Do aluminium PCB heatbeds reduce hotspots? TL;DR

Do aluminium PCB heatbeds suffer from hotspots as much as standard PCB heatbeds, or is the presence of hot spots smoothed over by the fact that the PCB "substrate" is aluminium, and so its thermal conductivity helps spread the heat more evenly?
Or, conversely, could the effect of the hotspots be magnified, and actually made worse?
Which has fewer hotspots, MK2A, MK2B, or MK3? (I'm not sure if this should be a separate question)

I would have also asked whether aluminium PCB heatbeds are worth the additional cost, over standard PCB heatbeds, but for the slightly less common dimensions of 200 mm x 300 mm, the costs, of an aluminium PCB heat bed, are roughly the same as standard PCB.

Some thermal imaging pictures, comparing standard PCBs with aluminium PCBs, would be appreciated.

I am keen to buy an aluminium PCB heatbed for my P3Steel v.4 printer, which has a larger build area of 200 mm x 300 mm. So, after some searching, I found this MK2A: MK2A 300x200mm Aluminum Heated Bed Hot Bed for RepRap 3D Printer 12V + Wiring + NTC 3950 Thermistor - Upgrade you Prusa i3 for LARGE Printsize, or this cheaper MK3, Anycubic Dual Power MK3 Heatbed 300*200*3mm Aluminum Heat Bed 12V/24V Perfect for Prusa i3 3D Printer.

Note: this is not a shopping question, I am merely providing a background to my questions.

While the RepRap wiki is full of information, the information can be rather piecemeal and incomplete. Cases in point being the two pages on heatbeds:

Heated Bed, and;
PCB_Heatbed.

As stated in the former link, on the section on Metal print beds, PCB based heatbeds can suffer from hotspots, and that is why, apparently, it is sometimes preferrable to use a subsequent aluminium build/print bed on top of that, en lieu of glass plate, in order to even out the hotspots, as the aluminium's greater thermal conductivity helps smooth out the hotspots, by distributing the heat more efficiently than a glass plate can. However, it doesn't describe the heating effect of just a single aluminium PCB heatbed.

The section, in the latter link, on Aluminium heatbeds, where the heating circuit is printed directly onto the aluminium, rather than a standard PCB (on a non-conductive substrate), makes mention that the print can be made directly on to the aluminium, without the need of an additional glass plate, resulting in a lighter print plate, and hence faster print speed. However, yet again, it is not particularly clear, or explicit, when it comes to heat distribution.

A thermal image of my aluminum heated bed does not show hotspots, although the edges are cooler than the majority of the center.


Printing multiple materials with different properties on the same device I have searched the internet and found various 3D printers with different advantages and materials which they can print - some even multi color.

However, I cannot seem to find a printer that can print multiple material with different properties; for instance, simultaneously printing PLA and metal. Is there currently such a printer available or in development?

Yes and no.

  for instance simultanious printing of plas plastic and lets say metal. Is such a printer available or in development ?

Practically speaking, no.  Metal printing requires significantly higher temperatures than plastic, and the two processes are so incompatible that there is currently no good solutions that would allow one printer to print both in the same print. Whether extruding filament, laser sintering, or curing resins, the materials involved have to be fairly similar in processing environment to print adjacent to each other without issue.

There are many printers that are intended to print multiple materials by changing the print head.  You might, for instance, use a ceramic paste extruder, then change the head for the next print using plastic.

There have been efforts in the past, and some efforts are ongoing, to resolve this.  For instance wood's metal, a low temperature alloy, can be poured at temperatures compatible with plastics, so it's possible to create a printer that prints plastic, leaving troughs or voids in the plastic, then the same printer during this print would pour molten woods metal into these areas, which then solidifies into an internal metal structure.  These are intended for circuitry and electrical use, however significant problems still exist because the thermal expansion differences in these materials lead to stress and result in poor reliability.

So while some of these processes are being developed, this is still just in the experimental stage and there are significant problems to overcome before printers can print widely different materials in a single printing session.

Of course you can find plastics with such a wide range of characteristics that they can be seen as printing different materials.  Plastics imbued with wood fibers, printing next to conductive plastics with graphite, printing next to flexible plastics, etc, etc are now possible, and depending on your requirements they may meet your needs.


FreeCAD to design moving parts I am trying to create a mechanism with moving parts, and would like to see how it works (whether it even works) before printing it.

For example, there's a servo with a bracket, and I would like to see how far can the bracket move before colliding with other objects.

Unfortunately I cannot find any information on how to set pivot points and rotate objects around these points in FreeCAD. Is this even possible?

freeCad has a draft rotate function in DRAFT workbench:

Select an object;
Press the Draft Rotate button, then;
Click to set the rotating point and rotate.

You will get used to that after a few trails.

There is a step by step guide on freeCad site.

There is also a short demo of the function here.


How to use an Anet A8 control board with a damaged AVR IC? This post was taken from this comment, as the OP did not repost their deleted answer as a new question.
See associated post on SE.Meta: Is it possible to attribute a wiki post to a user?

With respect to this question: Anet A8 reading 739°C from the extruder thermistor!

Having read the issue, it seems that this is a common problem for the ANET3D board.  I'd like to ask two questions:

Is it possible to sever connections to the ATMEGA and use the hardware itself while controlled with the Raspberry Pi or some other dev board?
While waiting for a new board (seems to be the only cost/time effective choice), is there any way to use the other temperature circuit (likely having to do some work in Arduino IDE)?

My hot end decided to set itself to 265°C while my bed is reading the new thermistor on the new Hot End just fine.  I need to get a few prints made while waiting on funds to replace the board for full functionality.

I figure #1 is too much to hope for, but I have to ask. So, if you swap the heater circuits, what do you have to modify in configuration.h to convince the firmware to accept the modified input?

This post was taken from Tooniis's comment.

I've been doing #2 for a week now. I swapped ports of the nozzle and hotbed. Now I have a functional nozzle but the bed cannot be heated. The new hardware should arrive soon though. As for #1, it would be very hard to do since the ATmega chip is an SMD package.

In sanguino.h there are two lines which define the pins for the hotbed thermistor and the nozzle thermistor. One of them is 6 and the other is 7, and I just swapped those two. The lines are next to each other.


Unable to load G-code in Ultimaker Cura I have generated a few 3D prints in G-code using KISSlicer and Slic3r, but when I load them into Ultimaker Cura I'm unable to get anything. The number of layers says one but I cannot see anything and print option is not working. I have viewed these G-codes online and they are fine. I'm using a Lulzbot KITTAZ with v2 toolhead (hexagon) and I can print only using Ultimaker Cura. Please tell me what the reason for this is.

Update:

Cura 2.5, and higher, does load and print G-code.

(The support was added April 19, 2017.)


How to map Cura printspace to Prusa I3 printspace I seem to be observing a couple problems w/ Cura2.3 OSX . It seems to be placing the sliced data (gcode) over to negative X by a cm or so.  Further, the X- and Y-axes displayed in Cura definitely map to Y and X when the printer starts up. I've verified that I have the printer's X and Y end stops and motors connected to the correct outputs. Now, I can just rotate my parts before slicing, but I'd rather have things be "correct" to begin with.
I've read the relevant info at question 1323, but I'd rather if possible adjust the Printer Settings for my defined printer in the Cura Preferences sub-menu. I couldn't find any description of what the "printer head" X and Y offset values mean there, nor what the "Z-gantry" value does either.
I'm running from the SD card; no USB connection.

Well, in my particular case, it helps to have the X and Y control (motor and endstop switch) plugged in to the correct ports :-( .  That took care of the X vs. Y orientation problem.

If you command "Home All" either via the LCD panel or over USB, the nozzle should sit in the front left corner of the bed as you face the machine ("stage right" for you thespians).
The link Chris T provided, ultimaker, provides helpful background information as well.

Next, if there are small offsets, find control can be set with a script similar to the following (leave out the auto-levelling command if you don't have that),
from printerbot talk forum .

M104 S{print_temperature}
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
M109 S{print_temperature} ;wait on temperature line
G29 ; Auto bed levelling
;G28 X0 Y0 ;move X/Y to min endstops
G92 X132.4 Y20; Reset actual position after G29 bug
G92 E0 ;zero the extruded length
G1 F{travel_speed}

And finally, there's a calibration file at thingiverse which prints large squares so you can see the exact offset.  I hope to get that file modded with a couple markers (indents, e.g.) to verify orientation as well as location.


Ender 3 homing problem I got myself a Creality Ender 3 and just finished assembling it and I noticed that the home position is at the right instead of the left. It also is about about 3 mm in front of the right corner.

Anyone could maybe help me to understand what is wrong?

Homing is the process where the machine finds all the limits of the 3 axis (at the endstop switches), to have a common reference point for each axis. From the endstops, firmware defined values exist to give the printer head the offset to the home position, also known as origin (X=0, Y=0). If the origin position is in front of the plate, wrong offsets may be defined, but you can re-adjust the position.

If the stepper is driving the printer head away from the endstop on a particular axis on homing (in your case the X direction), there might be a few possible problems at hand:

The stepper cables are plugged in reversed
The wires in the stepper cable are switched
The stepper direction is reversed in firmware (this is not very probable for a kit or bought printer)
The stepper motor itself is build mirrored (not uncommon mistake for Y stepper motors on the Anet A8)

A quick fix would be to rotate the connector 180° of the cable going into the X stepper, if this works, you can disassemble the cable and properly arrange the stepper wires.


How to eliminate stringing and regulate flow rate? I have been having a problem with stringing on my 3D printer, so initially I increased retraction distance from 6.5 mm to 8 mm. Then I tried again, with the same issue, so I increased retraction speed and lowered the extruder temperature. Same problem. Over and over. After I did each of these, I have since decreased move speed, increased minimum layer time, put fan on full blast, and nothing has seemed to increase print quality.

I realize this is a lot of alterations to be making, but I'm not sure what to do next. I am using 1.75 mm PLA and a Monoprice Select V2.

Stringing can be fought by increasing the retraction length, but 6.5 mm (the default in Ultimaker Cura) is already pretty much. Please do note that too much retraction can lead to sucking air into the nozzle, which can lead to air pockets/holes.

Basically there are 3 mechanisms that are in play:

Retraction
Temperature
Speed

You have tried changing multiple parameters already. You may have better luck in reducing the temperature of the nozzle even further, start with a decrease of 5 °C. All that is left to do is increasing the travel speed.

