added
stringdate 2025-03-12 15:57:16
2025-03-21 13:32:23
| created
timestamp[us]date 2008-09-06 22:17:14
2024-12-31 23:58:17
| id
stringlengths 1
7
| metadata
dict | source
stringclasses 1
value | text
stringlengths 59
10.4M
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.192983
| 2023-01-07T22:57:19 |
20435
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"FenFox",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/27865",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36785",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740",
"kosteklvp"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5901",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/20435"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
My prints have started to turn to mush at a certain Z height
I just got an Ender 3 Pro for Christmas and, aside from firmware, I have made no changes to it whatsoever. Until yesterday, my printer was running all prints flawlessly. The only thing that changed was the filament, but I don't think that's the issue because the problem only starts to occur at a certain Z height.
What I've ensured:
The firmware is up to date
The filament is dry
the X, Y, and Z axis all have no bumps or obstructions (lead screws and belts are fine; wheels and bolts all good, etc.)
I have the right temperature (200 °C as printed on my PLA filament's label)
The filament is not tangled
There is no nozzle jam
I have retraction enabled properly in my Ultimaker Cura settings
The file is not corrupt (I've remade it, re-installed Ultimaker Cura, reformatted my SD card, etc.)
The extruder is not slipping or chewing into the filament
My bed is leveled
What I've noticed aside from the crappy prints:
There's an intermittent "thump" sound coming from the extruder, that as far as I can tell, is caused by the wheels "snapping back" suddenly sometimes.
The filament seems to be from a cheap Chinese brand: Sunlu.
Images of a good print and a bad print. These are the same version of the same G-code file printed at the same settings on the same printer in the same conditions. (EDIT: I removed the good print images because of a logo they contained that I am trying to limit public exposure to.)
Does it always happen on this same height? Does it also occur on other models?
@kosteklvp, yes to both questions.
This is most likely heat creep, lower the temperature with at least 10 degrees. Could be that your retraction is not optimal, if the Cura default, it is too large. What values do you use?
The thump and the appearance of the print are indications of underextrusion. Tracking the source of this failure can be challenging, especially considering how many factors you've included in your question.
Consider to create a model of smaller or larger diameter than the existing troublesome object. Adjust the height of the model in inverse proportion to the diameter change, that is, if the diameter is smaller, increase the height.
For example, if the problem is heat creep in the nozzle, it can appear at a specific duration of the print. By decreasing the diameter of the object, the failure point should appear at a higher level, more or less confirming that time is a factor, pointing to heat creep.
Consider also to download and print a suitably configured temperature tower. This will allow you to reference the time factor again, but also allow you to expand the range of printing temperatures you can use for that specific color and manufacturer of filament.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.193584
| 2023-04-07T13:02:27 |
20792
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Greenonline",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/4762"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5902",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/20792"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
seeking out help writing a printer.cfg klipper file for a tronxy veho 600
i recently took delivery of a tronxy veho 600, i found the standard firmware to be a major bottleneck so with the help of a raspberry pi 4b and a cr touch i am making some upgrades. unfortunately there is little to no info regarding the printer.cfg file for this model so im hoping someone on here will be able to advise.
i was lucky enough to find a file for a veho 600 but it was for a highly modified version so it wont be a straight fit for my one.
my main questions are regarding the extruder code block, following is an exerpt from the custom veho config file.
[extruder]
step_pin: PB1
dir_pin: !PF13
enable_pin: !PF14
microsteps: 16
rotation_distance: 22.172 # Needs to be tweaked
gear_ratio: 50:10 #50:17 # BMG Clone ratio per klipper docs
nozzle_diameter: 0.400
filament_diameter: 1.750
heater_pin: PG7
sensor_type: Generic 3950
sensor_pin: PC3
#control: pid
#pid_Kp: 20.72
#pid_Ki: 1.88
#pid_Kd: 57.18
min_temp: 0
max_temp: 320
max_extrude_only_distance: 400
max_extrude_cross_section: 50.0
min_extrude_temp: 180 # dangerous, but bowden loading is much
easier without it
what is the definition of step pin
both dir_pin and enable_pin have values set but they include the ! before them, which means not. this confuses me, can anyone give any indication as to what/why this is?
"heater_pin: pg7" am i right in saying this is for the hot end heat block?
"sensor_pin: pc3" is this a temperature sensor or is it something else?
all code lines relevant to the pid property are commented out, what is the reason for this? do i enable them when pid tuning or should i leave them off?
can anyone give me an explanation as to what the last 3 lines of code do, one of them is quoted dangerous so i definately need to be sure before running.
Nice question and well presented, but... it is too broad because it contains multiple questions in one post. On Stack Exchange one issue per post is required, in order to making answering each issue simpler. I would suggest asking separate questions and linking them together using the URLs. So, before this question gets closed as being too broad (which it has already been flagged as), please [edit] it to contain just the first point, and then ask the other 5 points in different questions. I hope that makes sense. Thanks. Also, please try to fix the typos.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.193794
| 2024-05-09T06:39:19 |
23270
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Greenonline",
"ProbablyIdiot",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/43304",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/4762",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5903",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/23270"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is a damaged print bed what is causing my prints to fail?
Yesterday, I had the worst print since getting my printer (Creality Ender 3 V3 SE). There was plastic all over the hotend, and I was left with a large clump as my print.
From what I understand, the problem is caused by printing in mid-air, so either my Z-offset is to blame or my print bed. I have attached photos of the bed, the line is smaller than 1 mm deep and there is a 3D Benchy I could print attached to show what it looks like. Could the print bed be causing the issues?
Hi, welcome to 3D Printing! Are the bed engravings and failing print from the same session? It is unlikely that these linear bed defects are the cause of failing prints, it looks like there are seperate issues at play here.
@0scar no, the engraving is from transporting the printer. I managed to get it to reprint successfully, so I think it was just a single time problem, thanks!
The print managed to print the second time, so this wasn’t the issue.
It's good that you found what was not the issue. If you do happen to find out what the issue actually was, please come back and [edit] your answer with the update. Thanks.
If first few layers printed OK, and are still attached to the bed, then the damage that you have indicated in your picture is unlikely to be the cause.
If the first few layers printed OK and the print had detached from the print bed, then there is a slight chance that the damage causes it to detach.
From the look of the underside of your model, there seems to be not tell tale witness marks that correspond to the damage, so it's unlikely to be the cause.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.193984
| 2024-05-23T06:53:13 |
23319
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5904",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/23319"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to coat a chainmail with conductive fine activated carbon powder?
I have a PLA chainmail that I'm trying to coat "evenly" with conductive fine activated carbon powder. Any thoughts of how I can do this? I'm trying to avoid hand painting. The chainmail will be in contact with naked skin so I'm trying to avoid toxic chemicals that may cause a skin reaction.
You mention conductive and fine as part of your descriptors. The fine particulate should create some concern regarding inhalation. Laser printers, copiers and powdercoating involve extremely fine particles, and operators should be using appropriately capable breathing protective devices. I'm personally aware of copier and laser printer technicians using vacuum cleaners with filters specifically engineered for these dangers. I'm personally aware of a powdercoat operator who does not use protective gear and is suffering from breathing distress after too many years of this practice.
This danger suggests that the powder being applied to your 3D printed item should be encapsulated as part of the adhesion process. In so doing, the conductive aspect is likely to be negated, as there will be reduced contact between particles, perhaps zero contact, zero conductivity.
Powdercoating uses electrostatic charges on the very fine powder and on the destination item, which may be possible even for the plastic mesh shown, but the subsequent steps involve baking the powder to melt as a contiguous mass on the surface of the object. This is certainly impractical in the case of a 3D printed item.
One could spray adhesive on the mesh, then dust the powder over the surface, but this falls into the encapsulation and isolation aspect.
If you require conductivity, one might use conductive PLA but it's important to note that there is a substantial resistive value to products of this nature. The specifications of the different conductive PLA products indicate that the geometry and printing settings will have an effect on the resistance, making an accurate assessment challenging.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.194173
| 2023-11-06T13:27:12 |
21601
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"FarO",
"SF.",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/2206",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/2338",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5905",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21601"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Which detection mechanisms can a filament sensor use?
Using the official Creality runout sensor, I encountered a few times that the filament entangled around something and got stuck, the printer continuing for several hours (as it didn't run out), printing mid-air aithout filament. Then I got interested in the types of filament sensors that exist such as a runout and jam sensor as those mentioned below:
The BTT filament sensor
It is supposedly able to detect both runout and jamming, which I assume uses the concept of a rotary encoder:
DIY 'super simple filament jam sensor'
From printables.com, which I assume uses simple physics, although it's unclear how this works exactly.
DIY Optical Filament Sensor
This amazing-looking optical filament sensor from thingiverse.com uses a rotary encoder.
Question
I guess that a rotary encoder would be best for this purpose because it can detect actual moving filament and potentially even exactly at which speed it is moving. However, how would it account for filament retraction or paused prints (waiting for filament color change)? Is this usually done in firmware or external control software such as OctoPrint?
I would like to understand: What different types of detection mechanisms for filament jam detection exist, and how do they work exactly? Also, which is considered most reliable and why?
This question must be impossible to answer if even with a bounty after a week nobody is even trying.
'super simple filament jam sensor' is a bit of a misnomer; it's a tangle sensor. It triggers the switch if there's strong tension between the spool and the extruder. It won't detect nozzle clog preventing filament from advancing.
I am going down the same rabbit hole now and would summarize filament detection types into four categories: runout, extruder issue, reel jam, and nozzle jam. In fact, that's what BTT advertises for their sensor so nothing controversial here.
The mechanisms used to detect these issues are based on movement or force. Since detecting force itself is not always easy or intuitive, it is also common to convert force into motion. The sensors involved include:
Micro-switches that detect physical presence either by the filament or something acting on the filament
Load cells that detect force directly
Optical encoders that toggles a signal proportional to the speed of a roller acting on a filament (just like the scroll wheel of your mouse) They can also be use as a contactless switch similar to a micro-switches usually with the goal of lower resistance on the filament
Hall effect sensors that act as a contactless switch
When a filament ends, it is physically not there anymore which is why a micro-switch is an easy solution. But when a filament jams, the effect is a change in tension of the filament that exerts a force on different parts of the extruder path. From the extruder's perspective, when there is a reel jam it has to pull harder, when there is a nozzle jam it has to push harder. If the extruder is damaged, it is not able to push or pull the filament. In all cases, the filament doesn't move at all.
In this answer, the filament sensor tries to detect a reel jam by converting the tension in the filament into a mechanical motion that activates the micro-switch. That design is optimizing both runout and reel jam into a single switch action. Other sensors can be used in place of the micro-switch given enough R&D.
Optical encoders (aka smart runout sensor) use the movement of filament to toggle a signal. Like a heart beat, a beating signal means filament is moving while a still signal is a potential sign of fault. The printer firmware must support this type of input for encoders to function. Optical encoders require the firmware to keep track of when the extruder is commanded to move and check that the encoder feedback matches those moves. If the feedback doesn't match the command and it exceeds some threshold, then the firmware treats it as an error. This "threshold" is what people refer to as tuning a smart runout sensor. For Marlin, the FILAMENT_RUNOUT_DISTANCE_MM field sets how much mismatch is tolerated before an error occurs. Note that this is tied to the design of the encoder and it's resolution in tracking filament movement.
One other consideration for sensors is contact vs contactless. Anything that contacts the filament adds resistance that the extruder has to overcome. It might only be a significant issue when building larger systems where the reel is far away and the total resistance from sensor and tubing starts to add up. Contactless is certainly a good idea, but is also more complex to design. For example, optical contactless that directly detects filaments can have issues with transparent material.
In summary, I think optical encoders are currently a good comprehensive solution to filament detection. The main trade-off due to it's resolution is dealing with false positive triggers and potential grinding of the filament that would worsen a fault condition if the detection takes too long. The traditional switch tends to detect immediately a real condition and lets the firmware react faster but detecting multiple types of faults require more complex mechanics.
It's a great question, but I don't think jam detection is particularly common on hobbyist printers.
I know the Prusa MK3.9/MK4 and XL printers intend to add jam detection using the load cell that's built into the Nextruder, where it can detect the force between the extruder gear and the nozzle. It was promised in their promotional material, but is not implemented yet. (Today it uses the load cell to perform mesh bed levelling.) Jam detection using the load cell would have to be implemented in firmware.
Vector3D build a hotend tester using the same principles, and I feel his video nicely explains how the load cell would detect skipping and jamming: The Next Generation of Hot End Testing - YouTube.
I don't have any experience of using rotary encoders on a printer, so I cannot comment on how the data from the encoder is used to alert the user of a potential problem. I would hazard a guess that it's an OctoPrint plugin which require you to use serial printing (so OctoPrint knows how much filament is being extruded/retracted moment to moment). A quick search shows there is at least one such plugin: gmatocha/Filament-Watch-Octoprint-Plugin: Octoprint Plugin that monitors filament extrusion with a rotary encoder, the README lists the required parts and may be a good starting point if you want to build one yourself.
Very interesting plugin but the section https://github.com/gmatocha/Filament-Watch-Octoprint-Plugin#using-filament-watch---reliably does raise some valid concerns. Thank you.
QIDI Q1 pro has jam detection
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.194724
| 2023-12-06T00:06:37 |
21756
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Bob Ortiz",
"BrChan",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23877",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5906",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21756"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How can printer firmware use encoder wheel data?
I am trying to understand the concept of the encoder wheel that is used as a filament sensor, as shown below. It can detect if filament is moving, making it suitable for filament runout and filament jam detection, although it wouldn't be able to distinguish the two events.
Source: Thingiverse.com
Filament runout detection is easy to understand, there is no filament passing (anymore), so the wheel isn't moving when it should.
Filament jam detection, the filament is not moving when it should, but how does the firmware know when it should expect the encoder wheel to move? Does it compare some last move time with an expected move time and some threshold time?
In addition to microswitch variants, such as shown in my question How to distinguish filament runout and filament jam using a microswitch-based filament sensor in Marlin?. I think an Encoder Wheel variant does add two more types of detection that a microswitch variant can't detect:
Filament break detection: It is probably the only way to detect the rare case where the filament breaks (after it passed the sensor), where one or two microswitches would both possibly not be triggered (as the filament is still present in the sensor), resulting in a false-negative where the printer keeps printing when it should stop.
Clogged nozzle detection, a clogged nozzle would also be detected as the filament simply stops flowing.
However, I think both 'filament break' and 'glogged nozzle' detection would not be distinguishable from a 'Filament Jam' or 'Filament Runout' event for an encoder wheel sensor as in both cases, the filament simply stops running the wheel when it's expected to run.
Additionally, under a YouTube video about this particular sensor a user 'hd-be7di' commented:
This sensor could work better if it shared data with the extruder. It could act like an "error correction wheel" by comparing the extruder's parameters to the sensor's to detect very tiny under-extrusions (and over-extrusions too!) instead of acting like a simple on-off switch.
Is my understanding correct, or are there other ways these encoder wheels can be used for 3D printers? How can printer firmware use encoder wheel data, and how does the firmware know when to expect a rotating wheel (with some delay or trigger threshold, I suppose) as well as ignoring retractions?
Filament break detection, I quote: as the filament is still present in the sensor not necessarily, old PLA frequently breaks at the spool, so you will experience a run-out of material.
Ah, I wrote that from the perspective of a break after the sensor, which I experienced only once. But, a break before the sensor would indeed be detected as a runout. Thanks for pointing that out.
No prob, especially PLA and even more the 2.85 mm variant is very brittle if not kept correctly and is prone to break near the spool.
While I answered your more general question about runout sensors at Which detection mechanisms can a filament sensor use?, I can try to add more details in this answer specific to the design of encoders.
As stated in the linked answer, yes, the (Marlin) firmware has to compare the encoder movement with the expected extruder movement. This is exactly what you gleaned from the YouTube video since the controller has both pieces of information. From my perspective as a hardware engineer, I would highly prefer this function to reside in firmware instead of any other part of the print chain such as Octoprint. This comes down to detection speed and latency.
Rotary encoders rely on a light source that is energizing a photodiode. The wheel either makes or breaks the light so the output signal toggles on-off as the wheel spins. Right off the bat, we can assume a few behaviors:
The signal toggle rate is dependent on the speed of the wheel
The wheel can stop at either state (on or off)
The design of the wheel gaps will affect the toggle rate
The encoder can't tell which direction the wheel is moving
The encoder output has limits, if the wheel is moving too fast the output signal might not be able to keep up. This is not because light is slow, but the photodiode has a finite response time. On top of that, the printer controller might also not be able to read the changes fast enough to be accurate. On the flip side, a very slow movement might stay in one state for a long time if the wheel gaps are very large. In both cases, the result is a less than ideal representation of the actual movement. But filament sensing is generally about detecting fault and not measuring exactly what the filament is doing, so a "good enough" design is the goal.
In Marlin, the intent is to detect some filament movement within a specified amount of extruder movement. In effect, the specified amount of extruder movement is the minimum needed to see at least one toggle of the encoder. I believe that is what happened between the BTT smart sensor V1 and V2. The smaller the gaps on the wheel (or larger the wheel), the higher the resolution when sensing movement and the sooner the firmware can detect a change. As long as the controller and firmware can keep up with the more frequent toggle rate this is an improvement. The idea that it can act as a "correction wheel" is IMO asking a runout sensor to be more than it needs.
When the extruder moves and the encoder returns some sign of change, the firmware can assume things are moving along regardless of forwards or backward, fast or slow. This also means the firmware will ignore a still encoder if it hasn't asked the extruder to move. The need to correlate the extruder to filament movement also means a delay when detecting a fault. This delay might be acceptable in most cases but it does add some risk of a clogged extruder wheel that has to be cleaned for a full recovery. It is also where we see people getting false positives and needing to debug the sensor.
I think as people push the print speed ever higher, the encoders themselves can likely keep up. The controllers might set some limits to encoder performance depending if the firmware can keep up with every toggle it generates and how much processing is consumed in keeping up with the encoder. Or the encoder will get even smarter and divorce itself from the controller. If the encoder had its own microcontroller and could snoop the extruder control signals, then it could go back to just being a simple on-off signal back to the controller.
Thank you, very clear answer. The last suggestion about its own microcontroller, as well as using a very high resolution and/or speed made me think about using the (already connected) Pi. I just need to find out a proper way to connecting it either software wise or hardware wise. The main unknown for me as of yet, knowing when the extruder is expected to move, and determining the proper delay. I expect that in theory with this you could make an educated guess about the movement speed of filament too, but not sure of the use case for that.
I have seen Marlin feature requests asking for extruder signals. But I would consider directly snooping the motor signals with an inline current sensor similar to this project: https://vector3d.shop/products/stepper-motor-analyser If your pi is running octoprint, I would be careful about the processing load and test thoroughly.
That Stepper Motor Analyser is very interesting I didn't know about its existence, thanks for the suggestion. The Pi 4 usually runs far below 10% CPU utilization at normal printing operation.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.195336
| 2024-03-07T17:22:10 |
23131
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Aaargh Zombies",
"Bob Ortiz",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/29097",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5907",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/23131"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What is the potential impact of security risks associated specifically with 3D printers or their hosts?
Recently a bunch of Anycubic 3D printers have been hacked as reported in an article from bleedingcomputer.com.
According to a wave of online reports from Anycubic customers, someone hacked their 3D printers to warn that the devices are exposed to attacks.
According to the same text file, 2,934,635 devices downloaded this warning message via the vulnerable API.
The impact in this case seems limited to only a warning using a text file that was placed on the printer. However, I can imagine a scenario where (through an intermediate host such as OctoPrint) the printer firmware can be reflashed (some OctoPlugin for example allows for remote flashing). The firmware could pose a real physical danger, for example when thermal runaway protection and heating limits are removed, or when fake temperature values are reported to the printer LCD.
My question is, what specific vulnerabilities or risks are associates with 3D printers or 3D printer hosts and what potential impact does it have?
I rephrased. I'm more interested in the impact, however apart from the standard 'breached network-device' I'm more interested in the specific risks and impacts associated with network connected 3D printers or 3D printer hosts such as OctoPi.
You're right. I will request a migration to 3D printing Stack Exchange.
The ability to flash firmware is the critical aspect. If remote flashing is possible at all, it is in theory even possible to remove or disable all software limits, brakes and safety features.
I think this way, you could even make the printer report a cold temperature while it's overheating. Similar to how Stuxnet changed the rotational speed of centrifuges without showing the change in the control tools.
All this emphasizes the importance of a legit and trustworthy (signed) firmware source, and the ability to check firmware integrity, as well as the ability to detect and alert about (unexpected) changes. As well as the utter importance of proper authentication and authorization mechanisms around 'remote firmware flash' features (such as offered in OctoPrint) or other, especially network-connected 3D printer hosts.
The only other way to reduce the potential harmful impact I can think of is hardware fail safe design. In my personal opinion at least the hardware safety side should be regulated and enforced with a minimum fire safety standard for network-connected (consumer) 3D printers.
It would be highly dependant on the exact printer and the nature of the vulnerability.
Using past events as a guide, we could potentially see the processing capabilities of a 3D printer used to form a botnet for a DDOS style attack. This has previously been done with compromised routers and other IOT Devices.
Example
We might also see printers with built in cameras being hacked to allow images to be taken inside people's homes
Example
Hypothetically speaking, with a 3D printer, an attack might involve some form of blackmail. Forcing the company to pay money or have their products attacked in some way. For example having a malicious update pushed down to them that rendered them useless.
We could also possibly see someone doing something silly such as to have printers simply spew out spaghetti, or malicious such as having code inserted into them that would drag the nozzles across the print bed, damaging one or both of them.
In an extreme case it's possible that a hacker may find a way heat up a printer until it catches fire.
Given that many 3D printers are wireless, it's possible that they could be harvested for wifi passwords, or for log in details to cloud accounts that contain personal information or payment details.
All of this is speculative though.
If the attacker is positioned to be able to flash the firmware, rather than just interacting with the printer as programmed to react to gcode, they can definitely switch the heaters always-on (vs PID controlled to reach a particular temperature). Ability to start a fire then depends only on whether the wires will melt and break the circuit before the heat ignites something flammable. Clever positioning of the toolhead or use of printing facilities could make that more likely.
@R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE, baring those that have hardware thermal cutouts.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.195754
| 2024-01-05T14:21:49 |
22907
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Bob Ortiz",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5908",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/22907"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Why do two identical Creality Ender 3 V2 printers have a center that is 3 mm off from each other and 7 mm off expected and how to calibrate it?
When pushing the limits of the bed size (235x235 mm) for two Creality Ender 3 V2 printers running the same mriscoc firmware and the same config and upgrades. I noticed that despite using the same G-code for these two fairly identical printers resulted in offsets that was not accounted for.
I sliced and printed a test model 175mm_bed_center_calibration_crosshair.stl from Thingiverse.com and when slicing in Cura it is perfectly centered as shown below:
However when printed on each printer and measured, the position in mm for both printers (namely Owl and Fox) are off as shown below:
I would like to setup the printers fairly similar, I only print from OctoPi over USB to these printers, one Pi for each printer, so that I can slice once and use the same G-code on both printers. How do I calibrate this without recompiling the firmware? Can I setup a start or end G-code in OctoPi per printer to set a proper center offset? And moreover, why does this happen for identical printers? Shouldn't the tolerance be much smaller than 3 mm difference horizontally and 2 mm vertically (shown from above)?
Additional measurements
For reference, based on request in the comments some measurements of the end stops relative to the frame of the XY-axes of both printers.
Measurement of the Z-axes are irrelevant for this purpose.
Owl Y-axis Endstop (85mm)
Fox Y-axis Endstop (85mm)
Owl X-axis Endstop (45mm)
Fox X-Axis Endstop (45mm)
I also measured the size between the bed and the frame as shown below and it's precisely 7mm on each side of the bed on both printers.
I think these are the only measurements that make sense, but correct me if you have other suggestions for measuring it.
Also, the only offset that is reported after running the M503 G-code in G-cod M851 it not relevant for centering, the Z-offset. For Fox M851 X-41.50 Y-7.00 Z-1.13 ; (mm) and for Owl M851 X-41.50 Y-7.00 Z-1.06 ; (mm).
Are the endstops mounted differently?
Familiar center print object!
I didn't even know. Small world
I guess you imply 5, 5 (x, y) for Owl and 3 and 7 milimeter for Fox instead of 3 and 7 centimeter in the title?
Unbelievably dumb mistake. I'm sorry, brain error.
I was surprised to find this out as I haven't heard or read anything about this before in any 'calibration instruction' or 'calibration guide'.
However, as I just found out, the mriscoc firmware gladly has a very easy way of changing this from the menu as documented on the mriscoc GitHub Wiki.
As I already took measurements as shown in the question and as my bed is 235x235 mm. I simply used the LCD menu to go to Advanced > Physical settings and then for printer 'Owl' I changed it to:
X_MIN_POS = 5
X_MAX_POS = 240
Y_MIN_POS = 5
Y_MAX_POS = 240
For 'Fox' I changed it to:
X_MIN_POS = 2
X_MAX_POS = 237
Y_MIN_POS = 7
Y_MAX_POS = 242
I also set the bed size to 235x235 for both printers. I reprinted the test file on each printer and now it is perfectly and equally aligned for each. The question still remains how this could be so far off the center and off identical printers.
What offsets have you set for each printer? Look at the response of a M503 in a console (in OctoPrint e.g.) to see what is listed behind M206.
The only 'offset' that is reported after running M503 is in G-code M851 (not M206). Does that make sense? And it's for Fox M851 X-41.50 Y-7.00 Z-1.13 ; (mm) and for Owl M851 X-41.50 Y-7.00 Z-1.06 ; (mm), so except for the Z-offset no difference.
Are the 2 printers exactly the same, it sounds like the bed or the endstops are mounted differently.
I guess there is too little space in the frame for the bed to be mounted so differently. But I have to do some additional measurements to try to spot differences. It looks not very different to me, but I'll measure it when I get to it.
It it a very strange thing happening, it puzzles me. Hope you have some additional information.
Me too, and I also want to understand why so I will post more info when I have time to measure more things.
I've added endstop measurement photos in the question and they are basically identical for the X-axis and Y-axis of each printer, so is the bed location. So, still in unknown.
I never like the way the bed is sized according to e.g. that firmware configuration and others use. Basically, the corner of the bed should be (0,0), not (5,5) for Owl. We used to express the minimum positions with negative values to indicate there is space between the endstop and the origin. If you do this, the bed itself is always 0 to 235 and not 5 to 240. Now that you added measurements, you still need to look into the actual position of the build surface mounting relative to the endstops.
That won't be too hard for the X-axis as it is static to the build surface but the Y-axis is a moving bed, how would I measure that relative to the endstops? With the bed at the max. other end?
Perhaps the hot-end or end stops of one of the printers are located in a slightly different location. That's why there is a calibration guide to be able to correct that.
Thanks, I will try to do additional measurements later to try and find out the difference and report here if I found it.
I've added endstop measurement photos in the question and they are basically identical for the X-axis and Y-axis of each printer, so is the bed location.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.196276
| 2023-12-03T16:50:46 |
21737
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5909",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21737"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to wire a DIY filament runout sensor to a Creality v4.2.2 board?
I'm building this simple DIY filament runout sensor for Ender 3 V2 based on this model from Thingiverse.com. I am not sure about the wiring, it seems trivial, I probably need to use 'normally closed' (NC). Below is the result so far.
I found this schematic from a YouTube video which uses a different sensor:
Based on the switch I used and the schematics shown, I guess I need to connect only two wires as follows:
Switch NC to board Red 5V (most left pin of the connector in the schematic image)
Switch C to board White Signal (most right pin of the connector in the schematic image)
No connection to the second, black Grounding pin, as shown on the schematic image
No connection to the NO pin on the switch
Is that wiring correct?
Lastly, I wonder how the connector is called that is used on the Creality v4.2.2 board, and if I need to use a transistor?
That’s a cool print for your filament runout sensor. I’m planning on doing this same mod to my Ender 3 V2 in the next week or two as well.
I’ve done a decent amount of research on how to implement this so hopefully I can answer some of your questions.
Wiring
I found this schematic of the V4.2.2 motherboard online.
Here is the pdf download link to the Ender 3 V2 v4.2.2 schematic (clicking on the link immediately downloads the pdf).
It looks like for our motherboard (if you also have the V4.2.2), the pinout is:
Left pin: Sensor Signal (‘S’)
Middle pin: Ground (’G’)
Right pin: Vcc (‘V’)
Based on the schematic, the Sensor Signal pin is pulled HIGH. This means to trigger the sensor, you want to connect the Sensor Signal pin to Ground.
The wiring for the switch is:
'C' pin on switch -> Sensor signal pin on motherboard
'NC' pin on switch -> Ground pin on motherboard
The 'NO' pin on the switch is left unconnected.
When the filament runs out, the switch opens and the ‘NC’ pin is connected to the ‘C’ pin. This pulls the Sensor Signal pin on the motherboard to LOW, which is what triggers the printer to pause.
Here is a diagram of how the switch should be wired to the motherboard.
Firmware
You’ll also need to update the firmware on the motherboard. This isn’t too hard if you’ve never done it before.
I’d recommend installing the JyersUI firmware as detailed in the video:
Just follow along with the guide to install it. The Jyers firmware also has some really nice UI improvements. Check the video description for links to the firmware.
If you don’t want to go that route, or you if have the wrong kind of motherboard chip (see video), you can also download the official creality firmware to enable the filament runout sensor.
The link to the firmware list is here: Official Ender 3 V2 firmwares
I’m pretty sure the one you’ll want is:
Marlin-2.0.1-HW-4.2.2-mainboard-V1.1.2-Compatible with BLTouch and filament detection
I didn’t use the official firmware, and there aren’t any release notes (of course), so I’m only 90% sure that's the right one .
At any rate, it might be wise to check your current firmware and make sure you download that too. That way you can revert your printer to its original firmware, just in case something goes wrong.
JWST connectors
Finally, the connectors on this board are the very common JST connectors.
Here is a link to a relatively inexpensive JST connector Kit and crimping tool:
Connector kit w/ crimp tool
It’s pretty easy to crimp and install the connectors yourself. Here is a quick video on how to do it:
If you’re good at soldering you could also just hard solder the switch to the board if you don’t want to buy the connectors and crimper. Although I’d recommend against it.
Hopefully that helps. Good luck :)
P.S. I'll post how mine turns out once I'm finished.
Thank you for the very detailed answer .
We use the same board. I recommend you checkout mriscoc firmware instead of Jyers. You won't regret it. It's a huge step forward and we'll maintained, Jyers unfortunately isn't maintained for quite a while now. I move two printers from Jyers to mriscoc.
The Amazon URL seems to link to a non-JST connector tool. The connector in used here seems to be the JST-PH-3A.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.196614
| 2023-11-24T12:41:17 |
21672
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5910",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21672"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How does pressure advance predict pressure without having actual pressure data?
I'm exploring the concept of Pressure Advance and its ability to predict and adjust pressure changes in the extruder. The image below shows the effects of Pressure Advance:
Source: Teaching Tech via YouTube
Since there are no pressure measurements performed, how does Pressure Advance algorithmically anticipate these pressure variations without real-time pressure data? Which underlying principles are used to estimate the pressure in advance?
Short answer: by calibration.
Expanding on this short answer: pressure advance (or also called "linear advance") can be used to compensate for the elasticity of the filament and the extruder system. There are at least three sources of elasticity, the filament in a Bowden tube, the compression of the filament itself and the conversion of stepper rotation into torque itself lagging behind.
To counter affect an unwanted effect, you need a measure to change the unwanted effect so that after tuning the unwanted effect is gone.
The build-up of pressure in the nozzle (as a result of the springiness of the complete extrusion system causes the end of a line to over-extrude when movement slows or stops. Consequently, a lack of pressure at the beginning (first need to compress the filament) will result in a lack of filament at the nozzle.
In order to compensate, we use test prints, not sensors, in which the printer owner/tuner selects the best extruded line based on various settings of the pressure advance ratio. This works well, the extrusion system doesn't generally change over time unless you change the extruder, Bowden tube lengths, etcetera. There is no need for a sensor if you can determine how to counter the effect
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.196797
| 2023-12-02T13:56:38 |
21726
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Bob Ortiz",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5911",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21726"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is the BFPTouch interchangable with the BLTouch for mriscoc firmware without custom changes to Marlin?
