Please do your research! Just because a company says something is new doesn't mean it is. Kleenex would have us believe they invented the tissue. Stereolithography, as this printing method is called, was invented in in the mid 1980s.
Switch & Lever Yep true I saw this on the BBC website and they really are passing it off as a brand new process, yet the exact same process was developed as you say in the mid 1980's. The resin they used was very expensive then so recently they have drastically cut the price of the resin and the machines I suspect the innovation is the cost cutting rather than the science.;)
Switch & Lever Apparently this is not Stereolithography. It uses a few techniques that have never been used before. Also I might point out that they didn't go overboard with "Look at what we made! It's never been done before!". It even said that they haven't perfected it yet.
+Switch & Lever No kidding. I worked at HP in the mid 90s and we had one of these. The only difference, that I can see, is that it did not lift the item out of the vat as it polymerized the resin. What am I missing?
After doing a little research this machine looks strikingly similar to DLP Lithography which has been around for a long time. The only real difference is the CLIP technology that prevents the cured layer from contacting the bottom of the tray which is great but still it's not like this is 'brand new' technology.
+MrMachiner I don't think it should be argued that it's new or not, what is new I guess we could argue is how much more readily available this tech is. This is all stuff you can put together yourself in your own home.
+Engineering Nonsense The difference is the direction where the printed object moves. Old one goes down, so it requires depth. This one moving up so the size of the printed object is not limited by the depth.
There are shitloads of DLP printers out there. Not to mention, no, you can't mass produce things made out of resin. How about reading up a bit before making these statements?
Iesvilla We won't know for sure until more people get to see these and run comparisons but they are reporting that it's significantly faster and that it produces stronger better quality models.
mUVE, Sedgwick, Titan 1, EnvisionTEC's whole lineup and B9 are the more known ones. Then there's the Form 1, though it's a bit on the slow and pricey end, and it's not really DLP. Also, resin doesn't have enough resistance to endure the rigors of mass production since it's generally weaker than cheap plastic.
bkboggy new is relative. The computer is new to human history too. But to be honest idk if this is even going to be relevant ever. The quality didn't look too great quite yet.
Not only is that not new but the idea was invented before terminator 2 was even being written. the printer is cool but don't try to pass off decades old tech as new. The term “stereolithography” was coined in 1986
Jared Reabow ok but what about this exact printer. They made a video about it... is it not considered a potential new printer for the masses? Wouldn't that be new?
I'm blown away by how many people have tweeted this video to me on *****. I've seen it so much! And don't worry I will be reviewing one when it's publicly available.
Burak Keles well I'm wondering how it compares to other printers with resin and lasers.....apparently this is using oxygen.....somehow according to the tedtalk about it.....it's not a very technical video
One of the best bet we got is the Formlabs Form 1+ but still i prefer FFF(FDM) The DLP 3D printer are faster but they tend to lack on precision because of the video signal distorsion!
I wonder how intricate this style of printing can allow the end product to be, what the functional limitations are, and how other materials could somehow be used instead of a material that only reacts to UV light. Looks like a pretty cool idea. Sexy.
It could probably get pretty complex, I mean if the liquid hardens with exposure to light, using lazers could allow for exceptionally precise 'printing'
Arkaidyn It almost seems like the liquid would be the bottleneck to precision given that, as you mentioned, lasers are damned impressively precise and surely the liquid is the slave to the laser and not the other way around. I'm curious to see what may come of this. Humans are cool sometimes, heh.
I've seen a few links on results, it can produce very small and strong lattices as far as I can see, although I'd say a precision of at least 1.5mm if not less (but still smoothed over)
IIllytch321 You do know with laser sintering and sterolithograohy (what this printer is), you can already print metal components that are functionally vehicle-ready with a bit of cleanup, ceramic components, and even enamel replacements in dentistry. This isn't actually new hardware and it has a pretty massive variety of uses in the development of prototype technology.
Monody, This machine doesn´t work with metal. I don´t know any machine that work with both metal and UV resin. If there is one please show us. I would love to see. Resin is quicker, more precise, but much more expensive. And usually 3d printer that work with UV resin only work with UV resin.
Jack Evans Yeah, I read that. Thanks though. I'm really curious to see the machine in person. The only thing that really differs it, other than speed, is the use of oxygen and a permeable vat or resin holder. That part I don't fully understand.
Christopher C It uses oxygen to prevent the resin from curing where they don't want it to cure. Aside from that and using images instead of scanning lasers I'm not sure on any details.
You probably have already read this, but in case if you haven't: Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa2397 www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/03/16/science.aaa2397.full
Coz the masses b gullible idiots. Hemp made environmentally friendly cars r nearly indestructible (Henry Ford hit 1 with an axe, the axe broke) and 10x cheaper to run, also invented before petrol cars
"which prints in minuets instead of hours" An FFF type of printer could probably print that 3 and a half inch tall Eiffel tower nearly as fast. If you didn't notice that makerbot was printing an object that completely filled its much larger build volume. Although FFF printers won't deal with small detail print speeds as well because of having to move the printhead around so much. To further exemplify this. If I had to guess, the makerbot print was at least 6 times larger. So it should only take 6 times longer, correct? Unfortunately Thats not how our universe works. According to the square cube law, as an object grows in dimensional size it much more substantially grows in volume (and therefore weight and substance as well). If my estimations on the sizes are close and my math is right, then using ONLY the information gathered from this video, I could calculate that it would take the Carbon3D printer over 3 and a half hours to complete that print. You do this by simply applying the square cube law. According to my estimations, if the Eiffel tower is 6 times smaller in dimension, then the makerbot print should have a VOLUME of 36x its size, meaning the print should actually take 36x longer, or about 216 minuets. In conclusion to this. Using the visual and timed information from this video, you can estimate that neither printer is going to be much of a faster solution than the other. Then again I could just be a total dumb ass and wrong.
+Luke AOD This method is undeniably WAY faster than the printer style Makerbot, for exactly the reason you mentioned. With the old method, length, width and height are in play to determine print speed, meaning print time increases cubically (as you said). The new method prints an entire layer at a time, reducing to one variable of height to determine print time. Thus print time increases linearly.
efdeecue In that case. Refer to my last sentence. However. These require expensive projectors and still print extremely small objects. Although from my understanding they are incredibly precise. Even putting their laser 3D printer cousins to shame.
