ULTRA lightweight X-BEAMS tested - USELESS on Voron 0.0 / 0.1 / 0.2 ?
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 05. 2024
- Visit PCBWay, the sponsor of my lightweight project:
pcbway.com/g/8EZP2R
Lightweight beams for 3D printers are all the rage in the enthusiast DIY scene.
There are commercial offers from various sources like 3DO, Fabreeko, Funssor and others.
DIY tinkerers are also working on their own approaches for various printers, because these are fun projects and they promise fast printing!
IWe check out CNC milled aluminium variants and a self-made carbon fiber beam which will compare to the default.
My own design, the hyper lightweight beam aka HyperBeam at only 8g will also compete in the test plan!
I’ll show you the tests and results for quality acceleration with Input Shaping, maximum acceleration and I performed stress and a print test in order to support my statement:
You don’t need them, but you’d might to want them anyways!
Follow 247printing on social media:
----------------------------
Twitter bit.ly/3tSh8M2
TikTok: bit.ly/3FIHqWv
Instagram bit.ly/37b94yf
Discord bit.ly/3Cy5jPf
Music*: Def Lev - “Funked Up, Cranked Up” - loyalty free at Epidemic Sound:
share.epidemicsound.com/x5gyyu
Sources*:
--------------------------------
Voron 0.1 (AliExpress): bit.ly/39kfWdC
Stronger Ready-made Carbon Fiber Beam: s.click.aliexpress.com/e/_DFp...
MGN7H Preload Z1 Linear Rail used (Fermio Labs): bit.ly/3SN9pLt
Recommmended FAST PRINTERS*:
-----------------------------------------------------
Voron 2.4 (AliExpress): bit.ly/3PklmWE
Voron Trident (AliExpress): bit.ly/3yxMaNe
Additional Information*:
---------------------------------------
Gcode webtool for max acceleration: bit.ly/3ZmyE9Q
PremiumBasics on CZcams (great!): / @premiumbasics
MirageC CF Beam Video: • Using TITANIUM and CAR...
Belt Tension done right: bit.ly/41PYox8
MirkoBeam (GitHub): bit.ly/3mt5CH7
0:00 Intro and sponsors
1:29 Beams explained
6:38 Belt Tension and Resonances
9:15 Max. Acceleration
11:10 Stess Tests (Lateral/Torsional)
16:10 Print Test
17:04 Conclusion
*Can be affiliate links at no extra cost for the customer.
#3Dprinting #speedboatrace #highflow #fastestprinting #247zero #jointhespeed - Věda a technologie
The awesome feeling of designing and manufacturing your own design never gets old!
Try Onshape, the feature-rich cloud based solution and support 247printing by clicking: Onshape.pro/247Printing
As unnecessary as this is for most us, I greatly appreciate it. I learned a lot & it’s nice to see people pushing boundaries.
Thanks a lot, Daniel!
We are not going to act like this didn't make our day! We are much honored to be one part of your great X-BEAM, Albert! 🥳🥳
, m
Thx a lot for the collaboration, I bet we find ways to go on 👍
Wn =sqrt(k/m)
Where Wn is the resonant frequency, k is the stiffness and m is the mass. In order to improve input shaping results, you have to aim for the highest possible frequency. That means you not only have to reduce mass, but also increase stiffness!
TRUE!
Great video! "Because" definitely plays a part in many our customization's. This is my take as someone that isn't concerned with chasing maximum speeds. Its a relief to know that the other beams available for V0. Have no downsides to them in regard to performance. I would hate to once again buy something shiny because I wanted it, and find it cost me in other areas.
I appreciate the video, but right at the start when you were comparing the percentage weight reductions, my brain was screaming, irrelevant without comparing the total mass of the moving parts. Of course you said this at the end.
You need to start the comparison somewhere - I did directly on the component. I also stated already in the video, that those beams don't make sense :-)
this! especially considering printers like the k3 work with no beam at all, it’s pretty obvious that this really doesn’t matter on such a small printer
Awesome video, I love seeing the science and explanations behind these types of things. I ordered a FYSETC carbon beam for my 2.4, I'm excited to see if it makes a difference, but it at least looks cool.
