Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Spota-materials

Expand Messages
  • Brian A. Stott
    Has anyone heard from Fernando?   I ve sent him many (4) messages over the last several weeks and no response. Has anyone heard from Fernando? I ve sent him
    Message 1 of 21 , Apr 6, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      Has anyone heard from Fernando?
       
      I've sent him many (4) messages over the last several weeks and no response.
    • cygnusgil
      Same here. No reply. He was on a business trip so I hope nothing s happened.
      Message 2 of 21 , Apr 7, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Same here. No reply. He was on a business trip so I hope nothing's happened.

        --- In diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication@yahoogroups.com, "Brian A. Stott" <bstott2002@...> wrote:
        >
        > Has anyone heard from Fernando?
        >  
        > I've sent him many (4) messages over the last several weeks and no response.
        >
      • Fernando Muñiz
        Hello all! I am still here, thanks for the concern. I got back from my business trip with a flu (no, not that one!) and was down for a while. I am also being
        Message 3 of 21 , Apr 7, 2013
        • 0 Attachment
          Hello all!

          I am still here, thanks for the concern. I got back from my business trip with a flu (no, not that one!) and was down for a while.
          I am also being kept very busy with a couple of large resin projects. It takes a lot of my time and I am spread kinda thin.
          My main priority is to keep shipping Spot-A products regularly and getting the development done, so I will be a little less talkative in the coming days.
          I hope you peeps understand.

           
          So

          On 04/07/2013 08:47 PM, cygnusgil wrote:
           

          Same here. No reply. He was on a business trip so I hope nothing's happened.

          --- In diy_3d_printing_and_fabrication@yahoogroups.com, "Brian A. Stott" <bstott2002@...> wrote:
          >
          > Has anyone heard from Fernando?
          >  
          > I've sent him many (4) messages over the last several weeks and no response.
          >


        • Michael Joyce
          Just FYI, our B9Creator 3D Printer Kickstarter ends today. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/b9creations/b9creator-a-diy-high-resolution-3d-printer Last
          Message 4 of 21 , Apr 8, 2013
          • 0 Attachment
            Just FYI, our B9Creator 3D Printer Kickstarter ends today.
            http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/b9creations/b9creator-a-diy-high-resolution-3d-printer
            Last chance to get one directly from me as I'm planning to only sell via
            a distributor after this.
            Mike
          • Francis Leach
            Michael I applaud you product s success and confirm my current interest. I have had a quality issue with Shapeways over the specification of surface texture in
            Message 5 of 21 , Apr 8, 2013
            • 0 Attachment
              Michael

              I applaud you product's success and confirm my current interest.

              I have had a quality issue with Shapeways over the specification of surface texture in that they did not appreciate how poorly they described their provision when anyone first uses their services. Unfortunately they are not the only ones missing an opportunity of providing such data.

              In order to assess the quality of a device made to produce solid prints is it not reasonable to expect suppliers to quote the 3 meaningful parameters ( laysurface roughness, and waviness) for the surface finish acheived in their machines .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_finish. Independent testing in accordance with ISO european standards is a good way to go.  
              The  ISO Standards on Surface Finish is ISO 1302 - 2001. Indication of Surface Texture

              I appreciate it is difficult to quote numbers for complex shapes but if one used a simple cubic sample with flat surfaces as a test specimen, it would become useful as a benchmark discriminator for machine selection.
              The test on a typical sample could include the Ra values obtained from flat surfaces in the two planes of interest, i.e parallel and perpendicular to the build direction.

              Photographs rarely show the truth and better quantitative data must be desirable as it can protect the reputation of a supplier in the event of any dispute. 

              You view as a manufacturer would be appreciated

              Regards

              Francis Leach 



              On 8 April 2013 08:58, Michael Joyce <MikeJ@...> wrote:
               

              Just FYI, our B9Creator 3D Printer Kickstarter ends today.
              http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/b9creations/b9creator-a-diy-high-resolution-3d-printer
              Last chance to get one directly from me as I'm planning to only sell via
              a distributor after this.
              Mike




              --
              Regards

              Francis Leach

            • Michael Joyce
              Hi Francis, Sounds like something I d like to investigate. My own experience tells me there is still a lot of art in the science of 3D printing and user
              Message 6 of 21 , Apr 8, 2013
              • 0 Attachment
                Hi Francis,
                Sounds like something I'd like to investigate.  My own experience tells me there is still a lot of "art" in the science of 3D printing and user expertise can have a significant affect on the quality of the print.
                For now I will simply say that I only promise that the parts are smoother than a Makerbot replicator :-)

                Mike

                75 micron voxels...





                On 4/8/2013 3:38 AM, Francis Leach wrote:
                Michael

                I applaud you product's success and confirm my current interest.

                I have had a quality issue with Shapeways over the specification of surface texture in that they did not appreciate how poorly they described their provision when anyone first uses their services. Unfortunately they are not the only ones missing an opportunity of providing such data.

                In order to assess the quality of a device made to produce solid prints is it not reasonable to expect suppliers to quote the 3 meaningful parameters ( laysurface roughness, and waviness) for the surface finish acheived in their machines .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_finish. Independent testing in accordance with ISO european standards is a good way to go.  
                The  ISO Standards on Surface Finish is ISO 1302 - 2001. Indication of Surface Texture

                I appreciate it is difficult to quote numbers for complex shapes but if one used a simple cubic sample with flat surfaces as a test specimen, it would become useful as a benchmark discriminator for machine selection.
                The test on a typical sample could include the Ra values obtained from flat surfaces in the two planes of interest, i.e parallel and perpendicular to the build direction.

                Photographs rarely show the truth and better quantitative data must be desirable as it can protect the reputation of a supplier in the event of any dispute. 

                You view as a manufacturer would be appreciated

                Regards

                Francis Leach 



                On 8 April 2013 08:58, Michael Joyce <MikeJ@...> wrote:
                 

                Just FYI, our B9Creator 3D Printer Kickstarter ends today.
                http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/b9creations/b9creator-a-diy-high-resolution-3d-printer
                Last chance to get one directly from me as I'm planning to only sell via
                a distributor after this.
                Mike




                --
                Regards

                Francis Leach


                -- 
                "Measure Twice, Cut Once"
                http://www.B9Creations.com
              • Francis Leach
                Michael Superb visual results but it does confirm the point that a photograph does not convey measurable confirmation. These photos confirm probably the best
                Message 7 of 21 , Apr 8, 2013
                • 0 Attachment
                  Michael

                  Superb visual results but it does confirm the point that a photograph does not convey measurable confirmation.

                  These photos confirm probably the best results I have ever seen but I have nothing to categorically confirm it.

                  Spends an hour today and print a 1" square cube and have the mutual perpendicular surfaces tested for surface finish at a local university or tech and quotes these figures.

                  Come back with the results and amaze us. By all means show us the photographs of the cube next to this superb statue and we will get a better understanding of comparative results.

                  Well done

                  Regards

                  Francis


                  On 8 April 2013 10:49, Michael Joyce <MikeJ@...> wrote:
                  Hi Francis,
                  Sounds like something I'd like to investigate.  My own experience tells me there is still a lot of "art" in the science of 3D printing and user expertise can have a significant affect on the quality of the print.
                  For now I will simply say that I only promise that the parts are smoother than a Makerbot replicator :-)

                  Mike

                  75 micron voxels...





