Complete Assembled Electronics Kit for RepRap for $215.00

This a complete Assembled Generation 3 Electronics Kit for RepRap which has:
1 Mainboard Ver 1.2
1 Extruder Controller Ver 2.2
3 Stepper Motor Controllers Ver 2.3
3 Opto-End Stops
1 USB-TTL Adapter
1 Universal 12v 5A Power Supply
1 Cable Kit

These boards have been modified from the Makerbot version to be just for the RepRap and have been reduced in physical size.Please look at the individual posts for each to see the changes or email me for more information.

I prefer payment through PayPal. Please contact me at kymberlyaandrus(at)yahoo.com for questions, and shipping information.

Thanks for posting the kit. Will you be sharing the board files so the purchasers can do self debug and support? I will order today if I will be guaranteed the board files.

My intent is to provide this as a kit eventually; so, YES I will provide files, BUT they are not the same as the other files that have been previously provided (I don't use Eagle, I use a proprietary software... so you won't get the pcb layout file... but, I will provide a color PDF of it) I will also be creating a page that is a "blown up view" with parts labled for their locations - this is due to the fact that when you shrink the board down, much of the documentation no longer fits.
The Schematics are the same as makerbot's; that is why I used the same version numbers (also to avoid confusion)

Hope this helps.

I have listed these electronics kits also on Ebay for those who are more comfortable with sales through Ebay. It is listed at $226.00 to help cover Ebay fees. You can see it at:
[cgi.ebay.com]

Check out the Google checkout store gadget. Only a 2% commission, they allow you to run a full store, and offer html for buy it now buttons.

I am halfway through my 1st mendel set to sell, so you will see my store come online soon.

Ebay's 8% commission HURTS!

---

repraplogphase.blogspot.com

I am not willing to wait that long to get paid.

I would buy that! (If only I had the money right now ) I don't want to miss out on this.

---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The whole is more than the sum of its parts." - Aristotle

[www.cyrozap.com]

Would you put these back up on eBay, please. We would like to make an order, but we have problems with ordering from individuals and getting our money reimbursed.

---

----------------------------------------------------
Build Progress Blog

We have recieved more parts.

We have relisted on ebay for those who prefer to buy through ebay.

We listed two ways;

1. With power supply link

2. Without power supply link

How do you connect the Blue and White IDC connectors in your kit to the ribbon cables?

Are these your electronics?

[imaketherobot.blogspot.com]

---

repraplogphase.blogspot.com

Those are a picture of our electronics we shipped. Thanks for pointing them out.

Tonokip,

to connect the blue and white connectors, I usually just use a small flat blade screwdriver. It is a good idea to test the cables with a multimeter afterward... to make sure they will work.

kymberlyaandrus:
"My intent is to provide this as a kit eventually; so, YES I will provide files, BUT they are not the same as the other files that have been previously provided (I don't use Eagle, I use a proprietary software... so you won't get the pcb layout file... but, I will provide a color PDF of it)"

You're saying it's based on the Makerbot electronics. This puts you not only in the moral obligation to share the source code (not the PDF, just as binaries wouldn't count), it also puts you in the legal position. The intellectual property rights of the Makerbot are used to require you to keep it open. What you are doing now is taking something that is open, distribute it and keep it closed. If it's for your own use (no distribution) then the open source licenses don't require you to publish code, but now it does.

If it's in a proprietary package, there are still files. They might not be useful to all, but that's an entirely different matter. Gerber files might also be a good output format for others to work with, though it's a bit like STL, not suitable for editing, but everybody can use it 'as is'.

---

Regards,

Erik de Bruijn
[Ultimaker.com] - [blog.erikdebruijn.nl]

Agreed, I didn't realize that you where keeping our designs propriety.

---

repraplogphase.blogspot.com

Eric, Spacexula, all others who are interested.

I can provide the drawings as pdf's, since that is the only method of exporting them from my software. I can provide a pdf for each "layer" of a gerber file. If you are using a full version of adobe, it even makes them editable. When I say that the program I use is proprietary, I mean it. I have no way to export a gerber or any other form of useful file format, I simply modify my drawings and upload the specs to my pcb manufacturer.