I have two Creality Ender 3 V2 printers with a version 4.2.2 board. One printer has the official CRTouch, and one is nearly original without a probe. I found a similar product, a DIY project called BFPTouch, and I have almost all the parts needed to make it.
Model and photo source: Thingiverse.com
I use the Marlin-based mriscoc firmware on both printers. Version Ender3V2-422-MM-MPC-20231202.bin, and on my printer with the CRTouch, I use the Ender3V2-422-BLTUBL-MPC-20231202.bin version.
Is the BFPTouch interchangeable with the CRTouch, like the BLTouch and CRTouch are? Is the wiring to the board the same, and would it suffice to use the BLTUBL firmware version of mriscoc that I've mentioned without further altering Marlin?
No, it is not interchangeable without changing the configuration of the firmware. These sensors do not require you to set the BLTOUCH directive, so this must be in your configuration:
//#define BLTOUCH
For the CR Touch this directive is required.
#define BLTOUCH
I am building the Tiny Touch an even smaller version of the BFPTouch, in fact it is a derivative! In the last link you find instructions to configure the probe, which redirects to the setup of the BFPTOUCH.
Looks indeed even better. Is the Tiny Touch interchangeable with BLTouch? I'm asking because I rather stick with the standard BTLUBL releases of the mriscoc firmware than to make custom configs if not needed.
No, the Tiny Touch is also not interchangeable with the BLTouch.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.196956
| 2023-12-25T21:15:09 |
22850
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Mark",
"Mołot",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"RobM",
"Trish",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/20803",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/30913",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/48",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/8884"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5912",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/22850"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is it possible to 3D print without PFAS/PTFE?
Polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) is one of the best-known and widely applied PFAS commonly described as persistent organic pollutants or "forever chemicals".
If I want to avoid PFAS due to environmental concerns, is there an alternative to:
PTFE Bowden tube used?
PTFE coated nozzles?
PTFE spray used for rod maintenance?
None of those items are needed.
If you have a bowden extruder, upgrade to a direct drive.
Even on direct drive systems, PTFE tube is commonly used as a "reverse bowden" or "feed tube" to deliver the filament from a drybox or spool mounting point to the toolhead. Other tube materials may be used, but may contribute too much friction; you'll have to experiment if you want to go that path. You can usually forgo having one at all if youu mound the spool with a good direct path, or setup a system of filament guides/pulleys.
If you have a PTFE-lined hotend, replace it with an all-metal one.
Direct drive extruders may have a small piece of PTFE between the extruder and hotend, even when the hotend is all-metal. This part of the filament path being low-friction is not critical, and it can be replaced with a 2mm ID metal or even printed plastic tube without seriously compromising extrusion capability.
Nozzles should never be PTFE-coated. Don't buy ones that are. The best nozzles are 100% tungsten carbide (never wears out, never wears into air or into your printed parts), but pretty much no nozzle should contain any PTFE unless explicitly marketed as such (eew).
As a lubricant, there are lots of choices other than PTFE sprays, most of which are probably better. PTFE is highly recommended against for linear rails, as it's reported to lead to sliding by the balls instead of rolling. For smooth rods it might be a good choice, but I would expect there are grease, graphite, or other options that work just as well. I've never used a printer with smooth rods so I can't recommend anything in particular from experience.
I disagree with tungsten carbide being the best. Ruby or diamond has their benefits over it. Drawbacks, too. Claiming one is universally the best is always dubious and prone to aging out ugly. I agree with "don't buy coated ones", just not that one alternative is always the best.
Copper's got four times the thermal conductivity of tungsten carbide, giving better temperature control.
The PTFE in a direct drive is actually rather essential right after the extruder motor, especially if you print flexible material.
@Trish: I have no PTFE in mine. The filament path is tightly constrained as part of the extruder body and goes directly from that to the metal heatbreak tube. And it prints flexibles fine
@R..GitHubSTOPHELPINGICE right, I forgot the newer generation of prusa extruders managed to have none, but many older designs required it for about half an inch
It depends on your printer really. If you have a direct drive printer with all metal hotend, then you can feed filament directly into the carriage without any guiding tubes.
For example, the Prusa i3 models (MK3, MK3.9, MK4) don't require any tubes, as shown in Prusa's own promotional photos:
Edit: It seems this is misleading marketing, as there is apparently ~5cm of PTFE internal to the carriage.
As for replacing a Bowden tube with something other than PTFE... I don't know any of concrete examples of a proven solution, but really any tube in which you can easily slide your filaments (i.e. low friction) will do.
If you are printing PLA and PETG I would expect you can get away with using Polyurethane ("TPU"), but might need to lower your speeds to overcome the friction. I've not tried any, but I can see that if you are in the US (I'm not) you can get a variety of soft (i.e. flexible) tubing from McMaster-Carr
The inner diameter may differ slightly from the usual PTFE tubes the printers come with, in which case you may need to tune retractions (larger inner diameter -> more retraction needed).
If you have an all metal hotend, then the Bowden tube itself won't be subject to high temperatures, so the important characteristics will be its inner diameter, whether it can flex the way you need for your particular printer, and if filament can be pushed through it with relatively little resistance.
If you are feeling adventurous, you could even try printing your own tube from TPU and see if the idea can work at all. I'd use some of the stiffer filament, perhaps with a shore hardness of 98A which when printed solid is about as tough as shopping trolly wheels. If you print it thin it bends quite easily.
Prusa you are showing in the picture has about 5cm PTFE inside, so it is a bad and misleading example.
Oh? That's news to me. TIL.
https://www.prusa3d.com/product/hotend-ptfe-tube-mk2-5s-mk3s-mmu2s/
It's not misleading marketing, as they never claim there is not PTFE in it.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.197353
| 2024-01-01T14:48:01 |
22883
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5913",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/22883"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Does running a PID Autotune with an increased cycle count result in more accurate PID values?
I'm using the mriscoc firmware for Creality Ender 3 V2. The firmware has the option to run more PID Autotune cycles. The default is 5 cycles. Does running a PID Autotune with an increased cycle count result in more accurate PID values? For example running 50 cycles instead of the default 5?
In short, yes, More PID cycles will generally yield 'better' results.
However, the PID values are being averaged over these multiple runs, and it will very quickly pass the point of diminishing returns after 5 cycles, Hence why it is the default.
By the time you reach the hypothetical 50 cycles, you have likely far exceeded the margin of error present as a result of tolerances in your setup, and are only averaging noise.
An interesting question that may arise from your answer is why better results are generated by doing more than one cycle.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.197448
| 2023-12-30T14:35:30 |
22875
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5914",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/22875"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Does a Creality Ender 3 V2 running mriscoc firmware require a micro SD card at all?
To my understanding, all settings including those that resulted from the Nozzle Auto MPC tuning and Bed PID tuning and the created UBL mesh are all stored I the EEPROM by the mriscoc Marlin firmware on a Creality Ender 3 V2.
I'm asking because I recently encountered a bad (or very slow) micro SD card, where the printer took long to boot to the start screen and start beep (30 sec), consistently with a bad SD, and without a SD it booted almost instantly.
So, does a Creality Ender 3 V2 running mriscoc firmware require a micro SD card at all, for other things as I previously mentioned?
I'm printing only over USB using OctoPrint on a Raspberry Pi (OctoPi).
If you only print from Octoprint, the SD card is not used.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.197539
| 2023-12-18T20:41:08 |
22827
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"SF.",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/2206",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5915",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/22827"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How could dual end-stop switches on each axis improve the functionality and precision of 3D printers like the Creality Ender 3 V2?
Looking at a bare Creality Ender 3 V2, I realised that there are three end-stop switches, one for each axis, X, Y, and Z. But this only helps to determine the start (0) position of each axis. Wouldn't doubling the end stops to six instead, two for each axis, one on each side, help to determine not only the start but also the end position? (Besides, to my understanding, the switches are called 'end stops' but are used as 'start stops' in this case.)
If each axis has an 'end stop' at the start and at the end, it can dynamically determine how many steps can be taken. Isn't this more elegant and adaptable than using fixed sizes? Also, since end-stop switches are simple and cheap, why don't all printers use them? I think it could also help in precision calibration and still stay operational when hardware tweaks are made without firmware changes.
Moverover, wouldn't it prevent wrongly configured firmware (by means of a 'hard stop' where stepper motor are trying to move something moving beyond the physical possible axis potentially resulting in catastrophic damage?
First the questions in the body are addressed:
I realised that there are three end-stop switches, one for each axis, X, Y, and Z. But this only helps to determine the start (0) position of each axis.
No not necessarily, you could mount an endstop to the other end of the axis to determine the maximum value for that axis without the need for a start endstop, Marlin is already equipped with functionality for this:
// Direction of endstops when homing; 1=MAX, -1=MIN
// :[-1,1]
#define X_HOME_DIR -1
#define Y_HOME_DIR -1
#define Z_HOME_DIR -1
E.g. Ultimaker printers have their Z-endstop at the bottom, so the maximum value of the Z axis.
Wouldn't doubling the end stops to six instead, two for each axis, one on each side, help to determine not only the start but also the end position?
No, not necessarily, the end is fixed by the start position and the defined axis length (e.g. bed size of Z movement). It might be interesting to use a second endstop in case something goes wrong. E.g. layer shift as a result of the nozzle hitting something redefines the origin and could result in thinking the origin is somewhere on the build plate, adding the maximum bed sizes, the printhead could run into the end and destroy your printer, a second endstop, when triggered will stop the printer. I have used such an endstop on one of my printers, but I have never ran into problems with layer shifting and as such the endstop was never hit; I removed this endstop recently.
Besides, to my understanding, the switches are called 'end stops' but are used as 'start stops' in this case
The start is also an end of the axis, there are two ends on an axis.
If each axis has an 'end stop' at the start and at the end, it can dynamically determine how many steps can be taken.
No, steps are determined by your hardware (common hardware configuration for stepper motors is e.g. 200 steps per revolution or 400 or even more/less steps per revolution) together with the stepper driver which allows for substeps of the afore mentioned values.
Moverover, wouldn't it prevent wrongly configured firmware (by means of a 'hard stop' where stepper motor are trying to move something moving beyond the physical possible axis potentially resulting in catastrophic damage?
Yes it would, I already described that in case of layer shifting. But if you are bold enough to compile your own software you should known what you are doing and configure it correctly. Also test the printer before you use it and keep the powerswitch nearby.
Now to answer the main question,
How could dual end-stop switches on each axis improve the functionality and precision of 3D printers like the Creality Ender 3 V2?
The precision will not be improved by adding another endstop to the other side of the axis. However, the functionality can be improved by adding another endstop but this is mainly protecting the printer in case something went wrong, as in the printhead has changed its position relative to the origin, e.g. in case of layer shifting. Knowing that the Creality Ender 3 are printers on the cheap end with their shortcomings (see all the questions) this may prevent damaging the printer, but, generally the belt skips when the head is obstructed in X-Y range. For the Z direction this may be different as there are lead screws involved which can procude more force (but I have yet to see a layer shift in Z direction...).
The rule of thumb when engineering things is add sensors for things that can change unexpectedly. If the changes can only occur through the user dismantling and rebuilding the device, sensors that detect that sort of changes are usually a waste of money.
Your print head position can change unexpectedly. Stepper skipping steps, something seizing up, someone moving the bed or print head while the printer is idle. Your bed and gantry dimensions won't change without you replacing the bed and the gantry, and possibly the frame. Never mind the printer won't know how far apart the two switches are, this still needs to be a config entry and changed with rebuilding the bed. There is virtually no precision benefit to having them on two ends. They are used in more heavyweight machinery like big CNC routers, to protect the machine from damaging itself by going past the unprotected end due to a software glitch. In 3D printers if that happens your print is already dead, and your printer will warble loudly but nothing will break (any worse than it already is).
On the other hand, dual switches on one end for dual drive devices are a pretty good idea. Say, the printer with two Z-axis motors and two Z screws - if the motors somehow get out of sync, the gantry will tilt, the nozzle will dig into the bed on one side, fly over the bed on the other, generally problems abound. Fixing this manually is quite a chore. Meanwhile an end switch for each side of the gantry, distance between their activation corresponding to how much out of level it is, can allow the printer to re-level its gantry all on its own. Similar problems occur for CoreXY bed motors, making the bed flat.
In short, start/stop switch won't improve distance precision, but a pair of start switches for one axis can improve the angle precision - how perpendicular the axis are.
Thank you. How about solely for the purposes of testing the reliability of steppers, detecting skipped steps? By measuring the (micro)steps a few times from start to end?
@BobOrtiz You'll be much better off with an optic encoder, providing the axis angle. Or a dedicated rig, not a part of the printer.
Some crazy good (and expensive) CNC machines use DC motors and encoders instead of steppers, but that's definitely overkill for 3D printers.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.198054
| 2024-01-27T22:26:36 |
23004
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Bob Ortiz",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5916",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/23004"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Can a Oldham coupler and a Anti-Recoil Nut be used at the same time?
I'm trying to understand both Oldham couplers and a Anti-Recoil Nuts.
Oldham Coupler: Its function is to connect two shafts and transfer rotation from one to the other while compensating for misalignment.
Anti-Recoil Nut: Its purpose is to eliminate backlash in the lead screw, ensuring precise linear motion.
In case of the Creality Ender 3 V2 both are a replacement for the original nut:
Why is there no part that utilises both functions in order to have the benefits of both? Better alignment to reduce Z-Wobble using the Oldham Coupler, and less backlash and better motion precision using the Anti Recoil Nut.
To my understanding they cannot be used both at the same time and I could not find a part that seems to combine those functions. Am I missing something? Does one make the other obsolete?
I don't see why you couldn't use them together. They are both dealing with eliminating a different effect.
The Oldham deals with the movement in the X-Y plane, the backlash nut with the Z-axis.
The backlash effect is not something to worry about, the Z-axis generally moves just in one direction and the gantry has reasonable mass.
I think I misunderstand something because don't doesn't each of those options require placement, on both sides, in the same place? I would have to make a custom part that combined both? Such as https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fi-just-installed-some-pom-leadscrew-nuts-and-what-a-v0-wc9uyqipn2e81.jpg%3Fwidth%3D765%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D94c2105b2b6c3052ba8838e23aa4c38e07d77ecd&rdt=58594 and https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/71kOjARIO9L.AC_UF350,350_QL80.jpg
No, just on one side, you should check if you have enough space on the lower side as the larger part of the nut is screwed into the bottom parts of the Oldham coupler, and the smaller nut of the anti backlash nut below that. Forget the anti backlash nut and get POM nuts, these are tighter, and have virtually no backlash. I use the POM nuts myself.
Thanks for the suggestion. I will look into POM nuts too. I also need to do more reading on Oldham couplers and how and where to install it, because I feel like I still don't understand it completely. I think they inherently also reduce backlash to my understanding. Some Oldham couplers are even sold as 'anti-backlash'. Making a anti-backlash nut obsolete entirely.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.198240
| 2024-01-22T19:47:24 |
22979
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"Trish",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/8884"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5917",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/22979"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to set or retain original object size in photogrammetry scans with apps such as Kiri Engine?
I noticed when scanning objects using photogrammetry or the AI-based Neural Radiance Field (NeRF) in apps such as Kiri Engine that the original size is not retained in the object.
How can I actually retain the original size, or set the proper sizes when or after scanning objects like that? So that, when 3D printed it is the same size as the original?
Reference objects
When scanning something, including a simple reference geometry, such as a cube, is best. This can then be used to scale the final model to the correct size and as a reference for if the item has the correct angles. Besides cubes, coins (esp. matte ones) make handy markers and scale references.
If your scan contains color values, a simple photo scale angle could suffice. That item would be taken directly from photography. There it is sometimes required to contain size information and a pointer to the angle the photo was made at. This is made by using a square or angle with scale markings and distortions of the item can be solved later till the angle appears properly and to the right scale.
Do you know if there is a way to do this automatically? Like select the object and tell the size. I can think of 3D scanning something first. Then make a photo of the object with a reference, use overlay to position but it likely won't be too accurate. What if you want milimeter precision? It's hard to do manually with a reference object.
@BobOrtiz I don'T think Kiri has it, but some scan engines with turntable from about 2020 used a reference item they scanned first before scanning an actual item on the turntable, using the known reference as scale
I have a RevoPoint Inspire with a turntable and 'magic pad' too, I suppose they use those markers as reference too. But so far I absolutely hate using it.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.198515
| 2023-11-28T11:01:08 |
21691
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5918",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21691"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Why is 'planar-2.5D-slicing' most commonly used instead of 'non-planar-3D-slicing'?
Why do most slicers slice, and printers print in 2.5D, a planar method, rather than an actual 3D non-planar method? Doesn't this mainly come down to slicer software limitations rather than hardware limitations?
The results, in many cases, seem so much better. As shown below:
Degrees of freedom
2D has 3 degrees of freedom: X, Y, and a single rotation. As a result, you can describe any object in 2D by defining its center position and the rotation its surface start point is at and then referencing its shape.
3D has 6 degrees of freedom: X, Y, and Z position, and the rotation around each of the axes. Describing a 3D object is much more complicated.
Printers usually work with fully constrained rotations after the slicing. Traditional machining has limited Z accessibility without a 4th axis or using a 5-axis arm, and is limited in depth by the length of tooling.
Slicing is a number of mathematical 2D processes
When slicing, the slicer creates slices of a layer thickness. These then are interpreted by projecting to the center the smallest outline that would fit everywhere in the body and raising that outline to the center of the slice.
The stack of outlines is pretty much the outer surface reduced to a number of 2D objects. As placing the object already fixed its rotation, this leaves each outline to be solved for 2 variables for the toolpath: X and Y.
Just stacking all these results in a 3D object in the end.
2.5D is a machining term
Traditional machining creates 3D objects. However, machining with a 2.5D setup does not create undercuts, as it only uses cylindrical tooling in most cases. This machining works by projecting the top item onto a plane and having at most one Z coordinate. That means one can easily create a "height map" of the item's surface.
The surfaces in nonplanar mapping are similar: the top examples have a lot of traditional 2D solved printing and a single top layer that follows a 2.5D machine path - which is, remind you, a simplified 3D coordinate system.
By only solving the last layer for X, Y, and Z path coordinates and banning undercuts, the solving time can be massively reduced, leading to faster slicing and allowing more time spent on refining the print paths. 2.5 D path solution algorithms also are much better explored from traditional machining, while true 3D machining requires the machining tool to move with all degrees of freedom.
Layered 2.5 D
Example (a) below breaks from traditional 2.5 D but can be reduced back to 2.5 D. Cutting the item in non-planar layers that follow the bottom geometry, that geometry can be solved as a 2.5 D machine path, and then the next layer is solved with an offset above that. However, cutting an item non-planarly can become very complicated, especially with more complex geometry than a simple arch.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.198770
| 2024-02-03T13:34:35 |
23041
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Chris",
"Trish",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/41364",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/8884"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5919",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/23041"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to fill a void within a body?
Starting from this sketch:
I've revolved and extruded it to result in the body shown:
This is destined to be printed, so I need to fill in the cavity of the stick-y-out-y bit. I can use Surface->Patch to make it look correct from the outside, but there's still a void within:
I've searched using phrases such as "fusion join surface to body" "fusion fill void within body" and have only found results talking about making a body exclusively from surfaces. One promising sounding option was "boundary fill", but it seems to have no effect in this case.
What is the correct tool / technique to use here?
How is this related to 3D printing? For 3D design and modeling questions this is mandatory.
Just saying you will be printing it will be enough!
Simplify the order of operations
Sometimes, it is way easier to do the order of operations in a different order:
First, create the thickness of the body. Only then then subtract the rotation profile and last sweep the the outer profile subtractively
I'm still working on my "when to think additively and when to think subtractively" strategy, and this is clearly a case of me taking the wrong route. I did manage to resolve it with my model by turning it into surfaces, deleting some of the inner ones and then stitching it back together, but your strategy would have been much simpler.
I don't know if there is a tool that can do that (would be very helpful), but you could use boolean operators to do the same!
A simplified version of your product looks like:
When you create an box , or part of a box of the same height in the part you need to fill the void it will kook like (2 separate bodies in one view):
Now use a boolean operator "Split Boby":
You can subtract your shape from the box:
to get multiple parts (3 parts in this case):
Now use a boolean operator to glue the parts together (option combine):
This will give you your filled void:
That's the unelegant solution and can fail for very complex bodies
Maybe, but it doesn't require the OP to start over again!
you mean modify all bodies before? ;)
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.198975
| 2023-12-06T20:10:10 |
21766
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Fritz",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/13272",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5920",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21766"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How can microswitch-based automatic bed leveling probes be possibly reliable and accurate?
I just discovered automatic bed leveling (ABL) probes that only use a microswitch.
For example, the FreeABL as shown below:
Source: Thingiverse.com
Or, the magnet mounted KlackEnder as shown below:
Source: Thingiverse.com
Both use the simple concept of probing the bed using a microswitch instead of an optical or retractable touching probe, such as the popular BLTouch. However, since no measurement other than touch can be made, how reliable and accurate are such methods? Did someone ever run a Probe Repeatability Test (M48) for such microswitch based automatic bed leveling probes, or have experience regarding its reliability?
For reference, a 10-probe M48-test using my CRTouch results in a deviation of 0.000750.
My printer used these for Z homing before I added a BLTouch. Anecdotally, the first layer thickness reproducibility was not great, although I never did any numerical tests. Ironically, the little lever arm actually increases the inaccuracy. It magnifies the motion of the actual clicky button, so it magnifies its trigger point tolerance as well. Again, no data, so just a comment and no answer, sorry.
I have come across this on the internet, just search and you will find. The microswitches are indee not very reproducible.
@Fritz: You're supposed to remove the metal lever arm when using them, for exactly the reason you mentioned.
@R..GitHubSTOPHELPINGICE Yeah, that's what I thought, but then (A) why are they there in the first place and (B) why are there so many printers out there with the lever arm in place? Granted, my printer was a cheap chinse i3 clone... (also, it's in the photo in the question above :D)
@Fritz: For homing an axis where you don't care about perfect repeatability, the lever arm doesn't hurt anything and I suspect it saves wear on the actual microswitch button.
@R..GitHubSTOPHELPINGICE Well, you are right, if you have automatic bed leveling that compensates for homing inconsistencies. But I've seen printers without ABL that use such a lever microswitch for homing, and the problems that causes, namely inconsistent first layers. And in the photo above, the switch with lever is used for automatic bed leveling, which is an even larger concern.
@Fritz: I was talking about X/Y homing where you don't care about reproducibility unless you're trying to resume a failed print. For Z, having the lever there is indeed dumb unless you're re-probing anyway (then why not just use probe-as-Z-endstop?) and just want to get the Z homing 'close' (maybe to use with a quickdraw that needs Z close to pick up a probe from a dock?)
I use them both for my Ender 3 home-against-bed and for my delta-calibration probe, and they work reasonably well. Of course, as noted in a comment by Fritz, you should remove the metal lever arm, as that amplifies any error, as well as introducing its own non-reproducibility through arm stiffness that may vary with temperature.
I forget the actual spread of values I get probing my delta, but my Klipper probe configuration has samples_tolerance set to 0.015 mm, meaning that, when it probes each point 5 times, it will start over if it gets measurements that differ by more than that amount, and normally it does not restart. However, with it previously set lower (probably 0.005 mm but I don't remember for sure), I did on occasion hit instances of it repeatedly failing. So, in my usage, it was repeatable with an error margin of something greater than 5 microns but less than 15. I don't think that's too bad.
The particular switch/PCB I use was a cheap generic "Ender 3 endstop switch replacement" off Amazon.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.199259
| 2023-12-25T15:57:41 |
22848
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"Mołot",
"WhisperingShiba",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/20803",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/34050",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5921",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/22848"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What is a good approach to develop a 'nozzle wear sensor'?
I'm thinking about implementing some kind of nozzle wear sensor. My question is simple: Do such sensors or automatic approaches already exist? Although I expect not and I know nozzles are cheap, it's just a fun educational challenge, not financially viable but that's not the purpose anyway.
I thought about using a simple camera with a proper lens and computer vision to do either one or more of the following things:
Have the extruder retract, perhaps brush the nozzle, then have a zoomed camera and light pointing up from under the nozzle, in an attempt (with some reference image next to it) to determine nozzle diameter size.
Have a camera from the side of a nozzle, brushing it clean, extruding a few cm of filament, and analyzing how straight the filament flows down when extruded
Take two precision measurements from under the nozzle somehow, one of the heat block and one of the nozzle-end, and determine the difference, although I have no way to account for other variables such as the nozzle not being screwed in properly, maybe non-standardized nozzle-height et cetera.
Does something like this or another approach to achieve the same already exist? If not, is this a proper approach or are there other things to consider?
Are you talking about internal nozzle diameter wear because you are using abrasive filaments? I would not use optical. If you have some worn nozzles and some new nozzles, I would see if your multi-meter can detect the difference in resistance between a node one one side of the nozzle, and a node on the other side of the nozzle. You might need to find a very sensitive ohm meter, but optical gets expensive pretty quick
If it would cost over $100 there is hardly any point to do it – get a Diamondback polycrystalline diamond nozzle and there's literally nothing that can wear it down, so no sensor required.
@Mołot that an interesting thought, although it is an alternative solution to the problem. It's worth being mentioned in this context. Thank you.
It makes a huge difference if you want to measure the internal nozzle diameter or the "typical" wear when using an abrasive filament. CNCKitchen has a nice article,How Much Abrasive Filaments Damage Your Nozzle!, about the typical wear.
TLDR is that most of the wear comes from moving your nozzle through parts of the last layer during travel moves. This way, your nozzle tip gets shorter.
If that's what you want to measure, you might use your bed-leveling sensor for that. If your leveling sensor is precise enough, you could measure the distance to the bed with your BLTouch or other sensor. When your nozzle is new, you can take a second measurement by "pressing" the nozzle into the bed and detecting when motor current spikes, or by lowering it to a conductive edge of your print bed. This way, you can save the distance of your bed leveling sensor in relation to your nozzle tip. If your nozzle wears out, it should be shorter, and you should see that you can move your hotend lower before closing an electrical circuit or before your stepper driver uses an increased current (because it pushes into the bed).
I need to mention that this is just an idea and I have never seen a solution like this. Doing this might pose problems I didn't think of.
As you mentioned in possibility 3, a loose hotend screw can make the measurement of the distance difficult. Maybe you can remove that error by probing against a metal that has the inverted shape of a nozzle (just an inverted cone) which shouldn't change with nozzle wear, and then probe against a flat surface afterward and examine the difference. For this to work, you would of course have to clean the nozzle before any measurement.
Welcome to this site and thank you. Very nice answer. The 'second measurement' you've described is effectively the same as, or can be used for, automatic z-offset determination, right? Where in effect, the z-offset is automatically adjusted as the nozzle becomes shorter due to wearing?
I'm glad you mentioned the wear modes, I would have never thought about that.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.199596
| 2024-01-21T21:24:04 |
22973
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Bob Ortiz",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"Trish",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/8884"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5922",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/22973"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Are there any Core Heating Technology (CHT) nozzles available for a stock Ender 3 V2 hotend?
I already switched my standard 0.4 mm nozzle to a standard 0.6 mm nozzle with a huge printing time reduction without losing much detail. I also would like to try using Core Heating Technology (CHT) 0.6 mm nozzle instead, to be able to increase printing speeds and reduce printing time even more.
CNC Kitchen tested the performance with the following results:
I found some E3DV6 CHT nozzles, do they fit on a stock Ender 3 V2 hotend or do I need a specific E3D hotend for that? Or since I don't want to upgrade my hotend, are there MK8 CHT nozzles, or are the sizes the same?
Does this answer your question? What is the functional difference between an e3D-Style nozzle, Makerbot MK8 and M6 Chinesium Nozzles?
@Trish Not really but it's certainly helpful. Thanks for sharing.
The answer from there is "You can always use an e3D v3 CHT to replace a Makerbot Mk6-8 or Creality Mk8,, it will fit in the stock ender3, just have longer threads. Adjust bed as needed."
Doesn't a longer thread affect the compatibility with BLtouch, since the height changes too and the probe length? That question you refered to is more about the 'functional differences of nozzle models' while this one is more about availability and compatibility, specifically for CHT. I think it's somewhat similar but asked and answered from a different perspective and perhaps with a different goal in mind.
The BL Touch can be readjusted to match the needed height, and indeed should be done whenever you swap nozzles.
The longer thread doesn't impose on the BLTouch, the overall length will. I updated my answer.
To answer the main question, yes there are, the typical Chinese market places are flooded with these nozzles nowadays, these are less well manufactured than the original BondTech CHT MK8 (coated) nozzles you can find in decent 3D printer shops.
Simply search for "CHT MK8 nozzle" and you get a list to order from in various sizes, including the requested 0.6 mm.
Image of a typical cloned MK8 CHT nozzle:
Image of an original E3D v6 CHT nozzle:
Do note the quality differences, the original are superior machines apposed to the clones, look at the pattern of the inner 3 bore holes, the original is much closer together so that the filament flows directly into the 3 holes (almost 1 big hole in fact) whereas for the clones the 3 bore holes are apart causing the filament to hit a wall (center piece) and needs to be diverted to the outer 3 holes.
... E3DV6 CHT nozzles, do they fit on a stock Ender 3 V2 hotend or do I need a specific E3D hotend...
Looking at the dimensions below, you see that the threads are identical (both M6x1), but the overall length is 0.5 mm shorter for the E3D v6, so this should match. This reference tells us that the nozzles are interchangeable:
For the [Creality] MK8 nozzle, it [red. i.e. the E3D v6 nozzle] will be compatible with 3D printers that use [Creality] MK8 hotends. [Creality] MK8 nozzles are incompatible with the V6 ecosystem.
The E3D v6 will work on the MK8 because they are longer from the threads to the base of the hexagonal nut, therefore MK8 will not work in an E3D v6 hotend, they are too short. You cannot screw in the MK8 far enough into E3D v6 far enough, the base of the hexagonal nut will touch the heater block and leaves a space between the nozzle and the heat break. If these aren't sufficiently tightened together, the heat block may leak and the cavity is detrimental for retraction performance.
Information on the dimension of the different nozzles
Creality MK8 dimensions:
E3D v6 dimensions:
So it needs to be a specific MK8 version, not the ED3V6 version in order to fit a stock Ender 3 V2?
Yes and no. Do note that MK8 doesn't say much, there are also (older) nozzles known as MK8 that have a smaller hexagonal diameter. You can order the v6 nozzles to fit your hotend, the genuine CHT nozzles are pretty good. I've updated the answer for you. I hope you understand that you should consider to avoid asking multiple questions in one question. Where I thought that the question was more on availability, it seems more a question of can I use a different nozzle in my hotend? But, keep the questions coming!
CHT is patented. Import could be patent infringement
The difference is more than 0.5 mm. In addition to the thread being slightly longer (I think it's 1.0 not 0.5 mm, looking at those drawings), there's (looks like 1.5 mm) additional clearance between the end of the thread and the back of the nozzle head. This is why MK8 nozzles don't work on V6 hotends - the back of the nozzle head will bottom out against the block before the intended mating surface hits the heatbreak.
@R..GitHubSTOPHELPINGICE updating an old answer for that...
@Trish while the patent itself is a whole other subject: 'The US patent for CHT was seemingly rejected in the US, while E3D opposes the patent in Europe.' - all3dp.com/4/bondtech-cht-e3d-revo-heatcore-clash-on-cht-patent. Although I feel like the original maker should be supported for this, this part does contain a second part that needs to be inserted. Perhaps that's different in patent law too. I think at best it's patent pending currently.
@BobOrtiz Do note the quality differences, the original are superior aposed to the clones, look at the pattern of the inner 3 bore holes, the original is much closer together so that the filament flows directly into the 3 (almost 1 big) holes whereas for the clones the 3 bore holes are apart causing the filament to hit a wall (center piece) and needs to be diverted to the outer 3 holes. Buying original would be my advice, it is worth the expenses.
Creality style "MK8" hotends (including the Ender 3's) can use "MK8" or e3D V6 nozzles.
Bondtech sells genuine CHT in both Creality MK8 and e3D V6 forms. If you prefer matching what your machine has exactly, you can buy that, but it will only work on the Creality-style "MK8" hotends, not anything else. If you buy the e3D V6 version, it will work on your Ender's Creality MK8 hotend and any hotend that's compatible with e3D V6 nozzles.
