Misplaced Pages

This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages) This article contains promotional content. Please help improve it by removing promotional language and inappropriate external links, and by adding encyclopedic text written from a neutral point of view. (April 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this message) The topic of this article may not meet Misplaced Pages's general notability guideline. Please help to demonstrate the notability of the topic by citing reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention. If notability cannot be shown, the article is likely to be merged, redirected, or deleted. Find sources: "Filaments evaluation protocol" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (April 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this message) This article may rely excessively on sources too closely associated with the subject, potentially preventing the article from being verifiable and neutral. Please help improve it by replacing them with more appropriate citations to reliable, independent, third-party sources. (April 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this message) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The "filaments evaluation protocol" (FEP) is a protocol developed to establish the characteristics and qualities of materials used in FDM/FFF 3D printing.

Purpose

The protocol, designed in 2014 by Dogma Solutions, is not applied to measure the properties of materials, but is instead designed to determine their suitability to specific uses and applications.

For this reason, the evaluations performed during the test do not provide quantitative outputs, but rather indicate, for each tested parameter, a degree of judgment on a unipolar odd Likert scale (by now known as "Degree of Likert Rating" or "DLR"):

0. Strongly discouraged / highly unfit / very difficult to use / test totally failed
1. Discouraged / unsuitable / difficult to use / test partially failed
2. Neither recommended nor discouraged. There are not particular defects nor significant points in favor. The test is successful but the result is not convincing or either qualitatively relevant.
3. Recommended / suitable / easy to use / tested successfully within realistic expectations
4. Strongly recommended / highly suitable / easy to use / test perfectly succeeded up to the best (or even over) expectations

References

1. "F.E.P." dogmasolutions.com. Dogma Solutions.

• 3D printing