Stereolithography has been around for quite some time, but imagine how cool it would be to make a giant one of these? Eventually, we would be 3d printing houses!
can't see how they will get round the problem of making a 3D print with an overhang more than 90 degrees. This looks ultra cool though literally like magic! Crazy
This is basically like some of the first 3D printers ever made called rapid prototypers. the process was nearly identical except that the UV laser was on the top and the prototype was immersed back in the resin at each step.
This is not a new type of 3D printing and they didn't invent it, I have actually used one similar to this, the resin is sticky and toxic and you can't print things like ABS a PLA and so on, this is a disadvantage as the plastic that comes out of this printer is quite brittle
Carbon 3D uses different resins from other SLA. Some are strong enough the be used in final end consumer products (stronger than filament printers). Tested did a good interview with them. But no this is not a new technique to printing.
but the toxic problem still there, and it's Irritant, you have to watch the product with solution. once my machine splashed a drip of the materiel on my face, it dissolved my glasses and I couldn't see any thing for a day
This is actually a really common way to 3d print (it's just that the patents for it only recently expired, meaning we will start seeing this method more and more in the low-end and hobby sectors) -- what's your source on saying that it was inspired by terminator 2?
I like that it has a lot fewer moving parts. I'm sure that contributes to its faster pace, but it also means there are fewer things to break on the machine itself. I'm sure this type of process has limitations. Some models may not be constructed on this kind of machine but would work on a table-based system. I think that those limitations could be overcome by turning this system upside-down, in a way. That is, let the UV light touch the upper surface of the resin and let the model sink down into the resin as the build progresses. When the model is complete, it would be raised up out of the resin pool. This would allow larger, heavier models to be constructed, using relatively few moving parts. However, one would need to ensure that the surface of the resin is motionless. There may also be a problem with trapping resin inside a model that contains fully-enclosed cavities.
IMHO the breakthrough here is the dead zone (a thin layer of resin that does not cure) so the cured layer does not attach to bottom of the vat containing the curable resin. As a result there is no need of a peeling mechanism between the projection of each cross section image.
I really hope nobody is buying this gibberish. Called the Lawson-Adams technique, it was developed at DuPont in 1991 by John Alan Lawton and Jerome Thomas Adams, and is described in European patents EP0484086 (A1 and B1), and in German patent DE69113394T2. Oddly, these are different than the other members of the series, having a different set of claims, and other differences. The other series members are US5122441, US5391072, TW244379B, KR950014780B1, JPH05503257A, JP2667053B2, WO9207705A1, CA20542761, and AU8676691A1. US5391072 is a division of US5122441. EP0484086/DE69113394 clearly describes the use of a permeable build plate and diffused inhibitor to prevent adhesion (claim 1), with direct perpendicular movement of the photo-hardened material, in both continuous and intermittent motion (claims 10 and 11). Sideways motion is described as an option to aid in release (claim 12). The build plate may be rigid or flexible, and a wide variety of possible materials are described and tested, including Mylar, polyester, fluoroelastomers, polyethylene, Teflon PFA, Teflon AF, Kalrez, polypropylene, silicone elastomers, molecularpourous membranes, and Gore-Tex. Both the imaging and composition atmospheres can be controlled and even changed during exposure. Pressure can be used. The inhibitor can be air, oxygen, or enhanced air. Pre-saturation of the window is described. Non-contacting regions between an elastomeric and a rigid windows creates inhibitor flow channels similar to the "purge channels" described by the DeSimone group. Exposure can be image-wise or by laser scanning. And these are not the first documents to discuss the use of inhibitors to effect separation. French patent FRFR2567668 (priority date 07/16/84), 3D Systems patent 4,575,330 (priority date 8/08/84), and Efrem Fudim patent 4,801,477 (priority date 09/29/87) all discuss inhibitors, but fail to explain the details of how they would be generated and maintained. Before DuPont, Charles Hull of 3D Systems, in patent 5,447,822 (priority date 09/28/89), mentions diffusing oxygen through a porous plate to inhibit adhesion, or pre-saturating the plate with oxygen, ethoxysilane, or trichlorosilane. In the article "The Light Sculpting process" in the Rapid Prototyping Report for 11/93, Marshall Burns discusses the subject, but fails to grasp its full potential. US patent application 2013/0292862 (priority date 05/03/2012) by Michael Joyce of B9 Creations (yes, the popular SLA printer) bears a notable similarity to the DuPont series, in both the text and figures. It discusses the use of a build plate in contact with a permeable film actively or passively supplied with an inhibitor to weaken adhesion. The plate can be coated with PDMS and the inhibitor can be oxygen, with or without pressure. Figure 4 shows an arrangement where multiple channels extend from the cure support plate to the inhibiting layer, allowing it to be permeated by the inhibitor, again reminiscent of the purge channels discussed by DeSimone's group. Joyce was apparently unable to achieve a totally force free separation, and still uses a sliding assist. A 2011 PHD thesis by Howon Lee entitled "Three Dimensional Micro Fabrication of Active Micro Devices using Soft Functional Materials" he describes a multi material SLA in which a flexible PDMS membrane permeating oxygen assists in separation. The use of PDMS was popularized by a series of papers written by Dhananjay Dendukuri, the developer of stop flow lithography, who realized that oxygen diffusing through this material will inhibit acrylate resin adhesion, making the process possible. Three popular papers are "Modeling of Oxygen Inhibited Free Radical Photopolymerization in a PDMS Microfluidic Device" in Macromolecules 2008 41 (22), "Continuous Flow Lithography for High Throughput Microparticle Synthesis" in Nature materials 2006 5 (5), and "Stop Flow Lithography in a Microfluidic Device" in Lab on a Chip 2007 7 (7). Since 2012, Chen et al. have been studying part separation from PDMS in Stereolithography based on oxygen inhibition, in a series of related papers. Like Joyce, they haven't achieved total force free separation, but understand the idea. One paper is "Rapid Manufacturing in Minutes: the Development of a Mask Projection Stereolithography Process for High Speed Fabrication" from ASME 2012 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference Notre Dame, Indiana, USA, June 4-8, 2012. Another is "A Fast Mask Projection Stereolithography Process for Fabricating Digital Models in Minutes" in J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 134(5), 051011 (Sep 10, 2012). This group also published "Fast Re-coating Methods for the Projection-Based Stereolithography Process in Micro- and Macro- Scales", Solid Freeform Fabrication