There are many stringing test prints to print to fine tune stringing.


Delamination issue Ender 3 Pro PLA I recently bought some SUNLU PLA black filament and was attempting a small print with it and it started to come out in strings and lumps and was incredibly inconsistent. Before this I'd been using some Eryone PLA and those prints were superb, been printing back to back successfully but after using the SUNLU all of my prints since have been having layer separation issues. I've cleaned the extruder, taken off the fan and cleared out the hotend of some wisps of filament, then flushed it through with some more reliable filament which looked better and replaced my magnetic bed sticker with a new one as the adhesion on the initial layer was poor even though the bed looked level. Once I replaced the sticker, the adhesion on the first layer is excellent. I thought I'd fixed the problems so tried an XYZ cube and still getting serious layering issues and the infill is thin.  Any ideas what else I could do to fix this problem? I've put slicer settings below:

Hot end temp: 210 °C
Bed temp: 60 °C
Fan speed: 100 %
Print speed: 50 mm/s

No custom modifications to the standard Cura profile for the Ender 3.
My filament diameter setting in Cura is 1.75 mm and so is my filament.

This is under extrusion, not delamination. Delamination is the result of the under extrusion.
It typically happens when the wrong filament diameter has been set in the slicer (a larger diameter than used, e.g 2.85 mm instead of 1.75 mm). Another option is that you accidentally put the printer in volumetric printing mode which is accessible through the display of the printer:
Control -> Filament -> E in mm³ -> Disable
Other solutions may be found in the extrusion process, e.g. the extruder may be skipping.


Printer fails to print a cube I'm trying to print a calibration cube from PLA using a 70 °C heated build platform on a Prusa i3 Pro W. This results in:

Please explain why it prints like this.

There are multiple issues that cause this result.

First, your nozzle is to far from the bed. This can be seen by the curly deposited filament on the build plate (I guess that is the brim or the skirt). Please properly level the bed and position the nozzle at a distance of a plain A4 paper as best as possible (should be doable as you have a glass sheet that are usually very flat as a result of the production process to make glass).

The second problem you face is layer shift. You see that the squares are printed further and further to the left, the print head does not return to original position. Layer shift is usually caused by improper belt tension or a loose grub screw of the belt pulley. This answer describes layer shifting in more detail. This question may be helpful too, the answer contains some references to layer shifting.


Is cutting the arm off the Z-axis switch a good idea? We all know (or should!) that the repeatability of common spring-arm limit switches is crappy at best.  I'm looking to build & install one of the precision height adjusters for the Z-axis limit switch, and noticed a post on some forum suggesting removing the arm and triggering the switch button directly (e.g. with a screw end).
Has anyone tried this, and if so has the repeatability of Z-homing improved any?
Edit
Sorry -- this is a stock Prusa i3, which depends on physical contact between the vertically-moving subassembly and a microswitch mounted on the frame.

While I haven't seen this on a Z axis for a printer personally, there is no reason it wouldn't work, and would improve your repeatability in theory. Removing the arm on the switch is taking away the lever. Going back to simple machine mechanics, the lever gives you a larger range of motion in which the button could be triggered, with the tradeoff that you get a larger target to hit. How much of an improvement depends on the exact switch, where the button is compared to the axis of the switch, and how long the switch is.

My Shapeoko 3 CNC router has a switch for all three end stops that do not have arms, and my Original Prusa i3 mk2 has switches without lever arms on X and Y axis endstops, so there is is no reason it won't work for your i3 Z axis, you just need to make sure you can accurately hit the small button on the switch.


Which algorithm does Marlin use to create arcs? I'm writing a paper about a plotter (I use a Prusa i3 with a custom "extruder" aka pen). And I'm supposed to write about the algorithms I/the plotter use(s). I tried reverse engineering, but since I'm not very experienced with this technique I wasn't successful.
So I'm looking for the algorithm that Marlin uses for its G2/G3 commands.

The algorithm is based on the "Vector rotation by transformation matrix", and this solution is based on a solution from Jens Geisler. The formula for clockwise rotation is:

More information about the vector rotation can be found on Wikipedia.


Can't get bed to level properly I am new to 3D printing and just purchased an Ender 3 V2 about two weeks ago. Since I've got it, I've been having trouble leveling the bed. I've tried watching videos, but they don't say how much friction on the paper is good or bad. I have even tried foil, playing cards, and a business card but still can't tell if it's good enough or not. Then when I would try printing calibration squares and adjust as it prints, but when it prints all looks good when printing the outside ring, but when it gets to the square parts there are bumps on the print from the nozzle being too close. Also when I seem to have corner perfect, when it gets to the center it's too close to the nozzle and doesn't even print. I'm using the stock glass bed so I'm not sure if that could be the issue. This is getting frustrating as I really want to start printing. And I want to save money for other parts and try avoiding purchasing a BL Touch if I don't need to. Am I doing something wrong? How can I get this resolved?
Forgot to mention, I upgraded the springs to these yellow ones on Amazon.

Step 1: stop using paper and get some feeler gauges. The gauge should be able to just barely pass under the HEATED nozzle.
Step 2: What are you using for bed adhesion? I use Elmer's white glue. After you think you've trammed (aka levelled) the bed, apply a generous layer of the glue in a coat on the bed. Let it dry.
Step 3: Verify bed level with a large square print that will cause the head to move to the outermost parts of the bed. Stop the print after a few outlines. Try to remove the print. If some areas are easier to remove than others, apply another coat of Elmer's glue to those areas.
Note: Do not hold down all four (4) corners of the glass bed. The aluminium plate is not going to be flatter than the glass. Only attach the glass to the bed on one side of the bed. I use the side that is furthest from the nozzle.


Automatic bed leveling probes outside of bed despite NOZZLE_TO_PROBE_OFFSET I just changed the motherboard of my CR-10 mini printer to an SKR 1.4 and installed Marlin 2.0.x on it. Everything seems to work except for the automatic bed leveling. I’m using an EZABL probe.

The probe is mounted to the left and slightly in front of the nozzle. Therefore I have set the probe-nozzle offset in Marlin as:

#define NOZZLE_TO_PROBE_OFFSET { -45, -12, 0 }

When I run automatic bed leveling with G29 the nozzle moves to a position where the sensor is outside of the bed (but the nozzle is inside the bed). And then it crashes down into the bed with the nozzle because the Z endstop is never triggered.

To debug I used the DEBUG_LEVELING_FEATURE in Marlin and ran G29 from Pronterface. This is what I got:

SENDING:G29
  current_position= X140.00 Y90.00 Z5.00 : >>> G29
Machine Type: Cartesian
Probe: FIX_MOUNTED_PROBE
Probe Offset X10.00 Y10.00 Z0.00 (Right-Back & Same Z as Nozzle)
Auto Bed Leveling: BILINEAR (disabled)
  current_position= X140.00 Y90.00 Z5.00 : Probe::set_deployed
deploy: 1
Probe::move_z(5.00)
>>> do_blocking_move_to X140.00 Y90.00 Z5.00
<<< do_blocking_move_to
reset_bed_level
>>> Probe::probe_at_point(30.00, 30.00, raise, 0, probe_relative)
  current_position= X140.00 Y90.00 Z5.00 :
>>> do_blocking_move_to X20.00 Y20.00 Z5.00
<<< do_blocking_move_to
  current_position= X20.00 Y20.00 Z5.00 : Probe::set_deployed
deploy: 1
  current_position= X20.00 Y20.00 Z5.00 : >>> Probe::run_z_probe
  current_position= X20.00 Y20.00 Z5.00 : >>> Probe::probe_down_to_z
>>> do_blocking_move_to X20.00 Y20.00 Z-3.00
<<< do_blocking_move_to
echo:busy: processing
  current_position= X20.00 Y20.00 Z-3.00 : sync_plan_position
  current_position= X20.00 Y20.00 Z-3.00 : <<< Probe::probe_down_to_z
FAST Probe fail!
  current_position= X20.00 Y20.00 Z-3.00 : <<< run_z_probe
  current_position= X20.00 Y20.00 Z-3.00 : Probe::set_deployed
deploy: 0
>>> do_blocking_move_to X20.00 Y20.00 Z-3.00
<<< do_blocking_move_to
Error:Probing Failed
[ERROR] Error:Probing Failed

What I don’t understand is why it says:

Probe Offset X10.00 Y10.00 Z0.00 (Right-Back & Same Z as Nozzle)

Because that is not at all the NOZZLE_TO_PROBE_OFFSET I have defined. Is there another setting related to the nozzle/probe offset besides NOZZLE_TO_PROBE_OFFSET that I have missed? Or why does Marlin get the idea that my probe is to the right and back of the probe when in reality its to the front and left?

The problem is that, although you have set the offsets correctly, the boundary limits for the probe to "probe the area" have not been adjusted. It is my belief that this is a flaw in ABL of Marlin 2.0.x. If the user has set the probe offsets, the firmware already knows that the probe area is limited!

This answer on question "How to set Z-probe boundary limits in firmware when using automatic bed leveling?" describes in detail what the boundaries of the probe are for Marlin firmware 1.1.x and 2.0.x.

Basically, you need to set the boundaries of the probe using some extra definitions in your Configuration_adv.h file:

  constexpr int nozzle_to_probe_offset[] = NOZZLE_TO_PROBE_OFFSET;
  #define PROBE_X_OFFSET_FROM_EXTRUDER nozzle_to_probe_offset[0]
  #define PROBE_Y_OFFSET_FROM_EXTRUDER nozzle_to_probe_offset[1]

When including the MIN_PROBE_EDGE this means that the area is defined as:

  #define MIN_PROBE_EDGE_LEFT (MIN_PROBE_EDGE)
  #define MIN_PROBE_EDGE_RIGHT (MIN_PROBE_EDGE - PROBE_X_OFFSET_FROM_EXTRUDER)
  #define MIN_PROBE_EDGE_FRONT (MIN_PROBE_EDGE)
  #define MIN_PROBE_EDGE_BACK (MIN_PROBE_EDGE - PROBE_Y_OFFSET_FROM_EXTRUDER)

(Since the offsets are negative in your probe setup, we need to subtract the values in order to add up the absolute value to the edge...)


How long is an extruder's/nozzle's life? I've been using a printer for several years now and I've never replaced any of my extruder hardware (nozzles, steppers, gears etc.). I was wondering how long you should expect your extruder hardware to last? Is it indefinite, or are there normal life expectancies on them?

