What's new
  • Please do not post any links until you have 3 posts as they will automatically be rejected to prevent SPAM. Many words are also blocked due to being used in SPAM Messages. Thanks!

3D Printer / CNC discussion thread

sswilson

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
19,733
Location
Moncton NB
The "good" part of this particular failure is that it's within the first 5 - 10 minutes of the print so I can go back and experiment with things like higher nozzle temp to see if that encourages the offset angled layers to adhere to the previous layer.
 

danmitch1

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
1,533
The "good" part of this particular failure is that it's within the first 5 - 10 minutes of the print so I can go back and experiment with things like higher nozzle temp to see if that encourages the offset angled layers to adhere to the previous layer.
any luck?
 

danmitch1

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
1,533
As im designing my new hotend mount I just noticed that my bed is the same size as the ender 3 (235mm x 235mm) Im not too sure why they sold it as a 220mm x 220mm.. As far as I can tell, with the stock setup, there are no physical obstructions in its travel path to reach those areas. I could actually squeeze more in there if I had a bigger plate.. im seeing about 240mm x 240 mm of usable space.

EDIT: On closer inspection, If I remove the 4 leveling nobs I can also gain 20mm of Z volume !..
EDIT THAT: I guess the bed can just sit on the mounting plate though eh? It would heat up the plate and the lead screw and I guess could transmit further... Maybe I could add a bushing of some sort... still dont think It needs 20mm of space though..
Hmm ..with the BMG style extruder I loose 15mm Y space at the back but have alot more room in the front.. I wonder If I can move the entire build plate forward to take advantage of that space at the front.. I think I would simply have to drill new screw holes into the aluminum plate.

So I technically can get roughly 345mm Z (with a 5mm bushing) and 235mm X-Y
 
Last edited:

sswilson

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
19,733
Location
Moncton NB
failed print with comparison.jpg

So far that's a no-go.... :) There's something about the base of the print that mucks stuff up when it tries to do a spiral print (shown on the right).

Next attempt is to try bumping the "bottom layers" number up to 40 to see if that gets it past the problem area using normal printing techniques and then jumps into spiral.

edit: and that does seem to have worked as I thought it would, now it's just a question of whether or not my estimate of 40 layers was enough. (it's not enough for the whole index ring at the bottom but I'm hoping it's enough to get it beyond the problem area.
 
Last edited:

sswilson

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
19,733
Location
Moncton NB
completed print with comparison.jpg

So, increasing the "bottom layers" number does indeed appear to have done the trick. You can see how much smoother the print on the right is when compared to the print on the left. Strangely enough, the lower portion on the original print shows less layer definition, but I did increase the temp by 5c over the original print so maybe that's the difference.

Looks pretty good as-is, but since it's a relatively quick print (under 2 hours) and it's a learning experience I think I'm going to give it a shot at the lower temp first, and then have a go doing a .12 layer height (vice .2 on these) and seeing if the "bottom height" setting has the same effect as the "bottom layers" setting without requiring me to do the math to come up with the correct height.

edit: I also remembered that I'd increased the part fan from 50 - 100%, perhaps that had something to do with the higher layer definition on the base of the spiral print.

edit2: Just realised that I'd done the "normal" mode print @ .12, that's the reason for the higher definition layers on the spiral version. Definitely have to try the spiral @ .12 and see what I get. :)
 
Last edited:

danmitch1

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2007
Messages
1,533
View attachment 29622

So, increasing the "bottom layers" number does indeed appear to have done the trick. You can see how much smoother the print on the right is when compared to the print on the left. Strangely enough, the lower portion on the original print shows less layer definition, but I did increase the temp by 5c over the original print so maybe that's the difference.

Looks pretty good as-is, but since it's a relatively quick print (under 2 hours) and it's a learning experience I think I'm going to give it a shot at the lower temp first, and then have a go doing a .12 layer height (vice .2 on these) and seeing if the "bottom height" setting has the same effect as the "bottom layers" setting without requiring me to do the math to come up with the correct height.

edit: I also remembered that I'd increased the part fan from 50 - 100%, perhaps that had something to do with the higher layer definition on the base of the spiral print.

edit2: Just realised that I'd done the "normal" mode print @ .12, that's the reason for the higher definition layers on the spiral version. Definitely have to try the spiral @ .12 and see what I get. :)

That printing mode really seems to make a big difference eh. Do you think it would work on imperfect shapes like lets say a rounded cube? Or is this exclusively for perfectly round objects?

Its odd how it doesnt calculate or at least suggest the proper layer count for you.

PS: Your camera takes really nice pictures!
 

sswilson

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
19,733
Location
Moncton NB
That printing mode really seems to make a big difference eh. Do you think it would work on imperfect shapes like lets say a rounded cube? Or is this exclusively for perfectly round objects?

Its odd how it doesnt calculate or at least suggest the proper layer count for you.

PS: Your camera takes really nice pictures!

As long as the shape is something that can be done with a single outside layer it should work,. It's once you start getting breaks in the outer surface, or internal print components that the process breaks down.

It's not that it isn't calculating the proper layer count, there's something going on with this particular model (I suspect it's related to the primer hole) that's causing it to move the outer shell in towards the center of the base. Manually changing the "bottom layer" count is telling the slicer to do everything up to that layer in normal mode and only start doing the vase/spiral function above that layer.
 

sswilson

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
19,733
Location
Moncton NB

Ok, I don't have any kids around but that's pretty cool.... :)
 
Top