Proceedings, U of Texas, Austin, 2012 (pages 846-862). Here, they actually report direct part pull off in a constrained surface micro-stereolithography system, but not continuously. As some of you have correctly commented, Stereolithography is the oldest of 3D printing technologies. Optical SLA is generally accredited to Otto Munz in US patent 2,775,758 (priority date 12/05/50). The electron beam version was first described by James Edward Gordon in British patent GB810041 (priority date 12/03/55). Optical constrained surface Stereolithography (building from a window vs gravity) was first discussed by Hideo Kodama in the article "Automatic Method for Fabricating a Three Dimensional Plastic Model with Photo Hardening Polymer" in Review of Scientific instruments, Vol. 52, No. 11, 11/1981 (pages 1770-1773). He also published "A Scheme for Three Dimensional Display by Automatic Fabrication of Three-Dimensional Model" in IECE, Vol. J64-C, No. 4, 04/1981 (pages 237-241). A Japanese patent application was also filed, JPS5614478A (priority date 04/12/80), but was denied because it violated the one year rule. Andre et al. are generally accredited with producing the first high quality parts in 1984. They patented their work in French patent FR2567668 (priority date 07/16/84). Further work was reported by Alan Herbert in "Solid Object Generation" in Journal of Applied Photographic Engineering 8 (4), 08/1982 (pages 185-188). And still further work was published in Japanese patent JPS60247515A by Yoji Muritani (priority date 05/23/84). This predates all 3D Systems patents. They still say they invented stereolithography on their web site. Finally, Charles Hull published his famous patent 4,575,330 (priority date 08/08/84). It was challenged in court by DuPont based on Hideo kodama's papers, and largely refuted. In contrast, FDM (fused deposition modeling), possibly better known to many viewers and the basis of most low cost 3D printers, was not developed until 1989 in US patent 5,121,329 by S. Scott Crump of Stratysis (priority date 10/30/1989). Yes, stereolithography is almost 40 years older than FDM. This simple, cheap, accurate, and inherently reliable printing technology was stifled by the legal minefield this technology had become by the early 90's. Acrylate resins like HDDA, TMPTA, and PGD are in the $4 to $10 per Kilogram range, making this technology the most economical by far.
3d printing is cool and all but I work in a plastic factory and we can mold those parts 50 at a time ever 30 seconds so it still has a vary long way to go if any one wants to use it for mass production.
I've worked in manufacturing for the last 15 years. Other than real-world prototypeing (not CAD simulation) to see how well some idea functions. I can't see much use for 3d printing. I guess it would be good if you were only making one part it would save you time and money by not having to make a mold. Injection molding can make things better, easier, faster in larger quantities. So....
This answer may be late but 3d printing is especially usefull for prototyping or for students or simply for kids which are being tought mechanical design from early on or simply for art. Its far easier to 3D print a 3 hour piece and test if the thing you are developing is working than sending it to a factory which will mold or cast the piece and takes half or a whole day or even a whole week if it is a intricate piece comming from china. 3d printing despit being called slow is comparative to local factory manufacturing extremely quick and accessible for everyone for a cheap price. After you are done with this step you can actually think abouth mass production.
Wow! Imagine the ways we can potentially apply this to everyday devices once it become cheaper to mass produce for practical applications. For example: creating a 3D model of the human body in a high school anatomy class. It could make classes a lot more interactive, and interesting. Maybe even to the point where you can create hologram-like interactions with people when speaking to them. It would be unnecessary, but really cool nonetheless! Think Star Wars "You're our only hope, Obi Wan." :D
In the video, you compare the timing of a tiny Eiffel Tower to a giant 3D print from another printer. In actuality, the resin printers are not much faster at all and the final product is MUCH more fragile. On the other hand, the resin printers can get much finer details.
There's a lot of misinformation in this video; essentially the narrator is explaining DLP or SLA technology, "Conventional 3D Printing uses a printing head that passes over a bed depositing a layer at a time." Conventional? Resin based 3D printing has been around for a good half a decade longer than plastic extrusion FDM printers. CLIP Technology is still shrouded in mystery, the use of a tunable photochemical process, the use of oxygen. If it was as easy to digest as this video makes it sound it would have been done before.
I like the idea, and it seems it is still in the early stages. Can someone explain this? 1. Is the liquid moving upwards only because of viscosity, then the "light" solidifies the liquid instantly?
If all the factors were finely divisible, like sand, it would be possible to produce the smallest output of any commodity with all the advantages of large-scale industry. - Joan Robinson, economist .... the decline of mass production in favour of localized production, will create a plethora of design, and brand name power will be diluted as variety increases. This does not seem a good thing to me, given that many would rather "tune out the noise" and simplify decision making processes for things. Fashion, for example, has been an attempt to keep variety at bay - by standardizing patterns and colours, and then mass producing them. The haberdasheries of Haight-Ashbury (sp?) - "can't get this kind of paisley anywhere else" gave way to polyester leisure suits and paisley patterned ties, found at a local KMart. People seem to hate variety, and would rather wear what everybody else is wearing. So, this current trend that suggests 3d printing will create a variety of things not yet currently imagined - though it may be true, will end up giving rise to standardization, ... and mass production, once more - is my prediction. But in the interim, get ready for a whole lot of "funny".
Hmm, poorly researched, this method is not new or revolutionary in any way. It makes me worry a little about your other videos, which I love by the way.
This is an old technology called stereo lithography. it has more downsides than 3D printing. It has been in industrial use for 20+ years. But has little chance of going mass.
>claiming technology that's been available since the 80's is cutting edge >comparing build times of minutes and hours between two very different small and large objects >not factoring in strength or cost-effectiveness BUT LE TERMINATOR 2!!!!!
Umm sounds kinda cool but i don't see it being any better than the basic way of 3D printing which is way more work but i believe is much more efficient hence its layer after layer which is stronger because it has to build the platform with tedious amounts of back and forth movement
Due to how plastic diffuses light, how good will the accuracy be, can it offer enough detail to 3d print a working tool, or will it be a step back in detail? Also, how strong are the 3D printed materials, e.g., if I print out the body of a Nokia 3310, will I be able to break drywall with it?
