So I'm trying my first test print and because I don't have any good PLA on hand, I can't use the provided first print file. Everything seems normal - I followed the directions for hotend tuning and bed calibration. When I started printing, the first few loops went down fine, but then the hotend seemed to dip too low and began rapidly tapping on the glass. The rest of what got extruded before I hit the e-stop was not much more than smudges on the build plate.
I was printing some owls as my test object, so it was hard to tell if the height was the only problem. The hotend seemed to wander around in a nonsensical fill pattern but I didn't give it long before I stopped it. I'm going to try again with a simpler shape.
One thing I noticed is that the latest config.g contains the following line:
However, according the the Duet3D docs, option 2 is the setting for Marlin; for Repetier it's 5. Further, the instructions for setting up Cura say to use RepRap, which would be 0 or 1. Could a discrepancy in G-Code flavors be causing my problem? Do I need to change the Duet3D configuration, the Cura profile, or neither, or both?
Second try yielded different results. Started the print and it homed as normal. As the hotend descended, at about 100mm above the bed, the motion began to stutter violently. The Z movement stopped around 20mm above the bed before the hotend appeared to start tracing a perimeter, but the movement was so jerky it was hard to tell what was supposed to be happening. Only a small amount of filament was extruded - I'm not sure if it was oozing or if the extruder actually engaged before I hit the e-stop. It seems to be working properly while homing, probing and using manual control, so I'm struggling to imagine where the problem would be. What should I be looking for?
Good catch on the M555 Joe. It IS supposed to bet set to 1. Mine was set exactly the same as yours and I confirmed with Ryan that it was set incorrectly.
That being said, that setting hasn't caused me any pain with my Artemis and I've probably already gone through a roll and a half of filament.
The stuttering sounds suspiciously like there's a loose connection to one of the stepper motors. Please check the connectors and make sure that the pins are fully seated in the connector shell. A fully seated connector will have the metal just below the edge of the connector shell about ~1mm down.
You're just down I-5 from me, so we can get together to fix it if it comes to that.
[edit]
The consensus appears to be that since the P2 setting isn't causing an issue, it should be left as-is unless you feel like experimenting. I'm not going to change mine.
g.
I tried changing the P2 to P5, Repetier flavor - my reasoning being that the comments seemed to think that's what it should be, so perhaps whoever generated that file meant for it to be that way. The result was pretty much identical to my first try - the loops at the beginning went OK but then it seemed to lose Z height and started moving erratically, so I gave up and changed it back. (Checking the Duet3D docs, it appears that this setting only affects serial output, so AFAIK it doesn't really do anything the way the board is configured with the Artemis.)
Ryan Rittenhouse provided me with a pre-sliced test file that got off to a great start but then lost some steps, first horizontally and then vertically before crashing into the print and dislodging it. So I guess the connections do seem like a likely culprit. I doubled checked them before, but I was working pretty late that night, it's definitely possible I overlooked something.
Thanks for the offer. Seems like there's a good chance I can get this worked out from here but I take great comfort knowing I'm only one county over from a pro. I have an ongoing issue with my Orion that I'd like your opinion on too - I'll be getting back to work on that once the Artemis is in its new home and my bench is free.
I got in there and pulled all the stepper connections one by one. None of the pins felt loose (I tried to pull them free) and all the tabs were engaged in the windows of the KK connectors. Is that what you meant when you wrote "A fully seated connector will have the metal just below the edge of the connector shell about ~1mm down."? What's next? Should I take a continuity tester to them?
G is prob correct; it sounds like a physical connection..
Before checking wire connections; If you try another slicer you will know the following;
1) Same result - points back to either the physical problem (or some undetermined problem)
2) Different result (improved result) - slicer configuration issue
Per my build notes, I had an initial problem with configuring cura that sounds similar to what you are experiencing. I had a parameter or two set wrong in cura.
In re the wire path. In my own build I had to re-crimp several connections. Having a meter to check continuity was really helpful.
