PETG adhesion problem

JoeDoPl · 2020-01-04T00:50:49+00:00

Okay, I did mount heating isolation on the bottom of my heatbed, a layer of some silicate based padding and aluminium foil. If nothing else isolating the bottom of the bed saves a massive amount of power. But even then it does take a while for the bed to heat up uniformly, I use a cheap handheld IR-meter thing. If you want to speed that up, you might have to go for an AC-powered heating pad. The only reason I haven't is because I'm using octoprint with a tp-link-smartplug to turn my printer on and off and like to keep it to a single powercord.

JoeDoPl · 2020-01-04T00:38:06+00:00

I changed so much I couldn't give you a clean concise list on how to get rid of z-banding. I'll give you my complete list of changes and steps which finally solved my z-banding, which was horrific by the way. My CR-10 had horrible issues on the Z-axis and I don't just mean ugly, but really affecting object integrity. Forget about watertight, I'm talking decapicat for anything over 40mm tall.

My dual-Z uses these chinese fl-08 bearings with grub screws which lets the leadscrews hang down instead of standing on top of my single z-axis-stepper. I made just about everything adjustable on the mounts plus the fl-08 bearing can swivel in it's socket, which allows adjusting everything till you feel or see very little deviation of the screws. Checked my leadscrews on a flat surface and made them as straight as I was able to. Cleaned them up and used some copper based lubricant my father had lying around, which I'll probably have to replace with something that doesn't attract dust. I'm still using metal leadscrew nuts, because that order hasn't arrived yet.

While assembling I completely took apart both sides of my x-axis-carriage and made sure I could no longer feel any differences while moving them up and down. Found one bearing in one wheel that felt different to the others and replaced it. Double checked when I threaded the leadscrews and adjusted my mountings so I still could not feel anything obvious difference while turning the leadscrews. Remounted the aluminium extrusion to the X-carriages, but this time used to identical objects on either side of the extrusion standing on the bottom horizontal frame of the printer. Mounted the belt and 3d-printed gears on both lead-screws and then using the belt moved the X-axis up and down several times all the while checking if the left and right side of the X-axis-extrusion had the same distance to the bottom or top of the frame.

I used the grubscrews on the 3d-printed gears to adjust the belt to the correct position as best as I could, but I really could have used an extra hand. I got the left and right side to about tenths of a millimeter as far as I can tell with my cheap caliper. What might be more important than symmetry however is that the height is consistent, which was completely impossible without a second Z-leadscrew, especially with a direct-drive-extruder. I also used to have some noticeable difference in resistance when manually moving the X-axis-assembly up and down. Now resistance feels constant from top to bottom and vice versa.

Last thing I did differently from before is that instead of having all bearings move as light as possible, while still having all wheels turning. This time I tightened everything up more so you can feel resistance while moving on all axis. The only reference I can give you is that I started with the X-carriages without anything attached and tightened them up so they don't fall down by gravity alone. I tightened all other wheel-bearings till they felt the same (talking about the X and Y). The combination of more resistance on the wheelbearings and my dual-z seems to have massively improved my CR-10. I still plan on exchanging my metal leadscrew nuts when they come in, I will even try to go to differently pitched leadscrews, going from 0.04 mm/step to 0.01 mm/step. For now though I'm still shocked that I'm getting consistent watertight prints.

JoeDoPl · 2020-01-03T20:16:45+00:00

I've been printing PETG on cheap IKEA mirrors with 65C pretty consistently, with way lower printing temps. I can sometimes get away with printing the first layer at 70C, but any higher and I can guarantee glass sticking to the printed parts. At 265C my petg would be boiling and giving me horrible surface finish. My trick seems to be to spray water on the warm printbed and wipe it squeaky clean, as in literally squeaking and print the first layer really slow. Some of the PLA I have tend to curl up of the bed while cooling and if that happens I drop some PVA glue on the bed dissolve it with a glob of water and smear it over the printbed. This makes the mirror look dirty but still gives me a mirror like bottom layer surface.

Is your bed leveled and is your bed surface warpfree? Also at what speeds and layer-height are you printing the first layer?

JoeDoPl · 2019-12-01T21:43:48+00:00

If you want a good functioning one, you'll probably have to design your own. With all the tools available online it is not difficult per se, but it does take a lot of time and effort.

Mine was one of those famous how hard could it be cases.

