Fan question
-
Is there a way to stop Fan0 slider being displayed in DWC as it is the same as Tool Fan in my single tool setup (D-Bot).
I have tools and fans configured as:
; Tools
M563 P0 D0 H1 S"E0" ; Define tool 0 - uses Drive 0 (E0), Heater 1. Tool Fan is Fan0 by default (part-cooling fan)
G10 P0 X0 Y0 Z0 ; Set tool 0 axis offsets
G10 P0 R0 S0 ; Set initial tool 0 active and standby temperatures to 0C; Fans
M106 P0 S0.0 I0 F500 H-1 C"Part Fan" ; Set fan 0 value, PWM signal inversion and frequency. Thermostatic control is turned off - Part Cooling Fan
M106 P1 S1.0 I0 F500 H1 T50 C"Hotend Fan" ; Set fan 1 value, PWM signal inversion and frequency. Thermostatic control is turned on - Hotend Fan at 100% when above 50C
M106 P2 S0.1 I0 F500 B0 H-1 C"Lights" ; Set fan 2 value, PWM signal inversion and frequency, No Blip. Thermostatic control is turned off - LED lights at 10%If I remove the M106 for P0 this has the desired effect. The Tool Fan slider still controls the Part cooling fan correctly. Hopefully that's it.
-
No you can't currently hide sliders. But see here for an explanation of why it is the way it is. Basically it makes more sense in printers with multiple tools and fans.
https://forum.duet3d.com/topic/6802/fan-0-and-fan-1-act-strangely-coupled -
@phaedrux Removing the superfluous M106 P0 does in fact remove the Fan 0 slider which is what I was after. The M563 effectively has already linked Fan0 to the tool.
Now I wish I could see Fan1 , the hotend fan, but that is not allowed as it is thermostatically controlled. -
@tekkydave Good to know. So if you remove the M106 P0 entirely the slider goes away but it is still controlled by gcode? I imagine this must be because it is the default for the part cooling fan.
By the way, I noticed in your signature that you have a large Dbot and Aero. Curious what you are using for the z axis and x carriage.
-
@phaedrux I'm using 3x leadscrews linked by a belt for the z axis. On the x axis I have recently started using the Re-X-Carriage by NickR8mmer.
-
@tekkydave z axis looks pretty similar to mine. 60 tooth on the lead screws and 20 on the motor? What pitch are the screws?
How do you like the re-x? I didn't like how wide it was and switched to the AC bot 2.0 carriage.
-
@phaedrux said in Fan question:
@tekkydave z axis looks pretty similar to mine. 60 tooth on the lead screws and 20 on the motor? What pitch are the screws?
How do you like the re-x? I didn't like how wide it was and switched to the AC bot 2.0 carriage.
I started with 20t/60t but changed to 30t/60t later (old pic above). The screws are 1mm pitch single-start. I'm planning to change to have a motor on each leadscrew so I can implement auto-bed adjustment.
I like the re-x. I upgraded my Titan to an Aero at the same time. I use piezo for z-probing. The piezo disc is hidden away in the motor mount with the electronics hidden under the re-x top cover - see this thing on Thingiverse. It works very well. -
@tekkydave Thanks for the heads up on the piezo mount for the re-x. I have a piezo kit sitting unused because there wasn't a good mount for it at the time. I might have to give it another shot. I'm pretty happy with the AC bot carriage though. It's more compact and has integrated belt and wheel tensioners. And a C shaped cooling shroud that works really well. https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2849355
I was using 40 tooth pulleys 1:1, but just switched to 20/40. The added torque helps a bit I think. What didn't you like about the 3:1 gearing?
-
I couldn't get enough speed up for the piezo triggering.
-
@tekkydave At 1:1 I occasionally had torque issues. 2:1 seems to be the sweet spot.
-
Also having 1mm lead screws can cause particular issues as the single motor needs to achieve quite high speed at 3:1. I found moving from 12v to 24v supply improved things too as the motors can maintain higher speeds for the same torque.
I want to try the Bed_levelling_using_multiple_independent_Z_motors next. I have bought another 2 motors already
-
@tekkydave Let me know how it plays out. I'm contemplating moving to independent lead screws as well. Though I'm not sure it will be necessary. The bed doesn't seem to get out of level at all.
I can't see the wheels in your pictures, so I'm not sure how you have the bed platform configured, but for me with 3 wheel tensioners in all four corners with front cross brace beam it's very ridgid. It rolls smooth enough to travel at 600mm/min (10mm/s) as long as the acceleration is gentle enough.
-
I tried having wheels in all 4 corners with a bar at the front when I only had 2 leadscrews but it seemed to "over-constrain" the bed assembly. I was getting binding issues with the leadscrews. Once I went back to just 2 wheel sets at the rear and 3 leadscrews it became rock-solid.
The bed stays level at the moment so I don't really have an issue at the moment. It's more a case of doing it "because I can"
I like the idea of the bed levelling itself -
@tekkydave 2 screws are just too hard to balance. I recently tried just having the rear wheels and removed the front wheels because I was having some banding issues crop up. It didn't help the banding and the bed became less stable.
As long as the lead screws are vertical and aligned with the bed mounts and the wheels are aligned and tensioned first it seems to be very smooth and stable. In the end I think the banding was caused by a lead screw mount or bed mount getting pulled out of alignment when I retightened the bolts.
The double bearing blocks I'm using definitely over constrain the lead screws and the bed mounts are also fixed. And there is very little play with 1mm pitch screws. The alignment needs to be perfect. I would like to switch to pillow blocks which have some inherent play in them and Oldham style bed mounts but I haven't found any I like yet.
