-
#1440 by Ronpur50 on 12 Mar, 2018 17:58
-
Thanks Ron,
are there any fundamental problems with gluing 3D prints? Is CA the only way out?
Only glue that I know of that works. -
#1441 by roma847 on 12 Mar, 2018 23:10
-
Hi Ron,
please tell us with what kind of glue you glue 3D parts, I hope it is not top secret.
-
#1442 by Darren_Hensley on 13 Mar, 2018 18:19
-
Wouldn't gluing 3D printed parts be contingent upon the type of wire stock used to print?, I've seen models made of Polystyrene wire stock and you use a liquid glue for plastic models on it. I use Plastruct. Other plastics can use Methyl Ethyl Ketone(MEK), still others PVC glue. So yes solvent based glues can be used if the right plastic wire stock is used to print the model.
-
#1443 by roma847 on 13 Mar, 2018 23:38
-
Hi Darren,
do you know what kind of material Shapeways is using?
-
#1444 by Ronpur50 on 13 Mar, 2018 23:49
-
I have always used super glue. Never had a problem.
-
#1445 by mike robel on 14 Mar, 2018 02:18
-
I too, just use thin CA although Gorilla Super Glue is also excellent and being thicker a little easier to handle to get right where you want it..
-
#1446 by roma847 on 14 Mar, 2018 07:14
-
Thanks Guys for your tips.
-
#1447 by roma847 on 14 Mar, 2018 08:11
-
Hello everybody,
today I tested my new Ultrasonic cleaning bath.
Here is a vivid video of it by BANDELIN, on which one can see the ultrasonic cleaning of a chain in fast motion, and two images for comparison, in the initial state before cleaning,
and afterwards.
I was surprised by the time of about 4 hours, which may have been due to the selected object.
But I did not let myself be guided by that when cleaning my first two ASTC Rings (FUD), especially since the device only allows max. 10 minutes.
The device has 5 pre-set cleaning intervals, 90 sec., 180 sec., 300 sec., 480 sec. and 600 sec., which are automatically switched off by the timer. Obviously there is no on/off for security reasons, which I consider to be a disadvantage, especially when I think of cleaning the Intertank with its lots of fine grooves, which will certainly have to run for a longer time.
That's why I asked the manufacturer if there is no other option than having to restart the timer over and over again.
Anyway, I've let clean the FUD rings twice 600 seconds, so for a total of 20 minutes with some drops of rinse aid, after which they looked whiter than before, which has already been described by other guys.
This can be seen by this comparison between the cleaned FUD rings (left) and the uncleaned FXD rings (right), although it is not serious.
And here are the two FXD rings (right) after 20 minutes of cleaning.
BTW, the liquid looked so cloudy after cleaning of total of 40 minutes cleaning time of the four ASTC Rings, which shows in comparison to the picture before the cleaning already a quite enriched state with detached wax.
As far as to my first ultrasonic cleaning attempts.
P.S.: Shapeways is still remaining silent, whatever that may mean.
-
#1448 by roma847 on 17 Mar, 2018 17:35
-
Hello everybody,
only a short but good news, Shapeways has meanwhile accepted my complaint and granted me a refund.
Now, Michael Key can do some minor changes.
-
#1449 by Darren_Hensley on 17 Mar, 2018 21:34
-
Hi Darren,
Unfortunately no I don't. The only exchange of conversation we have had was two years ago, and that was very limited. These guys need you to do all your design work and send it to them ready for print. Not sure what they do now. I know they have a small staff and limited resources for production in quantity.
do you know what kind of material Shapeways is using? -
#1450 by roma847 on 17 Mar, 2018 23:22
-
Thanks Darren,
maybe other guys have some advice?
-
#1451 by roma847 on 17 Mar, 2018 23:51
-
Hello friends,
only some thoughts to minor changes.
In consultation with Michael Key we will now omit the inner tube completely, as there would probably be problems with the removal of the support material, which could possibly resist the ultrasonic cleaning. Then one would have to drill out the tube, which seems to me but too risky.
BTW, I did not want to believe it at first, but there was one thing which I have noticed in retrospect on the 3D print, what I have overlooked at the 3D renderings.
The front part of the LO2 PAL Ramp of the 3D model has almost the same width as the back part of the LH2 PAL Ramp, but this is a mistake and does not match the original optics.
The LO2 PAL Ramp is too narrow and therefore needs to be widened, as one can see in these images. And actually, both ramps end up on the stringer top and do not run to the valley as before. 
Source: shapeways.com (The Aerospace Place)
Source: NASA
But that can certainly be corrected so that the optics are right again.
-
#1452 by Darren_Hensley on 18 Mar, 2018 21:33
-
Hi Darren,
Unfortunately no I don't. The only exchange of conversation we have had was two years ago, and that was very limited. These guys need you to do all your design work and send it to them ready for print. Not sure what they do now. I know they have a small staff and limited resources for production in quantity.
do you know what kind of material Shapeways is using?