The boards I manufacture and assemble are completely the same circuit as the makerbot, whether the trace "looks" the same or not; does not change what it is. That would be like saying a change of font to a document was a substantial change to the document... Or claiming that translating it to a different language made it a different literary work... that just isn't the case. I am happy to share what I have, I am happy to allow others to take and build upon it. But for you to demand that it be provided in a specific format... is a bit absurd.

I have done the same thing that anyone who wants to is allowed to do with these files, and I am not asking to keep them to myself, in fact, I have offered to share them. Where do you want them sent? do you want all the possible "layers" or do you just want some of them. Many PCB manufacuturers will produce a board from a pdf, since it is a vector based file and can be converted (using the right tools) into a gerber. Also, if you are attempting to make your own boards at home, it is easier from a PDF since they are to scale and can be used directly for transferring, or making a screen.

As I have looked at other "Open source" electronics projects, many of them provide nothing more than a jpeg image (not even vector based, but rather bitmap based). I am not offering something strange, or limited here, I just don't use the Eagle program (it isn't open source either). At first as I started to do this, I tried to find a good way to import those into my PCB' manufacturers connection, but when that failed and I realized I was going to have to re-draw the circuit, I just removed empty space from the board while I was at it--- that is the primary difference, then I changed a few components for different packages, which were more available to me. I have shared my BOM with others for that, as they have requested it, and extend that offer to anyone who would like it.

I appreciate your concern, I think it would be a shame if someone tried to "close this down" and monopolize it. I hope I have made my position more clear, and I hope that you understand - I am offering to continue sharing what I have, and what I have done.

"Source Code" in reference to a physical object... interesting. Who are you to say that a PDF representation is inadequate? maybe the Eagle representation is inadequate... (It didn't work for me, so I did something with what was provided, to have something which is useful to me). Is there a standard of how "Open Source" physical objects should be shared? Can you direct me to better information on this?

By the way, "Open Source" is usually used in reference to one of several licensing methods for software sharing, I think the physical portions of this project actually fall under a phrase of "Creative Commons" but I am not knowledgeable about this. I do know that most of the different licensing methods out there allow for different types of uses and obligations regarding further development. Does anyone know where the RepRap project actually falls - from a Legal Point of view?

thanks,
Kimberly

By the way, "Open Source" is usually used in reference to one of several licensing methods for software sharing, I think the physical portions of this project actually fall under a phrase of "Creative Commons" but I am not knowledgeable about this. I do know that most of the different licensing methods out there allow for different types of uses and obligations regarding further development. Does anyone know where the RepRap project actually falls - from a Legal Point of view?

GPL. (GPL 3, when we remember to be specific.) More generally, people are welcome to upload their work to the wiki in whatever license they choose. (In the case of specific projects, derivative work N+1 has to have a license compatible with work N, so GPL3->GPL3 in this case.)

Aside from specific scenarios Ann and Bob sorting out what tool/license they're using, tool/license arguments are very boring in the abstract.

---

No one seems to be really arguing about anything here, which is good.

Kimberly, would you like to tack up your stuff here
[reprap.org]
or
[reprap.org]
?

Also, what's your tool for creating the pdfs? (You're welcome to upload foo.adobe_illustrator type files as well.)

---

-Sebastien, RepRap.org library gnome.

---

Remember, you're all RepRap developers (once you've joined the super-secret developer mailing list), and the wiki, RepRap.org, [reprap.org] is for everyone and everything!

Kimberly,
Can you post the
>"blown up view" with parts labeled for their locations

I got your boards and they look great but as you point out there is no room for documentation. My question is about the polarity of the opto end stop connections (both the motor controller side and the sensor side) and the pinouts on the extruder controller. The other boards were hand labeled but the extruder controller was not.

Many thanks
Charles

Charles,

I sent you an email with those documents. I am working on getting the documents set up in the wiki as recommended by Sebastien, but I am fairly busy and terribly unfamiliar with the wiki template. I am sending some questions to Sebastien that will hopefully solve some of my current hurdles.

Kimberly,

Try cutting and pasting the source from:
[reprap.org]

Even within the GPL, GPLv2 and v3 are different when it concerns hardware. There's also a TARP but I don't think you can take something with GPL and license a derivative as some other license (almost sure you can't!).

