Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Has anyone seen a 3D printed model for flared port terminals?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Has anyone seen a 3D printed model for flared port terminals?

    I'm new to the 3D print world but I'm still kind of surprised that models don't exist for printable port terminals that are designed to be coupled to standard size PVC pipe. Has anyone seen anything similar to this idea?
    Click image for larger version

Name:	268-384_HR_0.default.jpg?resizeid=106&resizeh=1200&resizew=1200.jpg
Views:	151
Size:	66.5 KB
ID:	1479183
    Thanks,
    Aaron

  • #2
    I actually published one recently as part of this model. You may be able to modify the "port_innerflare" object to do what you want:
    https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5145220

    Comment


    • #3
      I designed my own. I generally use freecad or fusion360. For one build I actually printed the entire port (oval shape) which turned out pretty excellent, though you can't see it since it's bottom vented..

      Comment


      • #4
        I do this on a regular basis. I can almost never get standard port dimensions to work with my designs. I often design my own flares and bends to utilise PVC pipe and /or cardboard mailing tubes. If I can't get the velocities and first pipe resonance correct doing that I will design and print the entire port. In some cases, like with very high x-max woofers, I have turned to passive radiators.

        Matthew
        BSME
        Kannapolis NC

        Comment


        • #5
          I've done quite a bit of CAD work in several times the past but never regularly enough to fell proficient. All new (to me) programs have a learning curves that typically frustrate me and even more so make me fell unproductive. I jacked with Google Sketch several years ago after hearing good things about it. I couldn't accomplish crap with it. Fusion360 seems to be the go to that I've heard great things about for several applications for quite a while now, A couple of evenings ago I thought playing with Fusion360 would be a good excuse to further procrastinate on my homework. Had to downlead it since I've never used it and had a pretty much finished model after a few hours. I'm pretty happy with and the the model as well.

          The groove on the underside is .400 wide x /60 deep do some 3/8 gasket tape should fit well.

          The current model is for a 6" diameter port and is version and is over 12" across. I had some black PLA arrive today but I ant to build a 3" version first to see if there are any problems that I might run into. Build time and material usage should be less than 1/10th the 12" version. 3" version will be similar but with 6x screw holes instead of 8.

          Question for those w/ 3D printing experience...
          I plan on using 20% infil but I'd like to make the areas under the screws solid to prevent them from getting crushed. Is there an easy way to tweek he slicer program for 100% infil in those areas? I'm using Cura as a slicer.

          Originally posted by Harvylogan View Post
          I have turned to passive radiators.
          Matthew
          Yeah, I WISH there was a PR large enough for my project. I'd love the visual appeal and would most likely go that route. Acoustic Elegance made some 18" PR's several years ago that would've been suitable but even a Google search doesn't tell much other than confirming their existence.
          Click image for larger version

Name:	temp port 1.png
Views:	70
Size:	249.2 KB
ID:	1479316 Click image for larger version

Name:	temp port 2.png
Views:	74
Size:	309.6 KB
ID:	1479317 Click image for larger version

Name:	temp port 3.png
Views:	71
Size:	176.0 KB
ID:	1479315
          Thanks,
          Aaron

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by aarond View Post
            Question for those w/ 3D printing experience...
            I plan on using 20% infil but I'd like to make the areas under the screws solid to prevent them from getting crushed. Is there an easy way to tweek he slicer program for 100% infil in those areas? I'm using Cura as a slicer.
            The easiest way to do that is turn perimeters up to 4 or 5 walls. With a standard nozzle, 4 perimeters will give you ~1.8mm wide ring of solid material around the hole, which should be enough to prevent crushing.

            You may or may not already know this, but the design you have there will be a nightmare for supports. I'm happy to talk about a few ways to simplify that, if you're interested.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by aarond View Post
              Yeah, I WISH there was a PR large enough for my project. I'd love the visual appeal and would most likely go that route. Acoustic Elegance made some 18" PR's several years ago that would've been suitable but even a Google search doesn't tell much other than confirming their existence.
              How big's your printer? You can print a passive radiator as large as your print bed. :
              https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4825265

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by zx82net View Post
                The easiest way to do that is turn perimeters up to 4 or 5 walls. With a standard nozzle, 4 perimeters will give you ~1.8mm wide ring of solid material around the hole, which should be enough to prevent crushing.
                You may or may not already know this, but the design you have there will be a nightmare for supports. I'm happy to talk about a few ways to simplify that, if you're interested.
                I'm open to any and all suggestions. I did take supports into consideration but didn't know how to avoid it. On my 3" test part I was planning on printing both upside down and right side up to see what kind of differences each yielded. Upside down would require much less support material at the expense of the leftover support artifacts being left on the visible side. I don't think it will be a nightmare so to speak just a decent amount of wasted material and extra build time.

                Can I spec different wall thicknesses on different part features in Cura?

                Thanks,
                Aaron

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by aarond View Post

                  I'm open to any and all suggestions. I did take supports into consideration but didn't know how to avoid it. On my 3" test part I was planning on printing both upside down and right side up to see what kind of differences each yielded. Upside down would require much less support material at the expense of the leftover support artifacts being left on the visible side. I don't think it will be a nightmare so to speak just a decent amount of wasted material and extra build time.

