/productive careers over distributive ones.

If you are looking to do just surface mount, then this development - https://hackaday.io/project/1605-retro-populator - is probably what you are looking for. If on the other hand, you are interested in using your Rostock to come up with the next generation of mass market product and carve out a nice as a global mini brand, then we should be working together.

A couple of examples of products that the crowd could improve and deliver via 3D printers equipped with our tech are as follows:

+ Children's toys

This is a sector that is ripe for consolidation. Some of the construction toys go part way to achieving longevity, but we need toys that grow with our children rather than ones that are discarded after a few weeks. One solution may be to design them as modules so that new toys can be added to older ones...eventually combining to make a domestic robot or some other useful product that could possible last a generation or two.

+ Money saving equipment

3D printed products that can enable us to produce some of our own food, warmth and shelter can only be a good thing - especially if 3D printed parts can enable us to create these things out of waste products that currently pollute our environment.

More examples and details will be covered in our 'Global Designer Package' (£9/$14 Kickstarter reward).

Obviously, initial versions of products with better functionality, but not the fit and finish of current injection moulded equivalents would probably only appeal to early adopters (like us). As FDM 3D printing advanced to give better quality and as smaller/more diverse pick/place modules appeared, then home 3D printable products - and home 3D printing in general - would grow in popularity...

[626Pilot]

Lots of Words

I like what you say about decentralizing production. AI and robotics are going to completely gut the economy if nothing is changed. In the future, everyone is going to feel like elevator operators did when automated elevators became commonplace. If the economy isn't refactored to account for this, there will be a great deal of civil unrest, rioting, deaths, wide-scale service disruptions, etc. The first world will look like one of those post-apocalyptic zombie shows. I salute you for trying to be a part of the solution.

However, you still haven't said anything concrete about the toolchain. All the high hopes in the world don't matter without a toolchain.

[senake]

Hi @626Pilot,

Our answer to the tool chain question comes in two parts -

Firstly, as this initial release of our product assembly functionality is targeted as those wishing to design products for others to produce on their 3D printers, the output would be (probably encrypted) gcode - NB. I dislike DRM where it's exploitative, but if designers and makers are going to make a living, then I think it's justified in charging a fair price for effort. The current tool chain therefore comprises of existing software - CAD packages, slicer and firmware. A designer would create the product in CAD out of their 3D printed parts and our standard modules, then export each of their parts as individual STL files. They would then slice and print the first part. If modules then needed to be placed into the part, they would manually control their printer to pick the part from it's pigeonhole, rotate it if required and place it into the housing created for it in the print - once done, they would save down the GCODE into a file. They would then slice and run the STL to 3D print their next part over the inserted modules. This would be repeated until the product was complete. After that they would put all of the GCODE together into a single file, test it - ideally on another machine of the same type, then encrypt it and upload it to one or more marketplaces for 3rd party approval and sale. We do recognise that this tool chain is very manual, but for the moment it would seem to be fit for purpose. Going forwards, we do intend to reach out to software providers to see if they would like to build on their offerings to provide a more user friendly experience to users.

Secondly, I would like to say that we have spent a considerable amount of time and money on software, but in an area we think it will add most value - task and reward sharing for taking new products to market. In order to develop more sophisticated products that equal and better those on the market today, it will probably be necessary to bring together - under utilized - time, skill and assets from the crowd. Our MatchMaker and DealMaker cloud based platforms do just that.

Can you let me know if the above answers your question?


Thanks



Senake

[bot]

I see a ton of hot air blowing out of a certain orifice. Pilot has some spot-on points and I agree with him fully here.

Encrypted g-code? This sounds like the farthest thing from revolutionary. We don't need any more protectionist measures infiltrating our economy. We need exactly the opposite.

[senake]

@bot

You may be right, but if so then how do you propose that full time designers and innovators earn a living?



Senake

[bot]

That's a pretty open-ended question. They could do work that is valuable to other people, and the other people could pay them for that valuable work.

Let me ask you something: If you get paid for a job you do, that took x amount of hours, should you continue to be paid for those x amount of hours for the rest of your life, many multiple times over?

[senake]

This is going slightly off topic, but to answer your question...

By conceiving a solution, then putting in the time and money to turn it into a working product, the designers and innovators are doing work. Why is it a negative thing if more than once individual or business decides to buy that product? Isn't the benefit that the product creates more important than the time and effort that went into creating it?

I think that we need to remove barriers to innovation, but equally important is the need provide the motivation to encourage as many people as possible to become innovators. Not everyone is or wants to be a hard nosed business person. Without some kind of reward structure in place, it's going to be hard to convince the majority of people to shift from an safer 'distributive' role into a less predictable innovative one.

[Mac The Knife]

That's a pretty open-ended question. They could do work that is valuable to other people, and the other people could pay them for that valuable work.

