Hackaday posted a challenge on finally designing a open automated build platform. While they state Just as Converse All Stars aren’t taxed as sneakers, the goal of an open source automated build plate is to create something that doesn’t infringe on the Makerbot patents., we are all individuals here and not corporations which are restrained by patents. I’d say design one and publish it on a thing sharing site of your choice. Do it properly and don’t let MBI tell you what you can and can’t do.
I’ll give it a shot as well, let’s see what we can come up with!
http://hackaday.com/2013/10/23/3d-printering-a-call-for-an-open-source-automated-build-platform/
would teflon sheeting on a rollers do the trick?
like the stuff toaster bags are made from
There are a couple core challenges to this:
- Keeping the belt (?) rigid and flat enough to prevent warping
- Keeping the belt centered while spooling
- Choosing a material that both allows the print to stick to it while being durable enough to withstand many spooling cycles
Any sheet material that involves teflon would need to be coated with another layer that at least allows Kapton or blue tape to stick to it.
@Thomas_Sanladerer patents came up on the forums a few weeks ago. Even if you do not profit, unless you are doing it as research, it is unlawful to produce a patented design for its intended purpose without paying royalties. That being said, this could be seem as research, just remember to cite your sources, ie, cite the patents that you are using in your research.
Or you could change the purpose and say the conveyor is for a toaster oven or something
eh, fuck patents. you can’t get blood out of a stone either.
On the actual topic however, I propose just having a glass bed, that once cooled can be sweeped or scraped would be sufficient for PLA.
Even with blue tape, the Ultimaker seems to be rigid enough to push prints off the bed all by itself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGNe00rVO0o (i know, that guy uses a HBP, but i’ve seen it done with a wall of Ultimakers making stretchy bracelets on blue tape)
That concept would probably work more reliably in the long run if you can get the bed adhesion just right.
I don’t think blue tape would last long enough to be usefull.
an HPB is, I believe mandatory for consistent great prints.
1 Question: Tought of asking this question, +Thomas Sanladerer reminded me
When a thing cannot be patented ?
@Mohamed_Thalib_H anything can be patented if no one makes any claims otherwise.
That’s sad,
Even If it is already avalible in open space like http://reprap.org ?
The patent bureau does not see it as their responsibility to check for prior art, so yes, this also applies to anything we’re coming up with as well.
@Christopher_Benjamin that’s what patent trolls do. Thomas Edison was also famous for doing that. Stealing European designs and patenting them in the states. I thought that the creative Commons or the BSD covered something like this, but that might just be for software. Although I know that some companies get parts of their patents nullified because the features they are trying to patent were already in use on other products prior to them patenting
The PTFE belt MB used was shit and stretched after just a few hours of use. A metal foil belt might fix that. Also missing for the MB design is a way to adjust the tension of the belt and rounded pulleys to center the belt. Those can be printed.
Belt only need to be tight to eject parts when building its flat on the heat plate. So that’s solve that problem.
I am liking @Jonathan_se5a_Sorens idea of some kind of glass bed system. When my bed cools the ABS falls off.
@Christopher_Benjamin it would be tensioned. The heat bed would apply the tension to the belt. Just like in bakeries.
@Christopher_Benjamin I think you are right about first to file as opposed to first to art. But I’m thinking more asking the lines of trying to patent something after somebody has already made it to market. I’m not sure if this has changed from patent reform or not
A minor correction to @Thomas_Sanladerer with regards to patent examiners (in the US at least), they do check for prior art, but only in previously granted patents and pending patent applications (which are not available to the public for 18 months). They do not check conference proceedings, journals, text books or even Google.
That being said, prior art being available, say on http://reprap.org or anywhere else where it can be considered “public disclosure” can be used in litigation to invalidate a patent. There is obviously a huge cost in that, and may not be a big threat to Stratasys if they decided to try to use MBI patents against hobbyists.
@Christopher_Benjamin is right, US is now first to file instead of first to invent. First to invent meant that you could have invented something, wrote it down in your lab notebook (with a date and signature) and subsequently be able to invalidate a patent on the same invention that was filed before you got around to it. Now, only public disclosure of the invention would give you the ability to invalidate that patent, again, through litigation.