Yes, the printer has been homed. It executes the macros since it retracts one filament and unretracts what would be the other filament, just the servo doesn't move.
There are indeed two commands for the servo, one with S-1 to disable it.
I've tried to put a pause in between those lines and now it works! Seems be that the servo was being disabled while it's on the verge of moving...
Kinda embarrassing that the solution is so stupid simple... But thanks a lot anyways!
My experience is this:
The piezo sensors like consistent temperatures. A change of more than about 10 deg C up or down will change how the system responds. It's getting cold here, and with the drop in temperature, I find that I need to use a space heater to keep the temperature around the printer more consistent in order not to need to make adjustments, which I'd rather avoid. My printer is in the attic, and in the summer, it's mid to upper 20s up there. In the winter, it's in the middle teens, and my last print I had my first false trigger with the Andromeda. I turned on a space heater and re-started everything when it got to 22 degrees up there, and everything was great. I assume that I could have readjusted the trigger threshhold on the board, but I want to avoid making those adjustments if at all possible. Besides, cooler air temperatures are likely to change the printing characteristics of the extruded plastic, too, so keeping a consistent temperature for use is a good thing.
If your printer is enclosed, and you are keeping a consistent temperature for printing anyway, I can say that I have noticed no ill effects from the Andromeda boards being stored in low temperatures, but I think the coldest that I might have tried to use it would be maybe 14°C
New Orion user - first impressions and feedback...
(This is fairly long, so if you're only interested in the Orion itself, please skip 3 paragraphs.)
I had been using a Titan Aero direct drive extruder on my delta printer, with FSRs for bed leveling. While others have had great success with FSRs, I haven't been so lucky. With the FSRs on my printer, things were inconsistent enough that even 2 days after manually setting the trigger heights on every location in bed.g, I'd end up with a not quite "flat" Z plane (which, as far as I can tell, is a result of duet auto-calibration and inconsistent Z probe triggering.) I actually had better luck using probe type "0" and manually finding Z0 on auto-calibrations (and then NOT doing an auto-calibration each build.)
My first idea for "fixing" this was to somehow get a precision piezo system working with the titan aero. However, that's really not easy when the titan aero (and stepper) is hanging from a delta effector. I'm sure someone with better mechanical engineering skills than I possess would be able to figure it out, but I took an easier way out:
I purchased the precision piezo orion, and "downgraded" my titan aero to a simple titan extruder with a genuine E3D V6 heatsink/hot end. I lost about 44mm of build height in doing this (which leaves me with a mere 411mm in the center of the delta and about 50mm less at the edges.) I see/hear no performance or noise difference whatsoever in regards to the extruder/heatsink setup. I will mention that I've seen two benefits of the "downgrade": First, I prefer the more controlled airflow of the heatsink fan and second, I like that I can actually see the tension adjustment in the little titan extruder window.
As for the Orion itself, my very first impression was NOT positive. In order to properly attach the base part of the orion to the genuine E3D heat sink, I actually had to clamp it closed with a pair of vice-grips. Without doing that, the orion "sandwich" wouldn't go together as the 4 holes wouldn't line up. This was much more force than I expected to have to use and I'm relieved that the plastic didn't break as a result. (The inside of the base piece didn't seem to have any stray plastic in the channel for the heatsink. It just looks like the gap/channel might be very slightly too small.)
However, once I got things physically assembled, I have to admit that this thing is absolutely incredible (at least compared to my experience with FSRs.) My first attempt had the sensitivity a bit too high, and the V6 heatsink fan vibration would trigger the piezo. After turning that down a bit, I have an extremely consistent trigger height of 0.065 +/- 0.002mm with a 195C nozzle pressing on a 65C PEI/glass/aluminum heated bed. (I've actually adjusted the trigger height to 0.068 in my G31 in order to produce a very near perfect first layer height.)
Not only is the trigger height consistent, it's consistent all over my heated bed. The entire 300mm diameter plate has the same trigger height. I no longer need any "H" parameters in my bed.g file, and I can actually use mesh compensation if I want to. My method of checking consistency was to check the trigger height at each of the locations used in bed.g, and the ultimate test of printing several single layer, single line/wall "rings" around the build the plate, letting it cool, pulling it off, and spot checking with calipers.
