Actually, I'm investigating on a 2 stage cure solution for our resins.
For now, I do not have a confirmation from my provider, but I will keep
the list and wiki up to date with whatever new formulations I will be
proposed (hopefully within a matter of days).
I may not get a detailed list of the components of the resins, but it
would probably be a true and tested commercial resin.
Let's just hope the price tag is right too...
On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 20:13 +0000, pzamov wrote:
> This is not to say which technology is better, it is only throwing
> some ideas in the air to brainstorm if it is feasible and viable to
> consider the direction and continue to work in that line of thought.
> Since I'm cutting wax on a CNC at 0.02 increments, I can move the Z
> and have something analogous with
> The build envelope is 110x110. I would be getting away from the
> galvanometer distortion toward the edge of the platform.
> Even If I slow it down considerably it is still better than the 029.
> @Jon Elson - Thanks for confirming my general calculation. I would
> assume that a resin can be formulated to cure in the minuscule time
> that the laser unit is scanning at, even if it is not UV Laser.
> The above DigitalWax system goes through a post-cure process and the
> models need to be only strong enough to be transferred with the build
> platform to the UV Cure unit.
> We need to think at the same process for the other technologies we are
> discussing (DLP).
> A lot of people assume a completely cured model is removed once the
> printer is done and want a vat that is going to be used forever. Truth
> of the matter is that if the companies that have the money and R&D
> departments can't solve this, we as a DIY might not as well ( or maybe
> we can ). We can only work around the limitations of the current
> technology and try to do it in an affordable manner.
> --- In email@example.com, Jon Elson
> <elson@...> wrote:
> > José Luis Rey wrote:
> > > How many time will spent the laser to cure a single spot??
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > DLP do this in parallel,
> > >
> > Yes, this is the killer. You can figure it out. This was a 14 PPM
> > printer with 1200 x 1200 DPI.
> > So, a page is about 270 mm tall, with about 13000 raster lines. 60
> > seconds/14 = 4.25 seconds/page,
> > or about 325 us/raster line. The printing area is about 7.5" (190
> > wide, so the beam sweeps
> > 190 mm in 325 us, or 1.7 us/mm. A pixel is 21 um, so about 36
> > ns/pixel. But, that really is not the question.
> > The real question is total power delivered per unit area. And, yes,
> > that's why the DLP with huge
> > light source beats the laser. A really insane laser is several
> > mW of actual light output.
> > The typical DLP lamp produces WATTS of short-wavelength light. So,
> > total output at the wavelength
> > that will cure the resin is likely to be at least ten times the
> > of even the most insane laser.
> > The typical lasers in printers are in the 5 mW class. If you were
> > swap out the laser for a visible,
> > high-power laser, then you would have to re-do the laser drive
> > as well as provide cooling.
> > Lasers are notoriously inefficient, and as the wavelength gets
> > they get much less efficient.
> > So, a 500 mW visible laser will certainly need at least 10 W of
> > power. (My deep-red
> > 5 mW laser in my photoplotter draws about 50 mA at 2 V, so that 0.1
> > for an efficiency of
> > 5%. )
> > Jon