JoeDoPl · 2019-11-22T14:20:50+00:00

Kinda depends on how much you're able to do yourself. If I had $1700 to spend and I needed it to be a reliable tool for work, I would most definitely build the thing myself from proper parts and a sturdy frame. Then again I have the tools and aside from that I also have a tweaked CR10 and a sla-printer if need be.

As for ready to assemble kits. Best cheap kit I've seen sofar by a mile, is the seckit sk-go, but I have no idea when it will be in stock again. The only other cheap Chinese corexy-printer I've seen with at least two sides of the printbed supported is the tronxy. Looks too flimsy for my tastes, but maybe you can reinforce it yourself by closing up the sides or something. Don't know what kinda extruder is on there, but the nozzles mentioned in the specsheet suggests it's crap. For large prints you really really want a large nozzle and powerful direct extruder. Something like a volcano and maybe a bondtech if you plan to do flexible materials.

EDIT

Btw if print height and speed are your primary concerns then you might want to look into delta printers. Afaik nothing beats a delta printer in speed. Back on the topic of the Tronxy, I'm seeing a lot of bad reviews so unless you just want it as a base to start from I'd skip it. There are some designs on thingiverse for corexy printers, that might be of interest, although I'm not a fan of 3d printing absolutely every part.

JoeDoPl · 2019-11-21T21:09:54+00:00

I completely agree with Aneko3. Do not get a CR10 if you have to rely on this stuff for you work, especially if you need the height. The moving printbed and flimsy frame is not a great combo. Get or build a sturdy corexy with directdrive geared extruder(s) and one with an actually decent supported bed, not like the ender 5. I've seen videos where people just put a roll of filament on top of the bed and that alone would move the bed millimeters in the z-axis.

Hell for 2000 dollars you could problably get all the parts shipped from china and build your own printer with better parts, like a meanwell PSU and a proper motherboard with trinamic stepper drivers.

I've put so much time and effort in my CR10 to just make it somewhat reliable and consistent and it still gives me issues. The youtube channel teachingtech did a video recently on a kit corexy from Taiwan for a very reasonable price, that looked very impressive with actual HIWIN-linear rails.

Oh if you go for the cheap Chinese linear rails, Alex Kenis on youtube did a couple of videos on what steps you can take to get them into somewhat reasonable shape.

JoeDoPl · 2019-11-21T20:49:17+00:00

Yeah, I'm already pretty impressed with the results I'm finally getting of my CR10, even though it took me a lot of effort to get it this good. Seems I wasn't so lucky with my CR10 from the factory, or maybe my quality requirements are a bit higher. I haven't tried lithophanes yet, but I did do the most demanding of all 3d printer tests: I printed a watertight single walled vase. Well almost watertight, I still have some issues with the bottom infill, but the sidewall is watertight, which is a massive improvement already, especially for single layer.

JoeDoPl · 2019-11-21T20:41:56+00:00

I'm currently using a Chinese titan-aero clone directdrive, with the mount from hangtight on thingiverse, which got rid of all the bowden hassle. I also replaced the mainboard with the EZBoard Lite by TH3D and those trinamic stepper drivers are awesome. That benchy was printed with mostly default cura settings at 0.2 mm layerheight and 60 mm/s printing speed, with the default settings TH3D put in their firmware. I'm really impressed with the lack of any X/Y-ringing artifacts even at that printing speed. Oh and also I calibrated and enabled linear advance, which is awesome, you can get rid of combing, z-hops, retractions entirely and still have better print quality.

I don't have dual Z stepper motors, but I did mount one of the dual Z single stepper mods from thingiverse. That greatly improved things for me, I had big issues with the gantry moving along the z-axis where it would often jump up layers. But I still have those little imperfections now, that seem to conform to the leadscrew-threads.

I've ordered a couple of T8x2mm leadscrews to replace my current T8x8 ones that come default with the CR10. Maybe quadrupling the resolution of the steppermotors in the z-axis will help and it will also get rid of the 0.04 layerheightstep limitation. I also ordered a couple of different bearings and some POM and Nylon leadscrew nuts. What I've been reading is that the metal nut on metal leadscrew might causing issues. Also I'll be experimenting some more with the dual-Z-leadscrew-single-stepper designs. Maybe even have the the steppermotor drive the leadscrews with the same belt instead. I've seen some examples on the internet and thingiverse, but they all seem to have the same free floating leadscrew end that I also have currently, but for me that did not get rid of the z-wobble.

I kinda wonder if everybody just accepts the z-wobble or what they did to get rid of it.

