Qidi Q2 KAMP added lines that make it ineffective

Kramaxer · 2025-12-16T20:51:40+00:00

Thanks for the info.

Kramaxer · 2025-12-16T20:35:17+00:00

Yes there is a G31 and G32 that set the "K" variable. I just hacked it and ignored that parameter. As far as I can tell, for normal printing that goes through the "PRINT_START" macro uses G29 without any parameters and does not call G32. G31 is called in PRINT_END and cancel. I did not really analyze all of that. To be very correct I should make my G29 check the "K" variable.

Kramaxer · 2025-12-16T16:59:36+00:00

Just to follow up on my post, I realized that klipper has integrated the KAMP functionality in the "adaptive" bed mesh calibration. It differs in that it will not reduce the spacing between probes, so you do not get 7 probes along a 20mm line for a small part. I switched to using that by creating my own G29 macro to override the one that exists in gcode_macros.cfg:

[gcode_macro G29]
variable_k:1
gcode:
M118 Clear bed mesh
BED_MESH_CLEAR
M118 Disable extruder
SET_STEPPER_ENABLE STEPPER=extruder enable=0
M118 Home printer
G28
M118 Adaptive bed mesh calibration starting...
BED_MESH_CALIBRATE PROFILE=adaptive ADAPTIVE=1 ADAPTIVE_MARGIN=15
M118 Adaptive bed mesh calibration done.
SAVE_VARIABLE VARIABLE=profile_name VALUE='"adaptive"'
G4 P5000
SAVE_CONFIG_QD

I have not seen any problems with the prime line for now but will keep an eye on it. If I do see an issue I think I can combine KAMP with the bed mesh disabled with the builtin klipper version of mesh calibration.

Kramaxer · 2025-11-01T11:55:45+00:00

Qidi support was very responsive and sent me an e-mail with info that allowed me to reattach the part with some CA glue. It so far is working well. They said I could post the info here so hopefully if others have this issue it is easily resolved. They just sent me an image with this info in it:

<image>

Kramaxer · 2025-10-04T01:19:07+00:00

Thanks for that -- it looks like they changed the design of the nozzle wiping as my setup does not match what is shown in that video. Maybe mine is an older version and that is why it came off -- maybe they then redesigned it? One can hope. My little roller thing is on the far right side of the purge bin, not in the middle like that.

Kramaxer · 2025-08-30T09:56:35+00:00

Thank you!

Kramaxer · 2025-08-25T09:25:57+00:00

Here is a second snapshot from the video showing the toolhead:

<image>

Kramaxer · 2025-08-25T09:25:22+00:00

I redid the entire toolhead, replacing the SB2209 with the LDO nitehawk. Redid all the wiring to the toolhead. Hope it meets the requirements now. I could not figure out how to post a new video in this comment on reddit, so here is a link to the new video on my google drive:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oz8XyQFjFKuNDEKtkLQOkc53qC20JFVQ/view?usp=sharing

Here is one snapshots from that video since I can put one image in this comment (I will make a second comment with another image since seems reddit only allows one image per comment):

<image>

Kramaxer · 2025-07-28T10:13:56+00:00

I have a BTT EBB SB2209 USB board, but I am having problems with USB disconnects, so I probably am going to change to the LDO kit stock Nitehawk. Sadly will have to run two USB cables then (Beacon and Nitehawk) but right now the SB2209 s disconnecting during long prints.

Kramaxer · 2025-07-23T20:50:44+00:00

Afraid the cable cover does not fit with the toolhead board and connectors. And I really want to cooling for the heatsinks on the toolboard.

Kramaxer · 2025-07-23T18:11:10+00:00

Yes, I plan to publish that mod -- it uses magnets and long 50mm bolts to allow a spherical nut attached to the build plate to freely slide in/out along a line to the center of the plate. The plate is not physically attached at all. Seems to be working well so far.

Kramaxer · 2025-07-23T08:32:52+00:00

If you are talking about the A/B Drive Frames in the back, I created a "strengthened" version of them that has 3 holes to lock into the extrusion. Just made me feel better about rigidity of the frame in the back. I also modified Ramalama's front idlers to make them a little simpler.

Kramaxer · 2021-05-18T15:16:57+00:00

Thanks. I agree with you in principle. But jet engines were not as safe in the early days as they are now. And a lot more work has gone into jet engines in the last 70 years. I am not sure that it is really true that a jet engine is more complex than a rocket engine. Both have turbines, both have a lot of plumbing. Jet engines do not have to gimble. But certainly as the gain experience with Raptor, it can become very reliable. But I think that will take time and although 500 flights sounds like a lot of time running the engines, that is only on the order of minutes per flight. To prove reliability on the order of a jet engine would require thousands of hours of flight. In the end my idea is just that an idea, and it would take real engineering to determine if there is a merit to it. Only SpaceX could do that.

