|
kip
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 32,
Visits: 99
|
+xIt should definitely be possible, but I'll let EC confirm. The chemistry between the Reichold and the Unimould will be extremely similar, so I would be very surprised if you didn't get the same results as me. I'll post a picture of my results in a bit. Any pictures yet ?
|
|
|
|
|
Hanaldo
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.5K,
Visits: 28K
|
It should definitely be possible, but I'll let EC confirm. The chemistry between the Reichold and the Unimould will be extremely similar, so I would be very surprised if you didn't get the same results as me. I'll post a picture of my results in a bit.
|
|
|
|
|
kip
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 32,
Visits: 99
|
Ok , so it is possible to use the xc110 on the unimould system only u might have some pinholes ?
I made parts with the varipreg only in the unimoulds and got good parts also little pinholes but nothing to bad .
Will try some xc110 and see what there happens but making all new moulds in prepreg wil be verry expensive I think .
|
|
|
|
|
Hanaldo
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.5K,
Visits: 28K
|
In all honesty, my initial reaction was the same, but having now used the X-Preg a fair bit, I can confirm it is far superior to the EasyPreg.
It is a bit of a shame about vinyl ester, I'm in the same boat with having a lot of vinyl ester tools that aren't going to do me much good anymore. I don't have access to Unimould, but I use the Reichold tooling system which is very similar, and results with the X-Preg aren't actually terrible. They do have some pinholes, so it isn't 100% perfect. Gloss and everything else is actually better than the EasyPreg, so parts do still come out looking very nice. If that is unacceptable then you will need to make epoxy moulds, but I dare say most people would actually still be very happy with the results using X-Preg in a vinyl ester mould.
As for making complex split moulds with the tooling pre-preg, it is only really a couple of extra steps abd of course some more material costs. If you already have moulds, then it's as simple as just laying up a laminate with epoxy resin and copying the entire mould including the flanges and barriers. Then you can use those pieces to make the pre-preg tools. If you need to make new moulds, then you do need to make an initial splash mould in the ordinary fashion, then the epoxy patterns, then the pre-preg. So it's a bit of a pain in the ass, but not really that much more drama if you are actually getting use out of your moulds - for one-offs it probably isn't worth it, but then you can just make your tools via hand lamination with high temp epoxy.
|
|
|
|
|
kip
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 32,
Visits: 99
|
I find it sad the easypreg is gone after finaly finding the perfect cure for pinhole free parts , and arround 20 moulds of unimold system everyting is now gone to wasted looks .
All big complex moulds some of them 7 part split moulds .
Did anybody tried it on the unimould and what do parts look like out them ?
And also the prepreg mould mould system looks nice but show us a complex split mould to see how u work with barriers .
Also how wil u make these moulds from normal glassfibre parts that cant stand the high temps of the prepreg mould system ?
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Baker
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1,
Visits: 1
|
Would it be advisable to construct a sailboat using aluminum to form the female mold? In this scenario a hull would be constructed, including some welds and grinding, then acid cleaned etc. I suppose a wet expoxy would have to be applied to the aluminum surface. My ideal would be to place a layer of amid honeycomb and then prepeg.
The finished project would have the aluminium exposed to the elements.
We still see frequent delamination of carbon fiber parts on sailboats. Do you think for normal crusing this would not be a worry over a 20 year period?
|
|
|
|
|
Hanaldo
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.5K,
Visits: 28K
|
I am! But I decided that for the purpose of the post, I should really play around with the material a bit more.
My first impression is that it is super easy to use, and actually more forgiving with vinyl ester moulds than I had expected. All of my current moulds are vinyl, so I'm in the process of remaking them in epoxy, which is the cause for the delay. First few results out of epoxy moulds have been extremely pleasing, but I just want to tinker a bit to get perfect results.
In all honesty, having used the material I can see why Easy Composites made the switch, it's great stuff. I still sort of prefer the tighter pics-per-inch of the EasyPreg, but the slightly bigger weave is growing on me. Otherwise, I like everything about the X-Preg more than the EasyPreg.
|
|
|
|
|
cumberdale
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 32,
Visits: 594
|
+xIf there's only one layer then then debulk is done when you bag it anyway... From there there's no reason to remove it from the bag and it can go straight into the oven. Not very often that you would only do one layer though. Even one layer of the 450g would be very lightweight, let alone one layer of 200g. If you had a very complex mould with only one layer of 200 I'd be concerned about getting it out of the mould without any damage. Yea you were right. One layer of 200g was too fragile. Two is fine however for our application: the increase in rigidity was drastic. Are you still planning on putting together that write up? 
|
|
|
|
|
Matt (Staff)
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 680,
Visits: 1.9K
|
+xIn the video you recommend debulking to reduce the likelyhood for pinholes and bridging. The part in your video gets debulked before the second prepreg layer is applied. Would you have done a debulk for the part in your video when the part only would have consisted of one prepreg layer? I assume that when the geometry of a part is very complex, debulking can be necessary even though one is only using one prepreg layer (with the exception of course being, that there will be many small overlaps in a part with complex geometry). Hanaldo is essentially right, with this particular part we did a debulk but it probably wan't necessary. Generally, we'll go for the 'best practice' recommendations and then work backwards from there (testing will often prove something to not be necessary but if we start with what's most likely to work to begin with and then start to cut some corners from there). If you were doing a 5 ply laminate (one surface, 4 backing plies) then you would ideally do a debulk after the surface ply and then a debulk after the 3rd ply (the second backing ply). As Hanaldo says, debulking once all the laminate is down is basically the same as just programming a delay at the start of the cure cycle (which as it happens, we do choose to do for heavier layups).
|
|
|
|
|
Hanaldo
|
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.5K,
Visits: 28K
|
If there's only one layer then then debulk is done when you bag it anyway... From there there's no reason to remove it from the bag and it can go straight into the oven.
Not very often that you would only do one layer though. Even one layer of the 450g would be very lightweight, let alone one layer of 200g. If you had a very complex mould with only one layer of 200 I'd be concerned about getting it out of the mould without any damage.
|
|
|
|