Slashdot Mirror


New 3D Printing Process Claimed To Be 25X Faster Than Current Technology

ErnieKey writes: Carbon3D, a startup based in Redwood City, CA. has just announced a new breakthrough 3D printing technology called Continuous Liquid Interface Production technology (CLIP). The process works by using oxygen as an inhibiting agent as a UV light rapidly cures a photosensitive resin (abstract). "Conventional 3D printers usually take several hours to print an object — because with most printing methods, they need to individually treat each new layer of material after it's put down so that the next layer can be put down on top of it. The new method is much faster because it works continually, instead of in layers, eliminating this step. As a result, it works in minutes, rather than hours — 25 to 100 times faster, its creators say, than conventional 3D printing." The company has just emerged from stealth mode and announced that they have raised a staggering $41 million to further develop the process and bring it to market.

95 comments

  1. Photolitography by cheesybagel · · Score: 2

    Reinvented. With resins. Neat.

    1. Re:Photolitography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like, whoa.... dude, it's like going from pixels to voxels, man. Far..... out.

    2. Re:Photolitography by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      they already invented that.

      this "just" makes it 25 times faster.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Photolitography by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      it apperently also eliminates layers, thus making the material stronger and smoother, that's big

  2. Terminator 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And so it begins

    1. Re:Terminator 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Skynet was smart. Skynet used molding. 3D printing is for human fools. Dead human fools.

    2. Re:Terminator 2 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My tank will crunch your skull.

  3. 25x less reliable too?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Does your cheap plastic 3D printed shit fall apart EVEN FASTER?!!!

    1. Re:25x less reliable too?! by Cederic · · Score: 0

      No, you ignorant pathetic clot of imbecilic silt, it's stronger because it isn't built of discrete layers.

  4. Thats it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll wait for a 48x or 52x speed

    1. Re:Thats it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still use optical discs? What are you, some kind of dinosaur?

    2. Re:Thats it? by Adriax · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure the resin will lose structural integrity well before 10,000rpm.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
    3. Re:Thats it? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      lose structural integrity

      That's what inertial dampers are for.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    4. Re:Thats it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      52 dpm (Dildos per minute) is a ludicrous speed for any 3d printer.

  5. 25x faster? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    It's called a "punch press"

  6. projecting UV images from below liquid resin? by roman_mir · · Score: 0

    So I wonder how this UV projector doesn't cause solids to form inside the vat if in fact this projector can cause plastic to solidify as it is being removed from the vat with liquid resin. First I thought maybe that would work by combining UV, resin and basically air, but then how does it work for solidifying the resin within somewhat thicker parts of the model, not every part of a model is spider web thin. Looks like it's both plausible and magic at the same time, because as the UV passes through the vat I somehow expect it to turn all of the resin it passes through into a solid mass. Oh well, maybe that's the secret sauce that makes thing thing. Maybe there are separate wavelengths that get combined together just near the surface of the resin and that's where it gets solid?

    1. Re:projecting UV images from below liquid resin? by Guspaz · · Score: 2

      Huh? This basically works the same as existing laser-based stereolithography printers (see the FormLabs Form 1), except that this one uses a projector instead of a scanning laser. Basically it cures an entire layer at a time instead of having a laser trace out each layer, resulting in a large speed increase.

    2. Re:projecting UV images from below liquid resin? by udachny · · Score: 1

      (same user, backup account)

      Ok, so the solid part is created at the bottom of the vat is what you are implying, not at the top, which is what I originally assumed. I guess that makes more sense, as UV passes through a very thin layer of the resin it gets cured at the very bottom of that liquid resin container, so the model is created at the bottom part of all that liquid, not at the top.

    3. Re:projecting UV images from below liquid resin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically, really high end (mitsubishi/sony/epson) projectors actually use lasers to project imagery.

      Lasers can be used to do entire layers at a time as well, though the machinery behind it is a lot more complex than how the Form 1 works, and uses 2-3 different wavelength lasers to produce near sRGB colour.

      I suspect the same thing could be done with lasers using a single wavelength laser (as is often all that's required for photosensitive resins) for much cheaper with the right know-how.

    4. Re:projecting UV images from below liquid resin? by itzly · · Score: 1

      The breakthrough is that they can project through the liquid and have it cure only at the surface layer.