I've always bought the e3D V6 version for my Ender and it's worked fine.
@Trish: OK I've edited to clarify. Does that help?
almost, missed a few E3Ds^^
@Trish: I left out E3D there because "V6" is often used generically in the industry as a nozzle standard by parties who don't want to deal with trademark issues for putting E3D's name in there, but if you'd rather put it in the answer I don't really care.
the rpoblem is, there's also other v6s out there, and while we know now that it is an e3d v6, it might become forgotten in a year and refer to... some other product
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.200102
| 2023-11-06T11:27:44 |
21600
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"Mołot",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/20803",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5923",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21600"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Can a print test be performed to determine nozzle and filament quality?
Given that, a printer is well-maintained and calibrated.
I'm searching for a particular nozzle accuracy and filament quality test:
First, is there a specific print test that can be performed to test the quality of the nozzle alone, based on the visual results? Can that be reflected in a score of some kind, a metric reflecting the nozzle quality?
Secondly, is there a specific print test to test the filament quality, not strength properties, solely based on the visual results? Can that be reflected in a filament quality score or metric?
Lastly, are there "known good" standards that results could be compared with?
What exactly do you mean by "quality"?
Perhaps nozzle (diameter) accuracy is a better term.
Mostly a Relative measure
Assuming you have a well-known, well-printing nozzle and filament combination, then you can print a benchmark print, change one factor and then test with altered settings.
One of the most ubiquitous prints for a benchmark is Benchy. Benchy isn't so much a calibration test, but has all aspects you need in a benchmark. Overhangs, rounded corners, sharp corners, small diameter parts and sharp corners followed by longer stretches: it's all in there! and with those one gets a decent idea of print quality for other parts.
Another typical benchmark test is a cube, which has the sharp corners and stretches.
Depending on which factors you switched, you get a resulting relative quality comparison between the two prints. But you won't get a measurable metric, unless you invent a score based on artifacts.
Filament factors
Among the factors that would show up based on bad filament. The three most noticeable I can think of are:
hissing, bubbling & gaps can indicate wet filament
stretches of random underextrusion and motor skipping can indicate uneven filament diameter
sudden stalling of the extruder and no extrusion indicates a bulge on the filament
Nozzle factors
Nozzle problems generally are systemic and would show up on the whole print.
clogs from bad machining result in systematic underextrusion or no extrusion at all
too large a nozzle shows in a larger print
too small a nozzle shows in bad wall-to-wall and inter-layer adhesion and extruder skipping
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.200284
| 2023-08-01T09:51:08 |
21257
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"ABeard89",
"RobM",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/30913",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/40520",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5924",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21257"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Why are printed holes skewed diagonally?
My printer started off as an Anet A6. I've switched it to an aluminum extrusion frame, installed a BLTouch, switched everything to 24 V, gave it an ARM controller, etc. Printing runs over Octoprint. Material is ASA at 255 °C with the bed at 95 °C.
After my most recent modification (switching to IGUS plastic bearings and the aforementioned aluminum frame) I'm experiencing a printing error. The vertical holes are skewed diagonally (picture provided). This seems to be almost not visible at 40 mm/s, substantial at 60 mm/s, and crazy at 80 mm/s (I don't print at this speed but just for testing).
Since it is diagonal, I can't think of a source of the problem. The larger geometries don't seem to be affected. Mostly 3 mm screw holes turn out bad.
Any suggestions on where to look for the source of the problem?
Tension of the belts is fine? (Not too loose). Also note that the IGUS bearings have a reasonable amount of play, more than the metal bearings. Please add a photo of the upgraded ANET A6 frame.
I'm having a similar issue. I started with an Anet A8, installed a BL Touch, installed IGUS bearings, and then moved everything over to a metal frame. Even before changing to a metal frame, I was getting circles skewed at a 45 degree angle. I was hoping the metal frame would fix the issue, but it hasn't.
I thought it was just misaligned y axis rods, so I tried skewing them in the opposite direction. Now my circles look circular, but squares are now printing skewed. Something seems off, and I'm not sure what. If you figure out the cause, it might fix mine too.
Could this be caused by powerful cooling essentially blowing the filament to one side? The amount of shift would depend on the viscosity of the filament (i.e. hotter would move more, as you found) and how much contact it has with the layer below...
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.200702
| 2023-10-11T22:26:31 |
21502
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5925",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21502"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Aquila X3 small firmware does not flash to board
I'm using the MRiscoCProUI firmware on my Aquila X3 printer, but when I enable more features in the firmware, I'm unable to flash the printer.
I already tried several options and independently of the ones chosen, when the firmware gets to around 230 kB, I'm unable to flash it.
The printer has a N32G455RE chip which has a 512 kB ROM, so I should be able to flash it, right?
Any ideas on what can be causing this?
EDIT: Apparently this is due to the bootloader not being able to handle firmware above 228KB.
Does this make any sense?
Is there any way that I can ensure the problem is really this?
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.200785
| 2023-07-25T12:03:43 |
21218
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Greenonline",
"Hacky",
"K Mmmm",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/10369",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/4708",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/4762"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5926",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21218"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How should I remove the resin from the resin tank?
We need to move our Formlabs Form 3 printer to a new room, and I would like to remove the resin from the resin tank. Is there a standard way to do this, and can I reuse the resin once I remove it?
when moving the printer to a new room I would just remove the tank and then carefully move the tank to the new room after you moved the printer.
If you really need to empty the tank: The tank usually has a small indent in one of the corners. Just dump the contents of the tank through a resin strainer (a paper coffee-filter-like cone) back into the container it came in. Do this in a well ventilated area with no direct sunlight entering the room and don't let it spill on your skin. (no big deal if you touch it, just don't let it happen too often)
Don't forget to clean the tank thoroughly with paper rags and alcohol afterwards. Everything that stays will be stuck after some time
Please wear gloves
When there is a slight chance of me touching the resin, I do wear gloves. When just dumping the contents of a vat into another vat, I ususally don't. I trust my digits near a soldering iron, circular saw, kitchen oven, as well as some resin.
It really depends on the resin. In some resins like ESD components can sediment down to the floor of the VAT. In that case the best option is really to empty
the tank and shake the bottle / container. Its one of the benefits of the Solidator 3D-Printer that the Solidator Resins do not sediment and you can keep the material in the tank for several keeps without issues.
Are you affiliated with the website that you linked to?
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.201048
| 2023-06-25T09:16:25 |
21099
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Greenonline",
"Wiktor Wołos",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/38905",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/4762"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5927",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21099"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is Marlin 2.0 actually needed for Automatic Bed Leveling using FreeABL?
I need Automatic Bed Leveling (ABL). I have seen this: FreeABL - the ultra cheap (free) ABL for Ender 3. However, after reading the description, I found out that I need to flash the firmware.
I had a lot of problems with this, so is it actually needed?
Are you trying to link to a particular comment in particular? I only ask, as your URL ends in "comments/", which is a little bit confusiing. If you wish to draw attention to a particular comment, then please [edit] and add the URL of the exact comment - you can get the comment's URL by right clicking on the date of the comment on that page. It would also be helpful to quote the comment in your question. However, if you are not referencing a comment in particular, but the description instead then maybe quote the relevant part of the description in your answer.
Just an accident sory
Ah OK, I thought it might be this comment by dipkid, as it is the only one that seems to be mentioning firmware: blah blah .... When I updated from marlin 1 to 2.0.x, ... blah blah
I was searching for answer in coments and forgot to go to the main page
Ok, cool, yes I see now, STEP 3 : FIRMWARE. Hmmm...
I don't think that this firmware is needed. cuz all the used commands exsist in older marlin.
Oh, i know why it's needed. It says that we need to change configuration.h and configuration_adv/h
Yeah, if you change either of those then you'll need a recompile and then upload the new code to the board. It isn't terribly difficult to do, just follow the steps carefully...
Can you sugest some tutorial maybe?
If your question has just boiled down to "How to update the firmware?" then this question probably will help: Updating Marlin Firmware - Step by Step Guide. If it does help you, then maybe/probably, your question is a duplicate of that question. If there is something, that the linked question does not help you with (i.e. something Ender-3 specific), then please [edit] your question to include details about what you need help with. Good luck! :-)
No, Marlin 2.x is not necessary you could use 1.1.9 as well, but, you do need to flash a newly configured firmware as this hardware change is not standardly supported by the current firmware on your printer.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.201263
| 2023-06-20T17:20:30 |
21076
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Bob Ortiz",
"Robert Spring",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/38841",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5928",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21076"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
During a print, why must I continually adjust the Z offset to a more neagative number to keep the nozzle from air printing?
The nozzle is not clogged. After an adjustment, I get two to three good printed layers then the nozzle begins to lift away from the print. If I do not adjust the Z offset more negatively, then the print begins to go airborne in very small increments while extruding filament. I must babysit the print to get it finished.
A 20 mm cube (XYZ calibration cube) turns out with Z measuring 4.3 mm and X and Y both measuring 20 mm. I have tried printing a model which I have printed many times without problems in the past but now it fails to print. I have downloaded the XYZ calibration stl from Thingiverse and it fails to print without going airborne.
I have an Ender3 V2 Neo w/ BLTouch. The default Z steps is 400 mm. For calibration, I set it to 403 mm. No improvement. Then I set the Z steps to 380, 420, and 1200 mm without any change in the failed print results. The V2 Neo is only 4 months old. It has the most recent firmware but I re-flashed it anyway. No change. Then I downloaded from GitHub the mriscoc/Ender3V2S1 firmware. This firmware is awesome but it did not solve my problem. I have replaced the Z stepper motor, no change. My next step is to upgrade the motherboard from v 4.2.2 to v 4.2.7.
What are your thoughts?
I don't understand that you print a cube of 20 mm in height, you adjust negatively to keep the layers being printed and end up with a 4.3 mm height object? This implies you should not adjust, you may have an extrusion problem; as in too less flow. You should first figure out it the Z-axis works correctly, create a G-code to home, level, move the nozzle to a Z height of 100 mm and measure the distance. This must be 100 mm; but if your story is correct you get a larger height. Because of baby-stepping the Z height your product becomes too short. Could you add some images?
I did a Z axis calibration, not by G Code. I moved the gantry up 150 mm via the Move Z axis control. The movement was 148.7 mm. (150/148.7) X400 = 403, this is what I first set the Z steps to. I have traditionally had to set the extrusion ratio to 90 to 93%. I did set the ratio to 100% with no improvement. The final 4.3 mm Z height is mostly likely the result of my over compensation of the Z offset.
So, your problem is extrusion!?
Thank you, I will try extrusion at 110% and see what happens.
You should check if extruding 100 mm of filament is indeed 100 mm, not randomly extrude more. You need to rule out possible causes.
Have you calibrated the extruder? See here for tips, I'll put the outcome of that in an answer to answer your question. We can then tidy up the comments.
What filament are you using? PLA?
It seems your Z-axis calibration is off. First, ensure your Z-axis steps/mm are set correctly in the firmware.
Second, ensure your BLTouch is functioning correctly. Incorrect bed leveling information might be the cause.
Third, inspect your 3D printer's mechanical parts. Loose screws or belts might cause the Z-axis to drift.
Lastly, it's possible you're experiencing an extrusion issue. Make sure your extruder is pushing out the correct amount of filament.
And if all else fails, if you ask me, I would say upgrading your controller board could be a potential solution.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.201528
| 2024-02-08T11:59:34 |
23054
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5929",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/23054"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to find the orientation that uses the least amount of support material in CURA?
I want to print a protein model, given any orientation there are a large number of overhangs, making it difficult to judge by eye which orientation uses the least support material.
Is there a tool in CURA that will try many orientations and pick the one requiring the least amount of support material?
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.201590
| 2024-01-17T15:20:25 |
22958
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"KnightZ3RO",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"Trish",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/41191",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/8884"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5930",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/22958"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How do I reverse the state of an endstop in Klipper other than using an exclamation mark?
I have been messing with my Y-axis endstop since it keeps being triggered when not pressed but otherwise, it is working as intended. I have tried to use ! to reverse the state but it does not. I scoured all over the internet and documentation. All I've read just says "Use ! to reverse the state" but that has not helped. I have also tried changing if it's pull-up ^ or not to no avail.
Am I missing something obvious here or did I just bork it? I have included the printer.cfg for reference. The printer is an Ender 3 Max Neo so ignore the references to the V2 Neo.
# This file contains pin mappings for the stock 2022 Creality Ender 3
# V2 Neo. To use this config, during "make menuconfig" select the
# STM32F103 with a "28KiB bootloader" and serial (on USART1 PA10/PA9)
# communication.
# If you prefer a direct serial connection, in "make menuconfig"
# select "Enable extra low-level configuration options" and select
# serial (on USART3 PB11/PB10), which is broken out on the 10 pin IDC
# cable used for the LCD module as follows:
# 3: Tx, 4: Rx, 9: GND, 10: VCC
# Flash this firmware by copying "out/klipper.bin" to a SD card and
# turning on the printer with the card inserted. The firmware
# filename must end in ".bin" and must not match the last filename
# that was flashed.
# This also works for the GD32F303 based Creality 4.2.2 board.
# See docs/Config_Reference.md for a description of parameters.
[include mainsail.cfg]
[include Macros.cfg]
[stepper_x]
step_pin: PC2
dir_pin: PB9
enable_pin: !PC3
microsteps: 16
rotation_distance: 40
endstop_pin: ^PA5
position_endstop: 0
position_max: 310
homing_speed: 80
second_homing_speed: 20
[stepper_y]
step_pin: PB8
dir_pin: PB7
enable_pin: !PC3
microsteps: 16
rotation_distance: 40
endstop_pin: ^!PA6
position_endstop: 0
position_max: 315
homing_speed: 80
second_homing_speed: 20
[stepper_z]
step_pin: PB6
dir_pin: !PB5
enable_pin: !PC3
microsteps: 16
rotation_distance: 8
endstop_pin: probe:z_virtual_endstop
position_min: -5
position_max: 320
homing_speed: 4
second_homing_speed: 1
homing_retract_dist: 2.0
[extruder]
max_extrude_only_distance: 120.0
step_pin: PB4
dir_pin: PB3
enable_pin: !PC3
microsteps: 16
rotation_distance: 34.406
nozzle_diameter: 0.400
filament_diameter: 1.750
heater_pin: PA1
sensor_type: EPCOS 100K B57560G104F
sensor_pin: PC5
min_temp: 0
max_temp: 250
control: watermark
[heater_bed]
heater_pin: PA2
sensor_type: EPCOS 100K B57560G104F
sensor_pin: PC4
control: watermark
min_temp: 0
max_temp: 130
[fan]
pin: PA0
[mcu]
serial: /dev/serial/by-id/usb-1a86_USB_Serial-if00-port0
restart_method: command
[printer]
kinematics: cartesian
max_velocity: 300
max_accel: 5000
max_z_velocity: 5
square_corner_velocity: 5.0
max_z_accel: 100
[bltouch]
sensor_pin: PROBE_IN
control_pin: PROBE_OUT
x_offset: -37.75
y_offset: -14.0
z_offset: 0
speed: 20
samples: 1
sample_retract_dist: 8.0
[safe_z_home]
home_xy_position: 192.75,171.5
speed: 150
z_hop: 10
z_hop_speed: 10
[bed_mesh]
speed: 120
mesh_min: 10,10 # Need to handle head distance with cr-touch (bl_touch)
mesh_max: 300,300 # Max probe range
probe_count: 5,5
fade_start: 1
fade_end: 10
fade_target: 0
algorithm: bicubic
[bed_screws]
screw1:30,25
screw1_name:1
screw2:200,25
screw2_name:2
screw3:200,195
screw3_name:3
screw4:30,195
screw4_name:4
[screws_tilt_adjust]
screw1: 67, 42
screw1_name: front left screw
screw2: 237.60, 42
screw2_name: front right screw
screw3: 237.60, 212
screw3_name: rear right screw
screw4: 67.60, 212
screw4_name: rear left screw
horizontal_move_z: 10
speed: 200
screw_thread: CW-M4 # Use CW for Clockwise and CCW for Counter Clockwise
# [display]
# The Ender 3 v2 Neo's 4.3" LCD display is not supported by klipper
[filament_switch_sensor spool]
pause_on_runout: True
switch_pin: ^!PA6
[output_pin beeper]
pin: PB13
```
Welcome. What's your actual question? 'How to reverse the endstops state in Klipper?' please reflect that question in the title.
Why do you think you need to reverse the state? Your switch does not magically work different from every other mechanical NC endstop switch out there. If it's malfunctioning, something is likely wrong with the switch or the wiring, not the configuration.
@R..GitHubSTOPHELPINGICE I think I need to do that because no matter how I change the config for the endstop pin, I get the same TRIGGERED status when it is not pressed and OPEN when it is closed. I have tried both using ! and without it and its the same. Tried it with ^ and without too just in case and it was still the same.
Is that a NO or NC switch?
It's a NC switch. I checked with a multimeter when I noticed the issue since all I read was that it was normally because of a faulty endstop.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.201890
| 2024-01-20T08:37:23 |
22963
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Mark",
"WPNSGuy",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/21979",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/41228"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5931",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/22963"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to connect Dremel 3D45 to a hidden WiFi network?
At office we have a hidden WiFi network. I'm not able to connect our Dremel 3D45 to this network, since when you tap on "WiFi" it scans for the available networks and it does not add the "Hidden network" item as usual.
I also tried to make the network visible for a while. Then I connected the 3D printer, but as soon as the network hides the SSID (even without bringing down the AP) the printer disconnects immediately.
Was anyone able to connect to a hidden network on Dremel 3D45?
Unfortunately, I cannot ask the IT to change this settings permanently.
Is this a work related use? Does the IT dept know you are wanting to connect this? The IT dept should be able to get this thing connected. "hidden" simply means it is not broadcasting the SSID. If you know the SSID and password, it should connect, hidden or otherwise.
@WPNSGuy have you ever tried to connect the Dremel 3D45 to a hidden network? I'm aware what is it, but I don't know how to do on this printer!
@WPNSGuy I mean, the question is not about networking in general, but is related to this model of 3D printer
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.202001
| 2024-01-21T20:32:53 |
22972
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5932",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/22972"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is there a spaghetti detector available that doesn't limit the cameras framerate and resolution?
I am searching for a spaghetti detector that can pause my printer when spaghetti is detected, especially one that does not limit the framerate and resolution of my cameras, like Obico does. That is basically the reason I don't use Obico because it makes my cameras almost unusable for other purposes.
Also, I rather want a self hosted option without subscription per printer.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.202064
| 2024-01-30T15:45:04 |
23023
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5933",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/23023"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Can I use the same flow rate for Core Heating Technology (CHT) nozzles as for non-CHT nozzles?
I'm waiting for some Core Heating Technology (CHT) nozzles to arrive which I will then use to do flow calibration. For now I'm however trying to understand flow rate in relation to CHT.
Does a CHT nozzle always require a much higher flow rate compared to 'regular' nozzles or can I use the same flow rate?
What do you mean by "require"? The point is to allow a higher flow rate, not to "require" it.
I know. But I mean relative to normal nozzles. In other words: Can I use the same flow rate for CHT as for non-CHT nozzles? I'll change it, I think the intention is more clear that way.
Are you talking about flow rate compensation in the slicer?
Yes, that's what I meant.
The flow calibration (also known as extrusion multiplier) must be calibrated each time at least one of the following ones are changed:
type of filament (ABS, PLA, PLA+ which counts differently, ...)
filament brand
extruder+hotend+nozzle
(some people say also) filament colour
If you switch from CHT to non-CHT, clearly the nozzle has changed and you should at least verify the flow rate/extrusion multiplier. Maybe just test a range of +-2% without having to test the whole 90-105% range as you would do for a completely new material.
Flow compensation, the slicer feature you seem to be talking about, is about the material properties of the thermoplastic you're printing - its thermal expansion and corresponding shrinkage when it cools, as well as how much the extrusion path cross-section deviates from the ideal model the slicer uses to determine how much material to extruder. It is a percentage to compensate by.
Flow rate is how much volume of material you can push through the nozzle per unit time, and typically has units of mm³/s. I think what you're getting confused by is that CHT enables a higher flow rate - this means it lets you push more material through the nozzle in the same amount of time. That has nothing to do with flow compensation and does not mean you should change it.
In theory it's possible that you've upped your flow compensation to compensate for slippage in the extruder gear from already trying to go faster than your extruder can really push, and that you no longer have to do this with a CHT. But that was a really sloppy compensation to begin with, if you did it, and would have led to really inconsistent, speed-dependent extrusion.
I suppose it's also possible that the differing melt consistency from a CHT will make the extrusion path cross section more closely match the ideal, which could affect the optimal flow compensation to use. But I have not seen any evidence to that effect.
In short: you don't need to do anything with your flow compensation. Whatever you saw about CHT and flows was not talking about flow compensation.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.202280
| 2023-12-10T20:34:09 |
21788
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Bob Ortiz",
"Mołot",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/20803",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5934",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21788"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is an unlevel bed the reason I have trouble getting prints off a SpiderSheet?
I've had a lot of trouble getting prints off of my build plate. So much so that I ripped off the SpiderSheet, cleaned the glass thoroughly, and applied a new one.
I ended up stopping the 1st print I did because it looked like the nozzle was digging into the bed. I had to go to 220 °C with this PLA because otherwise, it's all fluff. Is my issue perhaps an unlevel bed?
I run a Creality Ender-2 with an older firmware.
What's your question? I suggest to change the title into an actual question.
If you have glass, why do you put a sheet on it? Glass is a perfect build surface. I have to agree with @BobOrtiz, what is your question? Do you want to ask why your prints stick so well, or why the nozzle digs in the new build surface. Please update your question so that it can be answered.
Well, if the nozzle digs into the bed, then that means the nozzle is too close to the bed. That has nothing to do with the Spider Sheet or whatever other surface you are using. Two reasons come to mind:
Your bed is uneven/warped. While glass plates are normally pretty flat, you can bend them by clamping them down to a warped heated aluminum base.
Your X/Y axes (the guide rods) might be bent a little. If the bed or head is higher/lower in some positions than others, then the nozzle will touch the bed in some positions. Even if your bed were perfectly flat.
Possible solutions:
Re-level your bed (hopefully you have already done this before asking this question).
Add mesh bed leveling to your printer (don't know if your printer supports it though).
Another solution would be to increase the distance and flow rate on the first layer, and see if it's evenly squished. And if it's not, see if it is something op is willing to live with.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.202443
| 2023-12-12T14:06:54 |
21800
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"agarza",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23193",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5935",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21800"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to design a cable pull relief?
A thick power cable will go into my 3D-printed device, and I am looking for options to design a "pull relief" against the full pull power of a human.
Ideally, it should be designed mostly on a flat surface and heat-resistant.
For example, forming a U-loop from the cable and applying a zip tie provides perfect pull relief that I am unable to break with my hands.
However, I am struggling to translate that knowledge into some 3D-print-friendly design.
I've been thinking about creating a clamp of sorts consisting of two plastic elements, where the second one is pushed into the cable using a screw from the outside - am I going in a good direction?
Can you suggest a working design for such pull relief without the zip tie?
Some ideas for inspiration:
Power Cord/Cable Strain Relief
Strain relief clip 3D for print
Hillman 58236 0.375 Diameter Round Strain Relief Bushing
Welcome. It would be helpful to provide a sketch, drawing or model for what you're trying to achieve and ask a specific question about what you're trying to learn. I suggest reflecting that question in the title by editing your post.
This sounds more like a UI question than a "how can I get this to print successfully". Perhaps more detail as to how it relates to the 3D printing aspect could help.
This is what I can think of. The Z channel is where you lay your cable inside. Maybe this is something similar to your "U-loop"? This works by transforming the pulling force into the friction between the cable and the internal walls of the channel: The harder you pull, the bigger the friction it generates, thus keeping it in place. This can be totally 3d-printed flatly and the strength of this would depend on your 3d-printing material, thickness, which I think is enough for your goal.
Now, you need to think about the cons of this design:
Space consuming
Overbending your cable, damaging it
You need to know your cable size before implementing this design, as it requires a tight fit. This means you have to change the design if you want to use a thicker or thinner wire in the future in development
Hope it helps, feel free to point out other flaws of this design.
A common approach to "design a thing that must accomodate a thing" is to first model the thing you need accomodated, add technical margins, then boolean subtract it from a solid block. Then carve the rest of the block to a neater shape, removing unnecessary material, making screw holes and so on.
So, first make the U loop on the cable, with the zip ties, as you found working. Use vernier calipers to measure the real-world model then re-create it in CAD. Make it thicker by some 10-20% than your measurements. Then create a separate object - something very roughly the shape of the strain relief, without any cable channels, then use Boolean operation to subtract the cable from it. Add any stubs to keep the cable from escaping, mounts to keep the cable relief attached to whatever you need to attach it to, extra supports for strength where you suspect it could break, then print it. Try to fit the cable, chance it will work the first time over are slim, but you'll find where adjustments need to be made, and repeat the process until you have a working product.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.202713
| 2023-12-04T22:42:20 |
21747
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5936",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21747"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is it possible to read the state of a specific printer part from the firmware, such as the power of a stepper motor, LCD brightness, or fan speed RPM?
Is it possible to read the state of a specific printer part from Marlin-based firmware such as mriscoc, such as:
the power (on or off) of a particular stepper motor;
the brightness percentage of the LCD screen;
fan speed of individual fans (in RPM);
stepper motor voltage et cetera?
Preferably through the use of certain G-codes.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.202770
| 2023-12-09T10:44:58 |
21785
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Bob Ortiz",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5937",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21785"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is there an easy way to slice any file containing planar or non-planar patterns for a 5-axis printer?
I am reading into 5-axis printers as shown below in a modified Prusa i3 by Jenny List:
The process of printing non-planar patterns on a 5-axis printer is intriguing to watch, as shown below by Garth Benson:
Source: YouTube.com
The slicing tools available for 5-axis printers are pretty limited, to my understanding. Is there an easy way to slice any file containing planar or non-planar patterns for a 5-axis printer such as the Open5x?
How are your Python skills?
Good enough. Math however . That's why I added 'easy' on purpose.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.202837
| 2023-12-18T22:12:02 |
22828
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5938",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/22828"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is there a metric that defines the abrasiveness of filament?
All filament is abrasive to some extent. Speciality filaments such as carbon fibre filament even more so. How is abbrasivness defined for filament and is there a metric that defines the abrasiveness of filament?
If available, are there any filament producers that report the 'abrasiveness' of their filament?
Abrasiveness depends on both the hardness and the roughness of a material. The harder material will grind/polish the softer one. But if both surfaces were perfectly smooth not much would happen, so roughness is important.
For example sandpaper is rated and sold based on its grit which refers to the size of the particles (i.e. roughness).
The encyclopedia Britannica has an excellent article on this, Abrasive | Types, Grades, Uses & Applications. The most relevant part being:
One of the most important properties necessary in an abrasive material is hardness. Simply put, the abrasive must be harder than the material it is to grind, polish, or remove. Hardness of the various abrasive materials can be measured on a number of scales, including the Mohs hardness test, the Knoop hardness test, and the Vickers hardness test.
[...]
Toughness or body strength characteristics are also significant to abrasive function. Ideally, a single abrasive particle resharpens itself by the breakdown of its dull cutting or working edge, which exposes another cutting edge within the same particle.
Some filament manufacturer's do publish data sheets PDFs on their websites, but except for flexible filaments like TPU and TPE I've not seen hardness included, presumably because the hardness of, say, PETG filament should be the same as the hardness of PETG copolyester that can be looked up.
Cheaper filaments tend to have some additives/filler mixed in to make them easier to print or give them desirable properties (like "silk" PLA). These additives are usually not disclosed (they're trade secrets I suppose), so the best we can do is make some educated guesses. "High flow" materials are likely softer than their regular counter parts. Glass-filled filaments hardness will be dominated by the glass. Likewise for carbon-filled.
As for brands which provide data sheets, Fillamentum provide technical data sheets for each of their filaments which include the following specifications:
Physical properties
Material density
Melt flow index
Diameter tolerance
Weight
Mechanical properties
Tensile strength
Elongation at break
Tensile modulus
Charpy impact strength
Thermal properties
Glass transition temperature
Heat deflection temperature
Printing properties
Print temperature
Hot pad
Bed adhesive
Hope this helps!
Thank you. Do you suggest that the 'metric for abrasiveness' is simply the 'hardness'? Meaning that the answer to the question is 'Shore Hardness' is measurable with a Durometer (00 or A) and that it is a, or the, most important metric for 'abrasiveness'?
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.203153
| 2024-01-01T19:44:44 |
22884
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5939",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/22884"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is warping solely caused by thermal stress on the printed material?
Is thermal stress the root cause of warping of printed parts? As in the (rapid) shrinkage of the cooling down material?
Either the material (PLA, ABS, PETG) is cooled down too fast either by too much cooling, too fast temperature changes of the bed, chamber or environment?
It's a terminology question and I don't think more details or clarity can be provided. Therefore, it should not be closed.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.203216
| 2023-12-28T10:57:51 |
22867
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"agarza",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23193",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5940",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/22867"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to find the weakest point of a model?
I would like to use some kind of simulation software to test my model and find the weakest points for example when pressed or stretches from different angles or positions. Under different loads or conditions, temperature or humidity.
How is such analysis called and are generic properties for example for PLA accurate enough for all PLA or is a very narrow and specific profile of material properties and print settings required, does such simulation software exist?
I simply want to find the weakest point of a model and perhaps get suggestions on how to fix it.
I know that Fusion 360 has some structural analysis built-in but don't know to what extent it does it. It would at least give you a start and something to research.
Structural analysis on models is known as Finite Element Modeling or FEM, but since models are sliced with infill this needs to be modelled. This is difficult for composites and even more difficult for plastics. Not an easy task without knowledge of FEM or structural analysis. https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/search?q=FEM+ Furthemore, ti highly depends on the quality of your printer, too much cooling will mess up the optimal bonding between layers and your whole analysis goes south.
There are procedural methods, e.g. with OpenSCAD, to generate a STL file with explicit infill from the original solid STL. However, since infill provides very little strength, it would probably suffice to just hollow out the model to the intended wall thickness you will print at, and perform the FEM using that.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.203347
| 2023-12-26T10:55:41 |
22852
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Bob Ortiz",
"agarza",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23193",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5941",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/22852"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is there a way to read the printer LCD screen into OctoPi?
Is there a way to 'read' the LCD screen from a 3D printer as is, using a Raspberry Pi?
I'd like to connect the printers LCD screen to my Raspberry Pi to be able to view the screen as is, in OctoPi, in an identical way as looking at the physical LCD. This could serve as some kind of viewing console and can be helpful to determine remotely what the printer status is, for example when it's in a Shutdown mode, disconnected or unresponsive.
Optionally being able to control it as on the screen would be great but I don't think that's even remotely easy to achieve. Are there any projects that attempt to achieve this for only viewing or viewing and controlling?
A similar question was asked in a Discord group; if I remember correctly, it depends on the printer model and the interface on the LCD screen.
Wasn't there a plugin that does that?
As far as I know there is only one that shows the printer messages from the M117 or M118 G-code https://plugins.octoprint.org/plugins/DisplayLayerProgress/. I'm not aware of another one for the whole screen.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.203455
| 2024-01-05T19:09:32 |
22911
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11242"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5942",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/22911"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How often should you change out your hot end heating element?
I was recently trying to heat my hot end to 250° C to try and get PETG to stop stringing. When I did this, I realized after about 10 minutes of waiting that it never quite got there. It would only get to ~247-248° C, fluctuating in that arena.
This started me to wondering, is there a rule of thumb for heater replacement? Should you replace it in a given amount of time, when it isn't doing the job anymore (like mine seems to be doing), or just replace it when it dies?
Not an answer to your question, but have you tried a PID tune? If the printer is not in a climate conrolled environment and it's winter now where you are, that could be impacting the ability to reach temperature with the existing PID parameters. Or the heater might just be too weak for the climate. Or the sock could be damaged. Etc. I would not assume by default that the heater is faulty.
I see no benefit to changing a heater that's performing acceptably. The only rationale I can think of for a predictive or preventive change-out would be to head off the cumulative effects of repeated wire flexing. That would be devilishly difficult to predict.
