An off-topic conversation has been going on across a couple of comment threads,

3D Printing
,
101

@John_Davis , I have no such ‘loyalty’ to the word level.

I have made it clear so-far that I am aiming for terminology that is, ideally, simple and clear - especially to newcomers to 3D printing.

I also am a pragmatist. I see a simple, clear word that is currently in common use, and is meaningful to very many people, so it would seem reasonable to me that that word would still continue to be used.

The loyalties that I have show here with my comments are: simplicity, clarity and pragmatism.

Plus, I always strive to be reasonable, so - what exactly have I written that you regard as unreasonable?

102

name someone with a ged or highschool diploma that doesn’t know what two planes being parallel means. Now is that person going to the gymnast down the street to borrow his parallel bars? Probably not. :confused:

103

@Paul_Gross Adhering to the idea that anything being level or plumb is somehow critical to tramming the bed is unsupportable. Branching that to a need for non FFF/FDM fabbers to be “precisely leveled” is also demonstrably false and even after having that pointed out you won’t concede the point.

In your latest response you hit on the best argument for using “level” despite its clear lack of correctness and track record for sending newbs on goose chases: it’s already a thing. Continued ubiquity may eventually make what is incorrect correct by the sheer weight of convention, but some of us are saying it may not be too late to change that.

104

I’m fairly that 3D printer on the ISS isn’t “level”.

105

@John_Davis ,
To characterise my comments as ‘adhering’ to the the word ‘level’ is unreasonable.

I will repeat, for clarity: I am supportive of the word ‘level’ because I feel that it is simple, clear, currently in common use and is well understood. This is a reasonable position.

If someone doesn’t use the word ‘level’ - I have no beef with that, and I feel no compulsion to intervene by trying to convince anyone to use a different term.

So, you see: I am not adhering to the word ‘level’, but I am supportive of its use because, on balance, despite the fact it can be misunderstood at times, I feel that word captures what most people mean.

Also, I didn’t use the word critical. Please do a search for that word in these comments - you have used the word critical - but I have not.

My use of language has been, and remains, congenial and conversational in these comments.

By nature I tend to avoid using absolute terms because I find they can be just divisive and augmentative.

I have consistently conceded in my many comments that various machines can print without being exactly level. But - I have emphasised that the manufacturers of the machine would prefer that their users level them.

I have clearly said several times that being level and plumb is an ideal to aim for, but I have never said it was ‘critical’. Of course people will always operate their machines in a non-ideal way, just like I do myself at times, but when advising somebody new, I feel that it is best that they level and plumb their machines as a normal part of its calibration.

All that said - I disagree with your claim that the word level clearly lacks correctness. I would be interested to hear what is clearly incorrect about the word level. To my mind, the word ‘level’, when combined with the word ‘plumb’ captures an ideal setup that we are aiming for with our machines.

Also, the fact that some people have been mislead by the word ‘level’ does not argue that this is a common mistake. Your claim is overly general, and would require broad behavioral research to make it general. Any word can be misunderstood by someone - but I have not seen a general case made that ‘level’ is being commonly misunderstood - I have just read some anecdotes. Anecdotes do not necessarily represent most people’s experience.

John Davis, please pay close attention to my words. I am being reasonable. I am not being dogmatic, nor am I adhering to the word ‘level’. I am just calmly considering the ideas presented, and thus-far I have reasonably argued for support of the commonly used, clear and simple status-quo.

It is probably best that we just to agree to disagree.

Nobody has requested that we make a decision or reach a consensus. There is no pressure or expectation that we must come to a final conclusion. This is just an informal discussion.

106

@Paul_Gross It was not my intention to insult, but merely to share my perspective on your arguments.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to characterize the fact that you’ve come back to level and plumb time and time again as “adherence”. You adhered to these terms yet again in your latest comment despite the fact that seems clear and indisputable to me: They have nothing to do with tramming the bed. Adherence is of course not a pejorative term in the least so I’m again not following your reasoning for fixating on it either.

Yes, “critical” was/is my word (you’ll notice it was not in quotes). The point that some are arguing in this thread is that “level” does not begin to approach what is critical about tramming/truing/paralleling the bed and we, perhaps naively, believe that language should endeavor to capture that which is most critical/quintessential/important about that which it describes. If you don’t believe that plumb and level are critical to the operation of tramming the bed, and at least on that we can agree, then why are you repeatedly bringing these words up again and again in a discussion about how best to describe this operation?

