E3D V6 Nozzles are completely different from technical drawing

2-step nozzles actually have more resistance, not less.

Nozzle drawings have been updated.

Quote
greenman100
2-step nozzles actually have more resistance, not less.

That's interesting - could you explain?

Quote
JamesK

Quote
greenman100
2-step nozzles actually have more resistance, not less.

That's interesting - could you explain?

Yea had me thinking too

Ah, the answer is in the drawings. The length of the final bore has been reduced from 2x diameter to 1.5x diameter on the smaller sizes. Quite the achievement!

Also of note, the internal angle of the bore cone is much smaller than the standard 118 degree drill, not that I think that affects the resistance, but it explains how they managed to shorten the C dimension without thinning the nozzle tip too much. Stuff like this shows how much thought E3D put into their work, and why the originals are almost always going to perform better than the clones.

Many thanks for the new drawings!

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 06/30/2016 07:21AM by JamesK.

All this leads back to the OP's extrusion problem which appears NOT to be caused by nozzle geometry after all...

---

Ultra MegaMax Dominator 3D printer: [drmrehorst.blogspot.com]

Good point. I'm still glad we had the conversation - I learnt things.

To clarify things the_digital_dentist,

I never said that the internal geometry of the V6 nozzles causes the problems, I only pointed out, that E3D is saying the following on their website:

"The new internal geometry of v6 Nozzles is optimised to reduce back-pressure, this ensures smooth,easy flow of filament whilst improving the effectiveness of retractions."

But the geometry shown on the drawings is not what they currently sell, section D is missing.

So why do they claim that and sell currently something different?
The picture above (brass/steel compare) proves, that the V6 nozzles with section D did once exists.

greenman said now, that this is not true, that the nozzles with section D are worse regarding to back pressure.

I would like to test it myself, but I can't get nozzles with section D.
I only could buy "the second new V6 design" without section D.

In my opinion a bit dodgy.

And by the way, I don't see the updated drawings,
I went on the site and checked (I also deleted my browser cache), but if you click on the drawings you still get the olds ones, showing section D.
Can anyone post a link, would like to see them?

And to clarify even further, I made this public after 4 month of waiting for E3D to change the drawings.
I would not went public if they would have changed the drawings to the new V6 design without section D.

I wanted to save others from making the same mistake as me.

But anyway, nice that the drawings will be changed now.

Hi Sergio,

I think this is the new nozzle drawing here: [wiki.e3d-online.com]

JamesK,

Thank you, very interesting.
I remember having measured 1.15mm +- 0.2 for C in my V6-NOZZLE-175-400, it should be 0.6 as indicated in the drawing, either my measuring was wrong or there are at least three versions of the V6-NOZZLE-175-400 circulating around.
Will measure it again and report later on this.
This is all very time consuming... ;-)

Hi Sergio, I was wondering about that. My thought was that it would be quite difficult to measure that dimension without cutting the nozzle open. Trying to do it by putting a probe down the large bore will only work if the end of the probe has the same angle as the tool that was used to cut it, and since that angle doesn't look like a standard one it may be difficult to find anything that matches. And trying to probe from the nozzle end it's going to be difficult to see when it reaches the large bore.

While there's bound to be some variation, my guess is that E3D make these on a CNC station that does a pretty good job of matching the spec, so as long as you're buying the genuine parts it's probably a good idea to follow DD's advice and start looking at the other parts of the picture.

Thank you JamesK,

You are right, it was not easy to do it, I basically used 2mm and smaller bits and took a sample of the molten PLA (using ice water).
Thats why I'm not trying to measure it immediately again.

To be clear, I think E3D is a great provider of innovation and hardware for the community and I don't want to make them too bad.
They are surly capable of manufacturing very good hardware.
I was only a bit disappointed with their information policy and was thinking to share my experiences with everybody else here in the forum for good, after I gave E3D months of time to publish the new drawings and/or change the website and product description text.

The issue with the back pressure is still there, I need to further investigate it.
It happens on all my four Kraken V6 nozzles.

The prints are fine with PLA if I reduce the print speed to 3 mm^3/s and for FilaFlex to 1 mm^3/s.
The extruders have enough pressure. All the friction on the way to the nozzle was removed (polished).
I also drilled one nozzle to a C length of about only 0.5 mm, as suggested by mhackney on [forum.seemecnc.com] (ooze, very high now).

All with little success so far

My guess is the heat dissipation in the water cooler causes the problems, I need to further investigate this assumption.