As someone who has built multiple Voron V0 kits, I must say that this is a LOT of work. My hat goes off to you! Such a great way to showcase the gantry arm differences, or lack thereof.
Thanks a lot! It was work, but it's very much fun and relaxing for me to do that. In addition: I am used to it - somehow all my videos go into the "lot of efforts category" :-)
AFAIK, Input shaping is looking for it's first fundamental frequency to figure out how fast it can go. It isn't looking for torque on the motors, so weight is not part of the equation for the max acceleration it outputs. If you look at what makes up a fundamental frequency, a simplified equation would be fn = sqrt(k / m), where fn is the fundamental frequency (larger is better), k is the stiffness of the system, and m is the mass of the system. In a Voron, changing the x beam, you are lowering the stiffness of the best (lowering k) when you cut holes in it. The mass you need to think about is the mass of the whole moving system, not just the beam. So lightening the beam lowers the stiffness of the whole system, but only lowers the mass of part of it. My guess is going to a rectangular aluminum beam (like carbon fiber shape, but aluminum) would be an improvement. Or go to a thicker wall section carbon fiber. Of if you are really adventurous, move the linear rail to the front or back of the beam. It will then improve the area moment of inertia of the beam. That rail is quite stiff, if loaded in the correct way. Love to see people trying to push the limits! Great video
Based on my differential equations/control theory knowledge, the two factors in an undamped system are stiffness and mass. Given that most of the damping naturally comes from the friction in the motors and slider bearings and is likely the same for every x bar, I would take a closer look at how stiff each bar is and see if a stiffer material, such as titanium, gives better resonance testing results.
Cast CF would provide some damping also, wouldnt it? while maintaining stiffness. Or CF with titanium backer perhaps. But that might add some less predictable/linear resonance characteristics with the 2 materials interacting.
Stiffer materials helps, a little. But remeber that stiffness of a part is the CUBE of the depth. He would gain massive results if a 30 x 30 beam would fit in the space. I think the designers choose 15x15 just becuse the rest of the printer was 1515.
Also I thing the flex on the beam is tortional. The center of mass of the extruder likely not level with the beam
Another excellent dive into faster printing Albert! Love to see more videos as of late.
Albert, your videos are getting so much better... I anxiously look forward to each one. I love how you're pushing the whole hobby forward
Thanks a lot Jonathan! My plan is to get better with every video :-)
Very nice work! As you see with your natural frequencies and maximum recommended accelerations, what matters is the stiffness to mass ratio. Even with better stiffness to mass ratio of the CF, hyperbeam and ultrabeams in isolation, once you add the mass of the hot end, the complete performance may be worse since the alternatives have an absolute lower stiffness than the default. If you had absolute stiffness included in addition to the stiffness/weight I think it would be more apparent. It would be nice to know eventually what size of beam makes this crossover point viable for using the lightweight beam designs.
This is pretty much what I was going to comment too. The acceleration is lower with those lighter beams so they don't flex too much. It would be pretty interesting to see what would topology optimized beam look like.
yep too much stiffness reduction in comparison ...
Another factor might be a reduction in damping of the beams themselves although I expect the impact to be smaller in comparison to the stiffness reduction.
Lightweight only helps if your motors have reached their maximum acceleration values due to inertia. His motors are clearly able to overcome the inertia of the heavier, stiffer beam. He will see practically zero improvement by trying to make lightweight parts. This is wasted effort in this instance.
@@UnitSe7en True, but as the printer size increases and the relative mass of the beam to the hot end gets larger, maybe this solution would be worthwhile (perhaps on a Voron 2.4). I guess that can be settled by future testing or at least a simulation if the overall stiffness/mass are known. From most of what I have seen, the melting and cooling rates of polymer will start to limit performance more than mechanical resonances in these smaller fast printers.
@@UnitSe7en exactly. This sort of research has already been done in the case of speaker drivers/larger magnets/stiffer-lighter weight cones. It makes no difference if your motor (its called that in speakers too) is already able to achieve the required acceleration to cope with the demands of the frequency being requested. It turns out to make no difference at all to make the cone lighter. Here, longer beams will make this problem worse. If its already of little yo no benefit on the v0, larger sizes will see more problems, as rigidity is lower already on the shorter beams, it will be more apparent on longer ones.
