Piezo20 probe and piezo kit now available
-
Has anyone switched from under bed FSR setup to under bed piezo?
If so was it a major improvement over the FSR setup? -
I'm a little biased but if you consider going from 50-100g of force to trigger with FSR's (I used to have them), to 10-15g with piezo, then it must be an improvement.
However when it comes to the best approach for a delta I would say fix the bed rigidly, use the hotend based piezo probe. The results speak for themselves, I get 0.007 deviation when auto-calibrating, and that's probing 64 points, to ensure it wasn't just a lucky result.
-
any update on when the drop ins will be available?
-
OK, Thanks. The under bed approach would be much easier but I have started to see some progress on Rostock Max V3 integration at the effector.
I'm a little biased but if you consider going from 50-100g of force to trigger with FSR's (I used to have them), to 10-15g with piezo, then it must be an improvement.
However when it comes to the best approach for a delta I would say fix the bed rigidly, use the hotend based piezo probe. The results speak for themselves, I get 0.007 deviation when auto-calibrating, and that's probing 64 points, to ensure it wasn't just a lucky result.
-
any update on when the drop ins will be available?
Should have some PCB's this week and then I can list some on the site. I will post here but the main channel for announcing new stock is the thread on reprap under general.
-
Finally got time to install the piezo probe on my selfmade I3 clone.
I must say I am impressed, it works really well.
Have on issue though, when I run mesh bed leveling the heightmap is like this:
someone has an idea what could be wrong?
these are my current parameters in config.g (running on 1.19b10):
M558 P5 I0 X0 Y0 Z1 H2 F150 T1500 R0.8 ;digital piezo sensor, output rises on contact, probing speed, used to home Z axis
G31 X0 Y0 Z-0.14 P150 ;sensor is nozzle and debounce value.
M557 X1:210 Y1:300 S40 ; Set probe gridheightmap.csv contents:
RepRapFirmware height map file v1 generated at 2017-06-20 12:03, mean error 0.138, deviation 0.315
xmin,xmax,ymin,ymax,radius,xspacing,yspacing,xnum,ynum
1.00,210.00,1.00,300.00,-1.00,40.00,40.00,6,8
0.110, 0.127, 0.165, 0.165, 0.147, 0.150
0.030, 0.075, 0.105, 0.085, 0.072, 0.028
-0.035, 0.002, 0.020, -0.017, -0.052, -0.070
-0.045, 0.005, 0.040, 0.000, -0.032, -0.075
-0.015, 0.008, 0.020, 0.000, -0.052, -0.097
0.040, 0.080, 0.123, 0.082, 0.062, 0.082
0.115, 0.203, 0.198, 0.168, 0.160, 0.080
0.265, 0.360, 0.428, 0.467, 0.467, 0.358 -
DWC hasn't been updated to support 1.19 beta 10 mesh leveling grid display
-
DWC hasn't been updated to support 1.19 beta 10 mesh leveling grid display
That's weird, where did you get that info from?
It was showing a correct map when I was using the inductive probe? -
Go to bed centre and issue G30 (no parameters) this resets Z level, then do G29.
Also make sure you erase/change the G31 z offset in config_override.g as it overrides the value you set in config.g - this has got me multiple times!
-
Go to bed centre and issue G30 (no parameters) this resets Z level, then do G29.
Also make sure you erase/change the G31 z offset in config_override.g as it overrides the value you set in config.g - this has got me multiple times!
this is basically what I am doing, I home Z before doing G29 (and I have no config_override.g).
My homez.g file:
G91
G1 Z5 F100
G90
G1 X100 Y150 F9000
G30small resume: probing/mesh bed leveling works and my heightmap looks ok when I look at the numbers, but the graphic is not ok in DWC.
-
DWC hasn't been updated to support 1.19 beta 10 mesh leveling grid display
That's weird, where did you get that info from?
It was showing a correct map when I was using the inductive probe?I had the same problem with the height map and here's David's response
https://www.duet3d.com/forum/thread.php?pid=19176#p19176 -
Thanks, missed that bit
-
New Piezo Z-Probe Stock available see thread http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?1,767998,779243,page=11
-
Thanks DJ! I ordered it right away.
