drawcut wrote: if buying new Z thd rods anyway, I'm going to get metric and eliminate one error possibility and get nice even numbers to pick for layer heights.
mdfast1 wrote:Awesome table gyronictonic! I've made myself a copy. Now for possibly a really dumb question. This chart really only applies if your steps/mm are not modified from the expected for the rod correct?:
Ex - 5/16"-18 rod with 1.8 degree motors: (((360/1.8) * (1/(1/16)))/1.41111) = 2267.71 (should be what your Z calibration is ideally)
mdfast1 wrote:Now if you messed with your Z steps/mm with M92 E00.00 wouldn't that make this table not applicable and really we should be looking at our Z calibration number and calculating the ideal layer height from that?
drawcut wrote:Another thought: If using Z lift, should we make sure that value is an even step number as well? Seems like that might introduce error if the software is Z lifting to an approximated value then dropping back down. Depends on how the software handles Z lift I guess. I think I'll set Z lift to an even step value just in case.
Mooselake wrote:drawcut wrote: if buying new Z thd rods anyway, I'm going to get metric and eliminate one error possibility and get nice even numbers to pick for layer heights.
Know any US accessible sources for reasonably priced metric brass threaded rod? Trapazoidal (iirc the metric equivalent of acme) rod?
phil_roberts wrote: if you are printing mechanical parts, and they are all printed at the same z-cal- wouldn't they fit together fine?
gyronictonic wrote:Since I'm using 1/4"-16 acme rods, I've been using .1905mm as my layer height and I don't see the benefit of going any lower. I made a simple excel sheet of different layer heights to choose from. One day, I'll try converting to M6 threaded rods as my lead screws but would need to print out some adapter to fit the M6 nuts.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... 0Unc#gid=0
rsilvers wrote:Doing pretty well on my Simple
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest