Datasets:

flax-sentence-embeddings

/

stackexchange_titlebody_best_voted_answer_jsonl

like 8

Follow

Flax-sentence-embeddings 22

3d Extruder temperature lower automatically (Prusi I3) when I command to start print from SD card; extruder temperature raise slowly and print start but with in 4-5 minutes suddenly Extruder temperature lower automatically.

Please consider to reference your precise model (genuine Prusa i3 or clone?) as well as the slicer software you are using. You should be able to note from the panel information what layer the change appears. For example, if you are printing 0.200 mm layer thickness and the temperature change begins at 10.200 height, you have an important piece of information. Open your gcode file in a text editor and look for the Z reference in the 10.000 or 10.200 range, along with the temperature gcode command. According to the reprap wiki,, the gcode command to set extruder temperature is M104 followed by Sxxx where xxx = temperature in °C. For example, you should see something like this near the beginning of the gcode M104 S205; set extruder temperature to 205°C (comments mine, some slicers also include comments) but if your gcode is faulty, later in the body of the gcode you may see a similar command: M104 S000; the number after the S could be anything. Consider to examine any M10x codes as there are different results for various codes. If you find you have a dropped extruder temperature due to the gcode, double check your slicer settings to see if a second process has been initiated. I have a dual extruder printer and will usually keep the second extruder cold until just a few layers prior to printing supports at a level above the bed, then turn it on to do the supports, then back off for the rest of the print.

Do firmware updates affect print speeds? I flashed the TH3D unified firmware (R2.7) yesterday and so far everything works. I printed the 20 mm cube using the same G-code file I used for my very first print ever. However, with TH3D firmware I noticed that the print head was ridiculously fast compared to the previous firmware. The new cube has layer shifting and more noticeable ghosting so I know it's not just my imagination/faulty memory. The slicer should have everything moving at 60 mm/s but I feel like the printer is going like 80+ mm/s. I only uncommented my printer model and a couple of features of the firmware; nothing involving speed (mainly the mesh bed leveling). Is it possible that the new firmware thinks 60 mm/s is a different speed than the original? Note: This question isn't about print quality. While the cube had flaws, it was just testing that the printer would actually print. And, of course, I can just dial things down. This question's scope is just about the input of the G-code and the output of an actual speed of printer head facilitated by the firmware.

I agree with @silver, but also wanted to point out that maybe the acceleration values on the old firmware you had were different from the default in TH3D R2.7. The current settings can be retrieved using the M503 command, which should return the values from the eeprom: Maximum Acceleration (units/s2): M201 X1000 Y1000 Z100 E10000 Acceleration (units/s2): P R T M204 P400.00 R1000.00 T1000.00 You can then lookup the default settings for your printer model and use M201 and M204 to set the new values. Then M500 to save the new settings to the EEPROM.

Ender 3 PRO BLTouch V2 perfect on center with small prints but fails on corners or big prints For my Ender 3 Pro I bought this touch sensor set Chinese clone BLTouch set and changed the printer's firmware to the latest TH3D firmware (first I tried with Creality's original BLTouch firmware but after 4 hours, I never managed to set a correct Z offset, I believe there is a bug or this BLTouch clone isn't compatible with Creality firmware). After installing TH3D, found the right Z offset, when I print items like this one which stays at the center everything just perfect it sticks well, no strings, strong lines. But if I try to print something like this which is using almost all the printing table from corner to corner (I need to rotate the print 45° to fit onto the build platform), it's good on center or near to center but not sticking on the corners and first lines are sticking to nozzle (because at the far corners, the nozzle is too far or too close) and makes a mess. I powered off the printer and adjusted the good old way (with a paper) and re-setted the Z offset accordingly but the result is the same. According to my research some peoples advised you need to add G29 after G28 to your G-code to get proper solution, I added the code in Cura. When I try adding G29, the printer starts leveling after starting printing, but the "not sticking problem at the corners" still continues. I tried with both magnetic bed & glass bed, but nothing helped. I was using 200 °C for the nozzle and 60nbsp;°C for the bed, printing speed is 50nbsp;mm/s with Standart quality 0.2nbsp;mm, retraction enabled, mostly using 10nbsp;% infill on my models. I thougt maybe filament causes this problem, changed filament to another roll but not helped, I also have an Ender 3 V2 (no BLTouch) and tried same model, same filament, same settings on V2 printed perfectly. This is how my bed looks like according to OctoPrint bed visualizer plugin; I've watched many tutorial videos and some said you need to adjust your bed with spirit level to make sure it's flat, I even did that and it is just perfectly flat. I've installed the BLTouch clone 1 week ago and I'm struggling with this problem since then, I believe I'm missing something very obvious or making a realy simple mistake because many people use touch sensors and they are all happy with auto bed leveling.

Following Nathan's answer, I've solved my problem with Nathan's suggestions and the method in this video. What I did? Flashed Creality's original BLTouch firmware to printer Heated up bed to 60 °C Leveled bed the old fashion way first, but with slight resistance (you don't have to level perfectly) Followed the youtube method to find proper Z offset Opened Cura, Settings->Printer->Manage Printers: and added G29; ABL after G28 Voilâ, now your printer prints perfectly! Enjoying the relieving after 1 week of struggling.

What kinds of gaps/tolerances should I use when designing pieces that fit together? Let's say I'm modeling a simple box with a lid. Just as an example, we'll say the outer edge along the top of the box is 50mm x 50mm. With 3D modeling software, it's easy to build a lid for this box to surround the top with an inner edge size of also exactly 50mm x 50mm ...but this seems like a bad idea. Surely I'll want some kind of of gap, to ensure an easy on/off. An exact fit seems like it's asking for trouble. How much gap do we leave for this kind of thing? Is it related to nozzle size? I suppose it also matters how tightly you want to fit, though I expect in cases where a tight fit matters some kind of snap or clip would be used. Are draft prints with larger layer sizes useful for figuring this, or do the rough layers make things seem tighter than they'll be in a final print?

I use my clearance values according to my rule of thumb: 0.1mm - to fit with some force, 0.2mm - just fit edge to edge without force. Examples: 1) 3mm metal cylinder to be pressed into plastic part needs 3mm+0.1mm*2=3.2mm diameter printed hole (clearance from two sides) 2) 3mm screw to fit into plastic part needs hole bigger than 3mm+0.2mm*2=3.4mm that is 3.5mm will be already good. This is fully experimental but always worked for me on three different printers and both on PLA and ABS.

Calibrated Esteps Causes Extruder Skipping I have replaced the stock extruder on my Ender 3 with one of these: The grip gear has a smaller diameter, so I calibrated the esteps as per the top google search: Extruder Calibration – 6 Easy Steps to Calibrate Your Extruder... If I set the esteps so that it's spot on with 100 mm of filament is used up when I ask it to extrude 100 mm, then during a print I get the occasional skip on the extruder. If I dial it back a bit and set it so that it extrudes 90 mm of filament when I ask it to extrude 100 mm, then I don't get the skips. In both cases the print looks normal. I've tried changing the nozzle as well in case there was some blockage, but it doesn't make a difference. Should I just go with the under extrusion? or is these likely to be some other problem that isn't apparent? I didn't notice any issues with the stock extruder and the stock estep setting, but I didn't think to check the calibration.

Consider that the extruder is skipping because it is unable to push filament at the rate you are requesting. By reducing the steps to ninety percent, you are reducing the rate by that much as well. Typically, a skipping extruder is an indication of clogging, but it does not have to be clogging caused by particulates jamming the nozzle. At higher rates of filament travel, one needs higher temperatures to compensate for the cooling at those higher rates. Consider to reduce the print speed to ninety percent of the current figure, or raise the nozzle temperature by five to ten degrees (in steps) to see if you'll get rid of the cold blocking that may be causing this problem.

Is there any way to correct uneven bed temperature? I'm using an Ender 3 Pro with stock heated bed & glass build surface on it (without any base of stock magnetic plate). My heated bed looks completely flat too despite of many uneven Ender 3 heated beds around. But when bed temperature set to 70 °C and I check the temperature of bed with infrared laser thermometer gun, the front of the bed is around 72 °C and the back is around 64-68 °C. So the temperature is different at all sides and this looks like leading to warps too. Is there any way to make it more even for all bed surface?

I had this exact issue with my Qidi X-Plus. After checking with a thermometer there was a spread of 9°C - enough to burn in (always the same) certain areas when printing at higher extremes of temperatures, or causing poor adhesion in other certain areas at lower temps. Very similar scenario too, I noticed this primarily when switching over to glass from the stock magnetic plate. My solution was quite straightforward - I set the bed temperature on the printer's control panel and preheated it before sending it a print. As long as I left it there for a solid 10 minutes after getting up to temperature it balanced within around 1°C. I observed far more consistent results from print to print. Now I don't know your exact machine myself, so I don't know if this is possible on the control panel on an Ender 3. However if it's not, as an alternative possibly consider looking up how to stick a pause in the initial gcode in Cura to see if you can achieve the same effect.

Printing Plastic Replacement Parts On a number of occasions I've broken small plastic parts that are nearly impossible to replace but could easily be 3-D printed. The latest such mishap is the volume knob on the factory-installed radio on my car. I have little experience in 3D printing, and would like to be able to replace these parts with something very close to the original. Spending hours measuring and designing a replacement part that should be $5 isn't really an option. I need something to scan the broken pieces in 3D and somehow just seal up the seam where it's broken. Is there a scanning/printing/software system to do this that doesn't require a lot of 3D design experience?

The easiest way is as you currently do: model the pieces by hand, using (digital) calipers to measure them. Scanning technology isn't very good, and the models are not of printable quality. Usually, fixing a scan is more work than modeling an item from scratch.

Can you put PLA parts in your car (in the sun)? I'm in the process of building my own head unit / stereo prototype for a car, which will have a 3D-printed enclosure. My concern is that cars can get quite hot in the sun, and even more so if you live in hot climates. Some estimations put the interior of cars getting up to 50-60 °C, sometimes even in only 20 °C weather due to the 'greenhouse' effect created in the car. I live in a fairly temperate climate, but the summers can still get up to 20-29 °C (80-85 °F), and my car might get up to 60 °C/150 °F on a hot day. The part won't be exposed directly to the sun, but will obviously be exposed to heat both from the interior of the car when in the sun, and potentially from the engine radiating heat through the firewall, though the latter factor will differ from car to car. Should I be concerned using PLA for my part? If not, what material, if any, would be better suited for these possible temperatures (other than metal)?

No, PLA cannot be used in cars standing in the sun. Temperatures can locally get over 50 °C (122 °F). I have printed sun visor hinge pins from PLA for a car (not exposed to direct sunlight either), but after one day in the sun (it usually doesn't get over 29 °C or about 85 ˚F here too) the pin deformed (only printed it for form fitting). The actual pin was eventually printed in PETG, and even with PETG the part deformed a little when it got really hot in the car. Your part might not get that hot as it is lower in the car, but you could best print parts in Nylon (Polyamide, PA), ABS or any other high temperature resistant Co-Polymer (e.g. made from Amphora HT5300), there are lots to choose from nowadays. If it is a non load bearing component that is not stressed (e.g. a cover or a bushing) it could be printed in PLA, but I would not take a change and would print it directly in a more temperature resistant material. Downloading some of the technical data sheets from various filaments will give you for PLA: Not suitable for long term outdoor usage or applications where the printed part is exposed to temperatures higher than 50 °C (122 °F). similar for Nylon: Not suitable for applications where the printed part is exposed to temperatures higher than 80 °C (176 °F). To complete the overview, generally, materials should not be exposed prolonged periods of time above (give or take): 70 °C (158 °F) for basic Co-Polymers 85 °C (185 °F) for ABS 100 °C (212 °F) for enhanced Co-Polymers 105 °C (221 °F) for Polypropylene (PP) 110 °C (230 °F) for Polycarbonate (PC)

Problem with grid infill (line positioning) I have a problem with the grid infill on my BCN3D+ Dual Paste extruder: when I print a structure the lines of the infill are not evenly printed, every two lines the gap between the lines is higher (see the photo) while in the Simplify printing preview (preview image) the space between the infill lines is the same all the time. Do someone know if it can be a problem of the printer or a Simplify command?

It looks like a case of one axis affecting the other. This is a subset of cases where things are not rigid enough. Basically the movement direction in X is causing an offset in the Y, or whatever you want to call the axes. It is present in small amounts in all screw-driven setups where the screw essentially acts as a wedge, and can be in others for various other reasons. The solution is to tighten up your linear bearings/slides so that there is less transverse play. There is also a chance that you are trying to print beyond the resolution of your printer, in which case it is "rounding" to the nearest within its capabilities, but that seems less likely.

Effect of particulates on the viscosity of paste that is used to transport it in extrusion printing I am trying to find research articles that have data on how particulates(metal powder in a paste/hydrogel affect the viscosity of the paste/hydrogel. But I have been coming up blank in my last few hours of research. Is anyone aware of any research papers that discuss this and could point me towards them please? thanks.

I found a journal article "Experimental study of the viscosity of suspensions" that looks like what you are looking for. Just like most journals, it costs to access it. Also, it might be available as Open Access; but, I was not able to figure out how.

precise transformation using meshmixer I am trying to do some edits on an STL file. I am trying to use meshmixer for this. I am essentially trying to move a hole in the following picture and widen the hole on the bottom of the part. I was playing around with meshmixer and it seems that it can do this by sculpting rather than precise measures. I would appreciate comments if my observation is correct and if so, what other STL editor would you suggest to do these edits. Thanks!

It's possible to close over a hole using Meshmixer. I've done exactly that recently, although the "hole" was a depression, the process would be the same. As you've discovered, Meshmixer can be considered somewhat imprecise. Fusion 360 will import the model you wish to modify. You would then turn off edit history, convert the model to BREP, then perform the edits you require. Once you are satisfied with the results, it's an easy matter to export the model as an STL file. I've summarized the steps, which are almost as easy as my description. You'd have to combine Google-Fu with the summary for the detailed portions, but it's something I've done in the past. Fusion 360 is free for hobbyists, renewable each year. There are many YouTube tutorials and text-referenced solutions for the steps required to accomplish your edit. Some will consider Blender to be an alternative method and I agree that it's a viable option, but it's not quite as intuitive as Fusion 360 and was more challenging for me to embrace.

Electric shock from ender 3 printer PSU I had recently purchased an ender 3 and after setting it up and plugging it in, I received an electrical shock from the power supply. I live in the UK and so I was provided an EU to UK adapter which I used and I set the voltage to 230 V. Does anyone know why I was shocked and if there is any solution? Was it because EU to UK isn’t grounded (or am I wrong)? Would an older 10 amp monitor power cable work better as it’s grounded?

The "shock" is likely from noise filtering circuitry at the power supply's input. For filtering, every power supply has a small capacitor that connects the live input wire to ground (a so-called "class Y capacitor"). A small amount of current can flow through this capacitor, which can give an annoying, but otherwise harmless shock/tingle. Grounding the power supply would solve the problem (which you should do anyways, because it is dangerous to run electronics that are supposed to be grounded without ground).

BLTouch error causing bed and nozzle temp setpoints to change to zero I replaced my CR-10 motherboard with no problems and ran fine for a few weeks, then decided to add a BLTouch. BLTouch was enabled from the config.h during compile. I had heating issues at first but eventually figured out I had the thermistors plugs swapped on the motherboard. In the past, I never used start and stop G-codes because I only printed printer upgrades off of Thingiverse while learning to print. My prints weren't starting until I learned more about G-codes and added G29 and G29 to my Cura start codes. I tried a piece that I've printed before because I knew it worked ok. I preheated the bed and nozzle first, then started the print. The G28 initiates and homes, then the G29 does the 9 point bed leveling, then just sits there and does nothing. BLTouch behavior during the process BLTouch moves to "home" from center, with probe up and red light With the light still remaining red, BLTouch goes back to the center The BLTouch light turns blue once at the center, and drops the probe and lowers until probe touches and the light turns red Then raises again and the light turns blue, lowers again until probe touches bed then the light turns red again The light stays red and raises Z axis a little - and stays at center, still red The probe stays at center and red until reaching preheating temps After selecting file the probe moves to 9/9 points, with probe raised and blue light (drops probe and lowers until touching and turns red, then raises and turns blue) Once the last probe location is checked, BLTouch is still red and temperature settings from project file are set and heating starts The setpoints of bed and nozzle are reached (successfully heated) After heating, the setpoints switch to zero and temps start dropping towards the zero set point (cooldown) and never moves after that and shows status "Stopped" Pronterface - manual attempts I connected through Pronterface so I could see the exact details. When I run a G28, from Pronterface: It goes to lower corner and is still red Returns to the center, probe drops and turns blue A few seconds later it drops until touching the bed and turns red Raises up again and turns blue, then drops BLTouch again until it touches the bed and turns red Then raises up again, but stays red this time I get an error in Pronterface "Stop called because of BLTouch error - restart with M999". After it levels 9/9 points1, Pronterface shows a BLTouch error, the printer display shows print stopped, and the bed and nozzle setpoints had changed to zero. They both had already started cooling. I kept the start code simple just enough to get the print going. I have no idea what the BLTouch error is but just that it caused two temperature settings to go to zero. Any help would be great! 1 The 9/9 points I'm referring to is when I run G29 and my config has 3x3 grid option selected so the G29 probes 9 points total with the BLTouch.

I was wondering if it had something to do with my Z axis and BLTouch. When I unplugged the Z Axis on the printer the extruder wouldn't lower only raise so I plugged it back in and it moves in the right directions. The mother board I'm using is a SKR E3 Mini V2 and the BLTouch is 3.1 On that version motherboard the BLTouch plug has all 5 wires combined in one plug, where on other versions it has a three wire plug for the BLTouch and the wires for the Z axis from the BLTouch has a seperate two wire plug with it's own plug in spot, but I've read about instances where users had to plug those two wires into the motherboards default plug for the printers Z axis which is usually unplugged. I decided to depin the BLTouch Z axis wires from the 5 wire plug and depin the printers z axis two wires and repin that plug with the Z axis from the BLTouch and plug into the spot on the motherboard that is normally used by the printers wires, and that fixed the problem. Here's the link on Github that board manufacturer posted about the issue, https://github.com/bigtreetech/BIGTREETECH-SKR-mini-E3/tree/master/firmware/V2.0 and thankfully that was my exact problem.

Can I use 20 gauge wire for my Mk2a Heatbed? I purchased the following wire for my MK2a heated bed: McMaster Carr 1 8209K11 840 Degree F Braided Oven Wire 20 Gauge, Tan, 10 ft. Length 1 Will this be acceptable? I'd like to print with ABS, which I know that the heatbed has to be hotter than when printing with PLA.

Your wire should be rated for at least the necessary 11 amps which the MK2a heatbed is supposed to take. You can check this by measuring the resistivity of your wire: Always test the heatbed wiring for resistance. Remember, at 10A, 0.1Ohms means 1V voltage drop means 10W dissipated by the wiring! as taken from http://forums.reprap.org/read.php?392,493405 (useful read for seeing what CAN actually happen) Did you read through the following links? They might clear up some questions: http://reprap.org/wiki/PCB_Heatbed http://reprap.org/wiki/Heatbeds_-_A_beginner's_guide I personally would use 1.5 mm² cables, which translates to about 15 gauge wire. *edit: This is a nice table to check: http://www.powerstream.com/Wire_Size.htm

Cura printer settings for Alladinbox SkyCube 3D I've just purchased an Alladinbox SkyCube 3D that I want to use to print board game miniatures and other fun stuff. However, the instructions do not give the settings I need to put into software like Ultimaker Cura, and this is where I need some help so that I can generate the G-code files from models I download from MyMiniFactory. I know it uses PLA and the extrusion temperature should be 210°C. However, I need help with the other settings. Can someone please point me in the right direction? Is there a better software I could be using? Where can I find settings? Thanks. UPDATE: For those wondering "what" settings, I would probably start with the printer and extruder specifications. The following is my best guess. and I'm basing these settings on the device specs on this page: Link to Alladinbox specs

Okay, after some research and experimentation, I've come up with some settings that seem to work. Firstly, some specs about the Alladinbox SkyCube 3D: Firmware: Marlin Nozzle diameter: 0.4 mm Nozzle speed: 20 to 70 mm/s Layer thickness: 0.1 to 0.4 mm Printing area: 110 x 110 x 125 mm (WLH) Note: There is NO cooling fan present and the base is NOT heated. Now for the actual printing settings... I'm using the PLA supplied with the printer so far, and it works well at a nozzle temperature of 210C. I'm printing at 0.2 mm per layer, which seems to afford to a good level of detail. I've printed a scanned Greco-Roman basin, and the details are very nice indeed. So far I'm using a 20% line filling, and this seems to give the structure a good solidity and strength. I'm also operating the nozzle at its maximum speed of 70 mm/s and it seems to work just fine. Obviously, I'm still experiments, and different materials may require different settings, but overall I'm very happy. I hope this post helps someone.

Are there any "best" or at least "common" practices to handle allowances in OpenSCAD code? I'm designing a few mechanisms with OpenSCAD, and one of the parameters that need adjustment between printers/filaments is allowances between pieces that need to be assembled together (for example, if I want a "5 mm diameter pin" to fasten two pieces together, how much larger than 5 mm will the holes / how much smaller than 5 mm will the pin need to be). Currently I approach the problem by setting a global variable allowance and manually using it in the code, something like: module pin(radius) { cylinder(r = radius + allowance) } module hole(radius) { cylinder(r = radius - allowance) } I have no real world experience with design though, so I wonder if there are common or coding best practices to account for allowances when designing parts like for example: specific modules to be used, conventional names for variables specific techniques to be used (scaling? vectors?) conventions (like only use tolerances on the fastener, not the fastened object) ...? To clarify: I'm not looking on advice on how to plan the dimensions of my designs. Rather, I am looking for advice on how to organise the OpenSCAD code generating them.

