Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 adamsouza wrote:

By the look of the pictures, maybe printing at 25 micron resolution is better than 100 micron resotuion
I know conventional 2D printers are rated at Dots per inch, but maybe the 3D resolution is measured in how small it can print (making 25 better than 100)

Indeed it is. A micron is 1x10e-6 of a metre : 1/1000th of a millimetre, or 0.00004 inches. A human hair is somewhere between 40-120 microns in thickness.
Resolution in 3D printers is measured by how thin it can print a layer. A layer thickness of 25 microns is obviously 4 times higher res than 100 microns. 100 microns i'vve found is quite acceptable for angular/geometric figures, but I haven't tried printing organic figures: these typically require higher resolution to avoid 'stepping'.
This printer on Kickstarter uses a very different method of printing to all the other home-printer solutions I've seen so far, using UV-curing of resin instead of the more traditional plastic extrusion. Plastic extrusion processes (squeezing out molten plastic in drops) has a lot of difficulties relating to the viscosity, surface tension and other properties of the plastic meaning that it can't form layers below a certain thickness. Other printers will layer a powder of some sort and print glue to bond it together, which is alright for some purposes but creates a very grainy surface which just drinks up paint. This printer on kickstarter gets around a lot of those issues by curing layers of liquid resin via focussed UV light.

Another article on the BBC news website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19813382

Still begs the question are governments and industry really and truly prepared for this?

 Wolfstan wrote:
Another article on the BBC news website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19813382

Still begs the question are governments and industry really and truly prepared for this?

Not in the slightest. It's a world changer that is only going to get more advanced till we ACTUALLY have the Star Trek replicators.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
Another article on the BBC news website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19813382

Still begs the question are governments and industry really and truly prepared for this?

Not in the slightest. It's a world changer that is only going to get more advanced till we ACTUALLY have the Star Trek replicators.

Y'know, as long as the things you want to use and eat are made of a single material of plastic or resign, have no electronics in them, and in general no moving parts. It'll be a while before 3d printing does much to standard manfacturing, but I'm sure it'll start impacting miniatures companies in strange ways within the next decade.

Trasvi wrote:

This printer on Kickstarter uses a very different method of printing to all the other home-printer solutions I've seen so far, using UV-curing of resin instead of the more traditional plastic extrusion. Plastic extrusion processes (squeezing out molten plastic in drops) has a lot of difficulties relating to the viscosity, surface tension and other properties of the plastic meaning that it can't form layers below a certain thickness. Other printers will layer a powder of some sort and print glue to bond it together, which is alright for some purposes but creates a very grainy surface which just drinks up paint. This printer on kickstarter gets around a lot of those issues by curing layers of liquid resin via focussed UV light.

FDM - Fused Deposition Modeling - Makerbot.

It lays down a continuous strand of plastic...sort of like a Playdow clay shooter for each level. Because of the nature of the material and how it is applied, there are specific limitations in nozzle size and ultimate resolution. Some FDM modelers are actually able to produce extremely high resolutions, however the material is not suited for general use as it tends to be a wax of some form. Those which are more durable have limited resolution potential because of the viscosity of the plastic and nozzle engineering limitations.

SLS - Selective Laser Sintering - Don't think there is a home version of it.

Each layer is built up using a powdered material. A laser heats and binds that layer together either through melting the actual material itself (in the case of plastics and metals) or by melting a binder which is mixed with the powder (in the case of plastics and ceramics). Once each layer is in place and stuck together using the laser - a new layer of powder is laid down over the previous one and the laser begins again. This method is limited by the size of the powder and the focus of the laser.

There is a variation of it which uses a print head not too much unlike an inkjet that contains an adhesive which is used to create foundry quality molds.

SLA - Stereolithography - B9 and the new KS printer use that method.

A light activated polymer is hardened using various frequencies of light and light intensities (some will be UV cured, others within a specific other wavelength). The model can either be built from the top down with the build tray moving up and the light source being under it (as in the B9 and Form 1) or from the bottom up with a print head which moves up as the model is built (as in an Objet). Bottom up methods often include a support material of some form to keep the new layers from collapsing on existing layers and are able to product more intricate designs without a need for support structures.