Also, what signs should you look for, in your prints, that would suggest that your nozzle is starting to wear out?

I'm more interested in the parts that contact your filament directly - I'm painfully familiar with replacing gantry parts (X-Y belts and pulleys).

This is highly dependent upon the type and quality of filament you use.

Exotic materials such as wood, metalic, or otherwise infused plastics can potentially wear out the inside of the nozzle and at the very least leave deposits of composite material in the nozzle. This can lead to more frequent or irreversible clogs. You may also notice your prints becoming "stringy-er" (sorry for lack of vocabulary at the moment) as the volume of your nozzle reduces with more deposits sitting in the basin of the nozzle, therefore leading to lighter extrusions against what your slicer is expecting.

Lower quality materials (common ABS/PLA) can also have an effect on your nozzles life span. So can good quality filament, don't get me wrong. However, lower quality materials have a tendency to go through much more drastic material changes during the printing process than better quality filaments. For instance, a lower quality PLA may not be 100% PLA. It could have 10% Nylon, 5% ABS, 0.1% operator's BandAid, and 83% PLA. Well, the 17% of the filament that isn't PLA has the potential to clog the nozzle just as easily as the exotic filaments. This is why it's so important to verify the quality of your source of filaments.

Some signs that your nozzle may be wearing:

It simply clogs more frequently
The printed part looks "stringy" or "bubbly". The "stringy" effect is that the extruder is not extruding at a fast enough rate for the speed of the motion, which is common if your extruder is about to clog, your filament is crappy quality, or your slicing settings are invalid for your machine. The "bubbly" effect can be from an overheated extruder or another sign that your nozzle is about clogged.
Your filament begins curling around the nozzle as it initially comes out. Typically there is a burr or something that catches the filament on its way out that you can simply take a small file to grind it off, but sometimes it may be because there is the build-up of deposits towards one side of the basin.


MakerBot Replicator 1 Voltage Regulator Fix My Replicator (you know, the one made of balsa wood) has blown a voltage regulator on its MightyBoard for the second time. The first time, MakerBot graciously replaced it. However, they replaced with the same model board with no apparent fix for the commonly faulty voltage regulator. I can't afford the now $500 replacement board, so my option is to replace the faulty component and hope no further damage was taken on the board.

As MakerBot Industries did not need me to send in my old board, I've followed these steps to try and replace the voltage regulator on the old board.

I've offset the voltage regulator towards the power jack, jumped the remaining pin on the voltage regulator to the remaining lead on the board (where the old voltage regulator was), but I'm confused what/where the green wire does/goes (mine is blue on my machine). The image looks like he just soldered it onto the heat sink pad.

I tried to test it by plugging in the power and the RGB LED strip. The stepper motor driver LEDs turned on, but the LED strip and none of the other on-board LEDs turned on. I'm not very seasoned when it comes to electronics, so can anyone explain what the actual pinout should be or suggest other ways to resolve this issue?

Update: Old Board Replacement

So far I've replaced the regulator on my old board with some success. Before the replacement, the board wouldn't turn on (on-board LEDs wouldn't turn on). Now, all of the proper status LEDs turn on, but the board seems to be stuck in a boot sequence. The LCD screen provides two lines of block characters (as it normally does when initializing), but just hangs up there. I tried connecting the machine to my PC to try and restore the board to factory settings and install the latest firmware. However, the PC couldn't find the machine and I began to smell a bit of burning. I'm not sure if this is a result of permanent damage from the original regulator failing, or improper installation of the new regulator.

I'm going to dig around a bit more before attempting this fix on my main board. I'll edit this post as I continue the project.

Update: New Board Replacement

So, I've now attempted the fix on the newest board (the reason for this question). The results of this board are the same as the old one. I actually get power on the main board, but the LCD screen just shows two solid lines. I've taken pictures of what I've done.

What's the part number of the regulator you're putting in? The pin assignments vary from one part to another, but you can probably find them from the part number online. Some parts have the ground pin also connected to a metal part of their case. The green wire from the board should be ground (no promises!)

Assuming you've got a voltmeter, you can use it to find out which pins on the board are power and ground (easiest to do before the regulator is installed...). Then once installed, check that you're really getting 5V versus ground on the remaining (output) pin.

Since 2 of these burned out on you, I suggest taking steps to reduce the strain on the regulator. Voltage regulators turn the excess power into heat. Some things that can help:

Use heat sink grease to conduct heat from the regulator to the circuit board, the adjacent socket, etc. Hot melt glue, as the instructions you linked to mention, won't likely provide as much heat conduction.
Attach a heat sink to the regulator, or a bigger heat sink.
Get more air blowing across the regulator. You could do this by moving the regulator slightly, adding a fan, adding something to redirect some air onto the regulator, etc.
Swap in a bigger voltage regulator (that is, one rated for more current)
Turn down the voltage just a tiny bit on your power supply (if it has a control for that; many do).

Let us know how it turns out!

Steve


What nozzle size should I use for filament containing glitter? I recently had a series of issues with my prusa MK3 that kicked off when I tried to print with Proto-pasta's glitter filament using a 0.4 mm nozzle. The glitter clogged up and cleaning it out was pretty difficult.
A different user here pointed out that 0.4 mm was too small for glitter filament. When I initially read (and, after the clogging fiasco, re-read) the Proto-pasta website I didn't find any information suggesting that a larger nozzle borehole diameter was necessary.
I have the glitter and metalic green filaments. Do I need a nozzle with a larger diameter to print these or not? I emailed Proto-pasta about it the other day but have yet to hear back.
Update
Here's the reply I got from proto-pasta on these questions:

Thank you for following up. Yes cold pulls that leave behind material can cause all sorts of trouble. It happens to me on the Lulzbot quite often, probably my biggest gripe about that machine.  Anyways, on to your questions:

Is this accurate? Should I print the glitter filament with a nozzle with a larger borehole diameter?
A larger bore is not needed, the glitter flake is quite small and flows through a 0.4 nozzle fine. However, using a 0.4 nozzle and printing layer heights of 0.1 or 0.05 with glitter can cause a shift in apparent color as it forces the glitter to lay down flat.

If so, what diameter should I use? 0.6?
While not needed, a 0.6 nozzle does allow for a better sparkle or shine from the glitter filament.

Are there other proto-pasta filaments that require a larger borehole?
Generally any metal or wood filled filament benefits from a large nozzle size. For example, wood filaments most people suggest a 0.5 for better flow but they do work at 0.4. For us, we like to use 0.6 on the metal fills as it allows for a good flow.

I have a spool of matte fiber htpla that I got with my last order. Can I print this with my nozzle?
The matte fiber was designed as a non-abasive alternative to the Carbon Fiber filament. It does not require a larger nozzle, a 0.4 will work just fine.

Fact is that you encounter clogs with this filament, so trying a larger diameter nozzle is an option to solve this. Nozzles are very cheaply found in various sizes, so buy a few and experiment. Commonly found larger nozzle sizes are 0.5, 0.6 and 0.8 mm nozzles, even larger nozzles exist, like e.g. 1.0 mm or even larger, but keep in mind that the hot end needs to keep up heating of the extruded filament, so deposition speed may need to be reduced for larger nozzle diameters.

Alternatively, you could fight clogs the usual way by playing with temperature, layer height, retract settings, oiling filament, purging nozzle from previous filament or cooked up residue, etc, etc.

Quoting someone's experience:

  As far as differences, here has been my experience:

  0.5 mm low back pressure (High speed), and very hard to clog,
  0.4 mm medium back pressure, rarely clogs,
  0.35 mm high back pressure and very easy to clog.

Edit: According to Proto-pasta, concerning filament with glitter, a 0.4 mm nozzle should not be a problem as the glitter particles are smaller, the print layer thickness definitely can be a problem. However, they state that a larger diameter nozzle will result in more sparkle as the glitter is not laid too flat.


Z axis at print is lower than when I home I replaced the controller board in my Monoprice Select Mini with an Arduino/Ramps setup and compiled an uploaded Marlin 1.1.0-RC8 to run it. I've got most everything calibrated and working with one exception.

I tell the printer to home for xyz and then level my bed with a piece of paper then start a print and the nozzle consistently drops too far down into the bed and nothing can extrude. If I adjust the bed and put 1-2mm gap between the nozzle and bed then it prints fine.

I can't find anything in Marlin to adjust for this and I'm kind of stumped. I'm printing the original cat gcode that came with the printer that should just work fine as it always has and shouldn't have anything that a slicer would put in there to screw things up.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?

This is the output of M503

Send: M503
Recv: echo:Steps per unit:
Recv: echo:  M92 X93.00 Y93.00 Z1097.50 E99.00
Recv: echo:Maximum feedrates (mm/s):
Recv: echo:  M203 X300.00 Y300.00 Z5.00 E25.00
Recv: echo:Maximum Acceleration (mm/s2):
Recv: echo:  M201 X3000 Y3000 Z100 E10000
Recv: echo:Accelerations: P=printing, R=retract and T=travel
Recv: echo:  M204 P3000.00 R3000.00 T3000.00
Recv: echo:Advanced variables: S=Min feedrate (mm/s), T=Min travel feedrate (mm/s), B=minimum segment time (ms), X=maximum XY jerk (mm/s),  Z=maximum Z jerk (mm/s),  E=maximum E jerk (mm/s)
Recv: echo:  M205 S0.00 T0.00 B20000 X20.00 Y20.00 Z0.40 E5.00
Recv: echo:Home offset (mm)
Recv: echo:  M206 X0.00 Y0.00 Z0.00
Recv: echo:Material heatup parameters:
Recv: echo:  M145 S0 H180 B70 F255
Recv:   M145 S1 H240 B110 F0
Recv: echo:PID settings:
Recv: echo:  M301 P26.15 I2.74 D62.35
Recv: echo:  M304 P231.09 I45.21 D295.34
Recv: echo:Filament settings: Disabled
Recv: echo:  M200 D3.00
Recv: echo:  M200 D0
Recv: ok

I also wanted to test whether the nozzle is actually moving closer. I did a G28 and manually put a piece of paper's width gap between the nozzle and the bed at all points. Then I started a print with no filament but with the sheet between the nozzle and bed. When it got to temp it homed all the axis and moved the nozzle to the first position. I would expect the paper to maintain the same gap but it tightly presses into the paper. The first gcode move that includes the Z before extruding is :

G0 F3600 X42.228 Y46.985 Z0.3

Which you would expect would put even more space between the nozzle and bed for the first .3 layer of filament but it isn't.