Unless one was about to kick off an extremely high value print due to high consequence schedule constraints or high material cost, it's difficult seeing a pre-emptive heater change being justified. Even then, it becomes a risk comparison between wear-out of the old and infant mortality of the new.
I don't think there is any rule for when to change the hotend since it's dependent on a lot of factors like the filament types you print with, if your nozzle hits the bed often, etc.
Generally, I check the nozzle every two weeks or so. I end up replacing it about every 6 months, from a moderate amount of printing.
You must have misunderstood my question. It's not about the nozzle, but about the heating element in the hot end.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.203620
| 2023-11-05T13:59:39 |
21585
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Bob Ortiz",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5943",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21585"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is there a way to set the installed nozzle size (and installed filament color) in the Marlin firmware (or OctoPrint software)?
In addition to this question: Is there a (common) way to embed used Slicer settings inside the G-code file?.
I'm considering writing a Cura script and OctoPrint plugin because what I want seems to be not available. I suggest adding, for example, a Base64 encoded JSON array with metadata (see previously mentioned question) into each generated G-code that then can be read by the OctoPrint plugin (or, even better, understood in the Marlin firmware).
Related to that, I would want OctoPrint, or the Marlin firmware, to know the installed nozzle size. That way, my OctoPrint plugin (or the firmware) can check and match the installed nozzle size versus the nozzle size used for slicing that G-code. If mismatched, prevent the printer from printing, advise to reslice, or warn about the mismatch.
As we speak, I'm printing a physical nozzle size indicator, a physical "label" hanging on my printer. That's ridiculous and should be in the software.
I couldn't find such features in OctoPrint and Marlin documentation. This would be a great addition as it prevents errors and facilitates what some more expensive printers with "easy nozzle change" can do automatically.
First side-note: This could be easily implemented in a cross-compatible way with Prusa/Cura/Octo/Marlin, et cetera because a fundamental data structure containing the mentioned metadata (other question) is easy to implement for all without having compatibility issues.
Second side note: The same concept can also be applied to the filament color installed. If you can set the desired color in the metadata inside the G-code and the printer knows which color is installed, it can warn about mismatches.
I regularly print 0.8 mm with a 0.4 mm nozzle without a problem, so what are the errors you encounter. This question is not very clear. How many printers do you have to worry about the nozzle sizes? Maybe the following is a good read for you: Where can I change the nozzle diameter in Cura? Why is mine missing?!
I have only one printer, I don't print too regularly, so I kept forgetting which nozzle I installed, hence the physical nozzle indicator. The issue is my g-code files are saved in OctoPrint, and they don't contain easily visible information about which settings it was sliced with (for a .2, .4, .8 nozzle) and for what layer height. I sometimes want to reprint something I already sliced with another nozzle size for higher quality or for faster printing speeds. If Octo or Marlin knows what size is installed, and the g-code contains this info, too, it can be matched and warn about a mismatch.
I know how to change the nozzle diameter and layer height in Cura, and I usually end up reslicing it (meaning I lose scaling and other custom settings I've used for a particular object). My issue is with properly documenting what settings are used in a machine-readable format that can be used smartly by Octo or Marlin, the same for filament color, sliced in blue but red installed, warning (that can be ignored).
I usually make a folder structure in my OctoPrint storage where I distinguish the prints based on the material (PLA, generic PETG, NGEN, Nylon, etc.) you could do the same for nozzle diameter, once stored in that specific location you instantly see what the code was meant for. I wonder why you change nozzles frequently I've printed more than 10 years with the (now CHT) 0.4 mm nozzle, which is capable of printing wider. I used to put the most important setting in the G-code file name, that is also a solution.
That's my solution for now https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21563/is-there-a-common-way-to-embed-used-slicer-settings-inside-the-g-code-file but it doesn't feel like a techy solution as of 2023, there should be better options to achieve it. I change nozzles often between .4 and .6 because of the huge speed difference. A 0.6mm nozzle at 0.32 or even at 0.20 layer height is fine for most prints and gives a huge speed benefit over using 0.4mm nozzle at 0.20 layer height. But sometimes I do need more detail and switch back to the slower 0.4mm nozzle with .20/.16/.12 layer height.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.203913
| 2023-11-05T16:24:43 |
21586
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Bob Ortiz",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5944",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21586"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Do OctoPrint or Marlin support "ironing" and additional printing states?
Currently, OctoPrint shows a printer state such as "Printing" as shown below:
But is there is a way such as via a Cura script or OctoPrint Plugin to insert a special g-code and let OctoPrint show "State: Ironing" instead? This is especially helpful since I usually only iron my top layer, so it's only busy ironing from a specific layer.
Or does Marlin firmware already know and support states other than "stopped, paused, printing" such as ironing, tramming, leveling, heating?
Wouldn't it be better to ask this at the OctoPrint github as a feature request?
Thanks for the suggestion. I will post it there too.
Looking at the API specification, https://docs.octoprint.org/en/master/api/printer.html#retrieve-the-current-printer-state, the states are predefined. It would require rewriting the OctoPrint software to add more states, more specifically, how to detect them. Is this something you aim to answer the question?
I see. I guess I'm looking ultimately for something that is not available in OctoPrint currently. Alternatively I'm thinking to simply use M118 before and after things like leveling, heating, cooling etc. Seems status is not possible for now.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.204035
| 2023-11-01T00:26:51 |
21563
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"Hacky",
"Trish",
"agarza",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23193",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/4708",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/8884"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5945",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21563"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is there a (common) way to embed used Slicer settings inside the G-code file?
Non-G-code data can be embedded in G-code files, like embedded base64 encoded thumbnails. I was wondering, is there is a common way to include (at least the most important) slicer settings that were used to generate that particular G-code file?
I have more and more design files and sliced G-code files, in OctoPrint folders and I sometimes really want to know what settings I used to slice it. For example, after the new Cura 5.5 upgrade, I was constantly wondering, which version I used for each independent file.
Also, I sometimes chose a different quality (layer height) or different infill percentage or scale. I now work around it by using a self-made file naming convention that consists of this:
ObjectName_v55_n06_q028_s100_i20_a1
- v Slicer Version (in my case always Cura)
- n Nozzle size (in mm)
- q Quality (Layer Height without the dot)
- s Scale percentage (0-100)
- i Infill percentage (0-100)
- a Amount (if object is multiplied)
But I really would like to see those things back in OctoPrint when opening a G-code file, so I can decide if I need to reslice, is there a plugin for Cura and OctoPrint, or a standardized way to save this info embedded in a G-code file and show it in OctoPrint?
While it is not the G-code file, a .3mf file contains all the slicer parameters and includes the 3D model. Would that fill your needs?
I never really checked out the 3mf standard. It seems to be very interesting and what I asked for. Thanks for pointing that out. For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BABdR9d8Cp4. Now I need to figure out and test if both OctoPrint and Marlin/Jyers for Creality Ender 3 v2 supports 3mf instead of stl. Do you know of any such solution particular for STL too?
Most slicers support the 3mf file format. From there, just slice the file as normal then send to your printer.
Last comment is my mistake "instead of stl" should be "instead of gcode". But this is exactly my problem. If 3mf can't be send to printer/octo, the actual file on the printer, I just have another file to keep track of. I see the value of 3mf for archiving the model with slice settings, but if there is still a separate gcode file for the printer, it defeats the purpose and doesn't solve my issue. Which is why I need to use the naming convention unfortunately. If I send gcode, my printer or octopi won't know the settings I used and I need to search back for my 3mf file to check.
Wouldn't it be easier to track the 3mf files on your computer instead of saving the G-code files? If the G-code file doesn't have the settings you need, you would still have to reload the stl, adjust your settings, slice the file, and then send it to the printer.
Definitely. However, since a gcode file is always necessary, and I have folders with gcode files only OctoPi (printer), when I quickly want to reprint something on the same machine, I want to be able to quickly know "resolution, version, amount" and that's not possible without my naming convention. Meaning going back to STL and reslicing. For example the upgrade to Cura 5.5 has quite a speed improvement, trash all 5.4 sliced gcode. Sometimes I want to print in higher or lower resolution, no way to know which it was sliced at in Octo or printer. Same for scale and amount.
Then it looks like implementing your file naming convention will be your solution. That will be a lot of work.
Cura already stores all the slicer settings in the G-code file as comments.
Install a G-code file viewer or file editor plugin in OctoPrint to view the used slicer settings for that specific G-code in OctoPrint.
The GcodeEditor plugin has the ability to view the actual G-code.
I'm using two GCode Viewer Plugins but I thought they are only for visualization? https://docs.octoprint.org/en/master/bundledplugins/gcodeviewer.html and https://plugins.octoprint.org/plugins/prettygcode/.
GcodeEditor looks like a good candidate. https://plugins.octoprint.org/plugins/GcodeEditor/
Notepad. Gcode is readable as a .txt file.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.204323
| 2023-11-01T14:56:41 |
21568
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5946",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21568"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Ender 3v2 nozzle plunging into bed after finishing mesh (only changed springs)
Yesterday I was printing just fine. Today I put the new springs that I bought from Amazon. Swapped them out, went to level things and my Z-offset was of course way off.
I have the Ender3V2-422-BLTUBL-MPC-20230904.bin firmware from mriscoc
I homed and set the probe Z-offset with paper barely grabbing at the tip.
I do the tramming wizard and get it all within limits, do the auto mesh, and it checks out all green (until this last one after several bed digs).
Now when I try to print, it goes through the steps, and when it does the last piece of 25 (back left corner) it just immediately plunges straight down and digs into the bed until I yank the power.
The probe worked fine until that point, and I changed nothing in my settings. The CR Touch triggers every time, until after that 25th square, and then it just dives into the plate and the printer sounds like it's trying to kill itself, and I have to kill the power manually.
Literally, the only thing I did was change the springs. I know I have to figure out how to tighten my arm now and the entire hotend assembly because it's loose after diving into the bed several times.
I hope someone has seen something like this before. I'm at my wits end trying to figure out what is causing this all of a sudden as it doesn't make sense to me. I would maybe understand if it was just digging a little across the board when resetting to start extruding, but the thing just straight-up plunges down and doesn't stop until I kill the power.
I was under the assumption that the 'Z-probe wizard' menu meant when I chose 'auto homing" and it went to the middle, did the probe, finished and went back up, that that position was the Z-home of the printer.
So I then chose the manual offset and leveled it. Tests would run and at the end catastrophic bed plunge.
Then I 'noticed' the 'home Z' or 'move Z home' option (not sure of the exact term as I'm at work) and when I chose it, it immediately dove into the plate.
Solution:
After doing the auto-homing:
I manually set the Z stop to like +4.00 mm for safety.
Chose the 'move Z home' and it ended up above the plate this time.
Choose the manual offset and level as usual, then save the setting.
Tested this time and things worked fine. I had a spot during a print where it got stuck about 75% through, but I think I didn't have the nozzle quite close enough to start.
So the main takeaway is that the 'auto home' wizard doesn't set the initial/starting Z height like I thought it did.
Manually adding a z-stop to +4mm probably works, but it seems to me like a symptom-fix and not a cause-fix. I think your end-stops should prevent the type of catastrophic failure you described, at all times. As I described in my answer: https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/a/21572/36802. I've added an image for illustrative purposes.
It sounds to me like your end-stops positions relative to your new bed level are off or the Z-offset is very off, did you use microsteps and manually checked the Z-offset?
The nozzle crashing into the bed is kind of catastrophic, the bed is maybe much higher than the current end-stops. Could that be the case?
Make sure that the end-stops are high enough to prevent the nozzle from being below bed level and preventing physical damage to the bed. Also make sure that your end-stops are tightly connected to the frame, unable to move to avoid further offsetting issues such as:
As explained in this YouTube video.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.204619
| 2023-11-06T09:45:37 |
21595
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Bob Ortiz",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5947",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21595"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Can the Creality Digital Spool Holder be changed to trigger measurement externally and use the spool weight in OctoPrint?
Did anyone try to disassemble the official Creality Digital Spool Holder and to make adjustments to access to the data and to trigger measurement, for the purpose of using and showing the remaining spool weight in OctoPrint?
I like the design but you have to manually push, wait a few seconds for the spool to set to 0, then weight the spool and it will only show for a few seconds on the screen, while not being able to communicate that data anywhere.
The community is not that praising about this sensor. The weight is including the spool itself and it shuts down after 20 seconds. An interface with the main controller board would be cool though. It would require some calculations by the controller to determine the weight loss and posssibly an interface to determine the spool empty weight. I wonder if there are similar projects done by the community; does the question leave room for custom engineered solutions?
Absolutely room for custom, that was the point of my question. Preferably to hack this spool, but self build is an option too, like: I basically want to achieve this with that spool: https://github.com/dieki-n/Octoprint-Filament-Scale and https://plugins.octoprint.org/plugins/filament_scale/. What are the cons, why isn't the community praising this spool holder?
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.204742
| 2023-11-27T20:09:42 |
21685
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"Mołot",
"agarza",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/20803",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23193",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5948",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21685"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What are the best light positions and directions to highlight the print and reduce shadow and light reflection on my OctoPi cameras?
I'm setting up multiple cameras; I have two running: one camera moving with the bed (static distance to the print) and one camera on the frame (stationary to the printer). I will add a third camera later, an endoscope nozzle camera.
However, I have several issues with this, mainly lighting, such as too much reflection on the bed and too much shadows. What is the best position and direction to add (diffused) light to my Creality Ender 3 V2 to highlight the print as much as possible without too much shadow and light reflection?
Two examples
Too much shadow, from a Logitech C920 camera mounted to the frame of an Creality Ender 3 V2:
Too much light reflection (on the print in this case) and shadow, from a Raspberry Pi v1.3 camera mounted to the bed of another Creality Ender 3 V2:
Can you show us your setup and what shadows and reflections you consider too much?
@Mołot Thanks for the suggestion. I did.
Have you considered a ring light mounted to the hotend?
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.204851
| 2024-12-08T19:10:49 |
23800
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Bob Ortiz",
"dandavis",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/10437",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5949",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/23800"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Is it possible to convert the first layer of the G-code to a 2D print so I can use a 2D printer for a quick size reference?
Is it possible to convert the first layer of the G-code to a 2D print so I can use a 2D printer for a quick size reference?
The G-code (or STL) already contains the exact sizes so I think it shouldn't be hard, yet I could not find any easy solution for this.
Like this, but in realistic size:
So since most 2D printers use standardized A4 paper and PDF can also use A4 standardized size. It would be very helpful for many 3D prints to have a tool that can quickly take a G-code and generate a PDF of the first layer so that I can use a 2D printer for a quick print size preview when printed in actual size.
This is helpful for example when comparing it to a physical object, and saves wasted filament and time by waiting for the first layer or the whole print to finish and to find out the size wasn't (exactly) right.
Ok, I just wrote my own program to achieve this. I might share it as I didn't find any other solutions for this simple task. I'm still interested in other possible solutions.
That sounds like an answer! Maybe share the code through GitHub in the answer, or provide some essential hints using techniques and (python) libraries?
I have a working CLI PoC and working GUI PoC. I'm less experienced in making GUI but that was another project of me, so I'll probably soon publish both cross-platform tools as CLI and GUI for MacOS, Linux, Windows. If I find time to finish this.
i just take a screenshot of the slicer interface looking directly down, and print it using an app where i can easily customize the printed image size (eg. photoshop).
This suggestion may be more convoluted than your solution, but one can use OpenSCAD to import an STL, use projection() to create a slice of the first layer of the desired thickness, then export it as an SVG.
Additionally, Prusa Slicer (among others) when configured for a resin printer will generate a series of .PNG files representing the layers to be sent to the printer to expose the resin. The resulting file will have a proprietary extension, but when changed to .ZIP, can have the individual layers extracted and the images processed in the desired manner. Still convoluted, less programming involved.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.205047
| 2022-08-09T15:00:01 |
19747
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/21773",
"orithena"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5950",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19747"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What is the difference between allowance and tolerance?
I have to have a pin fit in a hole, and there needs to be a gap so the pin can turn freely. Can I make the pin smaller by changing the tolerance?
There are four terms that many people find confusing:
Tolerance is the amount of random deviation or variation permitted for a given dimension.
Allowance is a planned difference between a nominal or reference value and an exact value.
Clearance is the intentional space between two parts.
Interference is the intentional overlap between two parts.
Use tolerance when specifying the amount of error permitted in making a part. Use allowance when specifying a gap between two mating parts.
Two other related terms that are important when specifying dimensions for manufacturing:
Accuracy is the maximum dimensional variation between parts.
Precision is the size of the steps your machine is capable of.
A machine cannot reliably produce parts with a smaller tolerance than its accuracy. If elephant foot expands your parts by 0.1 mm, then your accuracy is only 0.1 mm. You will not be able to repeatably print parts with 0.05 mm tolerance. (You might get lucky and one out of ten might accidentally fit the dimensions required, but that's not a good manufacturing plan.)
Precision is often confused with accuracy. People think that if their machine is advertised as having 0.05 mm step size (its precision is 0.05 mm) that they can print parts with 0.05 mm tolerance. But if your printer has a precision of 0.05mm and an accuracy of 0.1 mm, you cannot count on it to repeatedly position itself to within 0.05 mm of the desired dimension.
To measure your machine's accuracy, you'll need to print some pins and holes and carefully measure the differences between what you defined and what you printed. The difference between the largest and smallest measurements you take is the accuracy. And be sure to check the accuracy in your X, Y, and Z dimensions; your printer might have a difference between them that would impact the roundness of the parts.
In the case of the sizes needed to fit a pin in a hole so that it can pivot freely, you need to define an allowance in order to create the clearance you desire.
What is the minimum gap between parts you are looking for, and what is the maximum you can accept? That's the clearance.
Let's say you want a clearance of at least 0.2 mm between the pin and hole, but no more than 1.0 mm. And let's say you measured your printer's accuracy to be ± 0.2 mm. If you print a 5 mm pin, your pin would be anywhere between 5.0 mm ± 0.2 mm, so the hole must therefore be 5.6 mm ± 0.2 mm. The minimum clearance of 0.2 mm would be an minimum sized hole (5.4 mm) and a maximum sized pin (5.2 mm); the maximum clearance of 1.0 mm would be a maximum sized hole (5.8 mm) and a minimum sized pin (4.8 mm).
Note that a clearance of 1.0 mm is really loose, and is just too sloppy for your application. You might think to tighten the tolerances to 0.05 mm in order to reduce the clearance. But since your printer's accuracy can't produce a part that meets your specified tolerances, you would need to find a different way to manufacture or "finish" the parts.
The traditional way to solve the problem of inaccuracy in production is to create the part larger than the maximum material condition, then use a subtractive method to finish it to the desired dimensions.
Say we need the pin and hole to have 0.2 mm clearance, but we've already established that our machine only has 0.2 mm of accuracy. How do we print the parts to fit? We print the hole undersized and the pin oversized by the amount of accuracy in our machine, plus we include an allowance to ensure we always have some material to remove in the finishing step.
Let's establish the hole's final dimension to be 5.0 mm ± 0.05, so we print the hole to 4.7 mm ± 0.2 mm (resulting in a hole that's between 4.9 mm and 4.5 mm). After printing we run a 5 mm drill bit through it to finish it to 5.0 mm ± 0.05 mm.
Then we do a similar operation with the pin. Print it to 5.1 mm ± 0.2 mm (giving us a pin between 5.3 mm and 4.9 mm), then chuck it in a lathe or drill and carefully sand or file it until it becomes 4.8 mm ± 0.05. Now we finally have achieved our clearance of 0.2 mm ± 0.1 mm, which is a good enough fit for our purpose.
These types of secondary finishing steps have been used by craftspeople for hundreds of years.
Thanks for clearing that up. (I'll go renaming some constants in my OpenSCAD projects now...)
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.205493
| 2022-05-17T08:14:10 |
19390
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5951",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19390"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Browsing and printing print files (G-code) stored in OctoPrint from printer's screen
I'm using an Ender 3 v2 with Jyers firmware.
I'm looking for a firmware / OctoPrint plugin which allows browsing G-codes stored in my OctoPrint storage and starting them directly from my printer's screen like it's stored on SD card. I would like to have all advantages that OctoPrint provides but not need to use my computer/smartphone to start printing.
Is there any way to do this?
Accessing the print files stored on OctoPrint managed locations other than the SD card (i.e. where OctoPrint is installed; RPi or laptop, etc.) is not possible.
The other way around is possible, you can access SD stored codes from OctoPrint. This is possible because the there are M-codes in place to list the files on the SD-card (M20: List SD card) or handle files to load and start them.
To access files from the printer UI to an external storage space would require many information on where it can get the files, through which connection; there are no M-codes in place to do that. Basically you are either printing from OctoPrint or from the printer. You state that: I would like to have all advantages that OctoPrint provides but not need to use my computer/smartphone to start printing, how would that be possible if the printer itself initiates the print? OctoPrint is a print manager, it sends your G-code line by line to the printer, you are requesting to start a print from the print manager through a command on the printer itself. If you want OctoPrint managed prints to benefit from the plug-ins, you need to start the print using your phone or a browser. Personally, I never look or use the printer display on my OctoPrint managed printers, you don't need the display if OctoPrint is able to present all the data to you through a browser.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.205654
| 2023-06-04T18:20:38 |
21017
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5952",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21017"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How do I fix deformities when printing on my Ender 3 V2?
Being a newbie in 3D printing, I have some trouble with my prints. After removing wiggle room from the X axis and the bed, there are deformities even on simple prints. The first layer turns out okay-ish but there seems to be some stringing that makes the print deviate consisently when there is a turn. How could I improve?
My setup:
Ender 3 V2 - stock printing bed, extruder/nozzles
Firmware: mriscoc
Auto bed leveling (BL touch) - Z offset -2.18mm
Slicer: Cura - 0.2mm layers, 20% infill
Material: PLA - 200C nozzle, 60C printing bed.
The Gcode of the XYZ cube:
;FLAVOR:Marlin
;Layer height: 0.2
;Generated with Cura_SteamEngine 5.3.0
M140 S50
M105
M190 S50
M104 S200
M105
M109 S200
M82 ;absolute extrusion mode
; Ender 3 Custom Start G-code
G92 E0 ; Reset Extruder
G28 ; Home all axes
M420 S1 ; Use mesh level stored
G1 Z2.0 F3000 ; Move Z Axis up little to prevent scratching of Heat Bed
Sample output (XYZ cube):
Update: I identified the issue as a lack of tension in the X and Y timing belts. After tightening the belts, the prints are much smoother !
Thanks for answering your own question! Please accept the answer after 48 hours! Looking at the images I also suspected belt tension, it is quite clear from the top side view!
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.205789
| 2023-09-11T04:42:58 |
21416
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Ariser",
"Bob Ortiz",
"SF.",
"agarza",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/2206",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23193",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/39793"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5953",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21416"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What problems to expect when operating a 3D printer on a ship?
I want to operate a 3D printer on a ship. This brings up some issues. I want to estimate how likely it is to get usable results under conditions on a moving vessel.
First, it is impossible to level the platform and keep it balanced on which I want to install the printer. Any ballasting operation will tilt the plane even when berthed. This, of course, rules out several printing technologies, such as stereolithography, laser sinter printing, etc., which rely on gravity to keep the materials in a fixed position.
In my opinion, the only technology that is more or less tolerant of slight inclinations of the printer bed is FDM.
However, a ship is also moving. Even when berthed, it will respond to waves and wind. I do not intend to use a printer in rough sea listing to 10° or more. However, under rather calm conditions (2 m wave height), we reach +/- 2° list and +/- 1° pitch easily at turn rates of 50 mrad/s. Linear accelerations are +/- 0.1 m/s2 (X and Y) and +/- 0.4 m/s2 (Z).
I'm aware that an FDM printer will be affected by acceleration and position. Position changes will alter the vector of gravity pulling on the printer's mechanics, and acceleration will superimpose another force.
Of course, an error will be introduced. How big that error is will depend primarily on the stiffness of the mechanics and slackness of bearings and support.
Has anybody had experience with a moving coordinate system (most likely on board any vehicle) while printing with an FDM printer?
What problems do I expect when using a printer with actors in the most common cartesian coordinate system (X, Y, Z) on a ship?
TLDR: Probably none. Having viewed many YouTube videos to learn about 3D printing, I have seen numerous people 3D printing in outer space, trucks, cars, a backpack, upside down, a 6-point bungee harness, etc.
@agarza good comment to encompass the overall robustness of nowadays FDM printers to acceleration.
There's a fully working 3d printer on ISS and it didn't need much modification. There's a model that prints upside down, due to space constraints. The most significant problem will be a spool holder that doesn't let the filament tangle as the spool wobbles. I recommend printing one of the auto-rewinder models intended for AMS/MMU. The second problem is all the paraphernalia you can order on-line with next day delivery if you need them. A bearing here, a non-standard screw there, short on heat-set inserts, the bowden tube fitting got damaged...
Very interesting question. Can I ask for what purpose you're planning to print on a ship?
@BobOrtiz In most cases: Replace broken things. It's a research vessel with fairly complicated machinery. If we stocked 86 of 100 possible spare parts on board right tomorrow part no. 87 will break. The other thing is, that you can't plan ahead which additional things you will need to accomodate the scientific payload aboard. Frequently we'll have to make things fit. We can weld, turn the lathe and the milling machine but there are still things you can't build that way.
@SF. Interesting thoughts. Concerning spare parts of the printer: We are used to stock the most vital spare parts for all machinery already. So we will have a close look on spare part lists of a printer model we are considering to buy of course.
@Ariser Also look into a filament dryer. In very moist air even fairly moisture-resistant filaments like PLA can start misbehaving.
While your conceptions of "leveling" might apply to SLA or SLS, they are misconceptions with respect to FDM. "Leveling" the bed in FDM is not about leveling but about squaring it with respect to the rest of the motion system. There is no need for it to be "level" with respect to gravity. FDM printers operate leaning diagonally or hanging sideways off of walls (typical in some print farm configurations with auto ejection), upside down (e.g. the Positron), or in any other configuration you like. There are even printers setup to be carried as backpacks, printing while the wearer is in motion. Being on a ship, with extremely slow changes in orientation from the movement of water and the vessel, is completely irrelevant to FDM.
If you want some numbers, the accelerations you cited, 100 mm/s² in X/Y and 400 mm/s² in Z, are at least an order of magnitude below what a decent FDM printer experiences constantly as part of printing. Nowadays, good printers print at 5000-15000 mm/s² nominal acceleration, and experience additional forces from pseudo-instantaneous changes of velocity at the boundaries between linearizes segments comparable to another 2000+ mm/s².
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.206193
| 2022-09-11T21:53:43 |
19907
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/35329",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740",
"jasooney23"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5954",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19907"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Inconsistent Z-height on Ender 3 V2 print bed
I have an Ender 3V2 running a custom version of Jyers Marlin, and using a CR Touch as a Z-stop, and with a heated glass print bed. This is my first printer, and it mostly prints fine except when printing near the edges where some imperfections with bed leveling mess with bed adhesion and have definitely ruined a couple of my prints. The main issue is that the first layer is very uneven, where in some places filament it basically smeared onto the bed whereas in other places the filament is barely touching the bed. What's stranger still is that generally speaking, the infill seems to be more consistent in terms of z-height on the first layer, whereas the walls have much more variation. I've included some photos to illustrate the issue:
This is the entire leveling test I printed (it only tests the edges because the center is fine). This was run without UBL - I verified this as the Z axis motor didn't move during the print (it's only 1 layer).
This is what has been causing me the most issues. In the top right corner of the print, the wall filament basically disappears for about 1-2 inches because the nozzle is too close to the bed. This is pretty close to the top right leveling screw as well. You can also see that only the walls are affected, as the infill is pretty even across the same area.
Kind of the opposite issue in the bottom right compared to the top right, where the walls are printed too high off of the bed and start to string from poor adhesion. Once again, the infill seems to be ok (except in the corner).
Things I've tried:
Leveling with a feeler gauge. Incidentally, I always had issues with the top left and right leveling screws, where the top left screw would always be too high up and would be hard to adjust because the screw would be too tight, and vice versa on the top right where the bed would always be too low and the knob would almost fall off by the time the top right was leveled high enough.
Tightening/loosening belts. Doesn't help much, but I'm also not sure how tight the belts should be anyways.
Enabling ABL/UBL with G29/M420 S1. It just... doesn't seem to work, the leveling print will come out the exact same each time no matter if ABL is activated or not. I guess this probably means it's not an ABL issue, or that if it's an issue with motors etc. it affects the sensor while it's leveling. That's the only explanation I can think of.
Readjusting the frame so that everything is as close to square as possible. There is no wobble so I'm 99% sure that it's right, but I don't have access to one of those square rulers.
The Z screw does not move/wobble when the motor moves, I re-tightened the coupler for the screw and the motor.
I have not adjusted the X axis bar that holds the carriage and moves up and down, because the nozzle seems to be a little higher the further away from the side with the Z screw it is. From other help requests I've read online, it seems that usually issues with the X axis will result in the nozzle moving closer to the bed as it gets further away from the Z screw, which is not the case here. But would it be worth it to adjust it anyways?
Given that this is my first 3D printer it's really kind of put a damper on the experience for me as even though 75% of the things I print are small enough to avoid the problem area, I want to be able to use all of the print bed without issue. Any help, troubleshooting, or advice would be greatly appreciated!
Edit 1: Took off the X/Z carriages and found two abnormalities - not sure if these are causing the issue. The nozzle carriage has a bit of space between the bottom of the X-axis profile and the roller. It doesn't really wiggle during printing, but it could if I touched it; right now, the two rollers on top sit nicely on the profile. Also, these rollers all have a slightly discoloured ring where a little bit of material has been shaved off of the roller. The Z-axis rollers on the side opposite the lead screw are the opposite case, where the rollers have to be forced onto the structure since it's so tight.
You should check the rollers of the X-Z connection as the X carriage itself. These printer are popular but do have issues since the Z-axis is driven through a single lead screw and a a roller system of low quality. As the problems occur at the right side of the bed it looks as if you have gained some play in the X-Z or X-carriage. Please check the rollers and report back by adding a bullet by [edit].
@0scar Thanks for your response, I added an update to the post. Any suggestions or solutions?
Just for anyone stumbling across this thread now: as it turns out, the wheels on the x-carriage (print head) were installed at a slight angle and not screwed in as tight as they were supposed to be, which probably led to some inconsistencies in printing.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.206590
| 2023-11-07T06:23:00 |
21603
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5955",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21603"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What is an appropriate layer size for the first layer?
What is considered a 'good' layer height for the first layer? Should it be relatively smaller than the other layers, or should it be considered relative to the nozzle diameter? Can the community suggest an appropriate layer height for the first layer with justification?
As most answers here: "That depends on your preference and needs"
If you prioritize bed adhesion you might want to compensate for an uneven bed surface/ level and maximize the layer height, which is around 60/75% of your nozzle width. (typical .3mm layer height for .4 nozzles). Couple this with a 200% initial layer width for optimum stickyness.
If you prioritize for quality you might just use the same layer height as the other layers, although the layer height difference is hardly ever noticeable.
I can't think of a reason to make the first layer height lower than the other layers. It would just make the bed leveling more difficult and add no detail.
It all depends on the bed flatness you can ensure. Do you have a super flat bed? Then you can use the first layer identical to other layers. You don't trust or you can't guarantee flatness? then increase the first layer thickness up to 25%.
Keep in mind that "bed flatness" depends on three elements:
intrinsic flatness (milled aluminum tooling plate or glass bed, vs rolled and wavy aluminum plate?)
rigidity of the X and (for coreXY) Y rails/rods plus the weight of the print head (do you have thin rods or a heavy print head, which gets closer to the bed when in the center? or stiff rails and lightweight head which bends only by few microns?)
availability and accuracy of the bed levelling (are you doing bed levelling? It can compensate for the previous effects if properly done).
Depending on the three factors you may need to print a thicker first layer to ensure that the printed layer is never too thin or too thick, or you may ignore the issue.
Ellis' Print Tuning Guide: First Layer Squish may help as well, after you decide which first layer thickness to use.
If the first layer is so thin the bed clearly shows through, your extruder is skipping steps unable to push enough filament, or the nozzle drags over the bed surface, you're too low.
If the cross-section profile of the extruded thread of filament is round, first layer of a print results in separate threads of filament with gaps in between or parts bulging, detached from the bed, filament doesn't form clear sharp corners where it turns 90 degrees, or becomes detached, you're too high.