It helps to understand the different aspects of dimensions, so you can use the terminology correctly. This will help you define your variables in OpenSCAD with correct names. (Tolerance is the wrong term to use.) And once you have correct names, you'll understand how to specify the dimensions in OpenSCAD. Tolerance is the amount of random deviation or variation permitted for a given dimension. Allowance is a planned difference between a nominal or reference value and an exact value. Clearance is the intentional space between two parts. Interference is the intentional overlap between two parts. Two other terms Accuracy is the maximum dimensional variation between parts. A machine cannot produce parts with a tighter tolerance than its accuracy. Precision is the size of the steps your machine is capable of. It is often confused with accuracy. In your case you need to define the allowance in order to create the clearance you desire. To design your 5 mm pin and 5 mm hole, you need to understand your machine's accuracy. The printer could print the pin larger than 5 mm or smaller than 5 mm. Or it could print the hole larger than 5 mm or smaller than 5 mm. You'll need to print some pins and holes and measure the differences between what you defined and what you printed. The difference between the largest and smallest measurements you take is your machine's accuracy. And be sure to check the accuracy in your X, Y, and Z dimensions; your printer might have a difference between them that would impact the roundness of the parts. Let's say that your printer's measured accuracy is ± 0.2 mm. Then, we move to clearance. What is the minimum gap between parts you are looking for, and what is the maximum you can accept? Let's say you want a clearance of at least 0.2 mm between the pin and hole, but no more than 1.0 mm. Since your accuracy is ± 0.2 mm, your pin will be 5.0 ± 0.2 mm, so the hole must therefore be 5.6 mm ± 0.2 mm. The minimum tolerance condition would be an minimum sized hole (5.4 mm) and a maximum sized pin (5.2 mm); the maximum tolerance would be a maximum sized hole (5.8 mm) and a minimum sized pin (4.8 mm). Note that a clearance of 1.0 mm might be too sloppy for your application. You might think to tighten the tolerances to 0.05 mm in order to reduce the clearance. But if your printer can't produce a part that meets your specified tolerances, you would need to find a different way to manufacture or finish the parts.

Heated bed thermistor placement I just recently upgraded my Printrbot Simple Metal with a heated bed (and longer x-axis). I looked up some tutorials, and all of them placed the thermistor as in the picture on the left below, so I did too. However, the design of the heat plate seems to strongly suggest thermistor placement as in the picture on the right, inside the small hole near the center. I can certainly see the upside of that. The reported temperature may overshoot the average bed temperature (the reasoning used in the tutorials I read), but most of my prints are built in the center of the bed, and the center placement would surely make the temperature control system more responsive. What are the pros and cons of these placements? And what would be the proper technique for putting the sensor in the center? Should I still use kapton tape? Do I need to make sure the thermistor makes physical contact with the aluminum of the print bed?

Depending on thermistor type you can get values from around 1ohm/C to 0.01ohm/C so placing it on particulat place on heatbed (HB) could be very important. If objects are placed in the center then it's quite obwious that thermistor should be placed also in the middle. Another issue in terms of thermistors are the wires. Because thermistors can be so sensitive then wires should have as less influence as possible on its temperature capacity. That's why wires and thermistor legs are so thin. Generally thiner than regular element's legs. Answering your question - I would say it's better to put thermistor in the center hole, to use thermal grease in the hole so thermistor would have contact with HB. And personally I would use special thin wires to connect thermistor to the board. Kapton tape is then usefull to position thermistor head in the hole and in the thermal grease. Have a look on the picture. I have such configuration. (In fact I got additional insulation as mentioned in this thread). I would not recommend to use circuit board tracks as a thermistor connectors at all, but it's my opinion of course. [edit] Please be careful - thermal grease can be electrical conductor or insulator. You should choose insulator because short circuit thermistor legs will cause measuring impossible. [edit2] As you know HB is not even necessary when you print PLA so in this case it can be even better to not have heating at all than to overheat the bed. Because if you put your thermistor near to the edge of HB then (as said by Leo Ervin) the difference can be at level of 20C so if you heat around 70C and you get 90C your model can become soft on the bed surface and it will loose dimensions or you'll get elephant foot. As stated in the comments - it's not really big deal whether you measure the temperature in the center of somewhere around. The issue is what level of perfection is ok for you.

Adding custom M Codes to Marlin If I wanted to add my own custom M Codes in Marlin - in which source code file would I do that?

In the file Marlin_main.cpp on line 7131 there is a switch case: (To turn on line numbers go to File>Preferences and click Display line numbers.) case 'M': switch (codenum) { #if ENABLED(ULTIPANEL) case 0: // M0 - Unconditional stop - Wait for user button press on LCD case 1: // M1 - Conditional stop - Wait for user button press on LCD gcode_M0_M1(); break; #endif // ULTIPANEL case 17: gcode_M17(); break; etc..... Adding another case with an unused number such as 5 and then the code you want followed by a break should do the trick. Ex: case 5: doABunchofCoolStuff(); myservo.write(thebestposition); break; -AC

Converting an undirected graph to optimal G-code paths I am developing an image to gcode program, that would recognize edges and generate corresponding G-code to be sent to a plotter. I was able to detect edges using the Sobel operator; then the edges are converted to an undirected graph using a search heuristic of my creation. Converting a graph to functional gcode is not difficult: depth first search does the job. The issue is that using this method the generated paths for the plotter are far from optimal, since they contain many movements that could be removed or shortened just by printing paths in a different order. This can be seen clearly in the images below. Is there an algorithm that can convert an undirected graph to optimal G-code paths? Otherwise, if there are none or the problem is NP complete, what heuristics can be used to generate almost-optimal gcode (e.g. the ones used in programs such as Inkscape)? The graph on the left is converted to the gcode on the right using depth first search on the connected component of the graph. The white and red lines represent, respectively, the visible writes and the invisible movements of the plotter. The G-code can be found here.

Quote of comment of R.. GitHub STOP HELPING ICE on question reads: Pretty sure it is NP-complete (equivalent to travelling salesman problem), no? – This is correct; this is route optimization at its purest, and is by no means a new problem. You want to travel the shortest total distance between all vertices of what's essentially a totally-interconnected graph; there are no inherent limitations on going from anywhere, to anywhere. The TSP is the general-case statement of this problem, which your problem specializes only slightly by predefining certain movements along edges as being required in the final path (but those edges can be traversed in either direction and in any order. What makes this complex on its face is the sheer number of possibilities that an exhaustive solution to the TSP like Held-Karp has to evaluate. You have no real constraints regarding which points to travel between; you can go from anywhere, to anywhere. Only a relatively small number of edges (your extrusion lines) are known requisites, and those can theoretically be traced in any order. If I'm reading your graph right, you start near the top center, then go to the top left, then to the s-curve, then you jump to the main shape and start traversing it from the "right arm", turning downward through the "body" and "left foot" of the central shape, then up to the "right hip", through that leg to the foot, then back up to the "left shoulder", through that "arm", etc. If I have that right, then you definitely have "endpoint detection", where you are identifying points in the graph that are part of only one line segment (and therefore will require a travel move to get to or from them), and are planning travel moves to and from those points. Very smart. I would be interested in knowing exactly how you choose the next one to travel to. Obviously the closest endpoint of an undrawn line is a natural choice, but your algorithm doesn't seem to be doing that. Right from the off it chooses a relatively further point to extrude and then comes back to the rest of the shape. That actually seems to be the most efficient move in the overall graph, because if you don't get it early you will very likely make a big move to get back to it later, but making that decision in a non-exhaustive way doesn't seem intuitive. Anyway, your algorithm was doing pretty well at path choice, up until it finished drawing the "right leg". The most efficient move from there would be to go to the bottom of the "Y" looking shape to the right of the main figure and trace through that. When that's done, the closest undrawn line segment will be back at the left shoulder of the main figure, which will lead you to the small dots, and you'll end in this region with relatively small travel moves. Overall, I think that a "closest remaining endpoint" strategy would be near-optimal at every turn; when you reach the end of a drawn line, look for the endpoint that is closest to your current location. It would make most of the decisions your existing algorithm does, and a few better ones. It's not always the best choice (case in point, the dot at the upper left, which is never closest to the end of any other move and so will be ignored until it's the last one left) but more often than not it is. My programmer savvy says you also have some recursive intersection tracing ("tree-walking"); the algorithm sees that there are multiple paths to draw from a single point, remembers that point and then picks a path. When it reaches an end of a chain of extruded lines, it goes back to the most recently-encountered intersection, re-evaluates available paths, and picks the next one until all paths from that intersection are drawn. Then you skip back to the previous intersection, and so on in a recursive LIFO fashion. While that's also generally a smart way to approach it, it makes a couple obviously inefficient moves, such as from the "right foot" of the main figure back to the "shoulder" (which is the most recent intersection visited but not fully drawn by that point). The more efficient move is simply the closest remaining endpoint, the bottom of the wonky-looking Y to the right of the main figure. How you choose intersection paths to prioritize is also key. In general, taking the route that will lead you to the closest intersection or endpoint will reduce the possible backtracking you have to do. However your algorithm seems to prefer the longest path from a fork (or the one with the most forks along it) and that turns out not to be a terrible way to do it in this particular graph. Now, having drawn the "left arm" of the main figure, it is totally beyond me why your algorithm chose to cross the graph to draw the wonky Y, then cross back over to the left side. That is by far the least efficient move it makes and the one you're probably pointing to yourself. The most efficient path from the end of the left arm of the main figure given what's left to draw is straight-up closest-endpoint, filling in dots and lines on the left side, then making one move across the graph to the wonky Y. Closest-endpoint would actually have already filled in that Y as covered earlier, and you'd end your graph traversal in the left region of dots and small lines. You may have one or maybe two relatively inefficient moves between corners of this region on the left of the graph depending on the closest point calculation, but those are minor compared to the moves made across the graph. If your algorithm is producing deterministic results for this graph, I'd debug it and step through to that point, and figure out why on Earth it thought that sequence was preferable. Optimizing that decision may very well be the key to a near-optimal overall graph-walking strategy.

Complete list of fasteners for the Sintron Kossel TL;DR I need a complete list of fasteners (bolts, nuts and washers) for the Sintron Kossel. Has anyone bought this kit, and knows the answer, or knows where this is documented? A complete list would be great, but in particular, I need the dimensions (M2.5/3/4/5? and length) and quantity of the bolts (and nuts) which: fasten the PCB mounted mechanical switches to the PLA rectangular end stop spacers/holders, and; fasten the PCB mounted mechanical switches and the PLA rectangular end stop spacers/holders to the extruded 2020 aluminium. I have: Searched the web, but to no avail; Read the product page, which states only "screws and nuts provided"; Contacted Sintron, but not had an answer; Obtained the Sintron build manual but there is no list contained therein, nor contains details about the fasteners relating to the endstops, and; Obtained the Blomker manual, from which the Sintron manual is copied, but that also has no list (as well as not being relevant with respect to the endstops). Note that I am only interested in the fasteners specifically for the Sintron Kossel and not the Kossel in general. The Sintron uses the PCB mounted mechanical switches (with four holes), and not the simple barebones mechanical switches (with two holes), and uses 2020 aluminium1, not 1515 OpenBeam: Why? Because I purchased only the 3D printed parts from Sintron, and I am sourcing the rest of the parts cheaply, either locally or from Chinese suppliers on eBay. 1 In my particular case, there is an additional complication. The profile of the non-standard/non-"European" 2020 extrusion that I am using, does not take T-Nuts, only M5 hexagonal nuts (it is unbelievably difficult to find the standard 2020 extrusion in Bangkok). Combine that with the fact that the Sintron kit uses only M3 nuts and not M5 (I only discovered this after purchasing the printed parts kit (see the email from Sintron, in my answer below) - not through lack of research, but because there is no available list of fasteners), then I have the problem of finding a nut to use (see Fat hexagonal M3 nuts, with outer diameter greater than 6 mm). Here is a photo

I found two lists for the Kossel mini (the documents you referenced are for a mini, so that is what I am assuming you got). One as a Google Doc and one as an order sheet Both seem to list all the fasteners. Here is a Sintron mini carriage assembly and it lists the hardware included I found an ebay listing for the Sintron 2020 Rails. The recommended screws are M3x20mm and here is the infor on the required t-nuts. Happy building.

What is the benefit of the Arduino shield based electronics? Some electronics come as a single PCB. They have CPU and everything on just one board. Other electronics are a shield for an Arduino. So these are always two boards. The Arduino and the other PCB. You probably don't want to exchange the Arduino unless it is broken. Does it break that often or are the two boards just the predecessors of the one board solution? What are the benefits/downsides to having one/two boards?

Many 3d printer motherboards are based on Arduino/Atmega microcontroller and just add some stepper motor drivers, MOSFETs and such in a single board. That explains why you use the Arduino IDE to update or modify their firmware. Now why you would want to use an Arduino + an Arduino shield board like RAMPS? Well if you're not good at electronics, are happy with the cost of your own board, don't care much about upgrades/modding beyond what is possible with your board, maybe you shouldn't, it might be overwhelming. There are several advantages with using Arduino with a shield for your 3d printer, "two boards are not just the predecessors of the one board solution", no. 1) It is moddable/exandable/upgradable/has replacable parts. If your printer came with its own motherboard that doesn't have additional or enough pins to add more fans, enclosure lights, a second extruder, an LCD and you want to, it sucks. RAMPS can do that, it has plenty of extra pins. It is upgradable. You want to replace the stepper drivers with a new one? Or you accidentally damaged the one you have? Fear not, you can just replace that instead of the whole motherboard. Think if it like other motherboards being PCs on which you can't change the CPU, RAM and GPU. 2) It is here for a long time, you will be able to acquire one for a long time. There isn't just one company making RAMPS or similar sheilds. Sometimes 3d printing companies go out of business or stop producing your particular motherboard. RAMPS is likely here to stay. Because Arduino is very likely here to stay. 3) As said above, not just one company owns or makes RAMPS or other Arduino shields. Besides the possibility of your motherboard not being produced anymore, there's also the advantage of not being at the mercy of one companies pricing and shipping policies. This is true for some other boards as well though. 4) It is possibly cheaper than what have you. I don't want to post a link, but one company right now is selling their derivative of Printrboard for like $180. Check the cost of Arduino Mega, stepper drivers and a RAMPS board yourself, quite a difference. That said, there are some boards which are close in price. 5) It's an Arduino. Why is this a good thing by itself? Because many people who have a 3d printer are tinkerers/makers and they already use Arduino for other projects. It is open source with a rich library to control many things. The modding and upgrades for your 3d printer which can be done with Arduino is another level higher. Or it can be a good learning experience for your future Arduino projects. If on the other hand you already use Arduino and are experienced with it, you might use it just because you know how to control it/fix it better than some specialized board you haven't seen before. Plus for a guy like you your 3d printer's motherboard will be an "off-the-shelf" part, that's nice, right? Video on RAMPS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYJn6FuWOv4

Controlling more fans with RAMPS board I am using RAMPS 1.4 with Marlin. With Marlin, you can control a large number of fans with the M106 P<fan index> command. I'd like RAMPS to control some additional fans, independent of layer fan. Are there free pins on RAMPS 1.4 to do that? Otherwise, could I setup the RAMPS board to send a command to a separate Arduino? I also have Octoprint if that makes it easier.

From the sources of Marlin you can find how may fans you can use, even if you're not a coder it should be doable. From there you can find how to set the pins for the fans, provided that there are free unused and exposed (so that you do not have so solder directly to the microprocessor). First find how many fans are possible. Starting in Marlin_main.cpp and searching for 106 (or 106 on the Marlin GitHub website) will lead you to the sources of the execution of the M106 command. Below a snippet of M106 and M107 is shown. The reason for M107 to be there becomes clear later. #if FAN_COUNT > 0 /** * M106: Set Fan Speed * * S<int> Speed between 0-255 * P<index> Fan index, if more than one fan * * With EXTRA_FAN_SPEED enabled: * * T<int> Restore/Use/Set Temporary Speed: * 1 = Restore previous speed after T2 * 2 = Use temporary speed set with T3-255 * 3-255 = Set the speed for use with T2 */ inline void gcode_M106() { const uint8_t p = parser.byteval('P'); if (p < FAN_COUNT) { #if ENABLED(EXTRA_FAN_SPEED) const int16_t t = parser.intval('T'); if (t > 0) { switch (t) { case 1: fanSpeeds[p] = old_fanSpeeds[p]; break; case 2: old_fanSpeeds[p] = fanSpeeds[p]; fanSpeeds[p] = new_fanSpeeds[p]; break; default: new_fanSpeeds[p] = MIN(t, 255); break; } return; } #endif // EXTRA_FAN_SPEED const uint16_t s = parser.ushortval('S', 255); fanSpeeds[p] = MIN(s, 255U); } } /** * M107: Fan Off */ inline void gcode_M107() { const uint16_t p = parser.ushortval('P'); if (p < FAN_COUNT) fanSpeeds[p] = 0; } #endif // FAN_COUNT > 0 Looking at this code, the first thing (actually the first line, #if FAN_COUNT > 0, already hints to that) that catches your attention is constant FAN_COUNT. Apparently the software knows how much fans are defined! Interesting! How does it know that! This piece of code ends just after handling the M107 command (line #endif // FAN_COUNT > 0), hence it is displayed here. Continuing the search by finding how FAN_COUNT is set (using the search on GitHub for the Marlin repository) leads to file Conditionals_post.h. An interesting part is: /** * Up to 3 PWM fans */ #if HAS_FAN2 #define FAN_COUNT 3 #elif HAS_FAN1 #define FAN_COUNT 2 #elif HAS_FAN0 #define FAN_COUNT 1 #else #define FAN_COUNT 0 #endif So depending on HAS_FANx (where x denotes 0, 1 or 2) you can have multiple fans, up to 3 in total! Cool, learned something in the process. :) Let's now search for HAS_FANx; in the same file you will find: // Other fans #define HAS_FAN0 (PIN_EXISTS(FAN)) #define HAS_FAN1 (PIN_EXISTS(FAN1) && CONTROLLER_FAN_PIN != FAN1_PIN && E0_AUTO_FAN_PIN != FAN1_PIN && E1_AUTO_FAN_PIN != FAN1_PIN && E2_AUTO_FAN_PIN != FAN1_PIN && E3_AUTO_FAN_PIN != FAN1_PIN) #define HAS_FAN2 (PIN_EXISTS(FAN2) && CONTROLLER_FAN_PIN != FAN2_PIN && E0_AUTO_FAN_PIN != FAN2_PIN && E1_AUTO_FAN_PIN != FAN2_PIN && E2_AUTO_FAN_PIN != FAN2_PIN && E3_AUTO_FAN_PIN != FAN2_PIN) Now we are getting into clear water! This codes hints to FAN1_PIN and FAN2_PIN. If you look into you pin layout file, e.g. pins_RAMPS.h you see that that are the pin constants that need to be defined, actually FAN1_PIN is e.g. set if you choose an "EFF" configuration (Hotend, Fan0, Fan1), e.g. #define FAN1_PIN RAMPS_D8_PIN. What is left for you to do is find an unused pin of your micro-controller and set the FAN2_PIN with #define FAN2_PIN <a free pin number>. E.g. pin 4 is not a used pin number (and an analog output pin). Don't forget that the pin you choose cannot directly run a fan, it should be used to schedule a MOSFET. Note that a dual external fan header "Reprap Ramps1.4 RRD Fan Extender" exists, this describes using the D6 and D11 pins. Further investigation led to a 3D.SE posting using this fan header: "How to configure Marlin to enable auto-fans with dual extruder".

How do I remove a 3D print stuck to the glass build plate I printed a model and now I can't remove it. I have been chiselling away with a putty knife and made little or no progress. I even heated the bed up to 70 °C. That really didn't seem to help. Last time, I put it in vice, and tried to free it that way, but instead I broke the glass. Suggestion?

It's useful to know what material you used for the print. Also, you've referenced the glass that broke in the vise, which implies a glass bed, but did you use any adhesive spray or other application? Allowing for all of this unknown information, there may be a solution for your release. Our library makerspace has a small bottle of 50-50 water/denatured alcohol, although isopropyl alcohol should also work if your glass is not coated with a special film such as PEI. Heat up the surface of the glass to your usual temperature (50-60°C) and apply a few drops of the mixture to the edge of the print. It will evaporate pretty quickly, but some of it will work under the glass/model interface. Apply a bit more while the glass is still warm. Continue to apply until the the evaporation is no longer accelerated. Considering the difficulty you are experiencing, it may be necessary to repeat the heating sequence multiple times in order to get enough wicking of the liquid to effect a release.

Ender 3 weird drop in bed level I have an Ender 3 a 3DTouch, with the SKR Mini E3 1.2 board. From one day to another the probe started producing this pattern, where the right side of my bed (5x5 mesh, tried with 3x3, 7x7, all produce the same pattern) just drops by a significant amount. The bed is the Creality glass bed. I tried switching it back to the stock Ender 3 plate (non-magnetic), but no physical sign of this drop can be seen by the eye. Probe testing with M048 usually gave me Range ~0.005, and standard deviation between 0.001-0.0025 both in the problematic part, and any other part on the bed. What could cause this problem?

Considering this is an Ender, it is probably caused by the rollers on the X axis or the un-driven right Z post. I've also seen behavior like this caused by a too constraint PTFE Bowden tube, at the far end the tube pulls on the carriage lifting it slightly upwards, hence a different/larger gap.

