Ultimaker
introduce brick-layering as from CNC Kitchen Video
Is your feature request related to a problem?
Should improve layer adhesion
Describe the solution you'd like
Please take a look at the excellent video from CNC Kitchen, where he tests what he calls brick layering, effectively moving every other perimeter-line up ½ layer-height.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hGm6cubFVs
Describe alternatives you've considered
none
Affected users and/or printers
Would be an option.
Additional information & file uploads
No response
This will introduce a 10% strength, definetly interested in seeing it on the future
Take a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IdNA_hWiyE to shed some light at the patent situation.
This would be a very useful feature! Improving layer adhesion is crucial for print quality, and incorporating the brick layering method as demonstrated in the CNC Kitchen video seems like a practical and innovative solution. It would be great to see this as an option for users looking to enhance their prints!
I would totally love this feature. The european Patent hasn't been filed yet. it seems it is stuck because of a more thorough examination process. 3rd-Party observations have been filed (and acknowledged), also the examiner seemed to have found several issues of "non novelty", Also the bungled up references to the prior Patents were critizized by the EPC officer (as opposed to the USTPO). The correspondence is pretty interesting https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP21175830&lng=en&tab=doclist i have a friend who works there (different department) i might ask him, whether he can tell me something about that patent application.
Looks like it's been implemented (sorta) as a post processing script
https://github.com/TengerTechnologies/Bricklayers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqRdQOoK5hc
The european Patent hasn't been filed yet. it seems it is stuck because of a more thorough examination process. 3rd-Party observations have been filed (and acknowledged), also the examiner seemed to have found several issues of "non novelty", Also the bungled up references to the prior Patents were critizized by the EPC officer (as opposed to the USTPO). The correspondence is pretty interesting https://register.epo.org/application?number=EP21175830&lng=en&tab=doclist i have a friend who works there (different department) i might ask him, whether he can tell me something about that patent application.
Apparently, there is exact match with expired Stratasys patent, making all new patents on brick layers invalid. https://patents.google.com/patent/US5653925A/en (expired in 2015)
Okay, so I'm no expert, but based off of the comments of a patent lawyer who responded in this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/3Dprinting/comments/1gmhvhb/brick_layers_stronger_3d_prints_today_instead_of/ and reading both of the applicable patents: https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ea/e7/3c/2b836c9a51e18b/US5653925.pdf (the old one), and https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/6f/10/98/8e9ed53fc39b27/US11331848.pdf (the new one), The new patent does not apply to brick layers as described in the CNC Kitchen video: https://www.cnckitchen.com/blog/brick-layers-make-3d-prints-stronger . It does in fact patent the method you, @BarsMonster have described. They state there are problems with alternating the z height of parts of each layer which is why there are drawings of brick layers in the patent (Figure 2). But that isn't what they are patenting. Its the problem they are fixing. Figure 5 is their new method. So their patent does not need to be valid or not, because it isn't the method patented by Stratasys. As long as we use the Stratasys method (which has an expired patent), we should be fine. At least to my understanding.
Good to use:
Covered by new patent:
@Flopalop2 Yes, regardless of patent validity (i.e. is there sufficient prior art) to protect Ultimaker it is important NOT to introduce "Simplified brick layers" feature as a checkbox. Having separate outer wall configuration thickness for odd and even layers, where end user makes a decision how they want to print - is a safer way to go.
Also, my proposed solution does not look exactly like Fig5. if outer surface is on the left, it is proposed to allow difference on thickness on the inner side, which enhances adhesion to infill (which is not covered in the patent).
Picture from @GregValiant :
Further changes can be made to increase "legal separation" from the patent: have outermost perimeter thickness identical, and only introduce thickness variability on second perimeter and deeper inside the print (to increase strength without affecting fine surface details).
i love that idea! Also it is very beneficial to have all these ideas stated here in plain writing to protect against future patent trolls.
another idea from my side for further legal separation:
- lets call it "adaptive brick layering" - a new feature wich lets you - the user - define a range within which the width of the outermost (or 2nd to outermost) layer can be varied adapted to the geometry of the part. This extends inwards on each consecutive bead. Example: "allow varying outermost layer width between 70 and 130%"
That could totally work. Adding configuration to any implementation would allow for looser interpretations of the patentable idea. The alternate extra wall and connect infill would be replaced with the offset layers. Good idea. I'm hoping Ultimaker steps up and allows one of these options (or both). Until then, I'm just trying to keep these threads alive haha.
For these interested in intesting, in #20189 there is already experimental build working. https://github.com/Ultimaker/Cura/issues/20189#issuecomment-2618970825
New insights into the "brick layers" technique from CNC Kitchen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDgA51zdfLc
TLDR: need to increase flow while using the "brick layers" technique for maximum strength.
I watched the video yesterday, and I can't help but think the increased flow is only super applicable if using post processing. If we can get brick layers built in, decreasing distance between walls would be a better solution than increasing flow. AFAIK this is not a setting in Cura, otherwise this would be as simple as increasing wall overlap and using the post processing script for brick layers. This would decrease total wall thickness, but increase strength while retaining dimensional accuracy. Changing flow messes with a lot of things like pressure advance/ linear advance that I'd rather not have to worry about, even if only the inner walls' flow was changed.
Now, having extra flow is still important for closing both horizontal and vertical gaps if you want a really solid part, since perfect flow the nozzle puts out a rounded bead, and round objects don't mesh perfectly so you have to increase the flow and add part size changes to compensate.