New Liquid 3D Printing Method

[derezzed]

I'm surprised no one has posted this yet.  A company named Carbon3D just gave a TED talk where they unveiled a new 3D printing technology that passes light and oxygen through a semi-permeable membrane to build objects in a pool of photosensitive resin.  Here are the links to the company's website and TED website

http://carbon3d.com/


http://www.ted.com/talks/joe_desimone_what_if_3d_printing_was_25x_faster#t-19484


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTJq9Z5g4Jk

The printer can work with a wide range of plastics.  The objects it produces are far more structurally sound than traditionally printed 3D objects.  And it's much faster than current 3D printers.

Imagine having one of these in your house and printing your own custom set of Alps-compatible key caps with a profile customized to your hand physiology, or making 2 or 3 variations of a prototype split ergo cases in a single day.  Or building custom jigs for machining parts out of other materials. Or possibly using a plastic with a low melting point to design a case that could be used to make an aluminum case via the lost wax process.  Or building anything.  Maybe print super insulated ducts for your home heating system.  Or print an exoskeleton to mitigate damage from falls while you're working on your roof.  I'm geeking out just thinking about.   Every time I type an example, I think of another application for it if it truly lives up to the claims of Carbon3D.   If not the CLIP printer, then some technology like this could be affordable to the masses within my lifetime. 

[Oobly]

This is like the Form 1 (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/formlabs/form-1-an-affordable-professional-3d-printer), but with an oxygen-permeable window to create a "dead zone" in the print area so the hardened material doesn't stick to the window. This allows higher speed. And that's it. It's just like the standard photosesitive resin printing methods, just faster. And less accurate. The dead zone is partially permeated with oxygen, so the material builds in a slightly "melted" way and can't produce very sharp edges / corners.

There is still no 3D printing method I would bother to use for making actual products. I much prefer the accuracy and wide material choice of CNC milling.

I really don't get the hype surrounding it.

[derezzed]

I was not aware of the form1.  My interest in manufacturing technology is superficial.  Still, from reading the details on both sites, it looks like the resolution is comparable.  The Form 1 boasts the ability to print layers as thin as 25 microns, with details as small as 300 microns.  The CLIP boasts the ability to print at 10s of microns, though it's unclear whether this is referring to details or layer thickness.  It looks decent enough for prototyping.  It certainly seems far superior to additive printing machines.  For the garage tinkerer, it seems like a more feasible option than a mill.

[Joey Quinn]

I've never seen anything like that but I've used a 3D printer that prints using a liquid resin and gives much higher resolution results than a normal 3D printer.

[CPTBadAss]

I've never seen anything like that but I've used a 3D printer that prints using a liquid resin and gives much higher resolution results than a normal 3D printer.

Do you mean SLA 3D printing?


In my industry, we only have a few 3D printed parts; if any at all. Mostly 3D printing is used for prototyping or mold making.

[Joey Quinn]

I've never seen anything like that but I've used a 3D printer that prints using a liquid resin and gives much higher resolution results than a normal 3D printer.

Do you mean SLA 3D printing?


In my industry, we only have a few 3D printed parts; if any at all. Mostly 3D printing is used for prototyping or mold making.

No, it uses jugs of liquid that are mixed in the extrusion head, there isn't a tub of liquid. I can post a side by side of the prints as soon as I get back to my dorm. I'll talk to my teacher and get the exact name of the printing process.

[Melvang]

I've never seen anything like that but I've used a 3D printer that prints using a liquid resin and gives much higher resolution results than a normal 3D printer.

In my industry, we only have a few 3D printed parts; if any at all. Mostly 3D printing is used for prototyping or mold making.

But those particular printers are INSANE and make some interesting parts/assemblies.

[Joey Quinn]

I've never seen anything like that but I've used a 3D printer that prints using a liquid resin and gives much higher resolution results than a normal 3D printer.

Do you mean SLA 3D printing?


In my industry, we only have a few 3D printed parts; if any at all. Mostly 3D printing is used for prototyping or mold making.

Here's a side by side the left is the liquid process I was talking about and the right is a normal printer.



This is the best close up of the texture that I could do with my phone.



Yes that is comic sans and yes it was also a joke. Not sure why my teacher printed it. I made it as an FU because the project he was having us do was a waste of time and this fit the requirements. Beginner engineering classes are a waste of everyone's time.

[engicoder]

This is like the Form 1 (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/formlabs/form-1-an-affordable-professional-3d-printer), but with an oxygen-permeable window to create a "dead zone" in the print area so the hardened material doesn't stick to the window. This allows higher speed. And that's it. It's just like the standard photosesitive resin printing methods, just faster. And less accurate. The dead zone is partially permeated with oxygen, so the material builds in a slightly "melted" way and can't produce very sharp edges / corners.

