Posts made by plasticfactory

@CCS86 Actually, yes! I was inspired by this IMM product:
https://procdn.blob.core.windows.net/pages/nozzles-caddie-wrench.pdf

... but was frustrated to see someone did exactly this with the Bozzle (https://www.fabreeko.com/products/bozzle-0-5mm-full-tungsten-carbide-nozzle-by-rentable-socks).

I am confident it could be done with even better geometry/finish (I have cross sectioned and tested the Bozzle along with the other popular nozzle brands), but higher flow has been toward the bottom of my list. I will definitely consider focusing on that next as it seems the community is very driven by faster/higher flow these days.

I'm not sure if anyone is still interested in updates on this, but a lot of testing has taken place, as well as numerous design revisions. All inspections were performed with a new Keyence LM. All brands used in testing were "high end" or otherwise among the most popular in the community (I'm not sure how I feel about including specific names compared to measurements taken). Key updates:

1. We have dialed in our machining process to hold a +/-0.001mm tolerance. The EDM machined nozzle is objectively higher precision than anything I can find on the market. The latest .80 nozzle measures at 0.801mm. The +/-0.001mm is consistent and achievable regardless of major ID nominal size (IE, a .40mm nozzle will come out to ~.401mm). Nothing I measured across all popular brands came close.

2. The machining process is very conducive to getting roundness right. The EDM machined nozzle is objectively rounder than everything I tested (across 6 nozzle brands). The EDM machined nozzles hold a roundness of 0.010mm, with the typical roundness across all tested brands being ~0.019mm.

3. The machining process results in a surface finish more consistent than anything else we dissected. This is typical for EDM machining vs. traditional cutting. Because we have some control over how matte or gloss the finish is, and the subjective nature of the effect this has on parts, I won't share much more until I have good pictures.

Overall, I'm very pleased with how things are turning out, though I was hoping for improvements in other areas, too. I think there is value in knowing you're .40 nozzle is as close to .40 as possible, for obvious slicing benefits and repeatability when swapping nozzles. The most precise nozzles I inspected were e3d's, averaging 0.394mm, with most brands measuring ~0.38mm, and the worst (and among the most expensive!) as low as 0.36mm. It definitely seems to me knowing your exact orifice size is just as valuable as knowing your exact filament diameter.

Where I go from here... Unsure. Are there any tests users would like to see performed? Specific prints? If this is allowed, I'd even love to get feedback on overall perception -- assuming things were priced similarly, what would make current options more appealing than this?

@darth-scoob I made the same observation. I assume this is a sort of "ironing" effect due to the larger flat at the end of the nozzle. I definitely think the larger taper causes heat dissipation issues and plan to get the taper to the standard geometry as soon as possible. As for the toolchanger, I like it a lot. There are many things I would/have changed about it, but that's the beauty of open source 3d printing products.

@mrdui That will be one of the final tests I perform. High speed printing is lowest on the list of what I'm interested in here, but obviously want to know how it compares. Who knows, I may be surprised. Assuming I see reduced throughput, I've considered adding features like this:
https://procdn.blob.core.windows.net/pages/nozzles-caddie-wrench.pdf

I am unsure how patents would affect similar features on a 3d printing nozzle as I simply haven't gotten that far.

Overall, I assume there is more pressure loss in the ADV nozzle vs. V6. Whether it significant or can't be compensated via software, I am unsure at this time. I am also hopeful the improved geometry and reduction in sharp angles help to mitigate such an issue. Plastic really dislikes sharp angles.

Just for posterity, the primary areas I'm looking to improve are a) overall consistency in extrudate, b) improved surface finish, and c) reduced drool/stringing. On C, PLA is the material I am least interested in, but as it is the defacto 3d printing standard I decided to start with it. The nozzle is being developed with higher temp/viscosity and engineering grade polymers in mind. I'm very optimistic about doing Nylon test prints.

EDIT: One other thought, and correct me if I'm off base -- I assume standard nozzles have such a short orifice length due to machining limitations. After all, that's a very small tool and deflection would become an issue if making it much longer. I highly doubt the current "standard" orifice lengths are necessarily optimized.