Keep in mind we are in the beginning stages of 3d printing. Come back in 20 years and watch this video compared with what will exist and this will be seen as box computers from the 90s compared to ipads. There was a time when those huge computers were seen as cutting edge technology.
The innovation appears to be in reversing the position of the curing light, underneath instead of above the resin bath--but I don't know whether this makes it inherently faster. Unrelated to this, please be aware that there's no way 3D printed polymer items can be as strong as injection molded products since anyone who has worked around injection knows that pressurizing polymer in the mold until cool increases its strength by orders of magnitude. More plastic is used because it ends up denser. Same for sintered metals: they are not as strong as the same metal piece made by forging. That's why cast crankshafts are weaker than forged. However, the new ModuMetal process might be a breakthrough, as a kind of electroforming on steroids: ten times stronger they say!
isn't this just the same as or exactly stereolithography that the formlabs printer already has been offering to the market? I was looking at one of their printers due to that exact process and the resolution that it has compared to allot of the other in home printers formlabs.com/
It works differently, pulling the material out of the bath instead of requiring new material to be swept over the printing surface after every pass. It's similar though.
Formlabs method is still stereolithigraphy, just with lasers and upside down, it works by printing many 2D layers to make up the model. Carbon3Ds method, called CLIP "Continuous Liquid Interface Production", uses a different method, that I have no idea how to describe, which produces a stronger structure faster and without the lines from layers. Here's an article on it 3dprint.com/51566/carbon3d-clip-3d-printing
Jack Evans Seems they're still technically using stereolithography actually, that article even describes it as they're using the oxygen to create a thin buffer layer so they can use a stronger uv light and cook the layers faster without accidentally bleeding into surrounding resign to make thicker or messy layers. Still fundamentally the same process as always though with utilizing the uv light. Formlabs is actually an odd one for using a laser for their seterolithography instead of a uv light, largely because a laser tends to be more useful in sintering.
This all sounds awesome (minutes for a print job!!! :D ) but what do people who've used this thing think of it? How affordable is it? How often do parts break down? What's the cost of the goo? How long before you have to buy a new machine? Etc
hi. first of no extruder 3d printer is just one of different types of 3d printer. UV printing or laser printing has been here for long time even longer than extruder printers. BTW. maker bot is not a best in comparison. extruder printers have speed up to 200mm/s. and the main part is extruder 3d printers are known for they low price. you don't need any special solution or UV projector(witch costs a lot if you want to have good resolution prints).
do you think can this type of technology be used in the aerospace engineering industry? some aerospace companies are already investing into 3d printing but this in particular looks like a different process than the ones i've seen them use
I was trying to find the way, whether we can make shape memory polymer by using 3-D printing techniques. I found four types like SLA, DLP, Multijet/ Polyjet and CLIP. I have two polymers resin type , now I am confused, system should I have to select and order to go for further experimentation. Can you help me, to find suitable technique for layers process.
What's the name of the music? I looked up the music titles mentioned at the end of the video but with no luck, I also tried Shazam and it didn't work as well.
Funny thing is there is another movie (Small Soldiers) that use this approach in the film. They show a vat of liquid that a laser shoots into..out pops a full 3D model.
Please do your research! Just because a company says something is new doesn't mean it is. Kleenex would have us believe they invented the tissue. Stereolithography, as this printing method is called, was invented in in the mid 1980s.
Switch & Lever Yep true I saw this on the BBC website and they really are passing it off as a brand new process, yet the exact same process was developed as you say in the mid 1980's. The resin they used was very expensive then so recently they have drastically cut the price of the resin and the machines I suspect the innovation is the cost cutting rather than the science.;)
This is not stereolithography, it is an actual new method for 3D printing.
Switch & Lever Apparently this is not Stereolithography. It uses a few techniques that have never been used before. Also I might point out that they didn't go overboard with "Look at what we made! It's never been done before!". It even said that they haven't perfected it yet.
+Switch & Lever exactly.
+Switch & Lever No kidding. I worked at HP in the mid 90s and we had one of these. The only difference, that I can see, is that it did not lift the item out of the vat as it polymerized the resin. What am I missing?
After doing a little research this machine looks strikingly similar to DLP Lithography which has been around for a long time. The only real difference is the CLIP technology that prevents the cured layer from contacting the bottom of the tray which is great but still it's not like this is 'brand new' technology.
Just came from your channel and seeing how you have some of the top comments, it's as if I never left :)
+Barnacules Nerdgasm I totally agree. No new technology here. Improvements yes.
+MrMachiner I don't think it should be argued that it's new or not, what is new I guess we could argue is how much more readily available this tech is. This is all stuff you can put together yourself in your own home.
+Barnacules Nerdgasm hi jerry
+Barnacules Nerdgasm who cares
Am I misunderstanding--Isn't this method of 3D printing older than filament based printing?
***** That long answer was a bit elaborate. Not sure I understood it. But I get the short answer.
+Engineering Nonsense you wear your name correctly.
Castle Black Lol in that this being [portrayed as new tech is nonsense?--Or because I make no sense?
Castle Black Engineering Nonsense is just the name of my youtube channel though.
+Engineering Nonsense
The difference is the direction where the printed object moves. Old one goes down, so it requires depth. This one moving up so the size of the printed object is not limited by the depth.
NEW?!? How is stereolithography new? Maybe to consumers, but this technique is decades old.
There are shitloads of DLP printers out there. Not to mention, no, you can't mass produce things made out of resin. How about reading up a bit before making these statements?
3dprint.com/51566/carbon3d-clip-3d-printing
except this thing is fucking fast
Uhreg It looks very fast on what appears to be a very small print with questionable quality compared to more detailed resin prints.
Iesvilla
We won't know for sure until more people get to see these and run comparisons but they are reporting that it's significantly faster and that it produces stronger better quality models.
mUVE, Sedgwick, Titan 1, EnvisionTEC's whole lineup and B9 are the more known ones. Then there's the Form 1, though it's a bit on the slow and pricey end, and it's not really DLP. Also, resin doesn't have enough resistance to endure the rigors of mass production since it's generally weaker than cheap plastic.
Gotta love it when new tech is not only more efficient but also just looks way cooler and more sci-fi.
Yeah stuff like this reminds you that the future will continue to happen. Paradigm shifts are the best surprises!
Except it's not new.
bkboggy new is relative. The computer is new to human history too. But to be honest idk if this is even going to be relevant ever. The quality didn't look too great quite yet.
