The 5k price point is aimed at manufacturers and others needing volumes and a combination of better approaches. There are other aspects too, such as service and or being able to scale that may not apply in the hobby small scale space. I agree with you otherwise.
Back in a previous life I used to do enclosures for an electronics company. Their expertise was in electronic devices and ours was in solid modeling and 3D printing. Their projects were typically targeted for "mass" production using injection molds. We would work with them at the development and prototype stages.
We would try to use production geometry for the enclosures, but this was not always possible. Min wall thicknesses and snap-fit geometry suitable for real parts was not possible with the ABS material and resolutions available on the Stratasys machines we used. We could get close, but not identical.
We made 50 On-Star prototype hand-held devices at one point - think of a smaller version of a tv remote. They had alkaline batteries, circuit board, lcd display, silicone keypads, etc... We did snap-fits that would not work for production plastic. It made me appreciate the packaging of modern hand-held devices.
We also did a variety of other projects with the printers. Most all were proof-of-concept type of stuff. A notable exception was doing cast iron molds. Not the actual mold, but a finished part shape that could be used to cast plaster from that was later used to cast sand from (or something like that). We would make multiple parts and pin/glue them together. The dimensional accuracy was very good for these built-up models.
One company was doing air filter testing for a new-at-the-time Corvette. No production inlet nozzles were available yet - the tooling was not complete. We printed a 9pc built-up nozzle for their test rig. It looked beautiful.
Some customers would bring back production samples made from injection molds, based on our prototypes. It was interesting to get a good look at the similarities and the differences in geometries and material properties.
One of the things we did some experimenting with was "finishing" with acetone. It worked wonders as a surface finisher and could be used to increase bonding of the printed layers, if not overdone.
I would print things all the time for around-the-house use. I think that using 3D printed parts for production would be limited, because of many reasons already sited.
It's quite common these days for 3D print hobbyists to use acetone vapour to finish ABS parts.
It's bl**dy dangerous, though, the way they do it...
Acetone actually dissolves the ABS plastic, which then reflows(surface tension and all that) and solidifies again. The trick is using just enough acetone to dissolve the surface.
Thanks for your input. It was interesting to read about a company that was in the solid modeling business.
I think that using 3D printed parts for production would be limited, because of many reasons already sited.
Technology may not have reached this point yet, but I believe it soon will. Perhaps it will require specially formulated plastic, a very high resolution printer, and differnet nozzleheads.
A lot of the problems is in the fact that the home printers are laying melted plastic on top of already cooling plastic. The temperature differential, and also the fact that ABS shrinks when cooling tends to result in poor bonding.(fully enclosed printers suffer less, though). PLA doesn't shrink as much, but tends to be more on the brittle side.
Resin printers are improving, though, and doesn't suffer the same issues.
(Instead they have a few new ones... Poor curing... overdone... the need to replace the printing tray as it turns opaque... spills... )
One thing is certain, quality will definitely improve over time. One could only guess at the number of people actively involved in the research and development of 3D printing technology, and this heavy research and development will probably continue for another century, if the world still exists. I would imagine that in the next five to ten years, we will all see vast improvements in 3D printing technology. However, I would also venture to guess, that there will be numerous combinations of print heads/materials, and most likely, numerous patents to go all along with these advancements.
... I would imagine that in the next five to ten years, we will all see vast improvements in 3D printing technology. ...
Bruce you are definitely an optimist - a good quality to have.
I found some old pics from about 2001 of FDM parts. Oddly enough none of them are electronic enclosures. I would venture to say that very little has been done to improve 3D printing technology since that time. I've been out of the loop, but materials and processes I used look very similar to what's going on today. The price point has come down, but capabilities seem somewhat stagnant. They are here: https://picasaweb.google.com/102202209640750294415/FDMPics?authuser=0&feat=directlink
I see too many 3D printers around me, bought inder "wow so cool" mood, but now idling. Printing is slow, accuracy is low, supplies are expensive, head needs special care....
My experience is different. Printing is slow if you are thinking of using it to produce products, but that is not what they are for. Accuracy is low - relative to what? Quality of print is dependent upon many variables. My prints are 'good' quality. If I need better quality I could print at a higher resolution - but that is rarely needed for my purposes.
The ONLY care I have given to the heads is wipe them off once in a while. In fact, since the initial set up I have done nothing to my machine except replace the Kapton tape on the build platform a few times. I don't even need to stick around to watch it start it's prints. I hit the button and leave.
I also don't agree that supplies are expensive. You can get filament for $10/lb. Pretty cheap in my opinion.
There also seems to be this notion that whatever you print is supposed to require no post processing. That is not realistic.
