Talk:Orca v020

From RepRap
Revision as of 01:17, 13 August 2011 by Sebastien Bailard (talk | contribs) (Re: it's "Experimental status:)
Jump to: navigation, search

New Users, please beware that "Orca" is:

Re: it's "Experimental status:

  • experimental - it's only been produced at Mendel-Parts ( a commercial outfit), and has not been indepenantly verified as to its capabilities, quality, repeatability, etc.
--Buzz ( Core Reprap team member, and Wiki Admin ).
  • not experimental anymore - its been produced on alot of locations already *also outside Mendel-Parts*.
10+ users (most indepently from Mendel-Parts.com ) have verified its capabilities, quality, repeatibility.
And they were very happy and very impressed, they like Orca much, much more then Mendels, building/working/printing with it etc.
For that reason we yesterday decided to remove the experimental note, however some reprap users dont agree 
and put the above message on this page today, simply put: 
I hate politics, but if you change this page, make sure you know what you are talking about!
--Camiel
Buzz, Camiel, I've changed the scare text at the top of Orca a bit. I've left the issue that
we as a wider community (7B minus 10 people) don't know much about it, yet, and that it needs
further evaluation and isn't considered 'perfect' yet.
I've changed the pejorative "it's an ideologically impure RepStrap" to
a more neutral "it has laser cut parts along with 3d printed ones". Interested
folk can read the follow up on this page to decide for themselves if this is good or bad.
I deleted the "only one entrepreneur currently selling them"; since we're not using that
text to warn new folk about the other RepStraps and electronics which are single-supplier.
Interested folk can quickly get a sense of Camiel's positive reputation using forum/irc.
The new text is wordier than the old; it is tricky to convey nuance and context regarding
"this machine is somewhat untested."
--Sebastien Bailard 08:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

(I like it)

I justly choose the Orca to test it during the "Bootcamp FabLab/Reprap Build Party" that happened in Barcelona recently (where Camiel brought the machines himself)
We had two weeks to build 3 Orca (while I teach them how to use a reprap) and print as much things as we can.
If pictures are worth many words look at what we've done : Bootcamp FabLab Barcelona (the 6 students never heard of the reprap before this workshop ^^)
I plan to write a detailed reviewed of this machine (and the questions raised here) and post a link, but in short: it have many interesting points and some that we can improve, but I think it's good (and I say that with the experience of building a Sells Mendel and a Prusa).
Also, thanks Sebastien, I feel more comfortable with this more neutral edition
--Emmanuel 17:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: whether it';s a "true reprap" or not:

  • not entirely a Reprap ( ie it is not self-replicating ) as it currently requires approximately 20+ laser-cut parts in order to be assembled, and we can not yet print laser-cutters. Mendel and Darwin did not "require" a laser-cutter. I've personally made two Mendels, and never was a laser-cutter used at all.  :-(
--Buzz ( Core Reprap team member, and Wiki Admin ).

(Standard) Mendels also needs lasercut parts, (if you need 5, you also need a lasercuter.. and we cannot print those).
But I dont have time to play this game, some people work for a better world, some people just like to complain..

--Camiel.
  • Alt. to using a lasercutter as main manufacturing method of mentioned parts.

Could be to use electroetching (wiki/forum-thread/.pdf/video) ? I guess a sufficiently advanced reprap-entity and/or relation between biological/technological entities could utilize some fluids, sweat and tears from the first and "a bit" of electricity from the latter to make some offspring. Hm.. I guess that could be interpreted wrongly.

--danielpublic
  • Buzz, do you really want to claim that any machine that uses a laser cutter to make some of its parts is not a RepRap? By that standard a Mendel is not a RepRap (most instances use several laser cut boards). The about page contains the following definition: RepRap - n. any free rapid prototyping machine that can manufacture a significant fraction of its own parts... It says nothing about not requiring a laser cutter. The Orca is certainly capable of manufacturing a significant fraction of its own parts and thus qualifies as a RepRap (assuming it is freely producible by others).
--madscifi
  • to madscifi, I'm just trying to make people aware of the fact that if they choose this machine, then they are choosing a machine that is *less self-replicating* than the current state-of-the-art Prussa/Sells style machines. For some people this is not important at all, for some others, it's incredibly important. We have no way to know in-advance who falls into which category, so the best approach is to make sure that everyone is properly informed before they made their decision, and then they have no one to blame but themselves.