    5. Re:projecting UV images from below liquid resin? by jklovanc · · Score: 4, Informative

      You are close byt not quite. The breakthrough is explained as follows;

      Meanwhile, oxygen prevents this reaction from occurring — so to stop the object from simply hardening and sticking to the floor of the pool, there's a layer of dissolved oxygen there, creating an ultra-thin "dead zone" at the very bottom.

      The light is projected through a very thin layer at the bottom without curing. The resin at almost the bottom is cured. The light never reaches the top layer. I you look closely at their graphic you will see the object almost reaches the bottom of the container.

    6. Re:projecting UV images from below liquid resin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are UV resin printers like Formlabs and others, that is no breakthrough here. With traditional resin printer the object sticks to tank bottom and needs to be broken loose every layer. Not so much with this printer, the improvement is that object does not stick to bottom and so they can just lift it a bit and print next layer straight away without moving the bowl around. So yeah, there is a real step forward here, not just another hype.

    7. Re:projecting UV images from below liquid resin? by necro81 · · Score: 1

      So I wonder how this UV projector doesn't cause solids to form inside the vat if in fact this projector can cause plastic to solidify as it is being removed from the vat with liquid resin.

      Or you could read the article to find out the answers to your questions.

    8. Re:projecting UV images from below liquid resin? by Thagg · · Score: 1

      Thank you. I just couldn't understand it; although clearly the clues were there and you interpreted them correctly.

      So the UV light goes through the bottom window, through the oxygen-rich zone that will not polymerize. When the light gets through that zone, it polymerizes the resin. The polymerized resin must block the light from going deeper into the liquid resin.

      If you have a thick part, though, I wonder if this could work? New unpolymerized resin would have to flow into the gap between the hardened part and the window, and this 'dead zone' is only microns thick. Now, I do believe that most 3D printed parts aren't solid blocks; but this could be a limitation.

      Still, looks quite cool. I am sure that I'm not alone wanting to build stuff with it!

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
    9. Re:projecting UV images from below liquid resin? by drewm19801927 · · Score: 1

      Really? I remember one that shined light on the top of the pool and gradually lowered the object / raised the resin level. I suspect growing the object from the bottom is novel, but I'm not sure. The thing with the oxygen acting as an inhibitor is probably also novel, but I imagine there are other ways to prevent sticking at the interface.... i.e. a water based resin of some sort coupled with a super hydrophobic surface treatment... or something that just erodes a bit but not enough to affect tolerances...

    10. Re:projecting UV images from below liquid resin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a FormLabs Form 1 and it's crap compared to this process. I wish this would come out and come out soon. I'm throwing my money at the screen right now.

  7. How is this different? by Takahashi · · Score: 1

    Specifically, how is this different from other projector based stereolithography printers such as the muve3d DLP (http://www.muve3d.net/press/)?

    1. Re:How is this different? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      I think the only difference is their fancy oxygen-sensitive resin which lets them print significantly faster.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    2. Re:How is this different? by Sertis · · Score: 2

      It seems pretty straightforward, they carefully control the amount of oxygen at the bottom of the machine relative to the cross sectional area of the portion being printed so that the rate of polymerisation matches the the volume of plastic being drawn out of the unit. In a normal machine, after you cure a portion, you give it time to cure because throwing more energy at the resin will cause blooming and lack of resolution. This limits the amount cured chemically. Think of it as analagous to magnetic optical recording. Increasing your write current on a normal wite head increases the area written to, but the laser limits the area affected.

    3. Re:How is this different? by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      Current systems print from the top. After each layer the object is lowered and resin flows over the top and a new layer is drawn. Sometimes the object has to be sunk and then brought back to the surface which slows production.

      In the new method the object is drawn on the bottom of the pool and as the object is drawn up out of the pool more resin flows in much faster than on the top.

    4. Re:How is this different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm surprised at how many people are getting this wrong.

      Having a non-curing buffer layer at the bottom of the tank means the resin doesn't "stick" eliminating the need for the "peeling" step after every layer. This means rather than:
      cure -> lift to de-laminate (several mm) -> re-position with ~1um accuracy -> cure
      it's now:
      cure -> lift a few um -> cure.

      Eliminating the need to de-laminate every single layer from the base means you can essentially print as fast as you can sure the resin, combine with a dedicated UV projector rather than the usual consumer grade stuff these things use, and maybe some inter-slice interpolation to make the process pseudo-continuous rather than made of discreet layers and I can see a 25x speed increase as being entirely realistic.

