Page MenuHomeAleph Objects Inc

Wire z max switch in parallel with second z max switch
Closed, ResolvedPublic


This was brought up in an R&D meeting a while ago. If we add a second z max switch and attach it to the right z upper and wire the switches in parallel, the x gantry would have to hit both switches to home and subsequently level.
The parts that would need to change are z upper left and right, z max switch harness x idler. We would need to add another endstop switch, a length of t slot dust cover, 2x m2 inserts, 2x m2x10 shcs and m2 washers to the bom. The z max harness bom would need to include 2x solder sleeves, 2x purple faston connectors, and wire length

Event Timeline

west created this task.Jan 9 2019, 12:23 PM
west moved this task from Report Issues Here to Alpha Sprint (2019/01/04) on the Quiver board.
tutley added a subscriber: tutley.Jan 9 2019, 12:26 PM

@west series not parallel

west added a comment.Jan 9 2019, 1:23 PM

@tutley parallel since they are NC

west updated the task description. (Show Details)Jan 10 2019, 12:49 PM
west added a comment.EditedJan 10 2019, 12:55 PM

The bom has been updated

  • M2 insert 4-6
  • m2x10 SHCS 4-6
  • endstop switch 2-3
  • m2 washer 4-6

The new dust cover has a drawing, we will need to make a pn for the cut length and update the bom when that is done

MikeR added a subscriber: MikeR.Jan 17 2019, 10:12 AM

I have this installed on my machine and it has been working, however would it be possible , that once both end stops are triggered it ends the x-level sequence? Currently it does the same thing where it goes up and triggers both stops but then bounces a few more times. When it does that the x-axis can get out of sync and may not be truly level. I also think it is un-necessary for it to keep leveling once both end stops have been triggered.

west added a comment.Jan 17 2019, 10:13 AM

@MikeR dont run the x level sequence just home the z axis. Running the x level disables endstops temporarily

@west So should we just get rid of the x-level function altogether?

west added a comment.Jan 17 2019, 10:15 AM

@MikeR that is the plan, we are considering replacing the x level button with a rewipe button.

Ah ok gotcha. So just home the printer to get it level. check. Thanks for the info.

west added a comment.Jan 17 2019, 3:53 PM

@MikeR how is this fix working out for you?

MikeR added a comment.Jan 18 2019, 8:08 AM

@west it has been working well for me now that I don't do the level axis and just home it.

DaniAO added a subscriber: DaniAO.Jan 21 2019, 10:49 AM

So do we feel that this is good to go or do we need more testing?

tutley added a subscriber: marcio.Jan 21 2019, 10:50 AM

@DaniAO i believe this is good to go, but with this change comes removing the x level button in the UI. which i dont think has been touched yet. @marcio can we remove the x level button and replace with the wipe nozzle button?

west added a comment.Jan 21 2019, 10:51 AM

@tutley I belive the x level button has been removed in FW .77

karrad added a subscriber: karrad.Jan 21 2019, 10:51 AM

@tutley Has already been implemented in .77, Please upgrade and give it a go.

@karrad nice, thx for the heads up!

Running FW .77 on Quiver 7 and these changes appears to have the x-level still enabled for the nozzle offset calibration.

Running FW .77 on Quiver 7 and these changes appears to have the x-level still enabled for the nozzle offset calibration.

@EricNugent: Yes, the X-axis will still be leveled prior to calibration. The only thing .77 removes is the button for initiating the X-axis leveling at other times. This is because X-axis leveling is now the same as homing Z, which already has a button.

@marcio sounds good, figured the dual switch was working better than running against the top of the frame and I didn't see it in the menu anymore so I thought it may have been missed.

Steven closed this task as Resolved.Jan 22 2019, 10:32 AM

This is now merged into master. @west @EricNugent FYI, I increased the revision number of vr_x_idler, Z_upper_left, and Z_upper_right because the versions in this branch matched the revision number already in master.