It would be great to test not only "just a wall" but wall + infill + wall. For example how 2 mm "wall" with 2 walls and infill stack against 2mm just walls
I’d seen a test for this I believe from cnc kitchen, the infil mostly just holds up top layers and didn’t contribute as much to over all strength as you’d expect were the conclusions I remember from the video
Glad that someone finally addressed this along with infill in another video. I end up remixing and even redesigning many prints because even though the are exactly what I am looking for they tend to have very thick parts that are complete overkill for their purpose. making them up to 1/4 as thin of what the were originally still leaves them plenty strong.
If they use a plate to distribute the force the vertical walls will be under compression and the piece may sustain more force. I think pressing in the middle like a beam supported on both ends stresses more the part. I don't think the setup is so important as far as it is consistent for all tests.
Yes, failure was equivalent to taking a wall and bending it until it snapped. Rather different. And I'm here because I designed a load bearing part and looking for some data on what it could expect to support.
I've been printing panels of 2mm thickness to be used as lids for aquariums. It's good to know that I can shave it thinner and still expect a decent amount of strength.
Beyond this we need to look at infill orientation and line direction. I've found in some cases if I print with grid at 0 & 90 degrees I get very different strength than if I print the exact same model with the grid at 45 & 135 degrees. I have found that by changing the infill line orientation I can often reduce the infill %, use fewer walls and still get the strength I need.
@@Dongaz When the item is under compression grid infill with the infill lines vertical (ie like tubes standing on end) and running 45 and 135 degrees worked best. I used this to print off a set of bed post lift to raise a bed 8 inches higher (for an elderly friend). 30% infill and 5 wall and top/bottom layers and they've been in use for 6 months with no cracks or bending.
As I have already commented on the video on Infill patterns, I would still like to see these tests in compression along the z axis as viewed from the printbed, if your test equipment can handle it. Different materials, wall counts, infill patters, and infill percentages would also affect those tests, but we should expect higher strenght compared to the force being aplied in x/y.
Newton is the correct unit. To get kg on earth Newton/9.8. pounds is a measurement of force, change the gravity and the scale changes. This is why a 360lbs man weights 60lbs on the moon. But will always have a mass of 163kg.
"yo momma so fat that she can break a square with 5mm walls" i'm so glad you guys are able to do much more scientific tests now that you've got the equipment for it!
This needed a second test set that used even pressure across the entire cube. especially on the last samples that failed due to the top wall failure. They likely could even double the results if pressure was applied across the entire top.
I would love to see a wall thickness vs water tightness. Design a part that has several features. Like elbows corners etc and put water pressure inside until it fails.
I like that you added the wood bottom to distribute the pressure better by the wood being able to deform. However, you still have lateral movement in your press. This looks like one from Harbor Freight. It's a good start, but needs some tweaks to make it a reliable and repeatable tool. Both moving cross beams, the one with the bottom of the ram and the one items get placed on, need to be better constrained. You can add roller bearing blocks and adjust those, or make them spring loaded. But, that is time consuming for a cheap tool. A quick fix is to add a sheet of UHMW to the inside of both uprights. Just push the beams to one side and measure the gap. Divide that in half and round it down to the nearest thickness you can get. Attach it with screws above the travel of the top beam, and a piece of double sided mounting tape at the bottom. That should give you some great results. Also, using the last 2 sets of holes at the bottom of the uprights, some 3/4 inch black iron T's, black iron pipe, and some all thread (from the electrical department at big orange box store), you can make front and rear cross bracing to pretension and stabilize the uprights so that the lateral force of the press trying to drift under load is not substantial.
perhaps same test but using large flat steel plate in between to isolate strenght of material from point load? and bonus round -> print with settings you think is the strongest per unit of weight
I'm interested in the compression of the cube rotated so you test it how the layers were added. The print orientation, however that is described. The strongest possible orientation.
This is an amazing test. For a lot of my functional parts, i will often do a 2mm wall thickness even if the part will not be under any intense load. Example a camera shroud printed with PETG and a 2mm wall thickness is virtually indestructible. Combine that with gyroid infill of about 20% and you have a winner
Good video but I would be interested to see where the failure occurred on each test. Was it always in the same place or changed as the thickness went up.