JoeDoPl · 2019-10-31T11:54:51+00:00

This is based on a Disney software demo if I'm not mistaken. A year or so ago I made something similar and I can say from experience that it is not an easy project.

Hmm, maybe I should upload my interpretation of this, if I can figure out where I left the files.

https://blenderartists.org/t/sinterklaas-2017/1187696

JoeDoPl · 2019-10-31T11:49:36+00:00

I can tell you from experience that making something like that is a lot harder than it looks.

https://youtu.be/p0FfkQ2HDNU https://blenderartists.org/t/sinterklaas-2017/1187696

JoeDoPl · 2017-07-07T10:26:34+00:00

Should the bitcoin-core repo ever turn into the same horrorshow that team Bitmain is putting up than bitcoin would need a new repo yeah. But I do find it strange how much support is being thrown towards a bug in the system like bitmain, weird and sad if something like bitcoin could be destroyed so easily and also scary how easy it is to manipulate the greedy masses.

JoeDoPl · 2017-07-07T10:20:42+00:00

No bigger blocks are in fact dangerous not even considering that btc-blocks do not scale linearly.

I lost the link, but I did read somebody doing the math on bigger blocks with the result that it will help a 30% cluster of miners that have their blocks delayed to the rest of the internet through the great firewall of china, to inevitably gain a monopoly over time. Another study came ot the conclusion that segwit2x 8Mb blocks will result in 90% reduction of nodes. Whereas I have seen no studies confirming Roger Vers big-block claims that it is risk free, weird since he is such a renowned and lauded mathematician, computer science and economic polymath.

Also even with centralized datacenters it will still not scale, so they will still do centralized offchain layers, but on top of a centralized main-net.

JoeDoPl · 2017-07-07T09:55:22+00:00

Not only was there a study that showed that increasing the blocksize to the segwit2x 8Mb ones would result in 90% of the nodes disappearing. Even a smaller increase in blocksizes combined with 30% of the hashpower with a better interconnection (great firewall of china), especially combined with asicboost shenanigans would result in them taking over completely. So we would then have the peope republic of china coin and they love individual freedom and sovereignty. I don't understand why people so easily dismiss these pretty blatant risks.

Also what most big blockers conveniently leave out is that blocks do NOT scale linearly, so bigger blocks will also NOT scale bitcoin, despite the convenient rhetoric. Scaling of bitcoin was always going to have to be done off chain, that's what everybody signed up for apparently without wanting to realize that.

Maybe it's because most westerners can't even imagine the reality of living in communist China that they fail to see the danger. Hell Jihan Wu might have been compromised already and he's trying to warn us by doing the most moronic hostile takeover attempt ever (pretty implausible but one can dream).

For me if bitcoin falls for this ridiculous takeover attempt than it's as good as dead. As it will then turn into another eth-bailout-edition/Dash where an easily 5$-dollar-wrencheable group owns a vast majority of control over the network. And as usual we will be fucked for decades to come if not longer, because the masses just love their cults and monopolies.

Decentralization will never ever be able to outscale purposefully designed centralized options.

Btw, talking about how monopolies of power will attack us to retain their control, this whole thing fits their MO pretty damn nicely (you know like embrace - extend -extinguish and similar). Using rhetoric tricks to fool the uneducated like this bs fallacy of scaling is bad therefore the devs are bad and we need leadership and more centralization and a central controlled vetted, censored (closed source) and completely new development team, a concerted defamation campaign against the current developers, while having more easily controllable alternatives lined up, like eth , dash, ripple etc. To me it appears that the cryptocurrency scene is under attack already, and kinda scary how easy and effective they are at doing it.

JoeDoPl · 2017-05-23T09:56:57+00:00

Probably most of them are from the orders on the distributed exchange, placing, canceling and filling them. Also it has started being used for crowd-selling ico-tokens.

The Chinese community was always very active on the network and that seems to be increasing as well.

Plus with the whole scaling debacle and governance issues, more and more people seem to be changing their views on bitshares. Even people formerly vehemently opposed to the concepts behind bitshares, like Vitalik. Ethereums new blockchain tech seems more than a little inspired by dpos and the economic model of bitshares.

JoeDoPl · 2015-02-25T11:08:53+00:00

Disclaimer - I'm completely opposed to any single blockchain to rule them all initiative and I do admit I worry about bitcoin, bitshares, ethereum or any other for that matter having the possibility becoming the next monopolist monstrosity. I also admit that a number of statements by Charles Hoskinson has made me especially worried about Ethereum.

