You really got me thinking about this. If you have some time tell me what you think.
I really need a good way to test and quantify these settings. Other than just slamming the axis around. I figured do all the settings in the air, then use a cut pattern through some soft pine or something when it seems maxed out, and then back it down a bit for the masses/safety factor.
To test I figure-
Set a conservative accel, run iterations to find max speed for the axis for rapids. (Spec sheet says 200mm/s is half the torque of 20mm/s)
Once the max speed is found, bump up accel until it starts to skip.
Once that seems maxed out see if decreasing micro stepping really increases torque, Micromo says this 16ths is almost 2 times the torque of 32nds, pretty sure 8ths is a bit coarse for x and y but should be fine for Z double the torque again. There is a lot of controversy on this subject that is why I want to check it myself. I didn’t believe it when I built the machine but I trust micromo. Then this seems to make more sense because at 32nd steps we should have almost no torque according to micromo, and to me full steps and 32nd steps felt the same when I tested by hand that is why I went with 32nd.
I did test the step size on the very first machine. I know we can’t do full steps. I did a circle as large as my build volume would allow and used the pen holder. At full steps it was visibly jagged, but now you have my thinking I should try 1/4th and 1/8th. But I really need to know if this increases torque because this would be hard to implement to all the current users an I only want to do it if it makes a measurable difference.
Who doesn’t want free torque and speed!!!!!