                  On 4/8/2013 3:38 AM, Francis Leach wrote:
                  Michael

                  I applaud you product's success and confirm my current interest.

                  I have had a quality issue with Shapeways over the specification of surface texture in that they did not appreciate how poorly they described their provision when anyone first uses their services. Unfortunately they are not the only ones missing an opportunity of providing such data.

                  In order to assess the quality of a device made to produce solid prints is it not reasonable to expect suppliers to quote the 3 meaningful parameters ( laysurface roughness, and waviness) for the surface finish acheived in their machines .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_finish. Independent testing in accordance with ISO european standards is a good way to go.  
                  The  ISO Standards on Surface Finish is ISO 1302 - 2001. Indication of Surface Texture

                  I appreciate it is difficult to quote numbers for complex shapes but if one used a simple cubic sample with flat surfaces as a test specimen, it would become useful as a benchmark discriminator for machine selection.
                  The test on a typical sample could include the Ra values obtained from flat surfaces in the two planes of interest, i.e parallel and perpendicular to the build direction.

                  Photographs rarely show the truth and better quantitative data must be desirable as it can protect the reputation of a supplier in the event of any dispute. 

                  You view as a manufacturer would be appreciated

                  Regards

                  Francis Leach 



                  On 8 April 2013 08:58, Michael Joyce <MikeJ@...> wrote:
                   

                  Just FYI, our B9Creator 3D Printer Kickstarter ends today.
                  http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/b9creations/b9creator-a-diy-high-resolution-3d-printer
                  Last chance to get one directly from me as I'm planning to only sell via
                  a distributor after this.
                  Mike




                  --
                  Regards

                  Francis Leach


                  -- 
                  "Measure Twice, Cut Once"
                  http://www.B9Creations.com



                  --
                  Regards

                  Francis Leach

                • Graham Stabler
                  What do we compare it to? Do any of the other manufacturers quote these values? Do you have a specific Ra in mind or just want to know how much effort there
                  Message 8 of 21 , Apr 8, 2013
                  • 0 Attachment
                    What do we compare it to? Do any of the other manufacturers quote these values? 

                    Do you have a specific Ra in mind or just want to know how much effort there will be in finishing? In lieu of the roughness perhaps a sample print might be useful to you? 

                    Clocks ticking if you fancy a B9 at wholesale price though :)

                    Graham


                    On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Francis Leach <francisleach@...> wrote:
                     

                    Michael

                    Superb visual results but it does confirm the point that a photograph does not convey measurable confirmation.

                    These photos confirm probably the best results I have ever seen but I have nothing to categorically confirm it.

                    Spends an hour today and print a 1" square cube and have the mutual perpendicular surfaces tested for surface finish at a local university or tech and quotes these figures.

                    Come back with the results and amaze us. By all means show us the photographs of the cube next to this superb statue and we will get a better understanding of comparative results.

                    Well done

                    Regards

                    Francis


                    On 8 April 2013 10:49, Michael Joyce <MikeJ@...> wrote:
                    Hi Francis,
                    Sounds like something I'd like to investigate.  My own experience tells me there is still a lot of "art" in the science of 3D printing and user expertise can have a significant affect on the quality of the print.
                    For now I will simply say that I only promise that the parts are smoother than a Makerbot replicator :-)

                    Mike

                    75 micron voxels...





                    On 4/8/2013 3:38 AM, Francis Leach wrote:
                    Michael

                    I applaud you product's success and confirm my current interest.

                    I have had a quality issue with Shapeways over the specification of surface texture in that they did not appreciate how poorly they described their provision when anyone first uses their services. Unfortunately they are not the only ones missing an opportunity of providing such data.

                    In order to assess the quality of a device made to produce solid prints is it not reasonable to expect suppliers to quote the 3 meaningful parameters ( laysurface roughness, and waviness) for the surface finish acheived in their machines .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_finish. Independent testing in accordance with ISO european standards is a good way to go.  
                    The  ISO Standards on Surface Finish is ISO 1302 - 2001. Indication of Surface Texture

                    I appreciate it is difficult to quote numbers for complex shapes but if one used a simple cubic sample with flat surfaces as a test specimen, it would become useful as a benchmark discriminator for machine selection.
                    The test on a typical sample could include the Ra values obtained from flat surfaces in the two planes of interest, i.e parallel and perpendicular to the build direction.

                    Photographs rarely show the truth and better quantitative data must be desirable as it can protect the reputation of a supplier in the event of any dispute. 

                    You view as a manufacturer would be appreciated

                    Regards

                    Francis Leach 



                    On 8 April 2013 08:58, Michael Joyce <MikeJ@...> wrote:
                     

                    Just FYI, our B9Creator 3D Printer Kickstarter ends today.
                    http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/b9creations/b9creator-a-diy-high-resolution-3d-printer
                    Last chance to get one directly from me as I'm planning to only sell via
                    a distributor after this.
                    Mike




                    --
                    Regards

                    Francis Leach


                    -- 
                    "Measure Twice, Cut Once"
                    http://www.B9Creations.com



                    --
                    Regards

                    Francis Leach


                  • Francis Leach
                    Graham Do you have any results that define the surface finish from any of the machines you have had experience of? None of the solidprinters that I know quote
                    Message 9 of 21 , Apr 8, 2013
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Graham

                      Do you have any results that define the surface finish from any of the machines you have had experience of?

                      None of the solidprinters that I know quote any meaningful surface finish values.

                      The Ra value allows one to compare results with known ranges from engineered processes. This is the normal industrial practise for specifying acceptable surface finishes. e.g Chemical milling 6.3-1.6 micron, investment casting 3.2-1.6, die casting 1.6-0.8 micron, Grinding 1.6 -0.1 micron 

                      It is a considerable shortfall in solidprinting machine's specification that the manufactures only quote resolution and not surface finish. I know it is a new technology but they have to catch up.

                      I have samples of results from the best and the worst machines but I am hardly likely to go the the expense of having them tested myself.  It is surely in the interest of machine manufacturers to provide such data.  It is no big deal to ask for it, is it?.  The statement "you pay for what you get", is very true, but please tell me what I am getting to see if I really need what you expect me to pay. It is matter of "value for money".

                      To date I have had results from the Envisiontec, Solidscape, Objet and recently the Projet machines they have all demonstrated that they have a suitable surface finish, some better than others, for my model making purposes. None of them quote meaningful surface finish values, tis a pity. None of them are less than £30K
                        
                      Photographically, the B9 creator looks a close match for them in our world of sensible machine prices but one does not really know that, without data.

                      If you ask Shapeways for a Ra value they are of the opinion that the words "detail" and "Ultra fine" are acceptable descriptors of finish, they are clearly not, I have found that out at my cost. They publish photograph of items which are almost meanless being presented without any scale references that would enable a comparison to be made. If they specified the surface finishes of a simple flat surfaces produced by their various machines you would be able to make comparisons with other solid-printed results. 

                      They do not supply free samples but you can purchase a kit of samples to compare their results.  Big Deal.

                      The B9 Creator looks very capable and I hope to be able to buy one. I believe Michael may be able to provide a set of results that would clearly show that his solidprinter is significantly better than a FDM machine and equal or even better than some commercial "silly money" machines. It would enable us to get a measure of what poor value some of these "high value" machines really are. The Formlab maybe does not come up to the mark if it is only able to resolve features bigger than 300micron. They quote a 25micron build 

                      Before anybody jumps on my neck for saying FDM does not suit my purpose I make the point that FDM technology has come a long way but it will not match SLA results in terms of surface finish and will never do until the filament diameter is significantly reduced and the finesse of the controls improved.

