It supports only up to 5 toolheads for what I know

Bigtreetech CEB is the name

Its almost a great solution. It would be perfect if they just gave you 7 power and 7 signal screw terminals. As it is, it takes two to have a clean setup or your gonna have to have different connectors for different heads.

@@GrizzLeeAdams The way the Klipper canbus on MCU works is that all commands for the Manta go though the canbus protocol as well. Meaning it needs to drive the 6 motors in addition to toolheads. This caused homing timeouts for me a year ago. Homing is def the most demanding operation for pushing a lot of messages in a short bursts. I suspect they just got backed up in the transmission queue. The MCU serial interface is clocked at 250kb/s so theoretically a 500kb/s canbus should beat it. I suspect the frame overhead and frame pacing limitations are playing a significant role.

Exactly - the propper way is to have everything in one chain - I see that people seem to get away with this, but signal quality will be degraded over a correct bus layout with two terminated ends and the more of those branches there are the worse it will be. I’m not set on what I will do with my printers (I am building two with tapchanger) - either run two set of bus wire to the head to allow the head to be in the bus middle or use multiple CAN buses with the host controller in the middle and just two heads at each end. Another thing, about the MKS CAN bus controller: it is isolated, so this one has no connection between bus ground and USB ground and without a common ground the bus is even more degraded.

Exactly - the propper way is to have everything in one chain - I see that people seem to get away with this, but signal quality will be degraded over a correct bus layout with two terminated ends and the more of those branches there are the worse it will be. I’m not set on what I will do with my printers (I am building two with tapchanger) - either run two set of bus wire to the head to allow the head to be in the bus middle or use multiple CAN buses with the host controller in the middle and just two heads at each end. Another thing, about the MKS CAN bus controller: it is isolated, so this one has no connection between bus ground and USB ground and without a common ground the bus is even more degraded. Do you have a product number for that Igus cable by the way?

He is just using a star topology which is really common

@@tructruc00 Right, it is a very common mistake. The signal quality isn’t as good as it should be and the more of such violations you do the worse it is. This is plain physics - at a branch you will get a reflection, the head cables are unterminated, so there will be reflections too. All branchings happen at nearly the same location, so all those branch reflections happen at the same time, the head cables are more or less the same length, so those reflections come back to the branch point at nearly the same time. If you want to branch without reflection you would have have to use a different impedance cable to the head, but the you would have problems with the signals coming from the head to the branch point. You can’t overcome physics. While the signal might still be good enough with a single branch, adding 6 branches is really asking for troubles - that’s 5/6th of the signal energy being reflected at the branch point and only 1/6th being passed, of which only 1/(6*6)th goes to each head. Because the cables are rather short, the reflection times are short too, so time is a bit on your side and chances are that things equal out fast enough after a few reflection iterations. That’s why a few mm branch into a chip on a PCB is usually fine. You normally don’t see the signal quality, since it is digital - it either works or it doesn’t, but you won’t know how marginal it is unless you go and scope an eye pattern signal. If you play by the rules you are safe - if you violate them you should know what you are doing.

@@tructruc00 Which is the wrong way to do CAN bus unless you are going to have repeater at hub and separate networks.