Yes, we can agree to disagree that “level” is or is not a good/ideal/acceptable term to use for the process of insuring that the build platform on a 3d printer is equidistant from the nozzle for all positions X0 -> Xmax and Y0 -> Ymax. But if you’ll take @Whosa_whatsis point above about turning a 3d printer on its side (or heck, let’s say a 45 degree angle) and ask yourself what could possibly be plumb or level about that, then I hope you’ll agree that there is no room for disagreement that the answer is “nothing” despite the fact that the machine is still in tram, the bed is true, the platform is parallel to X and Y and it’s still going to print.

107

Thank you @John_Davis for your equally congenial response.

Please understand that my repetition of level and plumb was my attempt to be clear within each comment. I often feel that repeating my central point helps the reader follow my thoughts.

I do take your point that this can be overly repetitive!

Regarding the issue that you and others have raised about printing with a machine turned on on its side, as well as my own point, and others, about printing in orbit - this serves to emphasise that printing at off-plumb angles are exceptional cases.

Exceptional cases do not help beginners very much.

If someone wants to print with their machine on its side - fair enough - and I wont stop them. I think they will encounter some new problems, like bridging, overhangs and support material printing oddly.

Support material in particular implies a plumbed printer. The software calculates support material assuming gravity pulls the hot plastic directly down the Z-axis. Of course someone could modify the software to handle arbitrary gravitational angles, if they thought that the effort was worth it.

But none of that is any help to a beginner. Trying to print with a machine tilted on its side would likely encounter many issues that would obscure any point being made about alternative geometries that are not level and plumb. (Please forgive me that last repetition.)

108

@Paul_Gross Wrong again regarding support. Gravity is not the issue there, and support is just as necessary on the printer in orbit. The issue is that the extruder pushes the plastic out and the software depends on it having something to compress against to make it the right shape, and to stick to so that it stays in place. When you extrude over empty space, the “drooping” is more an issue of the nozzle pushing the plastic than of gravity pulling it. In extreme cases, the artifacts caused by this will look different depending on the direction of gravity, but this is only true when they have already failed.

Bridging is a special case where drooping actually is caused by gravity, but in other cases, an unsupported overhang is as likely, if not more likely (due to warping forces) to end up “drooping” upward toward the extruder rather than downward toward the platform.

109

Yeah, I’m for “paralleling” or tramming. I find them both to convey the idea with more clarity than “leveling”, which as I type this, has me thinking of a spirit level.

As to the beginner being somehow scared off by the use of the word tramming? GTS. The definition is out there.

110

@Whosa_whatsis :
“Wrong again regarding support. Gravity is not the issue there…”

Very blunt!

But we will just have to agree to disagree on that one.

When somebody has turned their printer on its side and then printed with support material, the reality will be known to the whole world.

There is no point in us arguing about it until we see an actual demonstation of what we are discussing.

111

do you know who @Whosa_whatsis is? he has printed sedeways. which is why he speaks with authority on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEAZcbcrvtk

112

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7ZWSbTv3as are these videos of level printers?

113

Cool @D_Rob !

Yep those printers were turned upside down during the print. as shown in those videos - very impressive!

Any videos of prints with overhangs, bridging and/or support printed while it was turned over or sideways? That would clear up this argument.

Looking forward to seeing that - even if I have to eat my words!

My thoughts right now are that the effect of gravity on overhangs, bridging and support will be lessened by printing at lower temperatures, but then you might be fighting the poorer adhesion of the filament between layers - printing a weaker part as a consequence of reducing the effect of gravity on the heated filament.

In any case it will be fun to see what happens.

114

Support for overhangs isn’t about fighting gravity. It is about having a surface to adhere to until that point can be joined to the main body. The legs of the tree frog is a perfect example. Those legs are the body’s support. Bridges could even be improved by printing with the machine 90 deg/ to level since gravity would pull in the appropriate direction and sagging would be a non issue. No need to lower temp either or speeds for that matter. FFF is achieved by rapidly melting filament to a plastic state which fuses to the preceding layer and rapidly solidifies again.

115

maybe a future printer will have the entire machine rotate so that all bridges are plumb while being printed. No more sagging!

