Jump to content

yellowshark

Expert
  • Content Count

    1,758
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

yellowshark last won the day on February 7 2018

yellowshark had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

149 Excellent

3 Followers

About yellowshark

  • Birthday 01/01/2015

Personal Information

  • Field of Work
    (Product) design
    Engineering
  • Country
    GB
  • 3D printer
    heated bed and enclosed housing which were not offered by Ultimaker.
  • On The Web

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I should clarify that the dimensional testing was on the accuracy of length of line, not the width. I just happened to have printed a single line and though I would measure it. I was not aware there was a e-step setting available that affected the dimension of the width!!
  2. Lol, OK I have several takes on this and I do not claim to be an expert on this as I have never needed to play around with it, ie line width 1. I take it to be and do all our design on the basis that the line width is governed by the physical extruder aperture. I measure that by printing a single line. Well of course I did not use to do that - the specifications for the printer said it had 0.4mm nozzle which we took as gospel. 2. I think Cura uses the line width to calculate the amount of filament to be pushed through to achieve the line width, with the caveat that one can only deviate so far from the nozzle width before it goes wrong. But if it is as simple as that then it raises the question as to why one has to specify the nozzle width in Cura. So I am not convinced that what I have said is totally accurate. The old original Cura which stopped at 15.04 or 15.06 never had a setting for line width; it used the shell width and nozzle width to calculate the number of lines to print for a wall (according to the Help text) 3. I guess if one is into jewellery or circuit boards then this stuff may be important but we fundamentally do mechanical engineering and architecture and after 6 years we have never had a use case that has made us stray from the old maxim line width = nozzle width.
  3. Hi @jdrake I am not answering your questions specifically but thought I would give you my experience. Which is germane. For years my setup was 0.4mm nozzle and 0.4mm line-width which gave me good results. Then a couple of years back I was doing some testing on dimensional accuracy and calibrating my e-steps and measured the width of the printed test lines and saw that they were 0.45mm. Now whether that was due to expansion or my extruder having a 0.45mm hole due to manufacturing tolerance or wear over a period of years I know not. But I set my nozzle width and line width setting to 0.45 to match and improved my printed results.
  4. I must say that when I first looked at this thread my view was really an unclean bed but I thought I would mention the possibility of over-extrusion too. It was several years ago that I changed my setup and put my nozzle closer to the glass, following some great posts by @gr5. Around the same time, within 6 months, I had made another change whereby I changed to use the same extruder temp for layer 1 as I did for the rest of the print, i.e. not having a lower temp to match the speed of 20mm/s for layer 1. I found I was getting results similar to the first pic in this thread; it took me a long time to figure out it was over-extrusion and in the end I resolved it by setting the flow % for layer 1 to 70%. My un-researched guess was that I was getting away with it when the nozzle was further away from the bed but not when I was squidging the filament against the bed.
  5. It could be over extrusion; what extruder temp, bed temp and print speed are you using for layer 1 and like wise for layer 2 onwards? Are you using 100% flow? I have the settings set the same for all layers except for layer1 I have the print speed set to 20mm/s and to avoid over extrusion I set the flow % to 70% and then increase it back to 100% over the next couple of layers - I do this with the printer control software not in Cura, although maybe these days Cura lets you control it?
  6. Appreciate you are not changing your nozzle 😉Yes PLA does have a wide temp range, which is problematic because it makes you think your temp is OK when it is not. Well it may be OK but so is your print, instead of being great. This is especially important when it comes to dimensional accuracy and delicate features. I do not know what it is but there has to be a point where difference in physical nozzle and line width will cause problems such as you say. I only ever print with line widths that match the width of extruded filament, which in my case is 0.45mm. The difference in print quality between 0.4 and 0.45 is noticeable, albeit not dramatic. I have not calibrated my 0,8mm nozzle yet, rarely use it.
  7. Well there are a host of things you can play with to try to improve aspects but I think the two biggest rules are print slow and cool. Also the particular filament you will use can have an impact. Different coloured filaments from the same supplier can produce differences. Also easier if you design your models yourself. E.G. easier to print accurate 0.4 walls if they are 0.4 and not 5.3. I would recommend speed not above 30mm/s. For temp. use the filament you will use and print a series of 10mm cubes to find your temp. Print each cube at 5 degrees cooler than the previous one until you see evidence of under extrusion. Add 5 degrees to that temp. to get your desired temp.
  8. In addition you will be pushing more filament per sec out of the nozzle so possibly may need to increase extruder temp a bit (if all other settings remain the same). I.e. if you physically swapped your 0.4 nozzle to 0.8 you would definitely need to increase the temp. But I guess 0.4 to 0.5 you might get away with but it is a 25% increase in volume. Probably depends on whether your current settings are veering towards too hot or too cold.
  9. Printing the outer wall first is recommend for greater dimensional accuracy. Why has disappeared from my memory banks but that being the case it would be a reasonable factor for making your teeth work
  10. It would be interesting to see what the result would be if you reduced the number of walls to 2 and increased the infill to say 40%. I am not saying you are wrong but I have always used 2 walls and tailored the strength of the part by the density of the infill. I quite often print at 100% infill and have found on certain sizes/geometries that 100% infill is faster than using a lower density - important to us as print time is by far the major influencer on pricing whereas material has a small influence. .Also you do not say what print speeds you are using for infill and for walls. If they are all the same it surprises me that you are not seeing a gain but maybe my brain is missing something.
  11. If you are printing layers over low density infill it just means you need more top layers to get a decent surface, say 1.0mm thickness plus.
  12. Maybe it is back to basics, If you are printing top layers over infill why do you want to use bridging when it is not bridging. I do not have the latest Cura and do not know what bridge mode is, lol so probably should not be commenting!
  13. Very impressive @Safety_Lucas. What size fount did you use?
  14. Yes spot on. Depending on thickness dims I might use more walls if it proves faster to print that using infill. FWIW I also always use 15% infill overlap.
  15. One option is to use the "Ironing" function. From my very limited experience of this function its success will depend on the shapes contained within the top layer. An alternative is to design and print the model with an extra top layer, which has NO holes in it, i.e. just a complete rectangular shape to use your example. Then just cut the layer away with a craft knife where it is covering a hole.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to the Ultimaker Community of 3D printing experts. Visit the following links to read more about our Terms of Use or our Privacy Policy. Thank you!