why delta not list on the Build a RepRap page?

Hi All,

I'm new to this forum and been researching 3D printer in RepRap wiki for sometime now, just wonder why Delta model not list on the "Build a RepRap" page on the Wiki?
Hope this is not a stupid question to ask.

thanks,

Probably for a number of reasons:

1 - Because nobody's added them.
2 - Because there is no 'one' delta that can be used as the go-to model
3 - The wiki isnt generally all that up to date - there's a huge amount of invalid/old content. Best guess is that nobody'd had time to do it yet.

Ideally there needs to be a delta hub page, listing the models and their differences. Again, time is a problem though. A lot of the main pages are locked down as well so its not possible to update some sections.

Quote
RickM
Probably for a number of reasons:

2 - Because there is no 'one' delta that can be used as the go-to model

I see, thank you very much RickM.
But what do you mean of the go-to model?

thanks

There's no standard for delta printers. For example right now the reprap models everyone recommends is either a Mendel90 or a Prusa i3. With the deltas you have too many variants that are in different stages of construction. There are few that are stable enough to build with a complete set of instructions. The Kossel Mini seems to be the most 'standard' delta model, although possibly not the best choice for most people.

What doesn't help is that a lot of the delta bot designs are intentionally moving away from the core goal of the reprap - to use as many 3d printed parts. For that reason, something like RichRap's 3DR is likely a better 'default' delta option, as it uses lots of printed parts and is quite possibly the only delta that follows the goals of the reprap project.

Even still deltas are very new - new better ways to do things with them keep getting found (a prime example being the newer magnetically attached effectors which saw a big improvement in print quality).

I'd love to see a decent delta section in the wiki as they are far easier to put together, and a hell of a lot more reliable than most cartesian repraps.

The link "Build a RepRap" redirects to [reprap.org].

There are several printers on there that are somewhat obscure, very new and not yet released or not even really RepRaps, so I don't think it is because there is a lack of a "go to" delta or because they are too new.

Like most of the wiki, it is a rather arbitrary list of stuff, so lack of Deltas probably just means no one thought to add one. That page could do with some categorization.

---

What is Open Source?
What is Open Source Hardware?
Open Source in a nutshell: the Four Freedoms
CC BY-NC is not an Open Source license

Quote
bobc
The link "Build a RepRap" redirects to [reprap.org].

There are several printers on there that are somewhat obscure, very new and not yet released or not even really RepRaps, so I don't think it is because there is a lack of a "go to" delta or because they are too new.

Like most of the wiki, it is a rather arbitrary list of stuff, so lack of Deltas probably just means no one thought to add one. That page could do with some categorization.

I hate that page so much, it's so uninviting to a novice user. There needs to be a 'portal' page, that draws new people in, not a wall of text and a few tiny obscure pictures of only cartesian models. I've added a message to the talk page. Realistically all models need correctly categorising on the wiki so people can look through them correctly. Right now a new user will take one look and never visit that page again, it really tells you nothing at all about which reprap to build and why. The wiki structure really doesn't work well for something like this sadly.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/08/2014 04:39PM by RickM.

Quote
RickM

I hate that page so much, it's so uninviting to a novice user. There needs to be a 'portal' page, that draws new people in, not a wall of text and a few tiny obscure pictures of only cartesian models. I've added a message to the talk page. Realistically all models need correctly categorising on the wiki so people can look through them correctly. Right now a new user will take one look and never visit that page again, it really tells you nothing at all about which reprap to build and why. The wiki structure really doesn't work well for something like this sadly.

Hi RickM, agree with you totally. I was here half year ago and didn't have a clue at all. This time I spend a lot of time read post by post and then start to know just a little bit.
Thanks for you all to answered my question and gave me a lot of information as well.

Hi Rick i'm thinking about building a mini rostock. Why did you say this is not the best choice for most people? the complexity?

Quote
myohmy11
Hi Rick i'm thinking about building a mini rostock. Why did you say this is not the best choice for most people? the complexity?

