Talk:RepRap: Difference between revisions
Andy Dingley (talk | contribs) fix date |
m Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 3 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Technology}}, {{WikiProject Open}}, {{WikiProject Engineering}}. Remove 1 deprecated parameter: importance. Tag: |
||
(42 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} |
||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
{{WikiProject Technology}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
{{WikiProject Open }} |
|||
⚫ | |||
{{WikiProject Engineering}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
}}{{Press |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
| author2 = Roisin Kiberd |
|||
| title2 = The Brutal Edit War Over a 3D Printer's Wikipedia Page |
|||
| org2 = [[Vice_%28magazine%29|Vice]] |
|||
| url2 = https://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-brutal-edit-war-over-a-3d-printers-wikipedia-page-reprap |
|||
| date2 = March 23, 2016 |
|||
| quote2 = |
|||
| archiveurl2 = |
|||
| archivedate2 = |
|||
| accessdate2 = 23 March 2016 |
|||
}} |
}} |
||
{{talkheader}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
{{Connected contributor |
{{Connected contributor |
||
| User1 = Vik Olliver | U1-EH = yes | U1-declared = yes |U1-otherlinks = COI declared [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=RepRap_project&type=revision&diff=18568139&oldid=17613805 here]|U1-banned = |
| User1 = Vik Olliver | U1-EH = yes | U1-declared = yes |U1-otherlinks = COI declared [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=RepRap_project&type=revision&diff=18568139&oldid=17613805 here]|U1-banned = |
||
Line 36: | Line 44: | ||
| User10 = |U10-EH = | U10-declared = |U10-otherlinks = |U10-banned = |
| User10 = |U10-EH = | U10-declared = |U10-otherlinks = |U10-banned = |
||
}} |
}} |
||
{{Canvass warning|short=yes}} |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
== Draconian Cut == |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
Someone rather slashed the content of the page to two paragraphs, with key facts in both remaining paragraphs wrong. The tone of the cut version suggests some kind of grudge. I apologise for fixing these as I am a member of the RepRap Project but hope the edits come under the "common sense" clause. I'm refraining from re-instating the copy myself for that reason, but I would strongly urge that a more precise edit of the previous content is made. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:VikOlliver |VikOlliver ]] ([[User talk:VikOlliver |talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/VikOlliver |contribs]]) 05:54, 5 March 2016 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
|||
⚫ | |||
:Thanks for correcting the error. The article was a nightmare of content that violated [[WP:NOTMANUAL]], [[WP:NOTNEWS]], [[WP:SELFCITE]], [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]], and as they say on TV, "so much more!" Way too much hype around this had been pressed into WP. I'm not a crazy person and would be open to re-expansion but it needs to be enduring, encyclopedic content cited to secondary sources..... [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 06:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
⚫ | |||
⚫ | |||
::Instead of addressing specific issues you cite with specific changes, you deleted almost everything ("throwing the baby out with the bath water"). Now you've created unneeded worked for people to try and add that relevant content back in, knowing that someone is hovering over the revert button. Poor form. [[User:Mburns|Mburns]] <small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 09:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
⚫ | |||
}} |
|||
I'm happy to reinstate content with external references (and highly relevant internal ones such as Makerbot and Adrian Bowyer), but the problem is that I was one of the original researchers. If there is some multi-lateral agreement and cross-checking I'd be delighted to participate. Would it be possible for me to at least reinstate the key, pre-commercial, timeline of the project? Bear in mind that at the creation of the page and content the Wikipedia rules governing such violations were not in place, and Wikipedia itself was used as the historical archive by the team in complete ignorance of the impending rules. Prior to 2008 there was also no commercial RepRap.[[User:VikOlliver |VikOlliver ]] <small class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 07:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
:Thanks for acknowledging that - it was obvious from the content that Wikipedia was being abused as a team website. This is not an uncommon error - representatives from companies come here and do the exact same thing. So do activists of various stripes. Thanks too (and really) for minding the integrity of Wikipedia this time around! I mean that. What we ask editors with a COI to do is work with a kind of peer review. instead of editing the article directly, propose the content here on the article Talk page, for others to review for NPOV and sourcing, and only after it has been reviewed by independent editors, does it get added to the article. It would be amazing if you would propose content here to work on, to add flesh to the article. Thanks! [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 16:34, 5 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