Not only is that not new but the idea was invented before terminator 2 was even being written. the printer is cool but don't try to pass off decades old tech as new.
The term “stereolithography” was coined in 1986
Jared Reabow ok but what about this exact printer. They made a video about it... is it not considered a potential new printer for the masses? Wouldn't that be new?
"Inspired by terminator"
Because that ended up SOOOO well in the end.
it ended up being a great movie
Maybe that's a hint? Lol
I'm blown away by how many people have tweeted this video to me on *****. I've seen it so much! And don't worry I will be reviewing one when it's publicly available.
loool I thought of u when I saw it too......btw how is this different from other printers that work with resin and lasers.....I guess it's faster
pumpuppthevolume did u not listen ?
Burak Keles well I'm wondering how it compares to other printers with resin and lasers.....apparently this is using oxygen.....somehow according to the tedtalk about it.....it's not a very technical video
oh ok then nvm
One of the best bet we got is the Formlabs Form 1+ but still i prefer FFF(FDM)
The DLP 3D printer are faster but they tend to lack on precision because of the video signal distorsion!
It's like it's reaching into a portal and pulling out an object. This is amazing.
I wonder how intricate this style of printing can allow the end product to be, what the functional limitations are, and how other materials could somehow be used instead of a material that only reacts to UV light. Looks like a pretty cool idea. Sexy.
It could probably get pretty complex, I mean if the liquid hardens with exposure to light, using lazers could allow for exceptionally precise 'printing'
Arkaidyn It almost seems like the liquid would be the bottleneck to precision given that, as you mentioned, lasers are damned impressively precise and surely the liquid is the slave to the laser and not the other way around. I'm curious to see what may come of this.
Humans are cool sometimes, heh.
I've seen a few links on results, it can produce very small and strong lattices as far as I can see, although I'd say a precision of at least 1.5mm if not less (but still smoothed over)
IIllytch321 You do know with laser sintering and sterolithograohy (what this printer is), you can already print metal components that are functionally vehicle-ready with a bit of cleanup, ceramic components, and even enamel replacements in dentistry. This isn't actually new hardware and it has a pretty massive variety of uses in the development of prototype technology.
Monody,
This machine doesn´t work with metal. I don´t know any machine that work with both metal and UV resin. If there is one please show us. I would love to see.
Resin is quicker, more precise, but much more expensive. And usually 3d printer that work with UV resin only work with UV resin.
Cool, but this method of 3D printing already exists. Look at Form1, rapidshape, Envisiontec, Roland and the B9. They all use SLA or DLP SLA.
This is different called CLIP 3dprint.com/51566/carbon3d-clip-3d-printing
Jack Evans Yeah, I read that. Thanks though. I'm really curious to see the machine in person. The only thing that really differs it, other than speed, is the use of oxygen and a permeable vat or resin holder. That part I don't fully understand.
Christopher C
It uses oxygen to prevent the resin from curing where they don't want it to cure. Aside from that and using images instead of scanning lasers I'm not sure on any details.
You probably have already read this, but in case if you haven't:
Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa2397
www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2015/03/16/science.aaa2397.full
Raymond Siu Fai Chow I don't have a login for that article, but I am interested in reading it :-(
I think I saw this as kickstarters 3-4 years ago. Single laser or whole layer with projector and UV lamp.
DLP
The electric car came before the gasoline powered car but what's old is new again.
Coz the masses b gullible idiots. Hemp made environmentally friendly cars r nearly indestructible (Henry Ford hit 1 with an axe, the axe broke) and 10x cheaper to run, also invented before petrol cars
"which prints in minuets instead of hours"
An FFF type of printer could probably print that 3 and a half inch tall Eiffel tower nearly as fast. If you didn't notice that makerbot was printing an object that completely filled its much larger build volume. Although FFF printers won't deal with small detail print speeds as well because of having to move the printhead around so much.
To further exemplify this. If I had to guess, the makerbot print was at least 6 times larger. So it should only take 6 times longer, correct? Unfortunately Thats not how our universe works. According to the square cube law, as an object grows in dimensional size it much more substantially grows in volume (and therefore weight and substance as well). If my estimations on the sizes are close and my math is right, then using ONLY the information gathered from this video, I could calculate that it would take the Carbon3D printer over 3 and a half hours to complete that print.
You do this by simply applying the square cube law. According to my estimations, if the Eiffel tower is 6 times smaller in dimension, then the makerbot print should have a VOLUME of 36x its size, meaning the print should actually take 36x longer, or about 216 minuets.
In conclusion to this. Using the visual and timed information from this video, you can estimate that neither printer is going to be much of a faster solution than the other.
Then again I could just be a total dumb ass and wrong.
+Luke AOD This method is undeniably WAY faster than the printer style Makerbot, for exactly the reason you mentioned. With the old method, length, width and height are in play to determine print speed, meaning print time increases cubically (as you said). The new method prints an entire layer at a time, reducing to one variable of height to determine print time. Thus print time increases linearly.
efdeecue In that case. Refer to my last sentence.
However. These require expensive projectors and still print extremely small objects. Although from my understanding they are incredibly precise. Even putting their laser 3D printer cousins to shame.
I've been looking for this explanation for years!
Stereolithography has been around for quite some time, but imagine how cool it would be to make a giant one of these? Eventually, we would be 3d printing houses!
this version of 3d printing was the first that ever made
vox be smacking tf outta me with them ads
Love these short videos
can't see how they will get round the problem of making a 3D print with an overhang more than 90 degrees. This looks ultra cool though literally like magic! Crazy
It's fast, it's minimalistic, and it's beautiful.
stop playing lol. this what jacque was talking about years ago. that s crazy. WOW it just keep getting better i swear.
New method? Funny AF
Dude, this looks like traditional SLA but takes way less time. You could mass produce with this machine.
It has it's drawbacks, do your research.
Dash Galaxy for 100$ a bottle of it? Yeah, sure. Just sell you tiny plastic trinkets for 40$ a piece
No words simply awesome, 3d printing technology gets better eveydday
That calls stereolitography, and this is not new. First patent is from 1986. It's older than 3D printing
This is basically like some of the first 3D printers ever made called rapid prototypers. the process was nearly identical except that the UV laser was on the top and the prototype was immersed back in the resin at each step.