                      The point Graham makes about finishing is most relevant. Some detailed items are impossible to finish if the basic build surface finish is poor. By the time you have finished the smoothing the general area of the item you will have removed the delicate features.

                      I reflect that one of the best Railway modelling companies I have worked for uses 5 axis milling because solidprinting does not liberate acceptable results http://www.justliketherealthing.co.uk/ 

                      Regards

                      Francis Leach



                      On 8 April 2013 11:26, Graham Stabler <grezmos@...> wrote:
                       

                      What do we compare it to? Do any of the other manufacturers quote these values? 

                      Do you have a specific Ra in mind or just want to know how much effort there will be in finishing? In lieu of the roughness perhaps a sample print might be useful to you? 

                      Clocks ticking if you fancy a B9 at wholesale price though :)

                      Graham



                      On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Francis Leach <francisleach@...> wrote:
                       

                      Michael

                      Superb visual results but it does confirm the point that a photograph does not convey measurable confirmation.

                      These photos confirm probably the best results I have ever seen but I have nothing to categorically confirm it.

                      Spends an hour today and print a 1" square cube and have the mutual perpendicular surfaces tested for surface finish at a local university or tech and quotes these figures.

                      Come back with the results and amaze us. By all means show us the photographs of the cube next to this superb statue and we will get a better understanding of comparative results.

                      Well done

                      Regards

                      Francis


                      On 8 April 2013 10:49, Michael Joyce <MikeJ@...> wrote:
                      Hi Francis,
                      Sounds like something I'd like to investigate.  My own experience tells me there is still a lot of "art" in the science of 3D printing and user expertise can have a significant affect on the quality of the print.
                      For now I will simply say that I only promise that the parts are smoother than a Makerbot replicator :-)

                      Mike

                      75 micron voxels...





                      On 4/8/2013 3:38 AM, Francis Leach wrote:
                      Michael

                      I applaud you product's success and confirm my current interest.

                      I have had a quality issue with Shapeways over the specification of surface texture in that they did not appreciate how poorly they described their provision when anyone first uses their services. Unfortunately they are not the only ones missing an opportunity of providing such data.

                      In order to assess the quality of a device made to produce solid prints is it not reasonable to expect suppliers to quote the 3 meaningful parameters ( laysurface roughness, and waviness) for the surface finish acheived in their machines .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surface_finish. Independent testing in accordance with ISO european standards is a good way to go.  
                      The  ISO Standards on Surface Finish is ISO 1302 - 2001. Indication of Surface Texture

                      I appreciate it is difficult to quote numbers for complex shapes but if one used a simple cubic sample with flat surfaces as a test specimen, it would become useful as a benchmark discriminator for machine selection.
                      The test on a typical sample could include the Ra values obtained from flat surfaces in the two planes of interest, i.e parallel and perpendicular to the build direction.

                      Photographs rarely show the truth and better quantitative data must be desirable as it can protect the reputation of a supplier in the event of any dispute. 

                      You view as a manufacturer would be appreciated

                      Regards

                      Francis Leach 



                      On 8 April 2013 08:58, Michael Joyce <MikeJ@...> wrote:
                       

                      Just FYI, our B9Creator 3D Printer Kickstarter ends today.
                      http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/b9creations/b9creator-a-diy-high-resolution-3d-printer
                      Last chance to get one directly from me as I'm planning to only sell via
                      a distributor after this.
                      Mike




                      --
                      Regards

                      Francis Leach


                      -- 
                      "Measure Twice, Cut Once"
                      http://www.B9Creations.com



                      --
                      Regards

                      Francis Leach





                      --
                      Regards

                      Francis Leach

                    • Graham Stabler
                      On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Francis Leach wrote: Do you have any results that define the surface finish from any of the ... That
                      Message 10 of 21 , Apr 8, 2013
                      • 0 Attachment

                        On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Francis Leach <francisleach@...> wrote:

                        Do you have any results that define the surface finish from any of the machines you have had experience of?

                        That define it? I'm not sure quite what that means

                        None of the solidprinters that I know quote any meaningful surface finish values.

                        There may be a good reason for that, it is so variable with part geometry and the layer thickness is a very good indicator, more so for DLP than for FDM.
                         
                        It is a considerable shortfall in solidprinting machine's specification that the manufactures only quote resolution and not surface finish. I know it is a new technology but they have to catch up.

                        Maybe... Going back the geometry question. The cube you imagine, when the surface finish on its top will be a function of the bed flatness but at the same time you can get poor results over large flat areas because of the way the printers apply more light to the edges, for this reason they are avoided. So the finish would depend on area and would most likely not be consistent enough accross the area for a reasonable one number value.

                        On the purely vertical faces you are really looking at variation in registration and perhaps the uniformity of cure in a layer, i.e. how square the edges of a layer are. A 45 degree surface with cubic voxels will have a staircase equal to the layer thickness/voxel dimension but make the surface close but not equal to vertical and you see really tall steps much greater than the layer thickness due to the quantisation in the x,y plane. It is all very variable but you can get a good idea purely from the geometry of the pixels. The roughness is of the order of the size of the pixels.

                        Photographically, the B9 creator looks a close match for them in our world of sensible machine prices but one does not really know that, without data.

                        It is not as good as the Objet results I have had (although they have issues with flat surfaces too) but it FAR FAR better than anything I have seen out of an FDM.

                        If you ask Shapeways for a Ra value they are of the opinion that the words "detail" and "Ultra fine" are acceptable descriptors of finish, they are clearly not, I have found that out at my cost. They publish photograph of items which are almost meanless being presented without any scale references that would enable a comparison to be made. If they specified the surface finishes of a simple flat surfaces produced by their various machines you would be able to make comparisons with other solid-printed results. 

                        The B9 Creator looks very capable and I hope to be able to buy one. I believe Michael may be able to provide a set of results that would clearly show that his solidprinter is significantly better than a FDM machine and equal or even better than some commercial "silly money" machines.

                        Except you still would not have any numbers for the silly money machines or the FDMs. 
                         
                        The point Graham makes about finishing is most relevant. Some detailed items are impossible to finish if the basic build surface finish is poor. By the time you have finished the smoothing the general area of the item you will have removed the delicate features.

                        That's a good point but bare in mind that a defocussed DLP system will give you awesome Ra numbers and you will still have no delicate features.

                        I think some sort of measure of printer performance would be a really good thing however I don't think a simple cube really fits the bill. There are also other issues such as feature size and accuracy that some of us engineers would be interested in but sometimes it is hard to compare the machines. An FDM can have excellent accuracy and resolution of its motion however the large filament limits the min feature to much more than its positional resolution, I think formlabs are struggling also to define their resolution for similar reasons.

                        Graham
                      • Francis Leach
                        Graham I am sorry you do not understand the question but I do not understand your reply. A ISO standard sets controlling parameters so meaningful data can be
                        Message 11 of 21 , Apr 8, 2013
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Graham

                          I am sorry you do not understand the question but I do not understand your reply.

                          A ISO standard sets controlling parameters so meaningful data can be derived by test but is does not have to be so complicated. Just print a cube and measure the surface finish on all six faces and publish. 
                          Such data would be better than we have now.

