Best Way To Print Multiple Rings?

Discussion in 'Jewelry' started by Lukasss97, Jul 20, 2019.

  1. Lukasss97
    Lukasss97 Member
  2. CapHerlock
    CapHerlock Well-Known Member
    Hello Lukas,

    based on my experience you could do multiple things: first of all, if at all possible you should separate all the pieces and either sell them separately or have them in one single file but connected in some way, shape or form, even by a tiny part, but that way the system reads it as a single piece rather than 5. You'd just need to have a tiny cut in the central ring so you can put the others into it afterwards.
    If you don't want to do that, then you can apply the same but connecting the pieces on the inside, i.e., having tiny parts to connect the central ring to the other four but maintaining the shape they currently have. Of course you'll need to remove those connections afterwards.
    Since they are not fixed you should also move the four external ones as close together as possible so as to consume the least space (which also lowers the price).
    If you don't want to tackle with the internal ring since as far as I can understand it's where the part is worn, then you should create a ring to encompass the entire piece and connect all the parts to it so as to have the least residue to remove.

    I am no jewerly expert, I work on model kits, but I had a very similar issue with a kit I did a while ago:
    https://www.shapeways.com/product/JCP9WUYA9/snap-together-1-72-v1-flying-bomb
    In this case sprueing was the only way to solve the problem since selling the individual parts would have cost too much.
    Unfortunately when it comes to multiple parts in a single file there's not much we as designers can do to play with prices if you want to keep the parts separated, so if you don't want to add anything else that you feel might lower the quality of your product then you should sell it at the price it currently is. There's not much way around this as far as I know of.

    I hope this was helpful for you,

    Cheers,
    CapHerlock

    P.S. Always check your Wall Thicknesses! I don't know if that's the material you want to print it with, but if that's the case you need to do thicken some parts if you don't want it to be rejected.
     
  3. Lukasss97
    Lukasss97 Member
    Thank you for your extensively answer. I will look into it. But the idea with the ring in the middle which I will cut out after its printed should work?
     
  4. CapHerlock
    CapHerlock Well-Known Member
    Do you plan to remove the central ring or is it an integral part of the design? If that's the case, then you should still anchor the four rings to the central one in some way. If you instead are referring to what I was saying, let me explain.
    The idea is to have a cut in the model itself before having it printed: this way you can use the elastic strength of the material to flex it a bit and slot the other rings into the central one, as long as the hole is not as wide as those rings are, which would make this pointless since they would just fall off. Then it's your choice to print the pieces all together using this method although it works best if you print all the parts separately so you won't have to have connection points to clean afterwards.
     
  5. Lukasss97
    Lukasss97 Member
    Yes, I will remove the central ring. Its not a part of the design.Thanks. I think I will just give it a try.
     
  6. nathlee
    nathlee Member


    Hello CapHerlock,

    can you draw/illustrate the different tips you propose to print multiple object? because it's a little bit tricky but so useful (i am not really fluent in english i try to use google translate but it's still confuse)...

    for example, it's difficult to imagine this sentence : "having tiny parts to connect the central ring to the other four but maintaining the shape "

    thx
     
  7. CapHerlock
    CapHerlock Well-Known Member
    Hello nathlee,

    sure I will try. But let's get one thing out of the way first: sprues. What's a sprue? A sprue is a piece of metal or plastic which has solidified joining a number of small plastic items, i.e. what makes your plastic model kit parts stay together.
    With that said, here's what I meant.
    Option 1:
    1.jpg
    You can have all the parts within single, separate files, but the point of this thread is to have them all in one so as to pay less for the same quantity. So my first proposal was to connect the rings with sprue as you can see on the right of the image. Since they are supposed to be one inside the other as you can see in the link at the top of the first message of the thread, the option here is to have a little hole in them to you can interlock those after you've cut them from the sprue, as you can see in the image below.
    2.jpg
    Option 2:
    3.jpg
    This is basically maintain your original file, having the rings interlocked (again see the link at the top of the page), but connect the parts with a tiny piece on the inside. Now imagine having the three other rings connected to the one on the right in the same way as the left one is, and you basically have the same product as before (again see the link), but SW checks see this as a single piece, while before there were five (the ring at the center and the other four), which were not physically connected to one another.

    Option 3:
    4.jpg
    This is probably the most difficult one to understand (sorry for the bad lighting of the photo). I've drawn a very simple example, but in this case your product is the series of interlocked rings you see (they are not connected like in option 2, they can move around). Here you have a sprue going around the product (the rectangular shape you can see) which is connected to each one of the rings separately. This way you don't have to put sprues on the inside like option 2, which is a problem to cut off when you have a small product, and this is actually quite versatile since you can adapt it to any 3D object you might want to print.

    I hope this had been useful.

    Cheers,
    CapHerlock
     
  8. nathlee
    nathlee Member
    Hello



    Hello CapHerlock

    i understand everything now :) thank for your drawings!

    do you think the design of Lukasss97--->
    https://www.shapeways.com/model/3dtools/9459228/0/118?key=ade165cc00b6d24a422e7d88602adf35

    has to put sprue on every ring? or is shapeways to do it..

    because on your option 3, you suggest to put a spue on each ring... is it not possible to have it floating without frame just like a basic chain with ring interlock?
     
  9. CapHerlock
    CapHerlock Well-Known Member
    Hello nathlee,

    You're welcome.

    I personally prefer to put sprues myself because I can choose thickness and position, which might not be guaranteed SW would do the same as you want them. But that's just me, I prefer to have every possible bit of my models under my control so I can manage them better (since there is a variation in price based on how much sprue you use).
    In this particular case, that of Lukasss97, yes every ring needs a connection, even a very small one, but that's the point - if even just one isn't connected then SW's checks will not read this as a single piece (and price won't decrease, which is the ultimate goal of all of this).

    About option 3, I haven't tested it, but based on my experience I'm pretty sure I'm correct when I say that what you're proposing is not a viable option, again because these are not physically connected and so they are not read as a single piece, again same case as before. Just keep in mind that's my own educated guess based on my experience with SW so far.
     
  10. lawrencekramer2014
    lawrencekramer2014 Well-Known Member
    Sprues traditionally are what the metal flows through to reach the model in the casting process. Sometimes they are used as simple connectors in production and NOT really used to flow the metal. Both types can be seen in a few of my models. Go to the marketplace and search on "Yako" to see the jewelry (custom settings for jewels) for both types of sprue: 'functional flow' and simple 'model connector'.