I printed directly from the SD Card to hopefully rule out Octoprint running gcode before the print so I really think the culprit is Marlin at this point.

I found the issue. When the hotend and bed are at temps for PLA everything works fine but at temps for ABS the Z offset would get all messed up. After a bunch of testing I was able to track it down to a single gcode statment G1 Z15.0 F6000
At the higher temps my Z stepper skips steps at that feed rate.

The "Custom FDM printer" machine settings I used for my printer in Cura had that statement in it and so did the cat gcode that was on the card from the factory. I changed the feed rate to 200 and was able to print in ABS.

I was surprised Marlin didn't have a 'limit the feedrate for Z to this number' setting.


Resin printer build plate scratches/ damage I have an anycubic photon, and occasionally have trouble removing prints from the build plate. While trying to removing prints I've put some scratches into the surface, as I guess I've come in at the wrong angle trying to get under and leverage the print.
Typical examples I've seen of people removing prints, they appear to come at it hard with a blunt edge. I've come across scrapers that are blunt and some with a sharper edges.
I've put a bit more a ding into my plate today, using a scraper with more of a blade edge for a difficult to remove print. I had used the same scrapper before with great success, as it slide right under and I could leverage the print, but struggled with it today and scratched up my plate.
I haven't come across much discussion on this so thought I'd ask about scratches to the build plates.
Are scratches to the build plate something to be concerned about, is it something that it expected when removing prints?

One of the resources I've found is a forum with a discussion of the impact of scratches.
The general consensus is that scratches are not a problem, as long as there are no burrs above the surface of the plate that would damage the bottom of the vat. One posting party has used 36 grit on a palm sander followed by scotchbrite pad to resurface his plate, but one takes the risk of creating an out-of-plane surface.
A better method to sand a plate would be to place the sandpaper on a glass surface or something equally flat and planar and pass the build plate repeatedly over that.
Another aspect of the discussion was that scratches are good, as the rough surface provides a better bond to the resin.
You're likely to note that your build plate is not a polished smooth surface for the same reason.


Under extrusion... sometimes You can see small gaps in the print which looks like under extrusion (see image below).
What is the reason for that?

I've tried smaller retracting distances. Temperature looks stable.

Print settings:

PETG from Extruder
245 °C Printing temperature
50 mm/s print speed
25 mm/s wall speed
30 mm/s retracting speed
1 mm retraction distance -> stringing...
Print cooling fan is enabled

Setup:

E3D Titan Aero
Duet Wifi
1,5 A Motor current for feeder motor
250 mm/s2 feeder max acceleration

Slicer:

Ultimaker Cura 4.0

Here's your problem:

  1 mm retraction distance -> stringing...

If you have stringing, that means that material that was supposed to end up as part of printed lines instead ended up somewhere else, leaving less material (underextrusion) where it was actually wanted. This particular test piece may not exhibit stringing, but it's likely that it occurred interior to the piece, in the infill region. Contrary to widespread(?) opinion, stringing here is not harmless. It's just not visibly ugly. But it still messes up the surface quality, and even more importantly the strength, of your print.

You don't say if your printer has a bowden extruder or direct drive. If a Bowden, the 1 mm of retraction is virtually useless; a typical Bowden system has more than 1 mm just of compression between the extruder gear and the hotend, meaning that retracting by 1 mm does not pull the filament back out of the hotend at all, and doesn't even relieve all the pressure that's pushing melted material out. I would recommend an absolute minimum of 5 mm for Bowden type extruders, unless your printer firmware has linear advance (Marlin 1.1.9+ or comparable features in other firmware) in which case you might be able to reduce it some. For direct drive, I don't have experience, but 1 mm is still probably too low; 2.5 mm is the believable recommendation I've heard.

In addition to retraction, you can further reduce material loss to stringing/oozing in the infill region by turning on Ultimaker Cura's "Zig-zaggify infill" option, which helps avoid in generating travel without retraction over unprinted area within the infill zone (see e.g. this issue). Turning slicer setting "combing" to "off" is an even more extreme option here. Of course make sure retraction is really on (not "retract at layer change", which is a separate, mostly useless option) and make sure "retraction minimum travel" is set low (something like 150 % of the nozzle width or less) to prevent retraction from getting skipped on short travel moves.

I also just noticed you wrote:

  I've tried smaller retracting distances...

This was probably based on erroneous advice. Reducing or eliminating retraction does not mitigate these sorts of problems; it creates them. The only reasons to reduce retraction distance are to fight problems with the extruder gear grinding down the filament after repeated retraction, and problems with jamming the path into the hotend due to pulling molten material back into the cool part where it then solidifies and jams. If you're not having such problems you should not reduce retraction. If you are having such problems, you should try to fix them in other ways that still let you keep the necessary amount of retraction not to have catastrophic print quality problems from material coming out in the wrong places.


Creality CR-10 extruder clicking and/or nozzle clogging So I am fairly competent with 3D printing, but this problem has got me stumped. I use a Creality CR-10 and I hadn't printed anything off for quite a while (maybe 5 or 6 months?) and I just recently starting printing again. I got a roll of somewhat cheap, but highly reviewed, filament that I have had for around a year that had just been sitting in a cupboard and went through the process of levelling and setup before starting a print.

I started to print a model and left it, expecting it to work as it usually does, but came back later and it had failed halfway; it stopped clean with no spaghetti or continuous extrusion. I started the print again and watched it for a few layers to make sure everything was working fine, and found that it printed the first layer off perfectly fine, but as soon as it started the second layer the extruder gear starting making a clicking noise like it was slipping and the filament wasn't being extruded any further.

I thought this could be because the extruder gear was worn, as it is only brass, and the teeth weren't biting the filament, so I bought a steel one and replaced it; but it's still clicking. I then thought it could be because the nozzle was getting clogged, so I took off the hotend and cleaned it thoroughly but that didn't fix the problem; even if this was the case, it wouldn't make sense that it is regularly completing the first layer before getting 'clogged'. I also tried printing at hotter and cooler temperatures, with and without the heated bed, and printing at slower speeds, but all of these attempts fail to fix the problem.

I did have a brief thought that it COULD be a problem with the model or gcode, as I did print of a spacer for the spring in the feeder which printed off without any clicks, and I also printed off a smaller version of my model (33% scale) which  made the clicking noise intermittently and was affecting the filament but printed off fine in the end after I left it.

My final thought is that it could be the filament, as it isn't exactly new or expensive and was left for over 6 months, but before I buy a better roll I want to know if this is a viable reason for the clicking and slipping in the extruder. If anyone could help me out of give me any solutions I would be incredibly grateful. Thanks.

These are all my current settings in Slic3r:

Turns out the filament was the problem, I tried printing a model with a high quality sample PLA filament I had and it printed perfectly; one of the cleanest prints I've had. Never skimp on filament.


3D printer calibration test STLs? Is there any well-known test set of 3D models that I can print out which will clearly show up the problems I need to work out in calibrating my 3D printer? Ideally, it would be either one or multiple models which shows the point at which overhanging starts to fail, points at which stringing occurs, the accuracy of one layer over another, and maybe edges which are supposed to be a particular length.

Yes.

There are more test models one can download than would be possible to list here. A search on Thingiverse results in pages and pages of useful models. A common model for testing is called the 3d Benchy, although it is not particularly parametric. Overhangs, retraction, layer alignment and other aspects of your printer are tested with this model.

Another option is to purchase a set of test models from 3dkitbash.com:

QuickPrintTests

The models lists as such:

#3dk01 - Voids
#3dk02 - Spikes
#3dk03 - Flex
#3dk04 - Edge
#3dk05 - Text
#3dk06 - Bridge
#3dk07 - Dissolve
#3dk08 - Ball Joint
#3dk09 - Hinge
#3dk10 - Columns

which are more specifically defined for testing your printer. I would expect that Thingiverse and other model-sharing sites would have similar designs available to meet your specific requirements.


Replacement teflon (PTFE) liner For Dremel 3D45 I had filament on my 3D45 coming out of threads on the nozzle.
To fix this I removed the nozzle to find the PTFE Liner in really bad shape. It looked crushed and deformed. Now the tough part, how do I replace the PTFE Liner. You can't seem to buy the liner and getting a replacement nozzle assembly from Dremel takes weeks. Can anybody help me figure this out please, I really would like to get back to printing!!

The initial problem you had with filament coming out of the threads at the nozzle is caused by improper seating of the heat break to the nozzle. In a "from the ground up" installation, you'd have an empty heat block, containing your heater core and your thermistor. Threaded into the "bottom" of the block is the nozzle, just a turn shy of being flush with the heat block. The heat break is the thin threaded segment extending from the heavily finned heat sink.
The heat sink/heat break combination is threaded into the heat block until it contacts the nozzle, at which time, the nozzle is snugged into place securely. This keeps continuous the filament path from the heat break to the nozzle. Somewhere in time, a gap opened between the two.
When you have assembled everything (including the PTFE liner), you'll want to heat the extruder assembly to about 250 °C and re-snug the nozzle to the heat block and heat break. Hold securely the heater block, as you do not want to apply force that will snap or otherwise damage the fragile heat break. Use a wrench that fits the heater block without contacting the wiring. Use a wrench that will keep your fingers safe, as the heat block will be hot.
Stepping back in time a bit, when you remove the assembly, you should be able to determine the necessary length for the PTFE tube. I checked the manual for your printer and it is lacking in detail for this information. The diameters you've specified are standard and you should be able to locate a suitable substitute from many online sources. Amazon, Matterhackers, eBay, etc.
Examine the heat break tubing. The diameter should not be so small as to allow you to push the PTFE tubing in from the heater block side, unless you have an unusually manufactured product. Dremel may have decided to create a new bit of engineering, but I'd expect not.
You'll purchase more PTFE than required and examination of the upper portion of the heat sink should give you a clue how much to use. When the cover of the extruder assembly is removed, is there a guide for the filament to make it easier to push through the PTFE tubing? If so, the length of the PTFE is from the bottom of the guide to the bottom of the bore of the heat sink/heat break assembly.
Photos of the upper entry to the heat sink/heat break, with the cover removed, would be useful, but you may have sufficient resources in hand to resolve your problem, once you replace the nozzle and purchase PTFE tubing of the correct size.


Printer LCD controller required when using a Raspberry Pi + LCD? When using a Raspberry Pi and an LCD to run the printer, can the LCD controller that comes on the printer be removed or does it need to be used also?

