@@janzale9596 and with soft rubber feet the printer will start to oscillate so they are a waste of time. My P1S is on its original feet and on top of a paving slab. No issue with vibration or noise at all now.
@@shaynegadsden Exactly, you want no movement at all, you want all the movement to be in the printhead, not the frame. Vibration can come through even a concrete floor, but a bush of some kind would be bes, a Metalastic bush like they use on car suspension.
A wobbly table does not matter for print quality at all, and neither do these feet, this is a principle already known for very long in the precision engineering industry. For precision machines it is standard not to mount them as rigidly as possible to the ground, rather to have as low stiffness coupling as possible. This is done as to minimize the coupling of ground/floor vibrations into the machine, and not to reduce internal vibrations. Internal vibrations are caused by limited stiffness of its own frame and masses relative to its own frame. No coupling to the outside influences this, unless you are running some very weird scenario where frequencies intermix and couple back into the frame (in which case you also have a poorly designed frame). What matters is the stiffness of the coupling of the motion system to the print, and the mass associated with motion system. Dont believe me? Refer to the video from Makers muse where he suspends a printer mid air (it doesnt get more wobbly than that) yet it prints identically. I suspect the different results you were getting before with the wobbly table, to likely be because of incorrect input shaper results, rather than physical performance limits. The results you get in this video are likely more correct (as in 7:40 where all peaks are at identical frequencies). As for your differing results, they could just be noise. Also, the location of the phone matters very much. The phone is measuring accelerations, and those are essentially the movement of the table boards. Changing the exact printer location changes how vibrations are coupled into the board, and changing the location of the phone would change how these vibrations are perceived (The table has its own natural frequency, and you can get standing waves inside of the board). It also does not take into account the frequency spectrum of the coupled accelerations. tl;dr Stiffness from 'world' to 3d printer doesnt matter for print quality, and a sturdy bench or soft feet neither help. And no, the feet also dont help with machine wear. Feet do help with vibrations of the machine being coupled back into tables, thus reducing noise, but this depends on the specific setup.
Yeah, I work in manufacturing, and in our machine shop we have some grinding machines that go down to a pretty small decimal place. Those machines are built on top of granite blocks to reduce vibration and are kept a certain distance away from other machines, same as our inspection machines. Like you said, you want the machine to be isolated from external vibrations, and that's what the big granite blocks and slabs do. Best analogy is the paver stone upgrade for 3d printers.
Adding on to this, it would be interesting to see the differences in a multi-printer-environment, e.g. on a shelf. There the feet should help to reduce the vibrations form one printer influencing another
Thank you for the info. Surprisingly very informative for a youtube comment. Seriously I cant tell you how refreshing it is hearing from a dude who knows what their talking about
I just put a 10mm thick anti vibration mat, which are usually meant for dryers/washing machines, below all my printers. They are really cheap, you can cut them with a knife or scissors to fit any printer and they are better than any rubber feet out there while also serving as sound dampening below the printer.
On my Cr-10 (which admittedly is slow enough to not have as many issues) I use feet designed for squash balls, but the cheap balls I ordered are even softer and more like rubber coated memory foam. This will adapt to any surface and vibrations get absorbed in its soft material.
Yeah I have an old gel matt that was under an exercise bike and just put the entire printer and small table on it. Fixed my print reverberating through the concrete floor it was on instantly.
Thanks for publishing the inconclusive data many people may had ditched that results and scrapped the project, but having more data to explore theories always help the development process of evaluation and reproducibility. Kudos for keeping the good work.
Absolutely! When people only publish ‘p-hacked’ data it really clouds the picture. Publishing inconclusive data is important for our overall understanding.
PSA: if you have a stone base for your printer you should be putting the printer directly on it and then have the damping mechanism (feet or foam mat) under that. this way, the printer still has a hard flat surface to sit on, instead of a soft one that allows the printer frame to flex under its own movement which is a bad thing. another thing to note is that whatever damping mechanism you use to dampen vibration must be tuned, or else it is not a guarantee it will work as you expect. you still decouple the vibration from printer to furniture, maybe reducing furniture noise, but the effects on the printer itself may be worse. for example you can have the printer sit on a balloon and have zero noise from the desk or rack, but then the printer will be bouncing and shaking all day long, making the prints worse. or you can have feet that are too hard, making the table shake more, but therefore allow the table to participate in the total dampening effort, absorbing the wave energy and converting it into heat in the wood, possibly making the prints better. do you see where i am coming from? at the end of the day there two interests at play here for the hobbyist. are you trying to decouple the printer from your furniture to improve the noise situation or are you trying to improve your print quality (increase max acceleration potential)? these should not be assumed to be achieved at the same time, even with something like HULA, which claims to hope to improve both, but upon light scrutiny of the documentation is really only expected to achieve the former. this is because the former has to do with the interaction between the printer and the furniture, tackled with things like HULA and other types of feet. whereas the latter has to do with the interaction between the toolhead mass and the frame mass and how quickly the frame can transmit the kinetic energy (stiffer frame) to the damping mechanism and how efficient that mechanism is to converted it away into heat (damping coefficient). if the TPU springs in there are not tuned to the mass of the printer, it will be through sheer luck if the max accel is improved by a statistically significant amount. it's not impossible, but somebody needs to iterate the design of the TPU springs and prove the best one empirically..for a specific printer as all printers are different. further complicating this issue is that whatever you have the printer sitting on will have its own mass and damping characteristic, whether it is a shaky rack or a solid wood desk or the concrete floor in the garage. if you add feet between the printer and said surface, then you add one more variable to the total system and cannot possibly hope to know with any confidence what that will do to print quality without extensive empirical testing. although i can tell you that no feet on the concrete ground is in fact the worst possible option for print quality because of infinite impedance and zero damping but let's not get into that. simplifying this issue thankfully, is input shaping, whose sole purpose is to perform active damping, will do all the damping that will ever be required to improve print quality. which means you actually do not need to rely on any physical damping mechanism whatsoever to improve print quality, but only need to make your frame stiffer. if your table is so terrible that your prints actually improve with HULA, maybe you should not be using that particular table...my advice and opinion is that HULA is for furniture noise improvement only. the point of all this is that the testing on HULA is only useful for the specific printers they were tested on and the specific furniture as well. you have no guarantee these will work for your Ender, Voron or what have you sitting on your IKEA or custom table, unless you or someone already tested it. and unlike all the other feet designs on printables, this one will actually cost you quite a bit of money and time. as a maker project, it is worth doing. but you should be prepared for disappointment if you expect too much from it. lastly, if you are trying to measure vibrations, the tool must be rigidly attached to the sample. the phone needs to be screwed or taped flat down, preferably with no phone case on, not sitting on a stand or propped up against a spool. for the same reason you do not rest the adxl device on the toolhead with gravity alone when you are doing input shaping calibration.
I believe this comment is 100% correct except for one additional factor: input shaping calibration measures and cancels the vibration effect of the toolhead alone, not the displacement between toolhead and print surface. It essentially assumes that the bed is fixed to the world, but this is obviously not the case. The amount of vibration that the frame transfers to the bed vs. to the world therefore is an error term in shaping calibration. I personally hypothesize that this effect is the cause of a lot of these supposed minor observed differences. This would seem to argue for making the frame as heavy as possible (perhaps by bolting it down to a block of cement or whatever, as is tradition).
Do you have any evidence to back up that sitting on a balloon would worsen print quality, or that coupling from outside world to printer would have any effect on print quality? I dont know where this myth came from, but it is very common knowledge in the precision industry that the coupling between 'fixed world' and machine is not relevant for internal dynamics. What does matter is the coupling from the internal frame to moving components. In the industry, these machines are actually coupled with as low stiffness as possible to the ground (sometimes even with air-bearings). This is not for any internal modes, rather to decouple external vibrations from coupling into the frame. If you dont believe me, watch the video from makers muse, where he literally suspends a printer in mid air from a rope, and it still produces identical prints to a regular setup.
@@jessicav2031 Although I disagree with you that the original comment is 100% correct, you are definitely right in your observation and proposed solution. What matters in the end is toolhead to bed coupling, which means that just the coupling from the frame to the printhead is not the only equation. Indeed often the coupling from frame to bed is not ideal. Having a frame as stiff and heavy as possible both reduces any reaction forces causing accelerations of the frame, as well as increasing eigenfrequencies. I however dont think that how you bolt it down to the external world influences the performance, as you are merely changing the coupling of the frame to the outside world, and not affecting the frame stiffness or mass (as no matter how hard you try, the coupling to fixed world is limited in stiffness). And in the end, it is a moot point. The frame of the printer is plenty stiff compared to the coupling of frame to printhead.
Shim your shelves from behind to prevent it from wobbling or bolt them to the wall. Also, the best damper is concrete block with large foam pad, you can get both from Home Depot, this setup will help mitigate vibrations from one printer to impact the others one the same rack.
I think it may be the wrong aproach, here in chile those sistems are instaled in my apartmen an is common knowledge that they only increase vibrations in the building bc the point is to help the building not break in half with a big impact, It may be that for a printer wich is a smaller scale, having it secure to a wall or a rack it may transfer those vibrations better than the feets
When a print head stops and or changes direction due to newtons 1st law the print head will move a little past the stopping point. The idea is to isolate the mass of the printer. The print head will take the printer with it a little bit so relative to the printed part the print head moves less.