                          You are right about the "silly money" manufactures not wanting to play ball, as is not in their interest to have competition, but the likes of the reasonably price machines from B9 and formlab machines will soon alter the markets price profile. 


                          Francis Leach



                          On 8 April 2013 15:21, Graham Stabler <grezmos@...> wrote:
                           


                          On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Francis Leach <francisleach@...> wrote:

                          Do you have any results that define the surface finish from any of the machines you have had experience of?

                          That define it? I'm not sure quite what that means

                          None of the solidprinters that I know quote any meaningful surface finish values.

                          There may be a good reason for that, it is so variable with part geometry and the layer thickness is a very good indicator, more so for DLP than for FDM.
                           
                          It is a considerable shortfall in solidprinting machine's specification that the manufactures only quote resolution and not surface finish. I know it is a new technology but they have to catch up.

                          Maybe... Going back the geometry question. The cube you imagine, when the surface finish on its top will be a function of the bed flatness but at the same time you can get poor results over large flat areas because of the way the printers apply more light to the edges, for this reason they are avoided. So the finish would depend on area and would most likely not be consistent enough accross the area for a reasonable one number value.

                          On the purely vertical faces you are really looking at variation in registration and perhaps the uniformity of cure in a layer, i.e. how square the edges of a layer are. A 45 degree surface with cubic voxels will have a staircase equal to the layer thickness/voxel dimension but make the surface close but not equal to vertical and you see really tall steps much greater than the layer thickness due to the quantisation in the x,y plane. It is all very variable but you can get a good idea purely from the geometry of the pixels. The roughness is of the order of the size of the pixels.

                          Photographically, the B9 creator looks a close match for them in our world of sensible machine prices but one does not really know that, without data.

                          It is not as good as the Objet results I have had (although they have issues with flat surfaces too) but it FAR FAR better than anything I have seen out of an FDM.

                          If you ask Shapeways for a Ra value they are of the opinion that the words "detail" and "Ultra fine" are acceptable descriptors of finish, they are clearly not, I have found that out at my cost. They publish photograph of items which are almost meanless being presented without any scale references that would enable a comparison to be made. If they specified the surface finishes of a simple flat surfaces produced by their various machines you would be able to make comparisons with other solid-printed results. 

                          The B9 Creator looks very capable and I hope to be able to buy one. I believe Michael may be able to provide a set of results that would clearly show that his solidprinter is significantly better than a FDM machine and equal or even better than some commercial "silly money" machines.

                          Except you still would not have any numbers for the silly money machines or the FDMs. 
                           
                          The point Graham makes about finishing is most relevant. Some detailed items are impossible to finish if the basic build surface finish is poor. By the time you have finished the smoothing the general area of the item you will have removed the delicate features.

                          That's a good point but bare in mind that a defocussed DLP system will give you awesome Ra numbers and you will still have no delicate features.

                          I think some sort of measure of printer performance would be a really good thing however I don't think a simple cube really fits the bill. There are also other issues such as feature size and accuracy that some of us engineers would be interested in but sometimes it is hard to compare the machines. An FDM can have excellent accuracy and resolution of its motion however the large filament limits the min feature to much more than its positional resolution, I think formlabs are struggling also to define their resolution for similar reasons.

                          Graham




                          --
                          Regards

                          Francis Leach

                        • Graham Stabler
                          If you want an ISO standard you might be talking to the wrong people :) I don t see the reason to measure more than two faces maybe 3 if you do the base, which
                          Message 12 of 21 , Apr 8, 2013
                          • 0 Attachment
                            If you want an ISO standard you might be talking to the wrong people :) 

                            I don't see the reason to measure more than two faces maybe 3 if you do the base, which has a brushed aluminium finish on the B9 :D . As I said I think it it will give a poor estimate of the finish as there will be no stair casing on vertical surfaces.

                            Cheers,

                            Graham


                            On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Francis Leach <francisleach@...> wrote:
                             

                            Graham

                            I am sorry you do not understand the question but I do not understand your reply.

                            A ISO standard sets controlling parameters so meaningful data can be derived by test but is does not have to be so complicated. Just print a cube and measure the surface finish on all six faces and publish. 
                            Such data would be better than we have now.

                            You are right about the "silly money" manufactures not wanting to play ball, as is not in their interest to have competition, but the likes of the reasonably price machines from B9 and formlab machines will soon alter the markets price profile. 


                            Francis Leach



                            On 8 April 2013 15:21, Graham Stabler <grezmos@...> wrote:
                             


                            On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Francis Leach <francisleach@...> wrote:

                            Do you have any results that define the surface finish from any of the machines you have had experience of?

                            That define it? I'm not sure quite what that means

                            None of the solidprinters that I know quote any meaningful surface finish values.

                            There may be a good reason for that, it is so variable with part geometry and the layer thickness is a very good indicator, more so for DLP than for FDM.
                             
                            It is a considerable shortfall in solidprinting machine's specification that the manufactures only quote resolution and not surface finish. I know it is a new technology but they have to catch up.

                            Maybe... Going back the geometry question. The cube you imagine, when the surface finish on its top will be a function of the bed flatness but at the same time you can get poor results over large flat areas because of the way the printers apply more light to the edges, for this reason they are avoided. So the finish would depend on area and would most likely not be consistent enough accross the area for a reasonable one number value.

                            On the purely vertical faces you are really looking at variation in registration and perhaps the uniformity of cure in a layer, i.e. how square the edges of a layer are. A 45 degree surface with cubic voxels will have a staircase equal to the layer thickness/voxel dimension but make the surface close but not equal to vertical and you see really tall steps much greater than the layer thickness due to the quantisation in the x,y plane. It is all very variable but you can get a good idea purely from the geometry of the pixels. The roughness is of the order of the size of the pixels.

                            Photographically, the B9 creator looks a close match for them in our world of sensible machine prices but one does not really know that, without data.

                            It is not as good as the Objet results I have had (although they have issues with flat surfaces too) but it FAR FAR better than anything I have seen out of an FDM.

                            If you ask Shapeways for a Ra value they are of the opinion that the words "detail" and "Ultra fine" are acceptable descriptors of finish, they are clearly not, I have found that out at my cost. They publish photograph of items which are almost meanless being presented without any scale references that would enable a comparison to be made. If they specified the surface finishes of a simple flat surfaces produced by their various machines you would be able to make comparisons with other solid-printed results. 

                            The B9 Creator looks very capable and I hope to be able to buy one. I believe Michael may be able to provide a set of results that would clearly show that his solidprinter is significantly better than a FDM machine and equal or even better than some commercial "silly money" machines.

                            Except you still would not have any numbers for the silly money machines or the FDMs. 
                             
                            The point Graham makes about finishing is most relevant. Some detailed items are impossible to finish if the basic build surface finish is poor. By the time you have finished the smoothing the general area of the item you will have removed the delicate features.

                            That's a good point but bare in mind that a defocussed DLP system will give you awesome Ra numbers and you will still have no delicate features.

                            I think some sort of measure of printer performance would be a really good thing however I don't think a simple cube really fits the bill. There are also other issues such as feature size and accuracy that some of us engineers would be interested in but sometimes it is hard to compare the machines. An FDM can have excellent accuracy and resolution of its motion however the large filament limits the min feature to much more than its positional resolution, I think formlabs are struggling also to define their resolution for similar reasons.