Disclaimer: A sample size of 1 is not enough to draw distinct conclusions. Everything I am sharing are simply preliminary results and I will do many prints/inspections before making any clear statements of capability.

Based on user CCS86's suggestion, we performed another straightness test with more data points:

Slight reduction, but ~12% "straighter". Eventually we will do more thorough inspections on this. I was considering using our extrusion measurement systems to test it not on a print, but in line (like a normal plastic extruder).

Next up are simple stringing tests, pictured here:

ADV Left, V6 Right

These prints were done on the same hardware, with same the same Gcode file. Both prints were done with no retraction. Prusament PLA, 200*, 15mm/s print, 180mm/s travel.

Clearly, the ADV oozes considerably less, almost none at all. I do notice "fuzz" on the edges, and what appears to be occasional heat dissipation issues from the ADV nozzle. I suspect this is due to the end taper geometry not being correct for a V6 0.4 orifice nozzle (as mentioned by another user earlier in the thread). The next step is to EDM or surface grind this taper to the correct geometry to eliminate this as a variable. Nozzle taper comparison below:

I very much welcome feedback!

@ccs86 Yeah, I definitely see that -- good eye. I probably got too excited with the last post, but the other images, coupled with this, are promising. I will refrain from making conclusions until we get a proper inspection next week.

@plasticfactory Last quick update before Monday. From our QE: "the ADV nozzle is more consistent with layer width, but I will do more inspections Monday and generate a proper report".

I will of course share said report, with data, here. This will include how the inspection was conducted. But that was a nice message to cap off the week.

EDIT: This probably doesn't mean much right now as it was a "first guess" way to check this, but here is the image I was provided:

Top is ADV, bottom V6

This is an overall straightness measurement. So it doesn't account for the exact deviation from each layer line, but would indicate that overall it is less "wavy" (ie, more consistent extrusion width).

I'm open to suggestions on what types of measurements to take, or prints to use to take said measurements.

EDIT 2: I was also sent some inspections comparing actual individual layer lines. I will share those images and preliminary findings shortly. Similar conclusion -- ADV is more consistent. Is it an appreciable improvement? Maybe not, but it appears to be an improvement. I hope to have real conclusions by the middle of next week (but if you have kept up with this thread, it could be in 2023...)

First, apologies for the lack of updates. I started doing testing today, and have reached out to various content creators hoping for some assistance with this side of things. Time to do testing has just not been on my side.

Today I did some very simple vase mode prints to check two things:

1. potential change in surface finish
2. ability to take objective measurements of layer width

The prints were done on an E3D toolchanger, using a Hemera extruder and Copper V6 block. Both prints were done with the exact same hardware, only the nozzle being different. I used a hardened steel E3D V6 nozzle as the control. The material was the same spool of Prusament PLA, fed closed loop from a material dryer.

First impression: the ADV nozzle produces a significantly more matte finish. Though "improvement" is completely subjective, it objectively hides layer lines more than the gloss, especially in person. The photo posted was spliced together as both parts were taken under identical lighting conditions.

The next step is to use our IM to take measurements of wall thickness and layer width, to determine if there is any significant difference in extrusion consistency (visually, I'm not expecting much difference).

Anecdotally, the ADV nozzle oozes considerably less than the V6. The next steps will be various retraction prints, sans retraction, to evaluate stringing/oozing.

Finally, I had some mushrooming at the bottom of the V6 print. This is obviously not a fault of the nozzle.

I'm not expecting too much enthusiasm over the initial results, but I'm happy so far and am very excited to get to the retraction tests. My first reaction is that will be the area most improved.

ADV left, E3D right

@plasticfactory I figured it out... The build volume dimensions were reversed in my slicer (X where Y should be). I have absolutely no idea when or why I did it. I will leave this post up out of shame.

@plasticfactory Attached is what I feel is the relevant section of my slicer profile, and config. Happy to share anything else that would be helpful.