@@jacobmurray3621 So how exactly do you think that would happen? The print head wont move a little past stopping point. Rather the deceleration forces from newtons first law are coupled into both the frame and the print head. Changing the coupling between frame and fixed world does not change anything about these forces. Having a rigid coupling from frame to fixed-world (which is impossible to achieve in practice) merely reduces the induced acceleration into the frame, which doesn't matter as it is orders of magnitude more stiff than the connection to the print head already (unless you make your frame out of cardboard). Having rubber feet merely reduces possible vibrations from being coupled back into the frame from the outside world. Those vibrations however are insignificant on the scale of a 3d printer (as we arent talking sub micron precision).
@@tHaH4x0r the main reason I have seen for using vibration dampening feet is to prevent multiple printers on a rack from interfering with each other. This is also possibly why Bambu sold the vibration dampening feet in packs of 8, enough for two printers. Vibrations from one print could go into the rack and then into another printer which could apparently cause issues or throw off the input shaping since it can’t really compensate for vibrations coming from outside of the printer. For me I got the feet to stop the printer from shaking the desk so much and they definitely help with that.
I printed a set of these and put them under my Ender 5 Plus. I didn't notice much performance gains, Klipper's resonance compensation gave me 200 more on acceleration BUT they absolutely made the printer less noisy compared to just the stock rubber feet. As for centering, I personally found it easiest to push and pull the printer so all the feet would hit the rear at the same time.
This was a great video, and the compliant feet you reviewed look like a good solution for many people. (As you found though, the amount of difference they make will depend on the specifics of each situation.) It led me to think a bit more deeply about the whole matter of motion artifacts in 3D printing. When it comes to measuring the effectiveness of compliant feet, vibration transmitted to the table or even vibration of the printer body itself isn’t necessarily a measure of how much good the feet are doing for your prints. What ultimately matters is how closely the print head is able to follow the intended path relative to the build plate, which ultimately comes down to how much the frame of the printer is being distorted or warped by the forces applied to it. Seen from that perspective, what we want to do is to reduce the impact of forces on the printer’s frame caused by print head acceleration and also dampen the system’s response to its resonant frequencies. If the printer were bolted down to an absolutely rigid table, all of the reactive forces caused by accelerating the print head would go into deforming the frame, resulting in inaccuracies. Adaptive tuning can compensate for momentary deviations and (more importantly) adjust the frequency spectrum of those forces to avoid the resonant frequencies of the printer frame and X-Y motion system, but the total amount of energy being injected into the frame will always be a direct function of the print head acceleration. On the other hand, having a compliant mounting lets some of the reactive energy from the print head’s acceleration go into moving the frame of the printer as a whole, reducing the amount left to go into deforming the frame. Think of it this way, using an extreme example: Imagine a stick clamped upright in a vise. Tap the top of the stick with a hammer and it’ll bend under the force and then vibrate back and forth. Now mount the stick on a roller skate and do the same thing. The whole stick/roller skate assembly will move away from the hammer, but the stick will vibrate much less, because there was less force applied to bending it. This is the main thing that compliant feet are doing for the printer; they allow some of the energy from the print head acceleration to be turned into movement of the printer as a whole, vs distorting the frame and causing it to vibrate. BUT, we need to make sure that the printer (and whatever it’s mounted to) doesn’t end up vibrating at large amplitudes itself, as that motion could result in forces being coupled back into the printer’s frame, causing the very problem we’re trying to avoid in the first place. The best solution is to allow the printer to move in reaction to the forces caused by accelerating the print, but then to dampen out that motion over a longer time period (probably still well under a second) so it doesn’t build up into larger oscillations that would themselves result in distortions of the frame. Thanks for a very interesting video with real-world data and for pointing to the design for the HULA feet!
Although you are on the right track, you are making some mistakes in your assumptions. Firstly, you are absolutely correct that the only thing that matters is tracking between printhead and bed. Secondly you are also correct that we want a very stiff frame to have this coupling work well. However, bolting the printer down to a rigid table would not change how reaction forces are coupled into the frame. Whether bolted down, or suspended in air, the any force induced onto the printhead and associated reaction force are always between said head and frame. Thus it would deform equally in either case. Additionally, the amount of energy you 'inject' into the frame also does not change. This is a fundamental law of thermodynamics, namely the conservation of energy. If we stiffen our frame, we dont change the amount of energy we put in, rather we need to put in more energy to achieve the same deformation. Perhaps to convince you, imagine modeling the printer as two masses. Printhead mass Mp is connected to the frame+buildplate Mf. The connection between them can be a spring, modeling the stiffness of the frame. We should then connect the frame to the fixed world through another spring mimicking the limited stiffness of fixed-world to printer connection. The response of a simple spring + mass is second order, meaning it passes any frequency up to a given frequency (given by sqrt(stiffness/mass)) after which vibrations will couple through less and less. So this shows obviously, to have high tracking performance we want to pass frequencies as high as possible between bed and printhead. Thus the frame should be stiff, and printhead mass should be low. The frame mass does not matter for this at all! Considering external vibrations from the fixed world, we would like to reject those. So in this case, we want the stiffness from fixed-world to printer to be low, and frame mass to be high to reduce the frequency as much as possible. This is a common principle in precision engineering/machines. Do note, that we are talking sub-micrometer precision for these vibrations, so for 3d printing it essentially doesnt matter. As for damping, you are right that you want to apply some damping. This is indeed to avoid what you call 'build up into large oscillations'. This means that for a typical 2nd order system, we want the 'peak' at resonant frequency to be nicely damped. Adding more damping beyond that will not help your system response, rather just reduce your bandwidth and thus hurt performance!
@@aquamansurfer The HULA feet seem like a good way to go. They decouple the printer from the table so it can move a bit more in response to printhead acceleration, but they're self-centering, so movement will average out over time and also keep the printer from crushing them like the Bambu TPU feet.
@@tHaH4x0r You're right about viewing things from the standpoint of mechanical oscillators, with masses coupled by springs, but you're missing the fact that if the frame as a whole can move in space, then some of the reaction force from accelerating the print head will go into translational kinetic energy of the frame, vs potential energy stored in the flexing of the frame. You're absolutely correct that the force between the frame and the printhead will always be the same for a given printhead acceleration, but it's a question of what that force does; if some of it goes into translational acceleration of the frame, then there'll be less left to be stored as potential energy in distortion of the frame. In situations like this, it's often helpful to think of an extreme or limiting case, such as infinite masses and arbitrarily great forces. Suppose that the printhead had infinite mass and the motors infinite strength. If the base of the frame was bolted to the floor then any attempt to move the printhead would just bend the frame by that amount. If you instead put the frame on a frictionless surface, then at low speeds there'd be almost no bending of the frame at all. (In this case, you could still get great prints, it's just that the build plate would be moving under the printhead instead of vice versa.) Back to reality, our printheads hopefully don't have infinite mass and our motors unfortunately aren't infinitely powerful, but the same principles apply. Simplistically, forces caused by accelerating the printhead can either create potential energy stored in flexed frame elements or kinetic energy in the movement of the frame as a whole. Energy is conserved, so the more that goes into the latter, the less there is of the former.
@@aquamansurfer In my opinion, feet do not impact print quality at all, except perhaps if you are running a giant print farm with tons of machines that might couple vibrations into each other. A more effective way to improve quality for a single printer, is improving stiffness between print-head and frame. How this stiffness presents itself depends on the axis you are looking at. It can be the frame/gantry stiffness, but also the driving stiffness of the actuator (which should take into account the limited stiffnesses of the belts). Personally for the driving directions (for a core-xy these are the x and y axis) the main limitation is the limited belt stiffness. This is also something you see in for example the new ratrig vcore 4. Changing from the 'regular' core xy configuration to their 'hybrid', improves the eigenfrequency by 1.38x (see 247printing's video). The only thing the hybrid design does, is essentially run another set of belts in parallel, effectively doubling the driving stiffness of these belts. If that would be the case, we would expect an eigenfrequency increase of sqrt(2), which is extremely close to the practical numbers found. Hence my conclusion that this is likely the limiting factor for core x-y machines. A more elegant way to do achieve similar results at far lower cost, is just run thicker or wider belts. In order not to compromise the bending radius, wider belts are likely the best solution for this. However there's one more solution to getting better quality prints: just printing with slower accelerations.
It makes no difference to stiff machines like the X1C. You actually want a nice solid base like a paving slab and use the stock rubber feet. It may make the printer noisier but it will absolutely reduce the vibrations in the machine. These sort of feet just make the machine wobble which could introduce more errors.
Why is it advised not to perform a calibration after installing these on a Bambu? The accelerometers in the printer don't know whether they are sitting on stock feet, these feet, or just a wobbly table. How can an active input shaper respond accurately without being calibrated on the *actual surface* on which it is placed? Perhaps perform tests like this on a concrete floor? Those wobbly benches and racks don't lend themselves to valid testing repeatability.
The reason it's not advised, is because the test results in compensation values used that produce more artifacts than using the values measured when using stock feet. This can be caused by both the feet or the mechanism used to measure the vibrations or calculate compensation.
you shouldn´t run input shaper again because the accelerometers can only measure the movement of the printhead in absolute space, not in relation to the printer´s frame, which creates a problem because the feet allow the frame to move around and vibrate a lot. So the Prtinthead would be perfectly still but the frame with the bed and part attached to it is wobbling around below.
Print artefacts occur when there's an undesired movement of the toolhead relative to the print, or you could say relative to the bed. Input shaper is capable of reducing this movement by avoiding resonances. However automatic input shaper calibration is an accelerometer. It doesn't know what movement of toolhead is is relative to bed. It only knows movement of toolhead relative to Earth's gravity, so in Global coordinates. Soft feet can reduce frame distortion and forces acting on moving components, by allowing the printer frame to move as a whole, while taking up and gradually dissipating this movement energy to heat. This newly introduced global movement is irrelevant to quality, but it does get picked up by the input shaper calibration as something to be avoided. This is my assumption for why one should not calibrate input shaper on very soft feet or other compliant installation methods.
