Controversial posts made by deckingman

@kb58 said in Odd mechanical failure:

"...I thought I had made the reason for the failure clear enough. Please read my first post properly..."

You're not going to make any points or friends here talking that way. You had the problem, and at this stage, still appear unsure it's really fixed. Good day, sir.

May I refer you back to my first post yet again. Especially the last sentence which states (quote)

"Anyway, I've made the repairs but it was such a weird failure that I thought I'd share it..........."

Had you bothered to read that first post, you would have understood both the reason for the failure and the reason why I decided to share it. This has nothing to do with asking for advice, nor do I care about making friends. Had you bothered to read that first post, you could have saved yourself some time in listing a bunch of completely unrelated points and asking a bunch of banal questions which cannot be answered like "how much of a press fit were the bearings?".

@jens55 said in Duet3 CAN-FD cable:

@deckingman. Kenable doesn't seem to ship to Canada.

Well that's another 5 minutes of my life that I've wasted and won't get back.

I didn't for minute expect that Kenable would ship to Canada. I was pointing out the spec that DC recommended - i.e. ADSL2. I doubt it matters much who's make ADSL2 you use.

I'm completely blown away by the appreciation you show when I take the trouble and spend time trying to help you. The gushing thanks is really not necessary.

@kb58 I thought I had made the reason for the failure clear enough. Please read my first post properly.

@dc42 Christ, I wish you would read what I post!

I've explained the usage case and the reason why I have to heat the nozzle multiple times - I'm not going to waste my time repeating it all again if you can't be bothered to even read it.

And another user has posted the same "Homing failed" message in this very same thread - and he doesn't heat the nozzle or use M109!!!

My last word on this.

.....oh, what's the point in even typing anything more. You clearly don't want to even read what I've already written, so you won't read this................

@achrn A perfect personification of why I don't send much time helping others out on these forums any more..........Bye

@Threepwood said in Unable to stop severe bulging in corners with new print head:

............Unfortunately after a lot more testing, and a new nozzle. I'm still getting obvious bulging in corners, which makes a lot of practical parts unusable due to fitment issues. I can start to counter it by using 10,000 accelleration for all print moves and at very, very high PA values like 0.12, but then I get huge underextruded areas before the corner and overextrusion after the corner.

I'm back at the idea that we need a "PA smoothing" value in RRF.

Personally I think it's back to the laws of physics that I spoke about in your other thread but which you are in denial of. The maker of the video you posted as evidence of that denial did himself state that the model was carefully selected for high speed/high acceleration testing, as was the layer height and other factors (like every corner being rounded). You might be able to accelerate the print head at 10,000 but the filament flow through the nozzle won't accelerate at that rate and PA can only do so much to compensate.

I can get perfectly square corners and make parts that fit together without any issues using an 0.5mm CHT nozzle and without "PA smoothing", but further discussion is pointless and I have nothing more to add.

@Surgikill So what if I made a mistake and it should have been 0.07mm rather than 0.06mm? If you had watched the video to the end, you'd have seen the part where I explained that I thought this would be tram and level enough (as was later proven to be the case) to get perfect first layers over the entire area of the build plate, but that I could spend a bit more time getting even better if necessary.

The reason for only showing photos of those 5 points is because the video was about tramming the gantry with respect to the bed and not specifically about measuring flatness. The clue was in the title "...............installing the Z stage and getting it level and "tram"..........." I had already established that the plate is as near dammit perfectly flat.

You can split hairs all you like but the point is that I can print edge to edge with perfect first layers without using mesh compensation. I can't help it if people like you don't believe me.

@o_lampe said in Suggestion for a simpler, less error prone, way of bed levelling:

...........................
IMHO, the current method is foolproof and I don't care about some extra milli-seconds CPU time it probably takes to calculate the least square method.

Well I know you always like to argue with anything I post, which is one of the reasons why I don't bother wasting much time trying to help others on these forums any more.

But for the record, and if you had bothered to read my post properly, this has absolutely nothing to do with saving any milliseconds of processing time but is more about reducing the possibilities for people to make errors. Whether that be the probe offset relative to the nozzle, the adjustment positions relative to some origin, confusion about pivot points, attachment points, and screw positions or any of the other myriad of related post topics which crop up frequently. So the current method is far from fool proof as evidenced by the number of posts on this topic.

None of the things I just mentioned actually matter if you simplify the methodology and associated algorithm. All you need is the distance between the pivot points (bed attachment points or adjustment screws depending on how the plate is fitted and adjusted).

@achrn said in An "hardware" advice for linear rails:

Deflection os a simply supported beam with point load at mid span is proportional to cube of span, so 'simplifying' the span to 1m introduces quite a large error if the span isn't actually that.

True - but if you want to be pedantic, the OP didn't specify a beam length.

Taking an I value I find on the internet for 20x20 of 6988mm^4,.....

I hope you mean 6988 * 10^-12.

assuming a 500mm span (I scaled bolt holes assuming 25mm pitch in the rail),

But now you are making assumptions to ascertain the beam length, so your calculations could equally introduce a large error

700g (ie 7N) midpsan load,

As we are being pedantic, 700g is actually 6.867N

E value of 70GPa (typical alu alloy)

I used 68.9GPa which is the true value for 6063-T5 but of course, we could both be wrong as the OP hasn't specified the extrusion type.

Anyway I'm done. Hopefully the OP will see through the pedantic criticism of my efforts to help him, and realise the value of doing his own calculations.

It matters not a jot to me whether you believe me or not because I know for a fact that my bed is both flat and level within +- 0.03mm at any point over the entire surface, and that I can print edge to edge with no firmware compensation of any kind.

Except that maybe you are calling me a liar to which I object very strongly.

This video was shot many years ago using the exact same build plate and before mesh compensation had been added to the firmware. Also, I use a single motor and continuous belt driving 3 lead screws so automatic bed leveling is not possible.

https://youtu.be/U733PMTou7M?si=cgGvQHLgwxZdXike

How do you explain that if I'm the liar that you are implying that I am?

@fcwilt said in Duet3D announces new tool board at FormNext:

Is there a link to any pictures or videos?

I documented the entire build from design to completion on my YT channel and even created a play list of the 14 videos which were spread over about 3 months. I took somewhere between 200 and 300 pictures and the videos contain most of those still images. My YT channel is linked in my signature.

How do you cope with bed irregularities? On my three most used printers the bed flatness varies by appx 0.25mm. That is in excess of two layers when layer height is 0.1mm. I have not found an alternative to using mesh bed compensation.

You've done something wrong then. Either you haven't used cast machined tooling plate, or you've mounted it in such a way as to distort it, or you haven't got the XY gantry "tram" with the plane of the bed. Watch part 7 of my build https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLLdK7Bu464. With a DTI fixed in place of the print head, after levelling the bed and "tramming" the gantry the results showed a maximum deviation of 0.03mm over the entire 400mm x 400mm surface of the bed. I've done numerous near edge to edge prints ever since and never yet had a first layer that wasn't perfect.