qwerty2008

How's that lulzbot treating you?. I've used a taz6 before but wasn't too impressed. Perhaps I didn't have enough time to get to know it though. All my personal printers have been cheap ones. One I built from scraps and only cost me $30.

The size limitations are mostly due to the size of the machine. Time is also a factor. If you are printing something huge, it can take a very long time to do. I shudder to think of how long a print would take if I maxed out my build volume of 300mm by 220mm by 500mm. Also I should note that my the printer was only 280mm by 200mm by 200mm when I first got it. All you need to do to increase build volume is make the frame larger and reflect the new size in the firmware. 
The main difference I see in the machines is build quality and safety features. Take the Anet A8 for example: though its a decent size it has a flimsy acrylic frame and lack of thermal runaway protection. Thermal runaway protection is very important as thermal runaway is the leading cause of fires with printers. With the A8 this commonly happens if its improperly assembled or poorly maintained. The heater block has little to secure the heater cartridge and thermistor. If one or both works its way out of the block, the heater will continued to get hotter until it sets something on fire. The Ender3 on the other hand has a similar build volume but that frame is made from 2040 and 4040 aluminum extrusions making it very stiff. The Ender3 also has thermal runaway protection and a better designed heatblock.
One thing that's good to look for is the upgradeability of the machine. Extrusion frames are nice, open source firmware is good to have, and if it uses a proprietary slicing software that's an instant no-go for me. Basically, the ones that look less like a kitchen appliance are usually better.
 

The size limitations are mostly due to the size of the machine. Time is also a factor. If you are printing something huge, it can take a very long time to do. I shudder to think of how long a print would take if I maxed out my build volume of 300mm by 220mm by 500mm. Also I should note that my the printer was only 280mm by 200mm by 200mm when I first got it. All you need to do to increase build volume is make the frame larger and reflect the new size in the firmware. 
The main difference I see in the machines is build quality and safety features. Take the Anet A8 for example: though its a decent size it has a flimsy acrylic frame and lack of thermal runaway protection. Thermal runaway protection is very important as thermal runaway is the leading cause of fires with printers. With the A8 this commonly happens if its improperly assembled or poorly maintained. The heater block has little to secure the heater cartridge and thermistor. If one or both works its way out of the block, the heater will continued to get hotter until it sets something on fire. The Ender3 on the other hand has a similar build volume but that frame is made from 2040 and 4040 aluminum extrusions making it very stiff. The Ender3 also has thermal runaway protection and a better designed heatblock.
One thing that's good to look for is the upgradeability of the machine. Extrusion frames are nice, open source firmware is good to have, and if it uses a proprietary slicing software that's an instant no-go for me. Basically, the ones that look less like a kitchen appliance are usually better.
 

The size limitations are mostly due to the size of the machine. Time is also a factor. If you are printing something huge, it can take a very long time to do. I shudder to think of how long a print would take if I maxed out my build volume of 300mm by 220mm by 500mm. Also I should note that my the printer was only 280mm by 200mm by 200mm when I first got it. All you need to do to increase build volume is make the frame larger and reflect the new size in the firmware. 
The main difference I see in the machines is build quality and safety features. Take the Anet A8 for example: though its a decent size it has a flimsy acrylic frame and lack of thermal runaway protection. Thermal runaway protection is very important as thermal runaway is the leading cause of fires with printers. With the A8 this commonly happens if its improperly assembled or poorly maintained. The heater block has little to secure the heater cartridge and thermistor. If one or both works its way out of the block, the heater will continued to get hotter until it sets something on fire. The Ender3 on the other hand has a similar build volume but that frame is made from 2040 and 4040 aluminum extrusions making it very stiff. The Ender3 also has thermal runaway protection and a better designed heatblock.
One thing that's good to look for is the upgradeability of the machine. Extrusion frames are nice, open source firmware is good to have, and if it uses a proprietary slicing software that's an instant no-go for me. Basically, the ones that look less like a kitchen appliance are usually better.
 

The size limitations are mostly due to the size of the machine. Time is also a factor. If you are printing something huge, it can take a very long time to do. I shudder to think of how long a print would take if I maxed out my build volume of 300mm by 220mm by 500mm. Also I should note that my the printer was only 280mm by 200mm by 200mm when I first got it. All you need to do to increase build volume is make the frame larger and reflect the new size in the firmware. 
The main difference I see in the machines is build quality and safety features. Take the Anet A8 for example: though its a decent size it has a flimsy acrylic frame and lack of thermal runaway protection. Thermal runaway protection is very important as thermal runaway is the leading cause of fires with printers. With the A8 this commonly happens if its improperly assembled or poorly maintained. The heater block has little to secure the heater cartridge and thermistor. If one or both works its way out of the block, the heater will continued to get hotter until it sets something on fire. The Ender3 on the other hand has a similar build volume but that frame is made from 2040 and 4040 aluminum extrusions making it very stiff. The Ender3 also has thermal runaway protection and a better designed heatblock.
One thing that's good to look for is the upgradeability of the machine. Extrusion frames are nice, open source firmware is good to have, and if it uses a proprietary slicing software that's an instant no-go for me. Basically, the ones that look less like a kitchen appliance are usually better.
 