Personally ive had very positive results with the bambu lab feet. It was tricky to get them perfectly centered after installing, but now that they are in place i noticed quite a large reduction in general noise and vibration. I have my printer placed on a dresser and i can only feel vibrations within a few inches from the feet, anywhere else on the dresser i cant feel anything at all.
I have my X1C on a table that kind of sways back and forth. It prints excellently. I think people really just want to feel like they are upgrading their printer. I think that the printer shouldn’t be on anything soft or squishy or floaty so the vibration is predictable and can then be compensated for.
Just recently got into 3d printing with a ender v3 se and I love it. So much so I just got my son an a1 mini. Your content has helped me grow and understand this hobby more everyday. I'm soon to get a troodon 2.0 pro mini only cuz I don't have the time to build a voron 😅. Please keep up the amazing content!!
Great time to get into 3D printing. I got into it 5 years ago. Now I have 5-6 printers in the back of basement rendered obsolete. Bambu changed everything. 3D printing is much more accessible now. I was constantly fixing, leveling, modding etc. Filaments have come a looong way too. Modbot has led me through my entire journey
That’s amazing! Definitely a fantastic time to get into the hobby. So many options, materials, models, and info out there that wasn’t available 5-10 years ago. I have actually looked at the Troodon 2.0 Pro Mini. It looks like a beast!! Thanks for watching and happy printing 😊
@@ModBotArmy True. All that time learning rasberry pie and learning and installing Klipper. I almost feel like it's cheating nowadays with how easy it is
@@Bennett_Lab I too have a lot of old printers, Im thinking of what to do with them, do I sell them while they are still worth something? or do I use the parts to build something else? I have an X1 Carbon Combo, and run two highly modded Ender 5 Plus machines and two highly modded Ender 3's and a Prusa MKIIIs doing permanent commission prints, 18 hours a day 5 days a week, If I bought 3 P1s machines they would cover my prints on the smaller printers, I also have a Pro 3D V-King 400 that I built that is more or less a contingency in case I have a machine down. I think I will wait to see if Bambu release a printer with a larger print bed before I make any changes though.
3:08 they need to make that Eva dampener a option we can choose if we have access to the materials and laser cutter. That thing looks like it would work so much better.
The ones from Bambu work without buckling for me. The Hula has an adapter to fit more snug, perhaps try that on these as well. They're not supposed to fall out.
I just print TPU feet with single wall, large hex infil and no top, I then fill with standard silicone and let it dry for a few days, this gives me a vibration free foot for my printers and looks like a solid TPU foot when finished, this is cheaper and easier than the Hula and I am using this design on much heavier machines than the X1C and the Vorons, I'm sure the Hula is a great option, but I don't know if its really needed.
I wonder if it would help to clamp the phone rigidly to the table - I imagine some of the higher frequency vibrations might be lost through the phone sliding and/or through the stand.
I think these could still be useful to reduce interference from other 3D printers at high speed on the same table? Seems like a very niche use case though since most people already have things like a concrete slab for this
The best vibration damper I ever had is 2 concrete garden tiles with 8 cm of foam in between them, not the very soft foam but the kind they use in mattresses for instance. Sets you back only 20 euros max but there's not any vibration anymore.
Having had the Bambu Anti-vibration feet for a bit I was wanting to try these, mainly to solve the one and only problem I had. The same as you showed, the feet would "roll" and transfer vibrations to my work surface. I knew there would be little if any impact on quality, just wanted my surface to remain as stable as it could. I switched to these. Becuse I haver better luck with ABS than PETG I printed them in that, along with TPU. One big gripe is that if the surface isn't particularly flat these will introduce wobble, as there's no way to adjust them without adding material of some sort to the bottom. They printed well and look good. I haven't ran any tests, mainly because I am lazy. In my world transmitted vibrations seem to be on par with what Bambu feet achievfed, maybe a little better, although I can't provide anty evidence. Could just be placebo. In the end I would say they don't do any harm, and are fun to print/assemble.
I have a voron 2.4 and prusa xl, i was not aware of this project. I had made adapters to fit large subwoofer/turntable dampening feet to my printers which seem to be a metal cup with an oddly soft large doughnut of rubber. Not sure how much its helping as i don’t have any before/after prints but i feel like the desk they are on is being effected much less and my prints look pretty clean. I have wondered especially with the voron how one might make that gantry both lighter and the whole printer more resistant to issues like ringing.
Cnc machines are supposed to be anchored to concrete slabs. Why would a 3d printer be any different? Seems to me that these anti vibration feet would only magnify any errors.
Bolting to a concrete slab is still a better idea than this for anything that doesn't have a super stiff frame and bed mounting. There is a reason why machines, including high-end cnc machines still use mass to deaden vibrations and shaking. This might help if the printer is sitting on a rocking wobbly table by decoupling the printer from the table.
my P1S actually slid off the anti vibration feet and I almost lost it over the side of the table it was near the edge.. so I went back to the stock feet, and placed it on a thick sticky gorilla shelf liner that was sprray locked down, and after running a calibration, it works fine, and the sport mode didn't go crazy.. and its actually quieter since its not banging around.. not the results I expected but the bambu feet are just to wiggly soft and unstable..
Surly this would make it worse at certain frequencies of vibration where the rebound from the feet would be opposite to the motion of the bed or printer head, greatly increasing vibration .Iv found a 2mm sheet of EDPM rubber glued to a quartz worktop works great.
I've had my 3 VZBoTs on their own platforms anchored to my basement concrete wall along with the feet on the printers screwed down to the 1 inch thick butcher block top for quite some time. They are solid as a rock. And I can definitely tell the difference in my prints especially at high speed. But my K1C is just sitting on my workbench which is also anchored to the wall but the printer can be moved around. Even at high speed it does really well on the stock feet. But these seem like a good idea. I may source the parts and make a set for the K1C.
I use a cut-up old mousepad with 5 mm foam as vibration insulators. They help a lot with vibration damping, so especially the resonance tests of the Bambu printers are a lot less noisy. Other than that, neither the prints are affected by it, nor did i expect them to be.
I would like to see a test where the print is a decreasing wave from left to right, like a waveform sound image.. at some point you are going to hit a fore/aft speed that is a resonant frequency and throw off the inertial sensors. I would assume a rigid mount would mitigate those errors.
I have a double LACK stack in my closet, top bambu x1 has stock feet and a concrete paver underneath, the p1s below have some tpu bambu vibration reduction feet clones, and they seem to be doing really well in that lack stack.
The vibration that does not transfer to outside, will transfer to your inside parts, therefore your print. Idealy you get the vibration out of the system and dampen it as quicly as possible in another separated system. If you end up in harmonic vabrations, not only will transfer to your parts but would as well reduce your device life span. See as example vibrations in the metal miling machines.
Thanks again for the great content and review. The amount of time you save us is just mind-blowing when you do these reviews. I'm curious about the Hula and will dig deeper but coming from mech eng background, at first sight, the Hula makes little sense to me. It's sexy but most likely off the track. Meaning that vibration dampener found in industry and used on large building are meant to isolate very low frequencies. Not necessarily what we need on a high speed core-xy.
Are not for "very low" frecuencies, these are for earthquakes they where invented in chile. What it does is adding flexibility to the base so it can absorb movement in various axis and convert them into x,y movements that isolates the building from the rest of the movements that can create resonancy and break the building, in this case it would isolate the printer from the table leting it move freely .
Tried it on a MK4 sitting on a wire rack. WIthout: M4.0 max, 2.4 average With HULA: M4.1 max, 2.5 average So it doesn't do anything at the frequencies that the seismometer app measures. That said, I do see the feet moving, so it's clearly absorbing _something_ . Whether that matters to anything or anyone, I can't say. Probably not, but it was a fun build with a well-written manual, so I have no complaints.
So... basically the same idea as the ball/threaded shaft shims which compensates for bent rods? However, vibration is different than tramming. EDIT: You bring up an interesting thought at the beginning of your video. Many people just have one printer so isolating vibration is just a 1-to-1. Someone with multiple printers, running at the same time, encounter X-amount of oscillations, not all in sync or resonance. Hoo-boy. Since your tests are inconclusive, I wonder if the feet are in the wrong location? Perhaps if these were connected to the last component that touches the ground? Instead of the printer, perhaps installed on the legs of whatever is holding up the printer from the ground. In your case, the legs of your bench. I dunno.
I had the anti vibration Bambu Lab feet with an adapter that made them not buckle at all but I still feel better having the HULA on my printer. It doesnt wobble like it did with the accordion feet.
Each application will require different energy adsorbing components, dependent upon the mass of the unit, its CG, the repetition rate of the impulses, and the natural resonance of the table. If the mfg is using the same foam/rubber/soft energy-adsorbing materials, it's random chance how well they'll work.
I just have reinforced Lack tables and Lack enclosures with pavers coated in plasticoat for the printers to sit on, I have printed various feet for printers over the years and the paving slab with the stock feet have been the best solution IMO
Why did you measure the vibrations of the table instead of the vibrations of the machine? I'd expect the hula feet to reduce the peaks of vibrations and smooth it out in the machine where is could matter.
The test with accelerometer on your phone is fundamentally the same as input shaping acceleration measurement. However this setting method of input shaping, minimising vibrations, and the corresponding measurement method, is misleading. The machine may vibrate as much as it wants around its origin. You want the bed and the toolhead to move rigidly relative to each other, you don't care how they move relative to Earth, which is what accelerometer is measuring. So you want to tie down the machine to something immovable and have the input shaper figure out and suppress inherent resonances of the machine; and then you can place it on decoupling feet for improved quality - less relative vibrations since they are converted to global vibration + damping. Also improved quality of life due to less noise, easier placement etc. The only valid assessment for the feet is by looking at print quality. Not accelerometer readings.
