Aug.10, 2013

Dglass 3D (D3D), a start-up company from Willmar, Minnesota has launched their new printer extruder heads: The Dual and Quad, the reinvented versions of the industry's traditional extruders on Kickstarter.

At the moment, D3D's Dual and Quad extruders are in the final stages of development. They will be compatible with most consumer 3D printers on the market, and will provide up to 4 extruders in the same space as 2 traditional extruders.

D3D Dual Extruder

The team behind D3D are Carl and Brian Douglass. Carl is a registered professional engineer with over ten years of experience in the plastics industry. Brian spent the last 8 years building, diagnosing and fabricating electro-mechanical systems for a variety of industries.

The duo has chosen to file a patent for the technology, but they said "we remain committed to pushing forward with an open, collaborative culture".

D3D launched their project on Kickstarter with a goal to raise $25,000. The money will cover expenses related to their research and development process, along with ensure that a minimum number of D3D extruders being made.

There is still no video demonstrating the system printing any parts, but D3D says an updated video will be posted on Monday. They will also reveal an auto-retract system to take the pressure off of the unused extruder will also be added.

 

Posted in 3D Printing Accessories

 

 

Maybe you also like:


 


Mike M wrote at 5/17/2014 8:51:46 PM:

If it is already patented by another applicant then their application for a patent will be rejected as not inventive. Then they will owe costs for every item sold to the patent holder unless the original patent has lapsed or expired.

Bad Design wrote at 10/11/2013 5:01:51 AM:

LOL.... "Open source is great... JUST NOT OURS" And No retraction.... sorry I guess I will patent that.

JD90 wrote at 8/12/2013 7:14:58 PM:

syous, you're right, but those aren't the only considerations in choosing an extruder system. A second stepper means reducing your print area by as much as the width of the second motor and a bowden drive has its own set of potential complications. Not that I'm sold on this, but I do think it might have potential.

syous wrote at 8/12/2013 8:28:48 AM:

Something tells me this is neither going to be cheaper than a second stepper nor lighter than a bowden system.

Confused wrote at 8/12/2013 8:22:14 AM:

I love this comment {The duo has chosen to file a patent for the technology, but they said "we remain committed to pushing forward with an open, collaborative culture".} So they are committed to open source unless it their product and they want to patent it......kinda defeats open source.

Hunter wrote at 8/12/2013 6:08:19 AM:

Looks are the last thing im worried about, but those designs are atrocious.

James wrote at 8/12/2013 5:34:47 AM:

The idea is there but those are the ugliest printheads i've ever seen

JD90 wrote at 8/11/2013 6:55:54 PM:

Thanks for posting the extruder patent. The basic idea is the same, but a lot of the mechanicals are very different. The Stratasys device has a lot more parts, and they're more complicated parts. I'd definitely run it by a patent lawyer because it could be infringing. But even if it doesn't legally infringe, they can make you poor by tying you up in court for years.

JD90 wrote at 8/11/2013 4:56:27 PM:

OK, I found there were more videos, the drive seems interesting. 1.75mm filament only, which is understandable given it's a direct drive. I still didn't see barrel cooling addressed, maybe it was left off for clarity, but it could be there and make the design look more interesting. Repetier firmware only at the moment. It's not clear if retraction amount is adjustable.

jD90 wrote at 8/11/2013 4:07:27 PM:

Does anyone have pictures of a Stratasys head for comparison?

JD90 wrote at 8/11/2013 5:41:27 AM:

I'd like to see it in action, but I'd really like to hear real user experience before investing in this, the video in action and photos might help. The gear teeth - QU-BD's foible seems to illustrate that a groove in gear teeth like that is a bad idea. Unless the filament groove hobbed, then that might be OK. Cooling isn't shown, my experience suggests that you can't have such a long metal barrel without significant cooling to keep the melt zone from creeping too high up the barrel, and they show no such provision for cooling. E3D's method seems to be the best. They don't mention control, hopefully they have that established. There doesn't appear to be provision for controlling the amount of retraction, apparently being a spring loaded retraction system, and the gear teeth have to disengage to do retract.

Chronoseptor wrote at 8/11/2013 5:26:34 AM:

http://www.google.com/patents/US7604470 but they 'took it to the next level" by putting stupid cartoon faces on it

Almost Speechless wrote at 8/10/2013 5:09:45 PM:

Wow, the issues here are so problematic I'm almost speechless. Retraction? Cooling?

Mike wrote at 8/10/2013 1:17:01 PM:

What a shame, they stolen this solution from stratasys company... This is innovative open source idea - stealing ideas.

Legal issues? wrote at 8/10/2013 12:37:33 PM:

Umm, that looks exactly like a Stratasys print head - at least to me, it does. I worry that it will to Stratasys' lawyers as well.



Leave a comment:

Your Name: