An off-topic conversation has been going on across a couple of comment threads, so I thought I’d post it for comment in its own. What I’d like to discuss is the idea that has been put forth to use “parallel” as a verb to replace the incorrectly-used “level”. Some of us have been being pedantic about the use of the term “tram” to describe making the platform parallel to the X and Y axes, while others have been fighting back saying that that term is too obscure and people don’t know what it means. I contend that this is better than using a term like “level”, that people are familiar with and know how to do, but is not the correct procedure, leading to the incorrect use of spirit levels and even this abomination: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:326197.
The idea is to start using “parallel” instead, as in “did you remember to parallel your platform?” It sounds awkward, but it describes what you’re actually doing (once you get past the fact that “parallel” has been verbed), and anyone who sees it for the first time, when trying to figure out what it means, is likely to come to the right conclusion before any wrong ones, unlike with “level”. Unlike “tram”, a reasonably intelligent person (I know, those are in short supply, but…) should be able to come to that conclusion without needing to look up the term or have it explained to them, and expanding it slightly to “parallel your platform to X/Y” should pretty much remove all doubt.
When I was first starting out, I made the mistake of actually “leveling” my machine as per the Prusa i2 instructions online. Man I feel so dumb looking back at that…
But from that experience, I know that it is highly toxic to be using the term level, so I’m all for just simply making “tram” more used.
…assuming that there’s no loss of parallelity (another fun, awkward invented term) introduced by your hot end mount. Even if every piece of the machine is on the same plane, because they’re all equally level, you may still not be trammed and run into the same problems.
Edit: Not on the same plane, but moving on truly parallel planes.
@Mike_Miller There are two problems with using “tram”. The first and biggest problem is that most folks have no idea what it means. I’ve encountered highly experienced machinists that didn’t know what tram meant in fact.
The machinists that do know what it means most often associate the term with the process of uprighting the spindle of a mill in relation to the bed, something that is not readily analogous to what folks are doing with the build platform on 3d printers. Yes, I’m aware that “tramming” and “in tram” have more general applications than that in machining, but the verticality of the spindle adjustment seems to be the most common usage by far.
I think the suggestion to use parallel instead of level has a lot going for it even though the whole discussion may be moot (“level” may be too deeply entrenched already).
I’m all for “parallel”. No matter how much we try to explain what “tram” is, it is in no way intuitive to newcomers. If I tell a newcomer to “tram their bed”, they will be totally confused. If I tell a newcomer to “ensure their bed is parallel to their nozzle movement”, they will at least have a starting idea of what needs to be done.
I may be biased, though, as I’m the one who suggested it.
What about “square”… the frame could easily be parallel and the towers skewed horribly, level or not. To me square or squared implies both parallel and perpendicular. Plus bonus that’s the name of the tool one would use for at least part of the job.
Maybe the builder’s term “plumb” could be used, or even “Z-axis plumb”.
To plumb something, in builder’s terms, is to make it truly perpendicular - and what we really want is of the Z-axis movement to be truly perpendicular to the X-Y plane.
Perhaps then; leveling the X-Y plane should be called “plumbing the Z-axis”?
There’s a school of thought in machining that if you can’t use the correct terms for the parts of a lathe, you shouldn’t be using it.
Likewise, is it the fault of the 3d printer of the user can’t grasp the concept of the nozzle being the same distance from the build plate at all locations of travel for a given distance Z?
There’s no debate for the proper terms for slicing or support, why would there be complaints for either tram or level? It’s a concept as important (or possibly more important than) e-steps and temperature hysteresis.
(And I submit, if the plate isn’t in tram, then it’s not “level everywhere”…by definition. )
I for one am for the new term. Tramming is obscure and takes thought for the newly/un initiated. Though there are exceptions to the rule… The rule is that people and thinking are a dangerous mixture when trying to do something procedural that requires clear precise operations . Rather than Google or ask someone (both of these require reliable sources to be found) they may just take a stab at their best assumption “leveling”. I usually say “level” (Yes I know this is incorrect.) What is being done is making the gantry parallel to the printing surface. Level was made into a verb long ago and I have no reservation to verbing “parallel”. I don’t even mind verbing “verb” to do so The fact is, “paralleling” or “parallel the bed to the x/y” is self explanatory. Bringing CNC to everyone (The Spirit of RepRap) needs terminology that can be understood by laymen easily. We finally got FFF from the evil corporate clutches, lets not turn it into an obscure ‘Good Ole’ Boys Club of secret techniques and handshakes. We should use clear, easily understood terminology that has precise and very difficult, if not impossible to misinterpret meaning.