I have to say that the accuracy of the 3D printers I had were excellent. A lot depended on how you built the part. Accuracy in the plane of the x-y table was best, so model orientation was important. We would build up models to be assembled together by printing dowel holes in the individual parts - sometimes because of size and others because different areas of a part built best in different orientations. The holes were printed a bit undersized and a hand reamer would make them just right.. They would always line up. A little sanding on the mating surfaces would ensure a good fit and avoid a stack-up of errors.
Never had any maintenance issues. On occasion the extruder would clog up, never during a print, and it was very easy to clear.
My printers were used to make profit and develop business. I had two styles, FDM (ABS) and a starch-based (Z-Corp). The ABS machines were very successful. If there wasn't "real" work lined up for them, we would either print hand-outs, jobs for around the home/office or experiment with their capabilities. They were not idle very often.
The starch machine printed faster, especially for multiples, and at much higher resolution, but they didn't fit into what we were doing so well. The finished part was not as durable or useful for other than for seeing an idea in 3D. Even though the resolution was high, warpage of the models due to the moisture of the binder could be an issue. Building up larger models from individual pieces was not workable. Post processing usually consisted of infusing with CA (super glue). Organic models (dinosaurs, bones, figurines) did best on this platform. Or maybe parts destined for lost-wax casting. It didn't fit well all that well into our business. It actually did sit idle a lot. Most of the effort on the machine surrounded figuring out what it could and could not do, and how best to work with it.
Back in a previous life I used to do enclosures for an electronics company. Their expertise was in electronic devices and ours was in solid modeling and 3D printing. Their projects were typically targeted for "mass" production using injection molds. We would work with them at the development and prototype stages.
We would try to use production geometry for the enclosures, but this was not always possible. Min wall thicknesses and snap-fit geometry suitable for real parts was not possible with the ABS material and resolutions available on the Stratasys machines we used. We could get close, but not identical.
We made 50 On-Star prototype hand-held devices at one point - think of a smaller version of a tv remote. They had alkaline batteries, circuit board, lcd display, silicone keypads, etc... We did snap-fits that would not work for production plastic. It made me appreciate the packaging of modern hand-held devices.
We also did a variety of other projects with the printers. Most all were proof-of-concept type of stuff. A notable exception was doing cast iron molds. Not the actual mold, but a finished part shape that could be used to cast plaster from that was later used to cast sand from (or something like that). We would make multiple parts and pin/glue them together. The dimensional accuracy was very good for these built-up models.
One company was doing air filter testing for a new-at-the-time Corvette. No production inlet nozzles were available yet - the tooling was not complete. We printed a 9pc built-up nozzle for their test rig. It looked beautiful.
Some customers would bring back production samples made from injection molds, based on our prototypes. It was interesting to get a good look at the similarities and the differences in geometries and material properties.
One of the things we did some experimenting with was "finishing" with acetone. It worked wonders as a surface finisher and could be used to increase bonding of the printed layers, if not overdone.
I would print things all the time for around-the-house use. I think that using 3D printed parts for production would be limited, because of many reasons already sited.
-Russ
Yeah, right.
And you where working with Stratasys printers, not common home printers. Quite a difference in quality and price.
And it's valid for the commercial extruder type printers. I've had access to them off and on for quite some time. The hobby level devices are getting close, but there still is a significant difference in overall capability.
That's going to change real soon, and I expect pricing to be in line with home mills and such. Not casual, but affordable for various purposes. With that will come cheaper service options too. One more iteration on the standard tech gets to the point where both individuals will start owning them, a lot like the better non-sheet metal / industrial laser cutters and mills are, and people will start doing farms because adding capacity is in much more approachable and lower risk bites.
So that will mean asking for 100 of something with a coupla week turnaround will become increasingly affordable here real soon.
Comments
We would try to use production geometry for the enclosures, but this was not always possible. Min wall thicknesses and snap-fit geometry suitable for real parts was not possible with the ABS material and resolutions available on the Stratasys machines we used. We could get close, but not identical.
We made 50 On-Star prototype hand-held devices at one point - think of a smaller version of a tv remote. They had alkaline batteries, circuit board, lcd display, silicone keypads, etc... We did snap-fits that would not work for production plastic. It made me appreciate the packaging of modern hand-held devices.
We also did a variety of other projects with the printers. Most all were proof-of-concept type of stuff. A notable exception was doing cast iron molds. Not the actual mold, but a finished part shape that could be used to cast plaster from that was later used to cast sand from (or something like that). We would make multiple parts and pin/glue them together. The dimensional accuracy was very good for these built-up models.