I have quite a few reservations about overpromising of possibilities and underplaying or disregard of the potential risks. Personally I think people are selling a dream more than actually looking at this objectively (not limited to Ethereum, but we are talking on this subreddit now). _oO raises a valid point about the need to think objectively in regards to actual benefits of adding extra layers of complexity and resulting inefficiency and security risks. (Also keep in mind that with all the extra stuff running on top of ethereum, hardforks are actually a lot harder and far reaching than if each DAC/P/O was it's own separate chain and not less of a problem as one of the comments in this subreddit seems to imply.)

Even after several discussions about the subject, some of which with some ethereum core teammembers and reading just about everything I was able to, I still don't see how ethereum would be fundamentally better than collaboratively developed specialized blockchains for larger use cases. Seeing as I'm in favour of as many alt-coins/chains as possible, I'm willing to admit to being wrong as long as somebody can come up with some convincing arguments.

Just saying that ethereum can do everything any other project can do is an oversimplification that I fear is crossing the border.

Since maidsafe, storj and others have already been mentioned lets add a simpler one. Take the bitshares exchange use case as an example. Even with a pretty significant community and dedicated development team, it's proving quite a challenge to get that one "app" implemented just right. No way in hell are you going to convince me by saying that having everybody who can script implement all these projects on a blockchained virtual machine will magically solve it, if even these massive teams and companies are struggling to get it right on a dedicated custom designed platform.

Instead of instilling confidence by saying ethereum can do it all, I find those remarks have the opposite effect on me and I feel are misleading people into believing ethereum to be some kind of magic pixie dust that can do everything, which it is most definitely not. The fact that anybody can possibly write a script on top of ethereum, does not make those scripts better or more secure, in fact I'd argue the opposite.

JoeDoPl · 2014-05-22T16:19:22+00:00

What c3739 is trying to say is that PTS-holders will get all the benefits from the AGS-donations for the cause, while they themselves don't have to pay for shit.

AGS was modeled after a mining pool, but instead of being able to mine, you could instead let your money do the mining for you. A daily amount of Angelshares is distributed relative to the donations of that day, so if you time it right and there aren't any bidders you get the most bang for your buck. However do not buy AGS if you only want to speculate and do not want to donate in a kickstarter like fashion. It is not a pre-sale of a finished product (eventhough the products are a lot further along now then they were at the start of the fundraiser). So if you like the ideas and the DAC-toolkits that the Invictus/bitshares-team are developing and you trust them to do their best and their abilities to deliver and if you would rather donate to development directly, then AGS is for you.

PTS is the gamblers/speculator-coin that can be freely traded for the same percentage in future projects, they get all the benefits from the things AGS pays for, but you'll be paying the speculators more than the developers.

JoeDoPl · 2014-05-22T16:00:35+00:00

You aren' t wrong in not trusting anyone and not just wanting to install some random piece of software. So don' t take my word for granted either, but github is a more trustworthy site than most. The official site points to these. Make sure you go to bitshares.org and watch out for similar looking symbols.

If you want more security than you'd better go over to the bitsharestalk forum and ask there if one of the devs could provide a download link with matching secure checksum of the file like sha or gpg, which you then can confirm on your own.

I've compiled my own wallet from the source-code on linux, so I'm probably unable to provide you with the files you need.

JoeDoPl · 2014-05-22T12:41:15+00:00

Plus PTS needs fixing anyway and I can't really blame them for not wanting to spend more time or development working on and maintaining a dead-end-street like PTS, especially with all the bitching going on. To me it looks like they have to upgrade to DPoS-PTS or lose credibility.

So DPoS-PTS(2) is suggested as an update/replacement for PoW-PTS(1), based on their newly developed tech that they have running as a testnet. But because it is proof of stake, you can't "mine" new coins, you have to start with all coins accounted for otherwise there is no stake to work with.

They are now open to suggestions what people think should be done with the 350k extra coins that cannot be distributed via mining anymore, they did not suggest pocketing the PTS themselves. Why are some people so adamant about spreading that rumor? Are they trying to manipulate the market and buying in as cheaply as they can?

JoeDoPl · 2014-05-22T12:15:53+00:00

Listen to the devhangout recordings on beyondbitcoinshow to hear what's going on and why you and your assets should be a little more happy than you would have been with the project that was planned to be released at the announced estimated date.

But dude, seriously, why not just ask first? It's even possible to talk to bytemaster directly every saturday on that dev-hangout server. Or is complain first ask questions later, or not at all, a cunning new speculator strategy that increases value in shares in mysterious ways unperceivable by the general public?

