this is amazing Options

[mrbubblehead]

what will this do to the classic car world?

http://www.break.com/index/why-3d-printing...ick-ass-2421396

[Katmanken]

And I used this technology nearly 20 years ago to make prototype parts, so it's not new. Stereolithography (SLA) goes back to the 1980's and the early work goes back to the 70's. SLA was perfected by 3D systems, and swept a laser beam across a vat of thick honey like resin to harden a thin layer on the top of a vertically movable table, the hardened layer was dropped .005 inches into the goo, a second layer was built on top of the first, the table dropped again and a third layer was built. This process could produce parts in a day or two, but parts taller than an inch or two took longer.

Then there was the SLA post processing. Raise the table, drain the unhardened goo, put the part into a shaker tank of alcohol to dissolve the goo from the corners, break off of the latticework support structures that kept the part from collapsing, and clean the parts by hand with alcohol and toothbrushes to get rid of the last of the goo. Then you trim all ridges etc with an exacto knife, put the part into a UV carousel oven, and cook the "soft" parts to hardness. Then you get to sand the stair stepping off the hardened parts to make them smooth. Used a system about 3 years ago, and the process hasn't changed much.

Initially, the laser beam was limited to 5 thousandths in width and I had a part that needed a tighter focused laser beam. Tony and I persuaded 3D systems to send us their prototype machine with a 3 thousandths wide beam. Good thing we did, they almost canned the .003 beam project due to lack of demand. Once the parts were made and they worked, I presented to management that we saved $60 K in prototype plastic mold tooling and 6 months in time, and we needed a .003 beam machine. That's how we ordered a .003 beam machine and nudged 3D systems into the smaller beam market back in the mid 90's.

Another machine that I've used is the sintered laser system which shines a laser on top of a layer of powder to melt the powder grains together. The layer drops, and a new layer of powder is rolled on top, the beam melts the second layer onto the first, the table drops, and the process repeats. SLS offers a wider range of materials than SLA, and it includes plastics and metal powders.

The newer machines in the first video can squirt molten material like a spider spinning a web.

While a great technology, there are a few limiters.

One, it's slow. I can mold plastic parts much faster than this process so it may not be great for mass production.

Two, parts are "stair stepped" and not smooth without post-processing (sanding etc). It's really noticeable on angles and curves, and not as noticeable on vertical and horizontal surfaces.

Three, while getting better, the plastic and metal parts are not nearly as strong as molded or machined parts. Strength can be between 20-80% of a "real" part and have improved greatly over the years. Of course you will pay extra for stronger feedstocks. That's business.

Four, you will pay for dimensional accuracy. In the world of milling machines, a cheap Harbor Freight unit with sloppy tolerances between running parts will never make parts as accurately as a Bridgeport with hardened ways and ultra-tight clearances between moving parts. A low cost printer makes wonderful low cost parts like key fobs, but fails when you need the tight accuracy produced with the high end laser focus machines.

Five, there is the cost aspect. Takes a PC, a CAD system, an interfacing software to bridge between the CAD output and the printer movements, and the cost of the printing system. You also have to be a trained CAD jockey to make complex parts, and better have some experience with motion control to get the printer to work. And, the more complex and accurate the parts, the higher the cost of the computer, CAD system, and the printer.

Having said all that, it's a wonderful tool, it's getting better, and is getting cheaper. Like all tools, use depends on need and some tools are better suited for one job than another. For example, when you need to make a hole in a piece of wood for a nail, a hammer and nail are appropriate and inexpensive hole makers. But, they are not well suited when you need to make a hole in a broken trailing arm bolt.

Somebody said that leaders in business and government are no longer investing in making new disruptive technologies, but rather taking a "career safe" approach to redoing and recycling old technologies as new.

For me, this is kinda like a remix of a tune from the last century being presented as "new".