Heh. Saw this pop up in my feed about an hour ago and was sighing because of the effect/affect confusion in the title - this is one of my pet peeves and it drives me crazy. Especially because in *my* accent they sound completely different. However, clicking into the video just now, I see it's been fixed. Thumbs up for whichever editor caught the mistake!
I always wanted to know which filament is the stiffest, or which one has the highest hardness on a scale, and not just PLA, but specific types of PLA and so on.
Awesome video. I’d like to see an updated video on waterproof 3d printing. There is different info out there on material choices, over extrusion, wall thickness & more on best practice. However, I haven’t seen any comparison. I imagine this would also be a near zero cost in the test equipment required. Anyway thanks for all the info & hard work you put into these videos
I would absolutely love to see a comparison of ASA creep performance. I know folks in the 3dprinting subreddit and other 3d printing communities would love to see this. Polycarbonate and PC with infill is another interesting one. I have a tie holder, for example, and after some time, the holder is beginning to sag with PLA. I would expect ASA to perform better, but I don't know. Creep is not a well documented by most manufacturers. Can you guys consider doing comparisons of various ASA colors and brands? I think there is a strong community interest in eSun, Polymaker, and Hatchbox brands. I would guess black, white, and grey would all be great candidates. Green, blue, red, orange, if you wanna get fancy.
Great video, and good data. Suggestions: Please show the failed parts. (at least one representative sample) A slo-mo of part failure would provide insights into a how part fails. This could be useful as a "how to design for" type discussion. Did part have: clean break, sheer area, distortion, layer separation, etc. While the thin walls failed before the bridge gave way, at some point a thick-walled variation was stronger than the bridge. Unknown is how much the distortion of thin walls contributed to earlier failures. Think a thicker bridge, even on thin-walled variations would have provided more consistent wall focused test data. (ie: this was both a compression test and deformation test) If it was the bridge area that was being tested, these tests would be mostly test failures. ;) Testing like in video is ok for simple reference, and basic education, but less usable if building a reference data set.
When you print a 1mm wall what nozzle have you used, 0.5? I usually design wall thickness as multiples of nozzle withs, so 0.8 or 1.2 would be the the closest to 1 mm. Is it me overthinking the problem or do you print with different nozzle size?
Excellent videos about wall thickness and infill. Could you tell us about strategies to increase stiffness? I tried to design 3D-printed lightweight drone frames and found that there is probably a limit in size (5 inch drone) caused by low stiffness. Low stiffnes leads to vibrations which makes the drone unusable for filming or even causes heavy oscillations confusing the flight controller.
This is very useful information. I want to make replacement parts for laptops where spares aren't readily available. How do 3D printed parts handle high temperatures (e.g. 100°C)? Some laptop casings get brittle and fall apart near the heatsink over time due to the heat.
Could we see this test repeated, but on longer timescales, and under varying temperatures? I'm really interested to see how each wall thickness holds up under load over time, and when exposed to high and low temperatures, as well as thermal shock.
Just a suggestion for future experiments - try comparing experimental results like in this video to theoretical strengths from FEA. You might want to switch to a stiffness measurement instead of failure load to enable a comparison like that. That would be interesting to compare FDM parts to theoretical isotropic designs.
Thanx for the excellent video as of today I feel more confident I was about to give up on 3D printing....the issue that I have is that I am printing square pipe connectors and I am connecting these pipe square connectors with wooden square dowels. My connectors break along the corner.. Your design is very strong even if the wall is only 1 mm...My connectors break instantly right where the walls join (at the lines)... Your cubes seem to be flexible what filament are you using.....Please help.
Most of the world uses the metric measurement system. Please could you give stats in metric? I have no comprehension of "pounds" other than British currency.