Actually I never said anything about the rostock mini at all

I've not looked into the rostock mini much myself. To be honest with any reprap there will be a certain amount of figuring stuff out for yourself. The rest is down to how well the documentation is written. There are few repraps with truly decent documentation IMO. Having had a brief look over the rostock mini page it does appear to have relatively decent docs though. I'm not really someone who's in a position to say "dont build this one, build that one". That's got to be your choice

Personally I only tend to really look at printers that have the same goals as the reprap. As far as I'm concerned if the docs are good enough, the parts are readily available and the printer works - that's a good option. If it requires a bunch of expensive hard to source materials (i.e openbeam, makerbeam, etc) then it's less interesting and not really helping the reprap project as much as it could.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/10/2014 12:33PM by RickM.

Quote
RickM

... For that reason, something like RichRap's 3DR is likely a better 'default' delta option, as it uses lots of printed parts and is quite possibly the only delta that follows the goals of the reprap project.

Just a comment. Nicholas Seward GUS is what I and many consider the most reprapable printer at this moment, being a delta variation. Although not a beginer friendly printer at this moment, I just wanted to add to that statement.

We (at least me) are working on some bearingless variations.

[forums.reprap.org]

Quote
Guizmo

Quote
RickM

... For that reason, something like RichRap's 3DR is likely a better 'default' delta option, as it uses lots of printed parts and is quite possibly the only delta that follows the goals of the reprap project.

Just a comment. Nicholas Seward GUS is what I and many consider the most reprapable printer at this moment, being a delta variation. Although not a beginer friendly printer at this moment, I just wanted to add to that statement.

We (at least me) are working on some bearingless variations.

[forums.reprap.org]

Ah yes good point - completely forgot about the GUS.

I checked the GUS design and one thing that concerns me is the printed gears. I think the backlash and roughness of the printed surface might impact the print quality, what do you guys think?

It all averages out.
I believe that by adding noise, (i.e. Hurst 0.50, aka white noise) into the system you should improve the finish, and accuracy of the printed part.

Quote
myohmy11
I checked the GUS design and one thing that concerns me is the printed gears. I think the backlash and roughness of the printed surface might impact the print quality, what do you guys think?

Not to hijack the purpose of the thread but the gears are only for registration and are pulled together with great force by the string. They introduce virtually zero backlash and even rough looking gears mesh pretty smoothly and can only get better over time. It seemed counter intuitive to me. I tested the design on a whim and was blown away by the result. I would not have used it in my design if it was a problem. (We still have plenty of issues that should give you pause but the gears shouldn't be one of them.)

Back on point:
I think we need to standardize our language. Mostly because when people say "delta" they usually mean a Rostock style bot and ignores the pick and place style ones like Rappidelta and the Simpson style bots. I propose the following terms to be used in the wiki and hopefully in the forums.

Column Delta: Rostock, Kossel, LISA, etc
Grounded Delta: GUS Simpson, GDR, etc
Traditional Delta (could use a better name): Rappidelta, etc

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/12/2014 05:54PM by nicholas.seward.

---

ConceptFORGE
Wally, GUS Simpson, LISA Simpson, THOR Simpson, Sextupteron, CoreXZ

Quote
nicholas.seward
I think we need to standardize our language. Mostly because when people say "delta" they usually mean a Rostock style bot and ignores the pick and place style ones like Rappidelta and the Simpson style bots. I propose the following terms to be used in the wiki and hopefully in the forums.

Column Delta: Rostock, Kossel, LISA, etc
Grounded Delta: GUS Simpson, GDR, etc
Traditional Delta (could use a better name): Rappidelta, etc

Sounds good to me There definitely needs to be some sort of categorisation on the wiki. There's so many models that just get overlooked completely due to poor linking going on.

I'm also wondering about how deep categorisation should/could go. You could go pretty deep into it, with something like this:

- Cartesian
-- Mendel
---- Huxley
---- Prusa Mendel
------ Prusa i2
------ Prusa i3
---- Mendel90
- Delta
---- Column Delta
------ Rostock
-------- Kossel
------ LISA
---- Grounded Delta
------ GUS Simpson
------ GDR
---- Other/Traditional Delta
------ Rappidelta
- Other/Experimental
-- ?

Maybe that's a bit too complex, I don't know. It depends how it's all managed I guess. It'd make it a bit easier to find certain printer types.

I'd also like to see some sort of 'ranking' added to printers based on it's completeness, in hope that it would encourage correct documentation for printers that are considered to be completed. Even if it was something as simple as a status field on the sidebar saying 'complete' or 'incomplete'.

I might have a play around on a dev wiki page when I get time and see if I can come up with something.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 02/13/2014 04:53AM by RickM.