    5. Re:How is this different? by moteyalpha · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Specifically, how is this different from other projector based stereolithography printers such as the muve3d DLP (http://www.muve3d.net/press/)?

      You are right. I was unaware that projection with polymers were already a known method. We searched for 3D printers that do a complete layer at once some time ago when we developed our process and found none. We just began testing LCD panels and UV backlight. It is a sinle layer at a time, UV polymer isn't actually the fastest method I have discovered. It is possible to do it with much greater precision and higher speed using different methods. I put up a video a month ago about this (LCD) technique on my web site moteyways.com. I don't think this is very innovative and 41M$ is hardly staggering, but surprising for something with so little innovation. Structure is the least useful printable thing. We are working on printing a new type of CPU and the technology will be documented on the site. It is all to be open hardware. I think that a printer that can print circuits is the application that makes 3D printing a useful thing instead of a play-doh factory or glue gun. I realize it can be a tool for lost wax to metal, but many other tools are better suited to manufacturing structural items. I saw a piezoelectric lathe designed in Japan that can cut almost any material in a 5 axis system with astounding precision. Piezo systems can operate at Angstrom scale ( with huge forces ) and I can attest to that as it is the same method I use in my atomic force scope.

    6. Re:How is this different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of the consumer SLA resins use free radical type photoinitiators that are all inhibited by oxygen. It's not anything new or fancy.

    7. Re:How is this different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason that this is possible is that they are using an oxygen permeable membrane for the bottom of the vat they are projecting through along with a photoinitiator that is inhibited by oxygen. It's not really anything new. Look for food packaging films or polymers used for soft contact lenses and free radical cured photopolymers.

      Let's see how happy their investors are in a year or two after they get their printers on the market.

    8. Re:How is this different? by fche · · Score: 1

      say what yo like, I'm still
      st
          ag
      ge
          re
      d

  8. UV sensitivity by itzly · · Score: 3, Informative

    The problem with UV sensitive resins is that UV light continues to affect the material even after it's hardened.If you keep it in sunlight it will start to degrade the material and get brittle.

    1. Re:UV sensitivity by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

      The risk of printing objects vulnerable to sunlight won't alarm anyone in this audience.

    2. Re:UV sensitivity by Sique · · Score: 2

      As far as I know, every organic material is sensitive to UV light, thus this is no new problem. Plastics degrade in the sun. All of them. This resin is no different.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re:UV sensitivity by itzly · · Score: 2

      Plastics degrade in the sun. All of them. This resin is no different.

      It's different because it's worse.

    4. Re:UV sensitivity by HuguesT · · Score: 1, Funny

      Sunlight? What's that?

    5. Re:UV sensitivity by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1
      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    6. Re:UV sensitivity by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's the same because the solution is paint for both cases.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:UV sensitivity by itzly · · Score: 1

      Most plastic objects I see around my house are not painted (they have been coloured using dissolved pigments), but they'll still last for many years.

      UV cured plastics that require an extra coat of paint are not the same. The paint often flakes off, adds poorly controlled thickness, and adds extra cost.

    8. Re:UV sensitivity by cjameshuff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Paint is almost never the solution. Paint involves additional equipment and manufacturing steps, dealing with adhesion and coverage issues, loss of fine details, sensitivity to wear and scratching, and so on. Plastic parts are almost always unpainted, instead incorporating pigments or other stabilizing additives within the plastic itself. These can't be incorporated into 3D printer resin for obvious reasons.

    9. Re:UV sensitivity by Twinbee · · Score: 1

      You insensitive clod! I've just bought a 100 watt - 6000K colour temperature LED floodlight to emulate sunlight indoors. It looks amazing, and feels like the ceiling has been lifted off to let the sun in (but without the drawbacks that solution would otherwise offer).

      --
      Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
    10. Re:UV sensitivity by necro81 · · Score: 2

      I take it you've never worked with SLA resins and parts then. Mass-produced plastic parts have varying degradation rates in the sun. Many have UV stabilizers in them that provide them with substantial life (many years) even in direct sunshine. SLA parts, in my experience, have a useful life measured in weeks if allowed to be in the sun. Even sitting around in an office environment, SLA parts will degrade over months.

    11. Re:UV sensitivity by FictionPimp · · Score: 1

      sunscreen

    12. Re:UV sensitivity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These can't be incorporated into 3D printer resin for obvious reasons.

      Why not?

      Why can't we create a plastic that gets better in UV light?

      Why can't we create some of those stabilizing additives that protects an object after it has been UV hardened?

