Love the videos and learning a lot. Would love to see a video discussing "Clips". With today's low power electronics I often find myself making enclosures that need "belt clips". These have proven difficult for strength and printability.
The one problem i find with handles that are designed around either aesthetics or manufacturability is that often ergonomics and kinesthetics are sacrificed. I couldn't find the number of mugs I've used that looked great but we're horrible to use. It's a very delicate balance but i personally believe that end user comfort should be the primary deciding factor.
@@slant3d oh for sure. no argument there. that is one of the beauties of 3d printing and on demand manufacturing.... not being locked into a single design that is meant to appeal to as many as possible all while making certain sacrifices. Can easily have a dozen designs just waiting and no need to warehouse them all.
Loving the futuristic look of some of those designs. as soon as I saw the first 2 handle model I thought 3 handles offset at 120 degrees and there it was, very Thunderbird 3! :) Also dropping one of them out would look very Star Trek stellar drive with the 2 nacelles offset. The ergonomic contoured handle at the end looked very stylish and like something that would be seen on Star Trek TNG, great job :)
You got smart enough to not use "coffee mug" as your demo object. Nice job. ;-) I do like how you cover different ideas that give all kinds of hints as to how flexible it can all be in design.
The last video did not have a coffee mug either. You might notice they were beakers and way to small for a grown human lol. This one actually did have a full size coffee mug.
@@slant3dumm, no. By my count you used the word "mug" 4 times in that video and the word "beaker" 0 times. You also used stock footage of people holding mugs several times and no stock footage of beakers. You can't just change what the example was because people pointed out that it was a bad example.
How about trying to design a better nerf dart? You could do one video on how to design a better dart (faster, more accurate, more durable, etc), and optimize the design for 3d printing (faster production, lower material cost, improving part strength, lowering failure rate) in the second video. And for a third video you could compare the cost to performance of the traditional nerf dart to the improved dart design, and the improved dart optimized for 3d printing. I think it would be a great demo of how optimizing a design for 3d printing doesn't necessarily mean compromising the performance of the end product.
That is also the case with wood. But you can still have wooden kitchen utensils. Bowls, spoons, cups, cutting boards. Layer lines are not the problem. A fully solid 3D Printed product can be equivalent.
Just like the last video. I find the lack of scientific method disturbing. You should have an improvement percentage over the baseline for each design. e.g. This uses 35% less support filament, it can withstand 50% more weight etc. . Why cant you print a regular handle separately and slide it with rails? You can have some basic automation which assembles the parts or let the customer assemble it like IKEA.
The scientific method is only viable when measured within the context of a particular question. Each of these handles could be tested in a certain application. But a designer needs to know what options are available. The problem with multiple parts is that you have exponetially increased complexity of manufacturing. Each part needs to be qualified and verified. And then go through the entire checking process. This is why fewer parts is better in manufacturing. Additionally 3D Printing is able to combine assemblies into a single parts which reduces cost both at start and long term dramatically as production scales.
@@slant3d While it's true that generalities often hold merit, it's essential to remember they aren't universally applicable. Quantifying particular KPIs, such as filament usage in grams, can lend us more certainty. Consider the rails example. There's an evident trade-off at play. Employing the rails method could result in less filament use, thereby reducing the cost. But, as you've suggested, it might also add complexity, potentially leading to an increase in labor costs. It's vital not to presume this would necessarily result in a net loss without substantial evidence. Quantitative data could certainly aid in clarifying this debate.
![เขามัทรี - เอ็กซ์ ศุภกฤต - จอนนี่มิวสิค [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/AS9ufKuQIVs/mqdefault.jpg)
I now need a third handle video
lol
just a cup without handle like starbuks cups but your solutions looks more than a patch response to a 3d printed design problem than a real problem
Love the videos and learning a lot. Would love to see a video discussing "Clips". With today's low power electronics I often find myself making enclosures that need "belt clips". These have proven difficult for strength and printability.
The one problem i find with handles that are designed around either aesthetics or manufacturability is that often ergonomics and kinesthetics are sacrificed. I couldn't find the number of mugs I've used that looked great but we're horrible to use. It's a very delicate balance but i personally believe that end user comfort should be the primary deciding factor.