The right height is when the filament is smeared somewhat flat, but still with noticeable thickness. And considering inaccuracy of printer rails, bed, drive trains, achieving such profile throughout the entire bed surface, never getting into 'too thin' or 'too thick' is what you strive for. Whether it's 0.07 or 0.13mm, doesn't really matter, what matters is it doesn't go below or above the range at any point of the bed.
A typical 0.4mm nozzle with 0.1mm first layer height is most likely to achieve this, but when in doubt, too thin will only result in dimensional inaccuracy and thinner bottom; too high will result in poor adhesion and may end up with the whole print detaching from the bed.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.206866
| 2023-11-06T10:57:40 |
21597
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"Miguel Risco-Castillo",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36724",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5956",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21597"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How does Adaptive Mesh Leveling (AML) actually work?
I recently started using the new mriscoc firmware for my Creality Ender 3 V2 and it is truly performing above expectations. Even considering that Jyers UI was already a step up from the original Creality firmware.
I'm trying to understand how the new feature, that seems specific to this firmware, called Adaptive Mesh Leveling (AML) actually works in the firmware.
Below is a screenshot of how the Cura Plugin shows AML options:
I have successfully tested AML and I think it's a truly transformative and great way to do fast and more precise bed leveling, only to the relevant print areas on the bed. Also, while probing, the screen shows each probing point in real time being filled in a grid.
However, I noticed that when using the OctoPrint Bed Visualizer instructions to obtain just the mesh data using the following g-code in the OctoPrint Plugin Settings:
M155 S30 ; set temperature reporting delay, use a value longer than the time it takes for your leveling command to complete.
@BEDLEVELVISUALIZER ; instruct plugin to start recording responses from printer.
M420 V ; Get bed leveling mesh data.
M155 S3 ; set the temperature reporting delay back to a shorter time span.
My previously generated 5x5 of 9x9 full bed grid is no longer showing, instead the mini grid that was made on the print area is showing, as a full bed. Which makes me wonder, how does the firmware deal with AML? Is it basically tricked into using a subarea of the printer as a virtual 'new bed', the new maximum bed size being only a portion of the full bed?
Additionally would there be a way for OctoPrints Bed Visualizer plugin to even know if it deals with the full bed grid or the AML 'mini grid' and if so would it be exactly on which part of the full-bed the mini-grid was generated?
Bed Visualizer shows the mesh leveling area regardless of the bed size, that is good because it provides a good level of detail if the mesh area is very small compared to the bed size.
But it could be a useful addition if displaying the mesh area over set to the bed size were possible through a configurable option.
Nice to see you here Miguel and thanks for your answer! Welcome. You're a great addition to this site. Could you maybe explain a little bit more how you made AML work in your firmware? Does it use some kind of virtual bed size determined from the widest area from the GCODE?
Hi, Marlin implements mesh inset (margins). The Professional firmware just moves it to a next level, allowing you to change the mesh inset at runtime to leave only the interest area.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.207421
| 2023-11-21T12:53:22 |
21660
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5957",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21660"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How to physically wire a (ADXL345) accelerometer for Input Shaping (Resonance Compensation) support on for a Ender 3 V2 printer?
I'm looking into Input Shaping (Resonance Compensation) to compensate for vibration on an Ender 3 V2. I found the "Official Creality G-Sensor ADXL345 Vibration Compensation Sensor for Sonic Pad 3D Printed Smart Pad" which I guess, unlike the name suggests, can work on more than just the Sonic Pad.
I have a fairly stock Creality Ender 3 V2 printer running the Marlin based mriscoc firmware. Marlin Firmware supports Input Shaping (M593) and so does the mriscoc firmware.
The Marlin documentation states:
It’s not always easy to attach an accelerometer to most printer boards, so Marlin doesn’t provide accelerator-based tuning. If you have that information you can use it.
The mriscoc firmware documentation, which is specifically for Ender 3 V2 and Marlin based, states:
The IS parameters are the resonance frequencies of your printer’s X and Y axes, which can be measured using an accelerometer or a test print
I'm thinking to buy the bare ADXL345 accelerometer. Is it possible to wire this up, and if so, how do I wire this accelerometer to my 4.2.2 board? I guess I can than continue by simply flashing the IS enabled firmware of mriscoc to get it supported in the firmware.
Currently Marlin does not provide a way to get the resonance frequencies by using an accelerometer and possibly never will because of the lack of resources in current printer boards. You can get those values by other medium and save them as Marlin IS parameters. It is possible to estimate the resonance frequencies by test prints.
Thank you. I use OctoPrint on a Raspberry Pi (OctoPi), do you know if there is a way to hook up the accelerometer to the Pi instead and 'calibrate' and send the values to the printer from OctoPi?
Basically what they also discuss here: https://community.octoprint.org/t/accelerometer-resonance-testing/51470
Ideally using KUSBA v2 via USB to Raspberry Pi (OctoPi). https://github.com/xbst/KUSBA
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.207603
| 2023-11-30T12:56:20 |
21708
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Bob Ortiz",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5958",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21708"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
How can a force sensor automatically determine the Z-offset?
The Creality Ender 3 V3 SE, apart from auto bed leveling (ABL), also has a way to calculate the Z-offset automatically. A feature I didn't hear about before.
According to a Maker's Muse video, it's based on a force sensor as shown below.
How does this concept work? How can a force sensor automatically determine the Z-offset?
Maybe you should ask the second question in a different question. Your question actually contains multiple questions which makes it more difficult to answer as there are multiple answers. Please split up your question by adding the other questions in a separate question!
Done. https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21714/is-there-any-well-documented-auto-z-offset-diy-upgrade-available-for-3d-prin
The Z-offset is the distance between the nozzle and the triggerpoint, see e.g. this answer of question Automatic Bed Leveling (ABL) with a sensor (BLTouch, inductive, capacitive), how does it work?.
A "force sensor" as called in the question is actually a strain guage; deflection will cause a different electrical resistance which is a measure for the applied stress. These sensors are frequently found in aircraft to measure the strains (as a measure for the stresses) in the structure, e.g. wing spars, (pressure) bulkheads or frames, as part of structural health monitoring (e.g. to compare to the design spectrum of the OEM).
In theory the Z-offset with a strain gauge is non existent if you use such a sensor for ABL except that you may need to corect for possible flexing of the bed or the hot end assembly and a paper offset (default distance to allow better flow and adhesion).
However, the system referenced in the question is an Ender 3 V3 SE with an ABL system and a strain gauge.
Relax, Let Auto Leveling Do It
Leveling is the basis of print quality.
Ender-3 V3 SE features a CR Touch sensor for auto leveling
and a strain sensor for auto Z offset.
No need to turn screws or pull a paper.
Just lie back and enjoy the print success.
This implies that the strain gauge is not used to determine the level of the bed, instead the surface of the build plate is scanned/mapped by the CR Touch (BLTouch clone) sensor. In order to map this scanned surface to the correct height, a test point with the nozzle hitting the buildplate (and as such causing the strain gauge to measure that the nozzle touches the surface) is used to set the Z-offset based on this measurement. Without such a strain gauge, the printer user needs to do that manually; this is the process where you set the offset using the M851 G-code command. Instead of the user lowering the nozzle until a piece of paper can be dragged with a little resistance to determine the "true zero position" of the Z-axis, the triggering of the strain gauge and the automatic handling by the Creality software will do that for you.
To explain the automatic calculation of the Z-offset in this printer is that the Creality Ender 3 V3 SE first calibrates the Z-offset with the help of a pressure of strain-gauge sensor mounted under the front left corner of the print bed, there is a strain-gauge sensor which can detects deformation on the structure that is mounted on.
Knowing the exact position of the nozzle and the position (height) of the trigger point of the leveling sensor, the Z-offset can be calculated and set. That height is then put into the M851 G-code command to set the Z-offset. This is exactly how you would do this manually other than you usually use a sheet of paper or a feeler gauge between the nozzle and the bed. The automatic calculation will surely make a correction for that (e.g. there could be play in the nozzle assembly).
Thank you, but I don't understand. 'Bed tramming' is: manually adjusting bed screws. 'Automatic bed leveling' (ABL) is: making a mesh (using BL/CRtouch) that the firmware can use to compensate for non-flat beds. UBL is a more advanced version of ABL. That's all irrelevant here, but correct me if I'm wrong. My question is specifically about how to determine the z-offset automatically. If I'm correct, bed tramming and leveling need to happen anyway, automatic or not, and then the only thing left to do is setting the z-offset. That has nothing to do with tramming, ABL, or UBL, right?
The Z-offset is only of interest when using a leveling sensor, not a manual leveled bed without ABL. So, yes, it is relevant. I'm sorry you don't understand, but it is linked together. Everything is related to get a good print, you must assure you deliver a bed as level as possible (tramming), the ABL will scan the shape and apply this surface to a certain height. This height is either determined manually or in case of this printer through a strain gauge. There are systems where the strain gauge is used with the nozzle as the levelling sensor, then the Z-offset is zero.
The Z offset is just the height difference between tip of the probe pin and the tip of the nozzle.
The auto Z offset feature on the V3 SE works by lowering the toolhead until the tip of the leveling or tramming probe touches the bed surface it then takes that measurement and store it, then it lowers he tool head further until the tip of the nozzle makes contact with the bed, the strain gauge which is the same type of sensor used in a digital scale detects the pressure of the nozzle tip touching the bed
however many steps the Z stepper motor had to make after lowering the tool head for the probe tip to touch the bed is the Z offset.
Z offset just tells the printer what absolute 0 position is of the Z axis, the level probe probes the bed to check for inconsistencies in the build plate surface
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.208174
| 2023-11-21T13:03:28 |
21661
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Bob Ortiz",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5959",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21661"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Does an accelerometer in a Marlin-based Input Shaping setup compensate in real-time (during print) for vibration?
In addition to my question How to physically wire a (ADXL345) accelerometer for Input Shaping (Resonance Compensation) support on for a Ender 3 V2 printer?.
Does an accelerometer in a Marlin-based Input Shaping setup compensate in real-time (during print) for vibration? Or is it a one time (for example before print) measurement to determine a level of vibration and use that as the compensation scheme during a print, as in "not adapting to unexpected vibration"? Similar to how bed leveling is used.
If it does not do real-time compensation, what is the benefit of having an accelerometer compared to doing Input Shaping test prints instead?
Input shaping in 3D printers is typically implemented prior to the actual printing operation, not in real-time. It's based on the known characteristics of the printer rather than dynamic adjustments made during printing. This requires to be set-up and determined before printing. The printer's firmware is where you can define input-shaping.
3D printer firmware based input shaping
The resonant frequencies of the printer are determined through test prints and input into the firmware. The firmware then automatically applies the necessary adjustments to the motion commands during the printing process (it reads the G-code and applies the algorithms on motion changes). This is still not real-time adjustment; it's a predefined modification based on the printer's known characteristics.
Real-time or not?
Input shaping is not a real-time control system that dynamically adjusts to changing conditions during a print. Instead, it's a method of optimizing the printer's motion commands based on its known mechanical properties and behavior (hardware determined). Why not real-time? Real-time control for input shaping in 3D printing would be complex and would require additional sensors and processing capabilities (controller board). The printer would need to continuously monitor its own vibrations and adjust its movements on the fly, which is not typically feasible with current consumer level 3D printing technology.
So, just for my understanding. Even printers that do have an accelerometer for the purpose of input shaping, use it only in a one-time or pre-pint measurement and not real-time? Similar to auto bed leveling action or homing actions? Similarly and in that case, when an accelerometer is available, is it common to include in the top of the gcode an 'input shaping test'?
The tests are used to feed the settings to the firmware. Once in the firmware the algorithms work for every print.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.208383
| 2023-11-05T17:33:55 |
21589
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Mołot",
"Trish",
"agarza",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/20803",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23193",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/8884"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5960",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21589"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What is the lifespan of nozzles, and does the nozzle diameter affect the lifespan?
What is the average or recommended lifespan for standard Creality printer nozzles used with non-abrasive standard PLA only? What is a proper metric for that, time used, time heated, filament meters that passed through?
Does the nozzle diameter affect the lifespan?
I know nozzles are cheap, but I'm asking because I'm thinking of writing a maintenance tracking plugin for printer parts in OctoPrint.
I will be surprised if you get an answer for this considering that regular brass nozzles that come with most printers are rather inexpensive and are easily replaced.
Nozzles don't wear out fast. You could consider a ruby nozzle or a steel one for an even longer life span. Furthermore, this has been asked before: How long is an extruder's/nozzle's life?. Also, the question contains 2 questions, the first is a duplicate the second not.
Nozzle tip wears out with meters traveled, nozzle diameter enlarges with meters printed, and speed of both depends on factors like filament color (as different pigments have different abrasiveness, white being notoriously worst), temperature of the nozzle (hotter wears out faster), temperature of the chamber (colder previous layer wears out nozzle tip faster) and many, many more. I don't think anything short of proper scientific study can give you a really useful answer.
@Mołot CNCkitchen did a study on abrasive filament - tip grinding is much more impactful than bore increase.
Print material matters more
Non-abrasive materials can leave a soft brass nozzle live for dozens of filament spools without noticeable degradation, especially if the nozzle tip is hot enough to keep it above melting point and does not scrape over cooler areas. However, abrasive filaments can eat a nozzle within just a couple gross meters. One of the worst offenders is Carbon-Fiber or Glass-Fiber infused material, requiring, for example, ruby-tipped nozzles, or glass-nozzles to withstand more than about 300 meters (~2 Gross).
Note that any filled filament is abrasive to some degree, and nobody advertises with the fact that the filament is abrasive.
Nozzle formfactor impact
A larger nozzle allows the extrusion of more plastic per time. The plastic itself, as it cools, can act as an abrasive itself. So to a degree, nozzle geometry will have an impact on the print. A flat around the nozzle orifice such as with the venerable e3D v6 nozzle design can help in keeping the orifice intact a little longer (as the nozzle has more thermal mass and can press down the filament further away from the orifice), but a thinner tip has other benefits (such as reacting faster to temperature change) at the cost of longevity in this one regard.
Nozzle diameter impact?
Typically, nozzles wear much faster and lose their tip from grinding on the printed material than that the material getting pushed through them starts to bore out the nozzle. This can be seen very well in the experiments Stefan/CNC Kitchen conducted. Also here.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.208651
| 2023-12-05T09:08:56 |
21752
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bob Ortiz",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/36802"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5961",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21752"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Does PLA lose mechanical properties when recycled, and if so, how often can it be recycled?
In addition to the question Does rPLA stand for Recycled PLA, or is it a different type of material?.
Does PLA lose mechanical properties when it is being recycled into rPLA? If so, how often can it be recycled before being unusable for recycling? And how would filament manufacturers know or account for this? How would they know if I returned the new PLA or rPLA waste? What if, in theory, the same rPLA batch is sent back repeatedly for recycling?
Yes, recycled PLA loses mechanical properties.
According to Dr. D-Flo's excellent video on Recycling 3D Prints and Waste plastic into Filament (PET & PLA) it loses mechanical strength during every thermal cycle - i.e. when it is printed, when it is melted down for recycling, when it is next printed, etc.
Manufacturers account for this by mixing in "virgin" PLA. So "recycled PLA" is really a mix of recycled and new PLA. This will lessen the extent to which the recycled portion will affect overall strength of the result.
I do not know if/how manufacturers would account for how many thermal cycles the PLA you supply has been through.
If the mix of virgin/recycled PLA has more virgin than recycled, then it may not matter. If the mix favoured recycled then each batch would be worse than the one before. I suppose manufacturers can test a sample from the beginning of their re-extrusion, and if they find it too brittle (etc.) they can change the mix before continuing.
Nice answers Rob. Thank you!
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.208798
| 2023-12-06T20:34:15 |
21768
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5962",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/21768"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What defines the 'straightness' of linear rods and how to measure it?
A few closely related questions about the straightness of linear rods. The 'straightness' of linear rods is vital for a 3D printer to function correctly and prevent things like Z-Banding or Z-Wobble. So, how do we measure the 'straightness' of linear rods? What measurement method or metric can be used?
I can imagine using some reference material (a piece of wood or a table), but then again, how would we know the reference material is perfectly straight? Lastly, how straight does it even have to be? What's a standard or acceptable range they should be in, and is there a standard that defines, classifies, and indicates this?
It is hard to het a very straight object to verify your rods against. A regular household measure is to use a metal ruler on its side; not everybody has access to a perfectly flat slab of granite/steel as I had at my previous employer (e.g. used for mounting optics).
A common metric for straightness of shafts in industrial equipment is Total Indicated Runout (TIR). The shaft is placed in V-blocks or ball bearing rollers at its bearing journals. Runout is checked at various positions along its length with a dial indicator as the shaft is rotated.
This method could be easily applied to guide rods supported at the same axial locations where they are held in the printer.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.208933
| 2021-10-04T11:15:33 |
18191
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Criggie",
"Perry Webb",
"Tristan Adams",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/12956",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/15075",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/31152",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5963",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18191"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Printer has stopped extruding
I have been printing toy cars for about a month now and my Ender 3 has stopped extruding plastic even when I insert filament, it has been about a day since it stopped working. Is there any tips for getting it working again?
I tried manual feeding which worked.
Hi Tom, welcome to 3DPrinting.SE! This is little info to work with, like in: "I put petrol in my car, but it won't start". Could you please elaborate on the question by making sure that your nozzle is not clogged, or the extruder lever is broken (common Ender 3 issue). If manual feeding does not work, you're nozzle is probably clogged.
Check here for one possibility. https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/15629/what-are-ways-to-avoid-heat-creep
You need to figure out what is not working
Is the hotend getting hot? If not, melted filament won't come out.
Is the nozzle clogged? In your toolkit was a bit of thin wire for poking into the nozzle - try that and see what happens. You may need to heat the hotend, extract the filament, wait for it to cool, remove the bowden tube and push the wire up from below, if the obstruction is too big to come through the 0.4mm nozzle.
Is the extruder pushing/feeding filament? Undo the bowden tube at the top, tell the control panel to extrude and observe if plastic moves. An Ender3 V2 has the round handle on top, you should see it slowly revolving.
If you can see the gears turning and the filament is not coming through, try snipping that piece off and inserting a fresh end. Also clean inside the pushing gears of the extruder, could be simple plastic detris laying about.
Are you having reel problems? Can you tug on the filament and have the reel turn? If not, it might be binding on the roll, or knotted/tangled.
that's weird I didn't see a bit of wire in my kit.
This happened to me once - no plastic would come out, the extruder was jammed. I was stumped as to what was happening, as I couldn't put any filament through the hotend, but it was definitely still hot. The problem: don't ask me how it happened, but a small screw had somehow found its way into the hotend.
My comment refuses to upload so I think it’ll be ok if I just put it here:
Thanks this fixed it I had to replace my hot end as the one had broken for some reason but now it is fully working again, thank you so much!
Sorry for all the mistakes in formatting, I am new I joined 3 days ago.
Thanks for posting this as an answer, if you could expand upon what you fixed (wires broken, temperature setting in slicer, etc ) then the answer would be even better.
You're doing great! Remember you fixed the problem and shared that with the wider community. Keep it up !
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.209204
| 2021-10-06T18:22:51 |
18207
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Criggie",
"Proxy303",
"agarza",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/12956",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23193",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/28485",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/31470",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740",
"thermike"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5964",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18207"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Ender 3 V2 error message
I bought an Ender 3 V2 printer and printed successfully with PLA and PLA+. Ender 3 V2 is rated at <= 250 °C but when I set temperature above 200 °C to print to PLA+, I get an error message "Nozzle is too lowperature" and the printer freezes (the term lowperature is actual and not a typo error).
I tried to raise the temperature gradually. I started at 200 °C and have gone to 205 °C and a little bit more. I started printing and I might get this message again or might not. Also, the temperature seems to change or lower while printing. It is not stable.
Any suggestions as to what causes this unstable behavior?
Following the above behavior, I was able to raise the temperature to 213 °C and I was printing for 10 minutes or so, then I got the message "thermal runaway".
I managed to capture the event here
A quick Google search shows some Reddit posts talking about a bad thermistor. You may need to contact either Creality or the store you purchased the printer from.
@agarza That sounds as an answer!
Can you remove the fan cover on the print head, and show what it looks like ? I'm expecting a sharp kink in the thermister wiring which is messing up its readings. Or it might be faulty internally.
@Criggie I removed the fan cover but there is nothing out of order there. The fan works ok and the cables are firmly screwed on the head.
@agarza I will contact the store
This sounds like a bad thermistor. Try replacing the head thermistor, see if this fixes it.
As for the strange error message, it looks like the word Temperature is being drawn on the wrong line, and then "is too low" writes over it.
See the way the word lines up below:
nozzle temperature
is too lowperature
Strange message, see message on display here.
If the newline character were missing, it would look more like "nozzle temperatureis too low" On these types of LCD screens, text is drawn progressively. Characters are grouped into words and are drawn in order. If the Y position of the word "temperature" were to be shifted down by one line (problem in the firmware), it would be drawn first, and then "is too low" would be drawn over it, regardless of word position.
The problem was solved after the supplier replaced the motherboard.
However after that I had to try various versions of firmware as different ones had different behavior to the printer.
If you face a similar situation be aware of the cabling and connections when changing the motherboard. You may have to do the plugins twice to be sure that they are correctly attached.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.209459
| 2021-10-17T08:01:03 |
18247
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Cel",
"Jason C",
"Trish",
"fred_dot_u",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/31598",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/3894",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/854",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/8884"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5965",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18247"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Printing minuscule objects
I am not familiar with 3D printing at all, is it possible to print tiny objects with some 3D printing technology that is available to a consumer audience? I am not talking about microscopic scale, but about say a figurine that is 4mm tall. However, the size required for the eye of the figurine, for instance, would be in the ballpark of 0.5 millimeters (500 microns) in diameter.
The Form 3 (resin, SLA) may be a bit pricey for the general hobbyist, but the resolution and dimensional accuracy goes down to 10 microns (depending on material) in Z and 25 microns in X/Y. I regularly print tiny 1-2" tall figurines and the facial details come out amazing.
Resin
Today's hobby grade resin printers are capable of amazingly tiny detail. The hole is about 1.5 mm diameter, and the pencil point in the photo below is of the same scale as the part. It was farther out of the frame and composited in to provide a better reference.
This part was constructed on request of a train aficionado desiring to have hinges for the freight cars he was building.
Details that are not holes would be more easily accomplished. Depending on the orientation of the figurine, you can get between 0.037 mm and 0.050 mm resolution. This is due to different resolutions in the x/y plane and the z-plane. If the figurine's feature was vertical, the z-resolution could be 0.050 mm but the x/y resolution would be 0.037 mm.
There's a great reference page from Chitubox describing the different technologies as well as a couple photos.
This image is of a model constructed with 0.047 mm resolution. The following image is of a model constructed at 0.100 mm resolution.
Above images from linked site.
FDM™
Referencing the comment below, it should be noted that the above information is specific to resin printers. It is very much different when discussing filament printers. Filament printers (FDM™ or FFF) will have much coarser resolutions. It's typical to have layer thickness (z-resolution) of 0.100 mm. Every one of my FFF printers can print at that resolution.
The x/y resolution is based on the nozzle diameter. The common nozzle is 0.40 mm diameter, limiting the resolution to slightly greater than that, as the filament will bulge as it is extruded.
One can find 0.25 mm nozzles and expect approximately 0.30 mm width of deposited filament. I've read of 0.10 mm nozzles, but once you reach that level, it's time to think of resin printing.
I had attempted to print the door hinge bracket on my FFF printer, using 0.100 mm layer height on a 0.40 mm nozzle. It was a complete mess.
Thank you! To determine whether it is worth a try to print the figure, is Layer Thickness the spec parameter that I should be looking at? For instance, this printer says it has layer thickness of 0.1-0.4mm. This I imagine is the z-resolution, and might correlate approximately with x/y resolution.
edited reply to include filament printer assessment as per your comment. SE does not have direct contact options, otherwise I'd suggest I can create a test print on my resin printer for your own assessment.
@Cel Btw, SLA is the name of the tech here; or MSLA. Those are the common resin printing processes (SLA [e.g. the Form 3] uses a UV laser to scan out each layer, while MSLA [e.g. the Elegoo Mars] uses a UV LCD display to flash the entire layer at once, there's speed vs. quality tradeoffs). FDM (e.g. the Prusa i3) is the kind that draws layers with melted plastic like a plotter. FDM usually has lower res. than [M]SLA but larger volumes, and FDM also uses actual plastic instead of resin approximations. There's sintering and plasma processes too but those are more industrial processes currently.
@JasonC, you'll also noted that FDM™ is a registered trademark, while FFF is the generic description. FDM™ is associated with Stratasys. The processes involved are different between the two systems as well: https://makerindustry.com/fff-vs-fdm/
The smallest nozzle that is in the e3D catalog is 0.15 mm. I'd expect 0.175 mm line width from that. My "detail" printer I run with a 0.2 mm nozzle and 0.25 mm line width / 0.1 mm Layer height.
Also, Further Reading: https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/6965 (why to use wider lines than the nozzle), https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/6968 (Line Width)
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.209808
| 2021-11-07T00:54:32 |
18341
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"BobT",
"ChinchillaWafers",
"Kilisi",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/1847",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/27077",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/28397",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/31811",
"user10489"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5966",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18341"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
3D printing workspace in the tropics
I'm building a workspace for 3D printing for a project. I'm in the tropics so at this point it's just a large concrete pad with a roof next to my workshop. This is a very hot humid country.
I'm assuming keeping it open will be as cool as possible (if that's even something that's needed) unless I air condition a room which will be pretty expensive and I'm not sure I could afford that for the months the project will run. Also less worry about any fumes. The printers will not have enclosures. Thirteen to 14-year-old kids will be doing the actual printing, I'm just setting up a production line for them.
At this point, we're looking at getting Ender 3 printers and printing with PLA filament if the type makes a difference.
Is there anything I need to worry about with a setup like this? I still have a while before we can get any actual printers, so I can wall it if need be.
Many plastics are hygroscopic so the humidity may be a concern. You should research the effects of plastic that has absorbed too much humidity so that you can recognize it if it becomes a problem.
If you are getting a large amount of plastic, I would recommend getting air tight containers to store it in (I use a 5 gallon bucket with a lid that has a rubber gasket) and desiccant and a method to re-dry the desiccant. (I use a toaster oven to bake the desiccant until it changes color.)
If you actually do have problems with humidity, you may also want to get or build a filament dryer. In extreme cases, some people feed the printer directly from the dryer, but most plastics are not that sensitive.
Re: the OP concern over warm weather, that part is actually a good thing, cooling plastic warps less because it shrinks less.
I could store the filament in an aircon room with my servers I guess, not much humidity in there
Sounds like that could be a plan. Might still want the buckets, but if the A/C keeps it dry enough, you could skip the desiccant.
Beware of moving cold filament out into a warm, humid environment. Condensation will occur...
Actually, that would be a great reason for using the air tight buckets. Keep the bucket open in the cold dry A/C. Before use, close the bucket and bring it outside and let it warm up (with the dry air still inside). When the filament is above the dew point, the bucket can be opened. Of course, this assumes this is actually a problem on a given day.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.210054
| 2021-11-05T23:31:21 |
18332
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Jay",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5369"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5967",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18332"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Visible line along Y-axis on top surface
Prints on my Ender 3 V2 have a strange visible line along the Y-axis on the top surface. You can't feel it if you run your finger over it, but can see it which spoils the appearance of the part. While printing there's no noticeable change in the motion of the nozzle as it crosses this line. It happens at the same distance across the build plate each time. Has anyone seen this issue or have a suggestion for how to resolve it?
That might be the seam. If you view the tool path in the slicer does it change directions there? There may be an option in your slicer to set where the seams appear.
I finally got to the bottom of this. I found a small scratch in the channel of the x-axis gantry (no idea how it got there). The line in the print was at the point where one of the wheels was bumping over the scratch. I carefully filed it down and the line is now barely visible.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.210195
| 2021-11-28T00:11:35 |
18468
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Gabriel Staples",
"Trish",
"agarza",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23193",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32117",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/8884"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5968",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18468"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Non-Manifold .stl file won't print properly on my ToyBox 3D printer
I am trying to print this really cool flying toy model on my ToyBox 3D printer, but when I try to print the "copter_key-175.stl" file it complains it is a "non-manifold shape". How can I fix this .stl file?
[update START]
Update for future readers:
I haven't tried it yet, but the Free and Open Source slicer software, Slic3r, boasts this feature worth trying:
auto-repair of non-manifold meshes (and ability to re-export them);
Update again: the best slicers, it seems, based on my research, are:
Cura (FOSS and professionally supported),
PrusaSlicer (FOSS, forked from Slic3r, and also professionally supported now).
Articles to look at:
Google search for "slic3r vs cura"
Slic3r vs Cura (Cura wins; Slic3r lags due to no full-time company-sponsored development): https://all3dp.com/2/slic3r-vs-cura-3d-printer-slicer-software-shootout/
Google search for "prusaslicer vs cura"
PrusaSlicer vs Cura (Cura wins, but just barely, since both are professionally supported with full-time developers): https://all3dp.com/2/prusaslicer-vs-cura-differences/
[update END]
Note that I have printed many ToyBox-designed models perfectly with this printer over the last 24 hrs.
I have also split the model (to cut the last few cm off the end and shorten it) using this technique here in TinkerCad, then exported the part as a shorter part so I could print on the smaller bed of the ToyBox printer.
Here is what the "key" is supposed to look like:
And here is how it comes out instead. Notice the misaligned teeth and layers about halfway through. Once I saw it was botched, I stopped the print early.
How can I make it print properly and/or how can I fix the .stl file?
Notes:
My operating system is Linux Ubuntu 20.04
I have Windows 10 running in the VirtualBox virtual machine in case I need to run Fusion 360 or something in Windows
I tried installing Meshmixer inside Windows 10 and it won't open. I had read online it can be used to fix .stl files, so I was going to look into that.
Related:
my comment on Thingiverse
my help request on Toybox
Another person seeking help for this: tinkercad.zendesk.com: Non-Manifold Model
That looks like a problem with your printer, not the model.
This looks like layer shifting, thus a printer problem, not the model.
Update 24 Mar. 2023: the maximum usable print volume of the ToyBox 3D printer is approximately 74 x 79 x 100 mm (width x length x height), and you must add supports to keep tall objects from tipping over and catching
1st, you must add supports to keep tall objects from bending over and catching the nozzle, like this:
Notice the side supports. Without them, this ball will not print properly. Between 60% and 80% done, it's so tall that the nozzle will eventually catch on the ball edge, tip it over, and then get jammed against it, causing it to think it hit the edge of the print volume, and forcing the center point to shift several mm in the opposite direction. This results in print sheering and possibly damage to the stepper motors or gears.
2nd, the digital bed size of the ToyBox 3D printer (when you go to load an object to print) is 75 x 80 x 100 mm (7.5 x 8.0 x 10.0 cm).
When printing large objects up to 100mm in height, it seems to work fine. So, that limit is ok. But, when printing large objects which are the full width, ex: a 75mmx75mm circle, the object will get destroyed once the max diameter portion of the circle is reached. This is because the hard mechanical stops (screws, and metal edges of the print space) and/or limit switches of the printer will be hit, causing the print head firmware to adjust the center print point by several mm in the opposite direction. The object will then print with misaligned layers from that point forward. Since the center point just jumped several mm, the end point will be hit again on a future pass on the opposite side, causing it to jump again. It will jump like this repeatedly until the print is complete. You end up with shifted layers as shown in the photo below. This is a 75x75x75mm ball, which printed fine until the max diameter center portion was reached, at which point the mechanical edge stops were hit, the center point was (presumably) readjusted by the firmware, and the layers sheered:
So, when printing, shrink the object 1 or 2 mm (5%, or 3.75mm of 75mm is plenty, and 1%~2%, or 0.75mm~1.5mm of 75mm is probably enough) and be sure to add an outer ring as wide as or just wider than the max diameter of the object. Ex: here is a manually-added outer ring to ensure the print head starts and stays centered at the beginning:
In conclusion, the maximum usable print volume of the ToyBox 3D printer is approximately 74 x 79 x 100 mm.