Further investigation suggests that they use PLA or HIPS see link https://coexllc.com/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIsL6Lvfb22QIVBgppCh2EHwywEAMYAiAAEgJY5PD_BwE
-
#1453 by roma847 on 19 Mar, 2018 16:47
-
Thanks Darren for your information.
Hello everybody,
actually I had thought that Michael Key had to make only small changes. But it came different again ...
First, he has omitted the inner tube as well as modified the LO2 PAL Ramp (right) as desired, which looks much better.
Source: shapeways.com (The Aerospace Place)
However, I noticed that he did not modify the LH2 PAL Ramp in the same way, which I took for granted and therefore have not said it again.
Source: shapeways.com (The Aerospace Place)
But about his change of the diameters of the IT to reduce the slightly too large overhang at the rear end (Ør 60,0 mm) I was then quite shocked, because he accordingly must have misunderstood my image with the diameters of the Airfix Intertank and the values measured at the 3D print (red on white ground).
But in hindsight, I must confess that the picture has become rather confusing and misleading.
Because he had now set the front diameter (Øf) of the IT to 57,0 mm and the rear diameter (Ør) to 58,0 mm, so that it is consistent with the front and the rear part of the ET. As a result, there should be no overhang of the IT, neither front nor back, but which in reality is not the case because of the Stringer/Ribs and has never been up for discussion, on the contrary.
Maybe that the rejuvenation of IT by 1 mm seemed to have got mixed up him, which was obviously difficult to implement in modeling.
The bad thing was that he had already uploaded this disimproved Intertank to Shapeways.
After that I have showed him the different diameters of the three ET parts again clearly in the following pictures and explained the differences.
D2 and D3 are the small overhangs of the Airfix IT that need to stay that way.
On this image one can see the connection diameter D2.1, which has to fit into the ET front part (D1.1), and the diameter D4.1 of the heel of the ET rear part, which has to fit into the Intertank,
whose inner diameter D3.1 can be seen here.
Hopefully this should have made it clear that we need the overhangs, so I asked him for the necessary changes in the hope that he could clench his teeth and be able to do it.
Apparently Michael Key has that now understood and has adjusted the LH2PAL Ramp as well as the rear IT diameter D3 to 59,0 mm and the front diameter 58,0 mm and then uploaded his model again.
And so the Intertank now looks at the Shapeways-Website, whereby he has become even cheaper by the removal of the inner tube with € 69,44.
Source: shapeways.com (The Aerospace Place)
I just ordered it again and hope that all good things come in threes.
-
#1454 by Bubbinski on 21 Mar, 2018 03:17
-
I’ll be watching your receipt of the new intertank part with interest. I have held off on ordering that part because it’s kinda pricey (are there any sales or coupons for Shapeways?). That part is a much needed improvement to the Airfix kit once it gets finished. I wish someone would make an aftermarket kit for the Revell shuttle ET.....
Anyway keep going you’ve done a lot of good work and I will look to this thread for ideas to improve my Dragon/Airfix/Revell kitbash project. -
#1455 by roma847 on 21 Mar, 2018 06:23
-
Thanks Bubbinski,
I'm glad if you like this Intertank, but the price is justified, whereby my time is not even counted. And, if you look around, you will find that there is no such 3D Intertank in 1:144 on the market.
There is a lot of work in there and also had cost both of us some nerves, as the part is very detailed and thus quite complicated to design, especially because it tapers forward, what many guys do not even know.
The Intertank is now in Shapeways' Pre-Production. I will notify all of you when he arrived and I'll have checked it.
BTW, do you know the Space Shuttle Enhancement Kit 1/144 (NW131)?
It was specially developed by Newware for the Revell kits (Shuttle Stack and Launch Tower) and contains 196 parts (93 Resin, 103 PE), as well as 60 Decals (including templates for SRBs and ET) and is a really remarkable kit for upgrading the Shuttle stack.
-
#1456 by roma847 on 21 Mar, 2018 09:52
-
Hello everybody,
my Shapeways order is now on its way!
-
#1457 by roma847 on 22 Mar, 2018 09:01
-
Hello everybody,
another subproject are the Ice/Frost Ramps on the LH2 External Tank, and maybe Michael Key can also help me again.
In fact, there are 17 ramps, with the rear three ramps looking slightly different than the front 14.
Source: NASA
And that's how most of the Ramps for the GO2/GH2 Press. Lines look like.
Source: NASA
My ARC friend Bill (niParts) has already modeled a Set of these Ice Ramps in 1:72, but in 1:144 they are much smaller and could possibly be problematic for 3D printing.
Source: shapeways.com (niParts)
In reality, the ramps are 2' x 2' x 1', and accordingly 4 mm x 4 mm x 2 mm for the ET (1:144).
The diameter of the GO2/GH2 Press. Lines is 2'' = Ø 0,35 mm (1:144) and is used as the reference gauge.
The openings in the ramps are slightly larger, approx. Ø 0,5 mm, as one can see on this image.
