DTM vs EOS

From: Ian Gibson (University of Hong Kong)
Date: Wednesday, October 11, 1995

From: Ian Gibson (University of Hong Kong)
To: RP-ML
Date: Wednesday, October 11, 1995
Subject: DTM vs EOS
Since we run a Sinterstation, I keep getting asked about the legal situation
regarding DTM and EOS with their EOSINT machine. Unfortunately I have no
idea regarding the question of patent or IPR infringements. Does anyone out
there have any SOLID information? Are EOS infringing patents or is it the
other way round? Are we likely to see a court battle or an amicable
agreement or indeed a price war?

When in Stuttgart I had chance to talk to the EOS rep. He also had a very
nice looking, large sintered model of a vacuum cleaner housing that I was
told was made from nylon. I was very impressed with it. Even if it fit I
felt that I would have difficulty building it on the Sinterstation. However,
that was then and now I feel more confident. When discussing the machine
there appeared to be a number of differences to the sinterstation

- you can unload from the EOS machine at an earlier stage to the DTM
machine, making it possible to increase throughput.

- you build components within a box of sintered material (similar to LOM,
although loose powder within the box can be recycled) on the EOS machine
which is slightly wasteful of material

- you can make bigger parts using the EOS machine

- the heating systems are different, DTM have a part bed heater which I
think is more difficult to control than the EOS radiation heaters. I thought
the evidence suggested a more even temperature distribution across the part
bed on the EOS machine, but now Im not so sure.

- the EOS metal powder sintering machine is a different machine from the
plastic powder machine. DTM use the same machine for both.

- EOS is more expensive

One thing I dont want to be is to become embroiled in a legal battle, so
right from the off I will say that the above comments are based on limited
discussion observation and experience. Some of this may be inaccurate and I
would like to use this posting as a basis for discussion and clarification
firstly on the legal situation and secondly on the technical and operational
differences. If this generates responses, I will post the updated and more
accurate information at a suitable time.

Dr Ian Gibson


Previous message | Next message
Back to 1995 index