Dude, have you patented the technology? You could...

@@maksymriabov1356patents mean diddly squat nowdays.. Honestly I dont forsee someone working anywhere near as hard as proper printing worked to create this. I really dont forsee him having to worry about his idea being stolen but crazier things have happened

Patents cost a lot of money, and are nearly impossible for private inventors to first declare, then defend. It only makes sense if you plan on capitalizing on the investment of the patent. He's got zero chance of impeding use of this from China. As a private inventor, your best bet would likely be to partner with a company, in this case say Prusa, and work with them to develop the tech with a written agreement in place. They can handle the patent (if inclined, but, it's Prusa). Otherwise, they might do the honorable thing and pay you for the use of the tech, or as a design contractor. However, a patent only works if you've not publicly declared the product, which a KZfaq video most definitely does. At this point it's public domain. Jon's done some amazing work, and the recognition is there. And hopefully a notable amount of view revenue. ;)

@@maksymriabov1356 given the prior art that exists of this it's very unlikely that a patent would ever be applicable.

Interesting article - I think the independent parallel printing is probably more of a benefit than you mention - especially if you could add more gantries. For a really large print - you could have the print heads coordinate with each other to half the print time - even for single material. Would of course require slicer enhancements of gcode post processing to separate the prints out into two parts, and to ensure that the heads don't bump into each other. Plus even when not doing a single print - It would be like having two printers - rather than an IDEX which can only really do one print at a time. I recently bought a 2nd identical printer as I was doing a lot of multi part prints - so thought I could double my throughput - at it has worked out surprisingly useful - as even when I am doing long prints on one of the printers I often find I end up using the other printer for something else at the same time.

hahaha this is too funny... and I agree! Jón is extremely creative and smart! :D Greetings from Hungary, Budapest!

I also agree. Though I feel obligated to say that most "hold my beer" stores don't end well, but most of these projects take things to the next level. Highly motivating

I'll hold it but it's unlikely you'll get it back.

..So true!.. ..And you just know it’s Not a -Bud Lite- 😉

Is say Emily the Engineer is more hold-my-beery. This is more, I'm gonna need another.

Dito!

Fuckin genius.

The best parts/tools are all free and not made for the purpose.

But it is an elegant solution! I will remember that option!

softly

Thank you very much!

@@properprinting terrible first print? The overhangs aren't cooling fast enough Yet. Beyond that I don't think my Ender3 did any better on 1t's first shot but it was born with a dish-bed and my tramming was awful :D I do have some thoughts, if you'll indulge :) . 1. might it be more simple in G-code for one portal to Follow the other, at safe distance.. as they are likely to be affecting similar paths, by layer? 2. more flattery really. I've long wanted a long Y axis on my E3 - no idea why people want to print Up (through weak layers) when we all need Long items with polymer alignment so that long bed is a dream to see. Belts are far from simple, this gives a lot of that functionality without the encumbrances. Larp Swords here we come :D and.. cough.. um, 3D Printed accurate 20x20 20x40!, in long carbon? 3. I have always filled my prints with Salt. Less mechanically harmful than sand, easily done manually during the print. Very cheap, adds desiccant and weight etc... could the 2nd portal feed paste/grains/powder (Bi-carb?) - could moist Bi-carb be used as notional support layers. Trimmed to level by the hot head as it prints on them, then either washed out/off the print. Or encapsulated for strength, plus all above... . well, there. Thank you for your brilliant lonely work. Viva la Sith :D xx PD

Engineer school taught me quite literally, no sarcasm, ZERO of the skills needed to build something like this. Something like this takes years of experience of building on your own so don’t fret, anyone can build stuff if you really want to, no fancy degree needed

@@pdjames1729 Just picking up on your point two, YES!! We seem to be beholden to people printing non-functional trinkets with the 'print areas should be cubes' thing, when the reality is 95% of all STLs are longer, wider, or both, than they are tall (and I'd make a solid argument that most of the other 5% are just badly rotated for printing). I have a 500x250x250 Voron 2.4 that has proven time and time again that it's invaluable. I've only twice wished I had a large format, but at least a hundred times I've abandoned the X1C to use the Voron for that long X axis. My only 'hindsight' here is that going for 250x500x250 might be better, but I can't confirm.