No, when you run the print jobs from a Raspberry Pi, e.g. using the OctoPrint print server, you do not need the display of the printer as you can control the printer from the Pi screen or from a browser of any other device. Do note that not all functionality of the LCD controller is built-in in those printer servers, but you normally have a terminal to interface using G-code with the printer, or you can make macros to do that.

In some cases it might be handy to leave it on the printer for small adjustments, homing an axis, or feeding some filament; it saves you some time opening a browser to control the printer when you operate the printer remotely and allows to troubleshoot the machine manually.


Getting a Cura Raft to stick to the object more firmly (for ABS) I have been have a problem printing ABS with Cura on an Ender 3.

I am getting good bed adhesion on the raft, but the object on top of the raft easily curls off it. See photo below.

Settings:

Bed 110 °C
Nozzle 260 °C
Fan 0 % speed

How do you control how strongly the raft adheres to the object in Cura?

You should reduce the air gap option called "Raft Air Gap". Printing ABS optimally requires an enclosure of the printer, wind and draft cause temperature changes which could lead to layer separation.


Ramps 1.4 and extruder I have ToyRep printer (RepRap), with RAMPS 1.4 on the board. And I am powering in from ATX power supply with 12V. And the problem is it doesn't heat to 230(for ABS), max value was 173 degrees by Celsius. Is it bad extruder or not enough power?

Make sure that your heating device (resistor) is for 12v, not 24v (resistance is < 10Ohm)
Check if the temperature readings that you get in your system are (at least roughly) the same as actual temperature (thermocouple with multimeter or any other device that can measure ~200C will help)
Check if connections are good enough. Low voltage at hotend is an indication of possible problem. ATX power wires are often too thin to transfer enough current. Consider replacing them with at least 2.5mm2 (AWG 14)


Material extruded to prime the nozzle doesn't stick to bed at first When the material is extruded to prime the nozzle before the print starts it doesn't always stick to the bed for the first 20 or 30 mm of the line, causing the material extruded just after to peel off the bed as it is pulled up by the nozzle, eventually it does stick down to print a line but the parts that are not stuck to the bed can get caught by the nozzle as it comes back down to draw the second part of the line, this then ruins the first layer of the print of the actual model. On the occasions where the material does not get caught by the nozzle, there is stringing between the nozzle and the end of the line which itself can cause the first part of the bottom layer to have problems.

should I include a retraction after the priming has finished as it travels to begin the print or would this cause under extrusion of the start of the model thereby defeating the purpose of the priming in the first place.

The gcode that makes the nozzle prime at the beginning of the print is as follows:

; Ender 3 Custom Start G-code
M104 S{material_print_temperature_layer_0} ; Set Extruder temperature
M140 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0} ; Set Heat Bed temperature
M190 S{material_bed_temperature_layer_0} ; Wait for Heat Bed temperature
M109 S{material_print_temperature_layer_0} ; Wait for Extruder temperature
G28 ; Home all axes
G1 F1800 E-3 ; Retract filament 3 mm to prevent oozing
G29 ; BLTOUCH Mesh Generation
G92 E0 ; Reset Extruder
G1 Z5.0 F3000 ; Move Z Axis up little to prevent scratching of Heat Bed
G1 X0.1 Y20 Z0.3 F5000.0 ; Move to start position
G1 X0.1 Y200.0 Z0.3 F1500.0 E15 ; Draw the first line
G1 X0.4 Y200.0 Z0.3 F5000.0 ; Move to side a little
G1 X0.4 Y20 Z0.3 F1500.0 E30 ; Draw the second line
G92 E0 ; Reset Extruder
G1 Z5.0 F3000 ; Move Z Axis up little to prevent scratching of Heat Bed

I am using an Ender 3 running Marlin 1.1.9 with BlTouch Auto Leveling, With slicing done by CURA 3.5.6

Any suggestions you have for how to stop the priming problems will be greatly appreciated.

Have you tried using a raft

I had the same issue on my mini delta when I first started printing with it. After checking and double checking the bed level I ended up discovering that using a raft base in Cura solved the issue.

It does use more plastic however I have had absolutely no issues with respect to sticking in the dozen or so prints since then.

Additionally it makes removing the print from the bed really easy as I'm not worried about damaging the print with a scraper.


Are the Makerbot 5th generation's initial issues resolved I am considering buying a 3D printer for work (scientific research). On paper, the Makerbot 5th generation seems to be the best option, because the price is right for my budget, and also because I'm generally pretty busy, so I want something that's as close to "plug and play" as reasonably possible. This will be my first 3D printer and I have no prior experience with the technology.

However, any search for "Makerbot" brings up a raft of negative reviews from around the time of the 5th generation's first release, which mostly focus on issues with the smart extruder constantly failing and needing to be replaced under warranty. Many of these reviews point out that this may be an initial "teething" issue which might be fixed in later versions of the model, but now, one year later, I'm unable to find any information about whether this was indeed the case.

So: are the initial issues with the Makerbot 5th generation's smart extruder generally considered resolved, or is it an underlying flaw of the model that won't be fixed until the next generation?

I imagine that people might want to suggest alternative models in the same price range. That would be welcome, but I have an extra constraint, which is that I can only buy models that are available in Japan without a long delivery time - this probably limits my options quite a bit.

Makerbot claims the problems are fixed. I have heard from a number of resellers that the problems are fixed. Unfortunately, both of those are somewhat biased sources. It's surprisingly hard to get good info on the subject -- very few credible people are talking about recent experiences with the product line.

Issue #1: The main surviving user forum (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/makerbot-users) has had the torrent of people reporting 5th gen issues more or less dry up. There ARE still people posting issues, but at a fairly low level that is not far outside what you would expect for an average hobbyist printer. What we DON'T know is whether the flood of complaints has slowed because they're working better, or because very few people are actually buying them any more.

Issue #2: The power-users and community leaders that typically evaluate and review 3d printers are all avoiding the 5th gen line like the plague. Makerbot burned up a lot of community good-will by going closed source with the Replicator 2, and lost more good-will through a series of misunderstandings over patent applications and the Thingiverse terms of service (Takerbot scandals), and put the nail in the coffin by knowingly releasing a non-functional 5th gen product line. Very few credible people are willing to give them a chance at this point, so there is a severe shortage of unbiased reviews.

Issue #3: Makerbot has a proven history of buying off journalists and reviewers to get positive 5th gen press. Some verifiable examples:

Hundreds of fake 5-star Amazon reviews from paid review accounts. A relevant analysis: http://www.amazon.com/review/R2JI8LRRXZYNX1/ (Not verified, but related: a widely-believed rumor states that the German Amazon site actually wiped all of Makerbot's 5th Gen reviews because of blatant tampering: http://www.amazon.de/MakerBot-MP05825-Replicator-5th-H%C3%B6he/dp/B0183TP806/)
The CES awards initially given to the 5th Gen line were given before Makerbot had functional firmware. None of the 5th Gens at the CES launch were functional. All demo prints shown were made on Replicator 2s. How could a non-functional product win awards? Not hard to figure that one out.
Historical positive press in the 3DP journalism media (3ders, Make Magazine, etc) has been directly proportional to the volume of ad-buys from Makerbot or the parent company Stratasys.

I could keep going, but you get the idea.

So it's hard to evaluate the reality of the situation. But even IF the Smart Extruder issues are truly all fixed (jams, leveling issues, thermocouple connection, filament encoder failures, etc), there are still meaningful problems with the product line.

The print quality is not impressive. The motion mechanics, which have not been appreciably changed to my knowledge, are not great. The Smart Extruder is basically a giant pendulum wobbling off the side of a non-optimal gantry selection of an H-bot architecture. Makerbot has addressed the floppy construction via firmware tweaks to significantly slow down the machine to give marginally-acceptable print quality. According to most reports I have seen, a Replicator 5th Gen will print significantly slower than a Replicator 2, for example. Expect in the neighborhood of perhaps 30-40% longer print times than comparable printers.
The price tag is roughly double or even triple the current market price for the size and print quality output of the machine. There are so many great printers on the market now for significantly less money that it's kind of nuts to drop the cash on a Makerbot.
It is marketed as a PLA-only machine. That's fine if you're printing art and trinkets, but it's not a great option for mechanical parts. While you CAN print other materials, this is not technically supported.
The support plan structure has quite frankly become abusive. Makerbot used to have really helpful phone tech support, but the crushingly massive volume of 5th gen troubleshooting requests forced them into a paid tech support model. Around the same time, Makerbot shut down their user community forum and deleted links to external technical resources off their website. So unless you know the right places to go, support is scarce. For official tech support you must buy "Makercare" or pay for each help ticket. This is completely out of line with industry norms for a hobbyist/consumer 3d printer. They essentially took their biggest liability -- unreliable printers -- and tried to twist it into a profit center. I personally think this is a significant reason to avoid the company entirely.

Is it possible to get good results from a Replicator 5th Gen? Sure. But it's a poor value for the cost, from a company that has spent the last few years systematically driving away its former loyal user base. I would recommend staying away until there's some significant change in the product line at minimum.


Is Arduino Due a worth buy as controller electronics for deltabots? Over the times I hear people saying delta inverse kinematics push atmega2560 to limits. I see in my local supplier Arduino Due and RAMPS-FD is the cheapest 32bit alternatives. But there's not much documentation on it so any opinion or personal experience are welcomed.

is it really 2560 based electronics so laggy that printing quality is compromised?
does Marlin4Due has a good support for auto calibration?
anything else to caution against besides a ramps1.4 is a no-no?

(I'm planning my first delta. 2560 seems to work perfectly with my previous xy bots though. )

An 8bit Atmega can provide bare-bones delta performance with Marlin (eg 40mm/s print speed) or pretty good performance with Repetier (due to more optimized algorithms). For a small and simple delta like a bare-bones Mini Kossel, 8bit may be fine. If you want to do high-speed printing or use any of the fancier features, you should go with 32bit.

The big issue with 8bit comes up when you want to do something that taxes the MCU. Delta kinematics already add a lot of extra math on top of all the normal printer functions like command parsing, motion planning, and heater control. For example, adding any of these to an 8bit Delta can cause issues:

Bed tilt compensation "auto-leveling" -- the coordinate space rotation transform adds a lot of extra floating point calculations to every movement segment. That really taxes the 8bit Atmega since it does not have native floating point support. (Note that pre-print auto-calibration such as in the RichCattell Marlin fork is not the same as bed tilt compensation and does not add any run-time processor load.)
Full graphics LCDs -- refreshing the LCD screen for animations and status reports takes a surprising amount of horsepower. 8bit Marlin is widely known to suffer from stuttering and print quality issues when running a GLCD on a delta.
Highly faceted (smooth) curves, particularly over USB -- the high rate of gcode command processing sucks up a lot of clock cycles, particularly in firmwares that run USB comms as a top-priority interrupt.

