Is the extruder speeding up and slowing down for each "blob" in the texture? Or is the extruder going constant speed and you're relying on surface tension to make the blobbyness?
Leveraging a 3D printer “defect” to create a new quasi-textile
11–20 of 46 posts
Re: Leveraging a 3D printer “defect” to create a new quasi-textile
#12I've run a 3d printer with the extrusion rate way down before (to try and produce very thin surfaces), and the results were far less consistent. I got big holes in my parts and massive dribbles and blobs in other places.
I wonder how these results can be so so so much better in comparison?
Re: Leveraging a 3D printer “defect” to create a new quasi-textile
#13Is the extruder speeding up and slowing down for each "blob" in the texture? Or is the extruder going constant speed and you're relying on surface tension to make the blobbyness?
Most like some postprocessing in the gcode to multiply the extrusion rate by some factor for each blob.
Re: Leveraging a 3D printer “defect” to create a new quasi-textile
#14Out of curiosity, what printer would they be using for something like this? I've been considering getting a 3D-printer for a while, but I don't know enough to decide which one to get.
It looked like they were using the Prusa I3 MK3S.
Re: Leveraging a 3D printer “defect” to create a new quasi-textile
#15I've run a 3d printer with the extrusion rate way down before (to try and produce very thin surfaces), and the results were far less consistent. I got big holes in my parts and massive dribbles and blobs in other places. I wonder how these results can be so so so much better in comparison?
From my limited expirience, temperature of the extruded material must be in some narrow window, too cold or too hot and it will clump. Even within the window, the production of sticky hairs (what one would aim for in this case) varies a lot with temperature.
I can also imagine that the material plays a huge role, but I cannot say because I've only really used PLA.
Re: Leveraging a 3D printer “defect” to create a new quasi-textile
#16Out of curiosity, what printer would they be using for something like this? I've been considering getting a 3D-printer for a while, but I don't know enough to decide which one to get.
Just get Prusa. It’s used both by professionals and amateurs. In case it won’t be enough for your use, you will already know enough details about 3D printing to choose your next printer.
Re: Leveraging a 3D printer “defect” to create a new quasi-textile
#17Finally someone solved the problem of sold out toilet paper in the pandemic
Re: Leveraging a 3D printer “defect” to create a new quasi-textile
#18Out of curiosity, what printer would they be using for something like this? I've been considering getting a 3D-printer for a while, but I don't know enough to decide which one to get.
If you have the money and want a high quality FDM printer, buy a prusa. If you are on a budget get something like an Ender-3
Re: Leveraging a 3D printer “defect” to create a new quasi-textile
#19I've run a 3d printer with the extrusion rate way down before (to try and produce very thin surfaces), and the results were far less consistent. I got big holes in my parts and massive dribbles and blobs in other places. I wonder how these results can be so so so much better in comparison?
The desired result is that you get a series of pulses of extrusion rather than random under-extrusion, so if you can't get consistent pulsing by adjusting temperature and extrustion rate, you could always hack Marlin to do it on purpose. I expect that is what they've done.
Re: Leveraging a 3D printer “defect” to create a new quasi-textile
#20This is fantastic. I'm reminded of the 3D printed broom from a few years ago. I remember being blown away in a similar fashion then. This type of under extrusion can create very thin filaments, but the Gcode to generate these structures isn't easy to create with the traditional model=>slicer=>Gcode software stack. I've been out of the loop for a couple of years though, so I'm interested to know if this has evolved mu…
I wonder if they just used a custom slicer. In undergrad, I wrote my own slicer and used it to do silly things (less "can I make this?" than "What would happen if?").
I would imagine they took a similar (though, obviously, much more intelligent) approach here, just thinking directly in terms of slicer features, rather than in terms of models.