                  Can I spec different wall thicknesses on different part features in Cura?
                  One option is to rear-mount the flare section, avoiding the need for the flat surface in contact with the outside of the baffle. The attached image shows an extreme form of this where I included a treaded interface to the rear of the baffle, which I also 3D printed. The conical section avoids the need for any supports. It does represent an amount of wasted volume, it can be low infill, so it doesn't need to represent a huge amount of plastic.

                  Attached Files

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Smoothing the port after printing is going to be critical to the best performance. I found significantly increased harmonic distortion and earlier onset of chuffing of a printed clone of a Precision port vs the manufactured version. You can use Polysmooth smoothed with IPA vapor, or ABS smoothed with acetone vapors. If you have time on your hands you can see some of my experiments here.
                    ~Brandon 8O
                    Please donate to my Waveguides for CNC and 3D Printing Project!!
                    Please donate to my Monster Box Construction Methods Project!!
                    DriverVault
                    Soma Sonus

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by augerpro View Post
                      Smoothing the port after printing is going to be critical to the best performance. I found significantly increased harmonic distortion and earlier onset of chuffing of a printed clone of a Precision port vs the manufactured version. You can use Polysmooth smoothed with IPA vapor, or ABS smoothed with acetone vapors. If you have time on your hands you can see some of my experiments here.
                      This is very interesting, excellent data. I noticed you printed with one end of the flare on the print bed, which is going to give you an obvious lip between the flare and the flat section. Did you do any testing with both halves printed pointing up (requires joint in the middle, of course)? I defer to data, of course, but I'd be quite surprised if just a 200um step pattern has an effect on distortion, in the absence of other factors. Also, if it works, I'd be more inclined to just go to a 100um layer height and wait a bit longer for the print, rather than worry about post processing.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'm not sure what you mean by lip, but these were printed as one piece. They do have roughness to them, no way around that. My results are inline with prior work by Harman and before them. If you don't believe it, try it. Get a precision port, make a CAD copy to be printed and measure yourself. It shouldn't be a surprise, anything that causes eddies to form along the surface will perform worse. That's why Polk's idea of dimples was just wrong from the start. The Harman paper speculates why that is, basically it comes down to you need laminar, non-turbulent flow in a port. Any turbulence will cause chuffing. BTW my layer height is .12mm
                        ~Brandon 8O
                        Please donate to my Waveguides for CNC and 3D Printing Project!!
                        Please donate to my Monster Box Construction Methods Project!!
                        DriverVault
                        Soma Sonus

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by augerpro View Post
                          I'm not sure what you mean by lip, but these were printed as one piece. They do have roughness to them, no way around that. My results are inline with prior work by Harman and before them. If you don't believe it, try it. Get a precision port, make a CAD copy to be printed and measure yourself. It shouldn't be a surprise, anything that causes eddies to form along the surface will perform worse. That's why Polk's idea of dimples was just wrong from the start. The Harman paper speculates why that is, basically it comes down to you need laminar, non-turbulent flow in a port. Any turbulence will cause chuffing. BTW my layer height is .12mm
                          I've read the Harmon paper before, but their surface roughness ranged experiment used particle sizes of 1mm up to 2.25mm, much larger than the surface deviations of the order of 0.1~0.2mm which we are talking about with 3D printing. It wasn't clear in your data whether your smoothing experiment separated removing the lip from smoothing over layer lines. What I meant by lip is the sharp angle that exists at the point of contact with the bed, I've circled it in red on your drawing. If you print the port in 2 halves, you can smooth that transition in CAD, rather than having to post process it. I notice you seem to have sanded this off on your prints, but it wasn't clear whether that is what you meant by smoothing.
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ah, I see. So that's the sketch you see, but in reality I apply a 12mm roundover to it. So no sharp edge. On the end that is on the bed, there is one "row" of 4mm support material. After removing the support I sand it smooth(er), so that is what you see in the pics. Keep in mind the above is not the Precision port clone, that's the Harman/Roozen inspired port. The Precision port clone has a 1" radius flare (IIRC) like the original. There should be a pic early in my article.
                            ~Brandon 8O
                            Please donate to my Waveguides for CNC and 3D Printing Project!!
                            Please donate to my Monster Box Construction Methods Project!!
                            DriverVault
                            Soma Sonus

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by zx82net View Post
                              One option is to rear-mount the flare section, avoiding the need for the flat surface in contact with the outside of the baffle. The attached image shows an extreme form of this where I included a treaded interface to the rear of the baffle, which I also 3D printed. The conical section avoids the need for any supports. It does represent an amount of wasted volume, it can be low infill, so it doesn't need to represent a huge amount of plastic.
                              Interesting, you've got me thinking. I wonder if I can keep the original intent of my design by changing two things. Printing right side up... 1) At the point where the flare tangent exceeds 45 degrees build the inner surface out at 45 degrees similar to what you have shown 2) Make the part in two paces, limit the port to the terminal (eliminating the mounting ring), build the mounting ring separate. Integrate a step between the ring and port models to make assembling the two easy. If the ring is printed right side up then the only support material would be in the gasket channel (if I choose to keep it).

                              Thanks,
                              Aaron

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X