Home » Community » Work in progress »

# cm3 costs

cm3 costs [message #47640] Sun, 29 April 2012 20:03 UTC
I'm very new to this, so I'm trying to understand...

When the costs are based on cm3, is it related to the volume of material used to make your design in cm3, or the total volume of your design?

Lets say I wanted to print a one gallon (hollow) milk jug to carry milk in... Since the volume of one gallon is over 3,000 cm3, then my milk jug printed in WSF is going to cost over \$3,000?

Any help is appreciated.

Thx,

Johnnyo97

Re: cm3 costs [message #47643 is a reply to message #47640 ] Sun, 29 April 2012 21:09 UTC
When it's based on cm3, it will be the volume of the material, not the volume of the bounding box. That's why they suggest hollowing it out to make it cost less - hollowed objects use up less material.

It works slightly differently for materials that have discounts for high density objects or something, but I haven't read too much about that so I'll leave that area for someone else to explain... lol

Enjoys spending 98 hours a week learning, making and designing stuff. The picture of me as a kid is... pretty much what you're dealing with.
Re: cm3 costs [message #47646 is a reply to message #47640 ] Sun, 29 April 2012 21:41 UTC
A cube 13 cm to an edge has a volume of about one gallon, and it would indeed cost about \$4500 to print. However, if we hollow out the same cube to have 0.5cm thick walls, the volume becomes 13^3-12^2=469cm3. That would "only" cost you \$700 to print. If we reduce further to 2mm walls (which is practical for most materials) the cost is only \$300. This is quite reasonable for something so large as that milk jug you're describing.
So it depends on the actual volume of material consumed in the model, not the size of the bounding box. One gallon is an awful lot of material.
Re: cm3 costs [message #50893 is a reply to message #47646 ] Fri, 06 July 2012 05:21 UTC
 TomZ wrote on Sun, 29 April 2012 21:41 A cube 13 cm to an edge has a volume of about one gallon, .......

A US Gallon is 3785cc, which would be 15.58cm³.

Nearer to 4000, than 3000 cc.

[Updated on: Fri, 06 July 2012 05:24 UTC]

Re: cm3 costs [message #50951 is a reply to message #50893 ] Fri, 06 July 2012 23:23 UTC
 Quote: A US Gallon is 3785cc, which would be 15.58cm³.

So a quart is less than 4 cm³. ^_^
Re: cm3 costs [message #50953 is a reply to message #50951 ] Sat, 07 July 2012 02:24 UTC
No: with a Gallon we are dealing with Volume, not Area.

A quart would be 3785cc/4

OR -
(15.58 x 15.58 x 15.58)/4

= 946.25cc

OR:-

³√(946.25)

= 9.82cm³

[Updated on: Sat, 07 July 2012 02:47 UTC]

Re: cm3 costs [message #50954 is a reply to message #50953 ] Sat, 07 July 2012 03:38 UTC
Just like a Mm (megametre) is not the same than mm (milimetre), how things are written matters. A volume of 15cm³ is the same than 15 cubes, each of 1cm of side. A cube with side 15 cm is 3375 cm³ always, or 3.375 dm³ or 3.375 l or many other equivalents, but never 15 cm³.
Re: cm3 costs [message #50955 is a reply to message #50954 ] Sat, 07 July 2012 04:04 UTC
Agreed: How things are written does matter

In the parsing:-
15cm³ is 15cm cubed. (15 x 15 x15) :- is your "3375"

15cc (cubic centimeters) :- is your "15 cubes"

This is accepted Internationally for volumes in packaging.

In the calculations, a quart is clearly not less than 4cc, nor
is it a straight division by 4 of 15.58, which is cubed.

I am sorry, but the point you are making is lost on me.

[Updated on: Sat, 07 July 2012 04:17 UTC]

Re: cm3 costs [message #50984 is a reply to message #50955 ] Sat, 07 July 2012 22:32 UTC
15/4 was about seeing if you noticed the error, completly bogus.

15 cm³ is 15 cc and 15 ml. 3375 cm³ is 15³ cm³, as well as 3375 cc, etc. Basic maths/physics, if you take the cubic root of a magnitude, the units also go in the operation. ³√(3375 cm³) = 15 cm. You can never get cm³ from that.

If you want to write a "cube of 15 cm" (no ³ anywhere), fine, but if you ask for a "cube of 15 cm³" to anybody doing physics properly, he will give you a tiny cube (a cube with sides of ~2.47cm).

By your logic, a 20 m³ shipping volume is a very big cube, when in reality if fits in a typical container.

 Previous Topic: Alien dice
 Next Topic: Mini Ceramics DodBox