PLASTIC INJECTION MOLDING

John Dejong's data

Scott Woodard's Data same as John Deyoung's except for the very helpful indication if the Part was good or bad.

Specimen #......Temperature-°F......Pressure-psi......Time-sec..........Part (good/bad)

...........................Barrel--Nozzle...................................................................................

#1 .........................450.........475 .............115 .................Unknown ..........bad

#2 .........................450 ........500 .............115 ....................2 .....................bad

#3 .........................450 ........500 .............115 ...................31 ....................bad

#4 .........................450 ........500 .............115 ...................30 ....................bad

#5 .........................450 ........500 .............115 .....................7 ....................bad

#6 .........................450 ........500 .............115 ....................11 ...................bad

#7 .........................450 ........500..............115 ....................11 ...................good

#8 .........................450 ........500 .............115 ....................11 ...................bad

#9 .........................450 .........500 ............115 ....................11 ...................good

#10 .......................450 .........500 ............115 ....................2.8 ..................bad

#11 .......................450 .........500 ............115 ....................2.8 ..................bad

#12 .......................450 .........500 ............115 ....................30 ...................good

#13 .......................450 .........525 ............115 ....................10 ...................good

#14 .......................475 .........500 ............115 ....................10 ...................good

#15 .......................475 .........475 ............115 ....................10 ...................good

#16 .......................475 .........500 ............100 ....................10 ...................good

#17 .......................475 .........500 ..............80 ....................10 ...................bad

#18 .......................475 .........525 ............115 ....................10 ...................bad

#19 .......................500 .........500 ............115 ....................10 ...................good

Set at nominal temperature and pressure, varying cycle time

We didn't do this, we varied at 450 and 500

Set cycle time and pressure, varying barrel temperature

#9 ........................450 .........500 .............115 ...................11 ............should have been 10s

#14 ......................475 .........500 .............115 ...................10 ............nominal temps.

#19 ......................500 .........500 .............115 ...................10

Set cycle time and pressure, varying nozzle temperature

#15 ......................475 .........475 .............115 ...................10

#14 ......................475 .........500 .............115 ...................10 ............nominal temps.

#18 ......................475 .........525 .............115 ...................10

Set cycle time and nominal temperature, varying pressure

#14 .....................475 ..........500 .............115 ...................10

#16 .....................475 ..........500 .............100 ...................10

#17 .....................475 ..........500 ...............80 ...................10

Kevin Schueler's data on the pull tests.

According to this lab there should not be an operating process that would be able to produce production quality work. The injection process seemed way to fickle to be able to make more parts than scrap. The industry standards are moving to near perfect components. Even the good parts had problems with no fill zone, cold spots and other deformities.