Maker Select Plus 3D Printer Head Size Settings for Cura I want to print multiple objects in a single G-code file on my Maker Select Plus 3D Printer. On the Cura "Machine>Machine Settings..." menu, what are the correct settings for "Printer head size" in the upper right quadrant? My best guess is below: Note 1: I'm particularly concerned that I got the min and max directions correct. For instance, I just swapped my Y min and Y max values because when I tried them the other way, the print head impacted the first object when printing the second. Note 1.5: I added 10 mm to my settings because I was concerned that Cura wasn't accounting for the width of the raft that I usually use when I print. Note 2: From what I've read online before posting this question, this printer may be physically the same as the WanHao Duplicator i3.

TL;DR The settings that you seem to need can be found here: Print One At a time settings? CURA: You actually can! Providing that none of your object is too tall (taller than the Gantry clearance). Also the objects cannot be too close from each other (when you activate the option and move objects on the bed, you see a gray box around them showing this limit). The reason you cannot use it at the moment is probably because you didn't filled the printer head size parameters (Menu "Machine -> Machine Settings..."). You will have to measure them, but on mine (Australian clone of the i3) I use those values and it works fine: Head size toward X min: 30 Head size toward Y min: 70 Head size toward X max: 60 Head size toward Y max: 50 Printer gantry height: 35 Those are "conservative" values (a little bigger than the actual values). It means I'm losing a little bed space, but I prefer that to the risk of having the print head knocking out previous prints if one of the measurements is too low :o). PS: The option will automatically disable itself if some object dimension are too big to avoid collisions To be fair, the rest of the thread is people debating whether you can successfully achieve sequential printing, or not, with the Wanhao Duplicator I3. However, the setting above seem to be the settings that you are looking for. Apart from Head size toward X max, they also correlate, pretty much, to the settings that you have already determined. As the poster notes, their settings are, somewhat, on the conservative side, which would explain the difference. Extra detail If this is so that you can achieve sequential printing1, then this may not be suitable for your printer, unfortunately. Sequential printing works best for printers with a long nozzle with nothing (fans, X-axis gantry, etc.) around it, for example a delta printer with a low hanging nozzle would be ideal. Your printer type has a wide head with attachments, as well as an X-axis gantry, and so the clearance is less than that of an (ideal) delta. See WanHao Duplicator i3 Printer Head Size Settings for Cura for more details. If you wish to go ahead and still try it, then from the same link: The way to measure is lower the nozzle to the bed. Then measure the space taken up around the nozzle by the heater block, fans, mounting, the motor, and finally, the distance between the X axis rods and the bed "WHEN the nozzle is touching the bed". That gives you some idea of the clearance you have where an ALREADY printed object can exist on the bed and NOT get slammed into the gantry or moving head when printing a second sequential part. Just a visual with a moving bed printer and it's not promising. Not impossible, but in a 200mm square build area, you might really only get 4 objects at a time in the 4 quadrants. Even that is height limited because the gantry will slam into it at a certain height. Maybe some weird staggering pattern. Also, of use, for obtaining your own measurements, from Ultimaker - Cura 14.07 Printer Head Size: If I'm not mistaken all measurements are taken from the nozzle tip. So, for the first one, measure the size of your head from the nozzle tip towards the direction in X to where your machine homes. and There's a tooltip when you mouse over these settings which describes what they mean. Gantry height is the vertical clearance between the build plate and your x-y gantry (on the Ultimaker, these are the 6mm shafts which hold the head). If you print two objects - one after another - then the first object must be shorter in height than the gantry height. Otherwise, the gantry would crash into the first part while printing the second part. In more detail, paying attention to the placing of the objects can aid with any issues that you have with a low gantry: If you place multiple parts in a diagonal line across the build-plate so the gantry and head never intersects earlier parts after printing them, you can set the gantry height to an artificially high value, to ignore it, without problems. I place pieces along a diagonal from right-front to left-rear, to avoid conflict when the head homes after finishing the print. I can fit 3 to 4 small but tall pieces on the build plate that way for sequential printing. The purpose of these Printer head size settings is to enable Cura to determine the order in which the objects are printed: ... none of those settings are important as long as you only print one STL file at a time. It's when you want to print multiple objects "one at a time" that these numbers have a purpose - it allows Cura to figure out which order to print them in and if it can do them one at a time or if it has to print them all at once. Footnote 1 Sequential Printing is where one object is completely printed, before moving on to the next object, instead of the usual method of printing all objects simultaneously one layer at a time. This method can give superior quality prints, but not always. The main advantage appears to be reduced "stringing" of filament between objects, and a cleaner surface finish, due to reduced print head movement between objects. The process is detailed in Multi-part printing.

Producing closely fitting parts I would really like to be able to print moving parts that fit well enough to move without excessive friction, but also aren't excessively loose. Using an Ultimaker 2, what should be my expectations be, and how would I go about produce well fitting parts? Using a tool like Openscad to generate parametric parts is really useful because it facilitates the creation of geometrically precise parts such as cogs and drive shafts, which also have precise dimensions. The problem arises when the parts are printed and joined together. I recently printed some cogs that were supposed to be able to rotate freely around a shaft, which was also printed. I made the shaft about 0.1 mm smaller than the center hole of the cog expecting it to be able to rotate freely, however I found that I had to bore out the center hole slightly and sand down the shaft. I then found that the boring was imprecise and the center of rotation was off center.

There are a lot of factors to 3D printing parts that work and fit together. A lot of it will be discovered by trial and error, but let's try to put you on the right path. First your material is what matters the most. Specifically their coefficient of thermal expansion, i.e. how much can the plastic change when heat is applied. PLA's coefficient is low compared to ABS, for example. Which is why the MakerBot can print without a heated bed, but it cannot print ABS with any success. Here is a list of coefficient of thermal expansions by material. What you want to do next is to print out a few test items and see for yourself. Below is an example of reality vs. expectation. As you can see the circle shrinks. It will never expand. So you will always make it bigger than you need. It is also good to note in this example below that the block itself is Larger than expected. The best solution is to not expect high tolerances and build a lot of flex into your designs. Generally you want the hole size larger. If I wanted a 4 mm minimum hole, then I would likely make it 5+ mm. The best thing you can do is print out a tray and document how different the sizes are. Also, do the same with a print of various peg sizes. Below is an example of such a tray. Also, you might want to look into other materials such as Nylon and Carbon fiber. A great source of more tips. Here is a great tutorial, Designing Mechanical Parts - The Whoosh Machine by shapeways, on designing parts. A RepRap Wiki article on different lubricants in regards to 3D printers. Most people use silicon lube for parts to my knowledge. Again, it depends on your material. Images taken from this link, The Innovation Station - Tips for Designing 3D Printed Parts.

How do I get circles on small interior holes to adhere to the bed? I’m using a RepRap printer, PLA (Hatchbox 1.75 mm), SketchUp, and Slic3r. The heated bed is covered with a blue polyester sticker. When I print small holes (1 to 1.5 mm radius), slicer software considers the holes outside edges for the first layer and prints them before the internal first layer. The problem is, unlike the actual outer edges, the holes have no brim and the small first layer circles stick to the extruder rather than the bed. The rest of the first layer print sticks and the print eventually recovers with slight defects depending on where the lifted circles end up. If I could print the first layer circles after the surrounding first layer was printed, this wouldn’t be an issue. I’ve tried different bed and extrusion temperatures. All four holes in different locations do the same. First layer is 0.3 mm thick. Second layer is 0.2 mm thick.

are you using hairspray or tape to help with bed adhesion? If not that might help. Also try printing the first layer slower or try adjusting the bed level offset so you are squishing the first layer down a bit more.

Troubleshooting poor adhesion at the edge of the bed I've been printing for a week now on my new printer and have been getting great results, including great adhesion. However, most of my prints have had a fairly small footprint. Now, I'm stepping up the types of items I'm printing, and I've started to run into a problem. Long, thin parts are starting to lift off the bed, especially at the edges of the bed. I've read the question dealing with this issue with ABS and realize some (most) could apply to me. However, I'm printing entirely in PLA on a non-heated bed. My question is: What is the best way to go about troubleshooting this problem? In which order should I attempt fixes to narrow down the problem most quickly? Printer: Monoprice Maker Architect 3D (Very similar to Makerbot) Material: PLA Heated Bed: No Bed Material: Something similar to BuildTak on top of an acrylic bed. (The sheet of material came unlabeled with the printer and I haven't been able to track down exactly what it is.)

There are several things you could try without spending much but even PLA will warp on an unheated bed. I had a Legacy Kossel that I switched to an acrylic bed and had many issues with warping and prints pulling off the bed. Some cheap things to try would be... Adding a brim to the print. Blue painters tape on the acrylic, remove the other material if doing this. Place cheap piece of glass/mirror on bed and use hairspray/gluestick. Use hairspray/gluestick directly on acrylic. You must be careful here because first layer height is very critical to prevent damage to the acrylic from the plastic welding. A layer of hairspray or glue should prevent it but dial in your height before printing. If you aren't currently using a fan, you could try sealing the sides to prevent drafts. I doubt this would change much since you are using PLA but it's an option. If these are your designs, there are steps you can take to reduce warping as seen here. Also many other suggestions here.

Strange behaviour x and y axis - corner of print Some background to the problem: Several months ago I started getting poor print quality in one section of my prints (back left corner of bed) - I diagnosed that the plastic X axis carriage and the right Y axis carriage had distorted from heat over a period of 4 years running my Wanhao D4S, and the linear bearings no longer aligned properly. I found a long gouge in the right Y axis rod and have replaced this. I have since replaced all plastic carriages with aluminium to eliminate any potential distortion in the future. Additionally, the 5 mm rods running in the X direction in both front and back of the printer also had slight bends in them, and I have replaced both these with 8 mm rods to enhance rigidity and prevent further bending problems. With the bent rods there was a very noticeable vibration. The issue I am now facing is the front right corner of test cubes I have been printing (see attached photo) are not sharp - they are okay at about the top and bottom quarter, but in the middle it is as if the X and Y axes are not travelling far enough to the front right corner, and the corner is cut off diagonally and tapers inwards slightly like an hourglass. But as mentioned really only in this one corner. The issue is most apparent where indicated by the arrows - although the others also exhibit to a small degree the same issue. I have aligned all belts and pulleys, and made sure the belts are tight enough to "twang" but this does not seem to help. All pulleys have also been re-tightened. The printer also does seem to still have a vibration when moving along the Y axis, and is much louder than the X axis movement (which is barely noticeable). When the belts are disconnected both X and Y axes move by hand smoothly. Has anyone seen this issue before, or can offer a solution? My next step was to check stepper driver current, although I don't believe this to be the problem as the issue is very consistent in its placement. I think also overall, print quality in general is not as good as it once was before the initial troubles with the carriages started. To help install the rear 8 mm rod, I unscrewed the two Z axis rods, but to the best of my knowledge they are in their original position. They also move smoothly.

After one further check (stepper driver current/VREF), which I didn't think could be the problem due to not adjusting to cause the problem; it turns out this actually was the problem. All stepper drivers have been reset back to correct VREF for their respective motors minus 10% as a safety margin and everything is printing well again. I have no idea how VREF could have changed by itself, however thermal expansion on the boards due to constant use may be an explanation. For anyone else experiencing similar issues and who have discounted the stepper drivers as the problem, I suggest resetting VREF to see if that helps.

Do thermistors degrade in accuracy without hard failure? Lately I've been having problems with overhangs not adhering when curvature is outward (stringing across instead) that look like what you'd see at insufficient temperature, and that go away with temperature jacked up a bit (PLA at 220°C, which is a bit extreme) or fan disabled. Is it possible that the hotend thermistor has drifted and is no longer accurate, making the actual temperature lower than nominal? Or do these things fail hard when they fail?

Yes, thermistors can drift in value as well as outright failing (usually open). In my experience this is not uncommon in thermistors operated above 100 degrees C. The drift is typically downward in resistance so the controlled temperature will be less than the desired setpoint, which is exactly what you are observing.

Irregular 3D printed part I tried printing from an STL file on the QIDI TECHNOLOGY 3DP-QDA16-01 Dual Extruder Desktop 3D Printer QIDI TECH I. They recommend using the MakerBot software with the Replicator(Dual) profile. The 3D print that I tried is messed up. The material used is PLA. Could you help me determine the cause? The following pictures give more details: (All settings which are not shown are Makerware default settings) 1 The 3D model 2 The printed sample 3 The Settings

Your print isn't cooling fast enough. With small, thin prints like this, PLA needs a fair bit of airflow to solidify before the next layer goes down. Your printer doesn't appear to have a proper print-cooling fan, so I have two suggestions: Print two or even three of the part at the same time, spaced a fair distance apart on the build plate. This will give each of them time to cool. Point a box fan into the front of the printer to get good airflow over the print.

Under extrusion when starting outer wall See the pictures below. I have a severe under extrusion when the printer starts the outer wall, which is resolved by the time it finishes the outer wall. It starts the layer in the same place every time, so it results in this vertical line, on one side of which is fine (where it finishes the layer) and the other side has bad gaps and the wall is much thinner. In this picture, the problem is on the outer wall (see red outer line, the print head is moving counter clockwise. And here is the print showing the issue. Just fine on one side, but terrible on the other, precisely where it starts the layer. Strangely, this only occurs on the layers with infill. The top layers seem fine (despite starting in the same place). I have disabled retraction with no effect. Here you can see it start at the tip and get gradually better as it progresses. Here you can see that by the time it finishes, it's just fine, and also what a contrast is between the start and end. That should be a flush edge, there. Another view Is there some setting that I should be tweaking? I've exhausted my own ideas of different tweaks to no avail. The printer is a Monoprice Maker Select V2. I'm using Ultimaker Cura 4.1.0. Material: PLA Layer height: 0.24 mm (in the pictures, but replicated with 0.16 mm also) Temp: 205 °C, here (but tweaking this hasn't had any effect) Retraction: Disabled This doesn't happen on layer changes. Although it does line up with the Z seam, you can see from the G-code visualization below that the outer wall is the very last thing it does. The issue occurs at the start of the outer wall (still on the same layer) that it has the issue, but by the time it ends the wall (just before switching layers) it is fine. I've tweaked a few other settings, one by one, and seeing if any have any effect. So far, not really: Outer Wall Wipe: 0.2 (default), 0.8, 0.0 Jerk Control - Wall Jerk max velocity change, 5 mm/s Outer Wall before inner (Yes instead of No) Wall Line Count (3 instead of 2): This improves it some, but I suspect just by making it a little more difficult to see What have I done since... I reset all settings in Cura to a default "Draft" setting and then set layer height to 0.24 mm, and turned off Infill. Then I have tried prints with different settings for "Retract Before Outer Wall" and printing temperature. Here are those results: These pics seem to suggest a very clear lag in extrusion. 1 and 2 are different temps. 2 and 3 are different retraction. 205 °C, 0 % Infill, Retract Before Outer Wall: Off 195 °C, 0 % Infill, Retract Before Outer Wall: Off 195 °C, 0 % Infill, Retract Before Outer Wall: On Note: the retraction setting resulted in a noticeable pause before printing the outer wall. Retraction distance is 6.5 mm, and this is not a Bowden fed device. There doesn't seem to be anything strange about the G-code, either. Here are the G0 travels just before the outer wall followed by the wall. ... G0 F7200 X106.319 Y93.413 G0 X106.26 Y93.909 G0 X107.213 Y93.658 G0 X107.8 Y92.542 G0 X107.286 Y90.844 G0 X107.509 Y90.394 ; (outer wall of outside) G1 F1328 X107.985 Y90.707 E116.98713 G1 X108.38 Y91.128 E117.01098 G1 X108.658 Y91.623 E117.03444 G1 X108.813 Y92.18 E117.05833 G1 X108.832 Y92.751 E117.08193 G1 X108.713 Y93.315 E117.10575 G1 X108.463 Y93.837 E117.12966 ; (first curve complete, on to straightaway) G1 X99.631 Y107.716 E117.80936 G1 X98.912 Y108.59 E117.85612 ... Even more done... These are retraction off, and 205 °C If I set the "print speed" in Cura to 20 mm/s (normally 60 mm/s), the outer wall speed is reduced from 30 mm/s to 10 mm/s. The result is quite good. If I leave the "print speed" at 60 mm/s and adjust only the outer wall to 10 mm/s, it's still quite good. So it seems like an acceleration thing. If I can figure out how to get it to slow down in just the right spots or compensate in some way, then perhaps I can make this problem go away with minimal sacrifice in total speed.

Based on other comments, answers, and question edits so far, in addition to your original question, I believe there are possibly two things going on here: incorrect retraction settings, including a misunderstanding of which settings are relevant and what they do, and issues related to slow acceleration. Both relate to misdepositing/loss of material. First, some basics. When the filament is advanced to the point needed to extrude material and print at the intended volumetric rate, it's under significant pressure, compressed between the extruder gear and the nozzle. My understanding is that your printer has a direct drive extruder, not a bowden, so there's far less compression than with a bowden setup but it's still there. This means that, if you try to stop extruding, it's material will continue to come out of the nozzle, just at a decreasing rate, until the pressure dissipates. This effect is reduced but still present if the nozzle is held-against/moving-over already printed material, and heavy if moving over empty space, even moreso if moving across sparsely-filled space like infill where it will bond with the already-deposited material and get "stretched"/"pulled" out. The idea of retraction is to pull the filament back when the print head is moving to a new location without trying to deposit material, to relieve this pressure and prevent unwanted misdepositing/loss of material, and to reverse the process, putting the filament back exactly where it was when the last printed line ended, the next time it starts trying to deposit material. The relevant options in Cura are: Enable Retraction - must be on Retraction Distance - should be at least 5-6 mm for bowden setups, probably more like 0.5-2 mm for direct drive. Retraction Minimum Travel - should be 0 Combing Mode - try different settings. Off is probably the best relative to your issues, but hurts your print time a lot for certain models, and can hurt quality in other ways. Everything else related to retraction is fairly irrelevant, especially "Retract at Layer Change" is a niche option and not typically useful. As I understand it, turning just "Retract at Layer Change" on does not mean retraction is on. Now, your other issue may be acceleration. Extrusion works best as acceleration speed approaches infinity, because the extrusion rate and pressure needed to extrude will be fairly constant for the entire line/curve. If acceleration is very slow, pressure will be wrong during the start and end of lines. It's likely that, due to high pressure, excess material will get deposited at the end of one line while slowing down, then after moving to start the next line, even if you retract the filament, you'll have insufficient pressure at the nozzle after reversing the retraction to start the next line. A jerk limit of 5 mm/s is really low. I'm used to more like 20-30 mm/s. You don't say what your acceleration limit is, but it's probably also low. Slow acceleration has minimal impact if your max speed is slow, because you quickly reach the max speed and most of the print speed (and thus extrusion rate) is steady. But if you want to print at high speeds, you need high acceleration. Try and see if you can increase it. Or accept printing at slow speeds. Another option, if you're open to hacking on your printer, is replacing the stock firmware with a recent version of Marlin with the Linear Advance feature. It does the math to model the filament pressure as a spring, with a spring constant you can tweak, so that it can compensate for varying print speed and end lines with approximately no pressure remaining.

Should I include fillets on my 3d printed parts? A fillet is like a rounded corner but on the inside of the corner. Does it make a difference (structurally) to use fillets on a 3d printed part?

If your part needs structural support, then the word is: absolutely. Fillets provide the added support when you need it. If your part has a meeting line which is sharp - 90° (or perpendicular), there is a natural stress riser in your design. This is a weak spot where a crack can form. If strength is needed and the fillet won't interfere with the design, it's definitely something you should include with your part.

Why could my opaque PETG be printing "transparent" in certain places? I'm printing with opaque grey PETG on glass. The intention is to produce a house number plate, so a shiny, production quality finish on the bottom. For this reason, extruding at 245 °C with a bed at 95 °C, to give a perfect glass finish with no filament lines showing. Smaller test versions have been very promising; this seems to be the maximum temperatures before warping or a severe elephant's foot arises. However when printing the full-scale version, areas of the first layer of filament seem to go completely "transparent"; there seems to be filament there - you can feel the filament "comb" when you run your finger over it, and it feels a similar thickness to its neighbours. On the attached photo you might think that those gaps are simply not printed yet, however you can see on the top right corner that it's actually started on the next layer. What could be causing this? Is it a blockage which is interrupting flow, and maybe insufficient filament is being "stretched out"? Or maybe it could be something to do with temperature? Could it be insufficient layer height (I'm using 0.2 mm, but 0.24 mm on first layer, increasing further reveals filament lines, but tested higher and lower on smaller scale with success). I've tested a range of extrude and temperatures and chosen the temps with the best results; but when I "go large" this always seems to happen. I've also calibrated the bed height using the 3 point adjustment screws on this printer (Qidi X-Plus). (The transparent areas are actually occuring in the center where the smaller test prints where working perfectly, so don't know how it could be to do with this).

Are you using Z-hop? Is there any play in the Z-axis direction? It appears that parts of the first layer are printed much thinner than other parts. What can happen if there is a little play in the Z-axis direction that the nozzle doesn't return to the same level after a Z-hop movement (e.g. backlash in the leadscrew nuts). The "transparent" printed part appears thinner, this must indicate that the Z positioning is not up to par.

Combing and Coasting Here is my understanding of Coasting: Coasting stops extruding early in a move so that the string itself will finish the layer. Here is my understanding of Combing: Combing reduces the need to retract during travel moves by making sure that the nozzle oozes where you want it to on the way to the next point. I'm curious as to what types of prints these are good for, and also what types of prints these would be bad for. So for instance, Coasting is good for prints that have a high propensity to exhibit stringing, but what types of prints would I want coasting to be deselected for? Similarly for combing, although I know neither the pros nor cons other than it reduces the number of retractions (decreases wear on extruder?) In short, basically I'm looking for the pros and cons of both of these settings. Also if my understanding of the settings themselves is incorrect please let me know. Any advice would be much appreciated.

