Two quotes stuck with me this week: “In 3D printing, complexity doesn’t add time.” “Failure often results in spaghetti.” Both proved true—chains, jewelry experiments, and failed scans taught me a lot (and produced a pile of colorful noodles).
Focus: test additive manufacturing limits and design something that cannot be made subtractively (interlocking parts/voids only possible layer-by-layer).
We explored overhangs, bridging, wall thickness, and tolerances. See results on the architecture site.
These findings shaped my designs—e.g., how far I could bridge before needing supports.
Thanks to Gert, Vittorio, and Aditi for the help with Bambu Studio and the printer.
Chains are a natural example of an object that cannot be made subtractively: free-moving interlocked links are only possible additively.
So I started here (simple angled circular links):
Attempt 1 (with supports): supports fused to the links → solid block. Removing supports broke links.
Attempt 2 (coin link with two holes): looked neat, but holes were too tight and fused.
Attempt 3 (print-flat links): links print flat and interlock via a small triangular nib. Chunky/medium worked; ultra-flat overheated and fused.
STLs for this version:
I also tried a cube-based chain. Small segments worked well, so I attempted a chain-mail patch overnight. In the morning: glorious spaghetti—heat buildup and wide area led to layer shifts and fused spots.
Because my final project explores earrings, I made an ear model as a test-bed. I tried scanning my own ear (will revisit later); for now I started from a shared model and resized it. Then I iterated ear-cuff and ornamented designs. Lesson: very small cross-sections overheat/fuse; thicker cuffs fare better. One clip snapped—thin geometry isn’t always strong enough, and a printed ear is stiffer than a real lobe.
I tried scanning a shiny ring with Polycam (phone) and with the lab’s Revo—both struggled (reflective/transparent/dark surfaces are hard). A wooden figure worked immediately thanks to matte, textured surfaces.