Maybe try testing using tension in your beams. Concrete beams in construction sometimes uses threaded bar inside to apply compression to the concrete and increase its stiffness. The term to look up is post tensioned concete. Either a thin threaded rod down the middle of the beam or steel wire, Kevlar thread, something with high tensile strength anchored at either end of the beam would maybe increase your stiffness & capability. Of course you would have to beef up your beam to take the compressive load & increase weight but would be interesting to see tested ✌️
Tensioning concrete is not to increase its stiffness, it's to prevent it from seeing internal tension loads, as it it not good in tension, unlike carbon fiber and metals.
Had a feeling these were the results we would see based off the input shaper graphs people have shown with these beams on the Voron discord. Many are getting worse graphs on larger printers (350mm V2.4 for instance) with the skeletonized beams. Going to a bowden extruder setup is far more effective in removing weight as you've proven.
Re: Bowden V0; The problem there is that you've removed a bunch of weight *above* the toolhead CG/pivot point, and none below. It's still not ideal, but it does work for Stefan's stated goals, and I'm reasonably sure he's considered the increased rotational torsion on the X beam.
My vz bot ip improved with the carbon fiber beam and no difference when changed to the cnc
@@mikealnutt360 different printer design, they're not comparable in this aspect.
@viru52000 yea different printer but still x and y moves the same and a v2.4 350 x beam is the same as my x beam in length minus a few mm and with my trident switching to a cf x beam helped alot
@@mikealnutt360 the entire gantry and toolhead are designed differently on the VZbot and does have the same twisting loads as a Voron. Plus the Voron Discord being full of CF tubes delaminating from ABS printing temps, meaning it's a consumable at that point.
Totally blowed my mind, looked like less weight not always raise the acce! Thanks for great video!
Thank you very much for supporting 247printing!
Thank you for that amazing comparison and great video! I can imagine how much work went in to that video and really appreciate your effort and time you took to make it!
Thanks a lot mate. I enjoy your beam a lot and I'll use it for sure on one of my V0s for sure!
I love creators and companies collaborating to make awesome new products
The cfk rod is made of quasiisotropic laminate. If you feel like it, you could use a pultruded rectangular profile. This is certainly much stiffer.
Awesome video! Bought myself an lightweight aluminium beam for my customized Sapphire Pro/Panda Cube
Interesting approach and for sure good information to consider before upgrading!
Excellent work! The explanation of the related physics is really interesting helpful.
Thanks a lot Adam!
Great video Albert! It would have been nice also to see a test with the unsupported rail to see the input shaping and torsion difference. For the small size it shouldn't be an issue to use unsupported rails, I know is not the best thing to do for flatness and torsion but I saw some people doing it and seems to be a working solution.
Amazing visual analogy, hyper optimized 'beams' when while still using PLA parts (of all things) in an assembly is just like driving those hoopties with oversized rims, all show, no go.
Super interesting! There are two ways to get higher resonance frequencies, less weight or more strength.
I start to think that maybe it is worth trying to go into the opposite direction. Heavier but stronger, no printed parts, thicker extrusions, heavier linear rails, strong motors and maybe even ballscrews instead of belts. What do you think about it?
Basically a CNC with faster motors, but a hotend instead of a milling motor. With exchangeable toolheads it could double as a CNC.
I find it really useful for larger machines like my 500mm vcore 3. the weight savings there are huge compared to the weight savings on a tiny machine like the v0.
500mm vcore 3s are beasts! I'm jealous over here with my 350mm v2.4
Have you measured this? Or is it subjective? Are the motors on the vcore not up to the job? There is nothing to suggest that it would make more difference on a longer beam unless the motors arent up to the job of moving the stock beam.
@@jeremyglover5541 boy wait until this guy hears about the concept of mass and how longer, thicker aluminum extrusions have considerably more mass than shorter ones
@@jeremyglover5541 Let's say the stock beam on a v0 weighs x grams. Since the vcore 3 500 is around 3x larger on that axis, the vcore 3 beam can be 3x grams. Let's say the ultralight gantry is half the weight of a normal gantry. In the case of the v0, the weight savings are x/2 grams, but in the case of the ratrig, the weight savings are 3x/2 grams. Since the motors still have the same amount of torque, the vcore 3 motors will have had a much larger reduction in mass to push, while the v0 motors would have a smaller reduction in mass to push.