Back to my original answer:
ToyBox 3D printer true print dimensions and limit switch problems
So I figured out that the problem is my print area is so small the printer was occasionally fully pressing and triggering the end-point limit switches! This apparently causes it to stop slightly early, shifting the next layer as it prints.
The printer specs state that it has a print volume of 9 x 8 x 10 cm. However, the print design area and viewer at https://www.make.toys/ shows the design volume like this
In the square grid shown on the base plate there is 1 cm per square, except that as you can see, the far left and far-right columns are < 1 square. Therefore, looking at this image, the usable bed area appears to be about 7.25 cm x 8 cm (the grid size shown in the images), NOT 8 cm x 9 cm.
Furthermore, if you do NOT have the "Skip First Ring" option checked on the "Build" tab in the image below, the printer does a "wipe clean" maneuver in the shape of a spiral, circle, or ring around the object to be printed just before beginning the print. This wipes off any dangling stray print material before beginning the print. If your object fully covers the print bed dimensions, however, that ring will be even wider, causing the printer to hit its limit switches.
(The model in this image is 10.4 cm long, which is too long, causing my printer to hit its limit switches, skewing the layers while printing.)
So, the problem is that my part is too big. WithOUT that "Skip First Ring" box checked, the dimensions are probably further reduced by another 5 mm or so on X and Y dimensions, bringing it down to about 6.75 cm x 7.5 cm usable print area. My part was 10.4 cm long. The Pythagorean Theorem says that $A^2 + B^2 = C^2$, so $C = \sqrt(A^2 + B^2)$ = $\sqrt(6.75cm^2 + 7.5cm^2)$ = 10.09 cm max on the diagonal. My 10.4 cm long part was too long. The printer hit the limit switches, botching the layers.
Had I checked that box maybe I could have gotten away with a part closer to $\sqrt(7.25^2 + 8^2)$ = 10.8 cm long, but that's really pushing the limits of this printer. In the end, shrinking the part a bit more to be about 10 cm or less was all I needed to do!
UPDATE: I've also proven conclusively by designing in www.TinkerCad.com and printing on the ToyBox that the max allowed print height is exactly 9 cm, and it will indeed print properly all the way up to that height.
I'd still like a flying propeller
That being said, even though the "key" of the model in my question printed pretty well in the end, the helicopter blade (propeller) printed horribly because the design is flawed and has a bunch of missing material and air gaps around the hub, making the propeller completely unusable!
Instead, I switched to this thing shown below, shrunk it down to 0.6x to fit my printer, set my printer settings from medium to fine resolution, and got pretty good results! I still need to further tweak and edit the design on https://www.tinkercad.com to give the pull key better clearance, and better connection with the hub gear, and I think I'll be able to get a great result! I got it to fly a few times up to 8 ft high or so, but the pull is very rough and inconsistent, so the model needs further tweaking.
Keywords: ToyBox 3D printer helicopter and toybox printer clearances, print dimensions, print volume, specs, print settings
@agarza, thanks for the helpful edits. Just one question: why did you use the HTML code to add spaces to my answer instead of just pressing Space Bar to add a space ( )?
is a Non-Breaking SPace that prevents line breaks between characters, specifically like units of measurement. More information is available here, here, and here.
We follow the rule for units having a non-breaking space here. another alternative is to use the unicode to get the non-breaking space (Alt+0160).
I have printed at least 5 of them (Cura Slicer, Creality CR10s) and there have been no problems. So I can't understand your problems. I would suggest to use another slicer (Cura). I have now repaired the file with Meshmixer and added it (copter_key-175_meshmixer-repair.stl). Maybe this solves your problem.
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4551901
Welcome to 3D Printing SE and thank you for your contribution. When you get a chance, please take the [tour] to understand how the site works and how it is different than others.
Can you please post exact detailed instructions on how you did the meshmix repair? That seems to have solved my issue entirely (I'm doing some more testing now to be sure). If you didn't want to explain in detail how you did the meshmixer repair, doing it again while screen-recording (see my instructions here) with OBS Studio, and then posting that to YouTube, would also work.
Non-manifold objects are only accidentally solid, as sometimes it becomes unclear what is the inside and what is the outside. Some slicers attempt to fix this and do a good job of guessing how to correct it. Also, some non-manifold errors are easier to fix than others.
If your slicer is complaining about a part file being non-manifold or you suspect that this is causing a problem, you should bring it into a surface mesh editor like meshlab or blender and try to fix it with the manifold test and repair tools in either of these programs.
Typical ways an STL file could be non-manifold include:
cracks between faces caused by round off error
missing faces
flipped faces
interior faces
faces that intersect somewhere other than an edge
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.211144
| 2021-12-21T05:47:16 |
18611
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"AeStudios",
"Gabriel Staples",
"Trish",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/30871",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32117",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/8884"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5969",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18611"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Can't "Send To" Thingiverse from Tinkercad.com
Anyone else seeing this issue? Anyone know a solution?
While editing a part on TinkerCad.com (this part, to be specific), I click the "Send To" button in the top-right --> click Thingiverse --> I see this screen:
I then click on "Authorize". I'm already signed into Thingiverse, so I click "AGREE & AUTHORIZE APP" --> and I get this error window:
It states:
There was a problem authenticating you with Thingiverse
Close this window and return to Tinkercad.
Privacy settings |
Privacy/Cookies
Anyone know what could be the issue? I've tried in Google Chrome, on Firefox, in Chrome with incognito mode, and even with a 2nd pair of separate TinkerCad and Thingiverse accounts! I get the same result each and every time.
Note: I used the Google sign-in for the Thingiverse account. Maybe I need to use the independent account login?
Side note: this question is on-topic:
Websites (could come under Software and/or Tools)
...
Issues with web based tools <=== this one is my question
I just sent in some support request tickets to both sites
Update 22 Dec. 2021:
I posted a help support ticket to both TinkerCad here (choose "Tinkercad Account" from the "Please choose from the options below" dropdown menu) and to Thingiverse here (click link --> choose "Other" from dropdown menu for "What does your support request pertain to?"). I'll add an answer here if I get any useful response or solution from either of them. My support tickets on each site essentially contained the following information:
Subject:
Can't "Send To" Thingiverse from Tinkercad.com
Body:
Please see a full description of my problem here: Can't "Send To" Thingiverse from Tinkercad.com
Essentially, no matter what I do I get into an infinite loop of trying to click the "Send to" button to send a model to Thingiverse, and it repeatedly fails with the error shown in the attachment. Again, see the full description at the link above.
OS:
Linux Ubuntu 20.04
Browser:
Chrome Version 96.0.4664.110 (Official Build) (64-bit)
Tinkercad replied to my Zendesk ticket I opened (see the question), and as a a result, they seem to have fixed the issue! The "Send To" --> Thingiverse feature seems to be working again!
I sent my request on 20 Dec. 2021:
Subject:
Can't "Send To" Thingiverse from Tinkercad.com
Body:
Please see a full description of my problem here: Can't "Send To" Thingiverse from Tinkercad.com
Essentially, no matter what I do I get into an infinite loop of trying to click the "Send to" button to send a model to Thingiverse, and it repeatedly fails with the error shown in the attachment. Again, see the full description at the link above.
OS:
Linux Ubuntu 20.04
Browser:
Chrome Version 96.0.4664.110 (Official Build) (64-bit)
I got this response on 3 Jan. 2022:
Nicole Smith (Tinkercad)
Jan 3, 2022, 7:16 PST
Hi Gabriel Staples,
Thanks for writing in to let us know about the issue. I'll pass on the information and see what we can figure out.
Regards,
Nicole
Tinkercad
Then this on 5 Jan. 2022:
Nicole Smith (Tinkercad)
Jan 5, 2022, 15:40 PST
Hi Gabriel Staples,
This should now be working again.
Regards,
Nicole
Tinkercad
Sure enough; it seems to be fixed!
Next time you have an issue with TinkerCad, submit a help request here (I chose "Tinkercad Account" from the "Please choose from the options below" dropdown menu).
The best solution for the problem is to download your Tinkercad designs and upload them to Thingiverse.
Some people had the same issue and as far as I know, the Tinkercad people are not going to solve it.
What file types do people most-often prefer? Just .stl? Or should I also do .obj? What about .glb?
I believe the error is on the Thingiverse side, not Tinkercad.
I prefer stl, you can also use obj
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.211414
| 2021-12-11T17:09:01 |
18538
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Aubs",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32271"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5970",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18538"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Filament not adhering to bed for the first 10 mm after every move
Update following advice from @R..GitHubSTOPHELPINGICE in the comments - I've increased the Z-offset from -2.97 to -3.10 and all now appears to be much better.
Printer: Ender 3 V2 with heated glass bed
Slicer: Cura 4.11
Temps: extruder 215 °C, bed 65 °C first layer, 60 °C remaining (works the best for the filament I'm using, lower for other filament).
Filament: 3DTomorrow UK PLA Filament - Anthracite Grey - 1.75 mm (But happens with all others too e.g. ERYONE, ZIRO)
Summary: On the first layer, every time the printer starts extruding to the bed after a move, the first approx. 10 mm doesn't stick, but the rest sticks perfectly.
The issue, as an example, I'm trying to print a case for a Raspberry Pi which has air vents on the bottom. When the print starts, it does the line down the side which the first ~ 10 mm doesn't stick, but the rest does perfectly. It prints the skirt, which again the first ~ 10 mm doesn't stick, but the rest does, then when it gets to doing the vent slots, the same again.
The photo hopefully shows what I'm trying to explain.
When printing a raft, again the first ~ 10 mm of the extrude doesn't stick, but the remaining does.
Once the raft is printed, the first layer sticks to it perfectly well
The bed is pretty level, I'm using a BLTouch to assist and has been cleaned with alcohol before the print. Bed has been levelled and the Z-offset calibrated to -2.97.
I have Enable Retraction on, 5 mm, 45 mm/s speed. I've tried increasing and reducing these, increasing/decreasing print speed, manual Z-axis offset fine adjustments, etc.
I did think First 3 mm prints poorly, then fine after that was kind of the same issue, but there's no discussion of the issue being for every touch of the bed within the same print job.
Any advice would be appreciated. I've loitered this community for quite a while and lots of Google searching hasn't come up with any suggestions (there's actually very little I could find on this kind of troubleshooting).
From the pictures it looks like the distance between your bed and nozzle is too great. Note that "automatic bed leveling" fundamentally cannot help you get this right because it depends on a quantity it can't measure, the Z offset between the bed leveling probe and the nozzle tip. At best it can help you get the distance consistent[ly wrong].
This is also consistent with raft fixing the problem, since the raft has extra wide extrusions in the first layer whose width will just vary if the leveling is wrong, and after that, all print heights are just relative to the top of the raft.
Thanks for the comments. before the photos, I had calibrated the distance from the nozzle to the bed - initially with a piece of paper, then by live calibrating. The Z-offset was -2.97 IIRC. I'll double check it, and confirm once it's finished in a few minutes.
@R..GitHubSTOPHELPINGICE - Thank you. I did have it at -2.97 from manually levelling as it was printing, but have since gone down further to -3.10 and it's doing much better. I honestly thought it looked too close at -2.97, but how wrong I was! If you want to post that as a solution, I'll happily mark it as an answer. Could have saved myself and you lot time and effort if I'd have just pushed it that little bit more!
From the pictures it looks like the distance between your bed and nozzle is too great. The way I see this is that the extrusion lines that should be pressed against each other have small gaps between them, and look rounded rather than flat. The only other way this could happen is with severe underextrusion/wrong esteps-per-mm, but that seems unlikely.
Note that "automatic bed leveling" fundamentally cannot help you get this right because it depends on a quantity it can't measure, the Z offset between the bed leveling probe and the nozzle tip. At best it can help you get the distance consistent[ly wrong].
This is also consistent with raft fixing the problem, since the raft has extra wide extrusions in the first layer whose width will just vary if the leveling is wrong, and after that, all print heights are just relative to the top of the raft.
Your assumption about under extrusion / e-stepping is correct, I had already calibrated that to +/- 0.1 mm over 100 mm. Thank you for the guidance here, you were spot on.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.211755
| 2022-03-15T12:30:40 |
19098
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Philipp Wacker",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32290"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5971",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19098"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
"Blobs" at beginning and end of layer and no adhesion
I am trying to configure my Ender 3 v2, but I am having (again) trouble with layer adhesion: With the CHEP leveling test I am having these problematic "blobs" at each lower left of the squares (where the nozzle "leaves" the current square and "enters" from the previous (outer) square, touching the bed again). I don't know what the reason for that could be. I started with a 205 °C nozzle temperature
and a 50 °C bed temperature and tried many versions with higher or lower temperature (both for nozzle and the bed), and I also tried various positive and negative Z-offsets. Sometimes the layer adhesion was slightly better (especially when raising the bed temperature to 60 °C and making the Z offset = -0.2), but the blobs persisted (and each time the nozzle scraped over it, the layer was pulled off again). Any idea what I should try next?
EDIT after your suggestions: While I have not reduced the distance between nozzle and bed further (a sheet of paper between them almost ripped when trying to move it), you got me thinking and I checked the extrusion. And indeed, the extrusion factor was way off. After calibrating the results look now much better:
The lines are squished much better into the bed, and also the blobs are much smaller (and less "prominent", i.e. lying flat). But I am still having (slightly smaller) problems at the same points (lower left corners of the squares): While the initial adhesion is fine (the nozzle starts at each square in the lower left corner and then travels "right, up, left, down", i.e. counter-clockwise), it comes loose when the square is completed (due to the nozzle "hitting" the blob in the lower left corner at the end of the square.
What can I do next in order to improve things? A lower Z-offset (trying to eliminate the blobs further) has not really worked.
What speed are you printing at?
My Cura slicer is set up with a print speed of 50mm/s, and the gcode file has a line M203 X500 Y500 Z12 E120 ; sets maximum feedrates, mm/sec, so I don't actually know whether it is 50mm/s or 120mm/s
It looks like your nozzle distance to the bed is still too high, so the extruded material does not start sticking to the bed until there's a small blob of it on the nozzle end. This is consistent with how the extrusion lines in the photo seem to be round rather than flattened against the bed. Assuming 0.4 mm nozzle/line width and something like 0.2 or 0.3 layer height they should be a lot wider than they are thick.
It's also possible that you may have retraction speed or distance problems going on at the same time. If your retraction distance is too high, the material will cool while retracted and then will not be able to push through the hotend/nozzle until it re-melts, possibly causing skipping or delayed extrusion when you unretract and restart. But if so, I think this is secondary and you should fix the bed height first - then you can print retraction test towers to tune your retraction.
I have updated my printing situation after taking into account your hints.
@PhilippWacker: You should not have to significantly change the extrusion factor if you haven't replaced the extruder with an aftermarket one. If you seemed to need to do that, yours might be broken (cracked arm) or have tension problems.
No, actually that is due to a different extruder that I installed. I measured the correct extrusion factor before (matching the current one), but somehow in the meantime the value was reset
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.212063
| 2021-12-17T16:06:47 |
18583
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Bruce B. Blackwood",
"Criggie",
"William Haussmann",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/12956",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32318",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/35511"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5972",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18583"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
First / bottom layers not printing?
New to the group so please let me know if I am not asking / formatting correctly.
So I have just started 3D resin printing with my new Elegoo Saturn. I have printed a couple of free STL files with no problem. I drew up a part for my modeling project with SketchUp maker. Exported the STL file into Chitubox and made a test print after slicing the file. The bottom layer(s) do not seem to print ... the bottom plate should be 4 mm but always prints at 2-3 mm. This makes my clearance groves almost disappear. What should be thru holes have a small layer closing the hole. The bottom layer seems to be "smashed out ... not a clean edge.
I have read, watched, studied lots of "help" on the web, make several slow changes to bottom layer print times, adjustments to lift / rest / etc, and lots more test prints which all have failed.
Have another go with adding the photos - they're always helpful. I can't get anything but an error from your links.
I fixed the images, they should be visible now. Thanks.
we experience exactly the same problems on a saturn s and saturn 2 - might be a software issue with chitubox...
Did you solve that problem?
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.212200
| 2022-08-13T17:54:16 |
19762
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Caleb",
"Jacob Boughton",
"Mark",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/1690",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/21979",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32336"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5973",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19762"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Why Does My 3D Printer Stop Extruding PLA?
I have an Ender 3 V2 which is around 6 months old. Recently, extruding slowed to an almost complete halt seconds into a print for no apparent reason. The extruder works perfectly when extruding manually (using the extrude setting) and I see no reason for it to not extrude properly. I am using Ultimaker Cura and a new filament (my old one has the same issue). The print speed is 10mm/s and the temperature is correct for the filament which is PLA+.
After some testing it seems random when it stops extruding but it always happens within the first 10 seconds of the print starting.
Since you're not printing fast or anything, I think the most likely explanation is a loose or broken tension arm on the extruder. Check that it's gripping the filament and watch what happens when it stops working.
@R..GitHubSTOPHELPINGICE It can extrude manually when I turn the extrusion wheel by hand or when I use the extrude function under "move". It only stops whilst it is printing a model so I don't think it is the tension arm but I'll have a look and get back to you in a bit.
@R..GitHubSTOPHELPINGICE After having a look it seems that the extruder just starts turning incredibly slowly just after starting the print (never during the line that it does at the beginning of every print).
Wait, so it only extrudes the priming line, then nothing comes out for the model? Sounds like you have your slicer configured for extremely low or no flow, or wrong filament diameter.
@R..GitHubSTOPHELPINGICE It works for the 3 seconds (ish) on the actual print and then stops working. I will have a fiddle with the Slicer settings.
After changing the setting on Cura I have gotten it to extrude filaments consistently but now the filament won't stick to the build plate and sticks to the nozzle. Thanks for your help if you put your comment as an answer I'll be happy to accept it.
I have the same issue just for PLA+ with a Dremel 3D45. I can extrude Nylon, PETG, ABS with no problem. PLA+ filament comes out when I "purge" manually the material, but when printing it stops (and clogs the extruder) after few layers. I checked the Cura settings and they seems correct: 100% flow @ 210-230 °C.
@JacobBoughton The print not sticking to the bed is probably one of the most common problems; we all run into that from time to time. I’m sure there are good questions about that here, so search around. A few easy things to check are: nozzle distance at z=0; make sure the build plate is clean, not oily at all; nozzle temperature; bed temperature.
If it only extrudes the priming line, then nothing comes out for the model, this sounds like you have your slicer configured for extremely low or no flow, or wrong filament diameter. Check that any flow settings are at or near 100% and that the filament diameter in the machine, extruder, and material settings is correct (1.75 mm for most printers).
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.212455
| 2021-12-18T08:29:54 |
18587
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"geekgeek4",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32347",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5974",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18587"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Can't make Ender 3 V1 Level
I have an Ender 3 V1 with a glass Creality plate. I was having difficulty using manual levelling and my prints were struggling, so I ordered a 3DTouch. I have installed the 3DTouch and used Creality's BLTouch firmware. But my bed is still not level.
So my build is an Ender 3 V1 with:
Extruder upgraded to all-metal extruder
Glass bed upgrade
3DTouch Upgrade
Capricorn Tubing
Yellow bed springs
I manually levelled my bed using my 3DTouch. I used the G30 command in Pronterface to probe each corner of the plate. At each corner, I would adjust the knob until the 3DTouch read 0.0. I did this iteratively multiple times until I thought it was reasonably level. The four corner values were something like 0.1, 0.0, -0.2, and 0.3 mm.
I have also put a straight edge with an Angle Finder Phone App. The bed is quite level. It reads 0, 1, or 2°
depending on how I place the level. X-axis gantry has a 1° tilt.
Here is my current bed levelling mesh:
After doing this, I added G29 after G28 in my starting G-Code in Cura. I sliced a model from Thingiverse that had 5 squares and some lines. Here are the results:
I am using:
Filament : PLA
Bed Temp : 60 °C
Nozzle Temp : 200 °C
Some miscellaneous notes:
The bed was cleaned thoroughly prior to use
I rotated the bed 90° and the print looked the exact same way
I ensured that the bed soaked in some heat for some time prior to printing
I have set my Z offset to -1.800 mm
The frame and components seem to be square and tightened down. Nothing is shaking around and seems to be in order.
I would really appreciate help on this. I'm really not sure what to do next. I've been really excited about 3D printing and I hope I can find a solution to this.
Leveling using CHEP's video
So I have rebuilt my 3D printer using CHEP's video. I noticed that one or two things were off compared to how it was supposed to be. I will be doing some test prints to see if that actually fixed things. I am hopeful.
I did a mesh before any other changes, and the slant is very clear now. See below. I believe one of the plates on the gantry wasn't completely straight.
Leveling after rebuilding printer
Here is my latest mesh, after rebuilding the printer and then re-levelling its bed manually.
These are the results of the print. I had to change my Z offset to -1.60 mm. The broken line is my fault. It was caused by my finger. The focus is the corners. As I mentioned, this is after rebuilding my printer.
Edit
I would like to have more probing points than Creality's 3x3 grid. To my understanding, Creality's source code is not available, and so I will be rolling my own with Marlin 2.0. I downloaded the latest Marlin from https://github.com/MarlinFirmware/Marlin/releases, and copied the 4.2.2 Creality configuration from the default Configurations. I then changed the following:
I ensured #define PDITEMP is not commented so that I can do PID tuning of the nozzle.
Similar to 1., I ensured that #define PIDTEMPBED is not commented so that I can do PID tuning of the bed.
I commented #define Z_MIN_PROBE_USES_Z_MIN_ENDSTOP_PIN since I will be using the 5-pin BLTouch port that is on my 4.2.2. board.
I uncommented #define USE_PROBE_FOR_Z_HOMING since I removed my z-axis endstop and want to use my 3DTouch as the z endstop.
Uncommented #define BLTOUCH since the 3DTouch is a BLTouch clone.
Changed my x and y offsets in the setting #define NOZZLE_TO_PROBE_OFFSET { -42, -8, 0 }. I left the z-offset 0, since I will be using the tuning tool to adjust that and observe the squish. For the x and y, I measured the distance between my probe and the nozzle using a digital caliper.
I adjusted the probe margin from 10 to 15, since I have clips that previously would interfere with the 3DTouch. 15 should give more distance. #define PROBING_MARGIN 15
I enabled and set MULTIPLE_PROBING to 3. I'm paranoid about the current accuracy, and am willing to see if that improves anything at the expense of a few additional minutes. #define MULTIPLE_PROBING 3. I think 2 should be fine for general use.
Uncommented #define Z_MIN_PROBE_REPEATABILITY_TEST. I want to test my 3DTouch and uncommenting allows the use of M48 to test it.
Uncommented #define PROBING_FANS_OFF, #define PROBING_ESTEPPERS_OFF, #define PROBING_STEPPERS_OFF, #define DELAY_BEFORE_PROBING 200. The documentation this may improve probing results. I'm all in.
Uncommented #define NO_MOTION_BEFORE_HOMING and #define HOME_AFTER_DEACTIVATE.
Uncommented #define AUTO_BED_LEVELING_BILINEAR
Uncommented #define RESTORE_LEVELING_AFTER_G28. This is to ensure the mesh is applied even after G28, which disables the mesh otherwise.
Ensures that this setting was 10. #define DEFAULT_LEVELING_FADE_HEIGHT 10.0
I set the following : #define GRID_MAX_POINTS_X 7. Ensures a 7x7 mesh grid is created. This could be more or less. 49 points is an improvement over Creality's 9, although a bit much. Worthwhile in my case.
Uncommented #define EXTRAPOLATE_BEYOND_GRID. I was actually wondering if this was causing some of the inconsistent prints near the edge.
Uncommented #define LCD_BED_LEVELING. This is to unlock more options for ABL in the menu.
Uncommented #define LEVEL_BED_CORNERS. This should make moving between corners for manual levelling easier.
Uncommented #define LEVEL_CORNERS_USE_PROBE. This is to achieve exactly what I was doing with G30 in Pronterface. I changed to tolerance with #define LEVEL_CORNERS_PROBE_TOLERANCE 0.03
Uncommented #define Z_SAFE_HOMING, which is important for the BLTouch.
Changed my PLA profile according to what I have determined to be best with #define PREHEAT_1_TEMP_HOTEND 200 and #define PREHEAT_1_TEMP_BED 60
I had to comment #define BLTOUCH_SET_5V_MODE for things to compile. I also had to modify #define LEVEL_CORNERS_INSET_LFRB { 30, 30, 45, 45 }, due to the margin I set as well as the offset of my touch. Otherwise, the above configuration was fine, in terms of compilation.
I'll post back with the results.
Here are the results for the M48 3DTouch test. Are these values good?
Measurement
Value
Mean
0.063667
Min
0.061
Max
0.068
Range
0.007
STD
0.002478
I reduced the speed of the probing in half in order to make the probing more accurate. This was done by changing from #define Z_PROBE_FEEDRATE_FAST (4*60) to #define Z_PROBE_FEEDRATE_FAST (2*60). I also made the mesh grid 8x8 because might as well.
These are my M48 repeatability results. Interesting to compare to the above table which probed at double the speed.
Measurement
Value
Mean
0.005500
Min
0.002
Max
0.010
Range
0.008
STD
0.001908
I also changed the filament (brand new). Just as another variable to modify.
The following prints are the result.
The mesh before this print is as follows:
Levelling the X-Axis Gantry
As Oscar in the comments has mentioned, I have read some other forum posts that described the cause of uneven lines and similar inconsistencies as what I am noticing, as being due to the X-axis Gantry that moves up and down as not being level.
I used a digital caliper and measured the x axis gantry relative to the frame of the 3D printer. So for example, I put my caliper against the base metal extrusion and then against the x-axis gantry. I did this on both sides.
The side without the Z-Axis lead screw (right side) was above the side with the Z-Axis lead screw (left side) by about 1.7mm. I'm surprised that CHEP and some other build videos never mentioned to check this, but it does seem logical to consider. Making the brackets flush is NOT adequate. When I do make it flush, then one side is higher than the other. The build videos say to make it flush. This will make things OFF.
To adjust this, I took off the gantry, slightly loosened the bolts on both side plates, so that it was stiff enough that it wouldn't move easily, but could make subtle adjustments by twisting it hard enough. I then put the gantry back on the printer, did some measurements and corresponding adjustments. I then carefully threaded the gantry off and tightened the plates.
Currently, my left and right side have a difference of .17mm. I figured I won't get anything better by hand. I'll do another test print tonight. 1.7mm vs .17mm is a reasonable difference.
No problem, it is our job to gently teach newcomers the rules,. Note, you are encouraged to give as much information as possible if relevant to the question, your own research is much appreciated! Also, posting your own answers when you find them later is perfectly valid! You can even accept your own answer after 48 hours of posting! Remember SE works a little different, but in the end we want good questions with solid answers where the community votes on the questions and answers spreading their gratitude through reputation. Get the Q and A's coming! :-)
One red flag:
I have also put a straight edge with an Angle Finder Phone App. The bed is quite level. It reads 0, 1, or 2° depending on how I place the level. X-axis gantry has a 1° tilt.
"Level" in the sense of bed leveling does not have anything to do with being level relative to the earth's gravity. If your X axis is tilted but your bed isn't, there's your problem. They have to be square to each other, not level with respect to any external reference (you can operate your printer on its side or upside down for all it cares).
If you find that, no matter how much you try to tune the bed leveling, it keeps coming out different by the time you print, you probably don't have a problem with your bed but with the X axis gantry and Z motion system it's attached to. If the frame the Z carriages run up and down is not entirely square, or if the wheel tension is not right, the undriven side might not follow correctly with the driven side. This means sometimes positioning at the right (viewed from front) side of the printer will come out too high, and other times too low, depending on a lot of factors, the most obvious one being last direction of Z travel.
Thank you. I really appreciate your response.
I wanted to mention that I understand that level measurements are not significant. But I thought it was interesting enough to post about. My bed levelling was done on the basis of distance from the nozzle, and the level was just an observation and did not influence levelling.
Thanks. I will try to further investigate the x-axis gantry that is moving up and down. The tilt on that was 1 degree, downwards towards the side with no z-axis. However, I found the bed to also have a tile of 1 degree to that side.
You need to check the X gantry, the Ender design is flawed by using a single Z screw on one side. Please check the rollers and check the belt tension. All the leveling graphs show that the bed is lower on the right side (or the gantry higher), it could be that the rollers on the right post (when facing the printer) are causing the right side to be lower.
Question for you. Do you think there is a problem with using G30 to level a bed? I noticed that even when I use my G30 approach, I seem to still end up with a slanted bed. Is there some flaw to the G30 approach? I tried searching for it online, but I pretty much found nothing about using G30 to manually adjust the knobs. But I thought it would be far more scientific and precise than the paper method.
Even with a 3DTouch, bed leveling needs to be done manually, I never use G30 or have used the past 6 years, instead I do a G28, lower the head to paper thickness between nozzle and bed, than de-power the steppers and manually tram the bed everywhere (corners and middle of the bed) so that it is as level as possible (note to use G28, move to a corner, move down and de-power multiple times). This ensures that the bed is in the same plane as the nozzle, unless the bed is really skew/bent this should work. When done you only have to set the correct Z offset and add G29 to the start G-code.
@geekgeek4 The problem you are facing is not the G30 or manual leveling procedure, but most logically a mechanical issue. I'm not here to speak evil of the Ender design because it can work well when properly set up and tuned, but the design can lead to frustrations for new users when it does not perform up to par. P.S. note that comments are not here to last forever, you might see them disappear after a while when comments are addressed in the Q and A's. :-)
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.213510
| 2024-05-26T02:04:14 |
23324
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32353",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740",
"Ícaro Lorran"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5975",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/23324"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Ender 3 Pro Not Using the Whole Bed
My Ender 3-Pro has a printing area of about 24x24 square centimeters. However, when I move the nozzle around either the x or y axes, it only goes up to 21 centimeters. Printing something that requires the whole width of the bed gets truncated to 21 cm x 21 cm.
I don't know if this is related, but I installed a CR Touch leveling kit, which required me to re-flash the printer's firmware. I used the file specified in the link provided by the manual.
Is there a way to change the settings so that the printer uses the whole bed?
Is the head physically able to reach the whole bed of 240 x 240 mm?
If the head is physically able to reach the whole bed of 240 x 240 mm, the answer is yes, you can change the printing area. But, the downside is that you need to change your firmware for it. This generally implies that you need to configure the firmware yourself, rather than flashing a ready made solution; this is a skill you need to have or develop. It involves downloading development software (e.g. Visual Studio Code, with addons) and printer firmware source code (e.g. Marlin 2.x). It requires you to configure the settings in the Configuration.h and Conffiguration_adv.h. You can find many of these settings in preconfigured configuration files, e.g. here: config/examples/Creality/Ender-3 Pro.
You find that recent configuration files already use a bed size of 235:
// @section geometry
// The size of the printable area
#define X_BED_SIZE 235
#define Y_BED_SIZE 235
// Travel limits (linear=mm, rotational=°) after homing, corresponding to endstop positions.
#define X_MIN_POS 0
#define Y_MIN_POS 0
#define Z_MIN_POS 0
#define X_MAX_POS X_BED_SIZE + 10
#define Y_MAX_POS Y_BED_SIZE
#define Z_MAX_POS 250
From X_MIN_POS we read that there is no extra space, the endstop marks the start of the bed, so if this is exactly the position of the start of the bed area, you probably cannot center your print area, but, it is added below for application in case there is space left. If the nozzle is above the bed when hitting the X endstop (so not exactly at the start of the print area), you cannot use the full 240 as you cannot define a negative offset as this goes past the endstop.
So, for printers that have additional space on the X axis, it is very important (when you use the whole bed) to center the printable area exactly in the middle of the building plate, see How to center my prints on the build platform? (Re-calibrate homing offset). This may imply that you need to adjust the endstop offsets.
Furthermore, you need to define the correct probing area for your build plate, see How to set Z-probe boundary limits in firmware when using automatic bed leveling?. Note that it is far more easy in Marlin 2 to specify the probing area.
Once configured, you need to build the firmware, flash the controller board, load the default settings, re-calibrate your probe Z-offset and bed center and start using the whole printing area (don't forget to change the slicer bed dimensions).
I think your solution would probably work, except that there are no examples to configure CR-Touch for the 4.2.7 board from what I saw in the repo. I suppose I'll have to wait until then.
@ÍcaroLorran CT Touch is no different from a BLTouch, there are numerous examples to be found to configure that. Furthermore, it is not that difficult to setup. Google is your friend to find how to configure this.