The article did need a 'bit' of work, but this cut is close to vandalism. I am now trying to tell quite a few people to put the pitchforks away and tell them we are not evil and are bought by someone to destroy the 3d printing movement. thanks a lot, i had something else to do today. [[User:Elvis untot|Elvis untot]] ([[User talk:Elvis untot|talk]]) 13:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
I've contacted Dr Bower and he has tidied up the article (minor contributions by me) with references and links to the relevant Wikipedia pages. It is available for feedback, modification, comment and possible inclusion by interested parties here: |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Adrianreprap/sandbox [[User:VikOlliver|Vik :v)]] ([[User talk:VikOlliver|talk]]) 01:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:that was super nice of him, but like many articles created by people too close to something, there is a '''ton''' of unsourced content in that draft; it fails [[WP:VERIFY]] by miles and miles. It is also still full of the "revolutionary" rhetoric and [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]] predictions that the former, bloated version was full of. This too is a product of the bias that comes from people too close to a project. That kind of content is ''great'' on a lab website or website of a company, but it is not encyclopedic. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 03:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
Would you mind terribly marking up a few so we can have some concrete examples as reference points for our fixes? [[User:VikOlliver|Vik :v)]] ([[User talk:VikOlliver|talk]]) 04:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Come on. Just read it. So many unsourced things! "14 April 2008. Possibly the first end-user item is made by a RepRap: a clamp to hold an iPod securely to the dashboard of a Ford Fiesta." That is just one, but you know how to look for citations. The entire section on "Commercial applications" is unsourced. Promotionally... the whole thing about the goal of " asymptotically approach 100% replication over a series of evolutionary generations" which has not happened at all, and appears unlikely to. The promotional "revolution in STEM education" bit, sourced to a conference abstrat. This is very far from [[WP:NPOV]]. Again it is great content for a lab website. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 08:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Fixed that first reference (Financial Times as it happens), added a few citations to the "Commercial Applications" section - will get more. You may not agree with the RepRap Project's goals, but that does not change what they are. Please explain why an in-context conference abstract is not admissible as a citation given that Wikipedia supports <nowiki>{{Cite conference}}</nowiki>.[[User:VikOlliver|Vik :v)]] ([[User talk:VikOlliver|talk]]) 05:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::The goal is great. It is just that it was set 10 years ago and reality has not turned out that way. See [http://hackaday.com/2016/03/02/getting-it-right-by-getting-it-wrong-reprap-and-the-evolution-of-3d-printing/ here] for example. There was little about real world impact - how it is going, how it is not going, in the article was and in that draft article. 3D printing remains niche-y. I know lots of people and maybe one has a 3D printer. This is what happens when people who have conflicts of interest write Wikipedia articles. Too close to the vision. Passion is a double-edged sword that way. It drives people to contribute but you only get the fans or the haters, and encyclopedic content goes out the window. I would love to see a good, well-sourced, NPOV article on RepRap. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 06:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:Shall I pare down that page until every statement is cited? At the moment the article is a bit far from encyclopaedic! Still not sure why the conference abstract was a bad citation.[[User:VikOlliver|Vik :v)]] ([[User talk:VikOlliver|talk]]) 06:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::please do read [[WP:RS]]. conference abstracts are not peer reviewed, generally. They are just an SPS. And yes per [[WP:VERIFY]] anything that is not on the level of the "the sky is blue" needs to be cited. That is a Wikipedia fundamental policy and one of the things that help us prevent this place from being a slag heap (although it is in places) [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 07:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::While I agree that the claim being made with only a conference abstract as the source is not strong, I disagree with your response though Jytdog, indicating that the reason it is not strong is because it is not peer-reviewed. Many/Most of the sources cited in Wikipedia articles are not peer-reviewed. (newspaper/magazine articles, websites, etc..). And conference abstracts sometimes ARE peer-reviewed. FYI: I'm a librarian. [[Special:Contributions/166.66.18.85|166.66.18.85]] ([[User talk:166.66.18.85|talk]]) 19:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC) Sorry, should have logged in, before commenting.