Last edited by wepollock on Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thanks! I remember reading of some similar problems in your thread - I've been meaning to re-read it. Here's some photos of the Benchy print that Ryan sliced for me. I guess I'll put together an Artemis profile in MatterControl and get ready to try that next.
~Joe
Each stepper had continuity from red to blue and green to black, about 1.3-2 ohms but I didn't wait long for the number to settle. The extruder seemed to hover a few tenths of an ohm higher, which I guess makes sense given the finer gauge wiring. Any suggestions? Going to do some more reading now.
Thanks again,
~Joe
I had a huge problem with lost steps until Ryan pointed out that without z-lift a travel speed of 400mm/sec is going to lose steps when the nozzle strikes the part. Not one of my proudest moments.
Is that a problem in the config files provided for Cura? I haven't used it in a while so it could take me a minute to find the relevant setting. As far as I can tell both the files I sliced and the ones Ryan provided to me have Z lifts over the gaps. I'll look and see what's in there. I think I am also going to try to set up a MatterControl profile for the Artemis and see if that changes the behavior. What slicer/profile were you using that didn't have Z lifts? I was using the provided Cura configuration and the SE300 ABS profile.
~Joe
The travel settings in Cura were not visible so I had to go in to the preferences and enable them. Once visible, "Z Hop When Retracted" appears to be enabled by default, "Z Hop Only Over Printed Parts" is disabled, and "Z Hop Height" is set to 1mm. So I'm pretty sure my files included Z hops. And I don't think Ryan would've provided me with a file without them, if you say he identified that as a problem for you. But I'll double-check that when I power it up again. Anything else I can check while I'm poking around in the top? I'm nursing an arm injury so I'm trying to minimize the number of times I lift it from the floor up to my bench and back again.
~Joe
I ran the test print Ryan provided several more times last night and didn't manage to complete any of them. The file definitely includes Z lift though. Not sure what to do next - as per adarcher's thread, I'm thinking about taking apart the KK connectors on my steppers and maybe replacing the pins. I'm running out of ideas for things to check. Any suggestions?
Thanks again,
~Joe
So after reading about adarcher's grinding problem I was inspired to swap my tower connections to see if one stepper in particular was skipping. I swapped my stepper and endstop connectors from X to Y, Y to Z, and Z to X, effectively rotating my prints 120 degrees counterclockwise. The chattering/stuttering sounds started up after 20 or 30 layers this time. I hit the e-stop pretty quickly because it seemed like the hotend was dipping back into the print and was failing to extrude. Rotating the connections didn't seem to change the nature of the chattering, but I want to try it a few more times so I can watch it closely.
It's difficult to tell if the problem is particular to one tower. I'm printing a Benchy - is there some specific test print I could run to try and suss out which tower is losing steps? I imagine that a shape with trilateral symmetry might show errors related to skipped steps more consistently. Or perhaps if I printed something offset close to one tower in particular? I am tempted to try a spiral vase but when the hotend skips it moves so far that I can't imagine being able to continue the print to check for accumulated errors.
If I were to have to guess, I would say the problem sounds like it's coming from the Z tower. But when I'm facing the machine from the front, it also sounds like it's offset a little to the right. Visually, it's hard for me to tell what's going on at all three towers at the same time, but I'm certain I've seen the Z tower stutter during many if not most of the times this problem has occurred. So, I'm fairly certain the Z tower is affected, but maybe the Y tower is also implicated. Another explanation for the sound I'm hearing is just an asymmetry in the resonance of the top enclosure, so maybe the problem is all in the Z tower. Which is not to say that the X tower isn't affected - when it really gets going, the chattering seems to come from the whole machine.
Now is it time for me to start cutting off connectors and re-crimping the wires? Not sure what else to do.
This started out as a 150mm diameter by 150mm tall cylinder. It was sliced with no top, no bottom and in spiral mode (single wall) in Cura. I then stripped out all the fan, heater, and extrusion controls. The end result is a g-code file that will just run in a spiral circle up to 150mm. This should help identify the problematic axis. You can play with the speed multiplier in the control panel to speed up or slow down the motion.