Nice video, I would have one request for future videos. Could you also add the weight on Kg. It is hard to think in mm together with Lb for us that do not live in the USA.
would be great to see the differences with different print orientation, and also test other forces: tension, torsion, shear (in x and y), fatigue. look up orthogonal arrays to reduce number of tests you do but still get the same results. there's a good explanation of this by NightHawkInLight (Multivariate Experimental Design)
I am guessing that the infill is zero percent and then the walls dense. With 0.4mm nozzle then 3mm all would be almost 10 lines wide ? That is the setup?
Considering straight blowback weapons exist that use printed bodies and operate reliably for hundreds or even thousands of rounds it's no surprise 3D printing can be quite structurally sound if designed for such.
would like to see this test at 10C, 20C, 30C, 40C, 50C, so it can be applied in real world applications. 50C is an engine room of a small power station etc. 40C is top of the environmental range 30C is about the range most items would be in. 20C is the standard dimensional calibration laboratory temperature, which means this is the temperature to verify the dimensions of the test objects. 10C because no one tests the strength of plastics going down in temperature, only up. 0C and below would be kewl too lol
Useful data but I'm looking forward to the data from the crowd sourced tension compression tester that won't have the artifacts from hand pumping a hydraulic bottle jack. Fund the Kickstarter, everybody!
Just a quibble about the "piano" comment - upright pianos usually weigh about 450 lbs, and grands up to around 7 feet weigh up to 750+ pounds. My family owns a piano store 🙂
Not sure what your name is so I'm going to call you Bob. Can I call you Bob? Ok, Bob, question: Why didn't you put any effort into showing a relationship between the results? Does the strength grow linearly, or logarithmicly, or does it diminish after a certain thickness? WHAT is happening!?!? If you would have just tried, you could have seen how beautifully the results line up linearly. Almost like if they were made up. They have an R^2 = 0.9975 To know what the expected strength (in this case) of the cube would be is Strength = 1388.9*(wall thickness) -1079.3 Where "wall thickness" = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So at 1.5mm = 1004 N, 2.5mm = 2393 N, and so on... Come on, you spent all this effort in getting the data, but no effort analyzing it.
I like you vids but your strength testing approach is driving my OCD nuts. Your piston is slipping sideways making shear the cause of the failure. Make a bracket/sleeve to maintain the direction of force exerted by the piston.
Unfortunately, most of my 3D printed parts that have failed, don't fail with compression, rather the layer lines fail. I would like to see the opposite test, where you pull 3D printed parts apart, and what would be the best way to strengthen layer line separation and shearing. Anyhow, thanks for the video, great information from tests like these.
Congratulations for the channel, we learn a lot from your videos! I haven't seen in your videos the testing equipment that you have. Do you have a video showing it? Why do the graphs have those saw tooth form? Is it coming from your pressing device? Are you using a manual press? I think is not good applying the force in this "apply and release" way. Pressing with a constant speed would be better because it may allow you to see how the load changes before breaking meaning the structure is failing and changing rigidity. Something similar to what you see in this video: ruclips.net/video/eewlYa6IQPg/видео.htmlsi=tnBUrnQuI5eCG9dX&t=377 If pressing with a constant speed is not possible, at least you have to maintain the force applied. Maybe using a hydraulic manual press with a good check valve?
@@slant3d Confusion is likely related to using N neutron's which is force, while referencing objects of known mass. Generally to most people, lb (pound) is a unit of mass, not force. Problem is "lb" is often used interchangeably to imply weight and mass; at times incorrectly. lbf is pounds of force, while lbm is pounds of mass. It's an imperial pun, to confuse a mass of "slugs" with their weight in "stones". 😉 In the video using objects of known "mass" was a great general reference.
Please make a recap graph so we can visually see the results for future tests. Awesome work!
noted
It would be great to test not only "just a wall" but wall + infill + wall. For example how 2 mm "wall" with 2 walls and infill stack against 2mm just walls
I’d seen a test for this I believe from cnc kitchen, the infil mostly just holds up top layers and didn’t contribute as much to over all strength as you’d expect were the conclusions I remember from the video
This channel did that test a couple of months ago. Search "From 10% to 100% Infill Compression Strength".
