So I guess you can file this under stupid ideas.
So instead of a spirit level where the tube lays flat make it so it is a circle in a vertical position with a movable ‘zone’ for the ‘bubble’. That way when you level a horizontal plane(printer bed) with a vertical plane(extruder) that’s alittle off by moving the ‘zone’ away from the 90* mark +/- .
I’m not great at this stuff. So sorry if it makes no sense. I posted this idea on YouMagine.com too: https://www.youmagine.com/design_ideas
The problem with that is that you’re levelling the bed with the gravitational plane…which isn’t necessarily the same as the orientation of the nozzle.
All you really care about is that the nozzle’s distance from the build plane is equal over the whole plate. Now, if the chassis of the printer, the nozzle, AND the build plate all had ‘spirit levels’, that would indeed make them all oriented similarly, assuming that the bearing surfaces are also, likewise, dialed-in.
I’m pretty sure someone is going to crucify you, @David_Cushing . You should never use a spirit level as means to level the bed, the only thing that counts is that the axis are square and that the bed’s surface is parallel to X and Y.
Yeah your right.
All this talk about leveling the bed, auto-leveling bed probes, yadda-yadda-yadda made me think of this and I had to ‘write’ it down.
Back to the drawing board for me.
Don’t feel too bad, I use a (VERY ACCURATE) Sprit Level on the Lathe, but it’s used to measure the degree of twist along the bed, not that everything’s ‘level’ per se.
@David_Cushing That is precisely the reason some of us are lobbying to change the terminology. I’ve been using “tram correction” and @Whosa_whatsis has gathered a little traction on the Marlin github with “platform (or bed) compensation”. Let’s do away with “level”!
I like that idea @John_Davis .
@David_Cushing , thank you for demonstrating exactly what I keep saying about why it’s so important to stop using the term “level” instead of “tram”.
You’re welcome @Whosa_whatsis
Glad to be of help.
I’m going to have to disagree slightly. I find that levelling is very useful for the bottom dimension (x or y), because you can more easily determine if your two rails are parallel. Once that is settled, then tramming the next dimension becomes much easier.
@Don_Smiley That may be useful when constructing a printer, but the term “leveling” is predominantly used when talking about adjusting the bed between prints and (even less appropriately) when compensating for its misalignment in software.
But you’re not using it to determine if it’s level, you’re using it to determine if something is parallel. It’s a subtle distinction, and you’re just establishing a benchmark and working from there…you could just as easily set references if the rails were parallel, but not level. (Not sure why you would, but you could.)
Your only concern is that all axes and movement is properly orthogonal where it should be, and parallel where it should be.
@Don_Smiley Squaring is another matter. Some designs make it tricky. Some designs make it difficult to square by any method other than making sure that everything is parallel to the same plane (the one perpendicular to gravity), but this method is extremely laborious compared to the mechanisms available for squaring on other designs.
To clarify. I don’t actually care if it is “level”. What I care about is having a rational basis for declaring that the two rails represent a sufficiently consistent plane to provide a reasonable basis for tramming the next axis up. Mr. Gravity is a usable first step. And, @Whosa_whatsis I can attest to the laborious part.
Oftentimes it’s better/easier to lean on people with better tools. The machine making aluminum extrusions MUST be very precise as they’re selling it to people that require that precision, likewise, having McMaster Carr or Misumi cut the pieces to length go a long way to making sure you’re starting with a good baseline. You can also take advantage of manufacturing precision in ways like the Quadrap/Strap where slop in the end user drilling holes is minimized by the way the box sections mate together.
Like I said, some machines are designed to be squared by making sure that things are level and plumb rather than actually checking angles. I do not recommend those machines.