Alternatives

I'm reading about Perfactory, and it seems to me that their DLP printers may be very simple to build.
The whole techology is in the liquid used and the other parts are very common.

As a disclaimer I have to say that I do not know nearly enough about 3d printing to be commenting on this, but I feel like doing it anyway.

The attached file depicts the basic system.

How to make it work:

1. The liquid should be at the same level at all times. This is mechanism can do its work completely on its own without connection to other components.

2. The projector displays the current cross-section of the model. It should do this based on how far up the build plate has come.

3. The build plate moves upwards as fast as the curing liquid allows. ( The product is built downwards, upside down )

That is pretty much all there is to it I think.

The projector can be directly attached to a computer as an additional monitor, and the build plate motor can be controlled from the same computer.
The software should be simple. The projector already has calibration features.

In my mind this is a much simpler than the fillament method. It needs only one or two motors. The printing strategy is much simpler as there is less need for support material and whole cross sections are printed at a time. The only complicated thing here is the liquid, which you would have to buy even if you bought the printer from a manufacturer for the price of a small pacific island.

The most expensive part is the projector. This, as a kit, could cost $2000 and give fantastic give fantastic print quality.

I want this as a kit!

Try [www.kickstarter.com] kits went for $2375. They are not selling kits outside of Kickstarter yet, AFAIK.

Thanks for the link.

That project is ok. One can print small objects in high resolution and tiny objects in very high resolution, but there is no option to build large objects in normal resolution or even huge objects in low resolution. I don't see that they are taking advantage of the possibilities of the method.The build volume should be much bigger, and the design should be more modular.

But I like the wall mount.

For example, if the printer consisted of three separate components; the projector, the liquid bath and the build plate elevator, then these three could be mounted separately on a wall. The size of the build plate would match the size of the liquid bath and decide the width and depth of the build.

Components could be upgraded separately. Also, each component has very limited tasks to do, so they could do their task very well. Cramming it all into a box and making it compact and small is so 90's.

One of the issues that I've seen with the method of DLP that you have diagrammed is that gravity works against you. The bigger the piece you print, the more adhesion is required between the piece and the build plate.

Another hurdle is the cost of the resin. If you want a piece to double in area, you need to quadruple the the amount of resin in a tank (2"x 2"x 2" tank has a volume of 8 cubic inches, but a 4"x 4"x 2" tank has a volume of 32 cubic inches)

There are reasons I made the B9Creator the way I did.

Everything is a trade off. One trade you might be overlooking is the non-linear increase in power required to cure "bigger" objects.


Best!
MikeJ

I understand. ( I was so enthusiastic but then I was crushed by knowledge )

Looking forward to see how this tech develops. It is promising stuff.

Never let a little "knowledge" stop you from trying something new!