Thanks QWERTY, Im looking into that aerostruder- I’m also going to do some much needed maintenance and inspection on the taz6 this weekend. 

You could plop a Titan Aero on it. That would allow you to significantly up the speed. Lulzbot sells a head with the Titan Aero, so you can probably get the files for the new X carriage off their site.

You could plop a Titan Aero on it. That would allow you to significantly up the speed. Lulzbot sells a head with the Titan Aero, so you can probably get the files for the new X carriage off their site.

You could plop a Titan Aero on it. That would allow you to significantly up the speed. Lulzbot sells a head with the Titan Aero, so you can probably get the files for the new X carriage off their site.

Well, the Taz I have should be doing better in my opinion - I'm already planning on building a core x/y  for the next printer.   All in all, considering the boat anchor of a head on the Taz6, it does okay. 

How's that lulzbot treating you?. I've used a taz6 before but wasn't too impressed. Perhaps I didn't have enough time to get to know it though. All my personal printers have been cheap ones. One I built from scraps and only cost me $30.

How's that lulzbot treating you?. I've used a taz6 before but wasn't too impressed. Perhaps I didn't have enough time to get to know it though. All my personal printers have been cheap ones. One I built from scraps and only cost me $30.

How's that lulzbot treating you?. I've used a taz6 before but wasn't too impressed. Perhaps I didn't have enough time to get to know it though. All my personal printers have been cheap ones. One I built from scraps and only cost me $30.

Epoxied the other bulwark on, which cracked and had to be glued and filled.
 

 
Made the chain tyes for the tops'l yards with chain, shackles, and gin-blocks I've had since 2009.
 

 
Corrected the front plates on the pivot gun slides.  I saw a youtube video on photo-etching that looked pretty good.  I'd like to make a lot of the hardware and details for these guns that way.
 

 
Changed her rig to a barkentine and I'll be posting in the Gazela Primeiro log from now on.
 

 
Just kidding.
 
But still haven't come up with parrals and it's beginning to get cold in the shop

Despite the idea that most of what I'm doing to make the boat sail is temporary, or "jury-rigged" there's some real work going in, and some of the temporary stuff is testing ideas that will become permanent.
The wythe (flying jib-boom fitting) was remade with too big a hoop.  I remade the hoop from sheet brass to the right size.

Finally getting a handle on soldering, I started making the strops for the deadeyes which is doubled over rod.  Attaching it to the chain-plate has been tricky.  I was using round-head brass escutcheon pins, cutting them to length, and peening them, but they aren't peening very well, and bend more often than not.  I'm looking for copper pins hoping they'll peen more easily.

As mentioned, I ground off the threads on her keel rods for about 1/2".  This has made putting her on and off her ballast tube much easier. 

To facilitate shortening sail if it gets too breezy, I used hooks on the clews and halyards of those sails so they can be removed entirely fairly quickly.

The courses can be clewed and bunted, and the trys'ls brailed up taking the ship from 17 sails down to 7.  If it's too windy for that, well, then it's too windy to sail her.

This "ring" is on the mizzen top-mast and is pushed up by the mizzen tops'l yard's parrell as the sail is hoisted.  The blocks on the lower mizzen mast are attached to eyes on an iron band.  This doesn't interfere with the driver as that is hooped to it's own Spencer mast abaft the lower mast.
 
The idea behind the braces being doubled back is obviously to gain mechanical advantage, but also to make the pull against the yard even, so you're not trying to cock the yard as you brace it, AND so the yard can be raised and lowered usually without having to slack the braces.
 
Rigging, especially on warships, usually runs to the same portion of the mast or lower.  For instance, topmast running rigging, like braces, go to the other topmasts or lower.  You won't typically see tops'l yard braces running to the t'gallant level of another mast, because if you lose or take down the t'gallant mast, you have to reattach anything from the lower rig that was attached there.
 
The main tops'l yard braces I'm accustomed to run from the mizzen topmast stay to the yard, then to the quarter bumkin inboard of the main yard brace.  Maybe this didn't allow the top'sl yard to brace around hard enough for the Navy's tastes so they moved it inboard to the lower mizzen mast?

I'm taking to model to the Chesapeake Bay Maritime Museum's Model Boat Expo next month (May 19) where I plan to sail the model in the Miles River instead of the too shallow pool they set up.  I want to use the other winch this time, and separately control the main and mizzen as they should be.  To refresh my memory. I went to look at images of the ship to see where exactly these braces anchored. I thought the main tops'l brace anchored to the mizzen topmast stay, and it looked like it in images of the ship under sail, but in photos of the ship without sail, it appeared to anchor to the mast right at the mizzen tops'l yard.  That was weird, so I went looking at some more pictures (I save every one I find) and it look like to was anchored right to the mizzen tops'l yard, maybe where the halyard attached?  but it also looks like there's something on top of the parrell and there's something attached there that I don't see on the other top'sl yards. Maybe a ring that rides on top of the parrell?