What the Due (or other 32bit board option) does for you is de-bottleneck the MCU so you can push the printer harder or utilize features that add processor load. Here's why they're so much better:

In simple clock speed terms, the SAM3X8E in the Due/Duet/Alligator/etc is about 5 times faster than the Atmega 2560, and the LPC1769 in the Smoothieboard/MKS-SBASE/etc is about 7 times faster. But they're actually MUCH higher performance than clock speed alone would suggest, because the 32bit architecture and native floating point support mean far fewer clock cycles are required for complex calculations.
They also have more RAM, meaning the the firmware can manage more features and look farther ahead when motion planning.
They also have more program space, meaning the firmware can, if desired, be compiled as a single full-featured build that covers all possible printers (as RepRapFirmware and Smoothieware do) and thus end-users don't have to edit and compile code in the Arduino IDE to configure the firmware. The Atmega line requires hundreds of conditional compile statements in the firmware to exclude unused features from the binary to get the memory footprint down.

All that said, the switch from an 8bit Atmega AVR to a 32bit ARM Cortex-M3 is still just an upgrade from a late-1990s processor to an early-2000s processor. Neither is "modern" by any stretch. (For example, the BeagleBone Black used by Redeem and MachineKit utterly blows away the Due in processing power and memory. But those options have steep learning curves at the moment.) The Due can still be bogged down by printing very fast with lots of features enabled. It's a big upgrade on an Atmega, but I predict it's going to be replaced by much faster controllers within the next few years. Announcements of upcoming next-gen controller boards are already trickling out.

To summarize, the answer is yes, a Due-type board is a good buy if you want a high-performance printer. It will meet 99%+ of user's needs today. But it will be replaced in a few years, just like the Atmegas are being replaced now.

As for specific Due shields, I strongly recommend NOT going with RAMPS-FD. It was cloned for sale by Asian companies before the design was finished, which seemingly caused the original designer to abandon it before working out all the bugs. RAMPS-FDv1 has some nasty design flaws such as heaters turning on while flashing firmware. RAMPS-FDv2 is better, but can experience unreliable and oddball behavior due to unresolved issues in the circuits intended to make it compatible with both 3v3 boards like the Due and 5v boards like the Mega. (For example, the thermistor voltage reference circuit needs modifying to work right, and there appears to be timing issues in the 3v3-5v level shifters.)

RADDS is a good Due shield. It is a simpler, more reliable, more compact version of RAMPS-FD. It is very popular in Germany and has recently (late 2015) become available for sale in the US.

I also recommend purchasing the Due R3-E instead of the regular Due R3. Anecdotally, the "E" version appears to eliminate some firmware bootup issues that can occur when the board is first powered at lower than nominal voltage.

One possible downside to the Due is that Arduino just announced they are no longer manufacturing it. So all new Due boards from here on will be made by 3rd parties. That's not necessarily bad, since it's open source and many other companies will surely continue making them, but there won't be any more made by Arduino.

For single-board options using the same SAM3X8E processor as the Due, the Duet 0.8.5 is becoming quite popular. (It runs RepRapFirmware, which has some great Delta features.) The Alligator runs Repetier. There are several other beta/experimental/development boards in the works too. The community appears to be moving towards the Due and Due-compatible boards over the other various options.


Printer with 50 microns or close to 50 micron (z resolution) We're thinking of buying a PETG-powered printer. When researching printers available on the market, there are machines with a 100 microns. I was wondering if there are machines with a 50 microns or close to 50 micros? Otherwise, why not?

I assume you mean a resolution of 50 microns (0.05 mm step size)
Most FDM printers can produce something useful upto 100 microns. If you want to print with more precision, try resin printers.
The reason for this is that an FDM printer uses an extruder with a specific nozzle diameter (typically around 0.4mm and minimum around 0.25 mm). plastic has too much viscosity to fit through a smaller diameter nozzle easy.


Is there a G-code to get power supply state? I'm using M80 and M81 G-codes to power on/off power supply.

Is there a G-code to know the actual state of the power supply?

I don't see one at http://reprap.org/wiki/G-code so it's probably safest to set the power supply to the state you want.


Y-axis layer shifts with recent Marlin on Ender 3 Since upgrading from the manufacturer's firmare to recent Marlin (first 1.1.9, then 2.0.x git HEAD), I've been having significant model-dependent (didn't happen for first few things I tried to print; other prints reproduce it reliably) layer shifting on the Y axis. It's always in the positive Y direction, usually by 1-3 mm at a time.

I first suspected mechanical problems (see: Ender 3 has developed a tendancy to skip Y steps), but reverting the firmware confirmed that it's a firmware problem.

A number of bug tracker entries for Marlin indicate that there are significant ongoing layer shift problems:

https://github.com/MarlinFirmware/Marlin/issues/9768
https://github.com/MarlinFirmware/Marlin/issues/10446
https://github.com/MarlinFirmware/Marlin/issues/12403

But most end up getting closed. Some people say reverting to 1.1.9 from 2.0.x helped; others say 1.1.9 is EOL and to use 2.0.x. Is there a solution? How do I get a working version of Marlin (new enough to have Linear Advance 1.5, which was my motivation for upgrading) on Ender 3?

Buried in a bug tracker entry for a seemingly unrelated issue, I found what seems to be the solution:

  @johanmga, I've discovered the velocity jumps here come from using "classic jerk" computations, and happen whether or not s-curve acceleration is enabled.

  Try uncommenting //#define JUNCTION_DEVIATION in Configuration_adv.h; that will disable classic jerk and use the junction deviation math instead.

  Also for reference, issue #12403 is actively tracking the layer shift issue (please comment there too if you have more information on problems/solutions), and #12540 is has more information on classic jerk vs. junction deviation.

https://github.com/MarlinFirmware/Marlin/issues/12491#issuecomment-443464603

It seems that the "classic jerk" code no longer works and produces erroneous motion to the steppers under some conditions (dependent on G-code contents), whereas the Ender 3 default configuration file is still using it.

With the default JUNCTION_DEVIATION_MM of 0.02, things worked right away, but printing was so slow that I could plausibly attribute it working just to the slowness.  But increasing it up to 0.1 via the menus got the speed closer to what I'm used to, and it's still printing with no layer shifts.

I've posted my results in the tracker in hopes that they'll lead to discovery of the root cause: https://github.com/MarlinFirmware/Marlin/issues/12403#issuecomment-519305409

Another issue on the tracker seems to have more detail:

https://github.com/MarlinFirmware/Marlin/issues/12540#issuecomment-442793326


Building a cheap 3d printer with DC Motors? Because I do not own a 3d printer I am searching a way to build an affordable 3d printer. But paying a 200Euros for one seems too much for me.

So in my search for affordable 3d printer I thought to build one out of legos (for example this one) that I can find in bulk at reasonable price.

As for rods I can use out of old printers and skim them down to 8mm at a machine shop (at worst case).

But as for motors DC ones are easier to find/scavage that stepper ones but:

Is it possible to build a 3d printer that uses DC motors instead of stepper ones and what kind of firmware is needed?

To use DC-motors instead of stepper motors, you would need to have some sort of encoder that tells the controlling machine where the printhead has moved.

On the arduino Forums they have discussed the problems and difficulties. The main problem is, that currently, there is little firmware for Arduino or similar chips that can do this. Another big problem is, that such a machine might need a different type of G-code, unless well done.

That is not to say that there is no firmware that does control DC motors via an encoder. Printers do so since ages. But to reverse engineer printer firmware is really really hard. It took a pair of hackers the better part of a half year to dissect the printer & Fax firmware for one printer, and they had mainly looked to dissect the fax protocol and had not looked at all at the motor controlDefcon talk about it.

Luckily, as the RepRap tells though, somebody did hack together a DC motor control: Miguel Sanchez has a GitHub about it. You DO need proper encoders though.


Mesh/Geometry quality tried searching but couldn't find anything.
I do not have a 3d printer so can't really experiment on my own, which means that when I am going to order a 3d print I want to get it as good as possible. So, my question:

Do quality of geometry matters when 3d printing? Will 3d printer only print quads, or ngons are fine? Are there shapes to avoid?

Cheers :)
M.

Welcome to the site!

In regards to quads, vs polygon. People will often reduce the overall detail to make it easier to print. But so long as after you export it to a STL and verify that your Manifold edges were done correctly and what you though was solid is solid, you should be good to go. As near as I can tell so long as you can export it to STL then it doesn't matter what meshing you use. That said I see Polygons more than anything.

Worst case you can run it through a STL repair program and it will make the required changes for you. Usually I used these tools to fix poorly rendered files.
My favorite is Nettfab. which is now part of microsoft.

You can verify if it will print by downloading slic3r, then "slicing" the file. After that you should be able to view a layer by later output.

Article talking about quads vs triangles from design

Shapeways article on preparing blender files for 3d printing


How many times printed printer can print it-self? There is a 3D desktop printer RepRap which can print most of its own components.

Assuming each printed printer will print the next one and so on. Are there any limitation how many times this can be achieved?

For example somebody printed for me printer and I do the same for my friends and they do the same for theirs. Can this go forever (since 3D model stays the same), or there are any serious side-effects/disadvantages of doing that continuously?

The files used to print these objects are digital, and do not degrade in any way after each printing. There are no side effects or degradation that occurs over time due simply to printing them multiple times.

This is the RepRap philosophy, and the machines are actually designed with enough tolerance for printing and building mistakes that even if the print isn't perfect, it will not only work fine, but it can print a printer better than it was printed, with some care and attention to calibration.

The process still takes a lot of human intervention, in the way of building the new printer and properly calibrating it.  If there are errors in the printer or the prints it produces, they can almost always be attributed to the builder/calibrator/user, and not to the design or the fact it's the Nth generation of printer.


What is a good book to read about 3D printers? I've been interested in 3D printing for the past month however, I have noticed that it's sort of a "reserved" topic. Meaning that everyone who talks about it, has already some basic knowledge about the topic. What are some good resources for someone who wants to start learning from zero? My main goal is to acquire enough knowledge in order to build my own 3D printer.