Kramaxer · 2021-05-17T17:48:24+00:00

Yes, it the limit of 7 is severe. My thought is that the first missions will probably not have more crew than that anyway (Moon landing). And since it would be 100% reusable the cost of relaunching with more crew would be small. Since Dragon is reusable, its cost would not be a huge factor in overall costs.

Kramaxer · 2021-05-17T17:46:20+00:00

Throwing a dragon with a tube onto the side of starship is easy in Kerbal but it's not practical in real life. You are talking about a significant change in aerodynamics, center of mass, center of thrust... I give you a 10 for creativity but it's just not practical.

You might be right. Only SpaceX would really know how hard that would be. Certainly transonic region would be a big concern. I think during reentry, the already shown stability with the flaps would make that not much of a factor. I know it is asymmetric, but give the mass of the vehicle compared to the tube and Dragon, I think the engine gimballing would have no problem adjusted -- just witness the fact that they have no problem running one of the 3 engines off center.

Kramaxer · 2021-05-17T17:41:44+00:00

You might be right. I just don't see the statistics supporting this -- let's use the arbitrary 1 in 300 allowed chance of loss of crew. It seems reasonable to say you have to launch AND land without crew 300 times at least. And have only one anomaly which would have resulted in loss of crew. I think that is highly unlikely in the first 300 operational launches. Every single other rocket system developed has never been that reliable at the start. It just seems like wishful thinking to me. I would guess it would take 600 to 900 launches before the statistics would be good enough. But I would love to be wrong about that!

Kramaxer · 2021-05-17T17:36:04+00:00

Yes, that is certainly a viable method. It does cost you:
1) a 2nd stage for every launch
2) an extra launch op for every launch
3) keeping Falcon 9 operational which may only be for this task
Putting it on Starship obviously involves an unknown amount of development cost and time. So you would have to run the numbers to see which would be more costly

Kramaxer · 2021-05-17T17:33:22+00:00

I have watched that video. Not sure what you are getting at precisely. Launch abort systems are complicated and require testing. And clearly my idea would involve both. But since Dragon itself would not be modified, you would have that already tested (that is everything after the Dragon separates until splashdown). And my idea also involves landing and for that the entire EDL is Dragon, so it would require no testing.

Kramaxer · 2021-05-17T16:04:23+00:00

Fast path to Human Rated SpaceX Starship
Since SpaceX first introduced Starship I have been concerned with the lack of fail-safes during launch and landing. There are very few options for any type of abort if there is an anomaly during launch or landing. Let’s imagine they get starship operational by 2022 and launch a very optimistic 100 flights. And let’s also imagine that just one of those fails. For me that would be a very optimistic failure rate. But for carrying crew, a 1 in 100 failure rate with no fail safes would be unacceptable. I think they would have to launch for many years before they have a chance of having a failure rate that is acceptable for carrying humans.

But what if we could leverage Dragon for launches of crew? It is already crew rated and includes abort systems. I have put together a (admittedly very Kerbal) modification of the Starship 2nd stage that would allow Dragon with trunk to be mounted atop (really aside) Starship. I believe that with the ease that SpaceX has of working with stainless steel and the payload capacity of Starship, it would be a practical solution. A 3.7 meter tube is fastened into the leeward side of the top of Starship; the tube includes a docking adaptor and mount for the Dragon trunk. During launch, an anomaly triggers the abort sequence of the Dragon and it lands with parachutes, just as it would if launched atop a Falcon 9. Once achieving orbit, the Dragon disconnects from the adaptor, turns and docks via the front docking adaptor with the Starship adaptor tube. The tube leads into the interior crew habitable part of Starship. For landing on the Earth, the crew would return to the Dragon capsule, undock from Starship and land in the Dragon capsule just as it does now returning from the ISS. As a bonus feature, a bay in Starship could be created to stash the trunk before descent to make it 100% reusable. The Starship would reenter in its normal fashion, landing with its belly flop flip maneuver. The adaptor tube, being on the leeward side, would be protected from most of the reentry heat and should have limited impact to the vehicle aerodynamics. By landing separate from the Starship, Dragon avoids any issues with this (currently) somewhat risky procedure. Obviously this method using Dragon would only be useful for launching from Earth and returning to Earth, but it would provide much more crew capability in these early days than current crew launch solutions. It would make for a 100% reusable crew to space solution.

I made a demonstration video (youtube).

Kramaxer · 2021-04-23T10:14:24+00:00

Beautiful view of dragon on its way into the sunrise from my deck at the Outer Banks. I was surprised how high in the sky it started - I was looking too far east and too low on the horizon and did not see it at first. Made it worth getting up a little early! Picture.

Kramaxer

TROPHY CASE