Here's a design study of a tool changer based on the old HP pen

Here’s a design study of a tool changer based on the old HP pen plotters. They didn’t seem to need an extra motion control of any kind to pick or stow a pen on the carousel. I had never had an opportunity to dismantle one to see how they work, so a bit of Googling led me to the HP online museum where a user’s manual showed me enough of the mechanism to figure it out. The gist of it is this: Spring-loaded fingers on either the carriage or the carousel grip the tool. During a transfer, the carriage is forced against the carousel, and the empty side fingers force the other fingers off of the tool, gripping it in turn. Every time the carriage and carousel come together, the tool is transferred from one side to the other.

I adapted that concept to an E3D V5 Bowden hot-end. The hot end is gripped on a modified fan shroud, instead of by the groovemount. In my models, the green side is the carriage, and the purple side is the station in the tool magazine (if the wiper wasn’t a dead giveaway). Clearly a lot of detail is missing, such as screws, and springs in the obvious places. I only put enough effort into the design to see if it pans out.

The tool-changer’s advantage is the lowest possible moving mass for multiple tools. Lower mass allows higher acceleration, which tends to allow higher quality or speed. The tool changer also allows the opportunity to design for large numbers of tools, including things that aren’t extruders. Things like digitizing probes, swivel-knives, pens, and maybe small machining spindles.

The primary disadvantage is complexity. A printer with a single travelling beam (H-bot, CoreXY, etc.) can give up about 55 mm of travel on one side of the machine to mount a row of tool stations. So no other controls need to be added than are necessary for the tools themselves. Anything else will need to be able to move a magazine of tool stations into position for the carriage to pick tools from.

Whether it’s worth the trouble is not an easy question to answer. The carriage-side parts are about half the mass of a 2nd E3D V5. The Kraken appears to be amazingly mass-efficient for 4 extruders. I think it will still add significantly more moving mass than this tool-changing carriage, but I don’t have good enough numbers for the Kraken’s mass to be sure the tool-changer complexity is worthwhile. It does seem obvious that the simplicity of the Kraken makes it an obvious choice as the development platform for multi-extruder printers.

I think something like this will become necessary in the pursuit of utmost speed, but for now, I think I’ll need to be content with mounting a 2nd V5.

Images and some models files in the Drive folder linked below.
https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B9O8yNL4GMNTTDM4SjY4aTl3djQ&usp=sharing

I have a couple of those HP plotters and have meant to do something useful with them for… well, fifteen years? I like this.

The impending v6 is certainly lighter and more compact than the V5, I’m not at liberty to say much more about it yet btw. My Kraken experience has taught me that you may be better off with 2 or 3 stand alone heads rather than a single unit, (particularly if it’s water cooled). Rumour has it that there may be a 3 nozzle air cooled HE in the works.

Tim, will you please elaborate on your experience with the kraken and why you think 2 or 3 individual units might be advantageous. Thanks!

Dale, I wonder what advantage the HP mechanism brings over a simpler solution such as this one: http://hackaday.com/2013/09/17/automatic-tool-changing-on-a-3d-printer/

The hackaday solution lacks a indexing feature to keep the hotend in the same place every time.

@Adam_Thorp , that mechanism described at http://hackaday.com has been discussed further in the RepRap forums. If the magnets are arranged to form a kinematic coupling (1), then the tool position should be repeatable. The delta bots are inherently able to perform the vertical moves necessary to that mechanism, so I would say it may be the superior tool change for those machines.

A cartesian bot needs to make the tool change using a horizontal motion, which the HP mechanism facilitates. But only a few machines can use it in the simplest form. H-bot, CoreXY, etc. with a single travelling beam can implement the HP changer with no additional control axes, so the HP mechanism would be superior for those machines, I think.

Machines with two traveling beams (Ulimaker, Tantillus, Ingentis…) need another mechanism to lift the unused tools out of the way of the moving parts. A variation on the magnetic kinematic coupling is probably best for these machines.

Mendel machines would be a the most difficult to add a tool changer to, but have so much moving mass there’s probably little point to doing so.

(1) http://pergatory.mit.edu/kinematiccouplings/

@Tim_Rastall , I’d like to echo @Adam_Thorp 's request for more commentary on the Kraken. I can think of a couple advantages of single hot ends: unused nozzles not oozing on the print or bumping curled corners, and reduced moving mass. The Kraken head itself seems to be surprisingly low mass, but all the wires and water-filled tubes servicing it might be a serious restriction on acceleration.

V6 being lighter and more compact is good news, but I’m afraid it will be available before I can get my V5 installed in anything!

@Dale_Dunn
There are some nice kinematic couplings used in optics research. Worth looking at for ideas.
http://www.thorlabs.com/newgrouppage9.cfm?objectgroup_id=1546

@Mark_Fuller Nice! Those are precisely the kind of thing I was talking about. Not quite suited for an extruder, but easy enough to make.

@Dale_Dunn @Adam_Thorp there are a number of reasons:
-Water cooling is a pain to set up and service. It also introduces a whole bunch of risk; I’ve not had a serious leak but with a moving carriage, there’s a chance something will come loose and suddenly your PSU and elecronics are wet.
-It’s hard to service and maintain; It’s very fiddly to remove a Bowden tube or undo a blocked nozzle because everything is so close together.
-Micro adjustment of nozzle height is frustrating and requires fila gauges.

Don’t get me wrong here, I like the Kraken, it’s a fun HE but it’s only generation 1 and there are plenty of improvements that could be made. Principally getting rid of the water and air cooling with several small fans.