You can learn a lot just by reading the forums.  I'll just list a few that are quite popular...

Reprap Forums - Has a ton of information on DIY printers including build logs and posts dealing with many issues.

Soliforum - Large user base with lots of information. Not sure what it's standing is now that Solidoodle is gone but I'm sure the forum will stick around.

SeeMeCNC - Support forum for SeeMeCNC, has a lot of information for Delta printers and also other printers.

There aren't many books that I know of...Make magazine has done a few issues on 3D printing that you could try to obtain.  I'm not sure what your idea of building a printer is, do you want to design your own or follow someone's instructions and put one together?  Designing one would require some basic hardware and engineering knowledge.

All that said, the best learning experience would be buying a kit and learning as you go.  You'll never read in a book what you will learn from having your own printer.


What is the best material for printing an anatomic bone model? What is the best medium/material for printing an anatomic model for educational or study purposes? Specifically, I'm interested in printing intricate head and neck bony anatomy that requires fine detail to look at important holes and "cracks"/fissures.

The Stack Exchange discourages "best" type questions, as any answers are going to be opinion based. There are going to be more opinions than types of materials and types of printing.

Your question regarding specifics is more on the mark, however, and has less to do with material than with method.

Consider that resin based printing, especially SLA printers will provide extremely fine detail at extremely fine prices. SLA printers are more commonly used for smaller models such as jewelry and dental applications.

SLS, Selective Laser Sintering is capable of nearly as detailed work as SLA and is better suited for larger models. One can contract for SLS work on the major 3D printing services. Pricing for SLS is also "up there." Use The Google to locate 3D printer services for a suitable resource.

In the FDM world, you'll find lower costs and lower resolution. My printer is capable of 0.100 mm layer thickness, which means barely visible layer lines, but they are still quite obvious, especially on sloped or slanted surfaces.

I suggest that you find a small scale or segment of the part you wish to have printed and send it off for sample returns in the above formats.

As an option, once you have the parts, you could consider to use them to create molds and cast in resin as many copies as you would need.


Setting Junction Deviation in firmware has no effect I have built a 3D printer with Marlin bugfix-2.0.x forked from github.

I am attempting to set the default value for junction deviation so that I don't have to change it through the printer's screen/interface every time I power cycle the printer, but what I thought would set it properly isn't doing the trick.

My thought was that uncommenting this in Configuration_adv.h would work:

#define JUNCTION_DEVIATION_MM 0.02

I have tried setting this define inside of and outside of the default if block in which it appears, just to make sure the issue wasn't because I didn't have something else set, and I get the same behavior when this define statement is either protected or unprotected by an if

Also, the default if block is this:

#if ENABLED( JUNCTION_DEVIATION )
    #define JUNCTION_DEVIATION_MM 0.02
#endif

Uncommenting #define JUNCTION_DEVIATION leaves me with a compiler error telling me that I don't need to do that, so I'm not seeing anything that I am supposed to enable to get it to use the JUNCTION_DEVIATION_MM setting. In other words, I can't actually enable "JUNCTION_DEVIATION" any more, so I HAVE to break the JUNCTION_DEVIATION_MM setting out of the if but it still has no effect.

After setting this parameter, when I power cycle the printer, the junction deviation is set to 0 (although one touch of the adjustment knob makes it jump to 0.010, so I think that what is displayed as "0" may actually mean "unset"), which is causing a significant stop/start jerk on every angle change until I manually set the junction deviation.

My current Configuration.h and Configuration_adv.h are taken from this Marlin fork.

In case it matters, I'm running this on an SKR V1.3 with TMC2208 drivers at 24V.

Any ideas what I'm missing? I'm sure it's something simple, I just haven't found it.

UPDATE: Still no solution after 10 days. Here is additional information from another forum where I posted this request:

  Did you run M502 and M500 after updating your firmware?

I dug into this a little more, and I am either running into a bug, or I'm simply not understanding what I'm supposed to be seeing.

I send this command:

M205 J0.020

Then verify that junction deviation is set correctly (it is)
Then this:

M500

And that responds with:

Settings Stored (616 bytes; crc 51371)

Then I send this:

M503

And the report for M205 is missing the setting I just confirmed to have changed and been working:

...
M205 B20000.00 S0.00 T0.00
...

And power cycling or resetting the controller leads to the same result: Junction Deviation is reset to 0.

Shouldn't I see "J0.020" in the M205 line immediately after changing the setting, and verifying that it works?

I've bought an SKR Pro V1.1 which is suffering from the same problem. It has actually to do with a shortcoming or design flaw (of the "HAL" or "Hardware Abstraction Layer" addressing of SPI devices) of Marlin and access to the SD card; I quote:

  The problem: On board SD-Card on SKR-PRO 1.1 can't be used.

After the SD card has been inserted, the firmware binary is loaded into memory, and all access to the SD card is gone. The initial connection is by hardware design of the SKR boards.

Basically, there is a bug in the Marlin code/SKR boards preventing storing (to the SD card) any alterations after the firmware is loaded. There is a PR on Marlin that fixes it, but it has not been merged into Marlin yet.

There are 2 options,

Every change to the firmware has to be compiled and uploaded to the board by placing a hex (firmware.bin) on the SD card;
Compile a firmware version from the sources from the fore mentioned PR.


Marlin - slowing down print speed I'm currently using Marlin firmware (1.1.0-RC7 - 31 July 2016) and would like to experiment with print speed.

In the file Marlin_main.cpp I see in the process_next_command() function, there is a variable called current_command which (supposedly) holds the G-Code values for travel distance and feedrate(speed).

I'm expecting the actual command for travelling to look something like this:

G1 X50 Y25.3 E22.4 F1500

but I'm getting tied up figuring out exactly where it is. I'm assuming if I can change F1500 to F200, I can effectively slow down the print speed.

I'm aware of line 753 in the configuration.h file:

#define DEFAULT_MAX_FEEDRATE {300, 300, 5, 25}  // (mm/sec)

I'm not interested in setting a fixed slow feedrate but would rather change individual G-Code commands. Can someone tell me where I can find the actual G-Code command to edit it?

G-code commands are not in the firmware. You're trying to find something in the code that simply isn't there. Your slicer is responsible for generating a g-code file, which you can then send to your printer (either by printing from an SD-card) or using a host program like repetier or cura. The commands in the G-code file are then executed by the firmware, but they're not part of it.

How the commands are actually processed is not trivial, and it happens in multiple places.

The commands are processed in the process_commands of Marlin_main.cpp. Upon reading a G1 command, it calls get_coordinates to parse the X/Y/Z/feedrate values from the command. Next, the prepare_move function is called, which applies the necessary transformations (clamping to endstops, and the reverse kinematics if you have a delta) before calling plan_buffer_line (which is in planner.cpp) which does some more preprocessing and computes a "block" which is pushed onto the buffer. Next, planner_recalculate is called, which iterates over the blocks to find feasible acceleration patterns for them. Finally, an interrupt (in stepper.cpp, ISR(TIMER1_COMPA_vect)) periodically reads blocks from the buffer and actually sends the signals to the steppers.


Cura imports FreeCAD stl wrong I am trying to import an STL file, I created in FreeCAD. It has a hole in the hull of the object and behind that hole there are two pins inside the object (see attached FreeCAD screenshot).

When I import the STL in Cura, there are no walls around the whole object where there is the hole in the hull (see attached Cura screenshots). However the wall and the hole are visible in light grey, Cura just doesn't print it.

Update:

 I understand the problem. It's not a watertight solid. I found a way to import it somewhat fine using meshmixer to create a hollow with an offset which makes the outer Hull actually have a thickness to it. Now the problem is, that's not really what I want. The result in cura now can't be printed with infill since the actual inside of the model is only within the walls. Also cura sees both sides of the wall as outer Perimeter. I understand the problem but actually am looking for a way to just prevent printing part of the regular model's wall.. In other words: I would basically like to set the whall line count to zero in that particular area. I just tried to use the support blocker and "Modify settings for overlap" but that doesn't do anything.

CURA:

FreeCAD:

I suspect that your method to create the hole for the pins may not be consistent with the modeling practice that FreeCad and other programs of this nature require.

Consider the following:

Import your base shape.
Create a second shape that matches the hole you wish to create. It must be a solid object, not a plane or other single surface item.

Consult one of the many FreeCad tutorials that present the method to use next, that is to place the shape to be subtracted in the desired location, then perform a Boolean operation involving both objects. In the linked tutorial, it's referred to as a cut, which is an accurate description.

Performing this action will create a surface where the two objects intersect, removing the smaller one, leaving a solid, rather than a zero thickness surface.

You would then create and place the cylinders in a manner consistent with the original model.


Massive over extrusion after changing firmware I have an Anet A8 printer (no modifications) and first printed a calibration cube. It came out okayish, within expectations. Afterwards I flashed the firmware to Marlin 1.1.9 and since then have very high over extrusion. In this picture you see on the left the original calibration cube with the stock firmware and on the right a cube with Marlin (unfortunately not a good picture):

In fact on the right cube you can see two narrow vertical lines in which extrusion appeared to have come out fine.

The cube on the left was without calibration. On the right hand side all axes, including the extruder, where correctly calibrated. The bed is level. The extruder has been calibrated in case of the cube on the right hand side (95.6 steps/mm). Material is PLA.

After flashing to Marlin the over-extrusion became such a problem that the nozzle is constantly dragging over the printed plastic. You might notice, that these are in fact different cubes, that is correct. I tried the same G-code from the left cube again, but aborted the print, because the nozzle was hitting the print too much.

I calculated a modified flow rate according to this tutorial and found that I would have to reduce my flow rate to 44%.

This appears quite wrong to me. What could be in the firmware change that causes such a massive over extrusion?

Very wise to change the firmware of the stock Anet A8. The stock firmware does not have thermal runaway protection which Marlin Firmware does have.

You should be able to print equivalent or slightly better with Marlin Firmware as you can tweak it better/easier than the closed firmware clone of Repetier that is originally loaded onto the board. My A8 runs perfectly fine on 1.1.9.

To identify if this is over-extrusion, you need to check out the settings of the steps per millimeters that are defined in your configuration.h file:

/**
 * Default Axis Steps Per Unit (steps/mm)
 * Override with M92
 *                                      X, Y, Z, E0 [, E1[, E2[, E3[, E4]]]]
 */
#define DEFAULT_AXIS_STEPS_PER_UNIT   { 100, 100, 400, 100 }

Furthermore, rather than calculating the flow reduction, you could calibrate your extruder.

