|
I wish I hadn't gone back and read this thread in entirety now. I had pretty much resigned myself to the fact that home 3D printers just can't achieve the resolution I am after right now when I saw that resin printer that guy is developing. I guess I better start saving now. The fact he's not providing updates is just cruel.
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 06:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I wish I hadn't gone back and read this thread in entirety now. I had pretty much resigned myself to the fact that home 3D printers just can't achieve the resolution I am after right now when I saw that resin printer that guy is developing. I guess I better start saving now. The fact he's not providing updates is just cruel. What sort of stuff are you looking to print?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 07:49
|
|
|
peepsalot posted:What sort of stuff are you looking to print?
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 08:05
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Miniatures (~30-50mm) and accessories (buildings, elaborate bases, etc). The best I've seen from a home machine so far was some tiny yoda figure, but even that had layers visible from the build process. The resin production system looks ideal. Maybe that Yoda was a bad example? Likewise, it seems that flash photography is really good at showing the print lines that would otherwise be very difficult to see with the naked eye. I wouldn't hold your breath for Junior Veloso's resin printer.  These are Ultimaker prints but people have tweaked Mendels and MakerBots to do similarly nice stuff. It probably took hours and hours though at that layer thickness (guessing .1-.2 mm).
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 16:31
|
|
|
kafkasgoldfish posted:Maybe that Yoda was a bad example? Likewise, it seems that flash photography is really good at showing the print lines that would otherwise be very difficult to see with the naked eye. Any idea, assuming I bought a Ultimaker, how hard would it be to achieve results like that right away and how much "tinkering" is required to do so? In reading the comments people have made on Ultimaker forums it sounds like it's a bit more involved than "buy machine, load fine detail model, press print". [edit] On a semi-related note, I can't believe what's possible in terms of 3D scanning right now. I generated this scan of a 50mm model this morning using Autodesk's free 3D scanning software and about 40 pictures from my camera:  InternetJunky fucked around with this message at 19:22 on Feb 3, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
We got a vacuforming machine set up at Site 3 last night, and vacuformed a print of a Mayakovski bust: Video: http://youtu.be/ohcK6zHM-W8 
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:Miniatures (~30-50mm) and accessories (buildings, elaborate bases, etc). The best I've seen from a home machine so far was some tiny yoda figure, but even that had layers visible from the build process. The resin production system looks ideal. Are you talking about this one? https://www.hive76.org/insane-3d-printing-resolution-ultimaker-under-the-micro No offense, but the layers in that yoda figure are stacked 5x for the groove of a fingerprint (the pink thing in the only picture where the layers are visible); IE something like .05mm/layer, IE only visible under a microscope. I can't think of ANY process (IE- at all not just DIY) that does not have visible tooling under a microscope. I am quite certain that the resin based DLP print has visible layers (or at least deformities) when magnified that much. I am betting that if you take your star wars figure and toss it under a microscope and look you'll find production inconsistencies at the .05mm level. If it's simply a matter of getting deformations rather then layers (the layers do look OBVIOUS whereas deformations and inconsistencies can look like they 'belong'); then a SLIGHT mist of solvent will melt it some.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 22:21
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:
I want to echo this question. Personally, I want to spend my tinkering time on my designs, not on my tools. But in reality a certain amount of it is inevitable. I'd like to know what I would be getting into in order to obtain that kind of performance.