                            Graham




                            --
                            Regards

                            Francis Leach


                          • Francis Leach
                            Graham I appreciate our American s friends have their own national standards for surface finish, based on our own imperial measurements system which suited us
                            Message 13 of 21 , Apr 8, 2013
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Graham

                              I appreciate our American's friends have their own national standards for surface finish, based on our own imperial measurements system which suited us for many a century or two ;0)

                              The question of optimised orientation of the sample cube for best printing finish becomes relevant if all sides are measured for surface finish and quoted.  Some machines have support waxes laid done before the main print is laid down. That affects the surface quality also.  It would be good to know the results.

                              I see your point about stair casing but the measure of a good machine can be assessed easily by how well it does with a simple flat surface.  Horizontal or vertical or inclined.
                                
                              Do you think a cube with straight walls, with a sloping roof is better or perhaps one with a tiled roof  or one with an additional dome. It could get silly

                              I assume the print from the B9 would be supported on a build structure rather than being laid straight to the brushed aluminium build platform.  

                              I believe honest manufacturer would be delighted to show us what they can do.

                              Food for thought

                              Regards

                              Francis Leach



                              Francis Leach




                              On 8 April 2013 17:31, Graham Stabler <grezmos@...> wrote:
                               

                              If you want an ISO standard you might be talking to the wrong people :) 

                              I don't see the reason to measure more than two faces maybe 3 if you do the base, which has a brushed aluminium finish on the B9 :D . As I said I think it it will give a poor estimate of the finish as there will be no stair casing on vertical surfaces.

                              Cheers,

                              Graham


                              On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Francis Leach <francisleach@...> wrote:
                               

                              Graham

                              I am sorry you do not understand the question but I do not understand your reply.

                              A ISO standard sets controlling parameters so meaningful data can be derived by test but is does not have to be so complicated. Just print a cube and measure the surface finish on all six faces and publish. 
                              Such data would be better than we have now.

                              You are right about the "silly money" manufactures not wanting to play ball, as is not in their interest to have competition, but the likes of the reasonably price machines from B9 and formlab machines will soon alter the markets price profile. 


                              Francis Leach



                              On 8 April 2013 15:21, Graham Stabler <grezmos@...> wrote:
                               


                              On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Francis Leach <francisleach@...> wrote:

                              Do you have any results that define the surface finish from any of the machines you have had experience of?

                              That define it? I'm not sure quite what that means

                              None of the solidprinters that I know quote any meaningful surface finish values.

                              There may be a good reason for that, it is so variable with part geometry and the layer thickness is a very good indicator, more so for DLP than for FDM.
                               
                              It is a considerable shortfall in solidprinting machine's specification that the manufactures only quote resolution and not surface finish. I know it is a new technology but they have to catch up.

                              Maybe... Going back the geometry question. The cube you imagine, when the surface finish on its top will be a function of the bed flatness but at the same time you can get poor results over large flat areas because of the way the printers apply more light to the edges, for this reason they are avoided. So the finish would depend on area and would most likely not be consistent enough accross the area for a reasonable one number value.

                              On the purely vertical faces you are really looking at variation in registration and perhaps the uniformity of cure in a layer, i.e. how square the edges of a layer are. A 45 degree surface with cubic voxels will have a staircase equal to the layer thickness/voxel dimension but make the surface close but not equal to vertical and you see really tall steps much greater than the layer thickness due to the quantisation in the x,y plane. It is all very variable but you can get a good idea purely from the geometry of the pixels. The roughness is of the order of the size of the pixels.

                              Photographically, the B9 creator looks a close match for them in our world of sensible machine prices but one does not really know that, without data.

                              It is not as good as the Objet results I have had (although they have issues with flat surfaces too) but it FAR FAR better than anything I have seen out of an FDM.

                              If you ask Shapeways for a Ra value they are of the opinion that the words "detail" and "Ultra fine" are acceptable descriptors of finish, they are clearly not, I have found that out at my cost. They publish photograph of items which are almost meanless being presented without any scale references that would enable a comparison to be made. If they specified the surface finishes of a simple flat surfaces produced by their various machines you would be able to make comparisons with other solid-printed results. 

                              The B9 Creator looks very capable and I hope to be able to buy one. I believe Michael may be able to provide a set of results that would clearly show that his solidprinter is significantly better than a FDM machine and equal or even better than some commercial "silly money" machines.

                              Except you still would not have any numbers for the silly money machines or the FDMs. 
                               
                              The point Graham makes about finishing is most relevant. Some detailed items are impossible to finish if the basic build surface finish is poor. By the time you have finished the smoothing the general area of the item you will have removed the delicate features.

                              That's a good point but bare in mind that a defocussed DLP system will give you awesome Ra numbers and you will still have no delicate features.

                              I think some sort of measure of printer performance would be a really good thing however I don't think a simple cube really fits the bill. There are also other issues such as feature size and accuracy that some of us engineers would be interested in but sometimes it is hard to compare the machines. An FDM can have excellent accuracy and resolution of its motion however the large filament limits the min feature to much more than its positional resolution, I think formlabs are struggling also to define their resolution for similar reasons.

                              Graham




                              --
                              Regards

                              Francis Leach





                              --
                              Regards

                              Francis Leach

                            • Graham Stabler
                              ... I was meaning we are not really in a position to create a standard at all :D ... Not really. If an individual layer has flat sides (not like stacked tubes
                              Message 14 of 21 , Apr 9, 2013
                              • 0 Attachment

                                I appreciate our American's friends have their own national standards for surface finish, based on our own imperial measurements system which suited us for many a century or two ;0)

                                I was meaning we are not really in a position to create a standard at all :D
                                 
                                I see your point about stair casing but the measure of a good machine can be assessed easily by how well it does with a simple flat surface.  Horizontal or vertical or inclined.

                                Not really. If an individual layer has flat sides (not like stacked tubes like FDM) then the layer thickness will not affect the surface finish so you could have 1mm layer thickness and extremely smooth sides and top to your cube (not to mention all of the vertical sides will be the same) so I don't really see that it shows enough of the whole picture, I also mentioned that the are of the horizontal surface affects the finish for the DLP printers.

                                Do you think a cube with straight walls, with a sloping roof is better or perhaps one with a tiled roof  or one with an additional dome. It could get silly

                                As it is a 3D printer I am not sure you can get silly because it is just a matter of drawing it though ease of measurement needs to be taken in to account, a horizontal surface, a vertical surface and and at least one sloped surface would be good although I am not sure what angle would be best, 45 degrees if the voxels are cubes but not sure otherwise.

                                I assume the print from the B9 would be supported on a build structure rather than being laid straight to the brushed aluminium build platform.  

                                You will have to specify this in your standard :)

                                I believe honest manufacturer would be delighted to show us what they can do.

                                But presumably they do not become dishonest if they can't be bothered or don't think it helpful :)

                                Cheers,

                                Graham



                                On 8 April 2013 17:31, Graham Stabler <grezmos@...> wrote:
                                 

                                If you want an ISO standard you might be talking to the wrong people :) 

                                I don't see the reason to measure more than two faces maybe 3 if you do the base, which has a brushed aluminium finish on the B9 :D . As I said I think it it will give a poor estimate of the finish as there will be no stair casing on vertical surfaces.