I personally like to think that you should need nothing more than common hand-tools to make a reprap, so it becomes much more accessable to a much larger audience of users. Although I don't claim that any machine that uses a laser cutter to make some of its parts is not a RepRap it is true that making it compulsory makes these machine/s les-replicable, less repeatable, less accessable, etc. The standard Mendel is totally a RepRap, because it does not need laser cut parts ( they are 100 optional, being easily cut-out with a hand saw instead). Other derivatives, like a LaserCut_Mendel are not strictly "reprap", they are "repstrap", because they are made mostly of laser-cut parts, and can not themselves cut wih a laser ( that would be cool if they could though).

--Buzz

Re: whether the design is in need of change

The Core reprap team hope that both the above issues will be resolved soon, and are pleased to see another RepRap variation taking shape, but it's early-days for this new design, and if you want a tried-and-tested model, we currently recommend either a "Prusa Mendel" or a "Classic/Sells Mendel", not this one. Please also note that there is currently only one supplier of parts for this model, and they are a commercial outfit. ( That may suit you, as support should be better, or it may concern you, as it potentially means increased vendor lock-in).

--Buzz ( Core Reprap team member, and Wiki Admin ).

We @ mendel-parts.com recommend Orca over the standard Mendel, because its so much easier to build, to work on / better manual etc.. in short: people are much more happy with an Orca, it prints better and is faster to setup (user comments, not my comment).

--Camiel.
I'm not sure how vendor lock-in is a concern. The machine is open source.
Regarding the lasercut aspect. Many folk in developed countries have a local
lasercutting job shop. And they've got access to ebay and reprap's marketplace.
If Orca takes off, it's a moment's work to add a lasercut parts marketplace subforum to our forum,
and a orca lasercut parts suppliers wiki page.
Orca may indeed work well for hackerspaces that have a lasercutter handy or who put in a bulk order with
a local job shop / the internet.
--Sebastien Bailard 08:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: whether this is a problem or not

In General most (normal) users dont care about building a 3D printer, that is not their goal, they want to print 3D.

--Camiel.

Camiel, you statement depends entirely on who *you* consider "normal". I personally think there is no "normal", and would not like to impose restrictions on people without at least making them aware of the choices they are making. Eg: If a user wants a non-replicating printer, then that's OK, but it's not a 'RepRap', it's a 'RepStrap'. In this particular case, your 'Orca' 3D printer is clearly moving toward the latter category( ie RepStrap), by your own admission... and that *will* be a concern for some people, so it's best that they be informed about it up-front.

--Buzz. ( Core Reprap team member, and Wiki Admin ).



Something else I want to explain for once: running a production line of 6 or more printers is something else then having 1 or 2 printers.
We run in completely different problems, we find alot more issues etc. Printing 18h each day on 10 printers, or printing 18h a week on one printer is totally not comparable.

Dependence on the lasercut parts, different materials, milling?

How is the design of orca made in respect to dependence on the big lasercut parts?

The smaller alu pieces should be doable with a cnc router, which are quite common, (well at least I have a small one) but the larger pieces would have to be made on something bigger.

But getting access to a high end laser cutter which can do aluminum isn't that easy either, so what about plywood or other materials? --ElectricMucus 20:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Assuming New => Improved

"Since it is brand new, it is almost certainly an improvement on most previous machines."
This claim is sufficiently outrageous to distract me from figuring out whether the design is, in fact, an
improvement.
--Garthk
I think you'd be better off pointing to a list of advantages and disadvantages.
Hmmm ... I've pointed almost certainly at Orca#Benefits_of_this_Design. That may help.
--Sebastien Bailard 05:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)