If anything, combing and coasting allow to mitigate problems that are printer and filament specific, rather than dependent on particular STL models. Combing helps - as you imply in your question - with materials prone to oozing (e.g. PETG) Coasting is particularly good for printers with a bowden extruders and low jerk/retraction speeds. This is because in bowden extruders there is a lot of filament compressed between the teeth of the extruder servo and the nozzle, and that pressure doesn't instantly disappears when the printer stop "pushing" (i.e.: turning the extruder servo). I believe there are firmware implementations where coasting is also used when approaching sharp corners. This is to mitigate the problem of "blobs" forming there. The mechanics of this are similar to those explained above: the pressure within the extruder cannot be instantly relieved and coasting accounts for that. The only difference being that - because of the micro-scale of the problem - even non-bowden printers are prone to corner blobs. In my experience (I look forward to other answers to "compare notes") there are very few reasons not to use combing. The only risk with it is that it increases the risk of the nozzle crashing into the print and destroying it. It sound dramatic, but it is in practice it requires everything to work against you: a big blob on the previous layer, the nozzle passing exactly there, poor bed adhesion... for me that has proved problematic only when printing miniatures with a 0.2 mm nozzle and 0.05 mm layer height (on a cheap printer). There is of course a (usually very small) time penalty in combing, as it typically requires the nozzle to travel longer paths. In my experience (again: YMMV, I look forward to more answers!) the limitations of coasting are related to the way it is implemented. For example, a given coasting setting may work great for getting rid of oozing, but will create under-extrusion in other parts of the print, as the calculations performed within the firmware may be spot-on for linear motion but inaccurate for corners, or vice-versa. I believe this is the reason while some popular slicers (like cura) have this setting hidden under "experimental".

Why 3d print has an ugly surface? Lately I'm having some issues with white PLA. It sticks nicely to the print bed, but the very last layer of the print comes out really ugly. I'm not a native english speaker, I don't know what is the proper term to describe what I see, so I'm attaching two pictures instead: As you can see, the surface has wrinkles. If you touch it, it feels like a jaggled surface. What is causing this? I've never had this kind of issue before with the same PLA roll, what can be the issue? I have a prusa-style printer, 45°C printbed, 225°C hotend, 10% hexagonal infill, 30mm/s print speed. The object stays on the surface without warping, I can tell for sure that it isn't detaching from the bed and coming up towards the extruder. It happens only for infill, perimeters are just perfect. What can be the issue here?

This appears to be the result of your hot end (nozzle) temperature being slightly too high. I'd recommend lowering your nozzle temperature by a few degrees and retrying the print. If the quality improves you're good. If it doesn't improve significantly try lowering a few degrees more. If you lower the nozzle temperature to the point that you start having other adverse effects, try going back to the lowest temperature that works and check your infill and shell settings. The top shell of your part may be too thin given the span (top surface, maximum travel length). i.e. the strands being printed on the top of your part are sagging between your infil hex's, by thickening this part in the slicer settings the next layer on the roof won't sag as much as the previous. By increasing your number of shells or shell thickness (or roof thickness, i'm not sure on the exact terminology) you could effectively hide the effect you're seeing by thickening this section of your part. Best guess though is nozzle is a bit too hot.

What else can I use for a 3D Printer frame? I am building a 3d Printer here: Build Volume: X:300mm, Y:300mm, Z:400mm Mechanism: 1 motor, 2 leadscrew, 4 rod Z-axis; CoreXY head movement Belt: GT2 6mm Steel Core Pulley & Idler: 20T 6mm, Bore 5mm Extruder: E3D Titan, Pancake NEMA 17 Hotend: E3D V6 Motors: XYZ: 0.9deg NEMA 17 34mm Electronics: Mega2560 + RAMPS 1.4, TMC2100, Opto-endstops min & max Electrical: SSR, Silicone Heat-mat 600W 300x300mm Bed: 3-point aluminium Problem is, I can't get V-slots or T-slots easily where I live. I can get Steel Rods or Seamless pipes, and Bearings & Drylin bushings. What aluminium profiles can I use to construct a rigid frame and accurate movement?

Were I to build a frame now, I might use 1" square steel tubing members, welded together. You could also use aluminum, but for the same cross-section, the steel will be stronger. It is also easier to weld. If welding is not available, you are limited to shapes which can be bolted together. This is not impossible, but it requires more thoughtful design. For the guides for moving or sliding elements, stainless steel drill rod is good. Because it is round, it doesn't constrain rotating motion, so you might need two drill rods, spaced as far apart as your design allows. The twisting force will be harder to manage with rods than it would be with a solid element. If the parts are moving during printing, you could consider stainless steel tube or aluminum rod to keep down the weight. If you have the machining ability, instead of rods you could use a T cross-section (steel or aluminum) with wheels rolling on the two outside elements of the T. Machine is likely needed to adjust the profile of the edge to more closely match the wheels (which could be /V\ shaped), and to make the separation be accurate enough that you wouldn't need a spring element to clamp to the T. There are many materials and forms that could work. You are limited only by your fabrication ability and access to materials.

How do PLA, PETG, TPU, ABS and/or nylon work together in a single print? I have a dual-extruder printer with a separate heating element for each head, thus able to combine materials in a single print job even if they don't share a single temperature range. Now the question: When (outside of using expensive dedicated support material or doing multicolor prints for aesthetic reasons) is this actually useful? Of common printable filaments (PLA, PETG, TPU, ABS, nylon): Do some of these materials work well (which is to say, substantially better than just doing a single-material print with same-material supports) as breakaway supports for others? Can some of these materials be dissolved in household solvents that don't harm others? Do some of these materials adhere to each other strongly enough (and have sufficiently similar profiles in how they shrink on cooling) to reliably generate finished pieces comprising of both? (Especially relevant for anything+TPU, where one might want to generate a design with some soft or rubbery components).

The answers are yes yes probably Which is to say, if you only want to use MaterialNumberTwo for disposable supports, then you should be fine. Presumably the slicer software is material-aware and adjusts the feed so the layer heights are the same for both materials. BUTbe careful that the support material isn't higher-temp than the object material, or supports which start from the object rather than the bed may cause local melting or distortion when the first layer is deposited on the cooler-melt material. But if you want to try to intertwine two materials for the final product, then certainly bonding will be a major risk, as will shrinkage during cooling (not to mention the risk of melting the lower-temp material while depositing the higher-temp material on top of it!). If at all possible I'd recommend printing such parts separately and fitting them together post-print.

Determining exposure time for resin When a resin comes without a proper data sheet (!), or more likely when the timing for first layer and default layer exposure do not match your LED resin printer, how do you go about determining ideal exposure times?

Short answer: Use a calibration test. Long answer: There are a bunch of calibration test files out there you can run. Ameralabs has a guide on how to read one of them and they have a link to download the STL at the bottom of the website. In short, the test file will print with a bunch of features that are hard for the printer to handle (thin posts, angles, small gaps, etc). You can try printing a test file like you would any other file while just guessing at the exposure time. But some printers have a setting just for this where you can run the printer once and print 8 copies of the same object each with a different exposure time. This is the best way to go if you can. either way, you will need to look at the prints when you are done and compare it to what it was supposed to look like. Pick the print that does the best in all types of features on the test. here is a video showing how to do the test with multiple prints at once. Anycubic Photon S - Resin Exposure Test - R_E_R_F with custom timing running these calibration tests can be useful even when you have a data sheet for your printer, it can account for other variables such a temperature. I don't usually bother but if you want to spend the time to get the best print you can it's a good idea.

How to create tappered thread in OpenSCAD? Is there any simple way of creating tappered thread in OpenSCAD? I need something like 10 mm in diameter at the end, 9 at the top and the height of 10 mm.

If your math and OpenSCAD skills are superior to mine, you may be able to make use of the OpenSCAD Metric Nut, Bolt & Threads Library located here: OpenSCAD Metric Nut, Bolt & Threads Library It uses various means to generate polygons about a radius and includes the formulae for partial revolutions. It is presumed in the design that the center of rotation for the generated polygons is constant. I looked over the code for outside thread and could easily determine the radius references. With proper coding, you could generate a variable radius based on the height of the cylinder at a specific point and achieve the tapered effect you require. I expect that you'd have to reduce your desired radius by a fraction, say 0.05 mm in order to embed the thread forming polygons within your tapered cylinder. If you aren't a strong coder, disregard this answer.

Applying Kapton Tape To Bed Plate There must be a trick to doing a good job of applying Kapton tape on a printer bed plate… We built a Bukobot and even with a great deal of care ended up with bubbles under the tape and occasional overlaps. I'd appreciate any pointers.

Try using a solution made for applying window tint, maybe even soapy water. Squeegee it out, heat the bed for a bit and you should be good to go. This video demonstrates the process.

Using heat-set inserts with SLA printed part I have an SLA printed part I want to put a brass threaded insert in using a soldering iron. The insert is slightly larger than the hole so I would assume the edge will melt and re-freeze around the teeth. Are there any issues with melting SLA or this idea in general?

The plastic used in SLA printing is what is known as a thermoset plastic, as opposed to the thermoplastic plastics used in FDM printing. What this means, is that it can not be melted. The reaction that hardens SLA materials is irreversible. If you heat up the plastic it won't melt, it will just burn (if it gets hot enough). What you're planning is a bad idea, and it won't work.

Through what methods and mechanisms can a multi-material FDM printer operate? I now own the Prusa3D MMU2. The benefits, costs, and experience others have had is well documented. I am interested in rebuilding my large, home-designed delta machine to be multi-material, and don't want to overlook strategies I haven't considered. My original implementation used an E3D Kraken as the hot-end, and handled the inevitable delta tilt by adding two additional degrees of freedom to the head to lower the selected nozzle to the bed. I've been through three generations of mechanisms, and I think the third will work. But, I feel that I am not seeing obvious and better alternatives. So, the question: Through what methods and mechanisms can a multi-material (different polymers, different temperatures) FDM printer operate, and are there available designs or examples of best practices for those methods?

Let's look at various methods: Multiple Hotends The oldest version and one of the best to print materials at vastly different print temperatures (like printing a cheaper PLA infill into a Polycarbonate shell - the print temperature difference is 60-100 °C) is to have 2 or more hotends. This way also avoids the need for purging towers. It does, however, limit the maximum size of the used printbed and few 2-printhead machines are cheap. Y-Coupler Using a bowden setup, a Y-coupler could be used to feed the filament from 2 extruders into one hotend. On the switching tool command, E0 would pull the filament back some couple millimeters beyond the coupler and then E1 would push forward back into the meltzone. One will need a purging tower/object. Special, multi-entry hotend Some Hotends had been concieved that have 2 or more ways into the meltzone and the multiple extruders push along them. They generally are quite complex and hard to clean, but they allow to seamlessly blend between two filaments of the same material and create pretty much a controlled fade by precisely directing how much of either side is used on any layer. For clean cuts, a purging tower is necessary. Splicing filament This is what the Palette 2 and the Prusa MMU do: they push pieces of filament into a feeder tube that then are consumed by the printer via its own extruder. If they melt the filaments together like in the PAlette, it's proper splicing, if they just line up the next filament piece without merging into a spliced filament it's more like instant color switching. This method is good for multi-color prints or using materials that have the same or similar1 melting temperatures. It might or might not need a purge tower/object to get rid of the residue in the zones between the filaments. This could btw also be done manually but should be avoided. 1 - or rather not too dissimilar, if the slicer is set up to do it right. By setting up the slicer cleverly, one can have the extruder retract the filament, then adjust the heat over the purge tower and then resume extruding in the purge object at the changed temperature. PLA/PVA from a Prusa MMU is known and advertised to be doable, PLA/ABS might be possible this way. For extreme dissimilarities like PLA/PC (60-100 °C) I have my doubts though. Usability All of these variants are basically viable, but some have benefits over others. Service is in this comparison meant as repairing a broken extruder, maintaining as the operations needed to keep it in printing order. multiple fully independent hotends is among the easiest to services. It could be direct drive (good for flexible filaments) or bowden. It is however heavy and usually not an option for delta printers. It has a downside that you have to perfectly level two hotend nozzles to be exactly on the same height, putting it in the hard to maintain category. multiple hotends on the same carrier is harder to service and maintain in comparison to multiple independent hotends as the components are very close together. Especially nozzle height adjustments can be more finicky. Y-Coupler needs to be a bowden and has problem with materials that are very stringy. That makes it especially bad for flexible materials. Maintaining is like a normal hotend and servicing is almost the same. Special hotends are hard to come by but could be available for direct drive, making them possible for flexible filaments. They are, as already noticed, very hard to service. Splicing filament can be done with either direct drive or bowden setups. It is probaby the most convenient to use after setup and has the maintenance and serviceability of a single hotend and a fully separate machine. Their biggest downside is price and setup time needed.

Nozzle moves very slowly from home to start position I´m currently working on a custom delta printer running Marlin 1.0.2 firmware. To control it I´m using the Repetier Host software with the onboard Cura software to slice my objects. The printing works fine but it takes the nozzle nearly 5 minutes to move from the homing position at 250 mm to the starting position of the print near z=0. I already tried to increase the travel speed but nothing changed. Can you guys please tell me how to increase the speed of my nozzle to move down to my starting point of the print?

I had the same problem, and I solved it by changing the Z-Axis Feed Rate to a much higher value (1000 mm/min.) in Repetier Host via Config -> Printer Settings -> Printer.

Is it safe to use a 3D printed icing smoother? I want to 3d print my own icing smoothers, but I'm not sure if its safe to have plastic from a 3D printer in contact with cake icing. Is there any harm in this?

As mentioned, FDM 3D printed parts are flawed for food service and prep use regardless of the material, because of the small gaps between lines where bacteria can grow, and because your printer isn't used in a way to keep it from introducing contaminants into otherwise clean material. However, there are some ways around this. Single-use I'm pretty comfortable using my printer to make items for one time use. If I wanted an icing smoother with a fancy shape for a special cake that I'm not likely to need again soon, I'd go ahead and do that. I would apply all the icing at one time, and then I'd discard the piece, rather than try to clean and save it. Also note that I'm not talking about a commercial kitchen; this would be for a cake I'd eat myself with friends, rather than sell. The big thing I've done this way so far (I've had my printer less than a year) is make shaped cookie cutters. I'll print the cutters, use them, and then throw them away. If I want the same shape again some time, I'll re-print. Lining The other thing you can do with food prep items is print them with the intent to use liners. For example, here is a 3D-printable taco train, where a train car has grooves to hold tacos (yum!). It wouldn't be good to put a taco directly in here, but you could use napkins or similar food-safe liner to separate the 3D part from the food. In the case of the icing smoother, you might be able to print the part and wrap it in aluminum foil.

Can 3D printers print details in the 1/10 of the micrometer for metals? I'm starting to get familiar with 3D printers. I wish to know if printing details the size of 10-7 m (3.9*10-6 in) is possible these days with metals or any other material. If anyone has information or articles as leads, I would really appreciate it.

You can get the 0.1 micron (100 nm) resolution with a 2-photon 3D printer, but only in a polymer resin. Nanoscribe, in Germany, pioneered this technology, see Mechanical Microstructures. Their commercial printer, the Photonic Professional GT, is about $350,000 US with software and accessories. There is some work being done to replicate the 3D printed polymer in metal using electroless plating or ALD (atomic layer deposition). Other techniques are in development. None of the direct metal 3D printing processes come close to your 0.1 micron resolution, although the field is rapidly evolving. Only a couple of years ago, direct metal 3D printing was all based on powder bed fusion. Now binder jet technology as been adapted to metals and, very recently, Xjet has developed a nanoparticle 3D printer. It prints "ink" composed of metal or ceramic nanoparticles suspended in a liquid. The minimum layer thickness is 1 to 2 microns. They have not released XY resolution data yet. A good overall reference for the various 3D printing techniques (including Xjet, but not Nanoscribe) can be found at Explaining The Future - 3D Printing.

Export firmware as a .hex Because .hex files can be installed without any need of an Arduino (serving as an ISP) to flash the firmware on Creality machines I was wondering, if firmware compiled via some other means (for example the Repetier firmware or Arduino) could be exported as a .hex file.

Current versions of Arduino IDE Use the menu option in the Arduino IDE: Sketch ► Export Compiled Binary See post #6 from the thread How to get hex file from arduino files ?: Well, since it was bumped it's worth mentioning there is a new way to do this added in Arduino IDE 1.6.5: Sketch > Export Compiled Binary If you are doing this with an example then you will be prompted to save the sketch in another location. Wait until the sketch has finished compiling. Sketch > Show Sketch Folder The .hex file will be in the sketch folder Here is a screenshot for OS X: There is no need to fully compile, a simple verify will suffice. From post #10: Reopen Arduino, and open a sketch of your choice (use the Examples->Digital->Blink if you have no other sketches). Hit the Verify button to compile the sketch. Now, navigate to the build.path folder. You should see a bunch of files including one with a .hex extension. Older versions of Arduino IDE If using an older version of the Arduino IDE, from post #12: Try this if using an older version of Arduino Taking out HEX file from Arduino in 3 simple steps Open Arduino IDE File ► Preferences menu Find "Show verbose output during " and check the "compilation" box Locate the preferences.txt file and open it Add the following line (this is the path to the directory where the hexfile will be stored): build.path=C:\Users\<username>\Desktop\hexfile Change the following line export.delete_target_folder=true to export.delete_target_folder=false Quit the Arduino IDE and restart it. Now when you compile, the directory specified in build.path will contain the .hex file (along with other files which can be ignored)

Step motors vibrate, don't move at all (Prusa I3) Recently, I changed my RAMPS 1.4 card (because there was a problem with the power output).So I bought this new one, and an Arduino Mega.I didn'T change the code (Marlin 1.3.3).I used the same stepsticks (a4988).I plugged my motors to the Ramps card. When I give them the command to turn they started to turn but didn't stop.Stepsticks got hot.After some time I tried it again and they just vibrated.The stepsticks got insanely hot after just 5-6 seconds.I used a different stepstick RAMPS card and Mega, they worked perfectly.But when I plugged the stepstick to the new card, the motors did te same thing again. What can be causing this and how can I fix it? (I've measured the voltage input, it is 12V and stable)

Usually if they get too hot you have to adjust the amperage by turning the little potentiometer on the A4988 (turn left until you can move the motor by hand, turn right until you cant, add a little bit like 1/8 to 1/4 of a turn). But this: I used a different stepstick RAMPS card and Mega, they worked perfectly. it is not completely clear, so: the A4988 work on another board -> your new board is broken another A4988 worked -> the A4988 is broken HTH

Extruder motor does not turn When printing from Cura on my laptop via USB, my extruder motor does not turn to extrude filament. However, when I use the "move axis" command in the firmware (on the little screen on the printer), it seems to work fine, extruding plastic smoothly. The nozzle temperature is where it should be (230 degrees or so for ABS) while printing and I get no error messages in Cura. What would cause the extruder to not function when printing even though it seems to be fine electrically, mechanically, and in firmware? Is there g-code from Cura that could be incorrect? I'm not sure where to look for problems. This is my first 3D printer. It is a Alunar M508 (a Prusa clone) that I got for free in a partially disassembled state. The firmware seemed to be screwed up when I first started using it. The firmware that came on the SD card with the printer would not compile in my Arduino software, so I used a Marlin firmware from here: https://github.com/camalot/alunar-prusa-i3-marlin-i3-firmware I had to make one change to the configuration file to reverse the X home direction, but otherwise I have not changed the firmware settings or anything. The new firmware does not recognize the SD card slot at all, but that's a different story. I'm using Cura to print via USB. The printer is set up as a Prusa I3, using the "Marlin" GCode flavor. Nozzle size: .4mm, Compatible Material diameter: 1.75mm. Start Gcode: G21 ;metric values G90 ;absolute positioning M82 ;set extruder to absolute mode M107 ;start with the fan off G28 X0 Y0 ;move X/Y to min endstops G28 Z0 ;move Z to min endstops G1 Z15.0 F9000 ;move the platform down 15mm G92 E0 ;zero the extruded length G1 F200 E3 ;extrude 3mm of feed stock G92 E0 ;zero the extruded length again G1 F9000 ;Put printing message on LCD screen M117 Printing... End Gcode: M104 S0 ;extruder heater off M140 S0 ;heated bed heater off (if you have it) G91 ;relative positioning G1 E-1 F300 ;retract the filament a bit before lifting the nozzle, to release some of the pressure G1 Z+0.5 E-5 X-20 Y-20 F9000 ;move Z up a bit and retract filament even more G28 X0 Y0 ;move X/Y to min endstops, so the head is out of the way M84 ;steppers off G90 ;absolute positioning Edit to Add some Gcode from the beginning of the test print: ;LAYER_COUNT:127 ;LAYER:0 M107 G0 F3600 X86.923 Y86.649 Z0.3 ;TYPE:SKIRT G1 F1800 X87.522 Y86.134 E0.03941 G1 X88.17 Y85.683 E0.0788 G1 X88.861 Y85.299 E0.11824 G1 X89.586 Y84.987 E0.15762 G1 X90.339 Y84.75 E0.197 G1 X91.113 Y84.591 E0.23642 G1 X91.898 Y84.51 E0.27579 G1 X92.3 Y84.5 E0.29586 G1 X117.7 Y84.5 E1.56307 G1 X118.489 Y84.54 E1.60248 G1 X119.269 Y84.659 E1.64185 G1 X120.034 Y84.857 E1.68127 G1 X120.774 Y85.131 E1.72064 G1 X121.483 Y85.479 E1.76004 G1 X122.154 Y85.897 E1.79948 G1 X122.778 Y86.38 E1.83885

It turns out the problem was a firmware issue. Using the gcode below (from David Lotts in the comments), I was able to determine that the extruder was running backwards. A flag in the firmware reversed it, solving the problem. M82 ;set extruder to absolute mode G92 E0 ;zero the extruded length G1 F200 E20 ;extrude 20mm of feed stock

Problems with support interface since cura 3.1 Since i updated Cura from 2.7. to 3.1. I have a really hard time at configuration and especially removing the support interfaces. The update automatically uses the settings from the old version, but as I said: it doesn't work anymore. I even tried to create a test print with 4 copies of a test object with different settings, but there where no differences in the slicing for them. Every copy and the support interface that belongs to it was the same. Did anybody have an idea? Printer Anet A8 with PLA

In Cura 3.1 to 3.2.1 (date today is 2018-Feb-24): The Support Z Distance only changes the Support Bottom Distance and NOT the Support Top Distance. By activating the two sub-options you can configure this again.