                                Cheers,

                                Graham


                                On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Francis Leach <francisleach@...> wrote:
                                 

                                Graham

                                I am sorry you do not understand the question but I do not understand your reply.

                                A ISO standard sets controlling parameters so meaningful data can be derived by test but is does not have to be so complicated. Just print a cube and measure the surface finish on all six faces and publish. 
                                Such data would be better than we have now.

                                You are right about the "silly money" manufactures not wanting to play ball, as is not in their interest to have competition, but the likes of the reasonably price machines from B9 and formlab machines will soon alter the markets price profile. 


                                Francis Leach



                                On 8 April 2013 15:21, Graham Stabler <grezmos@...> wrote:
                                 


                                On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Francis Leach <francisleach@...> wrote:

                                Do you have any results that define the surface finish from any of the machines you have had experience of?

                                That define it? I'm not sure quite what that means

                                None of the solidprinters that I know quote any meaningful surface finish values.

                                There may be a good reason for that, it is so variable with part geometry and the layer thickness is a very good indicator, more so for DLP than for FDM.
                                 
                                It is a considerable shortfall in solidprinting machine's specification that the manufactures only quote resolution and not surface finish. I know it is a new technology but they have to catch up.

                                Maybe... Going back the geometry question. The cube you imagine, when the surface finish on its top will be a function of the bed flatness but at the same time you can get poor results over large flat areas because of the way the printers apply more light to the edges, for this reason they are avoided. So the finish would depend on area and would most likely not be consistent enough accross the area for a reasonable one number value.

                                On the purely vertical faces you are really looking at variation in registration and perhaps the uniformity of cure in a layer, i.e. how square the edges of a layer are. A 45 degree surface with cubic voxels will have a staircase equal to the layer thickness/voxel dimension but make the surface close but not equal to vertical and you see really tall steps much greater than the layer thickness due to the quantisation in the x,y plane. It is all very variable but you can get a good idea purely from the geometry of the pixels. The roughness is of the order of the size of the pixels.

                                Photographically, the B9 creator looks a close match for them in our world of sensible machine prices but one does not really know that, without data.

                                It is not as good as the Objet results I have had (although they have issues with flat surfaces too) but it FAR FAR better than anything I have seen out of an FDM.

                                If you ask Shapeways for a Ra value they are of the opinion that the words "detail" and "Ultra fine" are acceptable descriptors of finish, they are clearly not, I have found that out at my cost. They publish photograph of items which are almost meanless being presented without any scale references that would enable a comparison to be made. If they specified the surface finishes of a simple flat surfaces produced by their various machines you would be able to make comparisons with other solid-printed results. 

                                The B9 Creator looks very capable and I hope to be able to buy one. I believe Michael may be able to provide a set of results that would clearly show that his solidprinter is significantly better than a FDM machine and equal or even better than some commercial "silly money" machines.

                                Except you still would not have any numbers for the silly money machines or the FDMs. 
                                 
                                The point Graham makes about finishing is most relevant. Some detailed items are impossible to finish if the basic build surface finish is poor. By the time you have finished the smoothing the general area of the item you will have removed the delicate features.

                                That's a good point but bare in mind that a defocussed DLP system will give you awesome Ra numbers and you will still have no delicate features.

                                I think some sort of measure of printer performance would be a really good thing however I don't think a simple cube really fits the bill. There are also other issues such as feature size and accuracy that some of us engineers would be interested in but sometimes it is hard to compare the machines. An FDM can have excellent accuracy and resolution of its motion however the large filament limits the min feature to much more than its positional resolution, I think formlabs are struggling also to define their resolution for similar reasons.

                                Graham




                                --
                                Regards

                                Francis Leach





                                --
                                Regards

                                Francis Leach


                              • Francis Leach
                                Graham Thank you for putting me straight. I am glad I have your opinions. Personally, I am not wishing to establish a standard test at all, I only seek a
                                Message 15 of 21 , Apr 9, 2013
                                Graham

                                Thank you for putting me straight. I am glad I have your opinions.

                                Personally, I am not wishing to establish a standard test at all, I only seek a better understanding of the surface finish of solidprinted surfaces without relying on "out of focussed, low res, long shot photographs or non-quantifiable descriptors such as "detail or ultra fine"  or Variable Voxelisation . I have previously submitted a shapeways print referred to as "detail ",   not!

                                In your deliberation you have fully developed the reasons why we should not have a simple test to assess the quality of solidprinter. I am not convinced.

                                The photographs submitted by The B9 creator of the statue are "honest" ( that is, clear close-ups showing every detail )  and the best I have ever seen to understand what a good print looks like. With a simple test using a surface finish meter we may be moving to an understand of what is actual a Good solid print in terms of surface finish.

                                I have had many solidprints from an Objet printer with a claimed High res build of 16 micron, in a white resin which once sprayed with primer was found to be a rough as the bears bottom. 
                                I believe the results from a number of kickstarter companies are now very good and better than some expensive "silly money" machines but we needs some numbers to get a measure of what "good" really is.

                                No problem with that?.

                                Of the "silly money" machines only the Solidscape machines has a surface finish listed of 32 -63 micro inches RMS. ( American standard ). Probably the best solidprinter results I have ever seen. Well done I say.
                                On inspection of the 3DS Website and the multitude of  product brochures, surface finish performance is not listed. 
                                Envisiontec do not quote a surface finish performance for any of their machines but do state that the surface finish is constant over the entire build area. What is the surface finish? I believe the Prefractory micro to be a good performer but at a price most private individuals will not afford

                                Examples brochures below.

                                Regards

                                Francis





                                On 9 April 2013 08:12, Graham Stabler <grezmos@...> wrote:
                                 


                                I appreciate our American's friends have their own national standards for surface finish, based on our own imperial measurements system which suited us for many a century or two ;0)

                                I was meaning we are not really in a position to create a standard at all :D
                                 
                                I see your point about stair casing but the measure of a good machine can be assessed easily by how well it does with a simple flat surface.  Horizontal or vertical or inclined.

                                Not really. If an individual layer has flat sides (not like stacked tubes like FDM) then the layer thickness will not affect the surface finish so you could have 1mm layer thickness and extremely smooth sides and top to your cube (not to mention all of the vertical sides will be the same) so I don't really see that it shows enough of the whole picture, I also mentioned that the are of the horizontal surface affects the finish for the DLP printers.

                                Do you think a cube with straight walls, with a sloping roof is better or perhaps one with a tiled roof  or one with an additional dome. It could get silly

                                As it is a 3D printer I am not sure you can get silly because it is just a matter of drawing it though ease of measurement needs to be taken in to account, a horizontal surface, a vertical surface and and at least one sloped surface would be good although I am not sure what angle would be best, 45 degrees if the voxels are cubes but not sure otherwise.

                                I assume the print from the B9 would be supported on a build structure rather than being laid straight to the brushed aluminium build platform.  

                                You will have to specify this in your standard :)

                                I believe honest manufacturer would be delighted to show us what they can do.

                                But presumably they do not become dishonest if they can't be bothered or don't think it helpful :)

                                Cheers,

                                Graham



                                On 8 April 2013 17:31, Graham Stabler <grezmos@...> wrote:
                                 

                                If you want an ISO standard you might be talking to the wrong people :) 

                                I don't see the reason to measure more than two faces maybe 3 if you do the base, which has a brushed aluminium finish on the B9 :D . As I said I think it it will give a poor estimate of the finish as there will be no stair casing on vertical surfaces.