@@Phazaar they are both the same volume Phaz :D on my Ender id make a long Y, for easy engineering on the slinging rail. (285x500x250) Proper's wide bed with gantry(s) has a fixed Footprint (nice for the home).. the Y is still his long axis? I guess 1t doesn't matter :D . but yippie, glad more people have Used their 3dp to make actual stuff (not just busts) I really do think, 500mm (520 to bed edges) for domestic and at least 1000m for sensible component prints. Now we've all made a giant Benchy :D (400% fits on 45 degrees printed from the bow up - nose in the air ;o) . I want strong Rails, barrels, draw front filigree with no breaks, Bumper guards for the car and windguards for the front windows in ptfe. I want sports armour, more than just shin-guards. Replaceable soles for my size 18 trainers :D I want a LOoooong Booy :D and yes, TIME material co-processing :D

Think about the GCODE becoming more and more a bytecode-style code like used in Java. Sure, you can run it directly (stupid) command for command on your printer - but modern firmwares can already optimize it.

That’s the problem with his disclosure it’s doesn’t go far enough in innovation and is useless to everyone.

very true

Please, this thing is shit😅

Did yall notice the CR30 is hella on sale right now??

I'd still take it if you have to get rid of it 😂 cause a crappy mill is better than no mill​@@properprinting

@@Pyrobanane my thoughts exactly. Without this block of steel this project wouldn't even have been possible😅 I expected a lot of negative comments about this milling machine, but I'm honestly happy with it and it got the job done. People sometimes don't realize how happy someone can be with something that maybe isn't the best, but enables new things.

Makera carvera give this man your cnc he earned it!!

Thanks! Also thanks for giving me props for that. Initially, because of the size, I wanted to turn it into several videos. Less risk and keeps "the momentum" of the channel. I'm glad I didn't and now I can focus on the cool stuff we can do with it!

You can now, a bit more in depth build video series and behind the scenes. @@properprinting

@@Works_Garage True, he could provide us with a community version and a step by step tutorial with commonly available parts that require little tooling to get done.

thats fucking funny - if you know what its about! :)

How would you propose he should call it?

Dual independant head or dih for short 😉

@@lerbyn But you’d only need two women for dual independent head.

@@timha4102 I would need dual extruders in that case

Thanks a lot for this awesome comment!

Why ? What problem does that solve exactly ?

​@sierraecho884 trolling I see. Does everyone have to explain their comments to you? I am a bit confused as to why you decided to ask ? Are you saying this design is bad? If so why. What have you designed and has it gone to market and made you a millionair? I think what he attempted to make is great. Even if it does not work at least he tried. Anyways.

@@AndyRC To be fair, this idea can only be groundbreaking if other people get behind it and it gains popularity. It's going to require significant changes to the ecosystem so will take a lot of work by a lot of people to mature. Still, the possibilities are real strong and I love the long Y proportions of it. I print tons of stuff that is suited to a long, narrow, bed. Getting two extruders with two axes of motion working on each layer seems like a dream come true. One of the extruders starts in the center and works it's way to it's end while the other extruder starts at it's end and works it's way to the middle. Fantastic. 👍 Or, how about a 0.8 nozzle and a 0.4 nozzle. Fast printing with all the detail of a fine nozzle for perimeters (IDEX could do this also). So many possibilities.

It’s definitely not what most would consider 6 axis, it is pretty much just two 3 axis printers that share a bed.

Lol

This channel and printer is incredible. I didn't understand the idea fully and saw limitations in the design for true multiplanar printing but decided to keep my comments to myself and read others comments. I'm glad I did because with you're comment @haph2087 it makes sense. It appears that the T.I.M.E. Machine concept can answer any question/challenge related to 3D printing. Ground Breaking? If not about as close as it comes to it

This is an awesome idea, thanks!

