Jump to content
Ultimaker Community of 3D Printing Experts


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


JohnInOttawa last won the day on November 11

JohnInOttawa had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

56 Excellent

Personal Information

  • Field of Work
  • Country
  • 3D printer

Recent Profile Visitors

548 profile views
  1. Thanks. I think perhaps you answered a different question (or questions) though. I'll try to think about a better way to ask this question. John
  2. JohnInOttawa

    Gyroids and how to do them

    So I printed a cooling hood for a fan today...*sigh* You guys are on a level I can't even see. I feel like a termite watching an aircraft take off. Still, it is inspiring and like our own private art gallery. Thanks for sharing! J
  3. Good morning! This might have been covered elsewhere, but my search didn't reveal it, so apologies for any repetition. I've got a range of nozzle sizes with my HardCores as well as a number of non UM materials that don't neatly fit the mold, such as hi temp PLA, etc. I've read at least some of the threads that provide guidance on selecting layer width based on nozzle size, but in most cases there seems to be a bit of a recursive loop as one determines the correct temperature, layer height and print speed to go along with that width. Some here have already done the homework and identified filament volume for a given nozzle diameter and temperature. I'd like to understand the process for finding that volume for any filament. My hope is that having this volume would allow me to dial in the correct combination of line width and layer height for given applications - for example, if I want a strong part with simple geometry in a carbon fibre filled nylon filament, I probably want the widest lines I can manage - so what would be the correct layer height to avoid under or over extrusion? Knowing this would probably have saved me the fun of unclogging my print core after my last Copperfill print. Thank you in advance for your thoughts and forebearance in the case this is a re-hash. John
  4. JohnInOttawa

    Copperfill and Woodfill experience

    My experience with the 0.6 was woodfill only and I didn't get finer than 0.1 with that particular run - that said, I had no problems with standard speeds. I'm still learning what I can expect from these Bondtech feeders, but I ran at 50 for everything with a print temp of 205 with no issues. In terms of clogging, this is probably the most severe case I have encountered on my equipment, and I'm still unsure if it was just down to the nozzle diameter. I suspect dialing down the layer height might have played a role. I was running with an 80% infill as these were extremely thin and I needed as much strength as I could get. I would not recommend more than that, I get the sense that having some space for any ooze to escape internally helped delay trouble. I kept the print that clogged, will post that, along with a woodfill example, next time I'm at the printer. Good luck, will look forward to seeing your results! Cheers John
  5. JohnInOttawa

    Copperfill and Woodfill experience

    I know there have been a few question about user experience with Colorfabb Copperfill and Woodfill. I thought I would post my experience. First off, surface texture for both filament is excellent. Copperfill density adds a nice feel to parts. I started off with a 0.6 nozzle on the woodfill, that went fine, so I dialed back to 0.4, still fine, but the detail needed finer yet. At the same time I decided to switch to Copperfill as the model (earrings) would benefit from that. So my results on Copperfill are from a 3DSolex Hardcore, 0.25 steel nozzle. 0.05 layer height. Copperfill print settings and retractions were used, I did slow the print speed down, and am now running Bondtec feeders, which for reasons that became clear later, made quite a difference, especially with the copper. First, the good news. The detail with Copperfill at 0.25 was better than even stock Ultimaker white PLA. I had to leave an area on the underside to accommodate an earring post, so used PVA for support. The earring on the left is straight off the printer, the one on the right has only had light sanding and a couple of mild runs with a copper scouring pad. The 'other news'. As expected, clogging is a significant issue with this fine a nozzle. Each earring took about an hour. The first print went as planned, clogging occured about 30% of the way through the second attempt, a significant clog that took a number of techniques to clear. I suspect a combination of the particulates and heat creep. Clearing copperfill using the standard 'hot pull' maintenance setting did not work as the temperature was not high enough. I finally had success with some high temp PLA at between 230 and 240, working relatively quicky so I didn't soften the PLA too much. What I then decided was to do this modified hot pull after each print, and again at the end so there was nothing contaminating the nozzle for the next job. This actually worked very nicely. I've included an (obsolete) Canadian penny for reference on size and colour. My bride is very happy, which means so am I 🙂 John
  6. JohnInOttawa

    XSTRAND GF30 PA6 Test Print

    That's encouraging progress! I know the manufacturer is recommending XSTRAND for the supports as well, but given all of the issues, I'm wondering if another material that is known to do well as a support would work better. I haven't worked with Breakaway and I'm not sure if PVA could tolerate the temperature environment without just degrading. Would PLA be a possibility? John
  7. JohnInOttawa

    XSTRAND GF30 PA6 Test Print

    Thank you for this thread. I'm paying close attention and learning from your experience. I have to agree though. That is a lot of expense for testing. I hope you get a 'pioneer's premium' for doing this beta work. John
  8. JohnInOttawa

    XSTRAND GF30 PA6 Test Print

    Wow. Hopefully Owens-Corning can engage. That's just painful. John
  9. JohnInOttawa

    Owens Corning XSTRAND™

    Just to add: The UM3 with either of the Bondtec upgrades can feed abrasive filament, so can then safely support either the CC or 3DSolex as noted above. If you do go with the feeder and hardcore mods, the interchangeable nozzles are nice for other things, like woodfill, or those times when you'd like to try a few different nozzle sizes to dial in resolution and test whether clogging is going to be an issue. Price-wise, I was able to get the 3DSolex for less than the CC core, but by the time you add in a range of abrasive nozzles, it does start to add up. Still, looking at the price of some of these filaments, the whole exercise is a pain in the pocket book. (edited for public reading) J
  10. JohnInOttawa

    Torsion box implications for infill material and layout?