; General preferences
M111 S0 						; Debugging off
G21 							; Work in millimetres
G90 							; Send absolute coordinates...
M83 							; ...but relative extruder moves
M555 P2 						; Set firmware compatibility to look like Marlin

; Network
M550 p"toolchanger" 					; Set machine name
M552 s1
M586 P0 S1 						; Enable HTTP
M586 P1 S0 						; Disable FTP
M586 P2 S0 						; Disable Telnet

M667 S1 						; Select CoreXY mode	

; Endstops
M574 X1 S3
M574 Y1 S3 						; Set X / Y endstop stall detection
M574 Z0 P"nil"                               ; No Z endstop @used by DC42 using G30 homing
M558 P8 C"zstop" H5 F120 T3000 A5 S0.01
G31 P200 X0 Y0 Z0	 				; Set Z probe trigger value, offset and trigger height
M557 X10:290 Y20:180 S40 				; Define mesh grid

; Drive direction
M569 P0 S0 						; Drive 0 X
M569 P1 S0 						; Drive 1 Y
M569 P2 S1 						; Drive 2 Z
M569 P3 S0 						; Drive 3 E0
M569 P4 S0 						; Drive 4 E1
M569 P5 S1 						; Drive 5 E2
M569 P6 S1 						; Drive 6 E3
M569 P7 S0 						; Drive 7 COUPLER
M569 P8 S0 						; Drive 8 UNUSED
M569 P9 S0 						; Drive 9 UNUSED

M584 X0 Y1 Z2 C7 E9:8:5:6 				; Apply custom drive mapping
M208 X-35:328.5 Y-49:243 Z0:300 C0:500 S0 		; Set axis maxima & minima
M350 E16:8:16:8 C8 I0 					; Configure microstepping without interpolation
M350 X16 Y16 Z16 I1					; Configure microstepping with interpolation
M92 X100 Y100 Z1600 C100 E409:167:401:409		; Set steps per mm
M566 X600 Y600 Z10 C2 E2:2:3600:2				; Set maximum instantaneous speed changes (mm/min)
M203 X35000 Y35000 Z1800 C5000 E5000:5000:5000:5000	; Set maximum speeds (mm/min)
M201 X6000 Y6000 Z400 C400 E2500:2500:6000:2500		; Set accelerations (mm/s^2)
M906 X2000 Y2000 Z1330 C400 E1680:1680:1680:1680 I30 	; Set motor currents (mA) and motor idle factor in percent
M84 S120 												; Set idle timeout

;Stall Detection
M915 C S5 F0 H200 R4700					; Coupler

;Stall Detection
M915 X Y S5 F0 H400 R4700				; X / Y Axes

; Heaters
M308 S0 P"bedtemp" Y"thermistor" A"bed"
M950 H0 C"bedheat" T0
M140 H0    
M143 H0 S225 	

;M308 S1 P"spi.cs2" Y"rtd-max31865" A"Tool 0"
M308 S1 P"e0temp" Y"thermistor" T500000 B4723 C1.196220e-7 A"Tool 0"
M950 H1 C"e0heat" T1 
;M307 H1 A711.7 C216.9 D4.5 S1.00 V21.7 B0
M307 H1 A760.7 C256.8 D3.8 S1.00 V21.6 B0
M143 H1 S450 		

M308 S2 P"e1temp" Y"pt1000" A"Tool 1"
M950 H2 C"e1heat" T2 
M307 H2 A1065.0 C356.6 D6.0 S1.00 V21.5 B0
M143 H2 S450 

M308 S3 P"e2temp" Y"pt1000" A"Tool 2"
M950 H3 C"duex.e2heat" T3 
M307 H3 A1064.2 C242.3 D6.3 S1.00 V21.4 B0
M143 H3 S400 						

; Fans
M950 F0 C"duex.fan3"
M950 F1 C"duex.fan5"
M950 F2 C"duex.fan4"
M950 F3 C"duex.fan6"

M106 P0 S0
M106 P1 S0
M106 P2 S0
M106 P3 S255

; Tools
M563 P0 S"T0" D0 H1 F0 					; Define tool 0 
G10 P0 X0 Y0 Z0  					; Reset tool 0 axis offsets
G10 P0 R220 S260					; Reset initial tool 0 active and standby temperatures to 0C

M563 P1 S"T1" D1 H2 F1 					; Define tool 1 
G10 P1 X0 Y0 Z0  					; Reset tool 2 axis offsets
G10 P1 R220 S260					; Reset initial tool 2 active and standby temperatures to 0C