      A slow changing pigment that creates a strong UV resistant surface over time would be perfect for this. The challenge is creating a substance that can be mixed into the UV fixed plastic that will not be fixed by the inital UV treatment.

      Perhaps some kind of sacrificial compound, like a shell, could be used to protect a sunscreen inside small particles. Then the UV fixer would blow away the sacrificial compound and the UV fixation would stop due to the sunscreen on the surface.

      (Note that I have not done a patent search. These, like curing with acetone, are probably all common patents in additive manufacturing already in the hands of trolls or practitioners.)

    13. Re:UV sensitivity by marciot · · Score: 1

      The problem with UV sensitive resins is that UV light continues to affect the material even after it's hardened.If you keep it in sunlight it will start to degrade the material and get brittle.

      Just slather your printed parts with 100 SPF sunscreen -- it provides protection plus a bit of extra lubrication.

  9. It still has layers, just prints all at once by Brulath · · Score: 2

    It still prints in layers, it's just printing the entire layer simultaneously, using projected UV light, rather than running a flattened tube of material over the entire surface. It's a pretty cool way to print a small prototype-y model.

    I'm curious, would that approach be able to scale to multiple colours? The object is fully suspended within the liquid material whilst printing, so I'm guessing it would have to drain the pool, clean the excess fluid from the in-progress model, refill the pool, re-submerge the model, print a bit, and repeat. Which sounds slow and error-prone.

    Also curious, how many other substances are there that have similar properties (that is, they can transition from liquid to solid via radiation exposure).

    1. Re:It still has layers, just prints all at once by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Unless you can match the refractive index of cured and uncured resin, the optical calculations involved would be hell.

    2. Re:It still has layers, just prints all at once by pchimp · · Score: 1

      It still prints in layers, it's just printing the entire layer simultaneously, using projected UV light, rather than running a flattened tube of material over the entire surface.

      Not really*. It doesn't create layers in a step-wise fashion; there isn't a cure -> step -> cure -> step sequence. The piece is continuously moved, with curing taking place continuously over the region of the structure above the oxygen "dead zone", eliminating distinct layers. The resulting continuous structure lacks the weak interface regions generated by other 3D printing methods.

      *Of course, the 3D modeler must make slices of some finite thickness; but for this process these can be arbitrarily thin. Cure rate is the limiting factor here, not the number of slices.

  10. Laser vs Dotmatrix by knownsense · · Score: 1

    This seems like laser printing for 3d printing.

  11. Surface layer is not flat! by tempmpi · · Score: 2

    If you look at the video you see that the surface layer is not flat but the surface tension of the liquid changes the shape of the surface layer. They must either be able to accurately predict this effect or they need to somehow measure the shape of the surface.

    --
    Jan
  12. Sped up videos. by jklovanc · · Score: 3, Informative

    Did anyone else notice that the last two digits only counted up to 60? They sped the video up to make minutes look like seconds. Sure it is faster than additive printing but 6 minutes 35 seconds to make a small model is much slower than injection molding.

    1. Re:Sped up videos. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Always will be. 3D printing doesn't compete with injection molding. Different applications. Injection has a high setup cost and very low per-unit cost, while 3D printing has almost no setup cost and comparatively high per-unit cost.

    2. Re:Sped up videos. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      Too bad the company isn't saying that.

      These two factors, Carbon3D says, could make its technology practical for mass-producing common products — like, say, a toothbrush that you buy in a store. In theory, it could combine the flexibility of 3D printing with the speed and strength of old-school injection molding — the current standard for mass-producing many types of products and parts, especially plastic ones.

      It appears they think that their technology will replace injection molding

    3. Re:Sped up videos. by itzly · · Score: 3, Funny

      It appears they think that their technology will replace injection molding

      Their technology will replace injection molding for runs smaller than N units, where N depends on numerous other requirements. What's different between this technique, and previous 3D printing techniques, is that N has gotten bigger.

    4. Re:Sped up videos. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      small model is much slower than injection molding

      MOST 3d printing at this level of cost is rapid prototyping. The 'maker' guys are using it for that and to make things.

      This sort of thing would be used to create the injection mold where you crack off 10k of the things in a hour.

    5. Re:Sped up videos. by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      How long did it take you to machine your mold? What was it's cost? What was the cost for the 2nd or 3rd mold when you had a design change and wanted to make another prototype?