From the images it it hard to say whether this is over extrusion or not, it does look like it is printed at a high temperature. Please update the question to include print material and print settings (hot end temperature).


Sending G-code commands to Hyrel System 30M using python I am using python 3.6 with pySerial library to connect to the Hyrel System 30M 3D Printer. I am able to read the data from the device but unable to write any commands to it

Here is the code:

    ser = serial.Serial()
    ser.port = 'COM4'
    ser.baudrate = 38400
    out = ser.readline()
    ser.write(b'M106 T14 S30\n') %This is the command to turn on the fan at 30% power

Can somebody suggest me how to write commands to printer through python

If the one in your question is your complete code, a possibility is that your computer is just buffering the output for the serial port, withholding it in memory.  Try to add

ser.flush()

after your last line.  This command will... well... flush anything into the buffer through the actual connection.


Dual extruder unused nozzle is breaking prints So I got my first 3d printer, with 2 nozzles. I thought why not, I may want to print 2 colours, dissolvable supports etc in future. But for now, only using one.

I've had good success on small items so far, but when I try to print something that's a big on the bigger side, my "spare" nozzle seems to crash into the side of the print - either snapping a bit off if it's delicate, or losing bed adhesion.

What could be the possible cause of this? I've levelled and re-levelled the bed, but I am losing the heart to keep trying. I have more half-printed broken bits now that successful parts...

Not sure of the relevance, but I'm printing in PLA

I started this as a comment, but it got too long. I have been working for much too long on a multi-extruder printer, and so I understand that the fixed, dual-head designs are somewhat fraught with problems.

I am assuming that this is a mechanism in which the two nozzles are inline in the X-axis, the Y-axis is parallel to the bed and normal to the line between the two nozzles, and the Z-axis is normal to both X and Y (and usually vertical).

When you "bed level", is it clear that both nozzles are "exactly" the same height from the bed everywhere on the bed?  If there is anything non-parallel about the movement plane and the bed, it can cause one head to dip lower than the other when over the same position on the bed.

Is twist along the Y-axis of the heads possible?  A twist could be because of either looseness or compliance (springiness) in the X-axis.  The twist could be induced either through acceleration or by a nozzle being pushed up in reaction to the plastic extrusion against the object.

Is the printing from the active nozzle properly flat, or does it produce verticle bumps?  Any vertical ripples will cause any head passing over them to bump against them.  Something will need to comply with the force.  Either the head will melt through the bump and smear it out a bit, the bed will be pushed downward, or the nozzle pushed upward.  If the passive nozzle hits a bump, that compliance will be conveyed to the active nozzle, creating another defect.

Is the passive nozzle cold or hot?  It may help to heat the unused nozzle so that it can melt the plastic it touches rather than pushing against it.  If this helps at all, it may be necessary to slow down printing so that the passive nozzle has more time to melt through the obstacle.

If you find that the problem is bump defects from the active nozzle, it might help to remove the passive nozzle completely and focus on printing a smooth, even surface with the active nozzle.  Debugging that would be easier without the passive nozzle compounding the problem.


Reprap RAMPs over heating issues So I've got a couple problems, to begin I'm using the RAMPs 1.4, generic Arduino mega with Marlin, generic stepper motor drivers, a generic power supply. Nothing is special or even out of the ordinary. But for some reason when I plug the RAMPs in, with everything connected or everything unplugged my Arduino heats up like hell. I clocked it at around 60°c after a couple seconds of being powered on around where the main chip is. The voltage regulator seems fine because it doesn't heat up much, I've checked it around 40°c.

Second problem is the stepper motor drivers keep blowing up for some reason. With everything plugged in I power on the board for the first time and hear a small pop and then a small amount of smoke comes from the extruder driver. I replaced it thinking it was just a bad chip and the same thing happens. All other chips are fine it's just the extruder that fries.

When the board is plugged into usb it doesn't give me any readings what so ever on what the printer is doing but the Arduino works fine with anything else I throw at it.

Things I've tried:
- Lower the voltage on the power supply from 12.00v to 11.26 with no changes
- try running it with everything plugged in and everything unplugged
- tried buying a new Arduino but the exact same problems occur

I've gotten kinda tired of thinking of ways to trouble shoot so I'll open it up to the community.
 Picture of a friend stepper driver

This really sounds like there is a short somewhere on the RAMPS add-on board. It is advised to not use the RAMPS add-on shield to prevent damage to the Arduino or the shield.

Personally, I would ditch this one and buy a new one. By the looks of the picture you are using a clone RAMPS, these are mass produced and the quality is not always the best (many components are skew). If you are very into electronics you could try to find the short, but it can well be that the traces on the board are somehow connected. Alternatively, you could buy a new board where RAMPS and Arduino are already combined, e.g. an MKS board.


Prusa i3 hotend not getting to the temperature that I want (180 to 230 celsius) I recently finished building my first printer. The only problem that I'm having is that the hotend is not getting hot enough to start printing with PLA (180 to 230 degrees celsius), the hotend getting hotter stops at 170 degrees. Please help I've been stuck on this problem for days. Thanks in advance.

Usually, this kind of problem is due to an issue with the control loop of the temperature. You can try to do PID Tuning by running the command M303 E0 S200 C8. This will heat up the hot end and cycle it around 200C a few times, and afterwards tell you Kp, Ki and Kd values which you need to enter into the PID settings of your firmware configuration, or store them in EEPROM using M301.

If this does not solve the problem, then disconnect the heater cartridge and check its resistance with a multimeter. For a 12V system, it should not be higher than 6Ω (24Ω for a 24V system).

If the heater cartridge is okay, then perhaps it is a problem with the power supply. While the hotend is heating up, measure the voltage across the heater cartridge. It should not be much less than the nominal 12V/24V your printer runs at. If it is, you may have a bad MOSFET or power supply.

Finally, if you have a very powerful fan blowing on the hotend this can cause issues with heating up as well. Adding a fan shroud (or pointing the fan away from the nozzle and only at the print) can help with this.


Monoprice Select Mini v2 clogged Boden tube connection I have had my Monoprice Select Mini v2 for about two weeks now and I get a clicking noise on my filament insert on some prints and when I check a few minutes later, I can see that it's not extruding and that there is a clog of some sort.

I checked to see whethere there was possibly a clog in my hot end or nozzle, but there was nothing there. So I checked my Boden tube to see if the filament was brittle and had broken, but I found that there was plastic with a slight twist clogged in the Boden tube connector. When it first happened I had used an Allen wrench to push the plastic out. The second time it was harder and took heating the connector piece up to melt the plastic and pull it out.

Now I know (from the ticking) that my gear feeder is making a clicking noise - as it did when it was clogged. So when I hear that, I just push the lever to loosen it and it sounds like it releases tension. So is there a way to stop this or prevent it? I tried upping the temperature on the nozzle but it didn't help much. I'm printing from an average of 60°C and a high of 80°C with PLA.

If you are heating your hotend to 60/80, that is WAY too low. PLA should be at 180+ hotend, and if you are using a heated bed, 60-80.

I would try increasing the heat of your hotend, starting at 180 and increasing if it looks like it is underextruding or if you get more clogs.


How thin can my extrusion be from a 1.2mm extruder? I always assumed that the smallest diameter that you could extrude was equal to the diameter of the extruder tip itself. Recently I heard that you can actually extrude a line that's as little as half the width of the nozzle opening.

Is that true in theory? In practice?

My printer's 0.3mm nozzle broke recently, and the only replacement on hand was a 1.2mm nozzle. The prints have been fast, but really coarse and imprecise. I've dialed the extrusion diameter down from about 2mm to 1.2mm for some smaller, more intricate parts, and it worked fine. Can I go down to 0.9mm or 0.6mm extrusion diameter without it screwing up my prints?

If I can't do that, what does happen if I try to print 0.6mm out of a 1.2mm extruder nozzle?

For this question, let's assume an FDM printer using PLA and/or ABS filament.

The main issue with very narrow extrusion widths (less than the nozzle size) is that you get really poor "nozzle squash." The plastic isn't pressed down very hard as it's extruded. That causes poor layer bonding and weaker prints.

The flow of molten plastic coming out of the nozzle must be drawn down by tension in order to end up smaller than the nozzle opening, and that drawing effect makes it difficult to get good contact with the previous layer. So you end up with a "stack of logs" structure kind of like this:

(This photo actually shows layer height = extrusion width = nozzle size, which is another no-no, but the end result is similar.)

What you want instead is something very "mashed together" and strong like this:

How finely the the strand can draw down -- versus smearing or breaking apart into blobs -- will depend greatly on the type of filament and the printing conditions. For example, nylon draws down extremely well because it experiences a large degree of strain crystallization, and actually gets stronger and stiffer as it's stretched. PLA tends to get more brittle when strained and may break into stringy blobs. ABS doesn't change terribly much because it's highly amorphous. Polymer type, blending agents, print speed, printing temperature, and cooling will control the drawing behavior of the filament.

Another factor to consider is what the strand spacing is within the print. If you set the extrusion width equal to half the nozzle width, depending on the slicer, adjacent strands may be placed with pitch equal or slightly less than half the nozzle width. So after the first strand is printed (say an unimportant inner perimeter) the next strand will be printed with the nozzle partially overlapping the previous strand. This effectively creates a constriction to force the plastic out of a smaller opening to one side of the nozzle, which is not too different from printing with a smaller nozzle. Subsequent perimeter strands may then tend to "heal up" even if the first is low quality. This effect doesn't completely fix the problem, but it helps account for why under-width strands seem to work better than they ought to.

Of course, even if the strands turn out ok, it's arguable whether there is any benefit. If the goal of a smaller extrusion width is more precision and sharper corners, you may not actually accomplish that goal. When the filament is being drawn down by tension in the cooling polymer, it may tend to "cut corners" and get pulled into a rounded arc when the nozzle changes direction. That may defeat the point of using a thinner extrusion width in the first place. Generally I only recommend using under-width strands to capture thin-wall detail that is only a little bit too thin for the nozzle, not as a way to improve overall print quality.

In comparison, having the extrusion width equal or wider than the nozzle ensures the plastic is firmly squished downward into intimate contact with the lower layer. You can fudge this a bit and still get decent results, but it's usually best to keep the extrusion width equal or larger than the nozzle size. There's no hard cutoff where it will / won't work.