There is still no 3D printing method I would bother to use for making actual products. I much prefer the accuracy and wide material choice of CNC milling.

I really don't get the hype surrounding it.

It appears as if they are claiming much better resolution than existing methods.  (as small as 50 microns)
http://3dprint.com/51566/carbon3d-clip-3d-printing/

[Binge]

This is like the Form 1 (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/formlabs/form-1-an-affordable-professional-3d-printer), but with an oxygen-permeable window to create a "dead zone" in the print area so the hardened material doesn't stick to the window. This allows higher speed. And that's it. It's just like the standard photosesitive resin printing methods, just faster. And less accurate. The dead zone is partially permeated with oxygen, so the material builds in a slightly "melted" way and can't produce very sharp edges / corners.

There is still no 3D printing method I would bother to use for making actual products. I much prefer the accuracy and wide material choice of CNC milling.

I really don't get the hype surrounding it.

It appears as if they are claiming much better resolution than existing methods.  (as small as 50 microns)
http://3dprint.com/51566/carbon3d-clip-3d-printing/

form 1 is 10 microns.

[engicoder]

This is like the Form 1 (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/formlabs/form-1-an-affordable-professional-3d-printer), but with an oxygen-permeable window to create a "dead zone" in the print area so the hardened material doesn't stick to the window. This allows higher speed. And that's it. It's just like the standard photosesitive resin printing methods, just faster. And less accurate. The dead zone is partially permeated with oxygen, so the material builds in a slightly "melted" way and can't produce very sharp edges / corners.

There is still no 3D printing method I would bother to use for making actual products. I much prefer the accuracy and wide material choice of CNC milling.

I really don't get the hype surrounding it.

It appears as if they are claiming much better resolution than existing methods.  (as small as 50 microns)
http://3dprint.com/51566/carbon3d-clip-3d-printing/

form 1 is 10 microns.

Ah...didn't realize Form 1 was high resolution.

Where is the 1 to 10 micron number from? On the kickstarter page it says: " Form 1 can print layers as thin as 25 microns (0.001 in) with features as small as 300 microns (0.012 in)"

[derezzed]

I'm not a materials engineer, but it seems to me that both the Form 1 and CLIP are capable of printing at a high enough resolution to do some revolutionary stuff like printing layers of light-diffusing (or possibly polarizing) nano-structures inside a key cap so that a translucent key cap can be printed from a single material with legends integrated in the cap, or perhaps an opaque key can be printed with a translucent legend.  Does anyone know if that scale is small enough to accommodate the printing of holographic images?  I think it would be cool to have a set of key caps with images that appear to float inside the cap.  Unless it gets supplanted by superior technology, I think it seems plausible to imagine that within 10 years, someone could build a printer with multiple pools of materials, such that an object could be partially printed in one pool, transferred to another pool where a circuit, sensor, etc. is printed onto the object, then transferred back to the original pool to complete the printing process.

[Tasker]

I've seen a couple of these liquid based printers going around in the past few days. Looks like a really interesting change in the technology. Most of my stuff is from laser scintering and it comes out pretty good although you sometimes do see the layers a bit and it would be nice to be able to print things with a bit more of a gloss finish now and then.
If these printers really do live up to their claims (small micron level layers) then it should open up a lot of new possibilities.

[berserkfan]

I think the resolution is of minimal use if the printer substrate is not lasting. Most of this stuff still melts at pretty low temperatures, right? So a bit of heat, or force, could distort things and spoil all that 10 micron printing?

[WolfTickets]

The jolly roger keycap in my avatar was printer on an SLA printer.  I've got a "werewolf" one too that has some pretty amazing detail.  I've been really impressed.  The downside is a lack of available color options.  I'm thinking about hand painting them.

[Oobly]

With most 3D printing you are severely limited in terms of materials. Either the resolution is poor, material is weak, boundaries are weak, colours are limited, or sometimes even all at once. Even for prototyping I'd prefer a decent CNC. It costs more, but the results are worth it and you can use practically any material. Since you're machining away, you don't have boundaries and other points of weakness, it's made from one solid piece.

The only industry I see 3D printing being truly useful in, is custom 3D printed medical components and body parts / substrates / lattices.