Linking an Arduino Mega with RAMPS and an Arduino Uno with CNC Shield to control more stepper motors using Marlin firmware I've been looking for this for a while, and it looks like no one has tried it before. Does anyone know if there is a way to link an Arduino Mega with RAMPS as master, with an Arduino Uno with a CNC Shield as slave, and get it to work on Marlin firmware? Why do I want to do this? I'm planning to build a DIY heavy duty 3d printer that will use a lot more stepper motors than the typical prusa style machines, and I want to use Arduino to control it instead of custom CNC/stepper/3d printer controller boards. Thank you! Regards.

so points to that case: how are you going to sync master/slave? adding more steppers to master (even only for pushing control to slave) will limit speed in the whole system (this is mainly one of the reasons why we shall go to 32-bit platforms to print faster). As marlin will give you a good grasp to convert g-code into steppers movement, then if you are willing to double or triple steppers number per axis, you can grab dir and step signal and forward it to other steppers drivers without the mess of syncing movement in time and board. If you are going to add a special tooling - then you shall add your mods to firmware as well.

Strange stringing-like activity when printing face shields I'm printing stacked Prusa COVID-19 face shields on a modded Ender 3. It works fairly well until the second layer of masks, where we get this weird effect that's kind of like stringing. It looks like the curve is becoming "low poly." I'm sorry that I can't be more specific, but I really don't know how to describe it more than this. Please look at the pictures to get more info. One of the strangest things is that it worked earlier with the same slicer and the same profile. I am using PrusaSlicer, but I tried it with Cura and it still didn't work. There are a few more problems with the prints: some under-extrusion on the supports, and some spots had little gaps between the layers. Does anyone have any fixes for any of these problems? I would mainly like to know about the strange kind of stringing because that actually prevents me from stacking prints. I am printing Overture PETG at 240 on the nozzle and 80 on the bed. This is at a speed of 50 mm per second. I have the Basaraba Innovations direct drive mod, the Creality silent board with TH3D Unified Firmware based on Marlin 1.1.9, and the EZABL Pro. Please look at the pictures to see what is happening.

This isn't stringing. It's failure to adhere to the previous layer, so tension in the newly extruded material just makes it form a straight line until it bonds to something again. Are you used to printing PETG? You didn't mention fan settings, but having any cooling fan at all will cause failure of layers to bond. Your print speed is borderline for PETG, especially if you're using thick layers like 0.3 mm which you also didn't mention but looks like might be the case.

Can you cure resin with sunlight through a window? If I set my prints on the window sill (indoors) will the sunlight still be able to cure the resin? The problem with setting them outside is the wind knocking them over.

The glass will block most of the uv light; but not all. It will depend on the type of light that the resin is sensitive to; in order to determine if it will continue to cure behind a glass window in direct sunlight. Some resins also sensitive to blue light. You will need to look at the material data sheet for the resin to be able to know for sure. Be advised though, that the resin does not stop curing, and will continue to cure slowly over time, just sitting on the desk. https://www.thoughtco.com/does-glass-block-uv-light-608316 From the link: Glass that is transparent to visible light absorbs nearly all UVB. This is the wavelength range that can cause a sunburn, so it's true you can't get a sunburn through glass. However, UVA is much closer to the visible spectrum than UVB. About 75% of UVA passes through ordinary glass. UVA leads to skin damage and genetic mutations that can lead to cancer. Glass does not protect you from skin damage from the sun. It affects indoor plants too. Have you ever taken an indoor plant outside and burned its leaves? This happens because the plant was unaccustomed to the higher levels of UVA found outside, compared with inside a sunny window.

Why won't makerbot accept an STL file from Blender? Our library system just put a 3D printer in one of the branches. I have used SketchUp on the library computers for a number of years just to do artsy things. Suddenly, I have the opportunity to actually print something. (I'm really not sure why the libraries have SketchUp installed. But, I have enjoyed using it.) There is a plug-in available for SketchUp so that it can export STL files. But, the security on the library computers will not allow me to put a file into the SketchUp plug-ins folder. And, the tech guy at the library doesn't think that the IT guys at the library will update all the copies of SketchUp at all the branches just so someone could do 3D printing. After doing some searching on this website, I found out that I could export a COLLADA / dae file from SketchUp. I would then import that dae file into Blender (The portable version on my flash drive). I could then export it as an STL file. The process appeared to work. I could see my test object in Blender. I gave the STL file to the branch manager who tried to open it in the Makerbot software so that it could be sent to the printer. But, it gave him a message about the file not being recognized. I am not familiar with all the details in the importing and exporting processes that are going on. Is there someone out there that can give me some help? One problem is that, I am using the library computers. I cannot alter them. I can use what portable versions of software are out there, like Blender.

Here is what I suggest you try. If you have a file that you can view/edit in blender I would export it as both STL and OBJ formats. Then take those files and upload them to Netfabb (https://netfabb.azurewebsites.net/) and get a "repaired" file. Have the library try again with the repaired STL and OBJ files. If this doesn't work try to get the exact error message/dialog that the makerbot software is giving them as well as the version of the software that they are using.

Z-offset: 0.2 mm, 0.1 mm or the thickness of paper? So, I'm pretty new to 3D Printing, and to quote Spock from Wrath of Khan I would say "He is intelligent, but not experienced". Now everything I have been reading about Z-offset seems to talk about a 0.2 mm gap and using a piece of paper. Wishing to be accurate, I have tried to use my 0.2 mm feeler gauges and this is too high. However, the thickness of paper depends on the GSM (grams per square metre). A Google search tells me that the average thickness of paper is ~0.1 mm but how can we be accurate with this variation. I tried using a 0.1 mm feeler gauge and even this seemed too high. Is this because of the lack of give in the metal? Anyway, I have now settled for a Lotto slip (UK Lottery) which has a thickness of 0.1 mm and seems to allow me to set a good offset. However, I would welcome someone who can explain the science behind this.

They are all generic guidelines. Don't count on them too much. Rather, get an approximate Z-offset value, then print a solid 30x30x5 mm cube. If, starting from the third-fourth layer, you see some over-extrusion, you need to adjust the extrusion multiplier or the E steps calibration and reprint. Once the solid cube looks good starting from the third-fourth layer up, then you can tune the Z offset by printing a cube which is only 0.2 mm high (or 0.25 mm, or whatever your first layer height is). If you see over-extrusion, the Z offset is too big. If you see visible gaps between extrusion lines, the Z offset is too small. If unsure, better get some small remaining gaps rather than overextrusion and excess material. The idea is that extrusion issues in the first layer can be caused either by the offset or by the multiplier, so you must adjust the multiplier first by looking at the print after about 1 mm height (the first layer issues tend to disappear after some layers). Once you know the extrusion is right, set properly the first layer.

Tevo Tarantula I3 firmware I've been trying to get something decent printed for days but nothing works! I have a Tarantula Tevo i3 MKS Base V1.4 and have done a lot of trial & plenty of error. Still I am puzzled to get good prints. What is the stock firmware for a single extruder regular/large bed firmware & how to configure a large bed (if needed to be configured)? Which is the auto bed leveling firmware? I need help sorting out what's out there. I did not manage to configure a large bed with a single extruder. But did manage to restore firmware with Marlin-2.0.x So the Tevo 3D Printing Store firmware link directs to a dropbox - only dual extruders - both regular & large bed, There is JimBrown's GitHub MarlinTarantula - Optimized firmware for RepRap 3D printers based on the Arduino platform, JoelLisenby's GitHub TEVO-Tarantula-I3-Marlin-Firmware. I followed this, YouTube - Setting Up Auto Bed Leveling (Tevo Tarantula), for setting up the auto bed leveling sensor but it just got me messed-up even more, see Tevo Tarantula incorrectly auto leveling of bed. I'm just now in the process of trying to manually level the bed and I broke the hot end holder plastic plate... EDIT: The sensor I'm using is SN04-N Inductive Proximity Sensor - 5mm

Answer for "2)": The default firmware seems to be Repetier. It also includes Bed leveling (see documentation): https://www.repetier.com/documentation/repetier-firmware/z-probing/ Marlin includes the Auto Bed Leveling feature too. You need to enable it by editing the Configuration.h file. Bed size settings are there aswell. "stylesuxx" made a video on how to get Marlin onto the Tevo: or you can take a look at their website: http://marlinfw.org/docs/configuration/configuration.html#configuration.h Autoleveling can be enabeled as well in this file. There is a good video from Thomas Sanladerer on Mesh Bed Leveling: If you want some help with auto bed leveling it would be nice if you can include what kind of sensor you want to use (inductive, capacitive, microswitch...) and what your prefered type of bed leveling is (mesh 3x3, just z-leveling)...

How to remove adhered nylon from build platform? As the title suggests, I am looking to remove nylon that has adhered strongly to my build platform. Mechanical methods (ex. scraping) haven't yielded results, so I was hoping for a solvent or something that would remove the adhered nylon. Also, the parts themselves remove well enough, but some areas have a bit of nylon that simply persist.

One important and missing aspect of your question is what is your build platform? Glass is likely to give you the best results, while aluminum has some risks, depending on your choice of solvents. My hasty research at first showed Glacial Acetic Acid to be a candidate, but as a very strong acid, it will require some care in use. I found a pdf document with a comprehensive chart of possible solvents for nylon. The above noted solvent (100% acetic acid) lists with an Unsatisfactory result. I read this at first as being unsatisfactory for dissolving, but the correct interpretation is that nylon is unsatisfactory for being resistant to this solvent. Additional notes show nylon will dissolve in this solvent. I have a bottle of white vinegar (acetic acid) but the panel reads as five percent concentration, almost certainly ineffective for your purposes. There are other solvents listed as unsatisfactory, which points them in the right direction for your purposes. A couple of them are in the chlorine family and no reference is made regarding concentration. Chlorine of even weak concentration will attack aluminum very quickly. Despite the weak concentration of the white vinegar, I've dropped a segment of 3 mm nylon to see what happens overnight and may report via an edit here later.

Printrboard Rev. D - RX1 and TX1 (second serial port) / Marlin I am trying to make Marlin use the RX1 and TX1 pins that are in the EXP1 connection. I am connecting those pins to the TX, RX of an Arduino. The Configuration.h file has a SERIAL_PORT define, normally configured to be 0, but supposedly changeable. What should be changed in Marlin to make it used the Serial1 port (if possible at all)? I am using the latest code provided in Printrbot's Marlin repository From the Configuration.h file: // SERIAL_PORT selects which serial port should be used for communication with the host. // This allows the connection of wireless adapters (for instance) to non-default port pins. // Serial port 0 is still used by the Arduino bootloader regardless of this setting. #define SERIAL_PORT 0 //#define SERIAL_PORT 1 // This determines the communication speed of the printer // This determines the communication speed of the printer #define BAUDRATE 250000 //#define BAUDRATE 9600

I was able to resolve this issue: I moved to Marlin 1.1.9 (the final release of the 1.1.x versions). I made a fork, for those who would like to see the changes. Also summarized below. The RX1 and TX1 pins are well identified in the question. I connected those directly to the HC-06 bluetooth module (using a voltage divider for the RX pin in the bluetooth, as it is a 3.3 V logic module). Changes in code: Marlin/Conditionals.LCD.h: commented out: // this line conflicted with the bluetooth/serial1 options // #define USE_MARLINSERIAL !(defined(__AVR__) && defined(USBCON)) The rest are the configuration options already provided by Marlin in Marlin.Configuration.h: define SERIAL_PORT 1 define BAUDRATE 115200 // Note: this baudrate MUST match the one set in the bluetooth module. That's done using the AT commands. There is plenty of information on how to do that. define BLUETOOTH As a result of these changes I am able to print with my PrintrBot Simple 2014 (Printrboard Rev. D) with Bluetooth over a distance of ~3.5mts, behind a wall. I haven't tested it exhaustely, but it does print.

Ender 3 is capable of food safe printing? I've been looking into the viability of manufacturing a replacement part for a kitchen blender that has a broken part. I found this page that talks about what makes a print food safe. One of the items mentioned was: ... a brass extruder may contain lead, and lead contamination can cause some nasty health problems. ... I own an Ender 3, and I haven't replaced the nozzle yet. How can I tell if my printer is capable of creating food safe prints in its current state?

Food packaging needs to comply with regulations. One certification agency informing about these (and their service to certify for them) is TÜV Süd, another is SAI global. A summary of the GFSI can be found here. Inform yourself about the standards you wish to apply! The stack can not give legally binding answers. No The Ender 3 is not approved to produce food products (and not usable for them out of the box) for lack of certification. In the design it comes from the box, you need to replace a lot of parts for food rated ones: The whole print head/bed need to be swapped out for food rated parts due to the exact composition being not known. They might contain banned materials. As a result: You'll need an all-metal hot end that can be taken apart for cleaning up to the standards if needed. You'll need a food rated PTFE tube. You'll need a stainless steel nozzle that complies with food grade manufacturing demands. The extruder gear should be stainless steel as well. You'll need to add some part to prevent filament shreds/flakes from the extruder to enter the print area as they might act as contaminants or carry germs. Similar measures have to be taken for the wheels on the hot end carriage, as it might shred. As you include a volume of air into the print, you are likely to be demanded to print under a protective atmosphere to make sure no germs are inside the print. We do not know the composition of the build platform, so you'd need to replace the back surface with something that is food rated. You'll need to post-process your prints as smooth as possible, especially because of the small edges at the layer boundaries, which can and will act as spots where germs can grow. This can be achieved with a material that is smoothable in some way. Alternatively, a sealing lacquer/coating that is food safe might help here. Remember, safety first: Printed plastics that are rated for food are not necessarily food safe because of the quality or blend of the material. PLA and ABS can be made food safe, but that is usually pure material. We usually don't know what kinds of fillers or coloring is in our filament. The heating process might destroy the colors or fillers, which in turn might make it unsafe. Indirect manufacturing If you are stone set you want/need, you can use indirect manufacturing: you don't print the actual object, you print a mold that makes the actual object. Clay and other ceramics can be made food safe very easily and they can be shaped with plastic molds. Boxing There is also another way to facilitate food safety in a 3D printed container, and that is checking where the food will actually make contact. For a lunch box, that is the inside. We could line this inside with a food safe surface, for example placing a steel cup in our plastic cup-holder. Accessories like a cup holder or a decorative container for the actual food container do not need to adhere to the food packaging regulations themselves. Exposure time I know this is all looking at industrial food rated production. The Primer given in the question does include a point about time the product gets into contact with the food - if there is just a short exposure, you might get away with it, but it doesn't make it certified food safe. Another good read in this regard is this short discussion about the Pros and Cons.

Anet A8 Z-Probe Bed Positioning going outside of bounds I have an Anet A8 with the Anet 1.7 board, Skynet3d v2.3.2, and the stock sensor. I originally had this configuration with the stock extruder, but recently purchased an E3D v6 clone with a Bowden extruder. After installing a new bracket I had printed (TNS E3D v6 Bracket) with the adjustable stock sensor mount. I installed the extruder and sensor. I knew I had to adjust sensor position. I went through the 3DStackExchange post on Z probe boundary limits as well, and added all of the end positions and probe to nozzle offsets (I will list below) to my Configuration.h file, saved, checked the changes were there in the Configuration.h tab in the Arduino IDE and uploaded the firmware. After this I went to hit auto leveling in the prepare menu, and the positions were different from the stock extruder and mount, but when it got to the third position, the sensor was off the bed, and the nozzle dug into the bed. The configuration I was editing was from the Anet A8 5 button stock sensor Configuration.h file. My probe is (When looking from the front of the Anet A8) forward and right of the nozzle. My Y-axis offset is -3 (the sensor is 3 mm in front of the nozzle when looking from the front) My X-axis offset is +37 (the sensor is 37 mm to the right of the nozzle when looking from the front) The stock min_probe_edge is 10 mm, so with my math my Left Probe Bed Position is 47, Right is 210, Back is 207, and front is 10. I want to get my probe settings properly set up so I get my bed leveling back and I do not want to ruin my bed while leveling.

If you have done major revisions to the printhead by changing to another carriage, it could be that the nozzle in the carriage is not at the exact position as in the previous carriage. So, have you made sure that the new carriage has the appropriate values so that the nozzle is at (0, 0) when commanded to that position? Alternatively, in different wordings, this translates to: "Is the printer printing in the center?/Are the prints centered on the build plate?". See e.g. "How to center my prints on the build platform? (Re-calibrate homing offset)". From the Thingiverse link van be read that this carriage requires an offset. The carriage design mentions a shift of the X axis: #define X_MIN_POS -10 Is that working for you? General remarks regarding the firmware update: Have you also loaded all values from firmware using M502 and then M500? (if M500 commands are enabled). Also, Skynet3D is obsolete!, use Marlin instead!

RAMPS board - no power to heatbed I'm setting up my first 3D Printer, a Prusa i3 MK2 clone. When I try to heat the bed, nothing happens. Then Marlin throws this error after a while: Bed Heating Failed PRINTER HALTED Please reset In Pronterface I see this in the console: Error:Heating failed, system stopped! Heater_ID: bed [ERROR] Error:Heating failed, system stopped! Heater_ID: bed Error:Printer halted. kill() called! [ERROR] Error:Printer halted. kill() called! There is 0 voltage across D8 on the Ramps board, where it is connected. When I heat up the hotend, on the other hand, which is connected to D10, I see 12V across the board's D10 terminals. The bed is MK42 type. My axes, extruder hotend and fans are working OK. I previously burned out the 5 V regulator on my Arduino Mega by misconnecting one of the end stops. I replaced the regulator on the board and the 5 V supply seems to be working OK again. However I wondered if I might have damaged the board in some other respect? Or is there a config setting in Marlin I should change?