The video, your conclusions, and these comments have me pretty confused. What do you all think the purpose of the feet is? When you got to the end and basically said "the print quality is more or less the same in both setups" that should have been enough to say that the feet are worth it, _because the point of the feet is to reduce noise, not increase print quality_ ... right? If the feet can reduce noise without lowering print quality in any noticeable manner, that's a win. But I'm really confused that you didn't test loudness or mention it in your conclusion at all.
Not sure if I'm missing part of the video, but I think it's mentioned on the document of HULA that the machine must be set on a levelled surface for it to be effective, so you'll have to first level the table/ shelf, before putting your printer on it. And I don't see you mentioning it in the video, so maybe that's why the result you're getting is worse than the stock ones!
I am using my custom designed feet printed in 83A tpu and they work great. Havent released the file though because I know people will print in wrong tpu and then complain because the tpu settled. That bearing design is pretty cool though but not a easy print for most users as they need to buy parts just to make them.
I have them on my A1 and they do minimize vibrations slightly, but worse. The material they're made of creaks alot while printing and this noise is loud and annoying. Took them off after the 1st print and put stock rubber pads back on.
I just bolted my table to the brick wall behind it and did the glass of water test while the printer was in Ludicrous mode (stock printer feet) : zero vibrations.
Eh, literally the most impressive upgrade I've added to my printer is a simple concrete slab. It improves prints and noise more than any anti-vibration thingamabob I've tried over the years.
Even when I put anti vibration feet, it didn’t help too much. Then I made the same trick I did for my washing machine. It was very unstable until I put dryer machine on top of it. +50 kg on top stabilized it so I can put a glass of water without a spill. I put 20kg weight plate on my printer to make it stable as rock.
so its generally advised to do the vibration compensation on stock feed while on solid floor? the printer i standing on a wobbly table so i guess its the same principle as the hula feet right?
So, yeah, I just printed out the stock bambu labs feet in TPU. Glad I did because paying for these, with no benefit and a negative purchasing interaction with Voxel already, isn't it.
Every cnc machine ive seen are bolted to the floor. My printer is very heavy and has hard rubber feet so i dont really have any issues relating to vibration.
Do these feet make the printer noticibly quieter? I have an Ender 3 with silent everything next to my P1P and would love to quiet that one down a bit XD
6 месяцев назад
I have been using squash balls under all my 3D printers for 6 years. The biggest upgrade for any 3D printer.
I do feel like there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what you want in terms of 'vibration damping'. Ultimately you want the printer to be as rock solid as possible, vibration dampening feet are a quick fix when you dont have a solid base, like at all. The best possible base would be concrete, rock or solid metal with the printer bolted to it, if concerned about vibration from passing traffic or seismic events then a layer of rubber could be used with the printer strapped down. As far as I know no one has this option in a consumer printer.
For my X1C, I went for a more rigid setup -- made feet that lock into couplers that are screwed in a cement paver, then placed on the floor. Vibrations have never been an issue.
Foam rubber mat, a concrete paver and if you're feelin fancy, a layer of 1/4" felt on top. And maybe buy furniture that doesn't wobble when you breathe on it.
@@califpv these gimmicks often make the vibration worse for the printer even without input shaper involved. you want something sturdy nto something that allows it to vibrate otherwise is no different to sitting on a wobbly table
It's just basic physics. You want to dissipate all the energy imparted on the machine by Newton's third law when the tool head moves. The feet behaves as a dampened spring system supporting the machine. There's an optimal dampening amount that will make the system "critically dampened", this depends on the mass of the printer and how "springy" the feet are. I doubt the creators have done the math to figure out if they actually hit critical dampening for the machines they support.
Damping, not dampening. Dampening means making something moist. You are dampening a towel when you add water to it. Damping means to reduce the amplitude of vibration. The motion is damped (not dampened).
I have been doing a ton of gardening lately lol 😂. Google also says dampen is “make less strong or intense” so it seems like it is still correct as well.
Dampening and damping are both still used for the same purpose, as verb *to dampen* very much does refer to reducing the amplitude of something. Both are correct, and used interchangably. 🙂
@@shaydereaver3672 According to the OED, "to dampen" has been used in the context of oscillation interchangably as a transitive verb since about 1879. Seems like those pesky 19th century physicists got it wrong already! Probably because there was no YT commenter around to correct them.
this feels like the opposite of what's best for print quality. I would imagine bolting the printer down to a massive cement block making everything as rigid would be best. Same reason they make cnc machines big and heavy and rigid. if your trying to reduce vibration then make it heavy, if you want to reduce harmonics you have to dampen. What im thinking is go at it like the archery guys. what about rubber inserts into the extrusion? think slot covers but tpu and almost solid fill in the track. like filling your cnc machines neck with cement or epoxy.
Unfortunate that they don't really seem to do a whole lot... but I guess it's like Angus from makers Muse demonstrated, sometimes the printers almost work better when they can wobble around a bit 🤷🏿♀️
The reason there is very little improvement with anti-vibration feet is because there is a common misconception about what they are designed for. They are not meant to stop and therefore will not stop the vibrations of the machine itself they're designed to stop the vibrations of the machine from transferring to the desk or table it is sitting on. Any Improvement seen with any particular type of feet is purely luck and happenstance. The feet of the printer will never stop the vibrations from occurring within the machine. If resonance is the cause of ringing then the only solution is to dampen the very particular object on the machine that is vibrating in sync to the movements. This would likely be things on the tool head and would be extremely difficult to do. You in essence need to make those parts heavier or dampen them. Putting special feet on the printer would never accomplish this as the table itself is not the problem and not the part that's resonating.
This can be exemplified in the way hard drives are mounted. They always have silicone feet. It is not to stop the hard drive from vibrating the chassis but to isolate it from the vibrations of the chassis being moved and knocked around.
I live in Hawaii (the ground is a resonator), The big island (the volcano is constantly erupting), on the second story of an old building (also cheap likes to wobble), right next to the highway (heavy trucks shake the building), right next to an intersection (loud motorcycle engines, loud base, and rumbling diesel engines can shake the building when the light is red), under a military helicopter flight path (entire wings of Blackhawks, Chinooks, and Osprey fly directly over my house at low altitude every few days). This is highly relevant to my interests.
That is actually one of the rare cases where reducing coupling between printer and fixed-world would be beneficial. We have air bearing tables in our lab to reduce outside vibrations into precision equipment, but those are so sensitive some of them can pick up vibrations of people walking in the hall-way next door. Are the vibrations really so bad that they would affect print quality though? Its not a sub-micron level precision device.
@@tHaH4x0r The resin printer in particular. I got it up on three layers of isolation now. What I really want is a "noise" canceling table. I'm pretty sure I could get all the pieces on SparkFun, but I'm going to need an AI to do the software for me.
I'm surprised these didn't make things worse honestly. They appear to add more motion to the printer, now if one was trying to remove motion from the surface the printer is setting on these these would be something to consider.
Conclusion - don’t bother.
just print the Bambulab soft feets (printables) from TPU with Low infill and layers. Works better than the Original
@@janzale9596 and with soft rubber feet the printer will start to oscillate so they are a waste of time. My P1S is on its original feet and on top of a paving slab. No issue with vibration or noise at all now.
Really appreciate folks doing the science for the community
@@janzale9596no bolt the damn thing down to a heavy bench on a solid floor
@@shaynegadsden Exactly, you want no movement at all, you want all the movement to be in the printhead, not the frame. Vibration can come through even a concrete floor, but a bush of some kind would be bes, a Metalastic bush like they use on car suspension.
A wobbly table does not matter for print quality at all, and neither do these feet, this is a principle already known for very long in the precision engineering industry. For precision machines it is standard not to mount them as rigidly as possible to the ground, rather to have as low stiffness coupling as possible. This is done as to minimize the coupling of ground/floor vibrations into the machine, and not to reduce internal vibrations. Internal vibrations are caused by limited stiffness of its own frame and masses relative to its own frame. No coupling to the outside influences this, unless you are running some very weird scenario where frequencies intermix and couple back into the frame (in which case you also have a poorly designed frame). What matters is the stiffness of the coupling of the motion system to the print, and the mass associated with motion system.
Dont believe me? Refer to the video from Makers muse where he suspends a printer mid air (it doesnt get more wobbly than that) yet it prints identically.
I suspect the different results you were getting before with the wobbly table, to likely be because of incorrect input shaper results, rather than physical performance limits. The results you get in this video are likely more correct (as in 7:40 where all peaks are at identical frequencies).
As for your differing results, they could just be noise. Also, the location of the phone matters very much. The phone is measuring accelerations, and those are essentially the movement of the table boards. Changing the exact printer location changes how vibrations are coupled into the board, and changing the location of the phone would change how these vibrations are perceived (The table has its own natural frequency, and you can get standing waves inside of the board). It also does not take into account the frequency spectrum of the coupled accelerations.
tl;dr Stiffness from 'world' to 3d printer doesnt matter for print quality, and a sturdy bench or soft feet neither help. And no, the feet also dont help with machine wear. Feet do help with vibrations of the machine being coupled back into tables, thus reducing noise, but this depends on the specific setup.
I wanted to say the same. Obviously less eloquent as you 😂. Yeah maker muse suspended his printer to prove a point a while ago now. Lol
The problem is wobbly table makes it hard to get clean accelerometer readings for which resonances you actually have to suppress.
