Fascinating indeed. Always nice to see some empirical head to head test to show stuff like this. Really helps cut through the marketing and hearsay that so often dominates.
I had a few people tell me the I "have" to anneal the PPS-CF to use it, and I asked why. Well, no one could give me the why other than parroting things they have read or heard but could not point me to any actual data. So, I'm making my own data, and I will use that to decide if it needs to be done or not. I will say that 99.23% of all consumer grade 3D printers will never see temperatures in the chamber (for those that have them) high enough to cause any concern with the PPS-CF. Now the PET-CF, failed spectacularly at below 80°C so that I need to test further to make a decision. PA6 and PA12 coming tomorrow then on to CoPA and PA612 after that, then I'll start moving down the line to PETG, ASA, ABS etc.
Thanks again for taking a look at this. I've printed more with PPS-CF, and I've found that some parts may need to be annealed more than others. For example, I printed a little coin out of it at 100% infill, and it had that characteristic clank and ring to it when dropped. However, I also printed a 20mm calibration cube from it, and it didn't have that ring at all. In fact, I couldn't tell a difference in sound between the PPS-CF and a regular PLA calibration cube. I'm assuming that the calibration cube experienced a lot more cooling with only 10% infill, so it didn't develop a good crystal structure. Whereas the coin had plenty of heat applied across it, and it developed a better crystalline structure. I obviously wasn't trying to make anything structural or useful, but it's interesting nonetheless :)
I'll add that early on I printed 30mm cubes, measured them then took 1/2 the samples and annealed them per my normal process of 2+16 hours and no change in any dimension on anything for that set of tests.
Awesome annealing. Thanks for the testing, save us a lot of research for purchasing said materials for durability.
Another great informative vid with real data
Thanks for the info, Scott.. Glad to see someone sharing the learning process and willing to go the extra mile.
Fascinating indeed. Always nice to see some empirical head to head test to show stuff like this. Really helps cut through the marketing and hearsay that so often dominates.
I had a few people tell me the I "have" to anneal the PPS-CF to use it, and I asked why. Well, no one could give me the why other than parroting things they have read or heard but could not point me to any actual data. So, I'm making my own data, and I will use that to decide if it needs to be done or not.
I will say that 99.23% of all consumer grade 3D printers will never see temperatures in the chamber (for those that have them) high enough to cause any concern with the PPS-CF. Now the PET-CF, failed spectacularly at below 80°C so that I need to test further to make a decision. PA6 and PA12 coming tomorrow then on to CoPA and PA612 after that, then I'll start moving down the line to PETG, ASA, ABS etc.
Thanks again for taking a look at this. I've printed more with PPS-CF, and I've found that some parts may need to be annealed more than others. For example, I printed a little coin out of it at 100% infill, and it had that characteristic clank and ring to it when dropped. However, I also printed a 20mm calibration cube from it, and it didn't have that ring at all. In fact, I couldn't tell a difference in sound between the PPS-CF and a regular PLA calibration cube. I'm assuming that the calibration cube experienced a lot more cooling with only 10% infill, so it didn't develop a good crystal structure. Whereas the coin had plenty of heat applied across it, and it developed a better crystalline structure. I obviously wasn't trying to make anything structural or useful, but it's interesting nonetheless :)
Hot damn!
I'd like to have the TDS both with and without annealing. It would help me understand when I really need to anneal.
That is going to be up to the manufacturer to supply. Some will, some don't. Some of the Polymaker stuff has some pretty comprehensive TDS data.
In short: if you need heat resistance, chemical resistance or the most stiffness, anneal it. Otherwise don't
At the same time, if you're not annealing, you probably want a different filament
Did the annealing process result in any loss of dimensional accuracy? I mean if it did, is there any point in going further with any other tests?
On the PET-CF and PPS-CF both, there was no measurable change in dimension from raw to annealed.
I'll add that early on I printed 30mm cubes, measured them then took 1/2 the samples and annealed them per my normal process of 2+16 hours and no change in any dimension on anything for that set of tests.
@@EDGEOF3D Excellent
I would take a look at the the TDS sheets. There is some change, but it can be compensated for. Some geometries may be tricky
Celsius or Fahrenheit?
Celsius