@@microArc i know. This simple fact seems to have been missed by everyone using this argument. Its a symptom of just doing stuff, based on half baked theories designed to separate you from your money, without doing before/after measurements/experiments.
Great video and scientific comparisons as always 👍 very eye opening too. Someone like you is absolutely a must for us 3D printers makers. Also too I won’t go for sports rims unless the cost performance ratio is there. Maybe next we can see length comparisons on x-beam. Thanks bro, u r awesome.
YOU are awesome, thank you!
Love that you hot rod these machines! Is the beam being a constant section a constraint? On of the super cool things with using a product like carbon is it can be made to any shape, also the laminates alter the Performance tremendously. It looks like there is also a huge weight loss potential in machining pockets in the underside of the linear rail.
Loosing weight out of structure is a fun part of my job setting up racing boats.
Really enjoying your content came across it by chance image 3d printing rabbit hole you got some good stuff going here
I would try a different take on the beam. The front and back faces are left mostly intact with the top an bottom faces more open. The front and back faces get more material removed towards the ends with next to no removal at the middle, like a beam of equal tension in mechanical engineering. The deflection in the middle is obviously the greatest and thus needs the highest amount of local stiffness. Maybe ill try that once or even a composite approach, combining aluminium and carbon fiber parts
This is true. The design of the box structure does not take into consideration the variable cantilever forces. If designed more appropriately, there is potential for improvement of stiffness:weight.
@@UnitSe7en or even focus more on stiffness than weight in that case as the x axis is already insignificant compared to the toolhead. I would wonder how a regular 15x15 tube with 2mm wall thickness would have compared, especially to the standard extrusion
No, the force on the beam is torsional. The heavy part is the extruder motor and it is not in line with the beam's center. The acceleration of the beam by the belt is about 2X higher than the acceleration by gravity. (gravity on Earth is "only" 10 meters per second squared) You can ignore the force of gravity here. You need a stiff beam, not a light beam. The mistake was to optimize the wrong thing. He tried to remove mass and mass does not matter here, total stiffness matters. I think a SOLID 15 x 15 beam would beat the 1515 v-slot beam
Lower recommanded speed probably comes from the shifted center of mass. Because the beam doesnt weigh much, the linear rail acts like a pendulum. You would need to move the extruder head to balance the gantry
Great set of tests. You could make it even lighter with a triangular truss design. Only the top part really needs to be flat for mounting the rail. The part of the triangular truss could be thickened a bit to better transmit loads along its length, but it would probably have even better stiffness to weight ratio than the HyperBeam.
If I would ask the machinist at work to make me the HyperBeam he would tell me I'm mad and that I shall fu*k off lol
For printed parts I found a Color fabb tsells Lightweight ASA. I’m going to try that in my next toolhead
An all round fantastic video.
Interesting video. Good job 👍
Really interesting! I've been diving down the rabbit hole of fast printers last few days, love seeing all the thought going into these printers! what about the linear rail? what would be the lightest option for that?
Also, to verify that you are not limited by motor power but rather voltage - you can test these beams at reduced motor current.
Absolutely. To keep parameter variation low and not too complex, I used the default voltage at 24V and slightly elevated currents at 0.85A.
--> Realistic scenario for max acceleration test.
@@247printing Yes, I agree that your scenario is realistic and showing the truth: we are not limited by motor power => not much sense to reduce moving mass.
Higher voltages could have showed the difference, but these voltages would be unrealistic. Lower current also could have showed the differences, but also not realistic.
Thanks for great experience and learning!
Funssor store on AliExpress had a well made carbon tube with all the holes, slots and nuts for the v0.1, I purchased it a while ago.
I saw a big improvement in consistency on my Tronxy X5SA when I changed to a carbon fiber gantry. it was quite affordable too.
The X beam would have been very heavy for a large 440mm extrusion compared with a CF beam. I wish he did this test on a much larger printer.
Great video with in-depth analysis. Subscribed!