If you are going to flash new firmware and compile it, you can update the Configuration.h with the following values:
#define X_MAX_POS 240
#define Y_MAX_POS 240
In Cura or other slicer software, you also have to increase the size of the printer's build platform. Settings > Printer > Manage Printers > Machine Settings > X (Width), Y (Depth)
If you don't execute both steps, the print head position will always be clamped to the 21x21 cm.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.213841
| 2021-12-25T07:20:46 |
18631
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Trish",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32198",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/8884",
"nl-x"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5976",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18631"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Printing above, not onto the bed
I just got an Ender 3 pro printer and set it up. I have levelled my bed and set the coordinates to (0, 0, 0) with the nozzle paper’s thickness away from the bed. When I started printing the default test dog, the machine moves to (0, 0, 5) which lifted the nozzle up and filament started oozing out without touching the bed. I also tried my own square design and the same happens. Is there anyway to not make it go up? I cannot make my bed go any higher.
Hi, welcome to 3DPrinting.SE! Please update your question to include some (e.g. 32 lines) of the lines of the G-code file of the dog. To be sure, also mention how you level the bed, you need to perform G28 and move the head down to zero height and then level to paper thickness.
Sounds like your g-code is off.
It sounds like you changed the settings for the default z offset from the menu. See if you can reset it, or reset the machine to factory defaults.
Please add the information, else the community votes to close the question and the only way to get it reopened is through the reopen vote after a major update from you. We would love to help but this is a little too less information to work with.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.213993
| 2022-01-13T14:11:38 |
18743
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Ahmad Magrabi",
"AzulShiva",
"Trish",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/30842",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32434",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/8884"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5977",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18743"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
CR-10 Smart with weak infill
I had a hard time printing some parts as the brim was printed very well contrary to the first layer, wall, and especially infill. I noticed that filament lines were too thin when printing walls, infill, and the first layer. So the first layer was not sticking to each other.
I suspected that the slicer was the first to investigate, so I printed a model which I already printed before from SD Card and the newly printed part has the exact problems.
Suspecting that filament thread gets cooled very soon so we tried:
Printing with more Nozzle Temp (225 °C).
Result: Walls adhered better but still not strong in addition to weak infill.
Then turned on Fan Automatic Control
Result: more nice walls with still weak infill.
Setup:
Creality CR-10 Smart 3D Printer
Cura Slicer
Material eSUN PLA+ White
Nozzle 0.4 mm
10 % Infill
30 % infill overlap percentage
0.32 mm infill layer thickness.
can you tell us the following information via an [edit]: Print material, nozzle diameter and line width? You have 0.32 mm layer height, which is very tall and only advisable with nozzles that are 0.45 mm or larger. It is common to print wider than the nozzle diameter and at max 3/4th the height.
Welcome to 3DPrinting.SE. Is this a stock CR-10? You clearly have under extrusion. Please check your extruder. What filament do you use? Please update the question by [edit].
If you buy a CR-10 the first thing you should do is replace the extruder for a microswiss direct-drive system. The stock extruders are absolute garbage and will cause you a lot of problems like this. It will also remove 1 variable and narrow down the source of future problems.
@AzulShiva no, the term "Layer thickness" is, in industry, used for the height of a layer, not the line width
@Trish Thank you for elaborating, but he certainly isn't using a layer height of 0.32mm, that is not possible. He said "INFILL layer thickness" along with mentioning other infill settings so I assume he meant the infill line distance setting from the Cura slicer and perhaps making a typo in the process.
I meant infill layer height for 0.32 also for the Model layer height, I changed it back to 0.16 mm and I got a better results! for me it's ambiguous why it can't print 0.32 Infill layer height, I didn't have such a problem with CR-10S PRO
@AhmadMagrabi you can't have a layer height of more than 3/4 of the nozzle diameter because you need to squish the plastic down at least that much to get layer adhesion.
To solve this problem, I tweaked the following:
Infill Pattern: Some patterns tend to be more solid than others, going back to Grid instead of Cubic ensuring that there is a solid base for infill to avoid layer shift in infill as Cubic infill is printed in a slanted angle.
Infill layer height: It seems that the CR-10 Smart is unable to print 0.32 mm infill layer height.
Lowering infill speed: going from 75 mm/sec to 50 mm/sec as 75 mm/sec infill speed was too much for the extruder as it was unable to keep up with the speed so you will start to notice under-extrusion on the inside of your part, This under-extrusion will tend to create weak, stringy infill since the nozzle is not able to extrude as much plastic as the software would like.
Attached below the difference between 0.16 mm infill layer height on the right, the model is sturdy and strong.
0.32 mm infill layer height on the left, the model is weak and stringy.
On my try to print a large scale print the same problem occurred, very weak infill, which drove me crazy !
Addressing the real problem "Under-Extrusion" .. testing extruder I noticed that there is a crack on the feeder box
In my opinion it's a bad decision to go for plastic for the feeder, their design uses the lever to shift the plastic box which has the idler pulley (fixed on it) to relieve the pressure on filament.
The crack on feeder weakened the grip on filament, causing slippage making the filament to be extruded too thin, which made the filament too weak to stick to each other.
Changing extruder to aluminium kit feeder with tight grip on filament ensured that filament is pushed correctly without slipping and also stopped stringing while nozzle is heating.
Print on left after applying the fix.
Hopes this save someone's the trouble.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.214371
| 2021-12-26T06:33:02 |
18639
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"agarza",
"doombringer175",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23193",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32439",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5978",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18639"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Y-axis on KP3S Kingroon only moves in one direction
I recently got a KP3S Kingroon 3D printer and have been trying to set it up.
After a couple of test prints, the Y-axis seems to only move in one direction. At first, I thought it was a motor issue, but when I go into the manual move directions for the Y-axis it seems that both inputs lead to the motor spinning in the same direction.
We have ruled out endstops as a possible issue. I think it might be a hardware issue but lack the skills to confirm the exact issue.
Send:17:40:57.724: @moveRel Y10.00
Send:17:40:57.724: N31 G1 Y10.00 F6000
Send:17:40:57.728: @updatePrinterState
Send:17:41:00.824: @moveRel Y-10.00
Send:17:41:00.824: N35 G1 Y0.00 F6000
Send:17:41:00.828: @updatePrinterState
Send:17:41:07.445: @moveRel Y10.00
Send:17:41:07.445: N43 G1 Y10.00 F6000
Send:17:41:07.449: @updatePrinterState
Send:17:41:09.482: @moveRel Y-10.00
Send:17:41:09.482: N46 G1 Y0.00 F6000
Send:17:41:09.486: @updatePrinterState
Even though it states that it is increasing and decreasing by 10 it only decreases by 10.
I have updated the firmware to Marlin. I tested switching X and Y inputs and believe the breakdown occurs at the Y input signal.
attached is a picture of the mother board.
I am unsure of how to best fix this?
The answer might just be replace the mother board.
If I understood everything correctly there are 5 things to check to break down the problem:
the motor,
the cable,
the stepper connection,
the software input, and
the firmware.
Using Repetier I disproved that the software was broken. By switching the X stepper and Y stepper cables, the motor and connection cable were proven to work. By flashing new firmware it was shown that it was without question that the firmware was the issue.
The backup extractor (E1) is not operational on this board. So it is either the stepper of the mother board.
What "tests" did you run that made you come to this conclusion? Please [edit] your answer to provide these additional details.
@agarza, If i understood everything correctly there are 5 things to break: the motor, the cable, the stepper connection, the software input, and the firmware. Using repetier i disproved it was on a software that was broken. By switching the x stepper and y stepper cords the motor and connection cable was proven to work. and by flashing the firmware it was shown that it was without question firmware. the backup extractor (E1) is non-operational on this board. So it is either the stepper of the mother board. Any other ideas are welcome.
@doombringer175 Great comment, but that would be even better to fit the first line into the answer. I've taken the liberty to include this into the answer. Feel free to change it! Note that you could have changed the X stepper driver with the Y stepper driver, they are Polulu breakout boards, so you can even work out if the board or the driver is the issue! Do you mean that the E1 is not working because there is no driver, or did you also put a driver in?
The question body has changed to rule out broken endstops. As a generic answer for steppers only going into a single direction, if an axis of a 3D printer only moves in one direction it usually implies that the end stop of that axis is triggered. If triggered, the firmware doesn’t allow the stepper to move to the direction of the end stop.
Check the end stop lever and cables. Optionally connect a USB cable and send the G-code M119 over a terminal.
If the endstops are functioning correctly (reporting “open” or “triggered” corresponding to the state of the endstop), a Google search on the World Wide Web shows that people that had these exact problems had issues with the controller board, replacing the board helped their issue. If this is a recent purchase it is advised to contact the seller for support rather than fiddling with the board or the firmware.
In case the board has a spare unused stepper driver (not very unlikely if you have this controller board), the firmware could be altered to use the spare for Y movement. E.g. E1 could be used for Y.
I appreciate the help, and these exerciese did help me learn more about the system. I think the system is reading both y inputs as the same command, are there codes you know of to move the y axis? it might help me figure out if its a hardware (what i am currently assuming) and a software (doubtful but really want to rule out). and if it is hardware what would be your next step?
@doombringer175 Swap the X and Y stepper connectors to see if X now only moves in one direction. Do it at your own risk, I’m not liable for damages. Also, see the bottom part of the answer, you could try to use the spare stepper driver slot. Best if you use a new driver though, but you could try with the current one. Do note if you use a new driver, you need to make sure it is the same and set the correct Vref.
My skill set is more on the software side so i'd wager its not an impossible fix, but i don't think its going to be quick. I'll do some research. again i think both the motor and the cable are fine (given that it worked fine when plugged into the x drive) so i'll give it a shot. something to the effect of this right: https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/3925/how-to-switch-motor-outputs-and-use-e1-as-x-in-marlin-firmware?noredirect=1&lq=1
@doombringer175 There are a few ways to tackle this, 1) the previously mentioned switch of the X and Y cables only one of the connectors each cable, 2) swap the cables completely, 3) with the cables working and swapped you could pry out the X/Y stepper drivers and swap them. This should give you information whether it is cables, steppers, or the board/processor. 4) change the firmware and proceed with using the spare slot with a new driver.
Comments are not meant to last forever or extended discussions or help, you are very welcome in our public 3D Printing chat room! There are more people to help you there!
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.215146
| 2021-12-30T18:32:01 |
18665
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Criggie",
"Trish",
"Zeiss Ikon",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/12956",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/28397",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/28508",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/8884",
"user10489"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5979",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18665"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What caused the blackening of this filament?
About 5 hours into a print last night, the filament stopped extruding leaving the model unfinished.
On investigation, I saw that the filament had stopped feeding. I can see marks on the filament left by the wheel that feeds it through the tube. The marks stop with a black mark. Does the black mark suggest a reason why the printer stopped printing?
I am using an Anycubic Mega S with 3dJake EcoPLA.
Probably need information on what printer/extruder you're using, as it may be related.
It would be interesting to see the end of the filament that was in the extruder. I see a black spec further down the filament too. It looks like your gear is dirty and depositing grit on the filament that might be collecting in the nozzle and clogging it.
could be black PLA or grease...
I think it is important to figure out what the black residue is and where it is coming from.
Does your filament drive have a rubber-tyred wheel, or a metal wheel?
2 possibilities occur:
Grease/dust has contaminated your filament somehow, and the extruder's drive wheel is not gripping it. The rest of the printer would have "air-printed" Maybe the filament was pre-dirty and this is the point it stopped.
Stoppage - something blocked up the hotend and the filament resisted being pushed in. Perhaps the hotend cooled down and filament solidified, or there's a real blockage in there.
If you had a camera on the printer, you might be able to review timelapse footage and see if anything happened.
Right now I'd suggest you discard that length, refit the same filament, and print something small, just to make sure its still working. You might choose to aim any timelapse camera directly at the filament drive wheel or just watch it.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.215347
| 2022-01-09T15:17:20 |
18707
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32501",
"user3574603"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5980",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18707"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Why does part of the model come away from supports during print?
I have been trying to print the same dinosaur model for several days and all my attempts have failed in the same place. On every attempt, the tail falls off the supports. Sometimes there is a little black fleck at the point of failure.
I've varied the print temperature +/- 5 °C. I've tried cooling at 60, 70 and 100 %. I've tightened the extruded gripper thing. I've dropped the print speed to 40 mm/s. On my last attempt, I increased flow to 105 % but no joy.
I got the furthest with infilled support, despite the tail falling off.
I'm using an AnyCubic Mega S with PolyTerra PLA. Model is printed with 25 % infill, printing temperature is 210 °C, 0.2 mm layer height, 3 walls @ 1.2 mm, 50 mm/s, 100 % cooling, default Cura support and raft for adhesion. I have inspected the nozzle and it is clean.
Does anyone know what I could do to prevent the tail from coming away from the supports during print?
Edit
The model is the carnosaurus from https://www.myminifactory.com/object/3d-print-dinosaurs-pack-200076.
I've been printing it as orientated in the file -- balancing on its tail almost vertical. Is this orientation unusual?
I wonder if this way up is best suited to resin printing and whether I'd have better results if I laid the dinosaur flat.
Update
I decided to print something else. The new model, which I'd printed successfully three times before suffered from the same layer adhesion problems.
I re-printed the carnotaurus last night with a new, 0.25mm nozzle. It came out perfect. I suspect the original problem was down to the nozzle after all but haven't had chance to test another 0.4mm nozzle.
Yes, that orientation is very unusual and will waste extreme amounts of material on supports. I would print it with the feet flat to the build plate (likely best visual quality), or lying on its side as close as possible to the build plate (likely best strength).
I will try a different orientation. One thing I have noticed about the tail down orientation is that the layers look like natural contours of the skin when they're printed that way. I wonder if that's why the designer chose the orientation.
Perhaps. Anyway, it should work, albeit being a waste, in that orientation, so if it's not, something is going wrong with your layer adhesion, and you probably need to spend some time trying to understand what's going on by reproducing the issue with simpler models.
If part of the print is only attached to the buildplate through support structures, and it keeps coming off, the support structures are either not adequately adhering to the print, or they're geometrically insufficient, in the sense that they only attach at small points around which the print sitting on top can tilt like a lever with forces from the printing and eventually work its way off. If that's the case, you might have to fool around with the slicer's support generation settings until it gives you ones that look like they're geometrically reasonable.
If the problem is just poor adhesion between the part and the support structure, you probably just need to adjust some settings in the slicer, like the Z distance between the support and the part, and any options that might be affecting integrity of printing the support. For example Cura has an option, on by default, to skip retractions in the support structure. This causes both heavy stringing and underextrusion of the supports, so that they're weak and don't adhere well.
Do you know what that option in Cura is called? I increased the support interface size to 1.00mm but the tail failed yet again.
"Limit support retractions" I think.
I switched to regular support and doubled the interface to 1.6mm. The tail printed out intact this time. However, when I removed the supports, the tail came apart in exactly the same places. This leads me to suspect that the true problem is layer adhesion. I've tried printing @ 195C, 205C, 210C and 215C and all prints are weak at the same points. Any ideas?
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.215810
| 2022-01-12T16:03:09 |
18731
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Criggie",
"ThomasD",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/12956",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32664",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5981",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18731"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Calibration of Y-axis produces different results on single model with different length even after E-step calibration
TL;DR;
If I calibrate my Y-axis steps/mm based on the long side of the model shown below, the calibration cube part is printed too big. If I calibrate the steps/mm based on the calibration cube part, the long side of the model comes out too short. Any ideas/hints on what the problem is?
I have an Anycubic Chiron 3D printer without any technical modifications. For calibration purposes, I created a specific design that allows for measuring longer and shorter lengths as well as the diameter of holes. I mainly did this because an error in the settings of steps/mm will be more visible on a larger print and holes often came out too small for me in my prints. You can find pictures of my design below.
Now, I have three other printers (Artillery Sidewinder X1, Tronxy X5SA-400, Geeetech A30T) that print the model OK. Whenever there is a problem with the X- and Y-steps/mm setting it will be equally visible on the shorter "calibration cube" part of the model as well as on the longer parts. While for the latter 3 printers this expectation holds true, the Chiron produces different results.
If I calibrate the steps/mm for the Y-axis based on the long side correctly, the calibration cube part is off by about +0.2 mm. Of course, if I calibrate the steps/mm based on the calibration cube part, the long side is too short. This really confuses me as I would have expected that a potential error would be visible on both parts of the model.
The error can be observed consistently. The prints come out OK, just the measurements are off.
My first guess was that it might have something to do with the extruder, but I calibrated the extruder several times already without luck. My second guess would be that it might have something to do with the nozzle size not being accurate. Last not least, maybe some steps could be missed consistently by the motor on longer lines because the stepper voltage is not correctly set? I'm just speculating...
I already checked the belt, belt tension and the pulleys. It is also not important on which part of the bed I print. I also replaced the stepper drivers (A4988) by TMC2208 drivers as I had these available from another project. No luck, though, same result with the new drivers.
Any help/hint is appreciated.
I am unfamiliar with this printer. Can you tweak X and Y values separately ?
Yes, there are separate motors for the X- and Y-axis. The steps/mm can also be set separately.
have you checked the condition/tension of your drive belts and the pulleys? There might be some backlash/play.
Good point, but yes, I already checked the belt and the pulleys. I also would expect the print to be less consistent if these things would come into play. I‘ll add this info the the question. Thank you for trying to help me!
You should not tweak the steps per mm for the X and Y, these are given by the mechanical layout of the machine and the stepper and the driver. Furthermore, 0.2 mm is within the margins of 3D printing, nothing to worry about.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.216102
| 2022-01-17T17:11:15 |
18763
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Abel",
"ChristianB",
"Criggie",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/12956",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23523",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32739"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5982",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18763"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
3D Printer keeps pausing during prints
I have used this 3D printer for over a year now and I just now started running into this problem. It is an Anycubic Chiron with no mods or anything custom added. It is placed in a cabinet my dad and I built to keep the heat in during the winter.
The problem started when the power went out. I came to the printer when the power was restored and it displayed the message, "The printer is sensing a lack a filament." So, I restarted it. It was no longer displaying that message, so I continued printing with it. Now, whenever I print anything longer than 10-20 minutes, it will randomly pause. Displaying the option to continue the print or stop the print. How can I fix this?
Just to clarify - the recent random pauses also say "sensing a lack of filament" or are they just pauses ?
The first time I happened to see the "sensing a lack of filament" message, but I'm not sure whether it appears only for a short duration of time or if it lasts until the user presses ok. So, if I wanted to catch that again, I would have to wait anywhere from 30 minutes to 6 hours. So, I am now running it overnight with a camera to see if it displays the message, or if it just pauses. I hope this all makes sense and if there is anything you need me to clarify, please let me know.
drawing a line between a filament sensor and random pauses that are not present in the code leads through discrete input read fails... could be some issue with pullups?
What are Pullups?
I have confirmed that it is falsely sensing a lack of filament. it is happening more frequently now.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.216276
| 2022-09-18T19:10:50 |
19945
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5983",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19945"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Anycubic Chiron homing issue
The Anycubic Chiron is the third 3D printer I’ve owned, so I’m fairly familiar with the inner workings of them.
The problem occurs when I home the Z-axis. Once the Z-axis sensor gets triggered, the Z-axis motors should stop. However, Instead of stopping, the Z-axis motors go 2-3 mm further after the Z-axis sensor is already triggered. Therefore, the nozzle of the printer is lower than the bed itself. I've had this printer for 2 years, but the problem started last week.
In the video, you can see that the little red light shuts off when the sensor is triggered. You can also hear the motors spin slightly faster after they’re supposed to stop. If you have any ideas to fix this, any help would be greatly appreciated.
Here's the video link.
Hi Christian, welcome to 3DPrinting.SE! Please [edit] your question to add information on how this happened. Is this brand new out-of-the-box behavior, occurring after a while, after a firmware change, suddenly occurred, etc. Please shed some light on the history of the problem.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.216406
| 2022-07-21T02:23:36 |
19680
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Kilisi",
"fred_dot_u",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/31811",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32882",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/854",
"i-CONICA"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5984",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19680"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Why is my nozzle routinely clogging and no longer extruding mid otherwise successful print with several different previously successful filaments?
I’ve a Flashforge Adventurer 3 which I’ve found to be a fantastic out of the box ready to go printer. I’ve clocked up 500 hours on it.
I’ve had issues where the nozzle was too close to the print bed, making it impossible for the extruder wheel to force filament down the bowden tube. With harder filaments that results in clicking as it’s cog is skipping. With softer, usually matte PLA it’s just wearing a groove and no longer pushing. I have to take the then baked filament and manually push it out of the nozzle, then bed recalibration.
I have a filament dryer, and use it every time I’m printing as it’s a perfect dispenser with it’s roller bearings.
I recently keep getting prints where they start out perfect, but then after about layer 10, the extrusion simply stops. The printer obviously carries on like all is ok, but there’s not even spaghetti.
What could this be? Do I just need a new nozzle? I don’t understand how a metal nozzle printing plastic can deteriorate it. It’s not the same as pitting you get in a soldering iron tip surely…
Did you replace anything in the extruder path during the last 500 hours? E.g. the nozzle assembly is sold separately. Could be, depending on the filament you printed, that the feeder gear has worn.
Ah, I think you’re onto something. I had a few weeks ago a filament which at it’s recommended temperatures was unprintable. You’d hear the feeder gear clicking as it’s skipping trying to force the filament through. I remedied that by printing at 240C by trial and error and have had successful prints with that filament since, but maybe that skipping on this really hard filament worn it before I noticed and stopped it. I’ll see if I can dismantle the feeder assembly and check.
You may not have worn the hobbed gear so much as loaded the teeth with the debris from the previous problematic filament. That's an easier fix, as well.
@fred_dot_u Thanks, I’ll look out for that. The problems did seem to start when printing with a really soft filament, and also I had the nozzle too close to the print bed so it couldn’t extrude and the gear worn a U shape into the filament as it couldn’t move it along, so your suggestion could be the answer. I’m going to investigate in a few minutes. Thanks.
@fred_dot_u I’ve updated the post with a photo of the hobbed gear. Does this look worn to you? I never saw it new so I’ve no idea. When I withdrew the filament to do this, it was very chewed up though, as if the gear had been chatting against it trying to force it through. I’ll update again in a minute with a photo of the failed print.
The teeth appear to be in good shape. It also does not appear clogged or otherwise restricted. At least you can tick off one possibility.
Nozzles do degrade with use. That is why they're made to be easily replaceable.
Your problem may be a worn nozzle or incomplete cleaning or something with the bowden tube etc,. but an easy troubleshooting step is just to replace the nozzle.
Like the Ultimaker designs, this nozzle features a core concept, I don't think you can easily replace the nozzle itself, you can change the assembly quite easily though!
@Oscar looks pretty easy to me, they just call the whole assembly 'nozzle', no point confusing the OP with other definitions https://www.flashforge.com/faq-detail/20
More confusingly, some websites call it the extruder...
@Kilisi Forgive my ignorance, but I don’t understand how a nozzle can wear out. It still gets to the requested temperature, and it’s made of metal. None of my filaments has any abrasive additives like glitter. If it was to wear wouldn’t that mean the 0.4mm hole would increase in size? That’d make it less likely to clog surely? :/
As said above, I think the filament pushing cog could be worn, I’ll check that and come back. Thanks.
@Kilisi Additional info, If I remove the bowden tube from the print head, with the nozzle up to filament change temperature, I can fairly easily push through some filament and extrude it with my fingers. I’ve also got some of that really soft strange “cleaner” filament. I’m not sure what it does, but I’ll run some of that through too with the manual feed option in settings.
I don't know how they wear out, perhaps pitting catching stuff on the inside? No real idea, I just know that changing a perfectly good looking nozzle solved my problems once.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.216803
| 2022-01-29T10:33:00 |
18819
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Criggie",
"Paul",
"agarza",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/12956",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23193",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/28397",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32887",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740",
"user10489"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5985",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18819"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Ender 3 Pro: Flow rate drops after time
I have to set my print flow setting extremely high (up to 180 % and more) as otherwise, I get an under extrusion. I have also noticed that from time to time I have to update that setting to an even higher value.
Question:
Is my feed motor broken? Or do I wideness the slow death of it? Or is the calibration getting lower after a while (I would not know why/how this is possible, but still)?
I am using:
Cura as slicer (correct 3D printer selected)
Ender 3 Pro
0.4 mm Nozzle
ERYONE PLA Filament 1.75 mm PLA 1.75 mm 3D Printing
Similar Question: Why is my 3D printer over extruding when I have set the flow rate very low
Edit:
@Oscar pointed me to have a close look at the extruder and found a very used feeder-weel: Could that be my problem?
Look at the extruder lever, when broken, which is very common, this can happen. There is a recent similar question. I'll link it later.
@Oscar Thanks for your input. The Lever looks fine. I have updated my question, as the feed-weel might be the Problem. Do you mind having a look at it?!
It does look a bit worn.
It's hard to tell from the photo, but it looks like there is a set screw on that feed-wheel which would make replacement fairly easy; finding a replacement is a different matter.
If worn, the feeder gear doesn't grip the filament, and hence slips. You need to compensate for a larger extrusion length as you encountered. Looking at the feeder gear, I don't know where the filament is being gripped, but there sure are parts of the teeth missing, you need to replace the feeder gear.
Thanks to you all! There are plenty of replacements on amazon alone. I will make sure to come back and answer the question if the replacement solved my problem.
If the feeder gear has worn out, the feeder gear doesn't grip the filament, and hence slips. You would then need to compensate for a larger extrusion length, as you encountered, by e.g. bumping up the flow modifier.
Looking at the feeder gear, I don't know exactly where the filament is being gripped, but, there sure are parts of the teeth missing and some parts are shiny brass colored indicating wear, you need to replace the feeder gear.
It has been reported that some of these feeder gears are crimped onto the stepper shaft, but from the photo you posted a hint of a grub screw can be seen, which would simplify replacement.
Quick fix:
Losen the screw on the feeder gear and adjust the height of it. This way the filament is being fed by not-worn-out teeth (set it above the groove you can see in the question picture). A replacement of the gear is recommended anyway!
@Paul I've accepted your edit, but I encourage you to post it as a separate answer! It seems a valid quick fix while a spare is on its way!
@Paul Trying to work through to a root cause - it could be that your extruder has been pushing against some resistance. Do you remember having a blockage in the past? Or has the printer been used for something tougher than PLA? Could be your hotend is providing too much resistance, or the Bowden tube is burned ?
@Criggie After the quick fix I still have to set the flow rate fairly high (better print results though), but if I remember correctly that was always the case (i bought a new device). I have mostly used the same PLA. I have not noticed any resistance, yet, but I will make sure to disassemble the extruder head and have a closer look at it. Thanks a lot for your very important thoughts!!! I really appreciate it.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.217076
| 2022-01-29T21:31:41 |
18820
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Mordecai",
"Pᴀᴜʟsᴛᴇʀ2",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11242",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/32894"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5986",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18820"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
My Anycubic i3 Mega S stops working
I have an Anycubic i3 Mega S and I'm using Ultimaker Cura. I'm using it for 1-2 years but 1-2 months ago this issue has started: The printer is starting to print then usually after 2-3 loops, it just stops working. I can't stop & pause the printing (it gives an error) and I have to turn off the printer.
I reinstalled the firmware multiple times with both Ultimaker and SuperSlicer but it is still happening. I have tried to use different slicer software, models (STL files), SD cards, and none of them worked.
Also recently I noticed something weird: this problem happens when the model is bigger than 5-8 cm. Like it happened when I tried to print a 10x10 cm model but I split the model into two parts and it worked fine. Also, it's about the area of the model's bottom. For example, if the model has a skirt bigger than 5-8 cm, it causes this issue but when I remove the skirt then it works fine.
BTW, I checked the G-code and didn't notice anything unusual and even with different slicer software, the exact spot where the printer stopped doesn't change.
I don't think the STL file is causing this because, for example, if I want to print a 5x8x3 cm model, I can't place it horizontally (5x8 area at the bottom) but I can place it vertically (5x3 area at the bottom) and it works fine.
Settings:
Print speed: 50 mm/s
Travel speed: 100 mm/s
Nozzle temperature: 200 °C
Bed temperature: 60 °C
PLA filament
Retraction distance: 6 mm
Retraction Speed: 40 mm/s
I'm using a Volcano V6 hotend
I'm using stock 1.1.5 firmware:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/176Zdtz8-ZvCqL7MgupIVYgKVEnWnkPmW/view
Have you checked the bed dimensions in your slicer? The presets may have changed for some reason, which might be causing you issues.
Yeah I was using same settings I used before in Cura and When I was testing in different slicers, I certainly know it's the right dimensions I entered (210x210x250 mm)
I was having the same issues with the Mega S. After checking all the connections and switches, I saved all the files that were on the SD card to my laptop. I then performed a standard format (not a Quick format) on the SD card. After that was accomplished, I put the files back on; success, the printer works fine. Apparently the random writes on the SD card and not knowing where the G-code or STL was dropped can make the printer confused seeing a G-code file that has to be read continuously step by step.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.217314
| 2022-06-13T03:06:18 |
19551
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"ChinchillaWafers",
"Eduard Sukharev",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"allardjd",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/10944",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/27077",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/33030"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5987",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19551"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Where/how can I connect a physical Emergency Stop panic button directly to a RAMPS 1.4 board to quickly stop all stepper movement?
The printer is a Prusa I3. I'm running it directly from a PC with Repetier 2.2.4. Repetier has a soft Emergency
Stop but that requires grabbing the mouse and getting the pointer to the hot spot on the screen. I'd be more comfortable with a physical button.
If all else fails I can rig a panic button to connect a 30 ohm resistor between hot and ground downstream of the GFI, causing it to trip. That seems a bit extreme. Also not sure if the capacitors in the power supply might keep a motor going for another few steps after the mains power goes away. Interrupting the stepper motor power just ahead of the motor drivers seems like the optimal way to go.
I guess I could just pick up the reset pin on the Arduino Mega and use the panic button to connect that to ground. That will reset the board.
Just pull the main power on the machine if it bombs and goes haywire. It isn’t a computer that needs a soft shutdown.
The only thing you want to do is turn it back on quickly so the hotend fan goes back on and you don’t get heat creep with filament melting and then solidifying in the heat break.
Disconnecting motor power isn’t great, because the reason you are hitting the panic button is probably because the machine bombed is trying to wreck itself, in which case the processor needs to be reset. Could make a DC disconnect between the power supply and main board, but it should stay off for a few seconds for the caps to drain, so if it’s a momentary switch all users would have to know to hold it down for a spell. If it is an on/off switch you have a possible source of confusion, why the printer isn’t turning on, because now there are two power switches, and you wouldn’t want to use it as a general use power switch because the power supply would be left on all the time.
One alternative would be a reset button on the processor, if there is a breakout for that pin or a tact switch on the pcb you could wire a big, official momentary switch (normally open type) in parallel with. I would suggest some kind of shroud so it doesn’t get bumped accidentally.
With a good heatbreak that's not an issue - the filament path diameter should be monotonic-decreasing up to the hot zone so that it's always possible to reverse manually.
@gitub do you cut power to your machine while the hotend is at printing temp? I always would wait til it was down below the glass temperature before shutting down, unless the filament was already unloaded (nothing to heat creep)
I think it's preferable not to let heat travel up to the cold zone, but it's also really bad heatbreak design to make lips/gaps where the filament can jam if heat travels up or if warm filament is retracted (e.g. it makes automatic material switching risky, etc.). I would hope a nice machine like a Prusa doesn't have that issue.
Mind that if you are connected to your RAMPS via USB it will be powered via USB during that kind of emergency shutdown. That means that there won't be actual controller shutdown, but rather your steppers and heaters won't have enough power to run anymore. Switching mains power back on will continue the process as if it was printing all that time (which means, many steps are "skipped" and XYZ position would be quite off). That also might probably affect controller electronics (it would attempt to work with it's load without having enough juices).
Killing the Arduino 2560 with a reset would stop everything, would it not, even if the board is still powered by the USB connection?