It was sliced at 60mm/sec.
Yes, thanks again! The power supply was set to the wrong mains voltage after all. I meant to email you about closing the ticket but was a little distracted last night. I appreciate the quick turnover. That problem seems completely resolved; I've run several files including your cylinder, Ryan's Benchy and my own stuff with no symptoms, and my 12V supply is steady. I'm still having some issues but it's totally normal stuff now - prints peeling up, and I think some Q-tip fiber got stuck in the grease on the ball joints. I'll make new threads for them.
~Joe
voltage from the power supply is a good thing to check. A multimeter is an essential tool IMHO..
The web interface also displays voltage... so will M122 command;
A line in M122 will read
Supply voltage: min 12.4, current 12.8, max 13.3, under voltage events: 0, over voltage events: 0
What I am just saying here is that the board might function properly (because the processor needs is 5 or 3.3v) but might not be able to drive the steppers properly (but it will try to drive the motors, poorly).
Most of the stepper drivers I have used are more interested in a target current than they are voltage; the current is either adjustable via a potentiometer on the driver or in software. In Gcode that software setting is M906.. software could be via SPI or a development kit for the driver.
The stepper driver on the Duet is far more sophisticated and capable than anything I have ever used, and it is totally programmable even on the fly which brings me to another topichttps://www.trinamic.com/fileadmin/asse ... asheet.pdf
------------The other topic.. Software Tuning approach Prusa vs Rock Solid Platform Seemecnc
I wanted a rock solid platform, the software tuning was less important to me. I would personally not be happy with a Prusa which has the other approach... Prusa offers what I see to be a light platform (processor, structure, bones) and have used some of the software features of the stepper driver expertly. Also, they are getting the most they can out of that 8 bit processor in code.
I think with Artemis you have a better foundation. The bones are better - software improvements to follow mostly from duet (firmware etc)
If the supply voltage to the TMC drivers drops below a certain voltage (somewhere around 9V AFAIR) then the drivers shut down and they need to be re-initialised when power is restored. So when the firmware detects that the voltage has fallen below a slightly higher voltage (9.5V AFAIR) we shut the drivers down. That's why you get stuttering if the PSU can't maintain sufficient voltage.
This isn't the first time I've heard of a user having this problem because a PSU was run from 110V but set to 240V. Perhaps we should pop up a warning messages when under- and over-voltage events occur.
Totally makes sense that the TMC has safeguards against undervoltage and other concerns such as shorting. I read through the TMC spec sheet a while ago and I was watching a video on Prusa and I immediately knew that they were using a TMC driver to detect homing, stalling, and perhaps load sensing. Reading Prusa website now and they state they are "working with Trinimic to maximize the use of the drivers to sense layer shifting jammed extruder etc. Its just a different way to skin a cat. Having worked in a machine shop (to pay for college) their approach to "manufacturing" and hardware design does not seem to make much sense to me, but that is just opinion. I have the same perception of TAZ (but at least the frame looks a bit more solid). To me, There is no imperative to manufacture 3d printers with 3d printers, and I would rather have hardware with software, than software with constrained hardware. Wouldn't you want metal everywhere, machining, and injected molded composite? With a tank-like hardware, room in the project box, and a great processor you have an upgrade path via software and hardware. I even see E3d V6 as a lesser product to the Seemecnc hotend in terms of how it has been tooled.. Are you guys "Tool and die" guys?
I largely agree with using the right tools for the job. I also happen to be trained for industrial automation, so my perspective is a bit outside the normal for people regarding actually making stuff. One big issue is capital intensity. It's very expensive to buy an injection molder, and cutting tooling is also expensive. Unless you already do that, it's a massive amount of money to just buy molds and get a machine, and then a large investment in new tooling every so many parts or design iteration. I mean, you're looking at a large number of different parts, often ones with holes in multiple directions, meaning that you need additional cams. If you're a company that has injection molding equipment and tool-making gear, like SeemeCNC, given that Blackpoint engineering, which is where they came from, offered injection molding and tool-making as a service, it very rarely makes sense to print a production part (unless the chemistry is weird, or the geometry quite complex, such as the flexible parts for the Artemis).