Glad that someone finally addressed this along with infill in another video. I end up remixing and even redesigning many prints because even though the are exactly what I am looking for they tend to have very thick parts that are complete overkill for their purpose. making them up to 1/4 as thin of what the were originally still leaves them plenty strong.
And then draw a 3d diagram from the data, one dimension for wall thickness the other for infill percentage! :)
This is solid information... even if the cube is hollow.
thanks for watching!
Icwydt
When you do these tests please do it with a flat plate on both sides to distribute the force evenly.
Came here to say this the setup was a bit flawed that way.
I would like to see both, flat plate on top to distribute force and this "pole" in the middle as both are real-world scenarios I'd care about :)
100% this. Not having a plate puts uneven pressure and stress on the center part of the wall and your data is not giving you the full picture.
If they use a plate to distribute the force the vertical walls will be under compression and the piece may sustain more force. I think pressing in the middle like a beam supported on both ends stresses more the part. I don't think the setup is so important as far as it is consistent for all tests.
Yes, failure was equivalent to taking a wall and bending it until it snapped. Rather different. And I'm here because I designed a load bearing part and looking for some data on what it could expect to support.
I've been printing panels of 2mm thickness to be used as lids for aquariums. It's good to know that I can shave it thinner and still expect a decent amount of strength.
more thick better
more thermal mass
Beyond this we need to look at infill orientation and line direction. I've found in some cases if I print with grid at 0 & 90 degrees I get very different strength than if I print the exact same model with the grid at 45 & 135 degrees. I have found that by changing the infill line orientation I can often reduce the infill %, use fewer walls and still get the strength I need.
In what ways did you find work best for strength?
@@Dongaz When the item is under compression grid infill with the infill lines vertical (ie like tubes standing on end) and running 45 and 135 degrees worked best. I used this to print off a set of bed post lift to raise a bed 8 inches higher (for an elderly friend). 30% infill and 5 wall and top/bottom layers and they've been in use for 6 months with no cracks or bending.
As I have already commented on the video on Infill patterns, I would still like to see these tests in compression along the z axis as viewed from the printbed, if your test equipment can handle it. Different materials, wall counts, infill patters, and infill percentages would also affect those tests, but we should expect higher strenght compared to the force being aplied in x/y.
Would be nice to include Kg equivalent too.
Newton is the correct unit. To get kg on earth Newton/9.8. pounds is a measurement of force, change the gravity and the scale changes.
This is why a 360lbs man weights 60lbs on the moon. But will always have a mass of 163kg.
If you want an okayish approx, just divide the Newton value by 10.
"yo momma so fat that she can break a square with 5mm walls"
i'm so glad you guys are able to do much more scientific tests now that you've got the equipment for it!
Same equiptment as other testing videos. We are working on getting in some other gear. We started the kickstarter that.
I'm curious to see if nozzle size matters, ie 4 shells with .4mm, 2 with a .8, and 1 with a 1.2mm nozzle.
I did my bid in the Kickstarter already after the first video to promote it. Hope many more do pledge so your project can set off!
Thank you so much!
This needed a second test set that used even pressure across the entire cube.
especially on the last samples that failed due to the top wall failure.
They likely could even double the results if pressure was applied across the entire top.
I would love to see a wall thickness vs water tightness. Design a part that has several features. Like elbows corners etc and put water pressure inside until it fails.
@@jabonet this
Not exactly. You are measuring structural strength. Not water tightness.
Make a closed hollow shape. And put water pressure until something leaks.
Nifty little demo, thanks!
I like that you added the wood bottom to distribute the pressure better by the wood being able to deform. However, you still have lateral movement in your press. This looks like one from Harbor Freight. It's a good start, but needs some tweaks to make it a reliable and repeatable tool. Both moving cross beams, the one with the bottom of the ram and the one items get placed on, need to be better constrained. You can add roller bearing blocks and adjust those, or make them spring loaded. But, that is time consuming for a cheap tool. A quick fix is to add a sheet of UHMW to the inside of both uprights. Just push the beams to one side and measure the gap. Divide that in half and round it down to the nearest thickness you can get. Attach it with screws above the travel of the top beam, and a piece of double sided mounting tape at the bottom. That should give you some great results. Also, using the last 2 sets of holes at the bottom of the uprights, some 3/4 inch black iron T's, black iron pipe, and some all thread (from the electrical department at big orange box store), you can make front and rear cross bracing to pretension and stabilize the uprights so that the lateral force of the press trying to drift under load is not substantial.
perhaps same test but using large flat steel plate in between to isolate strenght of material from point load?
and bonus round -> print with settings you think is the strongest per unit of weight
I'm interested in the compression of the cube rotated so you test it how the layers were added. The print orientation, however that is described. The strongest possible orientation.