-
Thanks for the order, I'll get on with making it.
-
Just ordered thank you!!
-
Many thanks.
-
DWC hasn't been updated to support 1.19 beta 10 mesh leveling grid display
Chrishamm released 1.17+2 that fixes this problem…
-
DWC hasn't been updated to support 1.19 beta 10 mesh leveling grid display
Chrishamm released 1.17+2 that fixes this problem…
…but you need RRF 1.19beta10**+2** to work with it, if you haven't already installed it.
-
After some testing, I've found in my setup something I don't fully understand, let see if I can explain myself and if we can find if I´m doing something wrong.
I found that sometimes my first layer is closed to the bed than others (the first layer is always perfect, but sometimes is more squished than others), however, when I run a mesh leveling, the results seems to be fairly consistent, so I thought it was because I'm testing the PC sheet as printing surface and testing different heights for the first layer.
I found today the thread about the testing resolution and I've executed the gcode Russ provided, and I found something interesting, I edited it to use the same point I use for Z homing (is not 0,0 due to the bulldog clips), homed the printer and executed it twice, and this is what I've got:
First Execution
Bed probe heights: 0.089 0.075 0.079 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.075 0.076 0.076 0.079 0.078 0.080 0.078 0.076 0.078 0.079 0.081 0.080 0.078 0.080 0.082 0.081 0.080 0.085 0.080 0.080 0.078 0.079 0.078 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080 0.079 0.076, mean 0.079, deviation from mean 0.003Second Execution
Bed probe heights: 0.078 0.076 0.078 0.079 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.076 0.080 0.086 0.082 0.078 0.078 0.076 0.078 0.079 0.076 0.079 0.080 0.081 0.078 0.076 0.079 0.075 0.078 0.079 0.078 0.078 0.079 0.078 0.076 0.078 0.080 0.079 0.079 0.078, mean 0.078, deviation from mean 0.002Is quite interesting, the printer didn't move the head after the homing, just homed and executed the testing in the same place, and the repeatability is really good (better in the second try), so, why I'm getting 0.07 of difference with the Z homing height? is like the system "heat up" after a few tests and improve… XD
Then I thought, "Ok, let's do a Z homing again (no a home all) and execute the gcode test again!" and what I got is even more interesting:
Bed probe heights: 0.001 -0.004 -0.006 -0.005 -0.002 -0.001 -0.002 -0.002 -0.001 -0.005 -0.008 -0.002 -0.006 -0.001 -0.004 -0.006 -0.005 -0.006 -0.005 -0.009 -0.006 -0.005 -0.004 -0.004 -0.002 -0.005 -0.005 -0.008 -0.005 -0.004 -0.002 -0.006 -0.008 -0.004 -0.001 -0.001, mean -0.004, deviation from mean 0.002I got what I was expecting at the first time!, high repeatability and barely difference with the Z homing... so I've executed a second time, and I got this, which is more or less the same:
Bed probe heights: -0.006 -0.004 -0.006 -0.004 -0.005 -0.005 -0.005 -0.005 -0.008 -0.008 -0.006 -0.004 -0.008 -0.008 -0.005 -0.001 -0.001 -0.002 -0.005 -0.009 -0.005 -0.006 -0.008 -0.005 -0.008 -0.005 -0.006 -0.008 -0.008 -0.006 -0.004 -0.002 -0.005 -0.005 -0.009 -0.006, mean -0.006, deviation from mean 0.002I'm using this as the config for the mesh, is slow, but I'm getting good results and the probe is not triggered accidentally:
M558 P5 I1 F200 H3 R3 T1000 X0 Y0 Z0However, for the Homeall I'm doing this:
; Go to first bed probe point and home Z
G1 X10 Y15 F6000
G30Maybe I should change the F6000 to a more slow motion to the point, or can I add any kind of pause/delay between the G1 and the G30?
What do you guys think?
Cheers!
Edit: I found that G4 SXXX should add a pause for XXXX seconds... I can use this, but I would like to know your opinion on this.