Yeah, I work in manufacturing, and in our machine shop we have some grinding machines that go down to a pretty small decimal place. Those machines are built on top of granite blocks to reduce vibration and are kept a certain distance away from other machines, same as our inspection machines. Like you said, you want the machine to be isolated from external vibrations, and that's what the big granite blocks and slabs do. Best analogy is the paver stone upgrade for 3d printers.
Adding on to this, it would be interesting to see the differences in a multi-printer-environment, e.g. on a shelf. There the feet should help to reduce the vibrations form one printer influencing another
Thank you for the info. Surprisingly very informative for a youtube comment.
Seriously I cant tell you how refreshing it is hearing from a dude who knows what their talking about
I just put a 10mm thick anti vibration mat, which are usually meant for dryers/washing machines, below all my printers. They are really cheap, you can cut them with a knife or scissors to fit any printer and they are better than any rubber feet out there while also serving as sound dampening below the printer.
"Mass Loaded Vinyl" is often a name for this type of dampening material. It should readily stretch but SLOWLY return to its predeformed state
I do something similar with old mouse mats and yoga mats. Works in the same way!
On my Cr-10 (which admittedly is slow enough to not have as many issues) I use feet designed for squash balls, but the cheap balls I ordered are even softer and more like rubber coated memory foam. This will adapt to any surface and vibrations get absorbed in its soft material.
I just use playground tiles - rubber pavers.
Yeah I have an old gel matt that was under an exercise bike and just put the entire printer and small table on it. Fixed my print reverberating through the concrete floor it was on instantly.
Thanks for publishing the inconclusive data many people may had ditched that results and scrapped the project, but having more data to explore theories always help the development process of evaluation and reproducibility.
Kudos for keeping the good work.
Absolutely! When people only publish ‘p-hacked’ data it really clouds the picture. Publishing inconclusive data is important for our overall understanding.
@@RGormanJr agreed ! , Inconclusive data and null data are still data and should be taken into consideration
PSA: if you have a stone base for your printer you should be putting the printer directly on it and then have the damping mechanism (feet or foam mat) under that. this way, the printer still has a hard flat surface to sit on, instead of a soft one that allows the printer frame to flex under its own movement which is a bad thing.
another thing to note is that whatever damping mechanism you use to dampen vibration must be tuned, or else it is not a guarantee it will work as you expect. you still decouple the vibration from printer to furniture, maybe reducing furniture noise, but the effects on the printer itself may be worse. for example you can have the printer sit on a balloon and have zero noise from the desk or rack, but then the printer will be bouncing and shaking all day long, making the prints worse. or you can have feet that are too hard, making the table shake more, but therefore allow the table to participate in the total dampening effort, absorbing the wave energy and converting it into heat in the wood, possibly making the prints better. do you see where i am coming from?
at the end of the day there two interests at play here for the hobbyist. are you trying to decouple the printer from your furniture to improve the noise situation or are you trying to improve your print quality (increase max acceleration potential)? these should not be assumed to be achieved at the same time, even with something like HULA, which claims to hope to improve both, but upon light scrutiny of the documentation is really only expected to achieve the former. this is because the former has to do with the interaction between the printer and the furniture, tackled with things like HULA and other types of feet.
whereas the latter has to do with the interaction between the toolhead mass and the frame mass and how quickly the frame can transmit the kinetic energy (stiffer frame) to the damping mechanism and how efficient that mechanism is to converted it away into heat (damping coefficient). if the TPU springs in there are not tuned to the mass of the printer, it will be through sheer luck if the max accel is improved by a statistically significant amount. it's not impossible, but somebody needs to iterate the design of the TPU springs and prove the best one empirically..for a specific printer as all printers are different.
further complicating this issue is that whatever you have the printer sitting on will have its own mass and damping characteristic, whether it is a shaky rack or a solid wood desk or the concrete floor in the garage. if you add feet between the printer and said surface, then you add one more variable to the total system and cannot possibly hope to know with any confidence what that will do to print quality without extensive empirical testing. although i can tell you that no feet on the concrete ground is in fact the worst possible option for print quality because of infinite impedance and zero damping but let's not get into that.
simplifying this issue thankfully, is input shaping, whose sole purpose is to perform active damping, will do all the damping that will ever be required to improve print quality. which means you actually do not need to rely on any physical damping mechanism whatsoever to improve print quality, but only need to make your frame stiffer. if your table is so terrible that your prints actually improve with HULA, maybe you should not be using that particular table...my advice and opinion is that HULA is for furniture noise improvement only.
the point of all this is that the testing on HULA is only useful for the specific printers they were tested on and the specific furniture as well. you have no guarantee these will work for your Ender, Voron or what have you sitting on your IKEA or custom table, unless you or someone already tested it. and unlike all the other feet designs on printables, this one will actually cost you quite a bit of money and time. as a maker project, it is worth doing. but you should be prepared for disappointment if you expect too much from it.
lastly, if you are trying to measure vibrations, the tool must be rigidly attached to the sample. the phone needs to be screwed or taped flat down, preferably with no phone case on, not sitting on a stand or propped up against a spool. for the same reason you do not rest the adxl device on the toolhead with gravity alone when you are doing input shaping calibration.
Is it stone, mat, printer or mat, stone, printer?
@@troncooo409 Top to bottom: printer -> solid slab -> compliant/soft material -> table
I believe this comment is 100% correct except for one additional factor: input shaping calibration measures and cancels the vibration effect of the toolhead alone, not the displacement between toolhead and print surface. It essentially assumes that the bed is fixed to the world, but this is obviously not the case. The amount of vibration that the frame transfers to the bed vs. to the world therefore is an error term in shaping calibration. I personally hypothesize that this effect is the cause of a lot of these supposed minor observed differences. This would seem to argue for making the frame as heavy as possible (perhaps by bolting it down to a block of cement or whatever, as is tradition).
Do you have any evidence to back up that sitting on a balloon would worsen print quality, or that coupling from outside world to printer would have any effect on print quality?
I dont know where this myth came from, but it is very common knowledge in the precision industry that the coupling between 'fixed world' and machine is not relevant for internal dynamics. What does matter is the coupling from the internal frame to moving components.
In the industry, these machines are actually coupled with as low stiffness as possible to the ground (sometimes even with air-bearings). This is not for any internal modes, rather to decouple external vibrations from coupling into the frame.
If you dont believe me, watch the video from makers muse, where he literally suspends a printer in mid air from a rope, and it still produces identical prints to a regular setup.
@@jessicav2031 Although I disagree with you that the original comment is 100% correct, you are definitely right in your observation and proposed solution. What matters in the end is toolhead to bed coupling, which means that just the coupling from the frame to the printhead is not the only equation. Indeed often the coupling from frame to bed is not ideal. Having a frame as stiff and heavy as possible both reduces any reaction forces causing accelerations of the frame, as well as increasing eigenfrequencies.
I however dont think that how you bolt it down to the external world influences the performance, as you are merely changing the coupling of the frame to the outside world, and not affecting the frame stiffness or mass (as no matter how hard you try, the coupling to fixed world is limited in stiffness).
And in the end, it is a moot point. The frame of the printer is plenty stiff compared to the coupling of frame to printhead.
Shim your shelves from behind to prevent it from wobbling or bolt them to the wall. Also, the best damper is concrete block with large foam pad, you can get both from Home Depot, this setup will help mitigate vibrations from one printer to impact the others one the same rack.
I think it may be the wrong aproach, here in chile those sistems are instaled in my apartmen an is common knowledge that they only increase vibrations in the building bc the point is to help the building not break in half with a big impact, It may be that for a printer wich is a smaller scale, having it secure to a wall or a rack it may transfer those vibrations better than the feets
When a print head stops and or changes direction due to newtons 1st law the print head will move a little past the stopping point. The idea is to isolate the mass of the printer. The print head will take the printer with it a little bit so relative to the printed part the print head moves less.
@@jacobmurray3621 So how exactly do you think that would happen? The print head wont move a little past stopping point. Rather the deceleration forces from newtons first law are coupled into both the frame and the print head. Changing the coupling between frame and fixed world does not change anything about these forces. Having a rigid coupling from frame to fixed-world (which is impossible to achieve in practice) merely reduces the induced acceleration into the frame, which doesn't matter as it is orders of magnitude more stiff than the connection to the print head already (unless you make your frame out of cardboard).
Having rubber feet merely reduces possible vibrations from being coupled back into the frame from the outside world. Those vibrations however are insignificant on the scale of a 3d printer (as we arent talking sub micron precision).
@@tHaH4x0r the main reason I have seen for using vibration dampening feet is to prevent multiple printers on a rack from interfering with each other. This is also possibly why Bambu sold the vibration dampening feet in packs of 8, enough for two printers. Vibrations from one print could go into the rack and then into another printer which could apparently cause issues or throw off the input shaping since it can’t really compensate for vibrations coming from outside of the printer.
For me I got the feet to stop the printer from shaking the desk so much and they definitely help with that.
I printed a set of these and put them under my Ender 5 Plus. I didn't notice much performance gains, Klipper's resonance compensation gave me 200 more on acceleration BUT they absolutely made the printer less noisy compared to just the stock rubber feet.
As for centering, I personally found it easiest to push and pull the printer so all the feet would hit the rear at the same time.
This was a great video, and the compliant feet you reviewed look like a good solution for many people. (As you found though, the amount of difference they make will depend on the specifics of each situation.) It led me to think a bit more deeply about the whole matter of motion artifacts in 3D printing.
When it comes to measuring the effectiveness of compliant feet, vibration transmitted to the table or even vibration of the printer body itself isn’t necessarily a measure of how much good the feet are doing for your prints. What ultimately matters is how closely the print head is able to follow the intended path relative to the build plate, which ultimately comes down to how much the frame of the printer is being distorted or warped by the forces applied to it.