This is an amazing test. For a lot of my functional parts, i will often do a 2mm wall thickness even if the part will not be under any intense load. Example a camera shroud printed with PETG and a 2mm wall thickness is virtually indestructible.
Combine that with gyroid infill of about 20% and you have a winner
MOAR TESTING!
🫡
@@slant3d I'd love to see an infill and wall thickness combination video next. Compression, tension, maybe even some torque tests?
Good video but I would be interested to see where the failure occurred on each test. Was it always in the same place or changed as the thickness went up.
Id like to see a filament ranking between pla, petg, tpu, abs, nylon, etc, maybe even between brands
Thats the type of data we want to collect if we get the kickstarter funded.
Heh. Saw this pop up in my feed about an hour ago and was sighing because of the effect/affect confusion in the title - this is one of my pet peeves and it drives me crazy. Especially because in *my* accent they sound completely different. However, clicking into the video just now, I see it's been fixed. Thumbs up for whichever editor caught the mistake!
i think i missed it somewere, what filament was used for the test ?
They used pla
I always wanted to know which filament is the stiffest, or which one has the highest hardness on a scale, and not just PLA, but specific types of PLA and so on.
What is the infill density for each part
Awesome video. I’d like to see an updated video on waterproof 3d printing. There is different info out there on material choices, over extrusion, wall thickness & more on best practice. However, I haven’t seen any comparison. I imagine this would also be a near zero cost in the test equipment required.
Anyway thanks for all the info & hard work you put into these videos
Thanks for watching
I would absolutely love to see a comparison of ASA creep performance. I know folks in the 3dprinting subreddit and other 3d printing communities would love to see this. Polycarbonate and PC with infill is another interesting one. I have a tie holder, for example, and after some time, the holder is beginning to sag with PLA. I would expect ASA to perform better, but I don't know. Creep is not a well documented by most manufacturers. Can you guys consider doing comparisons of various ASA colors and brands? I think there is a strong community interest in eSun, Polymaker, and Hatchbox brands. I would guess black, white, and grey would all be great candidates. Green, blue, red, orange, if you wanna get fancy.
Is it better to have a pair of 0.4 mm walls, or a single 0.7mm wall? I chose 0.7 because I generally use a 0.6 nozzle.
Thanks for the video! I appreciate all the information.
Thank you for watching.
Great video, and good data.
Suggestions: Please show the failed parts. (at least one representative sample)
A slo-mo of part failure would provide insights into a how part fails. This could be useful as a "how to design for" type discussion. Did part have: clean break, sheer area, distortion, layer separation, etc.
While the thin walls failed before the bridge gave way, at some point a thick-walled variation was stronger than the bridge. Unknown is how much the distortion of thin walls contributed to earlier failures. Think a thicker bridge, even on thin-walled variations would have provided more consistent wall focused test data. (ie: this was both a compression test and deformation test) If it was the bridge area that was being tested, these tests would be mostly test failures. ;) Testing like in video is ok for simple reference, and basic education, but less usable if building a reference data set.
What filament did you use?
Great video again, cheers!
Thanks for watching
When you print a 1mm wall what nozzle have you used, 0.5? I usually design wall thickness as multiples of nozzle withs, so 0.8 or 1.2 would be the the closest to 1 mm. Is it me overthinking the problem or do you print with different nozzle size?
What was the material?