PS: echo is quite noticeable in the audio and slightly annoying. A little bit of work with your sound capture setup would push the video realization to the top👌
Thanks a lot, also for your PS! Working on the reverb, I also find it annoying 👍
The fact that the beams all get the same recommendation from input shaper surely would indicate that the limiting factor for improving accel here is stiffness, not mass - would be interested to see how a significantly stiffer beam (at the expense of more mass) would compare in this case (perhaps an aluminium square tube with unmilled walls?)
A triangangular beam would use a bit less mass than a square one.
I would try to scrap off as much mass as possible from that linear rail. Then i would glue it to the beam and only use screws for application.
Maybe the weight in the small v0.1 is not that relevant, but as you mentioned, it would be the correct way in terms of physics.
Mass is not the limiting factor. In fact, it just might be that a more massive beam is better. What matters here is total stiffness. Perhaps a 15 x 15 solid aluminum beam might be the best aluminum design. If you could afford titanium then perhaps a solid Ti beam? These CNC'd beams optimized the WRONG thing.
I think a good way to think about stifness to weight,weight saving and resonances in 3d printers is in terms of different mass spring resonators.
One spring is the X beam it self and the mass asociated with it is both it's own mass and the mass of the print head.
If you think about it, a resonant system will maintain the same resonant frequency if you increase it's stifness and mass in proportion so the mass of the X beam kinda cancles out in this scenario and the resonant frequency depends on the total stifness of the beam and the mass of the tool head which is consistent with the stiffer but less efficient beam having a higher recommended acceleration.
Of course if you make your beam incredibly heavy and stiff eventually the next spring down the chain will start to become the limiting factor. That spring would be the elasticity of the belts grounding the X beam to the frame of the printer via the stepper motors and idlers.
In terms of that spring the relevant mass is the X beam mass + the tool head mass.
So to find out where the sweetspot is for optimising the stifness and weight of the beam one would have to get some idea of the relative stifness of the beam it self and the belt system that grounds it to the frame.
all that of course leaves out the performance limits imposed by the stepper motors but it seems that in practice that really doesn't apear to be a limiting factor for the sort of accelerations that actually happen during printing.
Thanks this was very interesting!
I am just now working on a design that can be manufactured on a slm machine and using topology optimization to get the geometry right.
Will be part of my next V0.2 build since I don't want to take my V0.1 apart :)
So cool that so many people work on that topic - it's a lot of fun!
@@247printing For me your videos about the 0.1 are what got me to build it in the first place and the same probably goes for other people.
Great videos with lots of honest and upfront information about these machines. You found yourself a nice niche and I am looking forward to whatever you come up with.
@@comatron231 Thank you so much!
Wait. There is a 0.2?? Nice!
Better update the STL collection and BOM if i want to build one this year, before i accidentally start building a 0.1
@@chielvoswijk9482 the change is quite minimal but is a good QoL from what it seems
Here's a crazy idea, but what if you used alumina for your X-axis beam? There are a few approaches, but I think the most versatile and accessible method would be SLA 3D printing with sintering, followed by grinding to final tolerance. It would not be cheap in the first place, but complexity comes almost for free, so you could really squeeze a lot of performance out of it.
It's almost twice as dense as 6061 aluminum, but it's leaps and bounds stiffer, and 3D printing opens the door to some serious topology optimization. You could probably shave off enough mass to come in under 10 grams while also achieving a stiffer beam with better vibration characteristics than anything tested here. And while it is a crunchy material, you can compensate for manufacturing errors or minor damage with some clever latticing and probably achieve even better performance.
yes please, we want input shaping video!
I think a triangular or T beam with struts might be more efficient than the box beam
though for the most speed you'd probably want to use a head with a stabilisator (basically suspend the head on coils/gimbal to absorb the vibration, similar to what they use in cameras.)
switching from steppers to closed loop bldc might be an other option.
though at some point you have to deal with the stiffness issue by assuming you're dealing with rubberbands and not metal, and simply incorporate that in the design.
On the hyperbeam I noticed you had lots of straight lines with sharp/angular connections.
If you look at any generative design component, you'll notice they're quite curvy and the points where the triangles meet up tend to be a bit bubbly.
The only flat and square areas are the points where connections are made with screws, inserts, brackets, etc.