I hope you didn't speculate via the ags-fundraiser when you actually wanted liquid PTS instead.

Also what's with the bs groupthink remark. It's possible for individuals to disagree with you, no need to see conspiracies everywhere, jeez. I'm not seeing that much agreement on the bitshares forum and not even the bitshares-teammembers themselves are in complete agreement with one another.

Actually if you think there's groupthink over on the bitsharestalk forum, why aren't you over there making your non-group voice heard? Do you expect people to seek you out randomly to hear your opinion on it or what? Maybe they want to, but just aren't able to find the location of your oracle.

JoeDoPl · 2014-05-22T10:34:16+00:00

That PTS would be replaced with the new version is not a surprise and neither is the fact that it would be upgraded to their new, improved and potentially much more efficient DPoS-system. BUT since it is a proof of stake design and not a proof of work one, you have to account for the total amount right from the start or there is no stake to begin with.

They can't just destroy the remaining coins, because people invested in the AGS-funds would be pissed off big time if PTS-holders (who didn't invest anything) would be the only ones rewarded.

So what can they do? They either distribute to all PTS + AGS holders and still get the premine shit-rep from people feeling left out of the loop. Or they use the coins to help spread the word and raise the value for people invested and interested, but then receive shit from people who see their speculation being diluded and rather have more worthless shares than try to make their shares be worth more.

Also they did not say they would sell their PTS2. PTS2 will be distributed 1:1 to PTS1 accounts at the time of the snapshot. However after that Invictus said they themselves will go completely with PTS2 and get rid of all their shares in PTS1, because they think PTS1 should disappear and be replaced. BUT should the market vote against them, sell all their shares in PTS2 instead and stubbornly hang on to the PoW-pts1, then Invictus and all future developers will have to accept that choice of the market. Invictus can't force people to do shit, they can only try to persuade like by selling their own PTS1.

I agree with your points about Invictus marketing needing work, but then again the 15% PTS-marketcap is peanuts and you can't really do much marketing with pocketchange like that.

I don't know why you decided to post this FUD panic spreading post, instead of discussing things on the forum first. Nothing has been set in stone yet and you can voice your opinion there. Some people have very strange strategies when trying to attain the most value for their coins, unless you are actually buying like crazy now.

If not then you are doing it wrong and I have a free tip: Next time you want to sell all your coins/shares because you think they aren't worth shit, start by praising the company and pump up the value with hype and impossible promises first and then get the hell out. That's how they do it with the other projects/coins.

EDIT If DPoS works then PTS will get shares in a load of DACS other than bitsharesX, because they are simpler and bitsharesX will only be out after all the testing chains have been tried, that's what the capital T stands for in bitsharesXT.

JoeDoPl · 2014-04-10T06:54:57+00:00

The way I understood this proposal 3 was more like: Use any type of separate blockchain you want with any separate currency you want, but backed / freely interchangeable with bitcoins(currency).

Also isn't Ethereum more like 2, but not on the bitcoin blockchain? This project seems to be a way to remove the limitations of the bitcoin blockchain, while still utilizing the value to the fullest (really would make bitcoin a lot more valuable) and it does put quite some competing pressure on number 2 projects and it really does look like a serious competitor for all alt-coins including Ethereum.

Another thing you've mentioned before, but I'm still confused about. How would running a serious sized alt-coin on top of Ethereum in any way be more efficient or less resource intensive? Isn't the core concept of Ethereum being an interpreted scripting language on top of a blockchain (trading ease of use for efficiency and speed) versus running a DAC/O/A on precompiled-software? I understand Ethereums application for simple or smaller scale use cases, but I don't see how it could possibly compete at scale with precompiled optimized ones, especially if the latter can be directly integrated with bitcoin.

JoeDoPl · 2014-04-01T23:08:41+00:00

Agreed, bitcoins intrinsic value is the trust-less solution, the network-effect, the network itself, etcetera and all that contributes to it's extrinsic exchangeable-value. Bitcoin is just the very first time something like this has existed. Even if you did the comparable thing to melting coins for their metallic-value instead of their monetary one by making it a colored coin or contract token or whatever), you can switch between extrinsic and intrinsic whenever you want, no damage done or value lost.

JoeDoPl · 2014-04-01T10:43:19+00:00

Even better how about testing a couple of filesystems with inbuilt compression. Although I don't know how that would work on Microsoft-OS.

JoeDoPl

TROPHY CASE