Excellent videos about wall thickness and infill. Could you tell us about strategies to increase stiffness? I tried to design 3D-printed lightweight drone frames and found that there is probably a limit in size (5 inch drone) caused by low stiffness. Low stiffnes leads to vibrations which makes the drone unusable for filming or even causes heavy oscillations confusing the flight controller.
This is very useful information. I want to make replacement parts for laptops where spares aren't readily available.
How do 3D printed parts handle high temperatures (e.g. 100°C)? Some laptop casings get brittle and fall apart near the heatsink over time due to the heat.
Could we see this test repeated, but on longer timescales, and under varying temperatures?
I'm really interested to see how each wall thickness holds up under load over time, and when exposed to high and low temperatures, as well as thermal shock.
Just a suggestion for future experiments - try comparing experimental results like in this video to theoretical strengths from FEA. You might want to switch to a stiffness measurement instead of failure load to enable a comparison like that. That would be interesting to compare FDM parts to theoretical isotropic designs.
Man, another great video and test!
Thanks
Thank you for your work.
I think you can make a better test if the press could put a progressively constant force over the part.
would be interesting to see how it differs with different nozzle diameters
I like the video but Recap and what’s the filament?
It's good that you give an example of weight at each test, because numbers are harder to grasp
Very true
It would be nice to have the wall thickness on the screen as it is being tested for easy reference or if we missed you saying it
Love your video, i subscribe now❤
Any way we could see dogbone tests for wall thickness and infill?
The kickstarter is raising for a tensile testing machine to formalize that test.
Thanx for the excellent video as of today I feel more confident I was about to give up on 3D printing....the issue that I have is that I am printing square pipe connectors and I am connecting these pipe square connectors with wooden square dowels.
My connectors break along the corner.. Your design is very strong even if the wall is only 1 mm...My connectors break instantly right where the walls join (at the lines)...
Your cubes seem to be flexible what filament are you using.....Please help.
Love this video it was really helpful I hope you make more videos like this God bless you
Most of the world uses the metric measurement system. Please could you give stats in metric? I have no comprehension of "pounds" other than British currency.
The stats are in newtons too
Idea for future video: I have wondered multiple times which is the best kind of lubricant to reduce pla-to-pla friction (e.g. gears and axles).
now the same tests of different shell thinknesses but with 15% Infill in various orientation to get „real world“ scenarios. Thank You in advance
Check out our infill video. As a rough estimate you can take the strength of the infill+the strength of the wall thickness to get a total
Nice video, I would have one request for future videos. Could you also add the weight on Kg. It is hard to think in mm together with Lb for us that do not live in the USA.
KG is not a unit of weight or force. We show it in newtons to cover metric.
Oh, then my bad. Since you said "Pounds"... I got... Confused?
Distribute the force applied to the cube
Can you test petg cf from bambu lab
would be great to see the differences with different print orientation, and also test other forces: tension, torsion, shear (in x and y), fatigue.
look up orthogonal arrays to reduce number of tests you do but still get the same results. there's a good explanation of this by NightHawkInLight (Multivariate Experimental Design)
cnckitchen has done a good amount of videos regarding on your curiosity print orient etc..
Which infill was used?
The emperor's new infil
0%
I believe it was all perimeters, with 0% infill.
I am guessing that the infill is zero percent and then the walls dense. With 0.4mm nozzle then 3mm all would be almost 10 lines wide ? That is the setup?
I still prefer the punch the wall or drill it to know the thickness
You should try a pyramid to show how different shapes affect its strength
Can you run astm tests? I think the community would be better off running standardized tests.
We are running a kickstarter to get in the equiptment just for that reason
You should reach out to Stephen at CNC Kitchen. He has done some testing already.
Considering straight blowback weapons exist that use printed bodies and operate reliably for hundreds or even thousands of rounds it's no surprise 3D printing can be quite structurally sound if designed for such.
Your videos are informative but a few lights in the right spots would drastically increase the visual appeal of the videos
Isn't there underextrusion on the most durable sample? 🤔
would like to see this test at 10C, 20C, 30C, 40C, 50C, so it can be applied in real world applications.
50C is an engine room of a small power station etc.
40C is top of the environmental range
30C is about the range most items would be in.
