Carbon 3D

Post, review and discuss any commercial machines. Try to include links, specifications and prices.
jcarletto27
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 11:38 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Carbon 3D

Postby jcarletto27 » Thu Apr 23, 2015 12:41 pm

Well, I went ahead and ordered one, it should be here sometime next week. I've read that you can mix Edit: Tolulene ( thanks Zoom for the msds) to thin out RTV silicone, so I'll give it ago and see if I can cast a thin sheet.

I have no idea if it's the correct RTV-1 or not, I'm just grabbing at straws to see if this is even feasible.

I spoke with a few folks in our contracting department and we have no contracts with Wacker or DuPont. We do however, have several with 3M, so if you guys can find a comparable 3M product I may be able to grab some to test.



Currently I've tried several different materials for flexVats,

PET/Mylar - McMaster .005" - works fine, though the heat from the resin reacting causes the Mylar to distort, maybe a thicker film would be better.
UHMW - McMaster .004" - Very sturdy and very slick, can be tensioned to an amazing degree, translucency can cause some loss of detail, slightly longer cure times than FEP, PFA
FEP - McMaster .002" - Sturdy, low friction. I think McMaster must use an odd batch because my cure times for .1mm layers is ~25 seconds, very strange compared to others.
PFA - McMaster .001 - Slightly better cure times than the FEP but still ~20 seconds.

I have some TPX on order from CS Hyde, I've read that even though it has high gas permeability it's still way too low for continuous printing.

I have seen online several thin clear silicone sheets, though that are a bit to thick for our uses (1/32")





edit:
has anyone seen this company before?


no stats on the films but I think it couldn't be any more expensive than the Teflon AF series.

crusoe
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 5:04 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Carbon 3D

Postby crusoe » Mon Apr 27, 2015 12:21 pm

Biggest problem with argotec is gonna be chemical inertness. Its apparently urethane based, but so are many photoresins. I suspect they will chemically bond.

I'd check your light source. With Near-UV leds, cure for me with fep is near instaneous. That or mcMaster sent you the wrong material. Got my fep film from Cs Hyde.

jcarletto27
Posts: 11
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2015 11:38 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Carbon 3D

Postby jcarletto27 » Mon Apr 27, 2015 4:50 pm

Thanks Crusoe for the insights.
I've made a few adjustments and shortened my throw a bit, I'll see if that has any bearing on cure time once I switch back from UHMW, although my TPX did finally come in, maybe I'll try that out first.

Also, my order of the elastosil RTV came in today, hopefully I can give the cast sheet a go sometime this weekend.

User avatar
James
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:56 am
Contact:

Re: Carbon 3D

Postby James » Fri May 01, 2015 2:55 am

Interesting thread guys, highly informative and very creative. I just finished reading the 22 pages and my opinion is the same as the day they first released the disclosure and that is the speed is going to be geometry dependent. I see a number of you have pointed this out too. Also, I envision their patent will not be enforceable should someone decide to challenge it. To me, it's like everybody was driving their cars, of a particular type, around at painfully slow speeds and then someone using a car just like everyone else's car found out that if you just push the gas peddle to the floor you can drive at a much much greater speed on straight roads. That's not novel and I don't even know how they managed to get the patent in the first place since it should be evident to anyone in the know that it is not novel.

It'll be interesting to see how this plays out in the coming years. :)
I prefer to know nothing about everything rather than everything about nothing. :)

TERRISGR
Posts: 15
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 4:54 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Carbon 3D

Postby TERRISGR » Fri May 01, 2015 6:37 am

oxygen permeability of 0.1 cm3/m2 to barrer , how much it is?

rsaldivar777
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu May 21, 2015 11:02 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Carbon 3D

Postby rsaldivar777 » Thu May 21, 2015 11:54 am

Hi , I'm new to this forum , this might be a dum question but does anyone know how much this machine aprox will cost and when will aprox be out ??

catswithlasers
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon May 18, 2015 2:02 am
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Carbon 3D

Postby catswithlasers » Tue May 26, 2015 10:40 am

I dont think everyone posting about flexvat materials other than the Teflon AF understands the difference is litterally two orders of magnitude greater when it comes to oxygen permiability. For an idea of orders of magnitude and to understand why using Teflon AF is crucial for this effect let me explain with comparing this to other orders of magnitude.