|
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2012 23:15
|
|
|
Linux Assassin posted:No offense, but the layers in that yoda figure are stacked 5x for the groove of a fingerprint (the pink thing in the only picture where the layers are visible); IE something like .05mm/layer, IE only visible under a microscope. I can't think of ANY process (IE- at all not just DIY) that does not have visible tooling under a microscope. I am quite certain that the resin based DLP print has visible layers (or at least deformities) when magnified that much.  ) if I understand the build process correctly.In regards to the miniature crowd, you are talking about a group of people that refer to cats as "whisker factories" since a cat whisker is commonly the preferred choice of paint brush for painting pupils of eyes. Details are the most important thing in the hobby, and I guess the main problem I have is that without an actual sample to paint myself I have no way of knowing if the layers produced by the machine are going to be a problem or not. It's not something I really want to spend thousands on to answer, either.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 01:26
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:The metal miniature I posted and the yoda figure from that link are not comparable because they are created using completely different methods (metal casting versus being built layer by layer). However, the resin system uses (ultraviolet?) light to cure the resin with way more precision than 5 LPFG (layers per finger groove Actually, it isn't that much better. The yoda figure has a calculated layer height of 74 microns. Junior Veloso says that his resin printer has a layer height of 50 microns. The smoothness you see is due to the viscosity of the resin not allowing sharp cutoffs between layers, not tons an tons of layers. Now the difference between 50 and 74 is almost 50%, but a few months ago 100 micron height was bleeding edge FDM. Even when FDM goes past 50 micron, it will probably still look worse than lower resolution resin because it's layers still won't be blended together.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 02:24
|
|
|
Tonight's print: A friend of mine found this balloon car on thingiverse and asked if I could print one for his kid. The original expected you to supply your own wheels, which was totally lame. So I tweaked the car design a bit, and whipped up some wheels in openscad while the car body was printing. It uses simple nails for the axles, like a pinewood derby car. I made the nail holes .2mm smaller than the diameter of the nail, thinking this would make a snug fit, but I couldn't even nail them in like that without bending the nails. I ended up drilling them out a bit, and updated the script so hopefully if anyone else prints it, it will fit better. Took me a while(my entire excitement filled friday night  ) to get it all together, but turned out pretty good I think.Here's my derivative work published on thingiverse: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:16987 Edit: Ok I can't resist suggesting another thread title: The 3d Printer Megeathread: Spend 6 hours making your own dollar store item! peepsalot fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Feb 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 07:58
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:The metal miniature I posted and the yoda figure from that link are not comparable because they are created using completely different methods (metal casting versus being built layer by layer). However, the resin system uses (ultraviolet?) light to cure the resin with way more precision than 5 LPFG (layers per finger groove You don't actually know the precision of the resin system because the guy who posted it has yet to post it under a microscope (which was required to expose the layers in that yoda; he has also kind of vanished so I really would not hold out for him to be selling the system). As Aurium pointed out that he says he's got it to 50 um, and that yoda is 74um. Now there is the issue that consistent layers with 74um spacing are much more obvious then weird blobbing effects at even 100um spacing because the human eye/brain is excellent at recognizing patterns, but would be unlikely to figure out that the 100um blob on some dudes curved face was not supposed to be there. The resin based printer, because it is using a UV cured fluid and using light (which diffuses in the fluid) ends up with smoothed edges between layers, but if you popped it under a microscope you would likely see a kind of bubbling effect, whereas the ultimaker print has a more ridged look (again, under a microscope) The 'put an existing miniature under a microscope' I believe does in fact represent a good logic test; unless your end goal is to make things at SUPERIOR resolution then commercial grade miniatures then the accuracy of commercial grade miniatures is the highest resolution you need to aim for; and they actually are not that high (hence the 'pop it under a microscope')- it is just that their inconsistencies are not a pattern and therefore very difficult to recognize. As I mentioned before- you can remove the pattern (though take a hit to the actual final printed accuracy) by basically steaming the finished model in solvent- it will blend all the lines together in an inconsistent manner (Of course accuracy will drop to probably 200um or higher; but based on the games workshop miniatures I have seen, that is still above their resolution).
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
A well set-up ultimaker running cakesmith handyman fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Feb 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 19:33
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:A well set-up ultimaker running Haven't people reported 20 microns with ultimakers?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
Claes Oldenburger posted:Haven't people reported 20 microns with ultimakers? I was about to ask you if you meant 200 microns (.2mm) because that's been possible for a while, and that 74 micron one is amazing. Before I made that post, I decided to look it up instead, and lo there are people claiming 20 microns. Here's a 20 micron yoda. No microscope pics though. Here's some more high res ultimaker stuff.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 21:34
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:A well set-up ultimaker running
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
Aurium posted:I was about to ask you if you meant 200 microns (.2mm) because that's been possible for a while, and that 74 micron one is amazing. Yea that's just bonkers. To the guy talking about miniatures, 20 microns is just a wee bit better than I can get sculpting intricate jewellery by hand. I mean i'm by no means the best but i'm not awful either, so anyone sculpting little minis is going to do no better than 20 microns. Unless they blend layers like it's been said before with solvent or whatever. I remember my warhammer days, you could make some really awesome stuff with 20 micron resolution and well placed easily taken off supports.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2012 23:03
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I think I'm sold, but I'll ask again -- how easy is it to get a "well set-up ultimaker"? Since I don't have access to any of these machines I really have no idea what's involved in the process once you place the order and get the package. Is this something that is going to drain endless amounts of time trying to get set-up correctly? Unfortunately I have no first hand experience, fortunately there are ultimaker forums. The bonus of a kit like that is it comes complete, no mismatched or dumpster diving components, everything you need is supplied & of consistent quality. There is also some element of guarantee & support. One interesting thing I learnt from that blog about printing polycarbonate is that your filament will absorb moisture from the air, harming fine detail (the moisture boils going through the extruder head, causing you to lay down inconsistent layers) reading up a shitload & picking up little details like this will help no end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