Let me ask you something: If you get paid for a job you do, that took x amount of hours, should you continue to be paid for those x amount of hours for the rest of your life, many multiple times over?

Writers and musicians wouldn't be to happy.

[stonewater]

well this is off topic but anyway...... recurring revenue streams from work previously done is the basis of the industrial revolution and is the reason each of us is typing into these here fancy computerized boxes.... it pays for the food clothing and housing of millions of people all over the world.

we would all be hoeing dirt and milking cows otherwise. I am all for self reliance and self sufficiency, and I like the fact that I can make something, but to be truly free I need to sell it over and over again, be it hardware or software. I need revenue streams for myself, and more than one.

if you don't like the products offered, make it yourself. if you cannot pay someone to do it for you. I love open source, but even open source is paid for by someone, time effort energy. enterprise users of Linux pay a license to run its variants to someone, redhat, etc. each and every free open sourced STL file is the result of immense amounts of labor somewhere. think about the technology required to get a simple STL out of someone's mind and onto thingiverse or reprap........

@626

yea disruptive technology is all around us, think about all the buggy whip manufacturers who went out of business when the automobile became popular. when the very first robot went into the production line, people should have stood up and taken notice, and figured out how to fix robots, or build them or program them.

the world belongs to those who can adapt.

Tom C

[bot]

Hahaha you guys are nuts if you think "perpetual revenue streams" help anyone but the SINGLE person who "created" something.

Think about this: how did that person create their work? On the shoulders of many other people. Where is their cut?

This whole idea of closing off intellectual property is baffling, and you'll see, you'll encounter a stone wall. The NEW industrial revolution does not involve patents, DRM, or other protectionist measures.

[senake]

@bot

...continuing off topic (but hopefully not for too long), we certainly don't support closed off IP - this is one of the fundamental points made in our Kickstarter - and one that I go into more fully in my (very badly written) ebook 'Compopoly'.

The best path to real freedom - not having to work at something that we don't enjoy - is to use technology - most of us in the developed world live like kings did 500 years ago.

Many of the big challenges that we face now are tough. Carbon capture on a grand scale to preserve this planet and long distance space travel to find alternatives. To stand a chance of achieving the breakthrough innovation to meet these, we need the right framework in place to enable incremental innovation AND the reward structure to encourage more bright individuals out of law/finance into scientific/engineering disciplines.

[bot]

Again, more smoke.


Let's get back on topic, because you still haven't really made clear what exactly your revolution entails.

You designed a rack? And an interface to pick up items on this rack? And place them automatically?

And some software? Is this software open source? Is there any restriction on commercial re-distribution of branches of your software?

[senake]

@bot

The condescending tone is somewhat unnecessary.

Can I ask if you have designed any industrial robotics or other production line machinery? I have designed and developed a solution to automated product, precision assembly without a vision system or any of the other elements that would make it too expensive for mass market adoption. It is likely to be a while before we can 3D print all of the elements that currently make up mass market products - precision bearings with hardened steel balls, liquid crystal displays, wheels and axles - without support material. Rather than wait the 10-15 years whilst this technology gets developed, mine is an intermediate solution that will help keep up the pace of the 3D printing revolution.

We would be happy to make the controlling software for the pick/place open source, but I paid two developers salary for two years to build the collaboration platforms, so that probably won't be...

[626Pilot]

I think what you did is to create an ecosystem for people to sell stuff, which you take a cut off the top of. If I misread your Kickstarter page, my bad, but that was the impression I got.

You spent time on this instead of the toolchain, maybe because you know more about making a website than you do about making plugins for CAD software. In my opinion, this was the wrong move.

For me to use this, it can't demand that I go rifling through a bunch of G-code. (You've obviously rifled through G-code in order to get it to place your wheel assembly in the demo video, so you know how steep and error-prone that learning curve is.)

I can't tell you what would make others take this seriously, but I can tell you what would make me take it seriously. You'd need to release plugins for all the major CAD packages people use. Autodesk, Sketchup, Blender, Rhino, OpenSCAD, and whatever else. These would generate supplementary files containing the series of coordinates the effector needs to move to in order to safely navigate away from the printed object without knocking into it, and then to the picking coordinates where it needs to actuate is grabbers or vacuum or however this works. Obviously the plugin would need to know where the parts can be found, but that's just a matter of some text boxes with coordinates.

The model would then be sliced using any slicer. After that, a post-processing script would turn the coordinates from the supplementary file into G-code, determine the right locations in the file to splice in instructions to place the part, do the actual placing, and then take the effector back to where it was. This would need to have some code to retract and then prime the filament, so it doesn't ooze all over during the pick-and-place operation.

The determination of where to splice the code would probably best be handled by finding the first G0 or G1 command that references the Z where you want it to happen, and then injecting the pick-and-place G-code immediately above that. Some slicers (like KISSlicer) will let you specify a post-processing script, so it wouldn't have to be an extra step.

