## 3 Results
### Results for Dimensions and Tensile Strength for the Lower Level of the Working Chamber
#### 3.2.2 Results for Length in the Lower Level of the Working Chamber  
The cubic model was chosen for the analysis because it best describes the length at the lower level of the chamber. According to Table 14, the influencing factors on the length are A, B, A\({}^{2}\), B\({}^{2}\), A\({}^{2}\)B, and B\({}^{3}\). There is an 86.68% lack of fit, which indicates a non-significant error in the chosen model. Furthermore, the statistical parameters (Table 15) indicate that the model is well chosen.  
Length can be described by an equation with actual parameters:  
\[l=149.9-2.98\times HD-0.008\times\alpha+0.078\times HD\times\alpha+12.28 \times HD^{2}-0.00026\times\alpha^{2}-0.1007\times HD^{2}\times\alpha+0.00009 \tag{8}\] \[\times HD\times\alpha^{2}-11.3\times HD^{3}+3.7\times 10^{-6}\times \alpha^{3}\]  
where \(l\) [mm]--length, \(HD\) [mm]--batch distance, and \(\alpha\) [\({}^{\circ}\)]--orientation.  
In Figure 9, the turquoise line represents the length dimension of 150 mm. When following this line, it can be concluded that 150 mm is achieved by changing the orientation in the entire observed area, but within the limits of hatch distance from 0.23 to a maximum of 0.41 mm.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline \multicolumn{1}{c}{} & **Tensile Strength \(\sigma_{\text{m}}\), N/mm\({}^{2}\)** \\ \hline Standard deviation & 0.5310 \\ Mean & 29.84 \\ Coefficient of determination (\(R\)-squared (\(R^{2}\))) & 0.9987 \\ Adjusted \(R^{2}\) & 0.9981 \\ Predicted \(R^{2}\) & 0.9946 \\ Adeq Precision & 122.2254 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 13: Fit statistics for the tensile strength at the lower level of the working chamber.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Sum of** & **Degrees of** & **Mean** & **F Value** & \(p\)**-Value (Risk of** \\  & **Squares** & **Freedom DF** & **Square** & **Rejection of H\({}_{0}\))** \\ \hline
**Model** & 0.5049 & 9 & 0.0561 & 90.51 & \textless{}0.0001 significant \\ A & 0.0461 & 1 & 0.0461 & 74.38 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ B & 0.0111 & 1 & 0.0111 & 17.90 & 0.0017 \\ AB & 0.0000 & 1 & 0.0000 & 0.0380 & 0.8494 \\ A\({}^{2}\) & 0.0815 & 1 & 0.0815 & 131.57 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ B\({}^{2}\) & 0.0294 & 1 & 0.0294 & 47.50 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ A\({}^{2}\)B & 0.0145 & 1 & 0.0145 & 23.35 & 0.0007 \\ AB\({}^{2}\) & 0.0003 & 1 & 0.0003 & 0.4377 & 0.5232 \\ A\({}^{3}\) & 0.0028 & 1 & 0.0028 & 4.58 & 0.0581 \\ B\({}^{3}\) & 0.0055 & 1 & 0.0055 & 8.92 & 0.0136 \\
**Residual** & 0.0062 & 10 & 0.0006 & & \\ Lack of fit & 0.0029 & 7 & 0.0004 & 0.3825 & 0.8668 not significant \\ Pure error & 0.0033 & 3 & 0.0011 & & \\
**Cor Total** & 0.5111 & 19 & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 14: Analysis according to ANOVA for the length at the lower level of the working chamber.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline \hline  & **Length \(l\), mm** \\ \hline Standard deviation & 0.0249 \\ Mean & 150.10 \\ Coefficient of determination (\(R\)-squared (\(R^{2}\))) & 0.9879 \\ Adjusted \(R^{2}\) & 0.9770 \\ Predicted \(R^{2}\) & 0.9607 \\ Adeq Precision & 38.2619 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 15: Fit statistics for the length at the lower level of the working chamber.