Anchor point heights (calibration)

Troubleshooting
1

So I recently installed 3/4" poolzilla floor anchors and used 6" long 1/2 galvanized carriage bolts to screw into the floor anchors to mount the new larger belt ends (thanks to others for designing for me!). Below are a few observations:

  1. I was running .79 vertically with no issues, I then Switched to horizontal and changed my frame dimensions and calibration grid, but I got a red light flash and error immediately after the belts tightened on initial start of calibration… It did this 3 times and I have no clue why… so I deleted yaml,and index files and updated to .81, and then calibration ran smooth. I got .59 fitness initially, but then decided to mess around with the BRZ,BLZ, TRZ and TLZ values.

  2. After measuring the 4 arm heights from the concrete floor, and then measuring the belt end height from the concrete floor I inputted the values and re calibrated again. Note: 2 of the higher belt arms on the M4 resulted in negative values because the belt end is ‘lower’ than the arm. I’ve never seen negative values in peoples setups, but most people probably have belt ends lower than the arms I would think. Makes sense to me. I ended up with .68 fitness after tweaking the measurements.

  3. I did a final tweak of the Z anchor values and re ran calibration to see if I could get a higher fitness again, but it never calculated fitness during or after calibration… which was odd. I ran a 5x5 Grid and it just went to 25 waypoints and said it measured them, and then the calibration was complete… but no fitness calculations… I thought that was odd. @bar I did this 3 times in a row, but no new fitness values.

Food for thought.

2

James Presnail wrote:

  1. After measuring the 4 arm heights from the concrete floor, and then measuring the belt end height from the concrete floor I inputted the values and re calibrated again. Note: 2 of the higher belt arms on the M4 resulted in negative values because the belt end is ‘lower’ than the arm. I’ve never seen negative values in peoples setups, but most people probably have belt ends lower than the arms I would think. Makes sense to me. I ended up with .68 fitness after tweaking the measurements.

negative Z offsets would mean the anchor end of the belts is higher than the
spool end (and this should be measured when the maslow is all the way down
against the steppers)

David Lang

3

Oh really, that’s counter intuitive to me.

I read a previous thread:
"# Z axis values

These define the height of the anchor points in relation to each of the arms. You do not need to change these typically

Maslow_tlZ: 100
Maslow_trZ: 56
Maslow_blZ: 34
Maslow_brZ: 78"

So I assumed the height of anchor point is below the arm it would be negative

4

James Presnail wrote:

Oh really, that’s counter intuitive to me.

I read a previous thread:
"# Z axis values

These define the height of the anchor points in relation to each of the arms. You do not need to change these typically

Maslow_tlZ: 100
Maslow_trZ: 56
Maslow_blZ: 34
Maslow_brZ: 78"

So I assumed the height of anchor point is below the arm it would be negative

These are for where the anchor is to the frame/floor with no offset, a 3/4
wasteboard and a 3/4" workpiece, so they are all way below the arms.

David Lang

5

I think the point is the numbers are the height of the arms above the anchor points. I think this is really what they are, right? Just confusing terminology

1 Like
6

Ron Lawrence wrote:

I think the point is the numbers are the height of the arms above the anchor
points. I think this is really what they are, right? Just confusing
terminology

yes.

David Lang

7

So would it be better to offset anchor points so the tlz,trz,blz and brz are zero or close to so M4 is being held to cutting surface?

1 Like
8

Martin wrote:

So would it be better to offset anchor points so the tlz,trz,blz and brz are zero or close to so M4 is being held to cutting service?

I think so (untested), The theory is that without the belts pulling down on the
sled, there will be less friction and movement will be easier

BUT offsetting anchor points runs the risk of them flexing, and any flex in the
anchors will hurt far more than any benefit from the reduced friction.

David Lang

1 Like
9

I still haven’t had a chance to do the test on the anchor point height.
In my set up, where the anchor are mounted to the wall the flex is the same at all heights, so that problem wouldn’t occur.

1 Like