3DPrinting
3DPrinting is a place where makers of all skill levels and walks of life can learn about and discuss 3D printing and development of 3D printed parts and devices.
The r/functionalprint community is now located at: or !functionalprint@fedia.io
There are CAD communities available at: !cad@lemmy.world or !freecad@lemmy.ml
Rules
-
No bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia. Code of Conduct.
-
Be respectful, especially when disagreeing. Everyone should feel welcome here.
-
No porn (NSFW prints are acceptable but must be marked NSFW)
-
No Ads / Spamming / Guerrilla Marketing
-
Do not create links to reddit
-
If you see an issue please flag it
-
No guns
-
No injury gore posts
If you need an easy way to host pictures, https://catbox.moe/ may be an option. Be ethical about what you post and donate if you are able or use this a lot. It is just an individual hosting content, not a company. The image embedding syntax for Lemmy is 
Moderation policy: Light, mostly invisible
view the rest of the comments
This is a pretty cool video. It would be interesting to do the same style test and leave infill fixed at a lower value while progressively adding more top/bottom layers. My suspicion is that more top/bottom layers would result in more stuffness.
If you keep a low infill, top/bottom layers will be rapidly more efficient but will cost more time and material than infill. The amount of wall is also to take into account. Few years back, I remember a test video showing that wall number were actually more efficient than infill. But depending how the test is being done, this might change.
For the test in question, top/bottom layers would help more than walls. I could see walls mattering more for different types of loading. Considering this video didn't really see an increase in strength until 40% infill, one or two more top/bottom layers might actually use less material and result in more strength/rigidity.