Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication] better base

Expand Messages
  • Graham Stabler
    Then perhaps triangles would be even better :) Can we have a look at what your base looks like? Graham
    Message 1 of 7 , Feb 10, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Then perhaps triangles would be even better :)

      Can we have a look at what your base looks like?

      Graham



      On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Light77 <light77@...> wrote:
       

      I use a checker pattern because I want to minimize the exposure time. A hex pattern has six sides compared to a square with four. In order to cure non connecting edgers you would need three exposures with a hex as opposed to a square which has two.
      -Ron

      On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Jon Elson <elson@...> wrote:
       

      Graham Stabler wrote:
      >
      >
      > Yes the idea was that hexagons could be removed (or generated) as
      > required to cover the area under the model.
      >
      > Thinking about it though, I am not sure that the hexagons should be
      > connected as they are, perhaps if they were tiled but not connected it
      > would reduce the chance of warpage even further, it would need a
      > different design though. This would be a bit like just putting
      > supports straight on to the build platform except each support would
      > have its own base.
      >
      I think this is what some commercial systems do, they put down a grid of
      dots, hexagons or
      squares, then build short rods up from that, then place a grid-like
      floor, and then build
      the model up from that grid. So, the shrinkage-induced stress from the
      platform to
      the floor is allowed to deform those first rods in a gentle manner, so
      as to not
      overstress the attachment to the platform.

      Jon



    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.