Seen from that perspective, what we want to do is to reduce the impact of forces on the printer’s frame caused by print head acceleration and also dampen the system’s response to its resonant frequencies.
If the printer were bolted down to an absolutely rigid table, all of the reactive forces caused by accelerating the print head would go into deforming the frame, resulting in inaccuracies. Adaptive tuning can compensate for momentary deviations and (more importantly) adjust the frequency spectrum of those forces to avoid the resonant frequencies of the printer frame and X-Y motion system, but the total amount of energy being injected into the frame will always be a direct function of the print head acceleration.
On the other hand, having a compliant mounting lets some of the reactive energy from the print head’s acceleration go into moving the frame of the printer as a whole, reducing the amount left to go into deforming the frame.
Think of it this way, using an extreme example: Imagine a stick clamped upright in a vise. Tap the top of the stick with a hammer and it’ll bend under the force and then vibrate back and forth. Now mount the stick on a roller skate and do the same thing. The whole stick/roller skate assembly will move away from the hammer, but the stick will vibrate much less, because there was less force applied to bending it.
This is the main thing that compliant feet are doing for the printer; they allow some of the energy from the print head acceleration to be turned into movement of the printer as a whole, vs distorting the frame and causing it to vibrate.
BUT, we need to make sure that the printer (and whatever it’s mounted to) doesn’t end up vibrating at large amplitudes itself, as that motion could result in forces being coupled back into the printer’s frame, causing the very problem we’re trying to avoid in the first place.
The best solution is to allow the printer to move in reaction to the forces caused by accelerating the print, but then to dampen out that motion over a longer time period (probably still well under a second) so it doesn’t build up into larger oscillations that would themselves result in distortions of the frame.
Thanks for a very interesting video with real-world data and for pointing to the design for the HULA feet!
Although you are on the right track, you are making some mistakes in your assumptions.
Firstly, you are absolutely correct that the only thing that matters is tracking between printhead and bed. Secondly you are also correct that we want a very stiff frame to have this coupling work well.
However, bolting the printer down to a rigid table would not change how reaction forces are coupled into the frame. Whether bolted down, or suspended in air, the any force induced onto the printhead and associated reaction force are always between said head and frame. Thus it would deform equally in either case.
Additionally, the amount of energy you 'inject' into the frame also does not change. This is a fundamental law of thermodynamics, namely the conservation of energy. If we stiffen our frame, we dont change the amount of energy we put in, rather we need to put in more energy to achieve the same deformation.
Perhaps to convince you, imagine modeling the printer as two masses. Printhead mass Mp is connected to the frame+buildplate Mf. The connection between them can be a spring, modeling the stiffness of the frame. We should then connect the frame to the fixed world through another spring mimicking the limited stiffness of fixed-world to printer connection.
The response of a simple spring + mass is second order, meaning it passes any frequency up to a given frequency (given by sqrt(stiffness/mass)) after which vibrations will couple through less and less.
So this shows obviously, to have high tracking performance we want to pass frequencies as high as possible between bed and printhead. Thus the frame should be stiff, and printhead mass should be low. The frame mass does not matter for this at all!
Considering external vibrations from the fixed world, we would like to reject those. So in this case, we want the stiffness from fixed-world to printer to be low, and frame mass to be high to reduce the frequency as much as possible. This is a common principle in precision engineering/machines.
Do note, that we are talking sub-micrometer precision for these vibrations, so for 3d printing it essentially doesnt matter.
As for damping, you are right that you want to apply some damping. This is indeed to avoid what you call 'build up into large oscillations'. This means that for a typical 2nd order system, we want the 'peak' at resonant frequency to be nicely damped. Adding more damping beyond that will not help your system response, rather just reduce your bandwidth and thus hurt performance!
So, talking about vibration and 3d printer feets, whats the better standard solution for getting better quality prints?
@@aquamansurfer The HULA feet seem like a good way to go. They decouple the printer from the table so it can move a bit more in response to printhead acceleration, but they're self-centering, so movement will average out over time and also keep the printer from crushing them like the Bambu TPU feet.
@@tHaH4x0r You're right about viewing things from the standpoint of mechanical oscillators, with masses coupled by springs, but you're missing the fact that if the frame as a whole can move in space, then some of the reaction force from accelerating the print head will go into translational kinetic energy of the frame, vs potential energy stored in the flexing of the frame.
You're absolutely correct that the force between the frame and the printhead will always be the same for a given printhead acceleration, but it's a question of what that force does; if some of it goes into translational acceleration of the frame, then there'll be less left to be stored as potential energy in distortion of the frame.
In situations like this, it's often helpful to think of an extreme or limiting case, such as infinite masses and arbitrarily great forces.
Suppose that the printhead had infinite mass and the motors infinite strength. If the base of the frame was bolted to the floor then any attempt to move the printhead would just bend the frame by that amount. If you instead put the frame on a frictionless surface, then at low speeds there'd be almost no bending of the frame at all. (In this case, you could still get great prints, it's just that the build plate would be moving under the printhead instead of vice versa.)
Back to reality, our printheads hopefully don't have infinite mass and our motors unfortunately aren't infinitely powerful, but the same principles apply. Simplistically, forces caused by accelerating the printhead can either create potential energy stored in flexed frame elements or kinetic energy in the movement of the frame as a whole. Energy is conserved, so the more that goes into the latter, the less there is of the former.
@@aquamansurfer In my opinion, feet do not impact print quality at all, except perhaps if you are running a giant print farm with tons of machines that might couple vibrations into each other.
A more effective way to improve quality for a single printer, is improving stiffness between print-head and frame. How this stiffness presents itself depends on the axis you are looking at. It can be the frame/gantry stiffness, but also the driving stiffness of the actuator (which should take into account the limited stiffnesses of the belts).
Personally for the driving directions (for a core-xy these are the x and y axis) the main limitation is the limited belt stiffness. This is also something you see in for example the new ratrig vcore 4. Changing from the 'regular' core xy configuration to their 'hybrid', improves the eigenfrequency by 1.38x (see 247printing's video). The only thing the hybrid design does, is essentially run another set of belts in parallel, effectively doubling the driving stiffness of these belts. If that would be the case, we would expect an eigenfrequency increase of sqrt(2), which is extremely close to the practical numbers found. Hence my conclusion that this is likely the limiting factor for core x-y machines.
A more elegant way to do achieve similar results at far lower cost, is just run thicker or wider belts. In order not to compromise the bending radius, wider belts are likely the best solution for this.
However there's one more solution to getting better quality prints: just printing with slower accelerations.
It makes no difference to stiff machines like the X1C. You actually want a nice solid base like a paving slab and use the stock rubber feet. It may make the printer noisier but it will absolutely reduce the vibrations in the machine.
These sort of feet just make the machine wobble which could introduce more errors.
Thanks this save my time and money. I was really close on ordering parts.
Why is it advised not to perform a calibration after installing these on a Bambu? The accelerometers in the printer don't know whether they are sitting on stock feet, these feet, or just a wobbly table. How can an active input shaper respond accurately without being calibrated on the *actual surface* on which it is placed?
Perhaps perform tests like this on a concrete floor? Those wobbly benches and racks don't lend themselves to valid testing repeatability.
The reason it's not advised, is because the test results in compensation values used that produce more artifacts than using the values measured when using stock feet. This can be caused by both the feet or the mechanism used to measure the vibrations or calculate compensation.
you shouldn´t run input shaper again because the accelerometers can only measure the movement of the printhead in absolute space, not in relation to the printer´s frame, which creates a problem because the feet allow the frame to move around and vibrate a lot. So the Prtinthead would be perfectly still but the frame with the bed and part attached to it is wobbling around below.
Print artefacts occur when there's an undesired movement of the toolhead relative to the print, or you could say relative to the bed. Input shaper is capable of reducing this movement by avoiding resonances.
However automatic input shaper calibration is an accelerometer. It doesn't know what movement of toolhead is is relative to bed. It only knows movement of toolhead relative to Earth's gravity, so in Global coordinates.
Soft feet can reduce frame distortion and forces acting on moving components, by allowing the printer frame to move as a whole, while taking up and gradually dissipating this movement energy to heat. This newly introduced global movement is irrelevant to quality, but it does get picked up by the input shaper calibration as something to be avoided.
This is my assumption for why one should not calibrate input shaper on very soft feet or other compliant installation methods.
Personally ive had very positive results with the bambu lab feet. It was tricky to get them perfectly centered after installing, but now that they are in place i noticed quite a large reduction in general noise and vibration. I have my printer placed on a dresser and i can only feel vibrations within a few inches from the feet, anywhere else on the dresser i cant feel anything at all.
Same, they serve to reduce vibration transmitted to the surface and they do that well without negatively impacting print quality.
I have my X1C on a table that kind of sways back and forth. It prints excellently. I think people really just want to feel like they are upgrading their printer. I think that the printer shouldn’t be on anything soft or squishy or floaty so the vibration is predictable and can then be compensated for.
Just recently got into 3d printing with a ender v3 se and I love it. So much so I just got my son an a1 mini. Your content has helped me grow and understand this hobby more everyday. I'm soon to get a troodon 2.0 pro mini only cuz I don't have the time to build a voron 😅. Please keep up the amazing content!!