As ChinchillaWafers suggested in the last paragraph of his answer, I've confirmed that there is a tactile button reset on my RAMPS board. Not very conveniently located on my rig but it's there and is potentially a place to tie a panic button in.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.217658
| 2022-02-14T20:36:58 |
18927
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"FarO",
"Rexxyboy",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/2338",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/33124",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5988",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/18927"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Bumps on outer walls consistantly affecting lower layers
I recently purchased a Creality Ender 3 Max as my first 3D printer and overall I am quite impressed with the print quality after only leveling the bed.
However, every print I have done so far has had bumps on the outer walls, limited to a section of the lower layers, usually around 6 layers in height.
Standard print settings:
1.75 mm PLA filament
0.2 mm layer height
20 % infill
I have tried:
Prusa Slic3r (default settings) vs Cura for my slicing. Prusa Slic3r exaggerated the effect compared to Cura.
Increasing the extruder and heated bed temperatures (200 °C & 50 °C, 210 °C & 60 °C, 225 °C & 70 °C). Higher temperatures seem to reduce the effect.
Reducing the print speed from 50.0 mm/s to 35.0 mm/s. Slower print speed seems to reduce the effect.
My next experiment will be to combine a higher extrusion temperature with reduced print speeds however I suspect that this is just making the print more forgiving and masking a different cause.
Does anybody know of a way I can eliminate these artifacts?
Further experiments I can run to debug this or even the correct terminology or search terms for this (I'm having difficulty finding anything that looks like this problem online) would also be greatly appreciated.
Updates:
Test print with 0.1 mm Z Offset shows a slight improvement but does not resolve the issue.
Test print with 0.2 mm Z Offset shows no improvement over 0.1 mm Z Offset and nearly compromises bed adhesion.
I printed a 20 mm cube benchmark. X and Y measurements are spot on but the Z axis measures 19.2 mm.
Try keeping the bed temperature no more than 55 °C, check extruder calibration (extrude 100 mm, check if it really extruded 100 mm), increase cooling.
This question looks very similar to "PLA Issue printing first 3 mm with Ender 3 Pro"! I'd vote to close this question as a duplicate question.
Good match @0scar, I'll try the answers on that question and see if the solve my issue. I don't believe this can be marked as duplicate yet as my prints don't have the elephants foot characteristic of print bed being too close. I could be wrong, please bear with me.
I think I found an answer.
When the gantry is low (Z less than 100 mm high) the Xmax (right hand) side of the gantry has some play, if I move the gantry higher the rollers tighten up.
I went through Luke Hatfield's X Gantry Rework (PDF section 4.1.2, video tutorial), making deviations for my own machine (the vertical extrusions are mounted to the side of the base on the Ender 3 Max rather than the top).
Tightening the rollers using the eccentric bolts and trying to get the gantry as level as possible seems to have improved the issue immensely.
The Z measurement for the 20 mm cube benchmark is now 19.7 mm (0.5 mm improvement)
And the bumps on the boats are a lot less noticeable.
While reassembling I had some difficulty lining up the screws on the top horizontal extrusion, which would suggest that the vertical extrusions are not aligned correctly as suggested in item 1 of this post discussing problems found on a stock Ender 3 Max:
The vertical extrusions are out, there appears to be a fault in the design and the extrusions are about 2.2mm closer together at the bottom than at the top.. what this means is if you move the carriage to half way up and adjust the wheels perfectly, when you move it to the top the outside wheels will be too tight, and when you move it to the bottom the inside wheels will be too tight!
https://www.reddit.com/r/Ender3Max/comments/qa93m6/problems_i_have_found_with_stock_ender_3_max_and/
The suggestion in that post is to install a printed 2.2 mm shim between the vertical extrusion and the base. I'll give the shim fix a try at a later time, for now the quality of the prints is good enough.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.218051
| 2024-02-09T04:29:13 |
23058
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5989",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/23058"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Why does filament feed system not run when changing filament?
When changing filament during a print job I get a message to feed new filament, then press Okay. After pressing Okay, I get the message "Please insert the filament" - but nothing happens.
I repeatedly press the Okay, but nothing. I can load filament, but that requires stopping the print job. Seems like a software problem to me. Any advice? No, it's not the nozzle temperature or any such thing. The filament feed system does not run when Okay is pressed.
Could you please update the question by [edit] to let us know the printer, the firmware and possibly part of the G-code to show the filament change?
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.218144
| 2022-02-25T20:07:28 |
19019
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Canis Lupus",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"agarza",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23193",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/33310",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5990",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19019"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What causes inconsistency of sizes?
I printed this hook that must have 2.8 mm thickness of all walls:
But actual sizes differs:
And I think this is a reason why the 3.0 mm wall has a gap.
Printed with Monoprice Select Mini v2, nozzle 0.4 mm, PLA at 210 °C, PrusaSlicer.
This issue isn't a casual fault, I printed the model several times and always have exactly the same issue.
What causes this inconsistency of sizes?
UPDATE. Thanks to Oscar's comment:
It is a budget cantilever printer, try if orientation of the part makes a difference. E.g. rotate the object 45 or -45° on the build plate by re-slicing.
Indeed, after rotating the model 45° I've get almost perfect print with almost perfect sizes of all walls.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe this is because of non-ideality of printer's mechanics and lots of paths parallel to X or Y axis in the model. For example, when the printer prints a path parallel to X, then Y axis is fixed. Then, to print an adjacent path, Y moved a little (= extrusion width), and because of non-ideality of Y mechanics, there's some error here. By placing the model such way that minimizes the paths when X or Y axis is fixed, it eliminates such defects by averaging the error.
How dimensionally accurate is your printer? Have you calibrated your 3D printer? How long ago? If you need more info see What prints can I do to test/calibrate my printer for precision?
@agarza: I never calibrate it, but you can see that some sizes are exactly the same as in the model, but some other differs. I think all sizes would changed if the problem was in the calibration.
Calibration for one axis will not automatically calibrate another. I do find it interesting that both of the horizontal members are different sizes; the same as the vertical ones.
It is a budget cantilever printer, try if orientation of the part makes a difference. E.g. rotate the object 45 or -45° on the build plate by re-slicing.
Slop in the relevant belt looks like the most plausible cause.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.218326
| 2022-02-26T01:32:34 |
19021
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Greenonline",
"Kilisi",
"Trish",
"agarza",
"desperrrr",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23193",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/31811",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/33318",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/4762",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/8884"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5991",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19021"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Nozzle not level and first print failed
So I just got my first 3D printer the Ender 3 Pro. My nozzle is a bit too high (first image) and this is what happened after my first test print (second image).
I saved for a while to buy this and I’m really upset about this.
Have you checked to make sure that the Z endstop is properly positioned according to the assembly instructions?
I’m pretty sure it’s in correctly. I added 2 pictures of it to the post (should I remove the green oil or whatever it is?)
The Z endstop (or limit switch) is in your first photo on the left-hand side. It is attached to the outside of the vertical rail. If that is not set properly the nozzle will be too high off the bed.
Sorry for the dumb questions but how do you mean “properly”?
The Z endstop should be positioned so that when the nozzle is just touching the build plate the limit switch is triggered. It may take a bit to align correctly. Also make sure that the Z endstop does not rotate when you tighten the screws; this can effect the nozzle height.
Hi, welcome to 3DPrinting.SE! Don't be upset, it is s minor issue that is easily fixed! Note, the title "Nozzle too far from bed, prints fail" might be a better description of your problem?.The current title hints to an unlevel/untrammed bed, while the issue is an overall offset. You can [edit] your question! Read my answer below and the link to the article, you should be up and running in a jiffy!
Hi. I followed what you said in your answer and the article but it’s still too high. Read my comments on the answer for more detail
unrelated to your problem, but you might want to remove the excess grease from the screw.
Your Z-endstop assembly is clearly too high. Referring to your own first foto you see that the switch on the Z-endstop mount is nearly touching the bottom of the X-Z mounting.
You need to adjust the whole mount by loosening the 2 hex key screws and lower the assembly (move in the direction of the blue arrow):
Source: Larry Wood via All3DP
Before lowering the Z-endstop mount first screw in all the levelling/tramming screws under the build plate/heated bef a little and position the nozzle a little above the build plate; when the mount is fastened you can move the build plate up a little and tram the complete bed surface.
This All3D article describes the above in more detail, but the basics are covered above.
I did all this and when I auto home, the Z still stops well above the print bed like a whole 5 mm. I even tried manually adjusting the Z-axis and setting home and then auto home but it still stops high above the bed. I also try raising the bed but the knobs become so loose they fall off.
@desperrrr Then you are maybe mistakingly doing something wrong? This is the way to get the nozzle to the build plate level. Maybe you can edit your question with more specifics, e.g. describe in steps what you do, and add a photo where Z=0. Note that after homing the nozzle is always raised, so be sure to guide it to Z=0.
Flash the firmware. If that doesn't fix it then you have a defective printer assuming everything else in your question and comments is correct.
Could you [edit] and expand your answer? Do you mean re-flash the firmware with the same version, in case it has become corrupted or with a newer version that fixes a known issue?
@Greenonline it makes no difference, either will fix the problem if it's a firmware problem. It's not an esoteric edge case problem, it's a core functionality issue.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.218643
| 2023-02-25T21:57:16 |
20626
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Greenonline",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/4762",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5992",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/20626"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Underextrusion Cause
Printer: Ender 3 with a metal extruder - PLA
After a long break from printing anything, I started printing again, but the results had obvious underextrusion issues:
But after I tweaked temp, flow, and speed for multiple test prints, the issues disappeared - even if the settings were returned to default.
Sadly, after a couple good prints, it started having issues again.
Why is my printer having these issues?
EDIT: The cause was that I didn't install the spring in the tension arm correctly-it was not compressed enough to deliver the necessary force to grip the filament.
Since my printer was working fine until recently, it leads me to believe that the spring must have weakened. So new question: is that the case? And do you recommend I unscrew the arm and release the spring when I'm not using the printer to improve lifetime?
Please remove the answer from your question and wait and accept the solution provided by R once he posted the answer. Or post your own answer. The new question should go into a new question preferably hinting and referring to this question.
As 0scar has already corrected stated... Please, post the answer from your "edit" as an actual answer, otherwise you mess up the Q&A format of the site. Also, remove your new follow up question in that same edit and post it as a new question, otherwise it will not be answered - you can't have two different/disparate questions in one post, otherwise which answer would be the correct answer to mark as the accepted answer. Thank you.
This is unlikely to be a settings issue. It's almost surely a physical issue with the extruder.
Usually on an Ender 3, this is a problem with the tension arm. The stock one is made of plastic and the arm, or mount that's holding the arm can crack.
It's also possible you have a weak spring tensioning it.
Aside from issues with the arm, the teeth of the extruder gear can get gummed up with chewed-up plastic, or worn down from printing abrasive materials, to the point they're no longer able to dig into the filament and push it effectively.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.218837
| 2023-03-29T13:59:46 |
20743
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Inuraghe",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/27865",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/33490",
"kosteklvp"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5993",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/20743"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
What is the best way to print an action figure?
I have created an action figure and would like to print it.
Anyway, I am not sure the best way to print it, the action figure can be printed only once but the duration is 10 hours. If I separate the part, the time is concise, but I need to do some changes to my file. What is the best way to print an action figure?
If the second method is the better (separate arm, legs, etc.), does exist a good way to do the join between parts?
My 3d printer is Elegoo Mars, so I use Chitubox.
Can you share a photo/screenshot of your action figure?
Yes, I can share it!
Printing a complex object like this one from an attached photo requires a few factors to consider, such as print time, quality, ease of printing and eventual post-processing. You have two options: print the entire figure in one piece with supports, or separate the parts and print them individually.
Printing the entire figure in one piece can be a good option if you want to save time and reduce the amount of post-processing work. If you decide to go with this option, make sure to orient the model correctly to minimize the need for supports and reduce the risk of failure during printing.
Separating the parts and printing them individually can allow you to print each part in the best orientation for quality and reduce the risk of print failure. However, it will require more time for preparing the model for printing and post-processing work to assemble the parts. Bear in mind, that if you decide to separate the parts, it may still be necessary to print them with supports. It is also a better option if the model exceeds the printer's build volume.
To make the assembly easier, you can add alignment pins and holes to the parts to ensure they fit together correctly. Here is a very good tutorial on how to do it - How to cut STL models for 3D printing in Meshmixer. You can also add alignment pins and holes right in Chitubox.
Both printing options have their pros and cons, and you should choose the one that best suits your needs.
STL print speed is determined by height in Z
So to print your project, you should reduce Z height. In this case, your figurine can be placed with its height along the XY plane - lying on the back - and then drops its print time by roughly a factor of 8.
In my experience, you should never print a figure like that upright as it A) takes too long and B) can cause problems with supports.
I would recommend that you cut it on two pieces. One with the legs and one with the body. This will cut your print time almost in half.
Next, tilt both parts backwards by at least 45 degrees. This will further reduce print time and will give you better supports as you can spread them out across a larger surface area while having a smaller surface area in contact with the FEP for each layer.
My printer ins an Elegoo Saturn. I use Chitubox.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.219088
| 2022-06-19T12:29:22 |
19568
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Greenonline",
"Inuraghe",
"fred_dot_u",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/33490",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/4762",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/854"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5994",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19568"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Meshmixer create solid
I have this .stl that I downloaded and I need to create a solid of this 3D. However, if I click "Make solid", it doesn't work.
How can I do? I think the problem is the black layer but I don't know how to resolve.
Before make solid:
After make solid:
I need to make solid and the black layer is deleted when I do it.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g-YaF1k_X5FU1Y-SgWiGCXC4k_nADohk/view?usp=sharing
PS: The other object are different item, so if they are there or not is the same
Hi and welcome. We may require more information, please [edit] and add more details.
Other? I have download the file, I don't much more but I need to make solid and the black layer is deleted when I do it
Do you have a link to where you downloaded the .stl file from? If we can reproduce the issue, then maybe a solution can be found. Please [edit] and add the link to your answer (don't add info in the comments).
Your object browser shows three objects in the first image, only one in the second. Are the missing pieces those of the other two items in the first image?
The other two objects are different item
Make solid requires an enclosed volume
To run the make solid operation, the selected parts need to enclose a volume. In case the volume is not fully enclosed, the program tries to solve a solution that closes the open surface.
The black layer is most likely failing to compute because its normals are flipped. This means it does not enclose a surface, it excludes anything between the surfaces from being inside the body defined by it - it is everything but. This is solved as "this surface does not enclose anything, so I cut it out" but for where it creates a valid solution in the area of the white surface before the operation.
This leaves you with the white retained part after the operation.
To fix this is an in-depth project
Fixing such errors is quite involved. You will need to do the following steps, depending on your program to alter:
flip the surfaces so that it shows outside
make sure that the body is closed, possibly by adding missing surfaces
How can I enclose volume?
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.219297
| 2022-03-22T16:27:12 |
19140
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Beenum",
"Kilisi",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/31811",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/33558"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5995",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19140"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
No distance between the nozzle and the print bed level at the center (1) position after bed leveling
After I have leveled the print bed on all four corners manually, on moving to the center (1) position I still observe that there is no distance between the print bed and the nozzle. The nozzle literally touches the bed at this position. Furthermore, I am also getting nozzle scrapping on the print surface as the thickness of the printed sample increases (1 mm and above). I am printing 5-152 mm(L)x35 mm(W)x3 mm(T) samples using a commercial PLA filament with a 0.1 mm layer height (30 total layers). The raster width is 0.4 mm while the raster angle in all layers is 0/0°. The bed temperature was 0 °C, while the printing temperature was 220 °C. The printing speed was 60 mm/s. The Z-axis compensation value was 0. The slicer I am using is Ultimaker's Cura, while the printer is Creality's Ender 6. How can I rectify this issue and can anyone guide me as to why this is happening?
I would think your bed isn't flat. My magnetic bed has high spots in a couple of places.
Another cause could be that you're just levelling once. Sometimes you need to go around again and check the levelling.
I have tediously leveled the bed multiple times to ensure the bed level is as uniform as it could be at all four corners, the nozzle still touches the print bed in the center. The printer is new so I am not sure if the bed level could be off so soon (or is it a manufacturing defect?).
@Beenum: Likely a manufacturing defect. You might be able to correct for it by shimming under the corners or putting something flatter (e.g. a high quality glass bed) between the existing bed and the print surface.
@Beenum I doubt it's a bed levelling issue, rather an issue with the actual bed itself. Mine had slightly high spots brand new, but not enough to worry me. Put a glass sheet on and see if the problem goes away
Going on a bit of a tangent, but do you think that Z-offset value should be altered even if no alteration (like adding a glass screen) has been made?
I think you should just try the simple diagnosis first, grab a bit of glass from a picture frame or small mirror
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.219494
| 2022-04-05T03:58:02 |
19192
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"0scar",
"Bob",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/33725",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/5740"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5996",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19192"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Marlin + BLTouch layer compression
I have an Ender 3 Pro which I recently added an SKR Mini E3 v2.0 with Marlin and BLTouch. I have run into an odd issue where roughly the first 10 mm of the print are compressed into ~7 mm of Z height. I don't think its mechanical based on the following process.
Power on the printer, Auto Home.
Move the print head to the middle of the bed ~1 mm off the print surface (move the nozzle down until it touches, then back of 1 mm)
Measure the nozzle height relative to the print bed, command a 10 mm Z move, measure the Z nozzle height it's 10 mm higher.
Level the bed with the BLTouch (The Z offset is correct and 0 mm is basically at the print surface)
Repeat the process above, start with the nozzle 1 mm off the bed, command a 10 mm move. The measured height of the nozzle is now only 7.5 mm higher than it was.
Anything I try after this (rehoming, running bed leveling again) still results in a 7.5 mm move when a 10 mm is commanded. It's only the 10 mm closest to the bed, a second 10 mm postive move results in 10 mm delta to the nozzle height.
All prints consistently have the same compression of the first layers.
Two other pieces of information that seem like they are relevant, the Z zero when homed is about 2.5 mm lower than when I run bed leveling. ENABLE_LEVELING_FADE_HEIGHT is set to 10.0 mm. Those two numbers combined seem really suspicious to me, but its not clear to me what to change if that is the problem.
This calibration block should be 50 mm high, it's 47 mm high and the 3 mm are lost in the first 25mm step:
Does the Z screw move at all during the printing of the first 3 mm?
Yes, its a proportional reduction. I ran some test last night (sorry I haven't updated the question yet), and it appears to be caused by the offset between the z homing switch and the bed height. If they are aligned, the problem goes away. So its definitely related to the levelling fade height option. I'm just not sure why the fad accounts for offset as well as the bed being skewed.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.219709
| 2022-04-24T00:05:12 |
19288
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Abel",
"FreeMan",
"Greenonline",
"Kilisi",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"Trish",
"William Garske",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23523",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/31811",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/33169",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/33928",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/4762",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/8884"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5997",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19288"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Printing in Material That Is Safe to Drink From/Dishwasher/Microwave Safe
I'm looking to get printed a design for a coffee mug, which needs to be dishwasher safe, microwavable safe, and safe to drink out of. What kind of filament or equipment would give these properties? If not, is there a company that offers such services?
about 9 years ago there was one doing their own 3d printed ceramic+glaze mugs but they did not accept custom one-off designs and I do not believe they achieved dishwasher safe - glaze and fire process after 3D print did not cover everything. All other info I have might be obtained by searching the nets.
I’m voting to close this question because recommendation questions are not allowed on the stack.
PETG meets the requirements for dishwasher safe and safe to drink out of, but if you're not careful in the microwave I think you'd get it hot enough to damage it. (FWIW I have PETG cold beverage cups that have been through many tens of dishwasher cycles with no problem.) Kilisi's answer is probably what you really want.
@Trish: The actual question part of the question body, "Does anyone have any experience of using a filament/equipment that would do this?", is on-topic, and I think the question is okay to answer regarding what technologies would be appropriate and how to look for a service offering them, without recommendations of a particular service to use. "There don't seem to be any services doing this at present" also seems like a reasonable thing to put in an answer, if that's the case.
@R..GitHubSTOPHELPINGICE only if rewritten that way
OK, I've made an edit that I feel is still faithful to OP's intent while focusing on what's in-scope and removing the apparent shopping question part.
@R..GitHubSTOPHELPINGICE The "suggest a service" part is the disallowable part: it asks for a recommendation. But "What type of filament or equipment" would work.
@Trish: Was "are there services of this sort?" inappropriate even?
Yes, that part is readable as "recommend me a service"
IMHO, this question was fine at edit #2, there was no (direct) request for a recommendation, merely an inquiry as to whether anyone had experience. The subsequent edits appear to have put words into the OP's mouth, which is not really correct nor fair. The OP's latest edit #5 has now (re-)introduced the recommendation request (which isn't strictly allowed). I believe that the question should be rolled back to edit #2 and then left as it is.
@Greenonline I’m unable to find a single company that does this; it’s not like I’m asking for a recommendation as to what works well and what doesn’t. The closest thing I am able to find about this is to purchase a WASP clay extruder but I still need a kiln and have to look up the specifics of that. I’m looking for comments like use PETG, upload your STL file here and use this filament, and stuff like that. I would appreciate it if new comments were only about this subject. I think it would be beneficial to even delete the comments that are not about this subject above
You need to find a company like this.
Or you could 3D print clay yourself, there are clay 3D printers online.
Do you have any ideas of what company might do this? I have been searching but cannot find anything out there
Depends on your budget
Something that a high school student could afford if they really wanted it
That means nothing to me. Not even sure what highschool is, but when I was in school I could afford a coffee mug from a $2 shop once in a while I guess.
"High School" US term for grades 9-12 for students (roughly) aged 14-18. 12th grade ("Senior" or "High School Senior") is the last year of federally mandated education. After successfully completing all 12 years, people move on to secondary education ("college"), the military, or civilian work force.
The problem is quantifying "what a highschool student could afford" - is that 5$ or 50$ or 500 $? All of those are reasonable for different high schools in different areas....
Is there something that does this for around those prices?
What prices? For 500 I can hire a master potter to make a all series unique mugs, for 50 I can order some customized mugs on a basic model from a print shop. For 5 I can get one or two mugs from IKEA.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.220085
| 2022-04-28T12:45:04 |
19306
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Greenonline",
"Kilisi",
"Niculae George Razvan",
"agarza",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23193",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/28397",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/31811",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/33977",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/4762",
"user10489"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5998",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19306"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
The weirdest DIY 3D metal printing
I have a very eccentric, weird, unusual and strange idea. I need some advice and serious professional help.
I'm interested in 3D printing in PLA a hollow complex structure with 0.2 thickness walls (Yes! That thin!). Fill it with very fine copper powder with a little borax powder thoroughly mixed. Use superglue to join halves or other shell pieces together, making sure the powder is very well compacted. Then in a separate container I want to make some thin plaster of Paris (calcium sulfate with a lot of water). Mix in it, some of my trimmed hair (about 5mm in length). No joke. Seriously. Please, I'm begging you with all my heart, hear me out! There's a very good useful reason for doing it. I then place the object (3D printed flimsy crappy shell filled with copper powder) in a DIY drywall box and pour in the plaster over the 3D printed shell object until the box is filled and object completely covered. Leave it to dry and completely solidify for a day. Then I bake the entire thing in a furnace making sure I'm over the copper melting temperature and voila! 3D printing in copper very complex intricate models with ease. Can it be that easy? Or am I deluding myself?
The hair purpose, after it will burn inside the plaster while in the furnace, is to create very thin tubules or air holes for water and gases to escape and to prevent cracking of the plaster under intense heat. I don't want to use hay because the straws are too thick. I have to use very thin organic straws. I just can't think of anything more accessible than my hair. Do you know of something even thinner and more accessible than human hair? Please let me know. I know it sounds and looks very odd, weird and strange. I'm opened to alternatives or other suggestions, otherwise I wouldn't be here making a fool of myself with such an insane ridiculous idea.
I was thinking to add some form of additional volume above the object, which is connected to the model by some thin hollow tube. All this volume (like an empty cube (shell) ) will also be filled with very fine copper powder providing additional melted copper to the model, in the case if the powder was not very well compacted inside the shell model.
Could this absurd ridiculous insane crazy idea work? I have never heard of anything like this. This is so bizarre and strange. It seems to be some form of odd mix of multiple techniques. But besides all this, will it work in the end? Will the plaster hold while some of it(depends on the model) will be inside molten copper? Or do I have to mix in the plaster, not just hair, but also some individual singular fine strands of steel wool?
I don't know who and where to ask such a thing. Am I in the right place? I don't know what this idea is, I don't know how to name it, I don't know how to ask or formulate this idea, I don't know how to google it or search it. I don't know anything. I really need some guidance, help and advice.
While yes this is very different, my initial thinking is that it may not work. Not being thoroughly experienced in this, I would imagine that the PLA would melt and lose its shape before the copper inside would fuse together. Maybe someone else could elaborate if I am correct.
Of course it will melt. I'm counting on it. It is supposed to melt. I feel sad for not being properly understood. The sole purpose of the 3D print is to create the required cavity inside the solidified plaster. After it will melt it will probably leave only some carbon residue at the very bottom of the mold, or it will completely evaporate. I'm not sure. I don't know. That's why I'm here. To understand what I'm about to do, better.
I guess I didn't explain fully. The PLA will melt before the copper fuses together. PLA has a melting point of ~200C while copper is ~1000C. So the PLA will melt (and probably burn off) before the temperature gets hot enough to melt/fuse the copper.
Yes. I know. I'm using the PLA JUST to make a mold (cavity inside the plaster in the box). Then when it's placed in the furnace, the hair, the PLA print, all organics will slowly burn away as I approach 1000C to melt the copper powder. It's designed to work this way. I'm not sure, what you see in the process as a problem. The PLA will have to melt. It has to melt. It will not probably burn. It will definitely burn. It is designed to burn and leave nothing behind(that's why 0.2mm walls). The only remaining thing in the furnace climbing above 500C will be copper powder inside a cavity in a box.
Hmmm... I think I'm beginning to see what your process is (coffee hasn't fully kicked in yet).
Can you at least tell me what this madness is? English is not my native language so I can't even begin a google search. I don't know what to search for. What is this that I'm describing?
It's not because I'm not extracting any ores.
It's not any form of because it doesn't involve any liquid material being poured anywhere.
It's not because I'm not pouring nor forcing any metal into a mold.
Perhaps it's a little bit related with but I want to actually melt the powder, not just bind it without liquefaction.
It's not because i'm not injecting anything into anything. My powder is already there. I'm just melting it.
I have no idea what to google. What on earth is this mad idea in my head which I'm describing? Just give me one single word to search for, besides the self-criticism I've expressed so far.
Putting the PLA and powdered metal together into the cavity made by the plaster isn't going to work. What's going to happen, at best, is that the PLA will float to the top and get burned off and/or escape, and the copper powder will compact down and leave more than half your mold empty. At worst, the PLA won't burn off evenly and will leave defects in the metal. If you have a large sacrificial cavity at the top and fill that with copper powder, it might work.
I don't see why it wouldn't work. It doesn't seem to be the optimal way but I haven't tried it.
Only thing that might be an issue is that PLA doesn't burn away clean (not for me anyway) which can leave defects in the product. But there are filaments specifically made for casting which apparently burn away with no residue.
This is assuming you can actually successfully print a complex object with walls that thin.
Care to explain the downvote?
I think this is just an overcomplicated lost-PLA (investment) casting.
What you're asking for is to create an object, create a mold around it, and then burn out the object and replace it with metal. Traditionally this is done with wax, and called lost-wax casting, but the same can be done with anything that melts/burns away, including PLA.
Rather than worrying about burning hairs and pressure and compaction of metal powder, print a model, and use the correct kind of plaster (a search for "investment casting plaster" will get you going down the right path) to make your mold. Heat the metal powder in a crucible, instead of the mold itself, and pour it through the expansion/extra material tube you were talking about.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.220722
| 2022-05-03T15:49:01 |
19326
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"John Marangola",
"Mark",
"R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/11157",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/28397",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/28970",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/34019",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/48",
"user10489",
"when squared equals a negative"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:5999",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19326"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Best filament to print the housing for a laptop?
I have an old notebook computer that works just fine, but the outside of the lid is badly damaged and needs to be replaced. The screen and wiring are fine, so I only need to replace the housing that is exposed to the outside world.
What is the best filament for an impact-resistant printed housing? Should I consider other options that may prevent damage to the internal components? Are there any alternatives with cosmetic benefits?
Edit:
Since I was asked, presume I may be willing to buy a new part to upgrade or accommodate a new filament type.
Are you asking about material type ie. PLA, PETG, PC... or specific brand of filament? Tell me some more about your setup. What materials are you capable of printing with your hot-end/printer?
I tagged the question with "filament-choice" because I believed that signaled material type rather than brand name. Are different brands within the same filament type so significantly different that I should beware?
@whensquaredequalsanegative: For some materials, the material name is more a broad class of polymers rather than one specific one, so things can vary by brand. But I think you're right to just be asking about material types and I'm not sure why that wasn't clear to John - it was clear to me.
For casings I use a combination of TPU and PETG or PLA. PETG shell gives it rigidity and TPU gives it a bit of impact protection. So corners and inside layers of TPU within a hard PETG or PLA shell (shell has no corners).
I haven't had a problem with either but obviously PLA won't withstand heat very well, so it depends on environment.
For a laptop case you'd maybe want to do it the other way around with the outside shell of TPU and inside layers of PETG for rigidity.
If you just cared about impact resistance of the housing itself, the clear choice would be TPU, which would be basically indestructible. However, the housing is there to protect what's inside - not only from impact, but from stresses (e.g. bending) that could break it. This means you need a material that both provides rigidity and avoids breaking easily itself.
If you were doing an old (90s or earlier) style laptop case that's a tank, I'd actually say yeah, go with TPU 95A or higher (98A or so if you could get it) and add some reinforcement ribs/stiffeners. This stuff can be quite rigid at 100% infill, and it will hold up fine to heat, abrasion, even most chemicals. But if this is a modern slim style case, a small amount of material needs to provide a lot of rigidity and that's not going to work.
PLA actually fares really well here in some ways - it's one of the most rigid printable materials, and very easy to get good bonding. If you check for example CNC Kitchen's strength tests, you'll find plain PLA usually coming out on top of most comparisons. However, PLA doesn't handle heat well, which might rule it out.
ASA, ABS, or PC is probably your best bet, but I don't have any experience with them so I'll leave the part about them as something for another answerer to write.
I wouldn't trust PLA: it's strong but brittle, which makes for low impact resistance.
@Mark: That's what people say, but if you actually go and do the tests (or look at data from someone who does), it seems it's better than most of the alternatives. Somewhat related: I have tiny PLA gears operating in places where the PETG ones I tried first kept breaking.
Strength is not the same thing as impact resistance. People frequently conflate the two, but the difference is why we armor things with steel, not glass.
@Mark: Can you find test results where PLA fared worse either way? I know Stefan tested both and I believe the PLA did surprisingly well, but I may be misremembering.
ASA, ABS and PC are probably stronger and more resilient, but they also out gas toxic gasses when printing, so you'd need to vent that safely.
|
2025-03-21T12:54:45.221036
| 2022-05-04T14:58:28 |
19337
|
{
"all_licenses": [
"Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"
],
"authors": [
"Martin ",
"agarza",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/23193",
"https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/users/34040"
],
"include_comments": true,
"license": "Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/",
"provenance": "stackexchange-dolma-0000.json.gz:6000",
"site": "3dprinting.stackexchange.com",
"sort": "votes",
"url": "https://3dprinting.stackexchange.com/questions/19337"
}
|
Stack Exchange
|
Ender 3 v2 X-axis home fails
I have a problem. I upgraded my Ender 3 v2 for direct drive and added CR Touch. Updated software to bugfix-JyersUI v2.0.1. Now if I turn on my printer first homing X-axis moves to the left clicks one time (usually clicks 2 times) to endstop and that's it. Every after homing X-axis moves right. Changed endstop with a different endstop; same problem. Changed firmware with less possibility firmware and homing is successful.
This sounds like two different problems: X-axis homing problem and an LCD display problem. If this is correct, please [edit] your question to one then create a second "question" to address the second problem. I have used JyerUI so I can offer help but this sounds like 2 different problems.
Lcd display problem does not bother me. Homing issue is the main problem. If u can help me with homing problem that will be great.
My problem was with the Z-axis so I don't know if this will actually help (that's why I'm writing as a comment). Check your wiring from the CR Touch to the mainboard. I had a misconnection on my printer and was causing the Z-axis not to lower to the buildplate.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.