## 3 Results
### Results for Dimensions and Tensile Strength for the Upper Level of the Working Chamber
#### 3.1.3 Results for Thickness in the Upper Level of the Working Chamber  
A quadratic model was chosen for thickness analysis, but factor B\({}^{2}\) has a \(p\)-value of 0.3034, which shows that it has no influence on thickness, and at the same time, predicted \(R^{2}\) is not close to adjusted \(R^{2}\), as would normally be expected (the difference is more than 0.2, which may indicate a large block effect or a possible problem with the model or data), and it is necessary to reduce the model. Accordingly, factor B\({}^{2}\) was excluded from the analysis, and after that, the data were processed and presented in Tables 7 and 8. From Table 7, it can be seen that the influencing factors on the thickness in the upper level of the chamber are A, AB, and A\({}^{2}\), and there is an 87.69% chance that lack of fit can occur due to noise, which indicates that the error is not significant. A non-significant lack of fit is good; we want the model to fit. Table 8 shows statistics for thickness in the upper part of the working chamber. The predicted \(R^{2}\) of 0.6109 is in reasonable agreement with the adjusted \(R^{2}\) of 0.7783, i.e., the difference is less than 0.2. Thickness can be described by an equation with actual parameters:  
\[h=4.31-1.86\times HD+0.0075\times\alpha-0.0204\times HD\times\alpha+3.29\times HD ^{2} \tag{6}\]  
where \(h\) [mm]--thickness, \(HD\) [mm]--hat distance, and \(\alpha\) [\(\circ\)]--orientation. From the diagram in Figure 7, values of 4 mm are achieved for any value of orientation, but in the value of hatch distance, from 0.23 to 0.41 mm. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Sum of** & **Degrees of** & **Mean** & **F Value** & \(p\)**-Value (Risk of** **Rejection of H\({}_{0}\)**)** \\  & **Squares** & **Freedom DF** & **Square** & **F Value** & **Rejection of H\({}_{0}\)**)** \\ \hline
**Model** & 0.0930 & 4 & 0.0232 & 15.04 & 0.0001 significant \\ A & 0.0100 & 1 & 0.0100 & 6.44 & 0.0260 \\ B & 0.0031 & 1 & 0.0031 & 2.00 & 0.1828 \\ AB & 0.0195 & 1 & 0.0195 & 12.65 & 0.0039 \\ A\({}^{2}\) & 0.0263 & 1 & 0.0263 & 17.01 & 0.0014 \\
**Residual** & 0.0185 & 12 & 0.0015 & & \\ Lack of fit & 0.0101 & 9 & 0.0011 & 0.3958 & 0.8769 not significant \\ Pure error & 0.0085 & 3 & 0.0028 & & \\
**Cor Total** & 0.1115 & 16 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Analysis according to ANOVA for the thickness at the upper level of the working chamber. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline  & **Thickness \(h\), mm** \\ \hline Standard deviation & 0.0393 \\ Mean & 4.11 \\ Coefficient of determination (\(R\)-squared (\(R^{2}\))) & 0.8337 \\ Adjusted \(R^{2}\) & 0.7783 \\ Predicted \(R^{2}\) & 0.6109 \\ Adeq Precision & 15.5986 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Fit statistics for the thickness at the upper level of the working chamber. 3.1.4. Results for Width in the Upper Level of the Working Chamber  
A modified cubic model was chosen for the width analysis. Although according to the results shown in Table 9, it can be noticed that the input factors A and B alone do not affect the width, all other combinations do, namely: AB, A\({}^{2}\), B\({}^{2}\), AB\({}^{2}\), A\({}^{3}\), and B\({}^{3}\). The modified model was chosen because the A\({}^{2}\)B combination was also excluded from the analysis because such a combination has no influence, but when it is excluded from the analysis, then the AB factor combination also becomes influential on the width. The model F-value of 22.36 implies the model is significant and a lack of fit F-value of 3.80 implies the lack of fit is not significant relative to the pure error. Table 10 shows statistics for width in the upper part of the working chamber. The ratio of 19.314 indicates an adequate signal, which means that this model can be used for analysis. Figure 7: Dependence of hatch distance and orientation on the thickness in the upper part of the working chamber.