The resolution as mentioned is a bit like a regular printer - however the unit of measurement is different. A traditional printed page is measured in DPI for the X and the Y dimension of the page (not always the same in either direction mind you). Printed objects are measured by the size of the "D" - the dot itself. Generally speaking, this number will be given in microns, though the highest resolution printers are now measuring in nanometers - but it isn't too difficult to understand. A smaller number is better than a large number. The X-Y resolution describes the size of each dot on the layer itself. This may be in reference to the focus of the laser itself or the accuracy of the print head. In addition to the X-Y resolution, you also have a Z resolution. This is the thickness of each layer. Again, smaller is better than larger.

An illustration I use for customers which seems to help some is that when a 3D printer reads a model - it doesn't see it like we do. Instead, it slices it into hundreds to thousands of layers - like a deli slices a ham. Each of those layers are then printed out one on top of the other at the specific thickness to recreate the object.

The method which I expect will have the most success for the consumer market is actually that used by the B9 versus using an actual laser. The build speed is somewhat slower (12 mm per hour versus 15 mm per hour at the highest resolutions) due to the lower power of the projected light versus the focused laser - however that reduced power is what should allow it to create higher resolutions at a lower cost. With a laser, you have a lot of scattered energy when it hits something. Unless the beam is tiny - it will actually harden a large area around it...which ends up limiting the potential resolution. However, the projector uses lower energy light and an extended exposure to it to cure the resin it uses. Since each layer is cured en masse (it projects the image for the entire layer at once as opposed to a focused beam) you also will not have an increase to the build time with an increase in resolution on the X-Y scale (Z will increase the build time, though not in a strictly progressive scale as thinner layers will cure faster than thick layers). High resolution projectors will allow an increase the X-Y resolutions (it currently uses a 1024x768 projector and is capable of 25 microns on the X-Y at normal settings though in theory you can get the resolution as high as 10 microns using the standard optics of the included scanner...though with a sacrifice to the build size). If a purpose built projector were used that incorporated technology like found in something like one of Panasonic's new 3840 x 2160 chip (over 3 times better than the included chip) you could get the resolution under 10 microns per layer and per "Dot" without a significant increase in cost. As it is, you are paying for a fair amount of hardware in the projector that you don't use for the task of printing - just need to be able to do slide shows...so things like refresh rates and decoders are not important.

It also utilizes a single stepper motor for increasing the thickness of parts which can be controlled to do build layers of a single micron thick. Fewer moving parts means a cheaper product in the end, fewer stepper motors means simpler production and engineering as you do not need to manipulate the object on multiple axises and deal with the additional controllers needed to accomplish that task.

With a little bit of volume behind it - you would likely see the resolution in the sub-10 micron level and the price in the $1000 or less range.

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
Another article on the BBC news website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19813382

Still begs the question are governments and industry really and truly prepared for this?

Not in the slightest. It's a world changer that is only going to get more advanced till we ACTUALLY have the Star Trek replicators.

Y'know, as long as the things you want to use and eat are made of a single material of plastic or resign, have no electronics in them, and in general no moving parts. It'll be a while before 3d printing does much to standard manfacturing, but I'm sure it'll start impacting miniatures companies in strange ways within the next decade.

There's already a 3D printer for food and I can't imagine having different "inks" will be that difficult as we continue to advance. Further we will get to the point where we'll be manipulating molecules directly with nano machines. That's the "more advanced, Star Trek replicators" point.

To be fair - they are still limited to acting as a pasta shooter (or sugar shooter depending on which one you are talking about). They can only print whatever food is used as the ink.

It will be awhile before a printer can assemble a food product from raw materials.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
Another article on the BBC news website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19813382

Still begs the question are governments and industry really and truly prepared for this?

Not in the slightest. It's a world changer that is only going to get more advanced till we ACTUALLY have the Star Trek replicators.