    6. Re:Sped up videos. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. You could imagine a factory with a swimming pool sized vat of resin, pulling 10,000 toothbrush handles out at once.

    7. Re:Sped up videos. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      How much did the printer cost compared to an injection molder? How much is the maintenance on a complicated printer compared to a simple injection molder?

      If 3D printing is so damn cheap, then use the printer to make the mold.

    8. Re:Sped up videos. by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      This isn't for high production runs. This is for printing one offs, and prototyping.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    9. Re:Sped up videos. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure it is faster than additive printing but 6 minutes 35 seconds to make a small model is much slower than injection molding.

      You can't injection mold something in 6 minutes. I don't care if you can deliver 100,000 units next week. I only need one, and I need it now.

    10. Re:Sped up videos. by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      For something for rapid prototyping, the printer is going to be a fraction of the cost to buy and to operate. The mold alone for an injection molder can easily be multi-thouands of dollars and that's for a relatively simple mold.

      I can't comment on this printer but I've used other 3D and SLA printers. Maintenance consists occasionally replacing a build plate or reservoir if it should become damaged. Maybe a bit of water or cleaning solution and a rag to wipe it down, and a bit of lubricant for moving parts. Pretty much the same requirements that a hand operated injection molder would have, and far less than a mechanical injection molder.

      The problems with making a 3D printed mold for used as an injection mold is that the 3d printed object won't withstand the pressure and heat that a machined mold would tolerate. It would be like asking to make an ice cube tray out of ice. There are 3D printed molds similar to lost wax or foam casting. 3D printed parts often aren't as smooth and polished as a machined mold to produce a very smooth final product.

    11. Re:Sped up videos. by bws111 · · Score: 1

      Yes, for prototyping printing makes sense. However, the article talks about this printer replacing injection molding (the example given was for toothbrushes). I am pretty sure nobody today is injection molding a prototype toothbrush, they probably use regular old milling for that. Therefore, the only way the comment makes sense is if they plan on replacing injection molding with printing in production.

    12. Re:Sped up videos. by cdrudge · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't say it will replace injection molding. It says it combines it:

      In theory, it could combine the flexibility of 3D printing with the speed and strength of old-school injection molding

      FDM printing is very flexible since molds don't have to be made, but quite slow in the actual production due to slow speeds and layer by layer construction makes them not as strong. Injection molding is very inflexible due to molds having to be made, but once they are made, very fast in production and strong.

      What this is, in theory is somewhere in between the two extremes. It prints much faster than FDM, but not as fast as injection molding. It's as flexible as loading a new file so almost anything is possible as quickly as you can design it without any expensive molds.

      No, it's not going to be as fast as injection molding for creating a single tooth brush. But what if you wanted to custom mold a bunch with a dentist's name? Or maybe the technology expands and it can produce 100 or 1000 at a time so it expands better than injection molding. Or it's a very complex shape that's not conducive to injection molding.

      A more real life example was my company wanted to make some flash drives in the shape of our product that has a distinctive wave on it. Quotes came back in the $3000 range just for the mold, and then individual costs of about a buck for the actual plastic. We needed about 250 of them. Even if it took a little longer and the cost was 10 more, we'd still be cheaper off with this type of a manufacturing technique.

    13. Re:Sped up videos. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what if you wanted to custom mold a bunch with a dentist's name?

      You have a small custom plate on the mold that you can swap out. Next question.

    14. Re:Sped up videos. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't say it will replace injection molding. It says it combines it:

      Nice selective quoting. You forgot the first sentence of the paragraph;

      These two factors, Carbon3D says, could make its technology practical for mass-producing common products — like, say, a toothbrush you buy in a store.

      That kaes it seem they want to replace injection molding.

      We needed about 250 of them. Even if it took a little longer and the cost was 10 more, we'd still be cheaper off with this type of a manufacturing technique.

      Producing 250 is not mass production. You would need to do in the thousands per run to be mass production.

    15. Re:Sped up videos. by jklovanc · · Score: 1

      technology practical for mass-producing common products

      That sounds like high production runs to me.

  13. Staggering? $41M? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Since when is $41M USD a "staggering" sum?

    1. Re:Staggering? $41M? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $41M USD. In $100 bills. That would weigh around 816 lbs, or 370 kg.

      370 kg is about as much as your mom weighs. Try lifting her without staggering.

    2. Re:Staggering? $41M? by jklovanc · · Score: 2

      $41M in bitcoins on a thumbdrive would weigh much less.