Absolutely INCREDIBLE!
This is not a new type of 3D printing and they didn't invent it, I have actually used one similar to this, the resin is sticky and toxic and you can't print things like ABS a PLA and so on, this is a disadvantage as the plastic that comes out of this printer is quite brittle
Carbon 3D uses different resins from other SLA. Some are strong enough the be used in final end consumer products (stronger than filament printers). Tested did a good interview with them. But no this is not a new technique to printing.
but the toxic problem still there, and it's Irritant, you have to watch the product with solution. once my machine splashed a drip of the materiel on my face, it dissolved my glasses and I couldn't see any thing for a day
This is actually a really common way to 3d print (it's just that the patents for it only recently expired, meaning we will start seeing this method more and more in the low-end and hobby sectors) -- what's your source on saying that it was inspired by terminator 2?
Alright, how much do you want for the possessed goo
mullie346 Deal
mullie346 Dang it!!!
That looks so awesome.
Nice VOX only two years behind the TED talk that unveiled this technology.
I like that it has a lot fewer moving parts. I'm sure that contributes to its faster pace, but it also means there are fewer things to break on the machine itself. I'm sure this type of process has limitations. Some models may not be constructed on this kind of machine but would work on a table-based system.
I think that those limitations could be overcome by turning this system upside-down, in a way. That is, let the UV light touch the upper surface of the resin and let the model sink down into the resin as the build progresses. When the model is complete, it would be raised up out of the resin pool. This would allow larger, heavier models to be constructed, using relatively few moving parts. However, one would need to ensure that the surface of the resin is motionless. There may also be a problem with trapping resin inside a model that contains fully-enclosed cavities.
This is nothing short of amazing!
When you get all quiet I envision your dad standing at the top of the stairs telling you it's late.
Print something LARGE SCALE with it.
I'm not gonna make TRINKETS, I'm gonna make full-size CARS ! ! !
Check your calendars. Hobbyists where doing this for years. Let alone professionals.
I have to correct myself here. The new deal here is the oxygen gradient at the bottom window.
It is new. But probably still not revolutionary.
Guys all of you are criticizing this but their amazing team are doing this with the power of light AND oxygen
"Get to the printarrr!"
"Come with me if you want to print!"
"Hasta la vista, printy."
This looks fucking awesome. I do wonder how it measures up to regular printing in terms of material strength and small details though.
they can do cheaper cups and containers.
will be amazing if they could do glass materials as well.
This was very informative
Wow. This blew my mind. I am very impressed with this. And theoretically you could make a large scale version and use liquid metals.
Cmon this method was the first one to be invented, the diference is that carbon uses a "layer of oxygen" to speed up the curing process
Nothing much changed after 6 years
IMHO the breakthrough here is the dead zone (a thin layer of resin that does not cure) so the cured layer does not attach to bottom of the vat containing the curable resin. As a result there is no need of a peeling mechanism between the projection of each cross section image.
I really hope nobody is buying this gibberish. Called the Lawson-Adams technique, it was developed at DuPont in 1991 by John Alan Lawton and Jerome Thomas Adams, and is described in European patents EP0484086 (A1 and B1), and in German patent DE69113394T2. Oddly, these are different than the other members of the series, having a different
set of claims, and other differences. The other series members are US5122441, US5391072, TW244379B, KR950014780B1, JPH05503257A, JP2667053B2, WO9207705A1, CA20542761, and AU8676691A1. US5391072 is a division of US5122441. EP0484086/DE69113394 clearly describes the use of a permeable build plate and diffused inhibitor to prevent adhesion (claim 1), with direct perpendicular movement of the photo-hardened material, in both continuous and intermittent motion (claims 10 and 11). Sideways motion is described as an option to aid in release (claim 12). The build plate may be rigid or flexible, and a wide variety of possible materials are described and tested, including Mylar, polyester, fluoroelastomers, polyethylene, Teflon PFA, Teflon AF, Kalrez, polypropylene, silicone elastomers, molecularpourous membranes, and Gore-Tex. Both the imaging and composition atmospheres can be controlled and even changed during exposure. Pressure can be used. The inhibitor can be air, oxygen, or enhanced air. Pre-saturation of the window is described. Non-contacting regions between an elastomeric and a rigid windows creates inhibitor flow channels similar to the "purge channels" described by the DeSimone group. Exposure can be image-wise or by laser scanning. And these are not the first documents to discuss the use of inhibitors to effect separation. French patent FRFR2567668 (priority date 07/16/84), 3D Systems patent 4,575,330 (priority date 8/08/84), and Efrem Fudim patent 4,801,477 (priority date 09/29/87) all discuss inhibitors, but fail to explain the details of how they would be generated and maintained. Before DuPont, Charles Hull of 3D Systems, in patent 5,447,822 (priority date 09/28/89), mentions diffusing oxygen through a porous plate to inhibit adhesion, or pre-saturating the plate with oxygen, ethoxysilane, or trichlorosilane. In the article "The Light Sculpting process" in the Rapid Prototyping Report for 11/93, Marshall Burns discusses the subject, but fails to grasp its full potential. US patent application 2013/0292862 (priority date 05/03/2012) by Michael Joyce of B9 Creations (yes, the popular SLA printer) bears a notable similarity to the DuPont series, in both the text and figures. It discusses the use of a build plate in contact with a permeable film actively or passively supplied with an inhibitor to weaken adhesion. The plate can be coated with PDMS and the inhibitor can be oxygen, with or without pressure. Figure 4 shows an arrangement where multiple channels extend from the cure support plate to the inhibiting layer, allowing it to be permeated by the inhibitor, again reminiscent of the purge channels discussed by DeSimone's group. Joyce was apparently unable to achieve a totally force free separation, and still uses a sliding assist. A 2011 PHD thesis by Howon Lee entitled "Three Dimensional Micro Fabrication of Active Micro Devices using Soft Functional Materials" he describes a multi material SLA in which a flexible PDMS membrane permeating oxygen assists in separation. The use of PDMS was popularized by a series of papers written by Dhananjay Dendukuri, the developer of stop flow lithography, who realized that oxygen diffusing through this material will inhibit acrylate resin adhesion, making the process possible. Three popular papers are "Modeling of Oxygen Inhibited Free Radical Photopolymerization in a PDMS Microfluidic Device" in Macromolecules 2008 41 (22), "Continuous Flow Lithography for High Throughput Microparticle Synthesis" in Nature materials 2006 5 (5), and "Stop Flow Lithography in a Microfluidic Device" in Lab on a Chip 2007 7 (7). Since 2012, Chen et al. have been studying part separation from PDMS in Stereolithography based on oxygen inhibition, in a series of related papers. Like