                                Cheers,

                                Graham


                                On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Francis Leach <francisleach@...> wrote:
                                 

                                Graham

                                I am sorry you do not understand the question but I do not understand your reply.

                                A ISO standard sets controlling parameters so meaningful data can be derived by test but is does not have to be so complicated. Just print a cube and measure the surface finish on all six faces and publish. 
                                Such data would be better than we have now.

                                You are right about the "silly money" manufactures not wanting to play ball, as is not in their interest to have competition, but the likes of the reasonably price machines from B9 and formlab machines will soon alter the markets price profile. 


                                Francis Leach



                                On 8 April 2013 15:21, Graham Stabler <grezmos@...> wrote:
                                 


                                On Mon, Apr 8, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Francis Leach <francisleach@...> wrote:

                                Do you have any results that define the surface finish from any of the machines you have had experience of?

                                That define it? I'm not sure quite what that means

                                None of the solidprinters that I know quote any meaningful surface finish values.

                                There may be a good reason for that, it is so variable with part geometry and the layer thickness is a very good indicator, more so for DLP than for FDM.
                                 
                                It is a considerable shortfall in solidprinting machine's specification that the manufactures only quote resolution and not surface finish. I know it is a new technology but they have to catch up.

                                Maybe... Going back the geometry question. The cube you imagine, when the surface finish on its top will be a function of the bed flatness but at the same time you can get poor results over large flat areas because of the way the printers apply more light to the edges, for this reason they are avoided. So the finish would depend on area and would most likely not be consistent enough accross the area for a reasonable one number value.

                                On the purely vertical faces you are really looking at variation in registration and perhaps the uniformity of cure in a layer, i.e. how square the edges of a layer are. A 45 degree surface with cubic voxels will have a staircase equal to the layer thickness/voxel dimension but make the surface close but not equal to vertical and you see really tall steps much greater than the layer thickness due to the quantisation in the x,y plane. It is all very variable but you can get a good idea purely from the geometry of the pixels. The roughness is of the order of the size of the pixels.

                                Photographically, the B9 creator looks a close match for them in our world of sensible machine prices but one does not really know that, without data.

                                It is not as good as the Objet results I have had (although they have issues with flat surfaces too) but it FAR FAR better than anything I have seen out of an FDM.

                                If you ask Shapeways for a Ra value they are of the opinion that the words "detail" and "Ultra fine" are acceptable descriptors of finish, they are clearly not, I have found that out at my cost. They publish photograph of items which are almost meanless being presented without any scale references that would enable a comparison to be made. If they specified the surface finishes of a simple flat surfaces produced by their various machines you would be able to make comparisons with other solid-printed results. 

                                The B9 Creator looks very capable and I hope to be able to buy one. I believe Michael may be able to provide a set of results that would clearly show that his solidprinter is significantly better than a FDM machine and equal or even better than some commercial "silly money" machines.

                                Except you still would not have any numbers for the silly money machines or the FDMs. 
                                 
                                The point Graham makes about finishing is most relevant. Some detailed items are impossible to finish if the basic build surface finish is poor. By the time you have finished the smoothing the general area of the item you will have removed the delicate features.

                                That's a good point but bare in mind that a defocussed DLP system will give you awesome Ra numbers and you will still have no delicate features.

                                I think some sort of measure of printer performance would be a really good thing however I don't think a simple cube really fits the bill. There are also other issues such as feature size and accuracy that some of us engineers would be interested in but sometimes it is hard to compare the machines. An FDM can have excellent accuracy and resolution of its motion however the large filament limits the min feature to much more than its positional resolution, I think formlabs are struggling also to define their resolution for similar reasons.

                                Graham




                                --
                                Regards

                                Francis Leach





                                --
                                Regards

                                Francis Leach





                                --
                                Regards

                                Francis Leach

                              • Graham Stabler
                                ... I m not against a simple test nor against some way of being able to see the results only the exact means by which you propose to do it. Personally I feel
                                Message 16 of 21 , Apr 9, 2013
                                • 0 Attachment

                                  In your deliberation you have fully developed the reasons why we should not have a simple test to assess the quality of solidprinter. I am not convinced.

                                  I'm not against a simple test nor against some way of being able to see the results only the exact means by which you propose to do it. Personally I feel able to assess the quality well enough for my needs from a half decent pic, preferably with scale.

                                  I've been wondering how to make an image that really shows the finish and came to the conclusion that a crossection with scale would be rather good. This can be done using a saw and wet and dry paper and a basic microscope/macrosystem with reticule or scale so you can see how large the features are. I'm just thinking of this as something anyone could do, the part needs to be chosen carefully again though.

                                  I have had many solidprints from an Objet printer with a claimed High res build of 16 micron, in a white resin which once sprayed with primer was found to be a rough as the bears bottom. 
                                  I believe the results from a number of kickstarter companies are now very good and better than some expensive "silly money" machines but we needs some numbers to get a measure of what "good" really is. 

                                  No problem with that?.

                                  I'm not really as interested in finish as I am in accuracy but it would be nice.

                                  Cheers,

                                  Graham
                                • bobgarrish
                                  Accuracy is #1 for me right now, because we re not quite there on accuracy yet and the finish is an afterthought on a part that doesn t fit (engineering bias).
                                  Message 17 of 21 , Apr 10, 2013
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Accuracy is #1 for me right now, because we're not quite there on accuracy yet and the finish is an afterthought on a part that doesn't fit (engineering bias). I have seen some test objects designed to test accuracy / resolution and they seem well designed.

                                    That being said, the finish on FDM parts is unacceptable for anything that's going to be molded or truly functional (ie: a cleanly meshing gear) so there are limits.

                                    I think it would be easy enough to test surface finish, given a meter and a standard part. A collection of solids would likely do, actually: a cube on flat, a dodecahedron, a tetrahedron, and the top and bottom parts of a sphere. I'm thinking the features that matter would be flats, vertical surfaces, near-flats (10 degrees), near verts (80 degrees), spherical surfaces, and underhanging versions of all of the above.

                                    If you took a cube, left one side vertical, did a very shallow and a very steep ramp off two other sides, and bulged the remaining side out like a sphere then you'd have a pretty good tester. Then mirror it across the plane on which it sits so you have the underhanging versions of all of those.

                                    I might draw up such a thing later on...for right now the focus is on getting a printer made and printing, and then doing dimensional testing. Accuracy will probably be a series of cube-ish objects with holes and cylindrical protrusions: easy things to measure with micrometers and pin gauges.

                                    After that, I'm sure the industry will innovate on how the tests are done such that they can scam them a bit. A lot like how CNC router manufacturers quote their accuracy as the resolution of the motion system when the sum of the mechanical errors is thousands of times larger.
                                  • Francis Leach
                                    Bob You completely get it, thank you
                                    Message 18 of 21 , Apr 10, 2013
                                    • 0 Attachment

                                      Bob

                                      You completely get it, thank you

                                      On 10 Apr 2013 17:34, "bobgarrish" <bobgarrish@...> wrote:
                                       

                                      Accuracy is #1 for me right now, because we're not quite there on accuracy yet and the finish is an afterthought on a part that doesn't fit (engineering bias). I have seen some test objects designed to test accuracy / resolution and they seem well designed.