Here's the lowest layer height I've attempted so far: 0.1mm or 100microns (whichever sounds cooler). This was printed with 3mm PLA, 0.5mm nozzle, 3 perimeters, no support, no infill, 30mm/s using slic3r and marlin firmware. Took 2h42m This is from a Prusa with worn out printed PLA bushing and a lovely clonedel x-ends. I expect my print quality to improve a bit whenever I get around to upgrading to LM8UU linear bearings and newly printed Prusa2 parts. 30mm/s is slower than I normally print, but this done to help with cooling. Looks like I could have gone a bit slower(or make better fan ducting) and that would have further improved the results. peepsalot fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Feb 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 00:44
|
|
|
InternetJunky posted:I think I'm sold, but I'll ask again -- how easy is it to get a "well set-up ultimaker"? Since I don't have access to any of these machines I really have no idea what's involved in the process once you place the order and get the package. Is this something that is going to drain endless amounts of time trying to get set-up correctly? I have never personally handled an ultimaker- however from what I have seen it is a pretty 'open box, put few prefabs together, plug in to computer, press print' scenario. Unfortunately- since it is something to post about when you get this level of resolution I would be inclined to believe that it is neither an 'out of the box' situation, nor one of 'minor configuration' to get detail on this level. On the upside; with print times in the 15+hour range and no complains of 'and then I had to cut it down and restart the print AGAIN' it appears that once you have such a configuration it does in fact hold it through prints, and the prints can be done as a 'press print, come back later' situation (I somehow don't think that dude is watching his ultimaker slowly add for 15 hours). I would follow Cakefool's suggestion and ask on the ultimaker forums. (I have the advantage that while I want a 3d printer, I want it for about two years from now rather then 'as soon as I can scrape the money together!'- ultimaker seems to be the best overall right now from my observation though)
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 00:52
|
|
|
Linux Assassin posted:(I have the advantage that while I want a 3d printer, I want it for about two years from now rather then 'as soon as I can scrape the money together!'- ultimaker seems to be the best overall right now from my observation though) For me two years from now might be as soon as I can scrape the money together  By the time I have the money together hopefully something even more awesome will be along & I can spend the money on that instead.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 11:57
|
|
|
Has anyone on here bought an ultimaker? I'm thinking about taking the plunge, from what I've read here and around the net it seems like the best option right now that isn't a professional machine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 17:36
|
|
|
boondocksts posted:Has anyone on here bought an ultimaker? I'm thinking about taking the plunge, from what I've read here and around the net it seems like the best option right now that isn't a professional machine. I'm waffling between that and the Replicator. The Ultimaker has a larger print volume but the Replicator sports a dual head which could run water soluble PVA for support structures. I could've sworn the Ultimaker guys had a dual head setup they were going to release but I can't find dick about it, just the Ultimaker+ which also isn't available for general consumption. It's worth noting that lots of folks have had troubles with the bowden tubes on the Ultimaker. Sometimes the PLA can be fragile and breaks into multiple pieces in the tube which is a hassle. I'm still waffling.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
kafkasgoldfish posted:I'm waffling between that and the Replicator. The Ultimaker has a larger print volume but the Replicator sports a dual head which could run water soluble PVA for support structures. I could've sworn the Ultimaker guys had a dual head setup they were going to release but I can't find dick about it, just the Ultimaker+ which also isn't available for general consumption. If it helps you decide, the ultimaker would be the faster of the two. One of the the problems with dual head ultimaker is related to the bowden extruder as well. Makerbot's extruder is directly driven, so it's much easier to control oozing when one of the heads isn't printing. All of the tension in the bowden cable is much harder to deal with. While it doesn't apply to either of you, I'd like to remind everyone else of the bang for your buck option. A nicely optioned Huxley kit for less than 700 dollars. Less than half the price, and still capable of good results.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2012 19:26
|
|
|
This get linked here yet? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16907104 New jawbone 3D printed in titanium and implanted in an 83 year old woman.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 01:11
|
|
|
It's been making the rounds, but not here yet. I would totally get one of these as elective surgery so that I could finally have ROBOT TEETH.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
That sparked a good chat yesterday about 3d printing & the medical benefits of - my wife was watching a program where a fella with terrible facial burns had his skull scanned & the doctors used the printed copy as a practice skull for bone grafts, they also used parts of the print where it was less invasive that using bone. Very inspiring stuff. I now have wifely approval to get a printer 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 08:43
|
|
|
Had the first official night of the hackerspace* a friend and I are organising last night. Even though I've got nothing put together it's amazing how much interest there was in the RepRap project and the creative cogs that started spinning when people started thinking about the possibilities. *no permanent space yet, just regular meets at a local gallery/artspace until we get enough steam up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 12:06
|
|
|
Cakefool posted:That sparked a good chat yesterday about 3d printing & the medical benefits of - my wife was watching a program where a fella with terrible facial burns had his skull scanned & the doctors used the printed copy as a practice skull for bone grafts, they also used parts of the print where it was less invasive that using bone. Very inspiring stuff. I now have wifely approval to get a printer Excellent- if you want to seal the deal look up articles on 'the last toy you'll ever have to buy your child'- the concept has made at least one TED talk; basically that 3d printers with a simple frontend would be one of the few ways to engage a child's imagination without allowing others (you, your family, toy corporations) to tell them what is 'fun' while still allowing them to have toys more complicated then lego/mechano/kinex.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
So, I've decided I want to go with a 1.75mm extruder, but the parts I have are for a Wade's. Which as far as I can ascertain is not much cop for smaller filament. What's the general consensus on the current crop of extruders? The J-Head seems to be held in reasonably high regard, but will require adaptation to 1.75mm; What about the new Stepstruder mk7 from the makerbot?