M563 P2 S"T2" D2 H3 F2 					; Define tool 2 
G10 P2 X0 Y0 Z0  					; Reset tool 2 axis offsets
G10 P2 R220 S260					; Reset initial tool 2 active and standby temperatures to 0C


M593 F50						; cancel ringing at 50Hz (https://forum.e3d-online.com/threads/accelerometer-and-resonance-measurements-of-the-motion-system.3445/)
;M376 H15						; bed compensation taper

;tool offsets
G10 P0 X21 Y43 Z-5.65					; T0
G10 P1 X23.7 Y43.8 Z-7.50					; T1
G10 P2 X22 Y43.5 Z-5.15	; T2
;G10 P3 X21 Y43 Z-14.95					; T3

;M572 D0 S0.2 						; pressure advance T0
;M572 D1 S0.2 						; pressure advance T1
M572 D2 S0.05 						; pressure advance T2
;M572 D3 S0.2 						; pressure advance T3

Hello, I have another odd problem. Using me E3d Toolchanger, I started a print and rather than it printing center on the bed, as configured in my slicer (Simplify 3d), it starts in the corner and actually crashes the tool.

What setting should I look at to fix this? I have changed absolutely nothing -- simply turned it on for another print and this is what I got.

Checking the config shows that my offsets are correct, other variables such as bed size are correct. I don't see anything out of the ordinary in the slicer, but kinda suspect its something there.

Any help?

@alankilian Thanks for the suggestion. They are looking into it for me, and have identified a potential access point issue (all appear to be working, but only one appears when logging into the controller). I'll report back on this one.

@engikeneer Thanks for the tip, I had no idea. I'm reading up on access point mode now.

@alankilian That's certainly a possibility. The man to ask is an office over -- do you know more specifically what I should ask? This is not an area I'm particularly knowledgeable.

@plasticfactory I spoke too soon. Perhaps I was optimistic as this was the longest it had stayed connected, but it is now losing connection with higher frequency.

DWC: 3.1.1
Firmware: 3.0

I'd prefer not to change my firmware for a several reasons, but suspect that will be the first suggestion.

Config:

; Configuration file for Duet WiFi (firmware version 3)
; executed by the firmware on start-up
;
; generated by RepRapFirmware Configuration Tool v3.1.4 on Sun Aug 30 2020 11:50:50 GMT-0500 (Central Daylight Time)

; General preferences
G90                                            ; send absolute coordinates...
M83                                            ; ...but relative extruder moves
M550 P"railcore"                               ; set printer name
M669 K1                                        ; select CoreXY mode

; Network
M552 S1                                        ; enable network
M586 P0 S1                                     ; enable HTTP
M586 P1 S0                                     ; disable FTP
M586 P2 S0                                     ; disable Telnet
M587 S"___" P"____"

; Drives
M569 P0 S0                                     ; physical drive 0 goes forwards
M569 P1 S1
M569 P3 S0                              
M569 P5 S0                                     
M569 P6 S0
M569 P7 S0
M584 X0 Y1 Z5:6:7 E3                                  ; set drive mapping
M671 X-35:-35:385 Y36:285:164 S5
M350 X16 Y16 Z16 I1	                     ; configure microstepping with interpolation
M350 E16 I0
M92 X200.00 Y200.00 Z1600.00 E720                    ; set steps per mm
M566 X900.00 Y900.00 Z600.00 E2                    ; set maximum instantaneous speed changes (mm/min)
M203 X10800.00 Y10800.00 Z600.00 E5000                 ; set maximum speeds (mm/min)
M201 X1800.00 Y1800.00 Z600.00 E2500                    ; set accelerations (mm/s^2)
M906 X1000 Y1000 Z1000 E1680 I30                        ; set motor currents (mA) and motor idle factor in per cent
M84 S30                                        ; Set idle timeout

; Axis Limits
M208 X5 Y32 Z0 S1                             ; set axis minima
M208 X315 Y320 Z250 S0                         ; set axis maxima

