Posts made by CadetC

@imsother
@Phaedrux
I had a similar problem, but I use PrusaSlicer . Everything came back to normal after adding ;LAYER:[layer_num] to the custom gcode tab under the "before layer change g-code" section in printer setting in PrusaSlicer

@dc42
Today I checked again how this issue looks like - when heating up to 110C I had to delete fault once, then everything was OK.
After about 30 minutes temperature quite stable, small fluctuations +0.1, -0.1 degrees .
After the temperature of the table stabilized (with small deviations as above) the result of M573 varied from 0.226 to 0.242 - I checked it for about 15 minutes

30.08.2021, 17:18:38	M307 H0
Heater 0 model: heating rate 0.858, cooling time constant 275.9, dead time 4.18, max PWM 1.00, calibration voltage 24.0, mode PID
Computed PID parameters: setpoint change: P49.8, I1.466, D145.6, load change: P49.8, I3.664, D145.6
30.08.2021, 17:17:49	M573 p0undefined

@dc42 said in RRF 3.4b3 - bed heater fault:

@siam thanks. If the M573 reading is not stable, is the temperature oscillating a little? If so, increase the M307 D parameter until it is stable. You can do this while the heater is hot.

the temperature after reaching the desired 110 degrees is a little unstable, it fluctuates within +0.3, -0.3 degrees
I tried to change parameter D, but I don't know by what values I can change it - I changed it by 0.1 to the value 4.80 with no visible improvement.
Here are the readings taken about an hour after setting the bed temperature

M573 results

.08.2021, 16:03:22	m573 P0
Average heater 0 PWM: 0.196
28.08.2021, 16:03:16	m573 P0
Average heater 0 PWM: 0.165
28.08.2021, 16:03:15	m573 P0
Average heater 0 PWM: 0.163
28.08.2021, 16:03:14	m573 P0
Average heater 0 PWM: 0.178
28.08.2021, 16:03:12	m573 P0
Average heater 0 PWM: 0.213
28.08.2021, 16:02:57	m573 P0
Average heater 0 PWM: 0.256

Ambient temperature 20C
Bed temperature 110C

M307 H0

8.08.2021, 16:00:46	M307 H0
Heater 0 model: heating rate 0.858, cooling time constant 275.9, dead time 4.18, max PWM 1.00, calibration voltage 24.0, mode PID
Computed PID parameters:
 setpoint change: P49.8, I1.466, D145.6, load change: P49.8, I3.664, D145.6

@phaedrux said in RRF 3.4b3 - bed heater fault:

Can you give us some details about the bed and heater?

Bed is made out of 8 mm aluminum plate with dimensions 340X340
Heating element - 300X300 - 220V, 750W Kenovo connected via SSR

Starting with RRF 3.2 I had all versions installed, including betas - it was only with RRF3.4b3 that this problem occurred

my bed config from config.g

M308 S0 P"temp0" Y"thermistor" T100000 B4138 A"Bed"      ; configure sensor 0 as thermistor on pin temp0
M950 H0 C"out0" T0                                   ; create bed heater output on out0 and map it to sensor 0
M307 H0 B0 S1.00                                     ; disable bang-bang mode for the bed heater and set PWM limit
M140 H0                                              ; map heated bed to heater 0
M143 H0 S130                                         ; set temperature limit for heater 0 to 130C

@mfs12
I can help with polish translation

after installing 3.4b3 i have problem with table heating - of course pid tuning done. Previously there were no such problems. If I set the temperature of the table at 110C (temperature at which I print) in order to heat up the table first and run ABL, I have to delete the fault twice before the table reaches the temperature and maintains it - after reaching the set temperature it is stable.

27.08.2021, 12:58:22	Error: Heater 0 fault: temperature rising much more slowly than the expected 0.6°C/sec

my M307 after pid tuned

M307 H0 B0 R0.858 C275.9 D4.18 S1.00 V24.0

@nuramori
What motors do you use for xy, ? I am surprised at the low current you have set for them. Another thing, and here I ask because I can not find any info on M915(stallguard) and T1 parameter - what is it for?

@mfs12
Look like we need rc7
After installing 3.4b3 rc6 no longer works.

@dc42
there is definitely a difference between firmware 3.4b2 and 3.4b2+2
below is a screen with temperature reading for 3.4b2 and below for 3.4b2+2 -

comparison made just now

m122 b121.0
Diagnostics for board 121:
Duet TOOL1LC firmware version 3.4.0beta2 (2021-08-03 10:00:09)
Bootloader ID: SAMC21 bootloader version 2.3 (2021-01-26b1)

m122 b121
Diagnostics for board 121:
Duet TOOL1LC firmware version 3.4.0beta2+2 (2021-08-21 14:16:34)
Bootloader ID: SAMC21 bootloader version 2.3 (2021-01-26b1)

But all in all, the most important thing is that it's OK now,

Thanks

@dc42

m122 b121.0
Diagnostics for board 121:
Duet TOOL1LC firmware version 3.4.0beta2+2 (2021-08-21 14:16:34)

@dc42
34b2+2.bin-OK

@dc42
yes -temp OK

@dc42
don't know why but test 9 is seen by system as test8

m122 b121
Diagnostics for board 121:
Duet TOOL1LC firmware version 3.3+test8 (2021-08-21 14:00:53)
Bootloader ID: SAMC21 bootloader version 2.3 (2021-01-26b1)

@dc42
Test8-OK

@dc42
Test7-OK

@dc42
Test 1 -OK
Test 2-OK
Test3-OK
Test4-OK
Test5-OK
Test6-OK

m122 b121
Diagnostics for board 121:
Duet TOOL1LC firmware version 3.3+test6 (2021-08-21 13:29:44)
Bootloader ID: SAMC21 bootloader version 2.3 (2021-01-26b1)

@dc42
RRF3.4b2 on Duet3
Toolboard v 1.1

m122 b121
Diagnostics for board 121:
Duet TOOL1LC firmware version 3.3 (2021-06-15 16:12:58)
Bootloader ID: SAMC21 bootloader version 2.3 (2021-01-26b1)

After toolboard firmware change
RRF3.4b2 on Duet3
Toolboard v 1.1

unM122 B121
Diagnostics for board 121:
Duet TOOL1LC firmware version 3.3+test1 (2021-08-20 16:51:53)
Bootloader ID: SAMC21 bootloader version 2.3 (2021-01-26b1)

I think it's fine

@dc42
So what do you think? Are our problems caused by software bugs or could it be a hardware problem? What's the prognosis?
Should I return my toolboard as faulty under warranty? Or is there a chance that it will work as it should?

@dc42 said in After updating to 3.4.0beta2: faulty heater 1, -273.1C.:

@jbarros @CadetC @pixelpieper does any of you live in UK?

Unfortunately I don't live in the UK, in my case it's Poland

@dc42
Another thing that comes to my mind is that when I came back from 3.4b2 to 3.3 and did anoter recalibration L and H values were definitely different than the "factory" values that I noted before doing the calibration at 3.4b2.
Now to make sure that factory values are used I have them saved in config-override.
Can the fact that other values are stored in Non-volatile memory (left over from calibration attempts made by me) and actually other values are used - included in config-override.g - - have an impact on other values than in your toolboards?