Exactly. But having more handle options allows you to pull from a a solution that will work best for the situation rather than using defaults.
@@slant3d oh for sure. no argument there. that is one of the beauties of 3d printing and on demand manufacturing.... not being locked into a single design that is meant to appeal to as many as possible all while making certain sacrifices. Can easily have a dozen designs just waiting and no need to warehouse them all.
I would like to see an episode where you take consideration of various types of accessibility requirements
Loving the futuristic look of some of those designs. as soon as I saw the first 2 handle model I thought 3 handles offset at 120 degrees and there it was, very Thunderbird 3! :)
Also dropping one of them out would look very Star Trek stellar drive with the 2 nacelles offset.
The ergonomic contoured handle at the end looked very stylish and like something that would be seen on Star Trek TNG, great job :)
Handles are a really fun design explorations. Thanks for watching. You're right they do look a bit like those ships. The offset idea is interesting
You got smart enough to not use "coffee mug" as your demo object. Nice job. ;-) I do like how you cover different ideas that give all kinds of hints as to how flexible it can all be in design.
The last video did not have a coffee mug either. You might notice they were beakers and way to small for a grown human lol. This one actually did have a full size coffee mug.
@@slant3dumm, no. By my count you used the word "mug" 4 times in that video and the word "beaker" 0 times. You also used stock footage of people holding mugs several times and no stock footage of beakers. You can't just change what the example was because people pointed out that it was a bad example.
How about trying to design a better nerf dart? You could do one video on how to design a better dart (faster, more accurate, more durable, etc), and optimize the design for 3d printing (faster production, lower material cost, improving part strength, lowering failure rate) in the second video. And for a third video you could compare the cost to performance of the traditional nerf dart to the improved dart design, and the improved dart optimized for 3d printing. I think it would be a great demo of how optimizing a design for 3d printing doesn't necessarily mean compromising the performance of the end product.
We actually have one like that in the works for golf tees
@@slant3dgolf tees, nerf darts, collect a few more ideas and you could make product vs print a running series kinda like fan showdown 😁.
Is there any food safe filament on the market? Asking because I'm new to 3d printing.
Different types of 3d printable hinges would be good
Already done: th-cam.com/video/TiEyFle6lTM/w-d-xo.html
What filament would you use that is food safe and stand hot beverages?
Generally beverage containers require some sort of liner or post processing for best results.
Do a lot of research. Even with a food safe filament, bacteria can thrive between the layer lines and the print won't be considered food safe.
That is also the case with wood. But you can still have wooden kitchen utensils. Bowls, spoons, cups, cutting boards. Layer lines are not the problem. A fully solid 3D Printed product can be equivalent.
Hahaha stone-age injection molding goes brrr
Just like the last video. I find the lack of scientific method disturbing. You should have an improvement percentage over the baseline for each design. e.g. This uses 35% less support filament, it can withstand 50% more weight etc.
.
Why cant you print a regular handle separately and slide it with rails? You can have some basic automation which assembles the parts or let the customer assemble it like IKEA.
The scientific method is only viable when measured within the context of a particular question. Each of these handles could be tested in a certain application. But a designer needs to know what options are available.
The problem with multiple parts is that you have exponetially increased complexity of manufacturing. Each part needs to be qualified and verified. And then go through the entire checking process. This is why fewer parts is better in manufacturing. Additionally 3D Printing is able to combine assemblies into a single parts which reduces cost both at start and long term dramatically as production scales.
@@slant3d While it's true that generalities often hold merit, it's essential to remember they aren't universally applicable. Quantifying particular KPIs, such as filament usage in grams, can lend us more certainty. Consider the rails example. There's an evident trade-off at play. Employing the rails method could result in less filament use, thereby reducing the cost. But, as you've suggested, it might also add complexity, potentially leading to an increase in labor costs. It's vital not to presume this would necessarily result in a net loss without substantial evidence. Quantitative data could certainly aid in clarifying this debate.
@@slant3d I asked ChatGPT to convert my reply into something polite. It made it sound pedantic instead.