Without testing the board(s) completely, by probing each component, it would be a bit hard to tell precisely. Your best bet might be to try it and see if it works ok, and if not, you'll see exactly what doesn't work... if that makes sense. Whilst not exactly the same issue, this answer, to the question How drastic is reversing the polarity of the power supply to a RAMPS board?, might help. Now, after having correctly read your question (:-D), I see that you've already done the above, that I mentioned. Maybe these links will help: No power to heatbed, how to test ramps for problem??, and; (RAMPS)Hotend change pin from D8 to D10. There are other similar links on the RepRap Wiki. You might need to check the power MOSFET and/or the fuse. The problem is knowing whether the Arduino Mega is damaged, or the RAMPS board, or both. However, perform some of the relatively simple checks, listed below, for the: Outputs; MOSFETs - in particular Q3 which is switched by D8, and; Fuses - in particular, F2 (MFR1100 - refer to schematic below) as it is this fuse alone which provides 12V2 which, in turn, is used by D8/Q3 for the heated bed. It should be noted that there are two 12 V supply lines and it is the latter which concerns the heated bed: 12V, and; 12V2 Salient points from (RAMPS)Hotend change pin from D8 to D10 Also... There is something else to be aware of. Depending on what you claim you are attaching to the RAMPS board, the pins move around. You have 3 High Power MOS-FET's. You can use the RAMPS board to drive some combination of heat bed, fan and 2 extruders. Depending on what you claim you have on your printer, the pin numbers for things move around. I kind of doubt that is what is causing you problems... But it might be... and check the config (bit of a long shot) Have you checked that you don't have any error condition (such as MAXTEMP or MINTEMP) which prevents the hotend from being switched on? Be wary of randomly switching outputs for high current draw devices (such as the heated bed) Your topic says "D8 to D10" but if this is your heated bed, you can't do this. D8 is on the 11amp circuit. plugging the heated bed into D9 or D10 goes threw the 5amp fuse and it will blow. To test the outputs: But basically test the io ports Remove the ramps Setup a led and resistor in the D port you which to use (make sure led is the correct polarity) load up the blink demo program, change the port it uses to the port you testing. Upload firmware (this will overwrite you current firmware) Does it blink? yes the IO pin is ok, no, The IO pin is dead. repeat for all io pins you which to test See learn.adafruit.com for more information Salient points from No power to heatbed, how to test ramps for problem??: Check the fuses Check the fuse (the big yellow thing). Connect you meter to ground and both sides of the fuse in turn. You should get about 12v on both. Continuity check continuity test the heated bed with it not plugged in. is it possible you have an open in your circuit? and Have you checked the cables? Also is the led coming on for D8? The next section of the thread deals with an overheated (50 A?) MOSFET. Check the condition of that: ok think i found the culprit, any ideas why that blew? A couple of good points With the bed I found there are 2 issues at play here. The standard MOSFET that is typically found in theese kits have an RDS that creates a fair amount of heat at 10A and at this level the datasheet says stick a heatsink on. Screwing a piece of metal to the MOSFET cures the issue I use an aluminium bracket because thats what I had laying around, thermal compound helps too if you have that laying around from a PC. A lot of heat beds state that they are 1.2ohms but aren't ( just a variance in manufacturing prehaps? ) sticking a cheap multimeter across it says this but in practice it may not be reading correctly. I found this out because my bed kept tripping a 11A polyfuse but was fine with a 12A meaning its somewhere around 1.1ohms. good news is it means my bed heats up slightly faster! but seeming as your transistor blew I imagine the polyfuse is ok, watch out though you may find it slowly does kick in when the MOSFET works properly because if its near its tripping point it can gently heat up and stop the current. A good test procedure - this is probably the most relevant check for your case That's not the way it's wired. Check the schematic. 12V input on RAMPS -- fuse -- (PS1) + output to BED GND -- Source[MOSFET]Drain -- (PS2) - output to BED D8 ---------------- Gate As you can see, the MOSFET is switching the GND connection to the bed. There will always be +12V on the + bed terminal whenever power is on as long as the fuse is good. There's an LED across the + and - BED terminal on RAMPS to indicate voltage. If that LED is turning on when you turn the heated bed on from the host software, then the MOSFET is good. If it's not coming on, they you might have a bad MOSFET or your +12V supply is bad. Verify using a voltmeter across the bed terminals and across the 12V bed supply input in RAMPS. The Prusa heated bed PCB should have a resistance around 1.1 ohm. Then there are some tests for the fuses. Looking at fuse F2 (the main culprit, which protects the 12V2 circuit): You haven't mentioned checking the fuse yet. You should make sure that it's not blown. If RAMPS is still wired to the 12V power supply for the bed, you can check this easily witn a voltmeter between the + bed terminal and the ground wire from your power supply (any of the - terminal between the power supply and RAMPS). You should read 12V if the fuse is still good. If not, then the fuse is probably blown. If the fuse is good, then it's a problem with the MOSFET. You should visually check the solder pads for the MOSFET to make sure that all the 3 pins are still soldered well. The chip can get hot enough to melt the solder resulting in broken connection. Then with the power on, turn on the bed heater in the host software and measure the voltage going into the gate pin of the MOSFET. That should be the outside pin on the same side of the MOSFET as the + D8 terminal. You should see TTL voltage there (probably close to 5V). If you do, then it confirms that the MOSFET is bad. BTW, 1.5 ohm is probably too high for the bed resistance. You need to subtract the resistance that you measure when you touch your multimeter leads together. There could easily be 0.4 ohms there. and As far as checking the fuse, another way would be to turn off all the 12V power to RAMPS and check for continuity between the + bed power supply input and the + bed output on RAMPS. If the fuse is still good, this should be a short (near 0 ohms). If you disconnect the + lead to the bed, then this would be more accurate. For fuse F1, you can do the following, although it is extremely unlikely that this has blown as the rest of the circuit is working from the 12V circuit: There's also a separate fuse for the other 12V supply input to RAMPS that powers the rest of the controller, including the AT Mega. You should check that too in a similar way. With all the power off, measure the resistance between the leads of F1 on RAMPS. You can also double check the resistance on F2 (bed 12V fuse) right next to it. That should give you something to get started on. Without knowing more details, it's hard to be more precise.

Would adding fiberglass packaging tape to a bowden tube be beneficial? I came across this suggestion on the klipper github, https://www.facebook.com/groups/Hypercube.Evo/permalink/192106034761003/. In order to reduce the stretching in the bowden tube you can add fiberglass packaging tape lengthwise along the tube. This would decrease the elasticity while still allowing the plastic filament to run through it. Allowing you to reduce the retraction length and have better control over the amount of plastic being extruded. Is there any reasons that this would not work or actually decrease the performance of the bowden tube?

The question seems to be built on a false premise, namely that the major extrude/retract errors in a Bowden design come from tube stretch. The PTFE tube is not significantly elastic, actually it is reasonably stiff so there is minimal scope for improvement here. A longer tube will contribute to degraded precision, but slack in the filament/tube gap is roughly as significant as stretch (and filament compression). Constraining the tube path may help marginally (but there is no need to 'bond' the tube). There is not much you can to to reduce the gap between filament and tube, but this will dominate the error for a long tube. The most obvious weak point is the clip used to secure the tube at each end. I saw a review of a recent Prusa design where high quality clips were called out as making a big improvement to securing each end of the tube.

How important is it to move the printer's controller board outside of an enclosure? I am building an enclosure for an Ender 3 Pro printer, and am planning on the power supply and LCD unit being outside the enclosure. How important is it to move the printer controller (where the SD card is inserted) outside the enclosure? Would leaving it in place affect its longevity? Answers to the first round of comments/questions: I expect to be primarily printing in the 200C-270C range. I'm not worried about losing heat from opening the doors - I'll be putting the SD card in prior to initiating printing. I'm thinking the stepper motors are somewhat of a moot point, there's no way I could move them outside of the enclosure. My printer is all stock.

It depends on what kinds of prints you make, and especially what kind of materials you want to use. Certain materials (ABS especially, but also PETG to some degree) will print much better if the entire build area, which usually includes the printer chassis and controls, is enclosed to protect from drafts and allow a much higher ambient temperature. If you print often with these materials, and the control board is included in that enclosed area, you will significantly reduce the life of the electronic components, especially the capacitors on the board1. On the other hand, if you print mainly with PLA, which is not as susceptible to issues requiring an enclosure, and prints better with an ambient temperature closer to room temperature, you can put the electronic controls wherever you want. 1 See especially this excerpt from the section on "Premature Failure": Electrolytic capacitors that operate at a lower temperature can have a considerably longer lifespan.

How could I keep the material on the print plate from bending up on a makerbot 2? I printed a big base for a model, but the corners of the bottom bent up, making the whole base rock when set on a table. Is there a quick fix for a makerbot2 without a heated plate?

Consider using a different material. Since you're on a replicator 2 you're probably not printing with ABS (which would be a terrible choice for a large, flat model) but probably with PLA. Perhaps you could try printing with PET(G) instead, which tends to warp even less. You could try modifying your model a little. If you include several grooves in the bottom surface of your model that may provide some "strain relief" so-to-speak, preventing warping. Increase adhesion: print your initial layer slower, closer to the build surface, at a higher temperature, with a brim, and with some kind of print surface to increase adhesion (tape/glue/hairspray). Increase ambient temperature. The Replicator 2 does not have a heated bed, but you could still make the cooling more gradual by enclosing the printer, shielding it from drafts, etc...

How to choose printer with dual extruder? I use Prusa i3 with one extruder for some years and I would like to print from one material in two colors or from different materials for one model. Therefore I'm lookig for new printer with dual extruder. Is there some way how to measure and/or compare quality of printers with dual extruder on the market? For example to create 3d model - ask the seller(s) to print it - and then compare? - what details to focus on?

As you suggest yourself, ordering test prints of some model is one way to do it. 3D Hubs and MakeXYZ allows you to get your model printed by hobbyists and small businesses for a fair price. Both sites also allow you to order prints based on printer type, which I believe is what you may be looking for. On 3D Hubs, visit on of the trend reports, and select the printer you want a sample from. Similarly, on MakeXYZ, search local makers for your desired printer.

How do I concave an image to create a 3D file for use in a 3D printer? How can I print an embossed image in a concaved shape? Like a big saucer. I will use this an a mold for a project. So far I've found lots of software with huge spread of features. It's sort of overwhelming. There is lots of ways to create images into 3D printable objects but to add the extra step and concaving that image is harder to find out. How would you do it? I'm open to suggestions. I'm new to 3D printing and would really appreciate the help.

What you describe, sounds like you want to create a lithophane; a pattern etched or engraved on a thin translucent base material (in your case a bowl) that can only be seen clearly when backlit with a light source behind it. Apparently you want to use it for another purpose. Special software and or scripts that transform the image to the base material exist. An example is e.g. this sphere which becomes a globe when lit from the inside. Recommending a tool for creating such bowl is a little out of scope as these types of questions become outdated very quickly as technology changes or tools cease to exist. With the provided information you should be able to find software that is able to provide what you want to do.

Understanding of the auto bed leveling process (BLTouch) I just installed my BLTouch clone (Marlin 1.8) on my Anycubic i3 Mega Ultrabase and finding confusing information about the Z_PROBE_OFFSET_FROM_EXTRUDER or the M851 command. I understand M851 command does the same as Z_PROBE_OFFSET_FROM_EXTRUDER in the Configuration.h. (see marlin docs) So according to Marlin, this value is the distance of the nozzle to the distance of the triggering point of the sensor. If I manage to measure that accurately, Marlin could probe the bed, knowing distance of probe to nozzle, add a margin for perfect distance (around paper thickness) and my bed would be forever perfectly measured with every autolevelling process and perfect distances could be calculated. Instead, I find tutorials around the M851 (e.g here telling to manually level the bed, then take the current Z-value of the extruder and put that into the M851 value. In my understanding it makes little sense, as it has no reference to when the sensor triggers, its distance to the bed. Sure, maybe this way it can get an understanding of slight derivations in the planarity of the bed, but it would not have automatically "levelled" my bed, just compensated for imperfections. I am confused by the amount of tutorials that suggest so. Whats the case now? Is Marlin not really able to really level to my bed?

What may be confusing is the use of the naming of the mechanism "Auto Bed Levelling", or short ABL, does not make your build plate to level itself with respect to the frame of the printer1). Hence you are instructed to always tram (level is rather misleading as it doesn't involve bubble levelling, instead it is meant to tram the bed with respect to the X- and Y-axis) the build surface as good as you can. The ABL process could better be described as "Height adjusting to scanned bed geometry" or something like that, as that is exactly what is being done. The G29 command scans the bed surface and (depending on the firmware options) it generates a mesh or a plane through the measured points. When printing, the nozzle will follow the bed height geometry and fades this out over about 10 milliliters (depends on setting). So, if you do not tram the bed correctly, you will end up with a skew bottom of the print as the fade out will cause the printer to print eventually parallel to the X- and Y-axis. Note that specifying the Z-offset in the firmware is rather useless, you cannot measure this beforehand. It is far better to do this later using M851. This answer describes in some more detail how the offset is generated and applied to the scanned surface. 1) It is possible to actually level/tram the bed (e.g. in Marlin firmware), but that are different processes. E.g. a tramming assistant is available when using the G35 G-code. And, automatically, (for specific printers) possible on build plates that are moved up/down by several lead screws (look into NUM_Z_STEPPER_DRIVERS in Marlin's Configuration_adv.h file). But still, this maintains a certain level, it does not scan the complete surface, that can be achieved by the ABL process.

How do I 3D-print fair dice? As 3D printers become more and more reliable, their prints get better and better. But FDM printers do have their problems too: you print tiny ovals that smooch together at the edges, and infill makes it awkward at times. So, how do I make a 3D-printed die fair (as in: not favoring one side too much)?

This is going to become a 3-step answer, as 3D Printing uses 3 different steps: Design, Slicing & Material choice before I elaborate alternate ways to some fair dice. Yet, we start with the material, as we need to know about it first. In this case it does impact everything from design to slicing and the print. Variant A: Printed perfect(?) Step 1: Know your material Let's face it: most materials used in Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) face an non-homogenous shrinking between XY plane and Z axis. But if you know these specific properties for your printer/filament/temperature combo, you can compensate for that. Know your material - you will need that for slicing. Run a test print of a 10x10x10 mm cube and measure - the offset of the 10mm on each axis is what you need to compensate for via your slicer. Step 2: Design fairly Platonic bodies When designing your STL, try to design as fair as you can. Either indent the numbers as little as you can while maintaining readability, or, if you have a 2 color printer, fill the numbers with same density material but from the other color. Another thing to consider: indent the same surface area on each face of the body. That way you remove the same volume and thus same weight from each face, making it somewhat fair in the design, as the Center of Mass should be mostly in the center of the body now. Prism-"dice" A cylindrical (or rather: prism) design that is rolled over its "cylinder" surfaces might be the most easy to be designed fairly and be reasonably easy to slice, without having to resort to specialist slicing methods and tons of different compensations to keep in mind or having to assemble the object after print. It might be made with or without a "fall over" cone/elipsoid shape at both ends. Or it might be made like a dreidl, having only one conical/elipsoid tip for easy printing, possibly even havign the 'stem' printed as a different object and then assembled after print. Step 3: Slicing Now, there is a pretty fair design... but what settings to use when printing it?! Infill will make it wonky, so there are 2 options: solid (100% infill) and fully hollow (0% infill). Solid is easier to print and heavier. Hollow saves (depending on surface sides) 95% or more of the material in contrast to solid but can fall victim to sagging flat surfaces or wall thickness being not the same as flat area thickness. Now, after we chose the infill settings, we need to choose some other things. We want to print fairly delicate stuff, so we should use a smaller layer height than normally (0.05 mm, for example), and better a smaller nozzle - 0.2 mm or even less, if available. This again means, calibrating the printer/material combo for these two settings (XY / Z shrinking). After calibration, finally print! The dice should be pretty ok in fairness with that, but they are still not totally fair... Extra-step: Postprocessing You might make a test for bias by floating it on a salt water layer under tap water... if you managed to get it solid enough to reduce the air inside it to make it sink between these layers. That way you can slightly sand the heavier side until it is unbiased. If you manage to print somewhat fair and hollow, you might consider filling the cavity with some kind of resin (for example epoxy) to give the objects a bit of weight. This has some caveats on its own though: you'll have to leave a filling hole and you'll have to coat the inside equally or refill it several times to ensure a complete fill as most resins shrink when curing. Also, most resins heat up in curing, though usually not to the degree it melts FDM. As you work with resin, Wear gloves as it is aggressive to skin! BUT! 3D printink can do more! Variant B: Printed Perfection FDM is home printer stuff, but maybe you have access to something more... industrial. They are tricky in their own way, and you better know what you do with them. SLS (solid laser sintering) You just need to know your material shrinking coefficients in that case... and no, you don't need to think about infill, you only can do solid, 100% filled objects this way. But you will also have virtually no air in your print. Having SLS at home is rare though. This is however likely what you get when you order printed... but remember: the SLS powder is highly hygroscopic and will need to be sealed. Also, it does turn yellowish over time if it starts white. Using reused powder to a large degree degrades print quality also. And never look into the working machine. DLMS (Direct Laser Metal Smelting) is quite new and pretty much the metal variant of SLS. If you make your dice in that way and get them almost indistinguishable from cast metal. Polish the surfaces a little, don't sniff the breath the powder and don't look into the laser. DLP/SLA (Direct Light Processing/Stereo Lithography) Printing the thing from curing resin actually is pretty much close to SLS, but it has some resemblence to FDM in parts... biggest benefit: you can make very delicate details, and your layer heights get really thin - and you have a huge array of colors to choose from. But you have to take in mind, that you might want to either make the dice solid or design them with a hole in each of the sides or corners to allow surplus resin to flow out. You get perfect surfaces and can reuse the resin for quite a bitdepending on printer and storeage, but remember: SLA is a stinky thing, never look into the printing machine & the resins are very agressive to skin, so use gloves when working with the printing and the print until properly cleaned. Variant C: Lost Print But wait, what if you don't actually print the dice but just print a positive of the dice and then make a negative mold from that? Yes, that can be done. You know lost wax casting? There you go. Here's your step by step: Print your dice. maybe even puzzle the positive together from several faces printed all in the same orientation for maximum equality in the print. Add a casting inlet and air outlet to the print. cast the positive in either a clay material or gypsum. Allow it to dry/set. Burn/melt out the positive, you get a hot and empty negative form. cast in liquid metal or a resin break mold, remove the inlets, polish some and... voila! If you are good at green sand casting, you might use that instead of lost wax casting - and reuse the positive for a second casting. Or, if you are good, you can make two-part molds that are reuseable. Variant 3b: mold it! If we can print a positive and make a mold from that, we might as well print a mold directly. We can just cast in "cold" materials then, but if you have something that can be cast that way (some resins or wax) you can make either the dice or casting sprues for lost wax casting that way. Designing here will be different on the last steps though: after doing your wanted object, use this as a "tool" to cut out from a more or less square block that surrounds it. cut out the inlet/outlet for material and air from the block. Then cut up to your liking, if you want a reusable multi-part mold. You might want to add a roove to add wire or a rubber band around the print to keep the mold together while casting. Or we go industrial with that model, grab a CNC and make the mold halves that way and give up on printing the dice... tl;dr: Know your printer, know your material, design for your printer's requirements, design fairly, maybe avoid printing the actual dice but print a positive to be molded and cast or print a mold.

preventing my printer nozzle from getting too dull, from nothing but PLA filament I had a new Extruder tip on my Ender 3 3D printer. the tip looked like the left tip in the below image. After I have been using it for about 5 months, the tip got dull/flat, like the tip on the right in the below image. The only filament I have used is a spool of PLA (from hatchbox) and a spool of PETG (from sain-smart) About the Filament From the time that I replaced the tip, to now, i have only used my 1 spool of PLA filament. I don't believe it has any carbon-fiber in it, the only other things I can think of, are that the filament has a tough time sticking to the bed, so I have to print pretty close to the bed. Image of my 3D prints using my PLA filament Image of my PLA filament I don't 3D print a terribly large amount, Is it normal to have to be replacing the pen this often? How do I prevent my extruder tip from getting dull so soon? Is there a way to prevent the pen tip from getting dull at all? Actual Images: (Sorry for all the edits, I’m trying to add the images on my phone and it’s not working)

Your extruder nozzle will wear from the inside out if you are using abrasive filaments, which include carbon fiber, wood type filaments, glow-in-the-dark and many other types. Because they are abrasive, removing material from the inside also thins the cone shape of the outside (point) of the nozzle. The solution is to not use abrasive filaments, or to use a hardened nozzle specifically manufactured for abrasive filaments, or to change the nozzle frequently. If this is a 3D printing pen as your post suggests, please clarify, as the answer is likely to change but only slightly. If this is a nozzle for a 3D printer, consider to edit your question to reflect thusly.

Any video tutorial for 3D printing I am new here and would like to work on a project to 3D print a precision prototype. What is the most affordable way to do it? How do I go about it?

[The question ask asked is vague, but since you are new it is understandable.] If you want to build a precision prototype then you have to decide on the level of precision that is necessary. There are different types of 3D printers and services available which give various levels of precision and functionality. Fused Filament Fabrication/Fused Deposition Modeling - This is typically a means of producing functional prototypes using plastic filament. In terms of precision it is currently the lest precise, but the most cost effective. Binder Jetting - This is basically crazy glue with food coloring which is inkjet printed onto a white powder layer by layer (vast oversimplification). Useful for producing prototypes with colours for product mockups but not for functional parts. This is mid the mid point in terms of price and precision. Stereo Lithography / Photo polymerization - Lasers cause a liquid resin to harden and stick to each other. Also notable for being the first form of 3D printing, this is the highest precision that is easily attainable. The cost varies based on the provider but it is usually the most expensive option. Depending on your needs you may find that it is cheaper to develop a single prototype part (just one part not an entire machine) by sending out to a contract manufacturer as opposed to purchasing a 3D printer. Here are some examples of what to do when: If you want to develop a diamond engagement ring for a customer: Send out to a contract manufacturer, for Stereo Lithography If you broke part of the cupboard and its easy to design a new one: Consider purchasing a sub $400 USD FFF machine and learn to use it. If you are developing a new line of designer sneaker: Send out to a contract manufacturer for Binder Jetting. If you are doing miniature figurines for a stop motion animation television series: Invest in a Binder Jet machine and learn how to use it. In my experience, people don't buy a 3D printer until they have held a 3D printed part in their hand or have seen the machinery in person. If you are new, start with a contract manufacturer and when you start spending so much on them that it is equaling the cost of owning a machine, then invest in your own system.

Digital vs. analog pins In the RAMPS v1.4 board, it seems like the X, Y, and Z motors all use at least one analog pin, while the extruder motors are entirely digital. See just the top left block of this photo: Is there any advantage to using analog vs. digital pins in the motors? As far as I can tell the traditional thermistors have to be have an Analog pin input because of the way they are read and processed. The MOSFETs for the heated bed and hot ends (and fans) should be digital because of the way transistors work. The end-stops are also digital because they are on-off switches. But besides that, I can't tell if there is any other requirements or advantages to using some pins in analog / digital, especially for the motors which have seemingly contradictory pin assignments. There are also three digital pins I don't recognize: MISO, MOSI, and SCK. Right now I'm looking to add 2 new motors using 8 total pins (6 Digital pins, 2 for ground). It seems to me I could use any combination of the D pin available in the image:

"Analog pin" is misleading nomenclature. Every pin is a digtal pin, but some digital pins happen to also be connected to the analog-to-digital converter and can thus also handle measuring analog signals. Every analog pin can also serve as a perfectly good digital pin. The reverse is not true; if something requires an analog pin you cannot use a digital pin. The only things that require analog pins are the thermistors, for the rest (motors, MOSFETS, endstops,...) you can use either a digital pin or an analog pin.