Great time to get into 3D printing. I got into it 5 years ago. Now I have 5-6 printers in the back of basement rendered obsolete. Bambu changed everything. 3D printing is much more accessible now. I was constantly fixing, leveling, modding etc. Filaments have come a looong way too. Modbot has led me through my entire journey
That’s amazing! Definitely a fantastic time to get into the hobby. So many options, materials, models, and info out there that wasn’t available 5-10 years ago. I have actually looked at the Troodon 2.0 Pro Mini. It looks like a beast!! Thanks for watching and happy printing 😊
@@ModBotArmy True. All that time learning rasberry pie and learning and installing Klipper. I almost feel like it's cheating nowadays with how easy it is
@@Bennett_Lab I too have a lot of old printers, Im thinking of what to do with them, do I sell them while they are still worth something? or do I use the parts to build something else?
I have an X1 Carbon Combo, and run two highly modded Ender 5 Plus machines and two highly modded Ender 3's and a Prusa MKIIIs doing permanent commission prints, 18 hours a day 5 days a week, If I bought 3 P1s machines they would cover my prints on the smaller printers, I also have a Pro 3D V-King 400 that I built that is more or less a contingency in case I have a machine down.
I think I will wait to see if Bambu release a printer with a larger print bed before I make any changes though.
3:08 they need to make that Eva dampener a option we can choose if we have access to the materials and laser cutter. That thing looks like it would work so much better.
The ones from Bambu work without buckling for me. The Hula has an adapter to fit more snug, perhaps try that on these as well. They're not supposed to fall out.
I just print TPU feet with single wall, large hex infil and no top, I then fill with standard silicone and let it dry for a few days, this gives me a vibration free foot for my printers and looks like a solid TPU foot when finished, this is cheaper and easier than the Hula and I am using this design on much heavier machines than the X1C and the Vorons, I'm sure the Hula is a great option, but I don't know if its really needed.
I’ve had these for about two months so far and they’re working great
I wonder if it would help to clamp the phone rigidly to the table - I imagine some of the higher frequency vibrations might be lost through the phone sliding and/or through the stand.
I think these could still be useful to reduce interference from other 3D printers at high speed on the same table? Seems like a very niche use case though since most people already have things like a concrete slab for this
The best vibration damper I ever had is 2 concrete garden tiles with 8 cm of foam in between them, not the very soft foam but the kind they use in mattresses for instance.
Sets you back only 20 euros max but there's not any vibration anymore.
Having had the Bambu Anti-vibration feet for a bit I was wanting to try these, mainly to solve the one and only problem I had. The same as you showed, the feet would "roll" and transfer vibrations to my work surface. I knew there would be little if any impact on quality, just wanted my surface to remain as stable as it could.
I switched to these. Becuse I haver better luck with ABS than PETG I printed them in that, along with TPU. One big gripe is that if the surface isn't particularly flat these will introduce wobble, as there's no way to adjust them without adding material of some sort to the bottom. They printed well and look good.
I haven't ran any tests, mainly because I am lazy. In my world transmitted vibrations seem to be on par with what Bambu feet achievfed, maybe a little better, although I can't provide anty evidence. Could just be placebo. In the end I would say they don't do any harm, and are fun to print/assemble.
I have a voron 2.4 and prusa xl, i was not aware of this project. I had made adapters to fit large subwoofer/turntable dampening feet to my printers which seem to be a metal cup with an oddly soft large doughnut of rubber. Not sure how much its helping as i don’t have any before/after prints but i feel like the desk they are on is being effected much less and my prints look pretty clean. I have wondered especially with the voron how one might make that gantry both lighter and the whole printer more resistant to issues like ringing.
Thanks for informing about these... from tuning my 2.4 to speed i know how noisy vibrations can be... will definitely check these out :))
Cnc machines are supposed to be anchored to concrete slabs. Why would a 3d printer be any different? Seems to me that these anti vibration feet would only magnify any errors.
I love how we went from "DON'T LET THEM VIBRATE! USE CONCRETE SLABS!" to this. It's always a back and forth.
It was supposed to be concrete paver on top of thick carpet padding. Just trying to absorb the vibrations to reduce noise.
Bolting to a concrete slab is still a better idea than this for anything that doesn't have a super stiff frame and bed mounting. There is a reason why machines, including high-end cnc machines still use mass to deaden vibrations and shaking. This might help if the printer is sitting on a rocking wobbly table by decoupling the printer from the table.
People like to think they are smart and over complicate things but mass is the answer and always has been
my P1S actually slid off the anti vibration feet and I almost lost it over the side of the table it was near the edge.. so I went back to the stock feet, and placed it on a thick sticky gorilla shelf liner that was sprray locked down, and after running a calibration, it works fine, and the sport mode didn't go crazy.. and its actually quieter since its not banging around.. not the results I expected but the bambu feet are just to wiggly soft and unstable..
Surly this would make it worse at certain frequencies of vibration where the rebound from the feet would be opposite to the motion of the bed or printer head, greatly increasing vibration .Iv found a 2mm sheet of EDPM rubber glued to a quartz worktop works great.
I've had my 3 VZBoTs on their own platforms anchored to my basement concrete wall along with the feet on the printers screwed down to the 1 inch thick butcher block top for quite some time. They are solid as a rock. And I can definitely tell the difference in my prints especially at high speed. But my K1C is just sitting on my workbench which is also anchored to the wall but the printer can be moved around. Even at high speed it does really well on the stock feet. But these seem like a good idea. I may source the parts and make a set for the K1C.
I use a cut-up old mousepad with 5 mm foam as vibration insulators. They help a lot with vibration damping, so especially the resonance tests of the Bambu printers are a lot less noisy. Other than that, neither the prints are affected by it, nor did i expect them to be.
I would like to see a test where the print is a decreasing wave from left to right, like a waveform sound image.. at some point you are going to hit a fore/aft speed that is a resonant frequency and throw off the inertial sensors. I would assume a rigid mount would mitigate those errors.
I have a double LACK stack in my closet, top bambu x1 has stock feet and a concrete paver underneath, the p1s below have some tpu bambu vibration reduction feet clones, and they seem to be doing really well in that lack stack.
The vibration that does not transfer to outside, will transfer to your inside parts, therefore your print. Idealy you get the vibration out of the system and dampen it as quicly as possible in another separated system. If you end up in harmonic vabrations, not only will transfer to your parts but would as well reduce your device life span. See as example vibrations in the metal miling machines.
Thanks again for the great content and review. The amount of time you save us is just mind-blowing when you do these reviews. I'm curious about the Hula and will dig deeper but coming from mech eng background, at first sight, the Hula makes little sense to me. It's sexy but most likely off the track. Meaning that vibration dampener found in industry and used on large building are meant to isolate very low frequencies. Not necessarily what we need on a high speed core-xy.
Are not for "very low" frecuencies, these are for earthquakes they where invented in chile. What it does is adding flexibility to the base so it can absorb movement in various axis and convert them into x,y movements that isolates the building from the rest of the movements that can create resonancy and break the building, in this case it would isolate the printer from the table leting it move freely .
@@aldoandresmendozaguerra8651 you’re correct. And earthquakes are exactly that. Very low frequencies.
They ensure your print quality doesn’t suffer during an earthquake.
Tried it on a MK4 sitting on a wire rack.
WIthout: M4.0 max, 2.4 average
With HULA: M4.1 max, 2.5 average
So it doesn't do anything at the frequencies that the seismometer app measures.
That said, I do see the feet moving, so it's clearly absorbing _something_ . Whether that matters to anything or anyone, I can't say. Probably not, but it was a fun build with a well-written manual, so I have no complaints.
So... basically the same idea as the ball/threaded shaft shims which compensates for bent rods? However, vibration is different than tramming.
EDIT: You bring up an interesting thought at the beginning of your video. Many people just have one printer so isolating vibration is just a 1-to-1. Someone with multiple printers, running at the same time, encounter X-amount of oscillations, not all in sync or resonance. Hoo-boy.
Since your tests are inconclusive, I wonder if the feet are in the wrong location? Perhaps if these were connected to the last component that touches the ground? Instead of the printer, perhaps installed on the legs of whatever is holding up the printer from the ground. In your case, the legs of your bench. I dunno.
I had the anti vibration Bambu Lab feet with an adapter that made them not buckle at all but I still feel better having the HULA on my printer. It doesnt wobble like it did with the accordion feet.
this is something I really wanted to add to my trident build , thanks for sharing this.
Each application will require different energy adsorbing components, dependent upon the mass of the unit, its CG, the repetition rate of the impulses, and the natural resonance of the table. If the mfg is using the same foam/rubber/soft energy-adsorbing materials, it's random chance how well they'll work.
I just have reinforced Lack tables and Lack enclosures with pavers coated in plasticoat for the printers to sit on, I have printed various feet for printers over the years and the paving slab with the stock feet have been the best solution IMO
On my voron I use squash balls as feets and the isolate the vibrations really well
would you mind revisiting this with the phone on top of the printer?
Why did you measure the vibrations of the table instead of the vibrations of the machine? I'd expect the hula feet to reduce the peaks of vibrations and smooth it out in the machine where is could matter.
The test with accelerometer on your phone is fundamentally the same as input shaping acceleration measurement.
However this setting method of input shaping, minimising vibrations, and the corresponding measurement method, is misleading. The machine may vibrate as much as it wants around its origin. You want the bed and the toolhead to move rigidly relative to each other, you don't care how they move relative to Earth, which is what accelerometer is measuring.
So you want to tie down the machine to something immovable and have the input shaper figure out and suppress inherent resonances of the machine; and then you can place it on decoupling feet for improved quality - less relative vibrations since they are converted to global vibration + damping. Also improved quality of life due to less noise, easier placement etc.
The only valid assessment for the feet is by looking at print quality. Not accelerometer readings.
if the printer frame is not rock solid, mount hula on a solid plate then put the printer on top of that plate will give better result?