; Endstops
M574 X1 S1 P"xstop"                            ; configure active-high endstop for low end on X via pin xstop
M574 Y1 S1 P"ystop"                            ; configure active-high endstop for low end on Y via pin ystop
M574 Z1 S2                                     ; configure Z-probe endstop for low end on Z

; Z-Probe
M950 S0 C"duex.pwm1"                           ; create servo pin 0 for BLTouch
M558 P9 C"^zprobe.in" H5 F120 T6000            ; set Z probe type to bltouch and the dive height + speeds
G31 P25 X28.5 Y0 Z4.5                        ; set Z probe trigger value, offset and trigger height
M557 X1014:250 Y10:250 S20                       ; define mesh grid

; Heaters
M308 S0 P"bedtemp" Y"thermistor" T100000 B4138 ; configure sensor 0 as thermistor on pin bedtemp
M950 H0 C"bedheat" T0                          ; create bed heater output on bedheat and map it to sensor 0
M307 H0 A240.4 C661.1 D9.2 S1.00 V23.8 B0      ; enable bang-bang mode for the bed heater and set PWM limit
M140 H0                                        ; map heated bed to heater 0
M143 H0 S120 								   ; set temperature limit for heater 0 to 120C

M308 S1 P"e0temp" Y"thermistor" T500000 B4723 C1.196220e-7
M950 H1 C"e0heat" T1                           
M307 H1 A314.6 C101.0 D3.0 S1.00 V24.2 B0
M301 P39.24 I5.38 D71.52
M143 H1 S350 


; Fans
M950 F0 C"fan0" Q500                           ; create fan 0 on pin fan0 and set its frequency
M106 P0 S0 H-1                                 ; set fan 0 value. Thermostatic control is turned off
M950 F1 C"fan1" Q500                           ; create fan 1 on pin fan1 and set its frequency
M106 P1 S1 H1 T45                              ; set fan 1 value. Thermostatic control is turned on

; Tools
M563 P0 S"MAHOR_80" D0 F0 H1            ; define tool 0
G10 P0 X0 Y0 Z0                                ; set tool 0 axis offsets
G10 P0 R0 S0                                   ; set initial tool 0 active and standby temperatures to 0C

; Custom settings are not defined

@phaedrux

I had just typed a long reply with all the information I thought would be relevant, but think I figured it out.

I brought the machine from home to work and connected to a new Wifi network with YAT. It would connect, but never stay connected. Only long enough to send a command through DWC, but not even to upload a small gcode file.

After checking the config, it still had my old wifi credentials. After updating manually, it has seemed to stay connected. If I start having problems again I'll report back, but it seems resolved for now.

Is there a way to connect my laptop via USB to a Duet WiFi and transfer gcode files that way? I have completely given up on DWC today due to non-stop connection issues.

Finally, an update. After finding some machine time, we were able to complete the first nozzle. We inspected the orifice with a Keyence IM inspection system, and compared it to 5 leading brands who also make nozzles (to get an idea of how close to nominal we realistically need to be). We wound up at 0.410mm, which is almost exactly as close to nominal as the best commercially available nozzles inspected. We will definitely make more, as electrode sizing is why we aren't as close to .400 as I'd like. Realistically, +/- .001mm should be achievable. However, testing can finally commence. As an aside, the most "premium" (re. expensive) nozzles inspected were the worst, dipping down as low as .35mm ID.

Attached is a photo of the electrodes used, and inspection of the EDM machined nozzle. Testing is next, then I will cut more cross sections to share. These should be much, much cleaner on the inside than what is in OP.

@alankilian said in Heater fault only after homing:
Good idea, I will try it. What makes it confusing is that it doesn't happen when the Y axis end points trigger. When I home all, it does not trigger the error until the entire process is complete. However, it errors if entered line by line, right at homing Y.

@t3p3tony said in Heater fault only after homing:
I will do the same for Home Y tomorrow as I did for Home All.

Have you encountered this issue before?

@dc42 @T3P3Tony Any other advice here? I replaced the Y inductive sensors and PT100 boards with no luck.

I'm at swapping the Duet 2 board but was hoping to get a little more advice before going that route.

@diy-o-sphere Thank you.

Am I understanding this correctly -- if you remove the nozzle, the hotend comes off as well?