User Tools

Site Tools


optimal_layer

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
optimal_layer [2016/12/20 20:02]
Matthew Upp
optimal_layer [2018/03/27 15:12] (current)
Matthew Upp [Nitty-gritty]
Line 2: Line 2:
  
 ====== Optimal Layer Heights ====== ====== Optimal Layer Heights ======
 +---- 
 +<wrap lo><​wrap em>The information​ on this page applies to the MP Select Mini V1 & V2</​wrap></​wrap> ​
 ===== Nitty-gritty ===== ===== Nitty-gritty =====
 The following paragraph is an excerpt from [[https://​hackaday.io/​mob/​|Michael O'​Brien'​s Hackaday project]] \\ The following paragraph is an excerpt from [[https://​hackaday.io/​mob/​|Michael O'​Brien'​s Hackaday project]] \\
Line 8: Line 9:
 **Log:** [[https://​hackaday.io/​project/​12696/​log/​44772/​|X,​ Y, Z, A Motors & Stepper Driver Investigation]] ​ **Log:** [[https://​hackaday.io/​project/​12696/​log/​44772/​|X,​ Y, Z, A Motors & Stepper Driver Investigation]] ​
  
 +<​blockquote>​
 +**Z-Axis Resolution**
  
-"//​**Z-Axis Resolution** \\ +So that motor [Z-Axis] is a 7.5°, 48 step motor as I just listed. Since the motor is attached to a M4 rod, which has a 0.7 mm thread pitch, then in one revolution makes the Z-Axis travel up or down 0.7 mm. Since it took 48 steps to turn that rev, each step is 0.0145833333333333333333333333333 ​etc etc mm. To avoid rounding errors, you can use multiple of 3 of this number, which is a nice and pretty 0.04375 mm. That is a nice and handy number that effectively represents the layer heights that mathematically work the best for layer heights for this printer. 
- +</blockquote>​ 
-So that motor [Z-Axis] is a 7.5°, 48 step motor as I just listed. Since the motor is attached to a M4 rod, which has a 0.7 mm thread pitch, then in one revolution makes the Z-Axis travel up or down 0.7 mm. Since it took 48 steps to turn that rev, each step is 0.00145833333333333333333333333333 ​etc etc mm. To avoid rounding errors, you can use multiple of 3 of this number, which is a nice and pretty 0.04375 mm. That is a nice and handy number that effectively represents the layer heights that mathematically work the best for layer heights for this printer. //" ​ +\\
  
 ===== Actual Layer Heights ===== ===== Actual Layer Heights =====
Line 18: Line 20:
 Using the information above we can put together a list of optimal layer heights ranging from 0.04375mm to 0.30625mm. We stop at 0.30625mm because with a nozzle diameter of 0.40mm, the maximum recommended layer height is 0.32mm. Using the information above we can put together a list of optimal layer heights ranging from 0.04375mm to 0.30625mm. We stop at 0.30625mm because with a nozzle diameter of 0.40mm, the maximum recommended layer height is 0.32mm.
  
 +{{tablelayout?​colwidth="​195px"&​rowsFixed=1&​rowsVisible=8&​float=left}}
 ^ Layer Height (mm)  ^ ^ Layer Height (mm)  ^
-| 0.04375 ​            ​+| 0.04375 ​(results may vary)* ​    
-| 0.0875 ​             +| 0.0875 ​                         
-| 0.13125 ​            ​+| 0.13125 ​                        ​
-| 0.175               ​+| 0.175                           ​
-| 0.21875 ​            ​+| 0.21875 ​                        ​
-| 0.2625 ​             +| 0.2625 ​                         
-| 0.30625 ​            ​|+| 0.30625 ​                        ​|
 \\ \\
  
Line 32: Line 35:
 [[http://​reprap.org/​wiki/​Triffid_Hunter'​s_Calibration_Guide#​Layer_height.2C_Extrusion_width|Triffid Hunter'​s Calibration Guide - Layer height, Extrusion width]] [[http://​reprap.org/​wiki/​Triffid_Hunter'​s_Calibration_Guide#​Layer_height.2C_Extrusion_width|Triffid Hunter'​s Calibration Guide - Layer height, Extrusion width]]
  
 +
 +----
 +
 +* <wrap lo>There have been a few reports of printing the same model at 0.04375 and 0.0875, with the 0.0875 version looking better. This is probably a settings issue and the reports could be outliers. Don't let this discourage you from trying to use 0.04375, you could and probably will have better results if you are patient enough to wait the extra time for higher resolution.</​wrap> ​
optimal_layer.1482264137.txt.gz · Last modified: 2016/12/20 20:02 by Matthew Upp