Make things simpler, what an odd combination of words😆

at least its fun.@@properprinting

also more efficient in parts and material use compared to multiple separate printers. ie the long shared print bed.@@properprinting

I agree with that honestly. It can be done but has other limits. I've thought of this for a while now and decided for 4 independent xyz axis to print and stich simultaneously. You would need 4 robot arms attached to a z gantry working at each corner. With each print head starting from the stich at offset synchronization it would be a continuous print which nothing running into itself

4 robot arms would be likely a very expensive and highly demanding task for computing

But they are independent. He stated at the beginning of the video that when you're not using both extruders for the same part (dual color/material) that you can print different parts with different materials at the same time. You can't do that with IDEX, you can only duplicate the same part due to the axis constraints. That alone makes this printer way more versatile than IDEX.

Don't have to wait for it to finish at all - as long as the g-code generation knows about the other gantry it can start printing on its side of this layer in the overlap as soon as the other gantry has moved on - In effect the print heads can chase each other around, with the only thing they need to know being how much do I slow this section of my print so the other print head maintains its lead. Complex to generate but this two printers at once with so much overlap does bring many potential benefits the IDEX can't do - for instance you may print a statue of woman on one side and of a man on the other both holding up the archway that eventually combines those prints without any slowdown caused by having to alternate the print head each layer, or simply print a bed full of massively different parts more footprint and probably energy efficiently than two separate printer.

I was doing the same thing a few years ago, basically all you have to do is split each layer into 2N sections where N is the number of independent extruders. You’d make the sections wide enough to accommodate for the extruders width and make each extruder separated by 1 extruder width distance. So for 2 extruders you’d have 4 areas where ex1 works on 1st area and ex2 works on 3rd area, and when they’re both finished they work on the even areas, always separated by that minimum extruder width. You could get fancy and calculate the sections to be of roughly equal area as long as they are larger than the minimum extruder width to avoid any collisions. You could get even fancier, but you get the point, it could get really cool but sadly true IDEX is patented by Stratasys so that’s probably the real reason we don’t see it commercially. There was a 3D printing company that tried it and I contacted the owner years ago and he told me that’s why they stopped developing it

I don't see a real usecase either. especially since IDEX is still a tried and tested option. however, the two portals could feature an IDEX each. or one IDEX and a totally different tool, for example to put inserts in special places during printing. depending on how the portals move, there could be more than 2 portals. but that might be feature creep.

the great potential it the ability to prime one extruder while the other is printing, which doesnt work with idex, while one is prining, the other starts to ooze.

When the second head is working the first head can go to a different part of the bed and start a different part. Belt integration would not be replacing a axis' movement. But move the part from one side of the machine to the other (and ultimately auto eject) so the printer can keep printing new parts with the first gantry while the second is printing on top of the previous part. In theory you could make this meters long and have a whole complicated production line of printers working on very complicated multi material parts.

@@jksjrgfpsjgr so, the great potential is beatable with a slightly longer y-axis with a place with a bronze brush to clean the nozzle. or retract the thing. or lower temperature through software. or a any combination of a trivial matter of adding a small and faster cycle through every layer. that is not "great potential" at all if comes at a cost of essentially another complete printer. I would call it an insanely overengineered process, expensive and replaceable with a "tooth brush" and duct tape, if that is all the potential that it has.

@@giuseppebonatici7169 well no IDEX printer ever really worked, so its not as trivial as you think it is.

just dont ask! you already know! :)

Watch the first minute again and tell me how you're going to do that with 2 separate printers ;)

I fail to see this as well. Why not a printer with a tool changer? Also I miss the humor that is in his videos, this 1 was too much engineering for me. But looking forward to see what he will do with this printer.

Ah you're so right, you should go build a real 6 axis printer and show him!

@@ittueaday your point is absurd. You believe that anyone who finds problems with something should just go do it better themselves, and that otherwise their complaints are invalid. If the world really worked like that, nobody would get anything done. All the channels you read would be too busy trying and failing to run their own governments. Your boss would be busy doing your job, and nobody would be entitled to any opinions

@@alexyu4549 I promise you it's not that deep man

Lmao nice try waving it off. I'd be embarrassed to write that. @@ittueaday

@@alexyu4549 if I cared about embarrassing myself my KZfaq name wouldn't be "it tueaday" with a dog in a stroller wearing a backwards hat and sunglasses