I'm not a materials engineer, but it seems to me that both the Form 1 and CLIP are capable of printing at a high enough resolution to do some revolutionary stuff like printing layers of light-diffusing (or possibly polarizing) nano-structures inside a key cap so that a translucent key cap can be printed from a single material with legends integrated in the cap, or perhaps an opaque key can be printed with a translucent legend.  Does anyone know if that scale is small enough to accommodate the printing of holographic images?  I think it would be cool to have a set of key caps with images that appear to float inside the cap.  Unless it gets supplanted by superior technology, I think it seems plausible to imagine that within 10 years, someone could build a printer with multiple pools of materials, such that an object could be partially printed in one pool, transferred to another pool where a circuit, sensor, etc. is printed onto the object, then transferred back to the original pool to complete the printing process.

For optically useful diffractive features you need much higher resolution, around half the wavelength of the light = 275nm (half the wavelength of green light, around the middle of the visible spectrum). That's 0.275 micron. And that's what you need for "feature size", which is around 300 micron for the Form1. So the resolution needs to be improved by a factor of 1000 or so.

[Binge]

With most 3D printing you are severely limited in terms of materials. Either the resolution is poor, material is weak, boundaries are weak, colours are limited, or sometimes even all at once. Even for prototyping I'd prefer a decent CNC. It costs more, but the results are worth it and you can use practically any material. Since you're machining away, you don't have boundaries and other points of weakness, it's made from one solid piece.

The only industry I see 3D printing being truly useful in, is custom 3D printed medical components and body parts / substrates / lattices.

I'm not a materials engineer, but it seems to me that both the Form 1 and CLIP are capable of printing at a high enough resolution to do some revolutionary stuff like printing layers of light-diffusing (or possibly polarizing) nano-structures inside a key cap so that a translucent key cap can be printed from a single material with legends integrated in the cap, or perhaps an opaque key can be printed with a translucent legend.  Does anyone know if that scale is small enough to accommodate the printing of holographic images?  I think it would be cool to have a set of key caps with images that appear to float inside the cap.  Unless it gets supplanted by superior technology, I think it seems plausible to imagine that within 10 years, someone could build a printer with multiple pools of materials, such that an object could be partially printed in one pool, transferred to another pool where a circuit, sensor, etc. is printed onto the object, then transferred back to the original pool to complete the printing process.

For optically useful diffractive features you need much higher resolution, around half the wavelength of the light = 275nm (half the wavelength of green light, around the middle of the visible spectrum). That's 0.275 micron. And that's what you need for "feature size", which is around 300 micron for the Form1. So the resolution needs to be improved by a factor of 1000 or so.

Funny thing about that.  Just getting a shape made can be the front end to a manufacturing process to much more tough parts.  Rapid prototyping sometimes means having a skilled worker make an object out of nothing but raw materials.  This changes the skill required to prototype complex structures, and makes the output affordable.  IMO 3D printing is very exciting and it may not bring to life a concept to product with one process, but it does mean concept to product takes less man-hours.  Anything could happen given the right mind and tools working on a project.  This is just another tool with a lot of bright and excited brains to back it up.

With how I make keycaps I need to rely on some pretty tough materials to prototype so the object isn't destroyed by human error during its creation.  The casting process is not very demanding when it comes to the physical integrity of an original part.

[PicklesKill]

With most 3D printing you are severely limited in terms of materials. Either the resolution is poor, material is weak, boundaries are weak, colours are limited, or sometimes even all at once. Even for prototyping I'd prefer a decent CNC. It costs more, but the results are worth it and you can use practically any material. Since you're machining away, you don't have boundaries and other points of weakness, it's made from one solid piece.

The only industry I see 3D printing being truly useful in, is custom 3D printed medical components and body parts / substrates / lattices.

I'm not a materials engineer, but it seems to me that both the Form 1 and CLIP are capable of printing at a high enough resolution to do some revolutionary stuff like printing layers of light-diffusing (or possibly polarizing) nano-structures inside a key cap so that a translucent key cap can be printed from a single material with legends integrated in the cap, or perhaps an opaque key can be printed with a translucent legend.  Does anyone know if that scale is small enough to accommodate the printing of holographic images?  I think it would be cool to have a set of key caps with images that appear to float inside the cap.  Unless it gets supplanted by superior technology, I think it seems plausible to imagine that within 10 years, someone could build a printer with multiple pools of materials, such that an object could be partially printed in one pool, transferred to another pool where a circuit, sensor, etc. is printed onto the object, then transferred back to the original pool to complete the printing process.

For optically useful diffractive features you need much higher resolution, around half the wavelength of the light = 275nm (half the wavelength of green light, around the middle of the visible spectrum). That's 0.275 micron. And that's what you need for "feature size", which is around 300 micron for the Form1. So the resolution needs to be improved by a factor of 1000 or so.