Kimberly, just make sure you post your native design files too. It doesn't matter whether ANYONE can open them. In that case the PDFs are a support for them. If you offer both I guess you comply with the moral and legal obligations of open source.

---

Regards,

Erik de Bruijn
[Ultimaker.com] - [blog.erikdebruijn.nl]

I've responded to this forum post in a blogpost on the MakerBot blog. [blog.makerbot.com]

Damn.

I've responded to this forum post in a blogpost on the MakerBot blog.

I'm rather annoyed by your behavior just now, Bre. In an open source community like ours, it is extremely inappropriate to call out one of our fellow RepRap user-developers for wrongful behavior without a doing a bit of investigation to make sure you have your facts right. If your first step is to tack up a nasty note on your blog, well ...

In truth:

Kimberly is working with me to get all of those files up into the RepRap wiki.

I think the sticking point was that she believed that since she was using a non-open-source electronics 'FooECAD' (or similar), the native .fooecad files would be useless to us. So she offered what she thought was the best alternative, the .pdf files she could make for us. In the spirit of fair dealing and all that.

Now, after a bit of discussion, we're all clear that we should have all the files up in the RepRap wiki, even the the .fooecad ones.

Bre, in the future, please don't accuse people of acting wrongly without doing a bit of investigation. It's unethical, frankly.

---

-Sebastien, RepRap.org library gnome.

---

Remember, you're all RepRap developers (once you've joined the super-secret developer mailing list), and the wiki, RepRap.org, [reprap.org] is for everyone and everything!

We all have our moments

Hopefully this hasn't upset Kym to much. It's hard to not take something like that personally. I doubt it was personal, just someone wanting to vent. It happens a lot in all communities and hopefully we just move on; as a community.

Now kiss and make up

I come here after seeing Bre blog message. I hope Kimberly release the source files.

---

---
New cutting edge RepRap electronics, ARM 32 bits @ 100MHz runs RepRap @ 725mm/s:

[www.3dprinting-r2c2.com]

No worries, casahino.

The wiki page is here, currently "under construction":
[reprap.org]

SebastienBailard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No worries, casahino.
>
> The wiki page is here, currently "under
> construction":
> [reprap.org]
> ch_Zone_Remix

And at the same time, Makerbot as just the only source for electronics was a BIG problem for RepRap in general, so I think any new "players" on market is good for RepRap users. I mean, the work of Kimberly is important BUT ALSO the source files.

---

---
New cutting edge RepRap electronics, ARM 32 bits @ 100MHz runs RepRap @ 725mm/s:

[www.3dprinting-r2c2.com]

I agree Casainho, new players on the market is only a good thing. But it doesn't seem like a level playing field if I can produce improved copies of Makerbot's designs, but Makerbot can't produce improved copies of mine.

jbayless, this may be, but these are the gen 3 RepRap electronics boards. From a long and celebrated ancestry: "The Gen 1 RepRap electronics boards begat the Gen 2 RepRap electronics boards which begat the Gen 3 RepRap electronics boards, and so forth."

And Kimberly is uploading the files as we speak. (Technically, Saturdayish.)

So, I'm not sure what the problem is. Unless it is that some folk find the wiki to be a tiny bit difficult to use for the first few minutes.

Frankly, *putting on my official RepRap hat* I'm perfectly happy with people monetizing RepRap, and forking it. As both Bre and Kimberly are doing.

I rather wish more folk would fork parts of RepRap straight back into the RepRap wiki, as Kimberly is doing, and as some folk choose not to do, but I can't exactly mandate that. (GPL and all that. "You can fork stuff, but the forkee can't be an utter control freak and demand that you use the forkee's docs and files archive." This may be a pity, it may not. Probably not.)

And if I have to think about what's more ethical, compassionate, or just polite, and I have to compare folk not uploading changes to RepRap wiki at all and folk doing so, but taking a few days to get around to it, well, I'm more in favor of the latter. It's much more useful and helpful to us.

I feel as though I should be writing a longish tutorial on how to use the RepRap wiki here, but 1) it may be off topic, and 2) it's easy. Just log in and click 'edit'.

---

-Sebastien, RepRap.org library gnome.

---

Remember, you're all RepRap developers (once you've joined the super-secret developer mailing list), and the wiki, RepRap.org, [reprap.org] is for everyone and everything!