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2012 11:47
|
|
|
widefault posted:This get linked here yet? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2012 15:03
|
|
|
widefault posted:This get linked here yet? I would think that 3D printing could do wonders for all types of prosthetics. As it stands, a big part of the expense with prosthetic parts comes from having to custom craft them to each patient. Even with CNC technology, programming and setting up a 5 axis machine for a one-off part is kind of labor intensive. It may even be possible to develop software to mostly autonomously convert scans of the patient's body into part designs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 21:22
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:It may even be possible to develop software to mostly autonomously convert scans of the patient's body into part designs. Especially handy if it's a surgical removal - scan the removed part, do some touch-up (e.g. for abnormal growths), and then create the part from the adjusted scan.
|
|
#
?
Feb 11, 2012 21:44
|
|
|
There is already a company that does this, and by all accounts they're pretty kickarse http://www.bespokeinnovations.com/
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 03:52
|
|
|
If you have about an hour to spare this video from Singularity university about the future of 3D printing is a good watch, it covers prosthetics amongst other things. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lJ8vId4HF8
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 06:13
|
|
|
Aurium posted:If it helps you decide, the ultimaker would be the faster of the two. One of the the problems with dual head ultimaker is related to the bowden extruder as well. Makerbot's extruder is directly driven, so it's much easier to control oozing when one of the heads isn't printing. All of the tension in the bowden cable is much harder to deal with. My only "issue" with the Huxley is the effort that people have to use to pop the piece off the surface after it has cooled. But then again, I also noticed that they have a piece of glass on top of the heater, so it shouldn't damage anything. I think for the price, I might have to give that a try and see if I need to get something bigger / fancier like a Replicatior. Thanks for posting that. I will be awash in bottle openers soon enough.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 16:52
|
|
|
Cockmaster posted:I would think that 3D printing could do wonders for all types of prosthetics. As it stands, a big part of the expense with prosthetic parts comes from having to custom craft them to each patient. Even with CNC technology, programming and setting up a 5 axis machine for a one-off part is kind of labor intensive. I think they're using them to print frameworks for growing organs from people's own cells too, there's some amazing medical stuff going on with these. Did anyone post this yet? http://www.markuskayser.com/work/solarsinter/ This guy created a 3D printer that uses solar power and focused sunlight to turn sand into glass, and took it into the desert to make some things. The resolution will make a lot of you feel better about your home printers but that looks like something that could be improved with a better lens, as a proof of concept it's pretty amazing - technically you could go into the Sahara and 3D print yourself a house 
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 19:51
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:I think they're using them to print frameworks for growing organs from people's own cells too, there's some amazing medical stuff going on with these. They are. There's a lab at my university that is currently researching the printing of biodegradable scaffolds for organs. A printhead builds a layer of biodegradable polymer, another ''prints'' a solution of cells inside it. Layer by layer, it builds an organ. We're not at the point where we can make a working heart, but livers and etc. are a possibility.
|
|
#
?
Feb 12, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
ptier posted:My only "issue" with the Huxley is the effort that people have to use to pop the piece off the surface after it has cooled. But then again, I also noticed that they have a piece of glass on top of the heater, so it shouldn't damage anything. If you print PLA onto heated glass, once the print finishes you can cool the glass, and the print detaches itself, and can be lifted off.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 12:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
theparag0n posted:If you print PLA onto heated glass, once the print finishes you can cool the glass, and the print detaches itself, and can be lifted off. Awesome, did not know that. Thank you for the information.
|
|
#
?
Feb 13, 2012 17:19
|
|