I often see the average tooling cost at around twelve to fifteen thousand dollars. At retail price, just the tooling for a single mold would buy at least sixteen printers, and production, as well as improvement is more granular, although far slower and less efficient from a price perspective, as well as producing a more thermally cycled, and thus potentially less stable plastic.
The best solutions, as always, cost a LOT of money. the good, fast, or cheap mentality only gets you so far. In manufacturing, you have to balance part quality, production speed, reliability, lead time, cost, floor-space, labor, power requirements (Injection molders require serious amounts of compressed air and cooling water in the designs I've seen prints for), and ease of maintenance. Prusa picked something that gives them scalable production in a geometric fashion, as every 29 hours they could double the number of printers available to them, until they run out of machine tenders, or over-run the power to the building, or more likely, get mobbed for having not shipped any printers in quite some time. It is also quite possible that there simply was not a way to get an injection molding machine of any signifigant scale into their office building. Additionally, it would introduce more single points of failure (molds, molder, toolmaker, etc), which since they would likely not have the volume to justify technicians for those machines, with the need for only one or two of the things, might lay up production for a day or more should anything break.
Given say, three million dollars or a few mill more, I could buy a middle of the road injection molder, a machining center to make molds, as well as build a basic heat-treat oven to harden some of the molds to an OK, but honestly not stellar quality, as well as start doing reasonable labor reduction things, like having a bin under the molder that can be replaced while it's cycling, as well as a gantry crane to move molds between the machining center, heat-treat oven, and molder, as well as handling the bins of material. Then you need to hire tool-makers, operators, mold designers, and repair techs. For the size of niche Prusa is in, despite their quality, I'm not sure I would recommend they do IM in house, but they obviously want to do as much as humanly possible themselves, and I don't fault them for it.
Machines:
Rostock Max V2, Duet .8.5, PT100 enabled E3D V6 and volcano, Raymond style enclosure
Automation Technology 60W laser cutter/engraver
1m X-carve router
I just checked Prusa's Linkedin he was a software guy before he went into 3d printing. I got to think there are tons of way to skin a cat when it comes to manufacturing technologies, costs, scalability, result, objective, and methods. I remember seeing early EDM when I was earning money for college sorting screws, using a bandsaw, learning how to read blueprints, using an optical comparator, and then operating a bridgeport.. My dad dissuaded me from following him into mechanical engineering because allot of it was moving abroad; thus my career was in business-finance and networking-technology for business-finance..in retirement (and with 3d printers) I have gone in a semi-circle it seems.
I appreciate a physical world approach more than I do the software approach. There are lots of people working on firmware, slicers, and duet. I see a robust physical platform (+cpu) as the foundation for software.
As a "middle-aged" codger I feel there is a generational disconnect between the physical and the virtual; eg. A 27 year old was too chicken to learn how to use a circular saw under my guidance. Manipulating digits and bits was more to his liking and in his safety zone. In terms of retaining your fingers, a circular saw aint a bandsaw or a milling machine
Oldstyle technology I actually operated no computer need apply;
You guys are missing the point on the Prusa printers. They're SUPPOSED to use 3D printed parts. That's the whole point of "reprap" printers - that they be able to contribute significantly to reproducing themselves and in a manner than is easily accessible to anyone. Trust me, if Josef wanted to have all the parts injection molded, he could easily make that happen.
If you can get the first-part cost reasonably low, an accessible technology with little economy of scale to be realized has its own benefits, as there's basically no penalty for making one-off or incremental changes, so each machine can be as unique as desired. The choices of the names Darwin and Mendel were not accidental.
G, I see Reprap had its roots in academia, as an academic experiment, and I did not realize that it stands for "replicating rapid prototyper." IN business there are few rules and in manufacturing there are lots of options. More than self replication, The net effect Reprep was to break the price on FDM by making it cheap, open, and accessible.
There is another consideration;
How far can the current FDM platform go from here?
Not one of my proudest moments. 