[[User:Gregatmu|Gregatmu]] ([[User talk:Gregatmu|talk]]) 19:06, 17 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::You are pretty new here. The distinction here is that an article in a newspaper that is a reliable source is written by some reporter, and then gone over by editors, and then published by the newspaper. There is a whole set of editorial controls and fact-checking between the writing of the thing, and its publication. In scientific publishing, "peer reviewed" is short hand for the whole process of getting a scientific article published (which includes copy review by editors at the journal, as well as peer-review for the claims that are made). Conference abstracts are basically [[WP:SPS|self-published sources]] - that whole series of editorial control is absent. A conference abstract is an extremely weak source for the very stong and promotional claim that "RepRap is revolutionizing education." That is just promotionalism, along the lines of Ginzu knives sold on TV. If folks want to make the extraordinarily strong claim in this article that RepRap has actually has "revolutionized" education, then they need to bring a correspondingly extraordinarily strong source supporting that. Heck, if folks want to make the claim that RepRap has had even significant impact on education, they would need a strong source actually showing that, not just some guy talking at a conference about how cool his work is. Please do read [[WP:VERIFY]], [[WP:RS]], and [[WP:NPOV]] and you will see what that I am saying here matches both the letter and most importantly the spirit of those policies and guidelines. Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia - a serious attempt to provide the public with accepted knowledge. It is not a lab website or a group blog or a fan site. Promotionalism is the opposite of what we are doing here - we want carefully written, well-sourced content that reflects the real world as well as we can. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 19:37, 17 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* sorry about today's events RepRap folks. That seems to be someone unrelated who came here only to make trouble. I'll be happy to work with anyone who wants to build a good, policy-compliant Wikipedia article about RepRap. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 01:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Signal for more Wikipedian attention == |
|||
== Note on connected contributors, and note for new folks who are brought here by the [http://3dprint.com/124759/reprap-projects-wikipedia-page/ 3D print] article == |
|||
In response to the recent attention from outside the Wikimedia community I have requested extra attention from inside the Wikipedia. See posts at |
|||
I've added a header to this page, after reviewing the history of the article. There has been a lot of influence on this article by what we call in Wikipedia, [[WP:SPA]] editors. There has also been a good deal of [[WP:SELFCITE|self-citing]]. If you are new here, please do read the SPA essay, which describes the Wikipedia community's experience with editors who come here to do one thing. New folks who know RepRap very well, please also do read [[WP:EXPERT]]. For anybody who is new, here is quick rundown on how Wikipedia works: |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_52#Media_attention_for_edit_conflicts_at_3D_printer_project]] |
|||
*[[Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_98#Media_attention_for_edit_conflicts_at_3D_printer_project]] |
|||
[[User:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">''' Blue Rasberry '''</span>]][[User talk:Bluerasberry|<span style="background:#cedff2;color:#11e">(talk)</span>]] 19:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
: I've been tightening up the prose a bit, and converting to the past tense. But I haven't removed much. I did tone down the "self-reproducing" part as hype - it only makes some of the plastic fittings; it can't make motors, shafts, or ICs. [[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] ([[User talk:Nagle|talk]]) 00:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:: You've also claimed, unsourced, that "the company behind" RepRap has closed down (and you were a year out too). FFS! Hasn't this article attracted enough bad publicity for WP already without wild errors like this? [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 01:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::: That's what their site says.[https://reprappro.com/]. Is that not correct? [[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] ([[User talk:Nagle|talk]]) 01:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
:::: That's correct for RepRapPro, the problem is that RepRapPro are very far from being "the company behind" RepRap. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 09:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Is there another organization? RepRap China? A nonprofit? "germanreprap.com"? The "reprap.org" wiki run by Adrian Bower? The article is vague on the organizational structure. Maybe we need something like "RepRap is a distributed cooperative project started by ..." [[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] ([[User talk:Nagle|talk]]) 19:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
== Strength of materials == |
|||