Hope this helps : )
resonance frequency is based on weight and stiffness. Higher frequencies damp out faster. Low frequencies have larger displacements and longer damping times. To get a high frequency, it should be light weight, and stiff. I'm guessing that the reduction in stiffness with the lighter beams is actually making the resonance frequency lower as you are sacrificing more stiffness than you are getting back for in weight reduction. Especially since there are significant fixed weights on the head, having a very stiff x beam is probably more important than minimum weight.
I have a interesting idea I’d like to see/try. How about lightweight linear rails? Like what if you milled out sections underneath the rail. They are quite heavy as is and I think you could take some unnecessary material from them
Drag of the linear rail bearings is maybe also a flaw. Have you tried some special no slip “grease”? It’s used on mtb suspension. Have shop sized bins, can send samples for free. Greets from Nbg
Can you add the Ender 7 x-axis beam setup into your next test video, just to see the difference since it's just a flat/thick piece of metal, currently have one running and trying to figure out what I should be looking at to upgrade current print quality and thought that something completely different than boxed metal?
Excellent video and even if your testing is home made it is still very relevant for hobbyist. Going fast is great but in the end how much time do you save and is the time saved worth your set-up time, effort and money. As a hobbyist I invest in things that don't always make sense just because I enjoy thinkering but since money rules the world..... How long does it take for someone to see a return on this investment? I know I know we don't do this for money as stated before but in the end should I buy one for the look and a few minutes in printing time? For commercial ventures maybe.
Again, excellent work and I enjoyed the video.
Great video, really enjoyed it! Do you have a link to the tool shown to insert the nut carrier at 4:16? This looks like a useful tool.
Hi Greg, atm it’s only in my hard drive - not published yet, I am sorry
I can imagine the weight of the stock beam and density of it causing a bit of a dampening effect when discussing acceleration. Usually when these beams are discussed they are only looked at from the perspective of deflection when these analyses are run. It doesn't take into account the dampening affect it would have when being thrown at high speeds in the printer. Think about it like how tuning forks work. The amount of material on a tuning fork will change how it sounds. This is a resonance vibration similar to what we are talking about with 3d printing. I bet each beam makes a different sound too...
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on that 🙏
What is happening at 2:11 in the video? The scale starts counting up before the beam is even on it! Did you edit that with a different take so the LCD would be more readable?
Wow you have a great perception- while editing I was also wondering why it looks like this, but I bet it’s only because it was already slightly touching the scale from one side. Just one take here, no fancy editing
don't the motors need to be tuned to the mass? could that be the reason, why the "default" configuration performs the best in resonance/accelleration tests?
Grüße aus Regensburg, dank dir recht schee fürs Video
i saw oukeda motors in your description. Is it same as the original formbot kit?
I honestly would love a video on harmonics especially how clipper works for 3D printers.
9:24 when we research gantry stiffnes per weight on gello frame and resonating belts. Just interesting if 2 diagonal struts to the front of the frame may have bigger impact?
The total weight of the xy carriage (bearing blocks, linear rail, extruder, hotend, brackets, housing and beam ) is what like 400g? And this just looks at a 80% reduction of 10% of the mass. Maybe a lightweight beam becomes relevant when you reduce the other components weight by 80% too…
Regardless. I suspect the rotating mass, reluctance and inductance inside the stepper exceeds the entire mass inertia of the carriage. A coreless wide airgap long but small diameter high amp fiberglass servo would be interesting…
Yup, it's 385g, see the conclusion chapter
You should try a sort of minimilast CF composite beam. Like make a foam core with carbon plies over top and bottom, chop them and laminate, Because that's how carbon fiber is most effectively utilized.
Have you looked into Aluminum/Titanium hardware? Bigger SHCS you can get a hole through hold although I don't think they make them for such small bolts. Can probably save a few grams here with minimal to no performance loss. Also looking at the vibrations of the frame in your slow mo. The frame is put together by blind through holes how much more ridge would it become with using the 80/20 90° elbows on everything but the X axis then your not adding weight but stiffness to the entire frame. On the X axis maybe play around with different materials instead of ABS. Something glassfilled or HIPS. Wondering if gaining a few grams say 5% weight vs gaining 20% in strength is beneficial on the brackets? How do the frequencies and vibrations play into effect. Engineering mind is running wild late at night here. Love your detailed videos though they keep me thinking!
