28
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2025
28 points (88.9% liked)
3DPrinting
19102 readers
185 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You could probably map resonance artifacts, but you have to isolate layers that were printed at the same speed and direction. However, the second you tighten a belt or screw, that pattern will change and I am not sure how consistent resonance patterns would be on a bed slinger. (The quantity and density of printed plastic may change the resonant characteristics of the entire printer. This may be less of an issue on a core xy.)
Thinking waaay outside the box.. In some cases, I have seen extruder gear marks on the filament create artifacts on a print. Every gear pattern should be unique, but measurable differences would probably be micron or sub-micron.
Maybe you could map the surface of textured beds as I seriously doubt that those patterns would be consistent and more prone to randomness from the factory.
There are a ton of conditions that could generate unique artifacts on a print, now that I think of it. Hell, even a printers PID tuning can leave visible and repeatable errors.
I think my issue is practicality in testing. They have to have the print, and the printer. To test they likely need the file, modified with the same slicer settings as set originally. There are just so many factors, I have a hard time seeing them get all the required pieces, get them all in working order (especially the printer), then have the means to print the same thing in the same way. After all of that, now they have to measure some patterns and prove they're the same across prints.
I feel like the complexity of the problem introduces more chances for false positives, or just enough of a shift in how the printer is tuned, how the file is set up, etc to make the process unreliable at best.
I guess we'll see, but idk. A poor tool still has potential for abuse even if it doesn't work as originally intended.