Re: [diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication] DLP Printer - First video
- Great results!
You actually managed to exceed expectations again.
This device is better than anything I have seen until now and is comparable in quality to professional devices. No, better than many actually!
And as a chemist I'm sure there's a world to be researched with resin composition. Actually I have noticed that you use different kinds of resin, or is it just added pigmentation/fillers?
On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 1:58 AM, josecarlos_junior <josecarlos_junior@...> wrote:
any news from your side ?
It has been pretty a long time now, since you announced you would release the project and kit, soon.
Your blog is pretty quiet since one month now.
I'm almost getting ready to start again getting my hands dirty and I'm now pretty impatient to make it.
Please keep us informed.
Any other one going to hare some info on the matter ?
Thank you for your comments!!!!
The idea is not only to sell the full kit, but part of it or just the building plans (very cheap - just to support the development).
Everyone will be able to build one for very low cost.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Felice Masi <felicemasi@...> wrote:
>commitment being showed out herein, but this time I can't keep my mouth shut.
> I follow this ML with full admiration of the huge competence and
>from uncommon skills and perseverance, much patience.
> First, thanks Junior for showing, like Afogassa did in the past, apart
>and build it by myself), but mainly because it'll be a too expensive toy to feed a weekend-time passion :P
> I am a little bit sad about the kit idea (I would be happy to buy plans
> Now the complaining part, for the Mailing List.
> Come on guys, what part of the NEAR-UV specification you did not
>as-cheap-as-he-could-find, NEAR-UV, DLP projector.
> Junior specifically said that he started with an
>market supplies, you can scale up to maximum twice the bin (horizontal size) he is actually using, while throwing a lot more bucks (4 to 6 times? maybe more) for a donor projector capable of twice the resolution.
> By rule of thumb, I guess that's a 800x600 or a 1024x768 standard unit.
> This means that if you don't want to lose precision, counting on what the
> Or you can keep the same size while (probably worthlessly) doubling linearprecision.
>2/4/6 projectors under the same carriage, trim them, and get huge building bin.
> No one forbids, once the technology is well known, to couple together
> But this is a very, very extreme step, I'd say worthy only for specialpurposes.
> (imagine how to split each slice in 2/4/6, while distributing it across2/4/6 external monitors, and what if the various lamps have different ages/decaying ...)
>because NEAR-UV projectors are currently available into mainstream market, while strictly UV ones are not, and certainly cost many times more.
> As far as I understood, Junior chose NEAR-UV (projector and resin),
>slightly better/quicker result.
> Would it be an advantage to use proper UV projectors?
> They might cure proper UV resins more quickly.
> But then you'd eventually have to spend 10 times the amount to get a
> All of this said, I'll go back in my admired watching oblivion.
> Please, do not mess up the ML.