                                      That being said, the finish on FDM parts is unacceptable for anything that's going to be molded or truly functional (ie: a cleanly meshing gear) so there are limits.

                                      I think it would be easy enough to test surface finish, given a meter and a standard part. A collection of solids would likely do, actually: a cube on flat, a dodecahedron, a tetrahedron, and the top and bottom parts of a sphere. I'm thinking the features that matter would be flats, vertical surfaces, near-flats (10 degrees), near verts (80 degrees), spherical surfaces, and underhanging versions of all of the above.

                                      If you took a cube, left one side vertical, did a very shallow and a very steep ramp off two other sides, and bulged the remaining side out like a sphere then you'd have a pretty good tester. Then mirror it across the plane on which it sits so you have the underhanging versions of all of those.

                                      I might draw up such a thing later on...for right now the focus is on getting a printer made and printing, and then doing dimensional testing. Accuracy will probably be a series of cube-ish objects with holes and cylindrical protrusions: easy things to measure with micrometers and pin gauges.

                                      After that, I'm sure the industry will innovate on how the tests are done such that they can scam them a bit. A lot like how CNC router manufacturers quote their accuracy as the resolution of the motion system when the sum of the mechanical errors is thousands of times larger.

                                    • Ben Mahony
                                      In fareness I think Graham and Michael get it as well Ben Mahony. ** Bob You completely get it, thank you
                                      Message 19 of 21 , Apr 10, 2013
                                      • 0 Attachment

                                        In fareness I think Graham and Michael get it as well

                                        Ben Mahony.

                                         

                                        Bob

                                        You completely get it, thank you

                                        On 10 Apr 2013 17:34, "bobgarrish" <bobgarrish@...> wrote:
                                         

                                        Accuracy is #1 for me right now, because we're not quite there on accuracy yet and the finish is an afterthought on a part that doesn't fit (engineering bias). I have seen some test objects designed to test accuracy / resolution and they seem well designed.

                                        That being said, the finish on FDM parts is unacceptable for anything that's going to be molded or truly functional (ie: a cleanly meshing gear) so there are limits.

                                        I think it would be easy enough to test surface finish, given a meter and a standard part. A collection of solids would likely do, actually: a cube on flat, a dodecahedron, a tetrahedron, and the top and bottom parts of a sphere. I'm thinking the features that matter would be flats, vertical surfaces, near-flats (10 degrees), near verts (80 degrees), spherical surfaces, and underhanging versions of all of the above.

                                        If you took a cube, left one side vertical, did a very shallow and a very steep ramp off two other sides, and bulged the remaining side out like a sphere then you'd have a pretty good tester. Then mirror it across the plane on which it sits so you have the underhanging versions of all of those.

                                        I might draw up such a thing later on...for right now the focus is on getting a printer made and printing, and then doing dimensional testing. Accuracy will probably be a series of cube-ish objects with holes and cylindrical protrusions: easy things to measure with micrometers and pin gauges.

                                        After that, I'm sure the industry will innovate on how the tests are done such that they can scam them a bit. A lot like how CNC router manufacturers quote their accuracy as the resolution of the motion system when the sum of the mechanical errors is thousands of times larger.

                                      • Francis Leach
                                        absolutely ... -- Regards *Francis Leach*
                                        Message 20 of 21 , Apr 10, 2013
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          absolutely


                                          On 10 April 2013 20:07, Ben Mahony <ben.mahony@...> wrote:
                                           

                                          In fareness I think Graham and Michael get it as well

                                          Ben Mahony.

                                           

                                          Bob

                                          You completely get it, thank you

                                          On 10 Apr 2013 17:34, "bobgarrish" <bobgarrish@...> wrote:
                                           

                                          Accuracy is #1 for me right now, because we're not quite there on accuracy yet and the finish is an afterthought on a part that doesn't fit (engineering bias). I have seen some test objects designed to test accuracy / resolution and they seem well designed.

                                          That being said, the finish on FDM parts is unacceptable for anything that's going to be molded or truly functional (ie: a cleanly meshing gear) so there are limits.

                                          I think it would be easy enough to test surface finish, given a meter and a standard part. A collection of solids would likely do, actually: a cube on flat, a dodecahedron, a tetrahedron, and the top and bottom parts of a sphere. I'm thinking the features that matter would be flats, vertical surfaces, near-flats (10 degrees), near verts (80 degrees), spherical surfaces, and underhanging versions of all of the above.

                                          If you took a cube, left one side vertical, did a very shallow and a very steep ramp off two other sides, and bulged the remaining side out like a sphere then you'd have a pretty good tester. Then mirror it across the plane on which it sits so you have the underhanging versions of all of those.

                                          I might draw up such a thing later on...for right now the focus is on getting a printer made and printing, and then doing dimensional testing. Accuracy will probably be a series of cube-ish objects with holes and cylindrical protrusions: easy things to measure with micrometers and pin gauges.

                                          After that, I'm sure the industry will innovate on how the tests are done such that they can scam them a bit. A lot like how CNC router manufacturers quote their accuracy as the resolution of the motion system when the sum of the mechanical errors is thousands of times larger.




                                          --
                                          Regards

                                          Francis Leach

                                        • Francis Leach
                                          Michael is a positive honest manufacturer ... -- Regards *Francis Leach*
                                          Message 21 of 21 , Apr 10, 2013
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Michael is a positive honest manufacturer 


                                            On 10 April 2013 20:15, Francis Leach <francisleach@...> wrote:
                                            absolutely


                                            On 10 April 2013 20:07, Ben Mahony <ben.mahony@...> wrote:
                                             

                                            In fareness I think Graham and Michael get it as well

                                            Ben Mahony.

                                             

                                            Bob

                                            You completely get it, thank you

                                            On 10 Apr 2013 17:34, "bobgarrish" <bobgarrish@...> wrote:
                                             

                                            Accuracy is #1 for me right now, because we're not quite there on accuracy yet and the finish is an afterthought on a part that doesn't fit (engineering bias). I have seen some test objects designed to test accuracy / resolution and they seem well designed.

                                            That being said, the finish on FDM parts is unacceptable for anything that's going to be molded or truly functional (ie: a cleanly meshing gear) so there are limits.

                                            I think it would be easy enough to test surface finish, given a meter and a standard part. A collection of solids would likely do, actually: a cube on flat, a dodecahedron, a tetrahedron, and the top and bottom parts of a sphere. I'm thinking the features that matter would be flats, vertical surfaces, near-flats (10 degrees), near verts (80 degrees), spherical surfaces, and underhanging versions of all of the above.

                                            If you took a cube, left one side vertical, did a very shallow and a very steep ramp off two other sides, and bulged the remaining side out like a sphere then you'd have a pretty good tester. Then mirror it across the plane on which it sits so you have the underhanging versions of all of those.

                                            I might draw up such a thing later on...for right now the focus is on getting a printer made and printing, and then doing dimensional testing. Accuracy will probably be a series of cube-ish objects with holes and cylindrical protrusions: easy things to measure with micrometers and pin gauges.

                                            After that, I'm sure the industry will innovate on how the tests are done such that they can scam them a bit. A lot like how CNC router manufacturers quote their accuracy as the resolution of the motion system when the sum of the mechanical errors is thousands of times larger.




                                            --
                                            Regards

                                            Francis Leach




                                            --
                                            Regards

                                            Francis Leach

                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.