Funny thing about that.  Just getting a shape made can be the front end to a manufacturing process to much more tough parts.  Rapid prototyping sometimes means having a skilled worker make an object out of nothing but raw materials.  This changes the skill required to prototype complex structures, and makes the output affordable.  IMO 3D printing is very exciting and it may not bring to life a concept to product with one process, but it does mean concept to product takes less man-hours.  Anything could happen given the right mind and tools working on a project.  This is just another tool with a lot of bright and excited brains to back it up.

With how I make keycaps I need to rely on some pretty tough materials to prototype so the object isn't destroyed by human error during its creation.  The casting process is not very demanding when it comes to the physical integrity of an original part.

Do you think finishing of the part to remove undesirable lines in the mold from the current printing process would kill the benefit of quick mock up? I don't make key caps so I may be missing something but all the printed stuff I have seen needs to be sanded to try and remove the additive marks.

[Oobly]

With most 3D printing you are severely limited in terms of materials. Either the resolution is poor, material is weak, boundaries are weak, colours are limited, or sometimes even all at once. Even for prototyping I'd prefer a decent CNC. It costs more, but the results are worth it and you can use practically any material. Since you're machining away, you don't have boundaries and other points of weakness, it's made from one solid piece.

The only industry I see 3D printing being truly useful in, is custom 3D printed medical components and body parts / substrates / lattices.

I'm not a materials engineer, but it seems to me that both the Form 1 and CLIP are capable of printing at a high enough resolution to do some revolutionary stuff like printing layers of light-diffusing (or possibly polarizing) nano-structures inside a key cap so that a translucent key cap can be printed from a single material with legends integrated in the cap, or perhaps an opaque key can be printed with a translucent legend.  Does anyone know if that scale is small enough to accommodate the printing of holographic images?  I think it would be cool to have a set of key caps with images that appear to float inside the cap.  Unless it gets supplanted by superior technology, I think it seems plausible to imagine that within 10 years, someone could build a printer with multiple pools of materials, such that an object could be partially printed in one pool, transferred to another pool where a circuit, sensor, etc. is printed onto the object, then transferred back to the original pool to complete the printing process.

For optically useful diffractive features you need much higher resolution, around half the wavelength of the light = 275nm (half the wavelength of green light, around the middle of the visible spectrum). That's 0.275 micron. And that's what you need for "feature size", which is around 300 micron for the Form1. So the resolution needs to be improved by a factor of 1000 or so.

Funny thing about that.  Just getting a shape made can be the front end to a manufacturing process to much more tough parts.  Rapid prototyping sometimes means having a skilled worker make an object out of nothing but raw materials.  This changes the skill required to prototype complex structures, and makes the output affordable.  IMO 3D printing is very exciting and it may not bring to life a concept to product with one process, but it does mean concept to product takes less man-hours.  Anything could happen given the right mind and tools working on a project.  This is just another tool with a lot of bright and excited brains to back it up.

With how I make keycaps I need to rely on some pretty tough materials to prototype so the object isn't destroyed by human error during its creation.  The casting process is not very demanding when it comes to the physical integrity of an original part.

Do you think finishing of the part to remove undesirable lines in the mold from the current printing process would kill the benefit of quick mock up? I don't make key caps so I may be missing something but all the printed stuff I have seen needs to be sanded to try and remove the additive marks.

+1 to this. Resolution, accuracy and surface finish are poor in 3D printing compared to CNC machining in addition to the material limitations. I may just not be seeing the use cases (possibly because I'm looking with the eyes of an engineer), but I don't really get where it's actually useful for anything practical. I have yet to see a high enough resolution 3D print that would be satisfactory to me as an Artisan cap, for instance.

For small production runs or rapid prototyping, CNC is better than 3D printing, although it costs a little more. For mass production, CNC is good for the moldmaking and injection molding / forging / whatever for the mass production. I don't see much benefit to an extra step between the design phase and CNC proto phase (especially if you have to buy another machine in order to do it). If you just want a quick, rough test piece to check how some part sits relative to another part, for instance, you can do a fast, rough cut with CNC, which can then often be replaced on the machine and further milled to give you a high accuracy part.

If you see a use case for 3D printing over CNC (other than the medical uses I posted before), please post it here.

[PicklesKill]

For the most part I agree that for accurate (low blemis:) parts CNC is the way to go in both technologies current iterations. But in an engineering environment 3d printers are still useful just for the shear fact that moking up jigs can be a bit of a process and printing a jig might actually be a better option. On pure conjecture I'm curious if you print a part at an angle if it would help overcome vertical and lateral breakage associated with 3D printed parts. Or if you just have to print in more material  ie. bracing ribs