I have to admit - I'm impressed. Thank you, Idris.
Thanks for the answer!
Maybe I have wrong approach angle with that:
What I'm looking for is more precise measurement of bed surface, that will be glass or granite. I don't want to use heater thermistor or thermistor in bed, as I want to measure surface temperature.
@snowcrash said in Duet Wifi 2 third party pt100 board:
@crazyjane, to the best of my knowledge, one important point to bear in mind in this context is that the 3rd party board needs to have a 400R reference resistor for the board to work properly (i.e. give correct readings) when hooked up to the Duet.
Based on the schematics, 400R is the value of the reference resistor on the Duet's daughter board (although in some cases it's noted as 430R - don't ask me why), and, again as far as I know, that's the value used by the Duet's firmware (unless there's a way of tweaking this value in the settings - I haven't looked into that).
For my machine, I've actually made my own custom little daughter board for the PT-100 based on the MAX31865 & a 400R reference resistor (I didn't want to use the Duet's as I didn't want the daughter board to sit on top of the controller), and it works great
Hope it helps.
It's possible to use 430R or another value for the reference resistor instead of 400R, if you specify the value of that resistor in the R parameter of the M305 command.
Hi guys, I had the same issue. The solution is to change the diameter of the part above the pcb. It should be around 17.5mm. My expirience is, that a bigger diameter makes it much worser.
There's nothing preventing you from modifying the top piece. I think you are correct that the current groovemount top piece is too thin for M3 inserts but I'm not sure that smaller screws are the answer. I find M2 screws very fiddly and awkward to use, prone to rounding heads etc. If you're going to tackle it, I would increase the thickness of the top piece instead of using smaller screws.
I do see your point that the screws are inaccessible or awkward to access once assembled however I think that some of them would still be awkward to access from below. Once adjusted they shouldn't need to be changed so I don't see it as a significant problem.
I am working on doing this myself. There are some challenges.
Because the piezo sensors rely on movement, the larger the base that you can cover within the sensors, the better. I had a relatively small base for my bed size, and that ended up with unacceptable results.
So say that a piezo sensor requires 0.1mm of movement to trigger a response that the board can pick up. (Other options, like speed play a factor, too, but assuming that probe speed is constant, it will come down to movement.)
If you probe directly over top of a sensor, you'll need 0.1mm of deflection to register a touch. for anything that is outside of the polygon defined by your sensor locations, there will be an axis of deflection, probably made up by the two most distant mount points. We'll assume zero bending of the bed itself, probably close enough for the forces and spans involved on most 3D printers. For my old setup (I'm changing it to be better) it might be possible to probe 80mm away from a sensor, which in turn could be 80mm away from the axis line. In that case, it would require 0.2mm of movement to get the same signal. Actually, since it tried to use an axis of deflection in between 2 sensors, I found that I needed over 0.35mm of deflection in one corner, which was a clearly unacceptable deviaton over the surface of the bed. In addition, probing in the centre of the 3 sensors that I was using needed an even smaller deflection, almost zero, which would otherwise be almost ideal.
For temporary use, I decided to use a 3 point probing system, directly over each of the 3 underbed sensors, which resulted in useable leveling.
I am currently constructing a solution where I am stiffening the support, and placing sensors under the head bed mounting scews. 4 in a 209mm square, under a 220mm by 275mm heated build platform. It will still be possible to probe outside of the sensor polygon, but I will probably define my mesh leveling to stay within that polygon in order to achieve the maximum consistency in probing. I don't have results yet, I'm still in the actual build process for this.
Follow up update! I have submitted a revision to the Firmware, which hopefully will be accepted: https://forum.duet3d.com/topic/7151/linear-adc-thermocouple-improvements
It is indeed possible to use the MCP3204 or MCP3208 ADC chip with the Duet!
Once the firmware is updated, it should also be possible to use all 4 or 8 channels of ADC in either single mode or differential mode. (Right now, only 1 channel is able to be used at a time).