Joyce, they haven't achieved total force free separation, but understand the idea. One paper is "Rapid Manufacturing in Minutes: the Development of a Mask Projection Stereolithography Process for High Speed Fabrication" from ASME 2012 International Manufacturing Science and Engineering Conference Notre Dame, Indiana, USA, June 4-8, 2012. Another is "A Fast Mask Projection Stereolithography Process for Fabricating Digital Models in Minutes" in J. Manuf. Sci. Eng 134(5), 051011 (Sep 10, 2012). This group also published "Fast Re-coating Methods for the Projection-Based Stereolithography Process in Micro- and Macro- Scales", Solid Freeform Fabrication Proceedings, U of Texas, Austin, 2012 (pages 846-862). Here, they actually report direct part pull off in a constrained surface micro-stereolithography system, but not continuously. As some of you have correctly commented, Stereolithography is the oldest of 3D printing technologies. Optical SLA is generally accredited to Otto Munz in US patent 2,775,758 (priority date 12/05/50). The electron beam version was first described by James Edward Gordon in British patent GB810041 (priority date 12/03/55). Optical constrained surface Stereolithography (building from a window vs gravity) was first discussed by Hideo Kodama in the article "Automatic Method for Fabricating a Three Dimensional Plastic Model with Photo Hardening Polymer" in Review of Scientific instruments, Vol. 52, No. 11, 11/1981 (pages 1770-1773). He also published "A Scheme for Three Dimensional Display by Automatic Fabrication of Three-Dimensional Model" in IECE, Vol. J64-C, No. 4, 04/1981 (pages 237-241). A Japanese patent application was also filed, JPS5614478A (priority date 04/12/80), but was denied because it violated the one year rule. Andre et al. are generally accredited with producing the first high quality parts in 1984. They patented their work in French patent FR2567668 (priority date 07/16/84). Further work was reported by Alan Herbert in "Solid Object Generation" in Journal of Applied Photographic Engineering 8 (4), 08/1982 (pages 185-188). And still further work was published in Japanese patent JPS60247515A by Yoji Muritani (priority date 05/23/84). This predates all 3D Systems patents. They still say they invented stereolithography on their web site. Finally, Charles Hull published his famous patent 4,575,330 (priority date 08/08/84). It was challenged in court by DuPont based on Hideo kodama's papers, and largely refuted. In contrast, FDM (fused deposition modeling), possibly better known to many viewers and the basis of most low cost 3D printers, was not developed until 1989 in US patent 5,121,329 by S. Scott Crump of Stratysis (priority date 10/30/1989). Yes, stereolithography is almost 40 years older than FDM. This simple, cheap, accurate, and inherently reliable printing technology was stifled by the legal minefield this technology had become by the early 90's. Acrylate resins like HDDA, TMPTA, and PGD are in the $4 to $10 per Kilogram range, making this
technology the most economical by far.
3d printing is cool and all but I work in a plastic factory and we can mold those parts 50 at a time ever 30 seconds so it still has a vary long way to go if any one wants to use it for mass production.
this is so out of this world ...freaking amazing :-) :-) :-)
Imagine what other materials could be used with this kind of printer!
I've worked in manufacturing for the last 15 years. Other than real-world prototypeing (not CAD simulation) to see how well some idea functions. I can't see much use for 3d printing.
I guess it would be good if you were only making one part it would save you time and money by not having to make a mold.
Injection molding can make things better, easier, faster in larger quantities. So....
This answer may be late but 3d printing is especially usefull for prototyping or for students or simply for kids which are being tought mechanical design from early on or simply for art. Its far easier to 3D print a 3 hour piece and test if the thing you are developing is working than sending it to a factory which will mold or cast the piece and takes half or a whole day or even a whole week if it is a intricate piece comming from china. 3d printing despit being called slow is comparative to local factory manufacturing extremely quick and accessible for everyone for a cheap price. After you are done with this step you can actually think abouth mass production.
I wonder how sturdy the material is compared to the other 3d printers
Wow! Imagine the ways we can potentially apply this to everyday devices once it become cheaper to mass produce for practical applications. For example: creating a 3D model of the human body in a high school anatomy class. It could make classes a lot more interactive, and interesting. Maybe even to the point where you can create hologram-like interactions with people when speaking to them. It would be unnecessary, but really cool nonetheless! Think Star Wars "You're our only hope, Obi Wan." :D
In the video, you compare the timing of a tiny Eiffel Tower to a giant 3D print from another printer. In actuality, the resin printers are not much faster at all and the final product is MUCH more fragile. On the other hand, the resin printers can get much finer details.
There's a lot of misinformation in this video; essentially the narrator is explaining DLP or SLA technology, "Conventional 3D Printing uses a printing head that passes over a bed depositing a layer at a time." Conventional? Resin based 3D printing has been around for a good half a decade longer than plastic extrusion FDM printers.
CLIP Technology is still shrouded in mystery, the use of a tunable photochemical process, the use of oxygen. If it was as easy to digest as this video makes it sound it would have been done before.
This has been around forever. Form 1 Labs was the first to bring it to consumers years ago.
I like the idea, and it seems it is still in the early stages.
Can someone explain this?
1. Is the liquid moving upwards only because of viscosity, then the "light" solidifies the liquid instantly?
That is FUCKING incredible.
This is the future
Paris Parle this has been around since the 80s
No, this is Patrick.
*squidward* FUUUUUUTUUREEE
tbh I'm more interested in the resin that hardens on contact with light
3-D printers are the future, love 'em
Am happy that I live in this time of Technology
If all the factors were finely divisible, like sand,
it would be possible to produce the smallest
output of any commodity with all the advantages
of large-scale industry. - Joan Robinson, economist
.... the decline of mass production in favour of localized production,
will create a plethora of design, and brand name power will be diluted
as variety increases. This does not seem a good thing to me, given that
many would rather "tune out the noise" and simplify decision making
processes for things. Fashion, for example, has been an attempt to keep
variety at bay - by standardizing patterns and colours, and then mass
producing them. The haberdasheries of Haight-Ashbury (sp?) - "can't get this
kind of paisley anywhere else" gave way to polyester leisure suits and paisley
patterned ties, found at a local KMart. People seem to hate variety, and
would rather wear what everybody else is wearing. So, this current trend
that suggests 3d printing will create a variety of things not yet currently imagined -
though it may be true, will end up giving rise to standardization, ... and mass
production, once more - is my prediction. But in the interim, get ready for a whole
lot of "funny".
is this technology different from the formlabs 3d prinring method, and if so, how?