Hmm. If i had to put forward a theory on why the Y acceleration performed worse. It would be that it involves the linear rail mounting.
The Hyperbeam afterall lacks mounting holes for a good number of the rail's own holes, the CF Beam is a bit diy, bringing probably some tolerance errors and the Ultra-beam has that the holes diagonally connected to the rest of the frame, increasing effective length between hole and frame. These may cause minute motions within the rail that cause the software to take umbrage more rapidly.
Even the best mount would suck if the linear rail isn't as rigidly mounted as possible. At least i would assume so.
Cool vid!
Thanks!
I wonder if finite element analysis could help with lighter parts in this case?
It'd be interesting if you used Ashby material selection diagrams and material indices and looked at properties like specific stiffness
Very nice investigation. I think maybe you underestimate the effect of the torsional force. The lateral deflection test technically would also be a torsional force since the the weights seem to be off-centered from the centre of the beam themselves. The from the lateral deflection and torsional defelection test seem to correlate with the input shaping results.
Keep doing what you are doing! You have a great channel.
Thanks a lot and absolutely, I explained that exactly this is the reason why I did the torsional tests
@@247printing I agree that torsional deflection is very important. Can you mount the accelerometer as far from the center of twist as possible and show the amount of vertical component realized. By adding weight to the print head to move the center of gravity, in line with the center of twist you may actually get higher acceleration recommendations from Klipper because that vertical component is reduced.
Currently, I use a similar carbonfiber beam, and got a nice 4000 accel improvement on Y (recommended 23800), for x beam im also using mgn9c, and got a 10k accel improvement with reduced wobble.
Plus, the carbon fiber has good rigidity properties that help with reducing ringing, while hyperbeams and ultra beams are framed aluminum that, in my opinion, it is much too wobbly. And also the fact that the toolhead weight also contributes in the weight of the of the Y axis, reducing the toolhead weight should also be priority
I wonder if the reduce mass of the beams also reduced the damping affect in resonance testing?
What about a carbon fibre one made like the hyper light weight alloy beam? Maybe a solid pultrusion then machined down?
It's a great video. Und I fully agree with normal mini ab or sb it makes no sense but looks good ;). But in combination with a light weight tool head it is possible to lose 50% of total mass or more.
What is the mass of the full assemblies and the mass of the belts? If the beam is a small component of mass then you shouldn't expect a large increase in performance. Maybe you can get other low weight parts? Ceramic bearings?
Great video, i think the next step for an even lighter X beam will be a triangular beam. i wonder why nobody seems to use this as a base shape...
I used a printed one (PET CF) on another Voron 0 (my first one from the early videos), which was close to triangular
Maximum acceleration is highly correlated to beam stiffness so a solid material will generally outperform hollow material with the same outer dimensions. If you want a lighter beam with the same stiffness you need to make sure the moment of inertia is the same, which for these beams, isn't the case. The carbon fiber beam and Ultrabeam likely have a similar wall thickness so they get around the same stiffness and maximum recommended acceleration. Your Hyperbeam has thinner walls that both the carbon fiber and Ultrabeam so the stiffness will be lower.
This means you'll need to adjust both your outer dimensions and your inner dimensions as opposed to simply hollowing out the center.
Amusing that you put so much effort on such a light part when it's dominated by the extruder mass.
I am happy to amuse you even though that's very strange amusement.
I designed it for bowden config like mentioned in the video - extruder mass on the frame...
bei dem aluprofil von premium basics dachte ich mir auch dass die anordnung der schnittpunkte der seiten zueinander eine rolle spielt und ich nach gefühl behauptet hätte, dass sie entweder gleich auf jeder seite oder versetzt um die hälfte des intervalls aufgebaut sein sollten. das ist kein fundiertes wissen. weisst du das genauer ?
could you try building that beam but using topology optimization? lost PLA method could be used to make the beam out of metal. edit: for casting you could use brass as it has higher ductile strength than the aluminium which should result in higher stiffness
Wouldve loved to see how much stiffness is sacrificed if the carbon fiber tube is cnc machined for lightweight and if the deflection is comparable to aluminium from cutting the fibers on all 4 sides
Me too! Maybe I'll do that...
