Which frame design can scale best?
-
@mikeabuilder said in Which frame design can scale best?:
For leveling, I'll check out the process for assisted manual leveling. But I'm also thinking of coding up something just for fun with some constraints I want to place on myself. I don't want to adjust the rear support because it's hard to reach, and I'll have big thumb wheels on the two front bed supports. I thinking of code that I can use to calibrate the thumb-wheels (I know, it can be calculated, but where's the fun in that?), then the leveling code will tell me to turn each one right or left by a specific amount of rotation.
If you design the bed support with just 3 points (left front, rear center, right front) then you could use the firmware feature because it uses the first point probed as the reference and only computes the needed adjustments for the other two points probed. So you would probe rear center, left front, right front.
And three points do determine a plane.
Frederick
-
-
@engikeneer said in Which frame design can scale best?:
@fcwilt to be correct, you can probe as many points in whichever order you want. You just need to define the back adjustment screw as number one
True but having tried varying numbers of points 3 seemed to work fine BUT I am using bed plates known to be flat within a certain spec.
Frederick
-
Side question, does anybody know were to source genuine epdm gates belts in europe?
-
@fcwilt, thanks for the description of how the manual bed level assist works. I also read the wiki page and it's clear there too - the first probe point is not moved in the adjustment. This brings me to an interesting topic (somewhat off topic for scaling), and that is the concept of "leveling". When discussed, people usually assume, without stating, that the surface described by the Z probe (or nozzle) is perfectly planar and this is rarely the case. There can be humps or bends in the rails, and on a gantry supported by rails on either end, those rails might be skewed (back end up on one and down on the other). The point is that there are a lot of places that tolerances and alignment errors can impact getting a "really level" bed and the mesh compensation is really the final feature that covers up most of these. Getting each of the other elements as close to right as practical is a good thing, but be practical and have faith in the mesh.
-
A large printer doesn't necessarily need the same bed flatness that a smaller printer needs. If you're building a large printer, there's a good chance you're going to use it to print large objects with a large nozzle and thick layers. A thick first layer is much more tolerant of variation in bed surface flatness than the thin first layer typically used in smaller printers.
-
@mrehorstdmd
sounds reasonable, but there's also more shrinkage on bigger parts and a first layer with uneven squish-factor is prone to lift off the bed. -
@mrehorstdmd said in Which frame design can scale best?:
If you're building a large printer, there's a good chance you're going to use it to print large objects with a large nozzle and thick layers.
There's also a good change you'd want to print a large batch of many small objects. Having worked on a 1 square meter printer recently I can say that leveling and mesh is critical for both though.
-
@o_lampe In my experience with printing ABS in a heated chamber (even at only 50C), relatively large prints (280 mm) don't warp off the bed. What's more likely to be a problem is getting the print to let go of the bed when it's finished. You have much wider lines and so much larger surface area where the plastic contacts the bed surface, even if the surface isn't perfectly flat. I find that a little IPA at the base of the print, combined with prying with a sharp scraper, does the job reliably and with minimal damage to either the print or the bed surface.
