There was a short discussion on here a few months back about the viability of 3D printing for funnels, ventilators etc. Someone with experience of these products highlighted that the 'layers' show up as small but noticeable lines.
Using the powder method shown here it looks like it might have been resolved?
Someone with experience please comment on how this method differs from what has been around for a couple of years already?
Thanks........Bernie
With this you could do a working paddler in just one pass, fully assembled and functioning!?
The advantages of 3D printing are undeniable but so are the drawbacks. I first saw the technology demonstrated in the 1980 with Stereo Lithography (the system that uses liquid plastic and a laser) The guy was showing it to a bunch of trainee professional modelmakers (myself included) and stated boldly that "this technology would make modelmakers obsolete". That made him popular!
The system he showed us produced a finished 3D object but it still required hand finishing to be of sufficient quality. In the 30 years since that demo we've seen many different types of 3D printing, the materials have improved, the speed of the process has increased and the definition of the printing is better but the surface quality is about the same. It's a function of the thickness of the layers and the time constraints of the process. Until they improve the surface quality of the printed object, 3D printing is a limitede resource.
Our own 3D printer can print up to 6 different quality materials at the same time from a rigid transparent to a rubbery polymer however none of these have the engineering properties required to make a working model.
The idea of scanning a model into a machine and having it "print" a duplicate are, I suspect, many years in our future and besides that...... Where's the fun?
Main Menu
UserBox
Search