Filament spreading apart and stringy on first layer I keep having this issue on prints where the first layer has stringy lines that don't stick together. I've tried the following things Replaced nozzle and throat Used new filament (to rule out filament that may have absorbed moisture) Printed at 180, 200 (my usual temp), 220 Aligned z stop sensor Tried line width of 0.8 (usual 0.4) Slowed initial speed to 30mm/s Increased flow Different Top/Bottom patterns My print settings as shown in this pic are the following Layer height: 0.2 Line width: 0.4 Wall thickness: 0.8 Print temp: 200 Bed temp: 60 Retraction dist: 5.5 Retraction speed: 40mm/s Initial layer speed: 30mm/s Cooling at 20% after 0.2mm, 0% until then Printer Prusa I3 (hictop) Cura to slice Printing with PLA Have had years of successful prints, issue started happening after a couple months of not using printer Running marlin Runs auto leveling routine before each print Let me know if you think there's other relevant settings to this issue. Any help is greatly appreciated, I've been trying to fix this for days. I've tried different models, large and small, but have the same issue no matter the size

I would try two things you didn't mention; a bed leveling (this looks a little close) and an e-stepper calibration. The layer looks thin and under-extruded, and two common culprits are the bed height being too close ("oversquishing" the first layer which reduces flow rate and adhesion), and the e-stepper not feeding as much filament as the slicer's asking for (giving you thinner lines than the slicer expected, so they don't adhere to each other or the substrate). I also see problems with that kapton layer. Totally understandable, the stuff is a major pain to lay down bubble-free, however it's also absolutely necessary to do so to avoid first layer issues. That's not your only problem here but it'll keep being a pain after you have filament feeding sorted out. Lastly, I'm seeing slicer error; the floor fill is being laid down over the top of the shell layers on the right side of your image. Remember that the wealth of slicer variables in Cura regarding print speeds, flow rate, filament diameter etc ultimately boil down to a single G1 command per line: "move from here to here at this speed extruding this length of filament". So, if the slicer is forgetting where it drew the outline by the time it scripts the floor fill, it's possible it lost the plot on extrusion calculations as well. Alternately, the printer could be the one that lost the plot, either losing track of the steppers or incorrectly interpreting the G-code. Usually you just need to power-cycle the printer, close and reopen Cura and re-slice. Also, if you're printing with a USB cable, try switching to an SD card; there's less to go wrong in the communication between slicer and printer if the slicer tells the printer everything it should do up front. I'd look into each of these, then try to print a calibration shape, like a 20mm XYZ cube, before going back to the print you had on the plate before.

Bottom Layer Compression (over extrusion) - Can't get rid of it I've been trying to find a solution to a problem I've been having recently whereby the bottom layers of my print (1.2 mm; 12 layers) are either being compressed. over extruded or both. The problem results in the nozzle being dragged through previously extruded filament leaving deep groove marks and the bottom layers being risen/wavy, thus causing (I believe) the print layers to expand horizontally outwards Settings are: Anycubic Chiron 0.1 mm layer height 200 °C hotends temperature 55 °C bed temperature 40 mm/s print speed eSun black 1.75 mm PLA Cura 4.4.1 It's less noticeable on less intrinsic prints but for my latest project, its becoming a real issue. The problem is that for the square holes for the buttons (of which there are a lot), the bottom layers are extruding (essentially elephants foot-ing) which is impacting the tolerances of the build (holes should be 13 mm to accept 12.5 mm square buttons but are coming out at ~12.7 mm only on the bottom layer, I've measured the walls of the square holes and they're coming out perfectly). I've tried almost everything I can think of/find on Google: Levelling the bed (multiple times) Tried print temps from 190 °C to 210 °C (even printed a temp tower which confirmed printing at ~200 °C is correct for my filament (eSun black PLA) Calibrated the extruder Calibrated the Z-axis Set different horizontal expansion settings in Cura Reduced entire print flow rates (have tried 90 %, 85 % and 80 %); this somewhat worked but produced problems elsewhere in the print due to lack of material (skin overlap etc.) Used the 'modify settings for overlap' mesh setting to reduce infill flow & inner wall flow to 45 % and 55 % respectively for the bottom layers (up to 1.2 mm). The last point in that list is where I've had the most success but it does leave a slight indentation around the outer wall until the full flow rate kicks in (i.e. >1.2 mm) and I'm thinking there may be other things at play that are causing the issue and I shouldn't have to do this reduce bottom layer flow so much if at all. Has anyone seen this before?

The first thing that comes to mind is that, even though you have levelled the bed, the print nozzle may be too close causing too much "squish" on the first layer. Squish isn't bad as it promotes adhesion, but in your case, as you are looking for finer tolerances on the holes, it may be a problem. I use a feeler gauge and aim for 0.15 mm gap when printing at 0.2 mm layer height. Next thing to consider is ensuring you have calibrated your flow rate/extrusion multiplier. See here for detailed procedure Assuming flow rate is calibrated I can think of some settings in Cura that could affect your print. Initial Layer Flow Flow Rate Compensation Factor Combing Mode / Avoid Printed Parts Initial Layer Flow enable the use of a higher/lower flow rate in you first layer. Typically I set this to a value larger that my flow rate, 120 %, as I want good adhesion and am less worried about the elephant's foot effect. However, you could reduce it to less than your flow rate although that may compromise adhesion unless you use a brim. Flow Rate Compensation Factor For most circumstances this should be 100 % which indicates that your flow rate should be used as set and not compensated for. I would check that this value has not been altered cause over-extrusion. Lastly, there are two travel settings. Combing Mode and Avoid Printed Parts work in combination to reducing the impact of travels in the finished print. I would ensure you have combing turned on (e.g. Not in Skin) and that you have enabled Avoid Printed Parts. More details on these settings can be found here

What does it mean when they say up to 256 interpolation and 16 micro stepping for the TMC step sticks? I am planning to get a few TMC step sticks for my 3D printer. I wanted to know what does 256 interpolation with 16 micro stepping mean, in simple terms? Does it help? If so, how?

Higher microstepping numbers result in smoother movement. However, printer control boards are limited in how many steps the can generate per second - as low as 10'000 steps/s on an 8-bit AVR board running Marlin. To get the benefits of smoother microstepping, without adding load to your control board, TMC stepper drivers support interpolation between each step impulse coming from your control board, up to 256 different positions with which the stepper motor is driven. You will still have to set up your firmware for the 16 "real" microsteps, the interpolation is only done on the stepper driver itself.

How is the E argument calculated for a given G1 command? I'm working on building a tool to generate G-code (a simpler slicer), and I'm trying to calculate how much filament should be extruded per movement. Is there a standard calculation for this? Something like: layer height * flow % * extruder diameter * distance How does Ultimaker Cura calculate this?

Basically, all movements are (small) straight lines, the volume of a straight line is easily calculated as you already guessed. To calculate the volume to be extruded you multiply the following parameters: the layer height (h) flow modifier (e.g. as pertectage) (SF) extruder nozzle diameter (d) distance of the straight line (l) With this volume you can calculate how much filament you need to extrude. To get the length (thus the length defined by the E parameter), divide the obtained volume by surface area of your used filament by: π * (filament radius)2 or alternatively π /4 * (filament diameter)2 To sum up, the value of E is given by:

Ender 3 Marlin - Incorrect temperature I've updated to Marlin 2.0.7 when I set up a BLTouch and now it seems the temperature does not match the display. Before the update, I was printing with PLA filament at 205 °C and bed at 60 °C without issue. After the update, my prints are full of stringing, so I decided to lower the temperature until 180° and now it's fine. (everything above 185 °C is stringing) I've tried tuning PID but it wasn't better. So I assume my printer sees 205 °C but the real nozzle temp is higher.

When you have updated to Marlin, you were supposed to configure it carefully. This is maybe laborious and sometimes difficult procedure, but very important. Basic guidelines are described in Configuring Marlin official guide. I assume that you obviously did it, at least in some part to enable BLTouch. You should review the Thermal Settings section and update it with valid thermistors types for bed and hotend in Configuration.h: #define TEMP_SENSOR_0 1 ... #define TEMP_SENSOR_BED 1 The list of available predefined settings (numerical identifiers) is just above these #define macros. The optimistic assumption is that you know that hardware details. Popular value is 1 for EPCOS 100k (older repraps) or NTC 3950 100k, but there are many examples of troubleshooting and advices on Internet. For more exotic temperature sensors you should set value 1000 and specify own details in Configuration_adv.h. If all these settings are correct, then possibly your thermistor is faulty. There is always a chance of coincidence with some damage unrelated to last upgrades. You can follow these instructions to verify it.

Still got poor printing quality after calibrating my Anycubic Predator I've got an Anycubic Predator (aka Anycubic D). I followed the official instructions and leveled my printer. The first annoying problem I ran into is that after the auto-leveling, the level test printing shows that the printer wasn't leveled at all. I tried about 4-5 times, and finally leveled the printer (I thought I just got lucky). The second problem that isn't solved is that the prints I get are of poor quality. Shown in figure 1 and figure 2. The cube should be 20x20x20 mm, but what I got here is 19.6(x) x 20.4(y) x 20.5(z) mm. Figure 1 - X-Y (side) view of calibration square Figure 2 - Z (top) view of calibration square Does anyone have any idea about how to improve the printer's printing quality? Thanks in advance.

A few tenths of a millimeter are pretty common for 3D printed parts; these are related to the printer hardware. These inaccuracies can be exaggerated by over- or under-extrusion; e.g. if too much filament is extruded, it increases the outer dimensions (and decreases the inner dimensions of holes). The images show some signs of over-extrusion, maybe a little too hot also.

3D Printer does not print whole object Just took delivery of a massive Anycubic Chiron to my house and have been trying to get it printing successfully for supplies for fellow clinic staff. For some reason, it is only printing a portion of the test shape that Cura is putting out. I am using 1.75 mm ABS Filament, with an enclosure and proper adhesion. Attached is the preview image from Cura. The next pic shows what the printer is actually laying down, some sort of rectangular crop of the test cube and skirt. I just stop the print when I see it repeat the issue. Print settings: Layer Height 0.2 mm Initial Layer LW 110 % Infill 20 % Gyroid Print Temp 240 °C Build Plate Temp 106 °C Flow 92 % (thought there was an overextrusion issue) Speed 50 mm/s Travel 80 mm/s Initial Layer 15 mm/s Z Hop 12 mm/s Z Hop Height 0.15 mm Retraction Dist 2 mm/s Retraction Speed 15 mm/s Cooling Off Min Layer Time 10 s Skirt, 3 lines, 10 mm distance, minimum length 250 mm Retraction Minimum 1.5 mm

It looks like either the mechanical travel is constrained or, possibly you have the origin of the X-Y plane in the wrong place in Cura. Usually Cura won't even slice if it thinks the object extends past the printable area, so check the display in Cura "Layer View." If that's OK, then try using the control panel on your printer to manually drive the print head all the way in both X and Y axes. If it doesn't then the commenters are correct thatyou have a mechanical interference somewhere. If it does, then somewhere between Cura and your printer the "soft limit" of maximum excursion is set wrong. I'm not familiar with your printer model, but there should be a control panel command to "zero all axes," and typically the origin is the front left corner of the build plate (facing the printer, so "Stage Right" in theatre coordinates) .

How to center my prints on the build platform? (Re-calibrate homing offset) When I print large prints close to (but not exceeding) the maximum dimensions of the heated build platform on my Anet A8, the brim or skirt or the print itself is printed outside the heated bed, while there is some space left at the opposite sites. It appears as if the print is not in the center. Why is the print not centered on the bed?It was centered in the slicer before generating the G-code. How can I center the print to make it fit on the heated build platform?

When centered in the slicer correctly, without offsets defined in the slicer, the printer is most probably incorrectly configured! Luckily you can do something about that! Basically, you will have to calibrate the printer for a new center. Printer origin? First of all, the firmware determines where your origin of the printer is. This implies that you need to properly set bed dimensions and offset values from the end stop switches in the firmware (usually not necessary out-of-the-box, but important when a newer or different firmware version is uploaded). These offsets determine where the origin of the bed plate is located. For Marlin firmware it is very common (for most printers) to have the origin specified at the front left corner (when facing the printer). From the configuration of Marlin we find the origin is e.g. in the front-left corner. Note that this can be rotated 180 degrees in certain printers, so the aft-right. Also be aware that there are a few printers that have the origin in the center, e.g. Delta's and a few Cartesian printers. Marlin definition (edited snippet) of a common bed layout: * +-- BACK ---+ * | | * L | (+) | R * E | | I * F | (-) N (+) | G * T | | H * | (-) | T * | | * O-- FRONT --+ * (0,0) * .(-Xh, -Yh) How do I find the physical origin of the printer? This can be tested by instructing the head/nozzle to go to e.g. (0, 0, 15) using a terminal/console or a simple G-code file with a move to that coordinate that you print from SD card (e.g. G1 X0 Y0 Z15 F500); note a Z of 15 is chosen for safety!. When this is performed, the nozzle should be at the (elevated, so X, Y) origin as defined by your firmware. Usually this is at the left front corner of your build plate (there may be clips there, so therefore the elevated value), but this may be different depending on the firmware settings or firmware brand. Next step is to configure the slicer as such that this coincides with the actual origin. Incorrect slicer settings can cause the slicer to assume the origin is at a different position than your actual position. In Ultimaker Cura, the "Origin at center" is notoriously known for this when the physical origin is not in the center, but in a corner. When the slicer is properly instructed, but the origin is still not at the corner of the build plate (beware! in some printers the origin is in the middle of the plate) you might have incorrect endstop to origin offsets. Determine the offset first! To quantify the offset of the center as it is known by the printer software (firmware) it is advised to print a large square that is a few percentage smaller than the maximum size of the bed. E.g. you can create a square hull at e.g. 90 % of the dimensions of the bed (parametric designs are very useful for this purpose, see e.g. this design). There are many things (.stl models) to be found on the internet. If it includes a cross, even better as some platforms have a mark in the center of the bed. Example of a bed center calibration model Once printed, measure the distance from every edge from the build platform to the printed square. If you fail to print the square, please check the level of the platform; this is also an excellent test for the level of your bed! The measurements should give you a notion of the offset of the bed. E.g. for the X-axis you measure a distance of 12 mm on the left and 8 mm on the right (when facing the printer) you can easily deduce that the center is (12 - 8)/2 = 2 mm to the right (positive X direction). This implies that the printer manufacturer has done a lousy job by delivering you a printer with an offset bed; better said incorrectly configured in their firmware. Note this is not uncommon! How to fix this! Once you quantified the offset, you want to be sure that your next print prints in the middle of the bed. How to proceed? Basically there are a couple of solutions you can use, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. A simple solution (i.e. if the printer support this) is to adjust the position of the endstops. Alternatively you can print alternate endstop holders to match the position change as measured from the calibration print. Another simple and popular solution is applying an offset in the slicer. You could do that in the printer options some of the available slicers. If such options are not available, you could add G-code commands in the start code to create the offset (e.g. G1 X-2 moves to the left and G92 X0 resets the X origin). Note that this is a quick fix and should be applied wisely. The printer does not know where the actual center is! You merely changed if after the homing sequence. Exchanging .gcode with fellow enthusiasts with the same printer may have adverse effects. A far better solution is to fix the center in the firmware so that the printer knows the actual center. This requires some extra effort by uploading firmware (files including configuration settings) to the printer or send G-code commands. The latter option will be discussed first. A prerequisite of this method is that it requires the G-code command [M206](https://reprap.org/wiki/G-code#M206:_Offset_axes) to be supported by your firmware; note that not all 3D printer firmware solutions are able to use this G-code command for axes offset definition. E.g. the stock Anet A8 runs a modified Repetier version that does not support M206, it would be time to upload a new firmware like e.g. Marlin Firmware making this particular printer safer as the stock firmware does not include thermal runaway protection! See question: "What is Thermal Runaway Protection?". To send G-code commands to a printer you have the option to hook up your computer to the printer over USB and use a 3D printer program that support sending commands to the printer (this is called a terminal; i.e. an interface to the printer). Programs like PronterFace, Repetier-Host, OctoPrint, and probably many more have such an interface. A simple alternative that works also is creating a text file (with .gcode extension) with the commands on separate lines and executing the "print". The following codes need to be sent: M206 e.g. M206 X-2 Y2 (move center left and to the back, note to use integer values, float values are not allowed!) and store this new center with M500. The final, best solution is to set it fixed in the firmware. This requires an upload of a more recent configured version of an applicable firmware. See e.g. question: "How to upload firmware to reprap printer?". Note that there are different methods to upload a firmware to the board, it is best to search the internet for the applicable method for your board. To do that you will have to be comfortable with computer software and tools to build source files and upload binary code to the printer. This depends on the type of firmware you choose and therefore cannot be described for each firmware in detail. Various sources on the internet describe this process. Generally speaking, it requires you to set the bed and offset values/positions correctly. For Marlin Firmware this comes down to changing the settings in the configuration file, this is similar in other firmware software solutions: // The size of the print bed #define X_BED_SIZE 220 #define Y_BED_SIZE 220 // Travel limits (mm) after homing, corresponding to endstop positions. #define X_MIN_POS -35 ; used to be -33, so 2 mm shift to left now #define Y_MIN_POS -8 ; used to be -10, so 2 mm shift to the back #define Z_MIN_POS 0 #define X_MAX_POS X_BED_SIZE #define Y_MAX_POS Y_BED_SIZE #define Z_MAX_POS 240

Comparative design methods for joints that will be joined together I want to 3D-print some parts that will be later joined together along a seam. When modeling these separate parts, what are some methods that work well with 3D-printed pieces? For example, if I were doing wood working, I might choose dowel and pin joints or mortise and tenon joints or glue overlapping pieces. What methods translate well into use with 3D-printed plastics? How does the answer change depending on the orientation of the joint along the printing direction?

One of my favorite techniques is to join pieces with screws, and include a tapered feature that helps align the parts. A single screw can give a very strong joint, that is well-aligned and won't twist. Another advantage is that such joints can be printed in any orientation, since the tapered feature can be designed with 45 degree angles. Here is a cross-section example of such a joint:

How do I compute the surface & volume of a large amount of STL files? Please, how do I compute the surface & volume of a large amount of STL files ? I have over 3000 STL files, and I want to know their respective volumes and surfaces. I will use this data to be able to identify the biggest part, the one with the biggest surface, etc. I found that the fine Admesh (included in openscad, as far as I know) software that can compute the volume via command-line (powershell) and with some text editing I can get the volumes for all of these parts (needing some patience), but I didn't find any similar tool for the surface. The best tool would output such thing as: input.stl - 75.554mm2 - 45.547mm3 I'm not sure this post is adequate in here, but anyway, thanks.

You could use the Python console of FreeCAD. Issuing the following commands FreeCAD.ActiveDocument.ActiveObject.Shape.Area FreeCAD.ActiveDocument.ActiveObject.Shape.Volume will output the area and the volume of the object, respectively. I don't know how to access the console output from outside FreeCAD, but there is an option in FreeCAD called Redirect internal Python output to report view which I think is what you are looking for. You might want to look into the Scripting documentation of FreeCAD for further instructions.

ROKO bed levelling sensor I was sent my sensor (a ROKO) and I plugged it in with the pins in the wrong order, would this break my sensor? If so is there anything I could do?

I can't comment for the specific sensor you have, but in general, yes, if you plug something in backwards you have a chance of breaking it - and whatever you plug it into - permanently. You might have gotten lucky, though - but short of testing the sensor to see whether it will work there is no way to find out. Consider that these sensors are not made to be plugged directly into endstop connectors. The endstop connectors only provide 5V, whereas these sensors often require at least 6V to operate. Some people get lucky and have theirs work on only 5V, but it's not guaranteed to work. This might also be the cause why your sensor is not working, even if it's not broken. There are some special sensors out there that are rated to work at 5V, but you should check the operating voltage of your specific sensor. If your sensor requires more than 5V to operate, then you should also be aware that the signal pin might output more than 5V, in which case, it should not be connected directly to the signal pin on the board (since anything over 5V might damage the board). Finally, consider the possibility that neither orientation (backwards or not) is correct. Perhaps the order of the wires in the sensor's connector is different from that of the main board. Make sure that the pinout of your sensor matches the pinout of the connector on your board. These sensors usually have a slightly strange color coding where black is signal, blue is ground and brown is power.

Is it possible to know which is the correct temperature range and speed for any model? Trying to print a 3D model for my mobile phone, but I see that when printing the sides, being thin, increases the retraction and the recoil seems a little abrupt and makes a coarse sound. I would like to know if it is possible to know what speed and temperature is recommended to print a model. In my case I use Simplify3D, and when I'm going to save the file in .gcode format, I see that there are some ranges shown in colors, how does this apply to the models?

The first indication for print speed and temperature should be taken from the box the filament comes in. Generally it specifies temperature ranges for the hotend and the heated bed. Sometime, mostly online, more parameters can be found amongst which is the printing speed. Do note that temperature and printing speed are linked, if you want to print faster you should increase the temperature. But, if you are printing small or thin things you should print slower so that the part cools enough for the next layer. Basically, part cooling is then also important, but not all filament types (e.g. the ones with a high melt temperature like ABS or PETG) like being cooled too much. So you have another parameter to consider. It is difficult to instruct you to print at a certain speed and certain temperatures as it is highly depending on the filament (e.g. also the filament diameter), the machine type/make and model, extruder setup (direct or Bowden), the print, enclosure, etc. Because of the many parameters affecting printing, it is usually suggested to calibrate the printer by printing a temperature tower or performing retraction tests to find the print window for your specific setup.

What does the stainless steel plug do in the E3D Kraken cooler block? In the E3D Kraken cooler block, there is a big, 10 mm grub screw, along the side of the cooler block. I watched the entire Kraken assembly video: There was no mention of this very thick grub screw. The E3D Kraken assembly wiki page may refer to this part as the "stainless plug". Does the depth of the screw inside the Kraken heatbreak affect the effectiveness of the water cooling? Why was it included in the design at all? I'm asking because water frequently leaks out of this pore for me, ever since I had to repair some damaged tubing. Additionally I often have to use an extra fan when printing at high temperatures. I'm wondering, before I epoxy this grub screw into place, whether the amount it is tightened into the Kraken has some advantages or disadvantages. The video shows the part already assembled on the Kraken. This is what the part looks like - it is much larger than the screws used to secure heat throats.