Say you need to run 5 miles. Sounds tough. Two orders of magnitude changes that 5 mile run into a 500 mile run. Thats more than the distance from San Francisco to San Diego, or like running from New York to Washington DC and back. Teflon AF makes that trek, everything else is struggling with those first 5 miles...

The difference, and the reason that its patentable, is that where other systems relied on the fluoropolymers to act as non stick coatings this banks solely on the deadzone created by the insanely large ammount of oxygen that gets through. Which is why they defined the permiability so well in their patent. It works on a different concept altogether, not quite just a pedal to the medal approach. While the other substances are slightly permiable to oxygen the idea wasnt that a dead zone where excess resin could pour in was created to allow for nearly continuous prints. I think it will hold.

On that note, lets definitely try to source some of this stuff. It looks like a real pain to synth considering TFE is an explosive gas. If anyone has a garage in the middle of nowhere on private proporty that dosnt mind risking an explosion wants to try to set up a rig to synth the TFE on site and then process it into the copolymer I can probably help figure out how we could DIY a setup for the process...

User avatar
James
Posts: 167
Joined: Mon Dec 02, 2013 1:56 am
Contact:

Re: Carbon 3D

Postby James » Tue May 26, 2015 6:00 pm

Welcome to the forum. The great thing is we don't need to wait long to see what the outcome will be. :D

As for Teflon AF, I would advise that those working on an open source version try to find other materials since Dupont has numerous patents restricting how Teflon AF can be used and consequently it could end up being a can of worms situation in the long run. My intuition tells me that ordinary PTFE film would work, being that the solidification inhibition layer would be so thin that the inflow of resin wouldn't be able to dislodge those molecules from the surface of the film as they would tend to be held in place by van der Waals forces. Consequently, it wouldn't matter how permeable the film was as long as, over time, the oxygen got through to form the inhibition layer. In this regard, the viscosity of the resin is going to be a very big factor concerning the success of the process. If the resin viscosity is too thick I'm feeling like there would be a kind of "bulldozer" effect that would disturb the inhibition layer too much as each inflow part of the build cycle occurred.

As for those doing R&D in the opposite direction, top down, there is still the problem of the limitations of hydraulics. Aside from the benefit that can be gained by using the lowest viscosity resin that can be had and also heating the resin to further decrease viscosity one needs to devise a way to move the resin into position more effectively. Traditional wiping mechanisms are too slow to be effect in this situation where as speed is the top priority. There needs to be something else that helps the resin flow faster. Ultrasonics for example?

I would really love to work on this with you guys but my hands are currently tied at the moment as I finish up with other matters. When I do get a free moment though I'll jump into this and see what I can do to contribute.
I prefer to know nothing about everything rather than everything about nothing. :)

Frontiermen
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2015 4:49 pm
[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable

Re: Carbon 3D

Postby Frontiermen » Thu Jun 04, 2015 5:07 pm

Hi Everyone,

I am completely new to this forum, and for that matter, to the world of 3D Printing. I've been silently following this blog for sometime now in hopes that It will help me complete a research project I am currently working on for my university. The project is to explore the feasibility of utilizing CLIP type 3d printing to make objects out of resin that has been reinforced with common reinforcement materials such as glass and fiber. I'm glad I found this thread because I've been experiencing many of the same problems as all of you. Any help you could provide would be fantastic.

My first question is: Has anyone considered polyisoprene or polyethylene as the gas permeable membrane as opposed to Teflon AF 2400?

My professor suggested these two materials as being possible alternatives but I dont know much about them. I came across some research which, unless Im reading it wrong, suggests that stretched polyisoprene has a barrer rating of close to 1100, a full 100 more than Teflon AF, making it an even better candidate for gas exchange. The only thing is, I dont know how strong it is, if the resin will eat it, or if it is UV transparent.

Thoughts?

User avatar
octanees
Posts: 31
Joined: Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:05 pm
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Carbon 3D

Postby octanees » Fri Jun 12, 2015 3:06 am

carbon3d CLIP technology is using NOW at Legacy Effects(called in the past Stan Winston Studio!!)





[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/vendor/twig/twig/lib/Twig/Extension/Core.php on line 1266: count(): Parameter must be an array or an object that implements Countable