My quick and dirty math based on some captions of the figures from the paper suggest it’s unlikely they’re getting amplification for now, because it seems like the even the “low” resistance state is quite resistive. But I still suspect it can be done, and they do characterize their structures as “active” - thanks!
Well, a logic gate doesn’t fundamentally have to amplify… if the control current exceeds the output, it isn’t amplifying but fill performs logic. I am too lazy to look myself, but did they demonstrate amplification? If not, I think it’s doable.
Couldn’t you build an amplifier by using a thin wire that heats up a larger wire? If you size the large wire to minimize self heating, then a small current would cause the thin wire to act as a heater, switching the large current.
For what it’s worth, it’s the same with Prusa. The only work I do on my printer is glue stick on the PEI sheet when printing otherwise-incompatible materials.
Well said. It’s just important that when recommending printer models to newcomers that we’re honest about time vs money and printer vs printing.
In practice, I haven’t found the print volume of my MK4 to be too limiting. Occasionally more X/Y would be nice, but plenty of parts that are too big for my printer would be too big for any printer and still need to be cut. The other issue is that even fast 3d printers are slow and I don’t really print things that take entire days. Even printing dactyl keyboard halves takes hours thanks to the need for supports, so I can’t imagine someone frequently doing really huge prints (particularly in height).
I had the same experience the one time I tried it. It seemed like it might be trying to do a “ramming” sequence like used on the XL, but it just jammed my extruder. I haven’t tried it again. If you have the time and motivation, it’d be great to submit a bug report to Prusa.
Interesting, it took me a while looking at your images to figure out why the original design didn’t work. The problem was that there was no solution that could avoid at least one extremely long bridge, and that bridge also forced the adjacent bridges to be “wrong” (though maybe if it printed the super long bridges first, it could’ve made the rest short).
I don’t have much to add besides being surprised the problem was more interesting than it first seemed…and I don’t accept that you were being an idiot because it want immediately obvious to me either. Or I am one too :)
What about printing it in two halves the each have a flat bottom? Since the optical quality doesn’t matter, the line down the middle of the lens won’t matter.
Fortunately it looks like the federal courts don’t allow this any more: https://www.ussc.gov/about/news/press-releases/april-17-2024
But of course the state courts have their own separate rules.
LFP cells have excellent cycle life anyway (2000+ cycles); is it worth worrying about staying at 95%?
Unless I’m reading this too optimistically, it seems like recovering the resin just requires adding more of the original solvent, which sounds pretty good (as long as that solvent isn’t much nastier than a regular resin solvent).