Our mission is to produce articles that provide readers with ''encyclopedia articles'' summarizing accepted knowledge, and to do that as a community that anyone can be a part of. That's the mission. As you can imagine, if this place had no norms, it would be a Mad Max kind of world interpersonally, and content would be a slag heap (the quality ''is'' really bad in parts, despite our best efforts). But over the past 15 years the community has developed a whole slew of norms, via loads of discussion. One of the first, is that we decide things by consensus. That decision itself, is recorded here: [[WP:CONSENSUS]]. (there is a whole forest of things, in "Wikipedia space" - pages in Wikipedia that start with "<u>Wikipedia:</u>AAAA" or for short, "<u>WP:</u>AAAA". [[WP:CONSENSUS]] is different from [[Consensus]]. See? And when we decide things by consensus, that is not just local in space and time; it includes discussions that have happened in the past. The results of those past discussions are the norms that guide what we do - we call them [[WP:PAG|policies and guidelines]]. There are policies and guidelines that govern content, and separate ones that govern behavior. Here is very quick rundown: |
|||
* [[WP:NOT]] (what WP is, and is not -- this is where you'll find the "accepted knowledge" thing) |
|||
* [[WP:OR]] - no original research is allowed here, instead |
|||
* [[WP:VERIFY]] - everything has to be cited to a reliable source (so everything in WP comes down to the sources you bring!) This doesn't include "the sky is blue" but does include everything else, that an expert wouldn't know |
|||
* [[WP:RS]] is the guideline defining what a "reliable source" is for general content |
|||
* [[WP:NPOV]] content that gets written, needs to be "neutral" (as we define that here, which doesn't mean what most folks think -- it doesn't mean "fair and balanced" - it means that the language has to be neutral, ''and'' that topics in a given article are given appropriate "weight" (space and emphasis). An article about a drug that was 90% about side effects, would give what we call "undue weight" to the side effects. We determine weight by seeing what the reliable sources say - we follow them in this too. So again, you can see how everything comes down to references.) |
|||
In the article: "The mechanical properties of RepRap printed PLA and ABS have been tested and have been shown to be equivalent to the tensile strengths of proprietary printers.[22]" This is misleading. The test was only for the strong direction: “This study only looked at the tensile strength in the plane of the print bed, next we need to expand this study to look at interlayer adhesion.”[http://3dprintingindustry.com/2014/03/04/michigan-tech-study-reprap-3d-prints/] Did they ever test strength in the weak direction (across layers)? There are lots of forum posts about breakage in the weak direction. [[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] ([[User talk:Nagle|talk]]) 02:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
In terms of behavior, the key norms are: |
|||
: Layer lamination strength, or interlayer adhesion strength, will change drastically based on the printing process. Because of the high variability, you can't accurately predict material properties for Z axis delamination in any Material Extrusion prints. What is possible is qualifying a specific combination of printer, material, settings, temperatures, and environment with a printed test coupon. From there you can test the coupon and provide accurate predictions for material strength. <br /> |
|||
* [[WP:CONSENSUS]] - already discussed |
|||
: I would add this to whatever wiki page we are fighting about, but I am ZERO% interested in a wiki edit war fueled by wikicrats. As a reprap user and additive manufacturing professional, I'm sure all my pertinent knowledge is some sort of conflict of interest. Better to have the noobs write wikipedia. </rant> [[User:Eagleapex|Eagleapex]] ([[User talk:Eagleapex|talk]]) 13:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* [[WP:CIVIL]] - basically, be nice. This is not about being nicey nice, it is really about [https://meta.wikimedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Don%27t_be_a_jerk&redirect=no not being a jerk] and having that get in the way of getting things done. We want to get things done here - get content written and maintained and not get hung up on interpersonal disputes. So just try to avoid doing things that create unproductive friction. (I am sometimes too harsh, btw) |
|||
:: ''Because of the high variability, you can't accurately predict material properties for Z axis delamination in any Material Extrusion prints.'' That's worth mentioning if it can be cited. There are lots of references [https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=3d+printer+delamination&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=3d+printer+delamination] but a [[WP:RS]] reliable source is hard to find. (The fundamental problem is that you're trying to weld a hot thing to a cold thing, which never works very well.) [[User:Nagle|John Nagle]] ([[User talk:Nagle|talk]]) 19:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC) |
|||
* [[WP:AGF]] - assume good faith about other editors. Try to focus on content, not contributor. Don't personalize it when content disputes arise. (the anonymity here can breed all kinds of paranoia) |
|||