The connecting channel between the two brass barbed hose fittings needs to be drilled out. To open that channel, a hole is drilled into the side to connect the two top holes (which have the brass fittings screwed into them). The hole doesn't need to penetrate both sides, but it must get through one side. The grub screw seals the hole. Instead of using epoxy to seal in the screw, you could use the PTFE (Teflon) white plumbing tape. It is specifically designed to seal threads. If I remember, you can thread it in as tightly as you like. It won't interfere with the water channel. I have a Kraken, and I looked at how to make another one.

Anet A6, Marlin 1.1.x, bed leveling with sensor probe I have an Anet A6, an SN04 sensor for the Z-axis, and Marlin 1.1.x software that has automatic bed leveling enabled. My question is (looking at the image below): "It seems my bed leveling is not working correctly. What can I do to improve it?" You can see several things below: I tried to use glue to make the first layer adhere better.. works only for small prints; the middle part of the print is being done quite okay; the outer part are either too low or too high. I used the following procedure to get my leveling "right": First I set the z-offset with the M851 command, followed by M500. Then I performed the bed leveling with G29 T, followed by M500. Then I started my print. Maybe I need more grid points for my bed leveling, even though I have this interpolation method on. Or do I need to check the implementation of the bed leveling, maybe something is just plain wrong in the software. What is your recommendation? Current bed level status (M420 V) Send: M420 V Recv: Bilinear Leveling Grid: Recv:     0     1     2     3     4     5 Recv: 0 +0.709 +0.609 +0.519 +0.456 +0.448 +0.404 Recv: 1 +0.525 +0.440 +0.370 +0.325 +0.304 +0.298 Recv: 2 +0.368 +0.282 +0.222 +0.177 +0.189 +0.182 Recv: 3 +0.221 +0.152 +0.100 +0.055 +0.069 +0.082 Recv: 4 +0.086 +0.020 -0.028 -0.060 -0.050 -0.020 Recv: 5 -0.027 -0.093 -0.138 -0.187 -0.163 -0.146

Eventually it was a mixture of things that sort of solved this. Setting the Z-offset a bit more tight helped some Probing with more gridpoints helped Instead of using glue, I used painterstape. Way easier to refresh and easier to take prints off. I wanted to try kapton tape, but painterstape was good enough for now. Manually leveling the bed to a better position also helped. (After edit) recalibrating my two z-axis motors. In the end, I think my bed has become a bit curved over time. So a final solution would be to print on a glass bed, but that was not really an option when using the SN04 sensor. I am moving now to a BLTouch sensor + glass bed to make everything perfect again. EDIT: important note, I also put off bed heating. Since I am working with PLA, it was not really necessary. Doing this allowed me to use painterstape, otherwise it would 'fall off' eventually. EDIT2: I think I have thought of a better explanation. I am using an Anet A6 and it might be because the x-axis was not parallel to the plate. Meaning that my two z-axis stepper motors were not calibrated properly.

Why keep the bed heated after initial layer(s) with PLA (or PETG)? I'm printing on an Ender 5 with the default flex/magnetic build surface. I read that PLA and PETG may sometimes be printed without any bed heating at all and also that bed heating is the main contributor to the power consumption of a printer. As I do see that bed heating definitely helps with the first layer adhesion I did not want to turn it off completely, but I did start experimenting with turning off bed heating after all solid bottom layers have printed (using the ChangeAtZ script in Cura) and so far I haven't seen any negative effects, especially no warping (I am usually printing with a brim or raft; I think that might also help in that regard). Am I missing something? Why is anyone keeping the bed heated for an entire print?

There are three reasons (I can think of): A large problem you'd face with allowing the bed to cool after first layer is you stand the chance of losing adhesion after it cools. When you heat the bed, it expands somewhat. When it cools it contracts. It has been known for parts to actually pop off the bed if left on there to cool (after a print). If you allow the bed to cool fully, you could ruin a print due to it losing the adhesion, popping off the bed, then the printer keeps on going. When you're dealing with 0.1 mm layer height, that's not a lot of wiggle room. When you level your bed before printing, it should be done after everything is heated. If you were to turn off the bed after you start printing, you could very easily shift the bed enough to take up the worth of an entire layer, which means your print has adjusted and will then have major imperfections. This isn't a given, but definitely a concern ... especially for larger or taller prints. Whether PLA or PETG, the extruded filament needs to have heat in order to stay. This is not only heat in the extruder, but heat in the print itself. If the print cools off, this could affect subsequent adhesion for the filament getting laid down. If you turn the bed heater off after print start, you'll lose that heated environment. The print will cool off and you'll start seeing variations in the print, which, if the print is large enough, would most likely be more noticable. Think of it as a heated environment, not just putting piling host plastic on top of each other. There may be other reasons, but I believe these are very good reasons not to turn your bed off after print start. If you are worried your power supply isn't providing enough power, then get a bigger power supply. If you're worried about power consumption overall, once the bed is heated, consumption goes way down (as @r_ahlskog stated in their answer).

Replacing ceramic tape on Wanhao Duplicator i3 I need new ceramic tape for my 3D printer. Does it matter which I get? Can I just get the cheapest? Is there a quality difference?

I have a wanhao dup i3 too. It does not matter a lot which ceramic wadding and / or kapton you use. The more you seal off, the better it works. If you have a full metal hotend and a powerful cooling blower and need temps above 250 celcius, you might want to do the best you can with a good padding of ceramic and kapton. For normal operation, a half-done job will do just fine. See this question too: Efficient and easy way to thermally insulate the heat block of the hotend?

Uniform squishy infill I try to print a stamp with flexible filaments. The problem I encounter is that the filament is flexible, but not soft. This leads to small differences in height to parts of the stamp not working. One solution would be to add a small 'cushion' to add some squishyness to the stamp. I designed the stamp and the 'cushion' but now the question arises: "Which infill will provide the best uniform squishyness (in one axis)?" I did a test with cubic infill of Cura, and although it becomes quite squishy, some parts are squishier than other parts of the block. TLDR; Trying to print a squishy cube, where in one axis all areas of the cube have the same squishyness.

As the rubber stamp needs to be soft in one axis for the whole area, you could use an infill that causes the same softness in all directions, but is sliced as such that the stamp experiences the same softness. Alternatively you can use the specific infill types for flexibility, but beware of the orientation: Concentric Cross Cross 3D First, to get the same softness in each direction you need to use an infill pattern that has similar/uniform properties (isotropic) in all dimensions. It is suggested to look into the infill type called "gyroid" (see question What are the advantages of gyroid infill?). This type of infill is described as: Gyroid infill is one of the strongest infill types for a given weight, has isotropic properties, and prints relatively fast with reduced material use and a fully connected part interior. Second, since the stamp has relief, slicing the part may cause different infill height. You could look into Different infill in the same part to e.g. get a solid infill for under the relief to get a uniform infill for the "cushion".

Lower Layers are messy This picture pretty much shows the problem: I print on a CR-10 and this thing is pretty much just a problem factory. Anyways, the latest problem that was never there before is that for some reason the first 2-4mm of the print are totally messed up like in the picture. That isnt that much of a problem for bigger parts (as in the right one) but smaller things such as the pi-coin (left) are absolutely useless now. Things ive already checked that haven't fixed the problem: Different PLA filament types (geetech, Janbex) Different nozzles (0.3mm, 0.4mm) Variations of smaller line withs (up to .05mm smaller) Nozzle temperatures between 180°C and 215°C Bed temperatures between room temp. and 80°C Flowrates 85% of actual flowrate up to 105% Printing speeds of 30mm/s to 80mm/s Different location on the buildplate in case that parts of the rail are worn out Cooling fan active all the time, off all the time, off for the first layers Checked bed leveling Checked extrusion -Variations of all of these things It is noticable that the first few lines are layed down perfectly but when filling out the circles (in the case of these models) the layer becomes very rough. After that every new layer just suffers from the quality of the previous one. There is also a scratching sound when the nozzle moves over the object. I slice with Cura (latest version) and Z-hop is active. I also checked the Z-rod and it at least looks fine to me. I am really running out of ideas. I even checked every screw on the printer (and found out that the x-Rail wasn't perfectly straight but that didnt fix it either). This problem occured after I replaced the entire print head with a new one since the old one kept clogging.

Referring to the scratching, this could indicate that the nozzle is a little too close to the bed. This can be caused by a non-uniform bed, but that is unlikely in your case as you have tried printing on different areas of the build plate, this implies that the bed is correctly levelled. Still, the nozzle may be too close while having a perfect level bed (easily checked by using a metal ruler on its side over the bed). You could print an adjustable Z endstop trigger mechanism, there can be a few found on Thingiverse, e.g. this one or this one, it should enable you to fine-tune the nozzle to bed distance by turning the adjustment screw; the following image shows an example: Note that a recent question has a solution that describes that the rollers had too much play on the profile.

Does anyone know the thread size (pitch and lead) of the Anet A8's lead screw? I bought a new printer, and unfortunately the left nut for the lead screw isn't tapped. Does anyone know the thread size, w.r.t. both pitch and lead, of the lead screws?

I have the Anet A8, I confirm the threads are Tr8x8(p2). This is explained as "Tr" for trapezoidal thread followed by the nominal diameter in mm. The digits after the "x" denotes the lead of the screw (how much does the nut advance per revolution). The value between the brackets "p2" denotes the pitch. This means that the screw has 8 (lead) / 2 (pitch) = 4 starts. More information on threads is found on Wikipedia.

Is my printer over extruding? I'm getting some slight pooling on the end of straight lines on my Ender-3 Is this due to over extruding? Or some other issue?

It looks like you some of your layers are printing with 100% infill. If you are noticing plastic still coming out at the end of lines then I think your pressure in the nozzle is high when it is getting to the end of those lines and that pressure is pushing out the extra plastic. That could be because your over extruding, but if it is only happening on layers where you are printing with 100% infill it could also be because lines are too close together and so when your trying to push out plastic to fill all the gaps in the model the pressure is building up in the nozzle because the gaps in the infill are to small for the amount of plastic the printer is trying to push into them. I would see if it is happening on all your lines or is it worse on layers where the printer is printing 100% infill. Then maybe try adjusting the amount the printer is extruding and see how it changes the print. Adjusting the speed could also make a difference. And some slicers have a setting to tell the printer to coast at the end of a line so the printer will stop extruding just before finishing a line as well. If you think the other setting are all tuned as good as you can get them then trying the coast setting might help for the model you are trying to print.

3d printer not printing circles correctly I am having issue with my new printer it is not printing circles correctly although I have change firmware and stepping of motor advise if anyone know the solution.

Possible causes for the printer not printing correct dimensions: Incorrect number of steps/mm in firmware settings Belts are not tight enough Pulley slips on the shaft Looking at the picture, I would go for the first case, because distortion looks regular. Try checking microstep settings on your board, and settings in the firmware.

Configuration of the Anet A6 full graphic LCD 12864 on an Anet A8 I finished fixing my Anet A8 about the 3DTouch sensor working with the LCD2004 stock display, I am installing the full graphic display LCD 12864 (for Anet A6) but when I compile Marlin 1.1.9 the following error appears: Arduino: 1.8.9 (Windows 7), Sheet: 'Anet V1.0 (Optiboot)' c: / program files (x86) / arduino / hardware / tools / avr / bin /../ lib / gcc / avr / 5.4.0 /../../../../ avr / bin / ld. exe: C: Users Claudio AppData Local Temp aruino_build_739999 / Marlin - this_feature_good.ino.elf section `.text 'will not fit in region` text' c: / program files (x86) / arduino / hardware / tools / avr / bin /../ lib / gcc / avr / 5.4.0 /../../../../ avr / bin / ld. exe: region `text 'overflowed by 1866 bytes collect2.exe: error: ld returned 1 exit status This happened after activating the Anet A6 display and deactivating the LCD2004. Obviously given the low memory I performed the flash bootloader using ANET OPTIBOOT and reloaded the firmware. If I deactivate the whole part of the 3DTouch, then the 12864 LCD display works properly, now I have 130 kbit (about 16 kB) memory left. Arduino warns me if I do not have enough memory. In this case, instead of those errors I do not know what they are for. Maybe using an older Marlin version would help?

To downsize the firmware you can manually disable a lot of less useful stuff. E.g. why have 2 pre-heating profiles for PLA and ABS while you can set hotend and heated bed manually. One of the largest memory savers is disabling arc support, G2/G3 commands aren't used by most slicer programs. From Configuration_adv.h can be found that you can save more than 3000 bytes: // // G2/G3 Arc Support // #define ARC_SUPPORT // Disable this feature to save ~3226 bytes You can probably find more features to disable to save memory, e.g. look into question "What can be removed from Marlin 1.1.9 to fit on 128K controller? I'm currently 318 bytes over", quoting: //#define SHOW_BOOTSCREEN // enabled //#define SHOW_CUSTOM_BOOTSCREEN // enabled //#define CUSTOM_STATUS_SCREEN_IMAGE // enabled //#define LCD_INFO_MENU // enabled, shows useless 'about printer' menu //#define STATUS_MESSAGE_SCROLLING // enabled, saves some flash space //#define DOGM_SD_PERCENT // disabled, show print % bar graph //#define NO_WORKSPACE_OFFSETS // Disables M206 and M428 //#define ARC_SUPPORT // enabled, used for CNC toolpaths #define NO_VOLUMETRICS // disabled, not used without width sensor? //#define SCROLL_LONG_FILENAMES #define SLIM_LCD_MENUS // Disable 'extraneous' menu items //#define SPEAKER // Disable beeper if you don't want it. //#define LEVEL_BED_CORNERS

Is there any setting that could allow me to print this overhang without support? I've been asked to print a set of this: https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2200026 I used Slicer with my default settings for my FLSun printer which includes support and 0.2mm layer height and that rail was printed as whole block with some excess which would allow me to remove the support, but that didn't work because the support simply melted with the top part of the rail. Tried again with no support and the first layer of the top part of the rail simply felt because there was nothing there to support it. Is there any configuration that would allow me to print this bridge overhang correctly? Maybe printing the rail diagonally?! Any help will be appreciated.

First of all a minor correction: the feature you are trying to print is not a bridge (which is an unsupported length of filament between two parts of the print) but rather a overhang (which is an unsupported length of filament supported only at one end). The reason why your overhang is impossible to print without support is that slicers create a shell first or - in other words - trace the perimeter of the layer you are printing. This feature, combined with the fact that your overhang is perpendicular to the part it originates from, causes the printer to try to extrude into thin air the perimeter of your rail, like this (the yellow lines are the shell, the red ones the infill): In the image above, also the infill is extruded into thin air, but this is actually something that you can change in most slicers (look for "infill pattern orientation" or something similar). One option you have is to tweak the support parameters to make it unobtrusive and easy to remove, like for example this: (The above was done in Cura, with infill pattern "lines", spaced 5mm apart and no support interface or other additional structures). Since your parts won't be subject to a great deal of mechanical stress another solution could be to change their printing orientation. In the following example, the overhangs do actually become bridges and as such should print without problems: Just consider it will take considerably longer to print.

3D printing enclosure with LED indication symbols -- is this possible? I am looking to print an enclosure, which will have a PCB inside with some LED indicators. I was wondering if it is possible to 3D print the enclosure such that the following look can be achieved? What material and technique? When LEDs are off, it looks something like this: WHen the LED turns on, it looks like this (illuminated symbols):

Achieving this with 3D printing would be quite difficult, and you might be better served by creating this effect some other way (I would personally recommend getting some inkjet transparencies and stacking a few layers together: an entirely black layer, and a few layers with the symbols in negative space). One way that you might be able to achieve this using just a common FDM printer is to print the part face down, and printing just a single layer or two that covers the entire face, and then printing more layers that cover everything but the symbols. However, those symbols look small and detailed and you might not be able to reproduce such detail.

Can RAMPS 1.4 be used for a 3D printer? I am making a DIY 3D printer on a budget. So, I came across a kit with RAMPS 1.4 with an Arduino Uno which is really a great price. But, I don't know if the RAMPS board and the stepper driver (DRV8825) which it supplies, can be used to make a 3D printer. And also will it come with average quality parts as the total amount of that kit is 2999 rupees or 40 dollars. Here is a picture if needed:

To answer your question, yes, RAMPS 1.4 can be used for a 3D printer, but note that it is an outdated platform. But... From the supplied image can be concluded that the seller doesn't have a clue what is being sold in the webshop ( e.g. incorrect naming for the shield, 3 stepper motors and 4 stepper drivers?!?). This is not a RAMPS set (RAMPS is a shield for an Arduino Mega 2560) but a CNC shield set. An Arduino Uno isn't typically the hardware used for a 3D printer (better suited for laser cutter), but you could use it. Also RAMPS itself is already outdated, there are other options for a bit more money. With a limited budget and limiting the time and frustration spent on building your own first printer from scratch it might be more economical to buy a 3D printer kit; a kit has all the parts for frame and electronics to get started relatively quick. These kits are documented, have upgrades and have proven to work and can be used to build a better 3D printer (that is exactly what I did). Note that building a printer yourself is usually not more economical, large kit manufacturers have discounts on buying parts in bulk which you don't have. Unless you are building a printer from wood/MDF and have a lot of parts readily available a kit may be a more economical solution.

Will this MOSFET allow the heat bed to run at a different voltage than the control board I am currently running my Tronxy X5s with a MKS Gen L board. So far I have not ran the heat bed over 50 degrees C since I have only printed with PLA so far. I plan to try PETG and/or ABS in the near future and I have a spare power supply 12V/360W laying around. When I first got my printer I purchased this external MOSFET board after reading about X5s "upgrades", but so far have not used it. My plan is to now run the heat bed using a separate power supply than the one running my control board using the external MOSFET to switch it. Since this power supply will only be powering the bed, I would like to bump up the voltage, via trim-pot somewhere from 12V-15V, to gain some watts per square inch on my heat bed. Will this MOSFET isolate the heat bed circuit from my control board to allow it be ran at a higher voltage? Is it safe to run the power supply/heat bed at a higher voltage than it is rated for a significant amount of time?

Short answer YES. You can run it from a different power supply at a higher voltage. Also it has a PC817 Optical isolator (for some reason) therefore the second power supply and your main board should not be electrically connected at all.

Why does my part-cooling fan cause stringing? Really strange observation with my MP Select Mini V2 printing PLA. I've printed a dual-fan shroud so I can have a dedicated part-cooling fan. I've noticed that when I turn it on, the extruder starts stringing everywhere. Little tiny spider-web wisps. No amount of temperature change will make them go away (printing at 200 °C). But if I simply turn off the part-cooling fan, I get a perfect print. This doesn't make sense to me - isn't the part-cooling fan supposed to reduce stringing by cooling the filament faster? More info: Using Ultimaker Cura 3.4.1, retraction enabled at 3.5 mm and 40 mm/s, which works great when the part-cooling fan is OFF. But when I turn it on without changing any other settings, I get stringing everywhere. Please see picture below. The part on the left was printed using the part-cooling fan and the one on the right was printed without the part-cooling fan. No other changes. The part-cooling fan is pictured in upper left (bottom fan). Why does my part-cooling fan cause stringing? Note that I print at 0.175 mm layer height, or "Normal" for the MP Mini. The cooling fan can be controlled but if I turn it completely off then the cold end part of the nozzle won't get actively cooled. Using Cura I can slowly increase the fan over the first several levels as well, but I'm worried that if the cold end doesn't stay cold it will get clogged up with melted filament. I will try some different fan speed settings and report back - currently running at 100 % all the time. I went back to the stock shroud with single fan to remove variables. The stock shroud has a small vent at the bottom where air blows over the part, but not much. I had the same problem - I had to put a piece of tape over the blow hole to get the part to print without strings. I also couldn't get the PLA to stick to the bed easily when the blow hole was open. I'm not using the heated bed in any cases - I've found I can print most PLA without heating the bed at all. I'm beginning to think maybe this PLA is just extremely temperature sensitive. The brand is 3D Solutech Printer Filament Real Black.

Prior to a move the print cooling fan causes the filament to cool on the outside while the nozzle is still hot, when it then moves it causes a strings to form that will be cooled instantly. This means that the cooling you have is too much and should be reduced. This printer has a single fan to cool the cold-end and the print through a slot with the same fan. As this fan can be scheduled, it would be recommended to create a dual fan on the carriage where you have a dedicated fan cooling the cold end at a fixed voltage, while the print is cooled by a separate fan that can be scheduled through slicer settings.

How to paint ABS to look like wood I have a piece printed in white ABS, which is a half-scale replica of an unvarnished oak sculpture. After sanding off the worst of the layer lines, I'd like to paint it to get a nice wood finish. I believe that most hobby paints should stick fine, but how should I paint it to get a nice oaky appearance? Should I do layers of different colours? Will I get better results with spray or brush paints?

I found step-by-step instructions on Instructables specific to 3D-printed parts. In summary: Sand and brush with acetone for a smooth finish (I guess the acetone vapour treatment would work as well.) Prime with plastic primer Spray-paint with a satin, nutmeg-coloured base coat Add grain with darker, acrylic paint using a fine brush

Flexible filament how to print a hollow "sleeve" I need to print a flexible, hollow "sleeve" or "cover" for an elongated part, kind of like a soft "skin" for a "finger" (see pic). I'm not sure how to approach the hollow space problem, i.e. how to print a flexible surface that is above an enclosed, hollow space. I could print supports inside, but they'd be hard to remove from inside the space, because I can't quite access all corners with a tool from outside. I could print this in 2 parts ("bottom" / "walls" + "ceiling" separately), but I'd prefer not to glue if I don't have to. Any ideas how to approach this?

Print orientation is usually the key to print with a minimum of supports. If you print this part with the sharp point down, you will get some support structures on the outside for overhang support to prevent it from tipping over, but no support on the inside.