But this thread is the wrong place to talk about it, if I figure out the cause, I will share my experiences here in the forum.

Edit: Clarification

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/03/2016 01:15PM by Sergio.

I always thought it was amazing that they were willing to publish their technical drawings at all - there's so much cloning of their (and others) designs that must be hugely annoying for them. But the reality is that the cloners would make copies just based on the photos on the web - they seem to largely ignore the details of the inner geometry even when the drawings are available. Still, I'm not surprised that E3D weren't in any particular hurry to put the updated drawings on-line, and I thank them for having done so.

Best of luck in finding the problem. I can't remember what rate my extruders can keep up with, I really should know that. but 3 mm^3/s does sound low for pla. Let's see, I know I've printed pla at 100mm/s. I don't remember the details, but I typically use around 0.2 mm layers (sometimes more, rarely less) with widths between 0.5 and 0.8mm. So taking some rough figures, 0.2*0.5*`100 = 10 mm^3/s - that seems a reasonable ball park. I recall the hotend heater was running pretty much flat out at that speed. The flex filaments I have to print very slowly anyway, so I've never tried to find the extruder limit.

10 mm3/s is definitely nothing unheard of on a normal v6. No clue about the Kraken though.

Quite interesting information on here.

I actually had some an issue that I think is due to nozzle geometry but not 100% sure.

Here is my story.

I have a TAZ 5 with a Hexagon hotend. Recently my nozzle clogged and I could not get it cleared out. I could not find anyplace that had that exact nozzle in stock (except China) but someone mentioned the E3D V6 nozzles worked in my hotend so I ordered a few. Well they work (though a bit longer with threads exposed after installing) but then I noticed that after printing and while heating up the nozzle had a lot of material oozing out (from the nozzle hole not the threads). Normally with the original nozzles it might leak out 5mm of material but the E3D V6 was leaking out 20mm+

Because of this it was running dry for the first part of my prints (I don't print skirts or brims as they are somewhat a pain to remove from PEI bed) and so my prints were a bit messed up on the first outline or two. It took a few prints to figure out it was caused by the missing material that leaked out.

So now I have a dilemma, is this a good thing or bad?? I wonder if these new nozzles are less prone to clogging? I have already solved the problem by homing X then extruding 10mm before beginning the next print (same result as a skirt but not stuck down to the bed).

I am trained on a mill and lathe, the drawings and renders on the majority of the website for E3D are in fact totally different than the cutaway the OP shows. If I was paid to cut the design on the renders and most of the website, and I produced the non stepped single diameter instead, I would not have done the job correctly. Period. this is machining, it is right or it is wrong, to the tolerances specified in the job. Tolerance is like .1-.001mm not AN ENTIRE STEP FEATURE.

From any machinists point of view the OP is correct it is totally different. It would be different setup steps to produce, it would cost a different amount.

How it works, I am not arguing that at all, but from a machining job point of view, it is two completely different parts due to a difference in the shape of the object, the number of setup steps or type of tool used.

There is a section that describes the benefits of reduced pressure, and shows the stepped bore specifically. I am new to 3d printing but as I could make the part in minimal time myself on a lathe, if I bought it and found this discrepancy I would be extremely disappointed.

It would be better if these simple orthographic drawings and renderings were updated, just the graphic side its one 5 minute sketch in Solidworks and taking screenshots of cutaways of the single radial extrusion you create from it. Seriously this is 20 minutes of work without much thinking involved given its known dimensions.

I looked at the website, I looked at the OP post, I totally see what he is talking about. Steeped bore shown here: [e3d-online.com] And here: [e3d-online.com] the second is the image for the section specificly about the advantages of the bore design and the reduced pressure.

I am new to FDM, had powder bed printers at the school I went to but I have only been doing FDM a few weeks. I am making a delta right now on an i3 and shopping for an extruder. Or I was. I for one am grateful to the OP for the heads up.

As far as measuring. Slide a very thin needle down the edge to the first step and mark it, now drop it down through the center, mark it. Measure the marks. Drag the needle back along the inside and feel for any extra steps in the bore to measure those as well. Key is mark a thin shaft in contact with the step, then measure that later on a flat well lit surface, don't try to measure at the lip of the bore hole as you are also trying to find the exact depth just mark it on the measuring probe (unless you are an octopus with 8 arms). I would trust myself to measure to near .05mm accuracy using that method and marking with the edge of a razor blade on a metal pin. It will give you depth, not diameter of course.