Perhaps this geometry should be built into our slicers as an infill pattern?
Didn’t the create a strongest material last year?
Can’t stop improving huh.
It already is, called Honeycomb. It’s more stable than rectangular but takes longer to print.
I believe the honeycomb shape is the un-distorted shape of graph energy. The shape for the enhanced strength is shown in an image or two in the web page.
Here. Save some time and watch the video from the page.
Please excuse the duplicate posts that I had to delete. The G+ app seems to love telling me I can not submit a post while it successfully posts it. Grrrr… G+, fix your shit!
@ChPech Yes, please read the whole article and watch the video linked by @NathanielStenzel . I think you missed the point entirely.
Really, this probably means that 3D knitting or 3D crocheting of graphene strips would also be pretty strong. Hard to tell. Same for carbon fiber or carbon nanotubes or other materials. Combine that with arc welding those together at certain points and it may be even stronger. And yes, you can arc weld carbon materials together. Someone printed carbon nanotube enhanced filament and zapped it in the microwave to weld the layers together. Now, combine that with this sort or similar or a porous printing pattern and you should have some kick ass strong material.
@Greg_Nutt @NathanielStenzel please also read the underlying paper http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601536.full.pdf+html
This has little to do with using Graphene etc for 3D prints, but is work on exploring scaled-up structures found in Graphene itself. To a certain extent, current slicers are already implementing functionally identical approaches by using “Honeycomb”, “3D Honeycomb” and “Cubic” infills, some of which are similar topologies to the paper’s findings.
@Thomas_Sanladerer
yeah. I would probably go 3d honeycomb (I have not tried that infill yet) with carbon nanotube enhanced filament and a microwave oven if I wanted the strongest possible 3D printed object.
I am quite aware that they were more talking about scaled up natural structures from just watching the video. Their assumption is based on 3D printed scaled up structures.
@Thomas_Sanladerer
nice link. http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/1/e1601536.full#F4 seems to be what the 3D print is trying to replicate.
The idea of lighter than air 3D structures seems interesting. It mentioned that towards the top.
@Thomas_Sanladerer Thanks for pointing that out. I was actually more interested in the structure they were showing rather than printing using graphene materials. I was pondering if the structure with thin layers shown in the video vs the thick layers in the demonstrated structure could somehow translate to stronger infill.
Did a bit of research on 3D honeycomb infill and found out that it’s actually less strong than its 2D counterpart primarily due to the low layer adhesion between the layers of infill. When printing infill that remains static in the Z direction, there is maximum adhesion because there is a large amount of surface area connecting the plastic lines. When the infilll is not static in the Z direction, you get less layer adhesion with the infill. This also explains why the thinner model in the video started to break immediately under stress while the other model retained its shape until completely shattering. It looks like the 3D printed models in the video were done with SLS instead of the more conventional FFF printers we mostly use which leads me to believe this sort of structure would not be as strong as demonstrated when printed with filament. Totally not an expert though so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
@Adam_Steinmark I have seen too much of a problem with infill that was not thick enough. If it is thick enough, it would probably be fine regardless of the next infill layer not perfectly overlapping the previous one. I think 2-3mm should do. Anything under 1mm width for infill extrusion seems pointless for even just Z force resistance.