    Yes, inter-material compatibility is something I wonder about. If the PLA change will happen regardless of environment, then I guess my next question would be whether that more brittle state leads to increased risk of internal failure or whether the internal matrix is protected from loads relevant to that change. Related, there is a wide price range now of CF reinforced filaments. Perhaps the answer is to go with a more generic filament internally that lacks the surface toughness or print quality of the exotic stuff, but is still good enough to be used internally. Cost effectiveness would certainly be a factor dependent on what was being built. And of course, if the internal fill material was also abrasive, now (on the UM3), we would be talking about two CC cores or Hardcores, which would drive costs somewhat. J
  11. Good morning! It is a balmy -25C with the windchill outside, so what better time to concentrate on the indoor to do list? My usual disclaimer: I'm clearly not an engineer. I work in the end of the field that tries really hard not to break the nice toys that the engineers design for us. As I look at the growing variety of materials and prepare to set up a test environment, I was looking at the torsion boxes I've built to hold some of my heavier equipment and began to wonder - I know that infill works on a very similar principle, but if I am aiming for the strongest, truest surface to withstand loads at the lowest cost, can I expect (and predict) strength and performance improvements for given combinations of infill and skin materials? For example. We know that PLA can be very stiff but isn't particularly strong on its own and subject to longer term 'embrittlement' (pardon my abuse of the term). But what happens, say, if we embed a PLA grid inside a nylon/CF box skin? The skin provides stiffness and protection from UV, while the PLA should, in theory (depending on print orientation), serve pretty well to support the central area of the box against compression loads. I recall that some torson boxes use corrugated cardboard for their internal structures and achieve amazing load bearing capacities. Where am I going with all of this? Some of the newer materials provide us with new levels of strength and stiffness - but the cost makes using these for larger prints a serious challenge. If I was able to use an exotic filament for the skin to protect a less expensive but adequately strong matrix (and my question is really about determining 'adequately'), then all of a sudden these new materials start to look cost effective for a broader range of applications. Looking forward to your thoughts! John
  12. JohnInOttawa

    Printing screws and lids

    Depending on what the thread is for, I often have a mate in metal somewhere. In that case, once I clean up any strings or tags, I'll run the metal complementing thread (bolt, nut, camera filter, etc) and use it to 'chase' the thread more accurately. I've had pretty good luck doing this. One thing that I have had bad results with is using PVA supports with threads. The PVA just messed up the thread layers so it looked like a comb from the side. Better to go with no supports in that case. Best of Luck! Cheers John
  13. JohnInOttawa

    Material for prosthetic eyes

    Welcome! It may take a bit more information to get a reliable answer to your question. For example, are you intending to print a mold or an end use product to rest in the eye socket? If the printed part itself will rest in the eye socket, my main concern would be infection control. I have not seen any FDM-produced surfaces that are smooth enough (totally free of surface defects or lines even at the microscopic level) and non-porous enough for such an application. That said, if you can provide a bit more information about your research and testing setup, there are some manufacturers here, with any luck one will engage and get you some useful info. John
  14. JohnInOttawa

    Suggestions for XTRAND Strength test models

    Thank you @Labern! I have reached out to George to see if I can extend from his work in any way. I won't presume to have his level of test capacity or knowledge, but if I can at least make what I do relatable in some way to his work, perhaps it will add to the body of knowledge. I also agree that there are many facets to what makes a material right for a job. I have heard from another member here that some of the characteristics that make for an excellent matte surface finish may resulting in something too rough for regular skin contact. I don't know yet how I will evaluate that. I am thinking about setting up a block of soft pine and seeing how much sawdust I can raise with the surface of each printed part. High texture might be very desirable for rough service parts where maintaining grip in wet or greasy conditions is key, whereas braces or other body contact parts might need something different. WRT to dimensions and stringing, here's where I am throwing myself on the mercy (or knowledge base if you will) of the group and your post is an excellent example of what I was hoping would happen. While I can't guarantee I'll have the capability to do the kind of testing everyone requires, the chances of me getting close are better with this kind of input. Much appreciated! John
  15. JohnInOttawa

    Suggestions for XTRAND Strength test models

    I'm happy to take input on an appropriate test model and will share the STL for that model once it's finalized. Now, I am not a test lab, so apart from maybe bringing in a force gauge (I'm thinking a 500# limit should do it), I don't want to create the impression that this is going to be high science or engineering. But now you've given me an idea, there is a proper materials lab at the nearest university and I may still have a friend or two there. If I can set that up then I'll happily accept parts printed in your preferred material. Hmmm. What are the odds I can find an engineering student interested in testing a whole bunch of things to destruction? Nah, they'd hate that...;-) J

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!