* [[WP:HARASSMENT]] - really, don't be a jerk and follow people around, bothering them. And do not try to figure out who people are in the real world. Privacy is strictly protected by the [[WP:OUTING]] part of this policy. |
|||
* [[WP:DR]] - if you get into an argument about content with someone, try to work it, staying focused on the content, and how it makes sense in light of the policies and guidelines. If you cannot, then use one of the methods here to get wider input. There are lots of these! |
|||
* [[WP:TPG]] - this is about how to talk to other editors on Talk pages, like this one |
|||
If you can get all that (the content and behavior policies and guidelines) under your belt, you will become truly [[WP:CLUE|"clueful"]], as we say. Being clueful means understanding not only the letter, but the spirit of the policies and guidelines, and the mission of WP. (be wary of falling into [[WP:WIKILAWYER|"wikilawyering"]], or finding some scrap of a policy or guideline that supports what you already wanted to do) OK. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 21:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 16:11, 24 February 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the RepRap article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
|
There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
Signal for more Wikipedian attention
[edit]In response to the recent attention from outside the Wikimedia community I have requested extra attention from inside the Wikipedia. See posts at
- Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_52#Media_attention_for_edit_conflicts_at_3D_printer_project
- Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_98#Media_attention_for_edit_conflicts_at_3D_printer_project
Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- I've been tightening up the prose a bit, and converting to the past tense. But I haven't removed much. I did tone down the "self-reproducing" part as hype - it only makes some of the plastic fittings; it can't make motors, shafts, or ICs. John Nagle (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- You've also claimed, unsourced, that "the company behind" RepRap has closed down (and you were a year out too). FFS! Hasn't this article attracted enough bad publicity for WP already without wild errors like this? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's what their site says.[1]. Is that not correct? John Nagle (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's correct for RepRapPro, the problem is that RepRapPro are very far from being "the company behind" RepRap. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Is there another organization? RepRap China? A nonprofit? "germanreprap.com"? The "reprap.org" wiki run by Adrian Bower? The article is vague on the organizational structure. Maybe we need something like "RepRap is a distributed cooperative project started by ..." John Nagle (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's correct for RepRapPro, the problem is that RepRapPro are very far from being "the company behind" RepRap. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- That's what their site says.[1]. Is that not correct? John Nagle (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- You've also claimed, unsourced, that "the company behind" RepRap has closed down (and you were a year out too). FFS! Hasn't this article attracted enough bad publicity for WP already without wild errors like this? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Strength of materials
[edit]In the article: "The mechanical properties of RepRap printed PLA and ABS have been tested and have been shown to be equivalent to the tensile strengths of proprietary printers.[22]" This is misleading. The test was only for the strong direction: “This study only looked at the tensile strength in the plane of the print bed, next we need to expand this study to look at interlayer adhesion.”[2] Did they ever test strength in the weak direction (across layers)? There are lots of forum posts about breakage in the weak direction. John Nagle (talk) 02:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Layer lamination strength, or interlayer adhesion strength, will change drastically based on the printing process. Because of the high variability, you can't accurately predict material properties for Z axis delamination in any Material Extrusion prints. What is possible is qualifying a specific combination of printer, material, settings, temperatures, and environment with a printed test coupon. From there you can test the coupon and provide accurate predictions for material strength.
- I would add this to whatever wiki page we are fighting about, but I am ZERO% interested in a wiki edit war fueled by wikicrats. As a reprap user and additive manufacturing professional, I'm sure all my pertinent knowledge is some sort of conflict of interest. Better to have the noobs write wikipedia. </rant> Eagleapex (talk) 13:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
- Because of the high variability, you can't accurately predict material properties for Z axis delamination in any Material Extrusion prints. That's worth mentioning if it can be cited. There are lots of references [3] but a WP:RS reliable source is hard to find. (The fundamental problem is that you're trying to weld a hot thing to a cold thing, which never works very well.) John Nagle (talk) 19:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)