3 ms·

That's the impression I get. It's certainly better than traditional SLA, but still maintains all of SLA's major disadvantages (material/consumable/machine cost,

by 542458 11y ago

That's the impression I get. It's certainly better than traditional SLA, but still maintains all of SLA's major disadvantages (material/consumable/machine cost, low speed, resin smell/fumes/toxicity, general mess, part decay/degradation over time, limited materials). The tech might take over the SLA space, but I doubt they'll take a significant bite out of other printing processes.

Veedrac 11y ago
> low speed This is one of the primary things they advertise most improvement on. Their graphic[1] shows massive speed increases. I don't know about most of the things you've mentioned, but it also looks like it provides far higher quality output than other products, given that it uses continuous deposition and the projector is precise enough to form smooth curved surfaces. [1] http://3dprinting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Carbon3D-CLIP-ultra-fast-3d-printing-2.png http://3dprinting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Carbon3D-CL...
- 542458 11y ago
  Whoops, you're right - it does have speed benefits. That said, I really doubt that chart they're showing off. I know our SLA machines could print something significantly larger than the maximum object size on the Carbon3D machine in less than the 11.5 hours they list. I would like it see what the actual test case is.
  - Veedrac 11y ago
    I don't know what the test case is, but going from the article[1], at 100µm layers it prints at 500 mm/hour. Form 1+ claims 10 to 30 mm/hour at this resolution, so Carbon3D is 20-50 times the speed. That puts Form 1+ about 2-3 times as good as the graph suggests. CLIP (Carbon3D's name for their tech) isn't layer-rate limited, but cure-rate limited so the comparison isn't quite fair. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1349.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1349.abstract (free access if you sign up for an account)

by 542458 11y ago

Veedrac 11y ago

> low speed This is one of the primary things they advertise most improvement on. Their graphic[1] shows massive speed increases. I don't know about most of the things you've mentioned, but it also looks like it provides far higher quality output than other products, given that it uses continuous deposition and the projector is precise enough to form smooth curved surfaces. [1] http://3dprinting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Carbon3D-CLIP-ultra-fast-3d-printing-2.png http://3dprinting.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Carbon3D-CL...

542458 11y ago
Whoops, you're right - it does have speed benefits. That said, I really doubt that chart they're showing off. I know our SLA machines could print something significantly larger than the maximum object size on the Carbon3D machine in less than the 11.5 hours they list. I would like it see what the actual test case is.
- Veedrac 11y ago
  I don't know what the test case is, but going from the article[1], at 100µm layers it prints at 500 mm/hour. Form 1+ claims 10 to 30 mm/hour at this resolution, so Carbon3D is 20-50 times the speed. That puts Form 1+ about 2-3 times as good as the graph suggests. CLIP (Carbon3D's name for their tech) isn't layer-rate limited, but cure-rate limited so the comparison isn't quite fair. [1] http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1349.abstract http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6228/1349.abstract (free access if you sign up for an account)