Potential to improve printability

[severon10290]

Making the base a little larger in each direction would allow for the grove for the upper part to be printed using bridging. This would eliminate the need for it to have supports reducing post-processing time, assuming the printer can bridge the gap cleanly. Potential drawbacks of the change would be increased material consumption and increased print time.

[untzag]

allow for the grove for the upper part to be printed using bridging

I think this might be a good idea, but can't picture it. Could you upload a sketch or simply say more about what you're thinking?

[severon10290]

What I was thinking was that a printer can bridge between two towers. by adding something in the blue area then it can be used to bridge over the channel on the sides where there isn't already something. It might make it less regular in shape depending on how it is added, but that can be avoided in the design. the filled-in areas are what touch the build plate.

[untzag]

I see. Would we also need to change the bottom profile of the channels to be v-grooved?

[severon10290]

you could to guarentee it doesnt need supports, but a decent printer can bridge half an inch or so. It shouldn't need to be a v, id even argue against doing so due to potential mating issues between the chamber and the grove, unless it already has some issues with light 'leaking' out the sides

[plampkin]

I'm afraid of increasing the footprint of the reactor too much larger than it already is might prove negative to the overall design. While I agree that requiring supports for the base piece is inelegant, I wonder if the increase in base size/reactor footprint would also prove inelegant. What do you folks think?

My philosophy was to be as compact as possible while making the overall device.

[untzag]

I vote that @severon10290 try it. Make one base. Try to keep the footprint area as small as possible while retaining compatibility with existing chambers.