Comments on: 14_3D Printers

By: Andrew S

Andrew S — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 00:52:08 +0000

Superglue’s nasty in that it gets stuck to everything, but not nasty in that it’s not toxic; in fact it’s used for sealing wounds.

I’m amazed at the low cost of these machines. They’re down below the price of the original Apple Laserwriter ($7000 in 1985 dollars).

By: ari

ari — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:55:48 +0000

I would second (or third or fourth) the comments on the zcorp machines.
awesomely cool devices and when a model has been finished it’s amazing.

Getting the uncured part out of the printer and then curing it is less cool.
As “me” mentions above, the vuring is done with cyanoacrylate, epoxy resin or paraffin.

Paraffin gives a decent texture, is easy to work with but doesn’t give great strength.
Epoxy resin is the strongest but the fumes are highly toxic and working with it is nasty in all respects. Gettin the surface texture good can be tricky (if epoxy gloop gets left on the surface you can easily get streaks.

Cyanoacrylate… mmmm yummy. Using a half liter bottle of superglue and rubbing it into the surface of your model…
Or if you’re REALLY well equipped, use a vat of super glue and dip your model in that for better surface penetration.
Super glue costs around U$150 for half a liter, and once opened only lasts a limited time.
And is nasty.

all that bitching aside, zcorps stuff makes the nicest models, no question. You can even make casts for casting simpler models from more durable materials.
In one or two generations of development these devices are going to be really cool and even usable by mere mortals

By: toxi

toxi — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:35:46 +0000

I’ve recently had something printed myself on a Z450 and unless the object is post-processed in a bath of resin it’s indeed super powdery. Here’re 2 shots of a failed experiment (due to too much model detail)

http://flickr.com/photos/toxi/2477297416
http://flickr.com/photos/toxi/2476488895

In the end we got it all worked out and the final finish is very much like bone (the colour too).

Also, ThingLab, the London studio where I had this printed have just got a new ProJet HD printer which has up to 650dpi (in XY) and 800dpi (Z) resolution… The surface finish of the samples I’ve seen looks amazing… but I guess, the prices for this are still out of reach for experimental work

By: colorjay

colorjay — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:11:51 +0000

My Project Lead the Way teacher described these to our class after he had seen one. I guess a friend of his owned one. My teacher scanned in his face somehow and converted it to a file the 3D printer could read. I believe he did this doing autodesk inventor. It was pretty neat to see a model of my teacher’s face that was actual scale and perfectly detailed. There was no color, so the model looked sort of like a marble statue.

By: JimmyBriggs

JimmyBriggs — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 18:56:47 +0000

A well deserved drink indeed.

By: Jack

Jack — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:49:38 +0000

Just a point of clarification…I have a ZCorp Zprinter 450 at my lab at school, and it uses a monochromatic powder (sort of like pulverized drywall) and standard HP inks for color. Sawing those color models in half would reveal that the color is only present as a thin skin along the outside of the model, which saves tons of ink. It’s definitely a cool machine, and I put it through its paces printing some of Bathsheba Grossman’s math models – http://www.bathsheba.com/downloads/

By: Billy Wardlaw

Billy Wardlaw — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:19:51 +0000

I was really surprised not to see a mention of the Eden line of printers from Objet. These machines leave everyone else behind in the dust with 16 micron vertical resolution and a wide variety of printing mediums for different applications and requiring no post processing other than removing the support medium. Seriously, check them out.

By: me

me — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:42:35 +0000

I’m curious to know if you’ve used any of the machines in review. I have been using a ZCorp 310 for several years, prior to which I used a crude FDM machine. I am an industrial designer who works closely with an engineering team so I have seen the user experience for both disciplines. For our purposes the colored parts, though appealing, are of marginal benefit–they’re useful for identifying unique pieces, but the color saturation isn’t useful for aesthetic models. The de-powdering process of the ZCorp machines is a crude, labor-intensive mess. The powder is the consistency of plaster of paris or baking flour, and must be carefully vacuumed or swept away–this is inevitably messy since removing parts from the build-bed feels a lot like amateur archeology. Powder invariably spills out around the bed and must be vacuumed up–not a problem in itself, but it quickly coats all surrounding surfaces in a fine dust, many of which are lubricated, creating gooey clumps of greasy powder. The parts then must be carefully infiltrated with your choice of hardener–we use cyanoacrylate (superglue), epoxy and paraffin wax. Epoxy produces the strongest parts, but handling the uncured product is messy, smelly and potentially hazardous to one’s health. The end result is often quite good, but the whole process is time-consuming. If you include time spent, SLA parts don’t look so expensive, and in our area the turnaround time might only add as much as one day. The 450 machine does appear to address much of the hassle of the experience, though I’m disinclined to believe it is quite as simple as ZCorp would have you think.

The latest generation of FDM machines has been promising, as the resolution of these machines has improved dramatically over the last decade, and the finished part strength is quite good. Cleaning and handling these parts straight off the bed is very appealing. They do tend to be more expensive than ZCorp’s offerings, and the finished part resolution isn’t always as crisp.

The bottom line is that none of these machines produces parts that allow for aesthetic analysis without a considerable amount of finish work, which equates to time. Furthermore, getting the ZCorp parts into a functional state is more challenging that it appears–calculating for thickness added during the build process is only somewhat predictable, and the “green-strength” of the parts often necessitates increasing wall thicknesses well beyond what is acceptable for the part requirements. Given the time and cost variables, for any professional I would recommend actually using each type of machine before settling on one. Finished parts do not convey the whole story.

By: Bart

Bart — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:34:57 +0000

It’s obvious that you don’t have a very good idea of what to expect from different technologies and machines. You are comparing apples with pears and making conclusions based on literature.
It’s like saying: that mazda is a lo more shiny than that ferrari, so it must go faster.

By: BOSS Links

BOSS Links — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:52:02 +0000

Thanks for this review

Ture home use 3D printers are still some way off.