That's such a crazy way to 3D print. I wonder when it will be commercially viable for the consumer.
not really, there are more crazy ways to do it
kkirschkk So? It doesn't make this any less crazy...
2 years ago, google Formlabs
Jim R. Didriksen there own by google now? wow
Read google as a verb.
we could 3d print the terminator from this tool
Hmm, poorly researched, this method is not new or revolutionary in any way. It makes me worry a little about your other videos, which I love by the way.
This is an old technology called stereo lithography. it has more downsides than 3D printing. It has been in industrial use for 20+ years. But has little chance of going mass.
>claiming technology that's been available since the 80's is cutting edge
>comparing build times of minutes and hours between two very different small and large objects
>not factoring in strength or cost-effectiveness
BUT LE TERMINATOR 2!!!!!
Umm sounds kinda cool but i don't see it being any better than the basic way of 3D printing which is way more work but i believe is much more efficient hence its layer after layer which is stronger because it has to build the platform with tedious amounts of back and forth movement
Due to how plastic diffuses light, how good will the accuracy be, can it offer enough detail to 3d print a working tool, or will it be a step back in detail?
Also, how strong are the 3D printed materials, e.g., if I print out the body of a Nokia 3310, will I be able to break drywall with it?
Not only faster but better resolution
Keep in mind we are in the beginning stages of 3d printing. Come back in 20 years and watch this video compared with what will exist and this will be seen as box computers from the 90s compared to ipads. There was a time when those huge computers were seen as cutting edge technology.
My schools STEM lab has one of these. Gonna screw around with it in the next few days cause why not.
The nightmare of so many people who don't want innovation to render them obsolete.
Wow. Simply... wow
I'm seeing thumbsdown on this video. Most likely, they are the builders of early 3D printer technology. This is awesome new technology!
The innovation appears to be in reversing the position of the curing light, underneath instead of above the resin bath--but I don't know whether this makes it inherently faster. Unrelated to this, please be aware that there's no way 3D printed polymer items can be as strong as injection molded products since anyone who has worked around injection knows that pressurizing polymer in the mold until cool increases its strength by orders of magnitude. More plastic is used because it ends up denser. Same for sintered metals: they are not as strong as the same metal piece made by forging. That's why cast crankshafts are weaker than forged. However, the new ModuMetal process might be a breakthrough, as a kind of electroforming on steroids: ten times stronger they say!
isn't this just the same as or exactly stereolithography that the formlabs printer already has been offering to the market? I was looking at one of their printers due to that exact process and the resolution that it has compared to allot of the other in home printers
formlabs.com/
It works differently, pulling the material out of the bath instead of requiring new material to be swept over the printing surface after every pass. It's similar though.
***** Take a look at Formlabs it is pulled out the same way but they use a laser instead of a projector
Formlabs method is still stereolithigraphy, just with lasers and upside down, it works by printing many 2D layers to make up the model. Carbon3Ds method, called CLIP "Continuous Liquid Interface Production", uses a different method, that I have no idea how to describe, which produces a stronger structure faster and without the lines from layers.
Here's an article on it 3dprint.com/51566/carbon3d-clip-3d-printing
Jack Evans Thank you
Jack Evans Seems they're still technically using stereolithography actually, that article even describes it as they're using the oxygen to create a thin buffer layer so they can use a stronger uv light and cook the layers faster without accidentally bleeding into surrounding resign to make thicker or messy layers.
Still fundamentally the same process as always though with utilizing the uv light. Formlabs is actually an odd one for using a laser for their seterolithography instead of a uv light, largely because a laser tends to be more useful in sintering.
when he says the fdm printer is faster he just prints like the smallest tower and with the makerbot he prints like a huge building
I like this version of the 3d printer than the layers it's faster and you don't have to buy expensive cooling fans to make it sharp at the edges
... but will it blend? xD
Interesting find.
Soon we will be able to print out harddisks lol xD
This all sounds awesome (minutes for a print job!!! :D ) but what do people who've used this thing think of it? How affordable is it? How often do parts break down? What's the cost of the goo? How long before you have to buy a new machine? Etc
this has been around since the early 90's you know....
If I could use chocolate instead of plastic I'm sold.
i like how 3d printing us now lane and we need a new way to do it
It wasn't lame just slow, so very slow, and time is money. So there is money in saving time.
Just saw something similar to this on Small Soldiers.
as it slowly rises all i can hear are terminator dumbs in my head.
hi. first of no extruder 3d printer is just one of different types of 3d printer. UV printing or laser printing has been here for long time even longer than extruder printers.
BTW. maker bot is not a best in comparison. extruder printers have speed up to 200mm/s. and the main part is extruder 3d printers are known for they low price. you don't need any special solution or UV projector(witch costs a lot if you want to have good resolution prints).
do you think can this type of technology be used in the aerospace engineering industry? some aerospace companies are already investing into 3d printing but this in particular looks like a different process than the ones i've seen them use
I was trying to find the way, whether we can make shape memory polymer by using 3-D printing techniques. I found four types like SLA, DLP, Multijet/ Polyjet and CLIP.
I have two polymers resin type , now I am confused, system should I have to select and order to go for further experimentation. Can you help me, to find suitable technique for layers process.
Magic ...wonderful!!
What's the name of the music?
I looked up the music titles mentioned at the end of the video but with no luck, I also tried Shazam and it didn't work as well.
Funny thing is there is another movie (Small Soldiers) that use this approach in the film. They show a vat of liquid that a laser shoots into..out pops a full 3D model.
Bruh in the fourth dimension each cross section would be a 3d object. Woah
Yay terminator two is my third fave movie yay
Imagine how bio printing could be perfected with this.
Or the rise of 3d house printing..
Hmmm, so many things.
What types of plastics will work with this?