Possible that the small wall thicknesses for Shapeways pose a problem, but which I do not hope. 
-
#1458 by roma847 on 22 Mar, 2018 22:55
-
Hello everybody,
at the end of the last year, when I started to deal with the Intertank and the SRB's Aft Skirt Thermal Curtains (AFTC), I got to know a friend of the Britmodeller Forum (PZRGREN), who also had used this Newware Enhancement Kit and asked him for detail photos, especially from the ET and the Ice/Frost Ramps, etc. ...
Thereupon he has sent me some interesting photos of his ET with the SRBs, on which one can see some of the kit parts installed.
Source: britmodeller.com/forums (PZRGREN)
Source: britmodeller.com/forums (PZRGREN)
Source: britmodeller.com/forums (PZRGREN)
Since the representation of the ramps in the construction manual of the Newware Kit is very detailed and clear, and the resin parts also make a very good impression,
Source: arcforums.com (egt95)
I asked my friend to send me some close-ups of the Ramps. Then he offered surprisingly, in addition to the photos to send me also his spare parts and the instructions, what I have thankfully accepted, a really nice gesture from him.
And since I have seen in the instructions that in the associated PE board among other things even the tiny hinges for the Payload Bay Doors of the Challenger are included, which he does not need because he has built the Atlantis I've also asked him about it.
Source: arcforums.com (egt95)
And he kept his word and in the meantime has sent me the promised things.
As one can see on this image, there are a few spare parts of almost all the Ramp types, on which I will go into detail, one of which lies on the cent coin. And I have to admit, the parts look really nice, whereby one should not be shocked by the chunky resin blocks. One just has to separate it carefully enough so that there is still something left over from the midgets. 
The openings for the two Press. Lines are actually hollow, and here I have inserted a nickel silver wire (Ø 0,4 mm), which I will use.
The openings are dimensioned slightly larger than real necessary, so that even a Styrene rod (Ø 0,5 mm) fits through, and there is enough space for the Evergreen Strip (0,75 mm x 1 mm) for the Cable Tray, as suggested in the kit, which is slightly oversized, wherefore I will use a smaller strip (0,5 mm x 0,75 mm) that is placed here.
The spare parts are indeed not sufficient, but are well suited as a template for the 3D modeling, since of this R23 Type alone 14 pieces are needed, as one can see from this kit drawing. 
Source: http://mek.kosmo.cz/newware/nw131.htm
With that I want to let it go for now.
-
#1459 by roma847 on 30 Mar, 2018 13:29
-
Hello everybody,
Shapeways' shipping did not take so long, if you have been wondering about the send pause.
The reasons for that I still want to explain before the holidays, but the devil is often in the detail, or better said in this case in the Shapeways' tolerances, which I have not yet known so far.
And if one or the other in the mean time has clicked on the link of the SW website in my Reply # 1453, then he will has been surprised. Oops!!!
Outwardly, the second Intertank looks really great, 
but already the test fitting of the ET front part was not possible because the connection diameter D2.1 was still slightly larger than that of the first IT, namely instead of 53,5 mm it was now even 54,1 mm. You could have knocked me down with a feather!!!
Instead of getting a little smaller by Michael Key's adjustment for a better matching the Airfix IT-values, the dimensions became in spite of taking shrinkage (0,8%) into account amazingly even a bit larger, which is still mystery to me.
This is shown by the comparison of the dimensions of the two ITs with the Airfix-IT,
whereby I've tried to measure as accurately as possible.
While the larger length is less a problem for the fit of the parts,
the resulting diameters all the more so as the overall IT was printed too large, which can also be seen at the back overhang of the IT, which is just too big for me.
Of course, Michael Key was also very surprised, because according to the SW website, the visible length of the IT (without front connecting ring) should be around 48,9 mm (48,5 mm x 1.008 shrinkage), as it was indicated in his CAD file.
He then removed his shop offer and contacted Shapeways for anew refund, which I've received in the meantime.
While the tolerance for FUD on the SW website is indicated with
Accuracy ± 0,1 - 0,2 mm for every 100 mm,
we have now been told that the actual tolerance of the material is up to 0,4 mm, so one can not guarantee that the IT is perfectly sized, which is inconsistent and in my opinion difficult to accept it.
Normally it is absolutely a No go!!! It is unacceptable for the customers that SW simply declares new tolerances that are twice as large if the specified limits are not met.
And therefore I will inform SW that I'm expecting their guaranteed FUD accuracy for the proud price of this print.
However, in a sketch by Michael Key with all dimensions of his CAD model without and with shrinkage (0,8%), I discovered a small flaw that may have contributed to the enlarged diameters, which he has now corrected.
With these last changes, he has uploaded the model again, and here it can be found.
Now he will also upload a WSF version, which does not have to consider shrinkage and which will surely become a bit cheaper.
Now I'm curious what kind of egg this time Shapeways will put into the nest me.
Otherwise, I wish you all
and thank you for looking in on me.