The video, your conclusions, and these comments have me pretty confused. What do you all think the purpose of the feet is? When you got to the end and basically said "the print quality is more or less the same in both setups" that should have been enough to say that the feet are worth it, _because the point of the feet is to reduce noise, not increase print quality_ ... right? If the feet can reduce noise without lowering print quality in any noticeable manner, that's a win. But I'm really confused that you didn't test loudness or mention it in your conclusion at all.
I wonder how it would fare if you put a dampening oil or grease in the HULA?
Why is the smooth sided washer used when installing the bearing?
I am wondering what an anit-fatigue matt would do along with the stock feet on a solid wooden desk.
When using the bambu pads did you put all 8 on or just 4 there's a mod where it uses all 8 pads
Not sure if I'm missing part of the video, but I think it's mentioned on the document of HULA that the machine must be set on a levelled surface for it to be effective, so you'll have to first level the table/ shelf, before putting your printer on it. And I don't see you mentioning it in the video, so maybe that's why the result you're getting is worse than the stock ones!
I am using my custom designed feet printed in 83A tpu and they work great. Havent released the file though because I know people will print in wrong tpu and then complain because the tpu settled. That bearing design is pretty cool though but not a easy print for most users as they need to buy parts just to make them.
I have them on my A1 and they do minimize vibrations slightly, but worse. The material they're made of creaks alot while printing and this noise is loud and annoying. Took them off after the 1st print and put stock rubber pads back on.
I just bolted my table to the brick wall behind it and did the glass of water test while the printer was in Ludicrous mode (stock printer feet) : zero vibrations.
Eh, literally the most impressive upgrade I've added to my printer is a simple concrete slab. It improves prints and noise more than any anti-vibration thingamabob I've tried over the years.
Can agree, I just added a cement slab under my prusa mini and it got waaaaay quieter for like 5 bucks
wonderful! Just ordered for my K1C. affordable pre assembled!
Even when I put anti vibration feet, it didn’t help too much. Then I made the same trick I did for my washing machine. It was very unstable until I put dryer machine on top of it. +50 kg on top stabilized it so I can put a glass of water without a spill. I put 20kg weight plate on my printer to make it stable as rock.
Very informative and educational video. Thank you for introducing me the Hula feet.
You theae would work for a washing machine if you scaled it up?
so its generally advised to do the vibration compensation on stock feed while on solid floor? the printer i standing on a wobbly table so i guess its the same principle as the hula feet right?
What storage rack brand?
I've have ordered them but feel not many Canadians will buy them as the shipping is more that the product it self.
I have 2 of that exact same workbench in my room lol. One of them has the optional power strip + pegboard sides though.
lol mine has the power strip 😂. I’m a fan it’s been a great workbench.
So, yeah, I just printed out the stock bambu labs feet in TPU. Glad I did because paying for these, with no benefit and a negative purchasing interaction with Voxel already, isn't it.
Every cnc machine ive seen are bolted to the floor.
My printer is very heavy and has hard rubber feet so i dont really have any issues relating to vibration.
carpet foam is $0.25 a square foot and a 16" square concrete patio block is $1.00
that hula is a smart design
I remember seeing another video on the vibration topic.
The person tested a printer hanging from the ceiling with a stretchy rope, and no difference.
Do these feet make the printer noticibly quieter? I have an Ender 3 with silent everything next to my P1P and would love to quiet that one down a bit XD
I have been using squash balls under all my 3D printers for 6 years. The biggest upgrade for any 3D printer.
Interesting...good idea
How many and How do you attach them?
Think klipper is the biggest upgrade
You should be able to find out the sensor used in the phone and then you can look up the datasheet to find the resolution and accuracy of the sensor.
I do feel like there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what you want in terms of 'vibration damping'. Ultimately you want the printer to be as rock solid as possible, vibration dampening feet are a quick fix when you dont have a solid base, like at all.
The best possible base would be concrete, rock or solid metal with the printer bolted to it, if concerned about vibration from passing traffic or seismic events then a layer of rubber could be used with the printer strapped down. As far as I know no one has this option in a consumer printer.
In my opinion, there is nothing better than a 45x45cm paving slab with washing machine antivibrating mat.
For my X1C, I went for a more rigid setup -- made feet that lock into couplers that are screwed in a cement paver, then placed on the floor. Vibrations have never been an issue.
Will it work on A1?
performance on a bedslinger would be interesting too
Just put 30x30 or bigger paving slab (concrete) under the printer and this solves a lot of issues :D
You make the best videos❤❤❤
Foam rubber mat, a concrete paver and if you're feelin fancy, a layer of 1/4" felt on top.
And maybe buy furniture that doesn't wobble when you breathe on it.
Thanks for the vid. I'd be interested to see if you do this same exploration with squash ball feet mods :)
This really nails the type of video I love to see. Something extremely practical, cost-effective, and value add.
So totally useless. As expected, thanks for confirming.
Yep, vibration feet are mostly useless when it comes to performance upgrade
These newer printers compensate so well for vibrations and movement. No need for these "gimmicks"
@@califpv these gimmicks often make the vibration worse for the printer even without input shaper involved. you want something sturdy nto something that allows it to vibrate otherwise is no different to sitting on a wobbly table
maybe just use a concrete slab under the printer as many ppl do for a good reason (reinventing the wheel when the problem solved years ago)
It's just basic physics. You want to dissipate all the energy imparted on the machine by Newton's third law when the tool head moves. The feet behaves as a dampened spring system supporting the machine. There's an optimal dampening amount that will make the system "critically dampened", this depends on the mass of the printer and how "springy" the feet are. I doubt the creators have done the math to figure out if they actually hit critical dampening for the machines they support.
Damping, not dampening.
Dampening means making something moist. You are dampening a towel when you add water to it. Damping means to reduce the amplitude of vibration. The motion is damped (not dampened).
I have been doing a ton of gardening lately lol 😂. Google also says dampen is “make less strong or intense” so it seems like it is still correct as well.
Dampening and damping are both still used for the same purpose, as verb *to dampen* very much does refer to reducing the amplitude of something. Both are correct, and used interchangably. 🙂
The only reason "dampening" is accepted is because too many people got it wrong so they changed it. It happens far too often.
@@shaydereaver3672 According to the OED, "to dampen" has been used in the context of oscillation interchangably as a transitive verb since about 1879. Seems like those pesky 19th century physicists got it wrong already! Probably because there was no YT commenter around to correct them.
@@shmeeed Exactly
this feels like the opposite of what's best for print quality. I would imagine bolting the printer down to a massive cement block making everything as rigid would be best. Same reason they make cnc machines big and heavy and rigid.
if your trying to reduce vibration then make it heavy, if you want to reduce harmonics you have to dampen. What im thinking is go at it like the archery guys. what about rubber inserts into the extrusion? think slot covers but tpu and almost solid fill in the track. like filling your cnc machines neck with cement or epoxy.
The Door wide open on X1 makes it Worse. Like jiggling a long pvc pipe
Unfortunate that they don't really seem to do a whole lot... but I guess it's like Angus from makers Muse demonstrated, sometimes the printers almost work better when they can wobble around a bit 🤷🏿♀️
I'd buy these immediately if they were on Amazon "fully assembled"
Just used some old ninjaflex tires. Pool noodles might also work.
i have a concrete paver right under my printer then 5in of furniture foam, cant even heat the vibrations with your ear on the table XD
The reason there is very little improvement with anti-vibration feet is because there is a common misconception about what they are designed for. They are not meant to stop and therefore will not stop the vibrations of the machine itself they're designed to stop the vibrations of the machine from transferring to the desk or table it is sitting on. Any Improvement seen with any particular type of feet is purely luck and happenstance. The feet of the printer will never stop the vibrations from occurring within the machine. If resonance is the cause of ringing then the only solution is to dampen the very particular object on the machine that is vibrating in sync to the movements. This would likely be things on the tool head and would be extremely difficult to do. You in essence need to make those parts heavier or dampen them. Putting special feet on the printer would never accomplish this as the table itself is not the problem and not the part that's resonating.
This can be exemplified in the way hard drives are mounted. They always have silicone feet. It is not to stop the hard drive from vibrating the chassis but to isolate it from the vibrations of the chassis being moved and knocked around.
I just put my prusa on a cement paver and put some generic rubber feet under the paver.
I live in Hawaii (the ground is a resonator), The big island (the volcano is constantly erupting), on the second story of an old building (also cheap likes to wobble), right next to the highway (heavy trucks shake the building), right next to an intersection (loud motorcycle engines, loud base, and rumbling diesel engines can shake the building when the light is red), under a military helicopter flight path (entire wings of Blackhawks, Chinooks, and Osprey fly directly over my house at low altitude every few days).
This is highly relevant to my interests.
That is actually one of the rare cases where reducing coupling between printer and fixed-world would be beneficial. We have air bearing tables in our lab to reduce outside vibrations into precision equipment, but those are so sensitive some of them can pick up vibrations of people walking in the hall-way next door.
Are the vibrations really so bad that they would affect print quality though? Its not a sub-micron level precision device.
@@tHaH4x0r The resin printer in particular. I got it up on three layers of isolation now.
What I really want is a "noise" canceling table.
I'm pretty sure I could get all the pieces on SparkFun, but I'm going to need an AI to do the software for me.
Calibrate your printer on the floor, and then move it to a bench. This will ensure the sensors are reading clean data.
I'm surprised these didn't make things worse honestly. They appear to add more motion to the printer, now if one was trying to remove motion from the surface the printer is setting on these these would be something to consider.
phones have to lay flat on the tables to give best sensitivity!
There is a good reason why VZBot is bolting his printer onto the wall 😅
I will send a msg over X.
I have a design very close to this but I use a single marble as the bearing and a 8 magnetics provide the centering force