Comment on Sometimes fewer walls are better
saltesc@lemmy.world 11 months ago
All you’ve done here is create more walls using a single piece. If you want durability, your design will win as it allows for flex. If you want rigidity, it will be less rigid and take longer to make due to its complexity.
The loss in rigidity is due to creating weak points as the line turns. The gain in flexibility is exactly the same weakness but now a positive. It will take greater force from weight, butt less impact force.
If you’re after rigidity, either cram the space with as few complexities as possible, or fill space with triangles.
p1mrx@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
It’s not really clear what you’re saying, because they’re both “my design”. Could you specify 1 wall vs. 2 wall?
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
The 1 walled hook has the infill resisting and pulling back as you try to straighten the hook. When it fails, some of the connections between infill and walls break, causing the hook to lose it’s form or original rigidity permanently. In the case of 2 walled hook, this damage should be less severe, making it more durable.
p1mrx@sh.itjust.works 11 months ago
Okay, but if my 2-wall hook bends into a straight line, then I don’t really care about the durability of that no-longer-hook-shaped object.
nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de 11 months ago
The 2 walled hook is closer to solid plastic too, which should give it the most bonded surface area per layer and make it stronger overall.
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 months ago
The bond between layers or the walls is a lot weaker than just solid material.
bigredgiraffe@lemmy.world 11 months ago
I think what that person is saying is that in your example the left part would probably be more durable because it is flexible and that the part on the right is less durable but more rigid, basically saying your result is expected and makes sense if you are wanting durability over rigidity.
I think that the part that is unclear is that OP is using durability, rigidity, and strength as they are defined by material science not in common English and they way they differ in definition makes that comment make sense. I’m not a material scientist though so I could be wrong.
I hope that is correct and makes sense hah!