One company was doing air filter testing for a new-at-the-time Corvette. No production inlet nozzles were available yet - the tooling was not complete. We printed a 9pc built-up nozzle for their test rig. It looked beautiful.
Some customers would bring back production samples made from injection molds, based on our prototypes. It was interesting to get a good look at the similarities and the differences in geometries and material properties.
One of the things we did some experimenting with was "finishing" with acetone. It worked wonders as a surface finisher and could be used to increase bonding of the printed layers, if not overdone.
I would print things all the time for around-the-house use. I think that using 3D printed parts for production would be limited, because of many reasons already sited.
-Russ
It's bl**dy dangerous, though, the way they do it...
Acetone actually dissolves the ABS plastic, which then reflows(surface tension and all that) and solidifies again. The trick is using just enough acetone to dissolve the surface.
Thanks for your input. It was interesting to read about a company that was in the solid modeling business.
Technology may not have reached this point yet, but I believe it soon will. Perhaps it will require specially formulated plastic, a very high resolution printer, and differnet nozzleheads.
Resin printers are improving, though, and doesn't suffer the same issues.
(Instead they have a few new ones... Poor curing... overdone... the need to replace the printing tray as it turns opaque... spills... )
One thing is certain, quality will definitely improve over time. One could only guess at the number of people actively involved in the research and development of 3D printing technology, and this heavy research and development will probably continue for another century, if the world still exists. I would imagine that in the next five to ten years, we will all see vast improvements in 3D printing technology. However, I would also venture to guess, that there will be numerous combinations of print heads/materials, and most likely, numerous patents to go all along with these advancements.
Bruce you are definitely an optimist - a good quality to have.
I found some old pics from about 2001 of FDM parts. Oddly enough none of them are electronic enclosures. I would venture to say that very little has been done to improve 3D printing technology since that time. I've been out of the loop, but materials and processes I used look very similar to what's going on today. The price point has come down, but capabilities seem somewhat stagnant. They are here: https://picasaweb.google.com/102202209640750294415/FDMPics?authuser=0&feat=directlink
-Russ
Your enclosure and the project as a whole looks nice. Job well done.
@tranger
Your pics also look very nice.
Yes, I am guilty of being an optimist, but my life probably would have turned out a bit better, if my optimism had been well balanced with pessimism
+1 to what Bruce said.
I learn a lot from you guys.
My experience is different. Printing is slow if you are thinking of using it to produce products, but that is not what they are for. Accuracy is low - relative to what? Quality of print is dependent upon many variables. My prints are 'good' quality. If I need better quality I could print at a higher resolution - but that is rarely needed for my purposes.
The ONLY care I have given to the heads is wipe them off once in a while. In fact, since the initial set up I have done nothing to my machine except replace the Kapton tape on the build platform a few times. I don't even need to stick around to watch it start it's prints. I hit the button and leave.
I also don't agree that supplies are expensive. You can get filament for $10/lb. Pretty cheap in my opinion.
There also seems to be this notion that whatever you print is supposed to require no post processing. That is not realistic.
Never had any maintenance issues. On occasion the extruder would clog up, never during a print, and it was very easy to clear.
My printers were used to make profit and develop business. I had two styles, FDM (ABS) and a starch-based (Z-Corp). The ABS machines were very successful. If there wasn't "real" work lined up for them, we would either print hand-outs, jobs for around the home/office or experiment with their capabilities. They were not idle very often.
The starch machine printed faster, especially for multiples, and at much higher resolution, but they didn't fit into what we were doing so well. The finished part was not as durable or useful for other than for seeing an idea in 3D. Even though the resolution was high, warpage of the models due to the moisture of the binder could be an issue. Building up larger models from individual pieces was not workable. Post processing usually consisted of infusing with CA (super glue). Organic models (dinosaurs, bones, figurines) did best on this platform. Or maybe parts destined for lost-wax casting. It didn't fit well all that well into our business. It actually did sit idle a lot. Most of the effort on the machine surrounded figuring out what it could and could not do, and how best to work with it.
-Russ
Yeah, right.
And you where working with Stratasys printers, not common home printers. Quite a difference in quality and price.
Mike
Am I missing something? I didn't see where he said otherwise.
He told us about his experience with the printers he used. I found the information very interesting.
That's going to change real soon, and I expect pricing to be in line with home mills and such. Not casual, but affordable for various purposes. With that will come cheaper service options too. One more iteration on the standard tech gets to the point where both individuals will start owning them, a lot like the better non-sheet metal / industrial laser cutters and mills are, and people will start doing farms because adding capacity is in much more approachable and lower risk bites.
So that will mean asking for 100 of something with a coupla week turnaround will become increasingly affordable here real soon.