BIQU Microprobe
-
@dc42, one printer is a CR10 (300-300) and the other is a CR10-S5 (500-500) so the z axis construction is basically identical. I am curious though how error can be introduced even if the z axis is constructed differently. Maybe the resolution (ie motor step angle and z screw pitch)? It's a slow speed process with no x/y action. It's not a question of accuracy but just repeatability with the Z axis going up and down.
What am I missing? -
@jens55
If you really want to know, you need a dial gauge.
The problem is that with every measurement the Z-axis is moved.
There is always some form of backlash. In addition, there are also statistical deviations.
Especially with a light granty, I would expect this to be more noticeable. On a machine where the bed moves in z, the weight of the print bed can be an advantage because it preloads the z-axis.
That is why a thousandth of a mm is never measurable on a hobby machine. You would need much more massive and precise mechanics for that.
Also, please don't look for one hundredth of a mm..... be satisfied if you get to about half of a tenth. You are trying to achieve an accuracy that our standard printers do not offer mechanically.
If your measurements with the BLT are correct, they are more than sufficient....
By the way, I also print my 1st layer with 0.1mm and a BLT V2. I print on FR4.
I have noticed that it degenerates after 3-4 prints at approx. 100°C.
The adhesion is then very spotty.
In my case, it does not help to clean the surface. Only sanding really solves the problem.
Until I realised this, I also spent ages optimising the 1st layer height!(UTC+1)
-
@DIY-O-Sphere said in BIQU Microprobe:
The adhesion is then very spotty.
The biggest improvement for me came when I cut the first layer speed to something very slow - say 10mm/sec.
Frederick
Printers: A FT-5 with the 713 upgrade bits, a custom MarkForged style, a small Utilmaker style, a small CoreXY from kit and a E3D MS/TC setup. Various hotends. Using Duets (2 and 3) running 3.4.6
-
@DIY-O-Sphere, thank you for your input. You are of course correct in that if the mechanics are not accurate or repeatable then the whole spiel about probe accuracy is irrelevant. No matter how accurate/repeatable the probe is, it can never show a repeatability that is better than the underlying mechanics. I completely missed this in my earlier contemplations.
I guess what I should do, if I was curious enough (which I am not), is to somehow install the probe on my Jubilee printer because the z probe of the jubilee is about an order more accurate/repeatable which would imply that the mechanics are more repeatable. If the printer mechanics are causing the issues then this would become apparent immediately.
I am impressed that you are able to do 0.1 mm first layers. It took me forever to get 0.2 mm layers dialed in and even after they are dialed in I still have sections where the gap is too much and other sections where the gap is too small. This is with 441 measurement points but of course the area in between the measurement points is interpolated so just an approximation.
I believe that the pebbly PEI surface of spring steel build plates helps a lot and possibly allows for a larger satisfactory adjustment range but I have a habit of dragging my nozzle across the build plate which would quickly destroy the PEI layer. I have stuck with glass because it is more forgiving to stupid. I have yet to warm up to specific adhesion enhancers.
-
@fcwilt, agreed. I go down to 50% of my normal speed and small features are reduced another 50% (molasses in the high artic moves faster)