Your Kickstarter is not likely to succed at this point, given the completion date and current funding level. If you decide to continue working on this, what I have outlined above would be the first place to start, in my opinion. The ecosystem you developed is really more of a "save it for when we have time" thing. Nobody wants to go rifling through G-code. You have to take that out of our hands because we don't want it.

[senake]

@626pilot,

Thank you for your feedback.

In the same way that the smartphone manufacturers require the app developers to code using an SDK, this solution is targeted at individuals who want to carve out a niche for themselves offering a next generation product that can be printed and assembled on a home 3D printer.

I have actually started to reach out to some of the CAD and firmware producers with a view to future enhancements, but don't want to slow things down by waiting a user friendly interface for all of the different CAD packages is in place. Whilst some designers/makers might not want modify gcode, I believe that there are many more who would do this to be first in the marketplace. It would be a lot safer for a designer to follow our guidelines to put together a CAD assembly drawing, pull all of the pick/place co-ordinates out of it and then run off a few test products to hone the product process and final design than to rely on this being optimally created by a machine.

We have proposed that - to encourage incremental innovation - our focus would be on promoting single best of breed products. Whether that will be accepted, we don't know yet. Either way, it would mean that taking up the opportunity early would both enable an innovator to both (1) be noticed and (2) claim the lions share of the innovator revenue share as the biggest value adder to a product.

I did have a look - with interest - at some of the AI based solutions that you had put forward for Rostock calibration and wondered if the inching along technique might somehow be used to make the solution more robust and less Gcode-to-3D-printer-model specific.

We're well aware that this Kickstarter was a flop, but have plans to be back with another within 2-3 months.

[626Pilot]

I have actually started to reach out to some of the CAD and firmware producers with a view to future enhancements, but don't want to slow things down by waiting a user friendly interface for all of the different CAD packages is in place.

...

We're well aware that this Kickstarter was a flop, but have plans to be back with another within 2-3 months.

My honest prediction is this: You aren't paying enough heed to the importance of removing pain and lessening the learning curve for your prospective customers. If this doesn't change, your second Kickstarter is not likely to succeed. I don't think your desire to interject your company between content producers and end users is going to get you anywhere without a really good toolchain on day one. That would at least justify them going through you, but you don't have that. You're gambling that you'll be able to find enough early adopters who are willing to do the work for you, but my intuition tells me that you are unlikely to approach your funding goal on this strategy.

My only real complaint about SeeMeCNC is that they never offered a definitive fix for the "Z=0 bug", where you can't print out to the border on a Rostock because of alignment issues. They left that issue for their customers to solve. I'm one of the customers who figured out how to solve it, but I don't appreciate that. They should have done that once instead of requiring their customers to duplicate thousands of hours of effort figuring it out for themselves. It's not efficient. I say this because I see you going in the same direction. DON'T make your customers do your work for you. They'll remember that about you, and that isn't something you want to be remembered for. (Other than that, they have been nice to me, even sending out a couple replacement parts for free. This is not me bashing them generally - just on that one point.)

You can disagree with me if you want. That's fine. I'm just trying to give a little advice to a project that I think could be useful someday. We DEFINITELY need an alternative to the $9,000 nonsense that offers printing with embedded wiring and parts. Yet, if I needed something to do serious production of these parts on, I would still get one of those printers if I could afford it, because the toolchain is already in place on day one. I don't have to spend a month training myself to use it, writing my own tools, pouring over G-code all night, etc. It's just there, and it just works.

As for my calibration firmware, I don't know that there's anything in there that's specifically useful for pick-and-place, but it is released under an open source license. As long as you don't violate that license or mix the code with other code that has an incompatible license, you can use whatever part of it you want.

[senake]

Hi @626pilot,

Thanks for the response.

I wasn't sure, but maybe I haven't explained our target customer is clearly.

At this stage, the kit isn't really targeted at people who want to use their 3D printer to design and produce products themselves, it's targeted at (1) consumers who want to be able to produce more sophisticated products that were designed by someone else and (2) designers who want to create the products to sell to the type (1) user as their numbers grow. The actual user experience for the customer type (1) should be very painless. They would just put the required modules in the pigeonholes, open the Gcode file in their printer host, click print in the evening and wake up to a ready assembled product in the morning.

The other point which again, I probably haven't made clear enough is that we are not going to set up our own marketplace - we're not trying to duplicate what already works - 3D hubs, Amazon and many others already have great marketplaces. We will, however, both quality check and promote - on these marketplaces - proven designs that can be used by machines fitted with our assembly solution.

We do want to try and use the time between now and the next Kickstarter to (1) seek out collaborations to try and offer a better service (2) show our tech working so that people can get a feel for it's abilities - and limitations.