20C is the standard dimensional calibration laboratory temperature, which means this is the temperature to verify the dimensions of the test objects.
10C because no one tests the strength of plastics going down in temperature, only up. 0C and below would be kewl too lol
Useful data but I'm looking forward to the data from the crowd sourced tension compression tester that won't have the artifacts from hand pumping a hydraulic bottle jack. Fund the Kickstarter, everybody!
How about creep, that's one of the areas where plastics seem to struggle.
Just a quibble about the "piano" comment - upright pianos usually weigh about 450 lbs, and grands up to around 7 feet weigh up to 750+ pounds. My family owns a piano store 🙂
The call to action needs to be closer to the end of the video for the video link to work. I think I’m the last 20 seconds
Not sure what your name is so I'm going to call you Bob. Can I call you Bob? Ok, Bob, question: Why didn't you put any effort into showing a relationship between the results? Does the strength grow linearly, or logarithmicly, or does it diminish after a certain thickness? WHAT is happening!?!?
If you would have just tried, you could have seen how beautifully the results line up linearly. Almost like if they were made up. They have an R^2 = 0.9975
To know what the expected strength (in this case) of the cube would be is Strength = 1388.9*(wall thickness) -1079.3
Where "wall thickness" = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
So at 1.5mm = 1004 N, 2.5mm = 2393 N, and so on...
Come on, you spent all this effort in getting the data, but no effort analyzing it.
I like you vids but your strength testing approach is driving my OCD nuts. Your piston is slipping sideways making shear the cause of the failure. Make a bracket/sleeve to maintain the direction of force exerted by the piston.
Time to start the 3d printed Press channel?
Interesting Idea
If possible please also convert lb to kg. Thank you! 😊
Just imagine a golden retriever dancing on top of it. Americans will use anything but the metric system huh 😂.
Great video man.
Newtons
When you say “vertical beams” you mean columns. 😅 (Although in the structural sense they really are walls, not columns either).
Unfortunately, most of my 3D printed parts that have failed, don't fail with compression, rather the layer lines fail.
I would like to see the opposite test, where you pull 3D printed parts apart, and what would be the best way to strengthen layer line separation and shearing.
Anyhow, thanks for the video, great information from tests like these.
Test a cube what you are testing is not a cube. A cube has 6 sides etc etc check the true definition of a cube.
Please oh please, use metric! :)
newtons
Include kilograms
newtons. Kilograms are a unit for mass not of force
Congratulations for the channel, we learn a lot from your videos!
I haven't seen in your videos the testing equipment that you have. Do you have a video showing it?
Why do the graphs have those saw tooth form? Is it coming from your pressing device? Are you using a manual press?
I think is not good applying the force in this "apply and release" way. Pressing with a constant speed would be better because it may allow you to see how the load changes before breaking meaning the structure is failing and changing rigidity. Something similar to what you see in this video: ruclips.net/video/eewlYa6IQPg/видео.htmlsi=tnBUrnQuI5eCG9dX&t=377
If pressing with a constant speed is not possible, at least you have to maintain the force applied. Maybe using a hydraulic manual press with a good check valve?
maybe if you use international standard for measures like KG instead of Pounds you could avoid 99% of the world to make conversions to get Kg.....
KG is not a unit of force which is why we present them in newtons and lbs
@@slant3d Confusion is likely related to using N neutron's which is force, while referencing objects of known mass. Generally to most people, lb (pound) is a unit of mass, not force. Problem is "lb" is often used interchangeably to imply weight and mass; at times incorrectly. lbf is pounds of force, while lbm is pounds of mass. It's an imperial pun, to confuse a mass of "slugs" with their weight in "stones". 😉
In the video using objects of known "mass" was a great general reference.
I don't want to be pedantic, but its Affect, not Effect. Effect is a noun, Affect a verb.
we appreciate the heads up, because we weren't sure lol
Well not to be pedantic, but 'effect' can also be a verb, although the meaning is different from 'affect'
Give him a break. He’s an engineer. After years of engineering, we barely speak English.
I'm new to 3d printing and this is useful information. Thank's mate.