116

Imagine a printer in the middle of one of these: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXZnvwWunaAY&ei=-sphVN_WC4miyQTruoHoCQ&usg=AFQjCNHtDPjMBbJ3GEpMGKnvVtWGZPFxyA&sig2=ckTwUthRUUqOLGdIY0Xnaw&bvm=bv.79189006,d.aWw to achieve controlled rotation of the machine to any desired angle to let gravity assist in perfect prints on 1meter bridges :slight_smile: definitely wouldn’t be a level machine. But the nozzle would mo co-planar and parallel to the build surface.

117

@D_Rob :
“maybe a future printer will have the entire machine rotate so that all bridges are plumb while being printed. No more sagging!”

Yep - after starting from a calibrated plumb position.

Perhaps there is a design that could utilise an ‘artificial gravity’ - spinning the printer off-axis to generate a centripetal force vector against carefully calculated support material.

Maybe that’s also an appropriate design for a printer on board the International Space Station. Of course, on the ISS you could just ‘turn off the gravity’ to print a bridge without any sagging.

118

But since my printer doesn’t move like that plumb is just a fruit to eat while watching a print else it’s not of much worth in printing. No one wants to tediously level a printer every time the relocate it. Do you level your ink jet printer? People want a calibrated machine the can pick up off a shelf print and stow away. Also have you seen the trunk printers (or boot printer to Brits)? Level is unnecessary as is plumb. Using gravity is an inefficient way to ensure the x and y axis movement keep the nozzle equidistant from the bed. Leveling with a level adds extraneous steps. A square to ensure perpendicularity of the 3 axes and a sheet of paper for a feeler gauge is all you need on most systems. Adjust the bed screw’s or use shims to go spring free.

119

It has finally dawned on me what is actually going on here. I feel like a fool.

@D_Rob your mention of the feeler gauge has led me right back to what actually started all this - getting the first layer to stick to the plate.

When I first used my printer, like most of us, I found that the first layer would sometimes not stick to the plate, so I used a feeler gauge to test the gap between the plate and the extruder at various places, and I confirmed what I suspected - my plate was a bit uneven. I added some spring washers to help me adjust the plate at the corners, and I got it mostly straightened out. I found that that my plate was still slightly cupped - meaning it was a bit lower in the middle compared to the edges, but the first layer still stuck, so I just let it be.

All very obvious.

Then, I went to some blogs to share my happy experience, and read that others were talking about leveling their plate. I shared my own experience with leveling my plate on the blogs, because I understood what they meant by the word ‘level’ instantly from the context.

Nobody even mentioned using a spirit-level.

It was just obvious.

Even though my ‘plate’ was ‘cupped’, at no point did I consider reaching for a knife and fork to eat a steak off it. Neither did I try to pour a coffee into my cupped plate.

It was just obvious.

Despite my first impression, this lengthy discussion is not about anything meaningful or profound. Initially I thought we were discussing geometry in 3 dimensions, which can be confusing at times. But actually this has nothing to do with parallelograms, or orthogonal vectors, or surface normals or motion in 3D spaces. There was no point even thinking about printing sideways, upside down, or discussing plumb lines or gravity vectors as they affect heated plastic.

In my efforts to understand the issue being discussed, I thought far too deeply about it, and earnestly went looking for a problem that wasn’t even there.

All this fuss is really only about using the word ‘level’ as it pertains to the first layer sticking to the plate. Nothing at all to do with the accuracy of subsequent layers or the relative motion vector of the Z-axis and all of that other complexity.

There is no profound problem to solve here. This issue is just trivial - being pedantic about the semantics of the word level. I wish I had realised that straight away.

When this whole issue is brought back to what is truly essential, it’s almost about nothing at all.

The word ‘level’ is in common use today simply because, when we discuss problems with the first layer sticking, it has an immediately obvious meaning: a consistent distance between the extruder and the plate.

120

Relative information. This is a guy who did a " How to build a 3D printer write up ". Anyway this link is what he had to say about, well i guess i will say leveling for lack of a decision on this. He did a pretty good job i would say, has his disclaimer and what it is he is trying to accomplish.

http://www.digitalartsonline.co.uk/tutorials/hacking-maker/how-build-your-own-3d-printer/#6