@Brad_Hopper What we’re really talking about is making the bed parallel to the X and Y axes, which is critically important for first layer adhesion even if those axes are not square to the Z axis.
@Paul_Gross That seems at least as misleading as level to me. Please see “the abomination” above.
I for one believe plumb bobs, levels and squares are not the tools for the job we are describing. Levels, and a plumb bob will only be moderately helpful, in any use, if and only if the surface the printer is sitting on is level in x and y axis, or the tool tells the angle and that is compensated for. Squares should have been put away after ensuring all structural parts that should be square are square. the best way to Parallel a printer bed is to adjust the x and y axes of the bed with feeler gauge (paper ) Get the correct distance at all 4 corners for 4 point mounting/Paralleling setups and at the 3 points of fixing for 3 point mounting/ Paralleling systems.
A recap of my position as stated in those other scattered threads:
From my exposure to machine shops, “tramming” is usually applied to sweeping an indicator to check that a mill’s spindle is perpendicular to the table or workpiece, not making the table parallel to the motion axes. On a lathe, it again refers to sweeping an indicator, here around the tailstock or chuck face to make sure they are coaxial. On occasions when I do hear of work being done to correct machine geometry issues (not often), the terminology I hear is “squaring the machine up” or “truing the machine up”.
I vote to speak of making the machine square. “Leveling” is dangerous to people who don’t fully understand what they’re doing, so I agree it’s unhelpful, even though everyone else knows that orientation to a planet is irrelevant. “Tram” to most people is a thing you ride from the parking lot to Disney World. To a machinist, it has a particular meaning with no real application to a printer. “Parallel” leaves out the important idea of making the bed perpendicular to the Z axis (so that printed cubes are cubes, not parallelepipeds). I like “Square” because it has some intuitive sense for a lot of people, especially those with some exposure to it through carpentry, and it doesn’t have an accidentally misleading sense or a conflict with another discipline.
@Brad_Hopper As discussed in the other thread, “square” doesn’t work because users will think you’re asking about the shape of their platform (square, as opposed to rectangular like a makerbot/clone or round like a deltabot). It also implies perpendicular more than parallel, and while it’s important that all axes be perpendicular to one another, it’s more important for the platform to be parallel to X and Y than perpendicular to Z.
@Paul_Gross Plumb has similar problems. When I hear the term, I picture a plumb bob, which some of the old and wrong instructions suggested using for (in lieu of) squaring the Z axis. It’s a gravity-based technique, with all the same arguments against it as using a spirit level.
We’re arguing semantics. I like parallel, if you’re looking for a single word…‘Nozzle must be equidistant to the plate at all points’ would work if you have space for being more descriptive.
Auto-Calibrating the relative z height seems straight forward but wordy. Perpendicularizing the model is fanciful, accurate and extremely awkward. Auto-leveling is inaccurate but lots of common vernacular is just that. The “wisdom” of crowds may prevail.
Brook
@Dale_Dunn Square doesn’t work. It’s important to square your axes, but that’s a separate procedure from tramming/paralleling the platform. If you skip that step so that your Z isn’t perpendicular, you’ll still be able to print (though with distortion) if your platform is parallel to X/Y. You won’t be able to if the platform is perpendicular to Z and thus NOT parallel to X and Y.
@Brook_Drumm “Perpendicularizing” is not correct, for the reasons I explained in my previous comment. Auto-calibration is also not appropriate, because in this case we’re talking about manual mechanical adjustment, not the automatic compensation algorithms.
The fact is, “paralleling” or “parallel the bed to the x/y” is self explanatory. Bringing CNC to everyone (The Spirit of RepRap) needs terminology that can be understood by laymen easily. We finally got FFF from the evil corporate clutches, lets not turn it into an obscure ‘Good Ole’ Boys Club of secret techniques and handshakes. We should use clear, easily understood terminology that has precise and very difficult, if not impossible to misinterpret meaning.