From: EdGrenda@aol.com
Date: Mon Dec 15 2003 - 17:10:24 EET
Chris and others discussing this topic:
There's a fairly complete article on the technology available on our site
which appeared over a year ago. It' s located on this page:
http://home.att.net/~castleisland/pw_arc3.htm
Click on this title:
New RP process promises fast, hi-res part production
Judging by the patent info, one advantage is that some pretty simple and
cheap materials will inhibit sintering. Time saving is relative, I'd say.
Probably slower than 3DP as you point out - but probably lots faster than SLS. It
competes with both. Speedpart (Sweden) is developing a technology for plastic
part production that is many respects similar, but the Univ of CA work would
have much lower component cost. There's an article available on that, too. It' s
located on this page:
http://home.att.net/~castleisland/pw_arc1.htm
Click on this title:
New RP process aims at low-volume parts
Ed Grenda
Castle Island Co.
EdGrenda@aol.com (email)
The Worldwide Guide to Rapid Prototyping
http://home.att.net/~castleisland/
In a message dated 03-12-13 07:16:14 EST, you write:
<<
Dear List
Forgive me for being something of a cynic here but does this method mean you
have to print the inhibitor over the whole of the virgin powder bed and not
the part so, say you had a circular cross section of 100mm diameter in a 250
mm square build chamber the following maths applies
Print area for "normal" systems (say a z-corp) is 100mm dia circle of area
7854mm2
Print area for inhibitor method is (250mm*250mm)-area of the circle which is
54646mm2
Which suggests that the overhead from printing is huge even if you can
sinter an area in seconds. It also suggests more binder cost, more time
overhead, non reusable virgin powder. Whilst I am sure Prof Khoshnevis has
done a great job with the machine, and I now will go away and read the RP
Journal article I can not at this moment see where the huge time saving
comes from. Perhaps I'm missing something its happened before and it will
happen again!
Oh yea.....have a great Christmas etc see you soon
Chris
Dr. Chris Sutcliffe
Rapid, Micro and Bio Manufacturing Research
MSERC
The University of Liverpool
>>
In a message dated 03-12-13 07:16:14 EST, c.j.sutcliffe@liverpool.ac.uk
writes:
<< Subj: RE: Rapid Prototyping Gets Faster And Cheaper
Date: 03-12-13 07:16:14 EST
From: c.j.sutcliffe@liverpool.ac.uk (Chris Sutcliffe)
Sender: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
To: Bob@protogenic.com (Bob Olsen), rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
Dear List
Forgive me for being something of a cynic here but does this method mean you
have to print the inhibitor over the whole of the virgin powder bed and not
the part so, say you had a circular cross section of 100mm diameter in a 250
mm square build chamber the following maths applies
Print area for "normal" systems (say a z-corp) is 100mm dia circle of area
7854mm2
Print area for inhibitor method is (250mm*250mm)-area of the circle which is
54646mm2
Which suggests that the overhead from printing is huge even if you can
sinter an area in seconds. It also suggests more binder cost, more time
overhead, non reusable virgin powder. Whilst I am sure Prof Khoshnevis has
done a great job with the machine, and I now will go away and read the RP
Journal article I can not at this moment see where the huge time saving
comes from. Perhaps I'm missing something its happened before and it will
happen again!
Oh yea.....have a great Christmas etc see you soon
Chris
Dr. Chris Sutcliffe
Rapid, Micro and Bio Manufacturing Research
MSERC
The University of Liverpool
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Sat Jan 17 2004 - 15:18:27 EET