(BTW: The tops seem to angle forward because during the 1888 refit her masts were re-stepped to reduce the rake.  Quite a bit it seems)
 
So, it turns out there is indeed a ring that slides up and down the mast, and as seen here, doesn't always slide down completely.  The left image in 1892, the right image in 1888.

I don't know what it's made of.  A hinged iron ring that a pin or bolt holds closed so it can be removed, or maybe a leather covered rope grommet which would explain those chains as giving it weight to make slide down the mast.
 
Looking at photos of other ship's contemporary to Constellation, it does appear that other sloops were rigged this way; Savannah, Macedonian, St Marys, Saratoga, and Portsmouth that I've been able to discern from photos.
 
Interesting is how they routed the braces when Saratoga were fitted with split tops'ls.  I presume Portsmouth was likely done in the same manner.

While I haven't confirmed this ring thing anywhere but on Constellation, I did notice that the main tops'l brace is routed to blocks partway down the mizzen mast on every American warship of this period  (1850+) where I could see it, including frigates.
 
In the painting of Constellation at anchor in Naples that I'm basing my model on, you can't see how the main tops'l yard is braced, but in the painting of her under sail by the same artist in 1862, those braces are visible, and deSimone does show those blocks on the mizzen mast.
 
It is interesting that every time I get to some other point in the model's progress, I learn something new about how they did things in the Navy of that time.  I'd never seen, rather, I'd never noticed that ring thing or anything like it before.
 
How does all this affect my model?  Not much really.  I wondered if it would affect the geometry on my bracing system, but the tops'ls on the model will rarely be lowered so my operation is only concerned with it being in the set position.

Hello All - another photo showing 4 of 9 sections completed.  I'm going to switch to a .5mm nozzle and see how that affects the print time and quality. 
 
As I've been printing I've noticed issues that I'm going to correct for when I re-slice the hull.  When I originally sliced the hull I was somewhat purposefully kind of randomly slicing (so I didn't avoid slicing through portholes for example).   Here's some lessons learned thus far:
 
a) I went with an atypical thinner hull wall thickness (5mm) so on really tall hull sections (over 175mm tall) there's some noticeable shrinkage so the hull sections are pulled in towards the center about 1-2mm.  It's not bad but I'm probably going to re-slice for sections in the 125mm to 150mm range to minimize this. 
 
b). I'm going to put in either 3 or 4 tabs to join sections using thin nut and bolts - this will help accurate with alignment  
 
c) I'm going to slice to reduce the need for infill support - basically because some of the surfaces that need to be mated to parts (like the cut-out for the turrents) have edges that need to be properly printed to keep the post labor count low (e.g. as little sanding as possible). 
 
d) The piping around the portholes look great, but if the layering on the hull can't be smoothed out with primer and paint and sanding is needed the port holes will get in the way of that - I might have to remove them.  I'll know more this weekend when I try painting one of the hull sections. 
 
e) PETG might also be a good material to try, I never tried it for something this big but it's a much more stable material and I think it flows just as well if not better than some PLA's  so will give that a go at some point and see if I should look harder for a material that gives superior results when it comes to hulls.  What I use now works well, but I think there may be something better out there. 
 
that's all for now!

Short update - just some pictures of 3 of the 9 hull sections laid on top of each other (with a mug of coffee for perspective).  

Yes, I’m certainly in agreement, there’s nothing out there to suggest one was ever loaded on the Maine. In the photo of the main entering the harbor they are absent clearly.  
 
I am am currently printing the stern of the main, should be done around 7pm tonight!

You can actually get it for free if you're a hobbyist or a startup. No need to get a student licence. 

stern frames done. next is the keelson and I guess I can start with inner planking... 
 

 
cheers!
Denis

frames finished, yay! well, almost. stern frames run away before the photoshoot :-))))
 
 

 
 
and some more screenshots from UE4 showing how big it is in full scale.  I've read somewhere how sailors back then were pretty short, like 1.6m, so I adjusted camera height accordingly. it must've been really impressive to see in person such a beast being built, let alone something bigger, like HMS Victory.... hope you like it!
 
 

 
cheers
Denis

that last post got me thinking, what if we could see how this ship would look like in full size? I've quickly set up a scene in a video game creation software called Unreal Engine 4. in it I can move the camera around as if I'm walking right next to the frames. the camera height is about 1.65m (cca 5.4 feet) which is exactly my eye height, so you have some reference about the size. ;-))

Glad you're safe and alright.
 
Bob