Y'know, as long as the things you want to use and eat are made of a single material of plastic or resign, have no electronics in them, and in general no moving parts. It'll be a while before 3d printing does much to standard manfacturing, but I'm sure it'll start impacting miniatures companies in strange ways within the next decade.

There's already a 3D printer for food and I can't imagine having different "inks" will be that difficult as we continue to advance. Further we will get to the point where we'll be manipulating molecules directly with nano machines. That's the "more advanced, Star Trek replicators" point.

Yeah, but you're just shaping a single chemical compound as a food. It's not making you a burger. The amount of energy required to manipulate individual molecules on a scale large enough to make a sandwich is titanic. That will take centuries if it's physically possible at all.

I'd rather they just invented fly-proof teleporting, so that I could have real BBQ teleported to me in Philly, and so I could teleport real cheesesteaks to the chosen ones who deserve them.

Please Necros,


Appoint me as a chosen one...

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
Another article on the BBC news website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19813382

Still begs the question are governments and industry really and truly prepared for this?

Not in the slightest. It's a world changer that is only going to get more advanced till we ACTUALLY have the Star Trek replicators.

Y'know, as long as the things you want to use and eat are made of a single material of plastic or resign, have no electronics in them, and in general no moving parts. It'll be a while before 3d printing does much to standard manfacturing, but I'm sure it'll start impacting miniatures companies in strange ways within the next decade.

Looking at this stuff now, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it big time in the next 5 years.

The improvements they have made with this stuff over just the past couple of years are stupendous.

 Pacific wrote:

 ShumaGorath wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
Another article on the BBC news website: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19813382

Still begs the question are governments and industry really and truly prepared for this?

Not in the slightest. It's a world changer that is only going to get more advanced till we ACTUALLY have the Star Trek replicators.

Y'know, as long as the things you want to use and eat are made of a single material of plastic or resign, have no electronics in them, and in general no moving parts. It'll be a while before 3d printing does much to standard manfacturing, but I'm sure it'll start impacting miniatures companies in strange ways within the next decade.

Looking at this stuff now, I wouldn't be surprised at all if it big time in the next 5 years.

The improvements they have made with this stuff over just the past couple of years are stupendous.

Hmm, so I should start learning CAD now?

Another update from the BBC news page. US Army is now using them: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20269645

US army builds its own 3D printer

The cut-price printer could one day help produce parts behind the front line

The US military is developing its own 3D printer that it can use to produce spare parts for spacecraft.

By putting 3D printers behind the front line it hopes to be able to produce spares more cheaply and quickly than it can get them from manufacturers.

The army embarked on the project to produce its own printer as commercial devices were too expensive.

Early versions of the printer cost $695 (£436) compared to $3,000 (£1,880) for a commercial model.

The 3D printer has been developed by the Future Warfare centre at the US Army's Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) in Alabama.

3D printers are gadgets that form objects by melting and shaping plastic into a design dictated by a data file. They are becoming increasingly common and many engineering and research firms use them for rapid prototyping.

"The ability to replicate parts quickly and cheaply is a huge benefit to the warfighter," said D Shannon Berry, an operations research analyst at the Future Warfare office, in a statement. Eventually, it is hoped the printer will find a larger role with US forces deployed overseas.

"Instead of needing a massive manufacturing logistics chain, a device that generates replacement parts is now small and light enough to be easily carried in a backpack or on a truck," he said.

The key reason to develop the printer, said Mr Berry, was to produce cheap spare parts for the sensitive instruments it develops. SMDC systems are typically deployed in space, but prototypes are tested terrestrially on drones and other small aircraft.

"Parts for these systems break frequently, and many of them are produced overseas, so there's a long lead time for replacement parts," he said. By developing its own 3D printer it could end reliance on manufacturers and speed up the replacement process.

SMDC engineers have already used the device to produce custom sensor housings and casings.

Even better, said Mr Berry, the device can even be used to fix itself if it breaks as many of its parts are built to be duplicable by 3D printers.

That's awesome news. It's not technology vital to national security, so it will trickle down to civilian use.