@@247printing basically a "While you're at it" kind of adventure xD but great stuff
I think those ultra lightweight beams are sort of snakeoil. Yes, reducing mass ist a good thing for high acceleration and the beams looking like a low hanging fruit, but you have still the linear rail, x and y carriages, the fastners and the hotend assembly with extruder. this adds up quite fast. That would be intresting, how heavy all together is and how much weigt can be saved by just using a bowden setup.
Bowden is key, yes, I'll come back to this. In the end the sum of weight reductions makes a difference.
In the v0 that seems to be definitely the case, but in larger 300-500mm printers the normal X beam extrusion weighs a lot more. Also the v0 toolhead is actually quite heavy too so if he used a vzbot tool head or similar it would be lighter again.
Input shaping graph analysis would be awesome! There is too little coverage of this topic
Very interesting!! 🤓🤓
8:00 I think the mass of the stock beam is dampening vibration.
The lighter ones are ringing.
My favorite part "Check GPT"
have you tried hevort print head? Vez aluminium mellow version looks light
Why isn't the X linear rail used as a structural element and ends before the corner mounts?
Where can i get your hyperbeam or the carbon one with mellow?
I am curious why the beams are square shaped instead of triangle shaped. That should save even more weight.
I also can't help but notice that those carriers y axis carriers on each end of the beam look quite... bulky and not at all optimized. Maybe there is yet more to save there
Triangular section has less torsional rigidity than a square for the same weight and wall thickness.
A circular section is actually the best.
Square beams are way easier to make. But what happens if you remove the beam completely and use just the rail. Then you optimize the y axis carriers and belt idlers.
I feel like even though the ratios show differently, the CF is the best. It offers a little off the weight but keeps most of the stiffness.
Also, I'm guessing the input shaper graphs on the UltraBeam and HyperBeam (can I even type the name HyperBeam? Is it trademarked that much?) are absolutely horrible?
Most potential for sure by its "nature".The beams of all of them are quite comparable and not really bad, but also not really good.
Just a thought experiment, would a titanium ultra beam theoretically perform any better than the aluminum one?
Might be!
Maybe the lighter beams have too much flex, and that's why the measurement shows lower max acceleration for them?
My Mind is blown, I'm building a Voron V2.4 r2 350mm, a patreon and would love more of the "Red Pill:" AKA Klipper setup/tuning/everyday driver and perhaps Ludicrus speed Please!
I would love to check out a carbon fiber tube milled
i am personally running the ultra beam, i absoletly love the thing, i have found much better max speed out of it then the stock 1515 extrusion whiles my carbon fibre beams can achieve similar speed however with the chamber enclosed it suffers from the temperature being around 65 degrees and softened greatly actually will start give me print artifacts. Which was fairly clear shown if i print something without heat soaking as temperature of the chamber raises the print quality decreases. As my own personal testing, i only managed a max speed of only 500mm/s at 58k accel which is very similar to what you got however i was able to get a max of 650mm/s at 67k accel with the ultra beam with the same rails, motors, motor current, motor voltage and aswell same tool head, with the only different being the x beam before the motor start to skip steps. So atleast for me i am pretty happy with the ultra beam, decent amount of speed gain espcially in accel compare to the stock beam. I would mention for the forks who love chasing perfect input shaper graphs and recommendations, i get pretty much the same recommandation at 22.5k accel with the stock 1515 extrusion with the x beam being a bit less at 18.3k accel which to me is not a huge different anyway. But when it come to printing i see no different printing at the same speed of 350 mm/s on the outer wall and 450 mm/s on the rest whiles with the accel set at the recommanded of 18.3k with the ultra beam to set it at 70k with no ringing effect shown.
If you want to improve the performance of the carbon fiber beam, you need to have the fibers oriented in the direction of the load.
Interesting how the beams behave with input shaper.
Seems they are all different constructions and thus resonate different with different resonances. Fore sure something to look into.
for a such a small beam its hard to see big gains. Maybe on a 350 voron or 500ratrig.
Have you considered trying a triangular profile instead of a square one?