    3. Re:Staggering? $41M? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      287 699 108 834 Dogecoins on a microSD card would weigh even less.

  14. name by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I bet at first they wanted to call it Continuous Liquid Interface Technology (CLIT)

  15. They should focus on the detail as well by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The detail on the electron micrographs at the bottom is really good.

    That kind of level of detail fundamentally changes not just how fast you can print (which is just a matter of time), but what you can do with it. Imagine suspeding catalyst particles in the resin and printing fluid channels with incredibly large surface areas. Or other things that require lots of detail.

    Changing WHAT you can do is more interesting than how fast you can do it.

    1. Re:They should focus on the detail as well by meta-monkey · · Score: 1

      It all looked great. I was amazed watching that. We are living in the future.

      --
      We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
    2. Re:They should focus on the detail as well by Thagg · · Score: 1

      You can finally print mirrors with this, apparently. Quite cool

      --
      I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  16. I seen one of those at IMTS last year by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didnt get to see the thing run but he had a couple units and some prints, but I dont think he was getting those kinds of speeds.

  17. As if no one had thought of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn I'm tired of being poor. Can never make my ideas reality. What a trap.

    1. Re:As if no one had thought of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and by the way. There is some guy in Fort Wayne Indiana you might have a prob with. He's already got a prototype.

    2. Re:As if no one had thought of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, haha. NM. This is WAY cooler than my ideas AND his. LOL.

  18. Cool but... by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    The build envelope looks tiny. Let me know when I can make large custom electronics enclosures. And what about reliability and durability of the results? When these things can consistently survive the all-corners, all-edges, all-sides drop test, then I'll be impressed.

  19. Requires Gravity: Won't work in space by skaag · · Score: 1

    The ISS already has a 3D printer right now, which got me thinking, this technology requires gravity, so it won't work in space until we learn to properly generate artificial gravity in space.

    --

    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain... time... to... die...

    1. Re:Requires Gravity: Won't work in space by cjameshuff · · Score: 1

      You'd only need a centrifuge, and only one providing enough "gravity" to confine a shallow puddle of liquid, which doesn't take much. The powder fusion approaches are better suited for the stuff you'd need to print in space, though...just keep that powder out of your life support filters. (not to mention your lungs)

  20. The Peachy is a similar concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Peachy Printer - http://www.peachyprinter.com/ - is a similar concept, albeit lower resolution, for people who'd like to play around with the idea on a DIY basis.

  21. Its the peel thats missing by n2hightech · · Score: 1

    There are 3d printer systems that cure the whole surface at once called the B9 creator. They use a DLP type projector. So that is not what is new. What is new is that that this system does not require a peel operation. In the B9creator the peel is done by sliding the platform off the newly curred part. In the Form1 the tank is peeled by pulling one side away like opening a hinged door. In this new system no peel the cured material is does not stick to the tank because of the O2 rich zone near the bottom of the tank. As the part is pulled out the next layer cures to the new projected pattern. The secret must be in how they are able to get a stable Oxygen rich zone that is not dispersed by the withdrawal of the newly cured part and does not migrate around which would seem to make the point at which curing occurs unstable.

  22. Perfect for casting small parts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jewellers and modellers will love this, getting lost plastic masters that quick will be very handy.

  23. why all the press? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They raised $41m in 2013 when there SLA was new. Now Formlabs, FSL3D and b9Creator all exist for $5000. All 3 of these printers use Oxygen inhibition as stated in this paper with PDMS written in 2011: http://goo.gl/1hBrwp

    Anyone else notice Eiffel tower's print railing is missing? Quality isn't there... Slows down on flat surfaces too. Seems print area is tiny...

  24. The Patents are worthless due to prior art by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A DIY hobbyist published an almost identical device using a liquid resin and a scanning laser beam to cure the resin.

    The DIY 3D Printer used an ingenious method [which would have been patentable] to keep the resin surface level
    within a 1/10 MICRON range using an eye dropper and a wire sensor to dispense 1 drop of resin at a time. Since
    each drop is 2mm cubed and the surface of the 3D Printer stage tank is 20 cm x 20 cm, each drop raises the resin
    surface by 1/10000 mm.

    The resin is ordinary UV cured liquid resin available in Quarts, Gallons and Industrial sizes. The UV laser can be
    taken from a BluRay player.

    The result is a 3D object that can be colored or transparent and is smooth without needing surface sanding.