Peachy Printer - $100 Photolithographic printer

while I do plan on supporting this kickstarter it has also given me ideas for my DLP project to correct the printed part from adhering to the glass projection suface. The B9 uses a moving platen to prevent adhesion but this makes me think of adding 1/16" or so of water under the resin. there might be some issues with doing so. like pulling the water up into uncured voids, but then again if the voids are intended to be uncured they should be made in a way that allows the uncured resin/water to drain out of them.

RBisping Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> while I do plan on supporting this kickstarter it
> has also given me ideas for my DLP project to
> correct the printed part from adhering to the
> glass projection suface. The B9 uses a moving
> platen to prevent adhesion but this makes me think
> of adding 1/16" or so of water under the resin.
> there might be some issues with doing so. like
> pulling the water up into uncured voids, but then
> again if the voids are intended to be uncured they
> should be made in a way that allows the uncured
> resin/water to drain out of them.

The B9 and Form1 use silicone (PDMS, sylgard 184 type) to prevent adhesion, and in addition promote a small amount of oxygen to get through (but not too much) and important property itself for polymer curing. Assuming adhesion refers to the first layer vs. the juice tank

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2013 02:21AM by Simba.

I think there are questions about any consumer device that contains two mixing tanks. Closest analogue is a beer still: full circle to homebrew I guess!

First thing I would do is print a calibration piece.

As the level progresses up the scaling would need to change in x &y to cope with point of origin of beam. This will be minor for dz.

But I am confident these problems can be solved.

Main issue will be part washing.

I think enough people have pledged support for this KS to allow rylan to put his full design on line and allow us to build some before the delivery date.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2013 03:44AM by andysuth.

does anyone know how well this prints objects such as large gears, or x-carriages for example. I'm a little skeptical because i see small parts being printed. what would convince me is a yoda print, and a large hearing bone gear.

yes, i do mean sticking to the tank rather than the build plate. Im aware that several methouds of preventing tank adhesion have been utilized but having a thin layer of water for the resin to float on still has a bit of promise.

Quote
andysuth
he's selling the entire system for less than a sanguinololu board + shields

To all I can see, they don't. In the upper video they claim the mirror unit to be a printer (which made me to detect the "printer" as a hoax within the first minute) and I can't find evidence they deliver vats, tubes, frame and such stuff for these CAD 100.-, too. So far I have to assume the $100.- backers get parts for a mirror unit, only.

Which also somewhat explains the price. Because the assembled version is CAD 400.- and a difference of 300.- for one hour of assembly work (their claim) is a bit much.

Quote

Let's get behind these quality developers with a "Slick promotional video" too and if they can do $100CAD RP, they'll get $1/2m too.

See above for "$100 RP". And my observation on crowdfunding sites is, the higher the quality and the less risky a project is, the lower the backing is. I'll happily look at examples showing the opposite.


@Simba:

12) There's no clear line between water and resin, like you'd see when putting oil on top of water. This means, the build resin dissolves in the saltwater. Easy to imagine what you'd see when coming back to the printer after a week.

Earlier I thought there'd be something mechanical to seperate the two fluids, but looking at the video again I see the blured line instead.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

RBisping Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> yes, i do mean sticking to the tank rather than
> the build plate. Im aware that several methouds of
> preventing tank adhesion have been utilized but
> having a thin layer of water for the resin to
> float on still has a bit of promise.

if the part is floating on a layer of water then wouldn't float away?

no, the design is still essentialy the same as a B9 or junior veloso's dlp system. you shine the uv source from the bottom and have a build plate you pull out of the vat to draw the printed object upwards. The peachy system is building up towards the source laser which would cause a scale variation with greater build heights. though i can see a solution to that by mounting the laser on a floating gantry that raises with the fluid level. The major advantage I can see to this as opposed to a standard uv laser tank system is reducing the amout of resin required to fill the vat. Commercial machines pull down into the vat of resin requiring large quantities of resin which make them impractical for most personal use.

You know the scariest thing about all this, is how we'll look back in 5-10 years and joke about printer resolution of the day, and take for granted super high resolution, ultra consumable 3D home printers of the day. ... I jest (after looking at junior veloso's prints and how earlier he was - too early perhaps).

juniors major falure was in having posted significant information on his expiriments and then purging the blog posts when he thought he could patent his process and make a mint. He generated a bit of animosity from the comunity and it showed when he started his indiegogo funding campaign. from what i remember he came nowhere near his goal and at the same time the B9 kickstarter flew past both his goal and its reletivly modest goal.

Note: these are just my opinion on how that all occured but it is based on reading both blog post comments and other blogs of the time.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2013 02:38AM by RBisping.

Well you inspired me to write a long story about how my experiences with the community is shaping my views on the whole patent or not issue.
[forums.reprap.org]

not sure how to take that
but when it comes to the 3d printing realm most patendable idea's have already been patended, well with the exception of ideas that no one has thought of before. What I have problems with people patending or attempting to patend is things already published. As a note on a patend that should be invalid on its face is makerbot's patend of the automated build platform. We were discussing the idea all the way back in 2006 even before the first replication on a darwin, and it appeared at the time every time a new person joined the community it was the first thing they suggested. Its such a obvious idea (even though it doesnt work reliably) that everyone always points to it and says "why dont you just do this"

I Like when people publish things with any kind of license be it gpl,cc,or even rr. because it proves prior art to void patents. What i do have a issue with is people mistaking copywrite with patent and thinking they are interchangeable. There is a troll on thingiverse right now spamming garbage when people post NC things, and no matter how much you try to explain the difference between a copywrite license and a patent, he just doesnt get it. He posted a garbage stl file of what he called a hamburger and discribed it as any methoud of 3d printing a hambuger sandwich for human consumption. and placed a cc-NC license on it. when someone else created a semi decent model of a hamburger that could be printed out as a toy and put a CC-BY license on it he had a fit that they were violating his NC license by making a new model of a hamburger and not also making it a NC license with atributation to him. It was both goofy and humourous with just a touch of insanity laced in too boot.

sorry for going off topic.

Lets all be honests,

At the end of the day, None of us care about patents unless its your own patent,

im sure as hell going to build what i want in my own house, If it was a business i would think differently of course

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2013 08:43AM by nechaus.

I've talked on the phone with Rylan and he seems like a very down to earth guy. He's also put a whole lot of thought into this project.

Originally, he got in touch because an idea I had about multi-resin printing. He doesn't have time (really can't blame him) to pursue it, so I've opened up a thread for it, as a community project. I've got a (rough!) image up so far and he's making a short animation.

Check it out and let me know what you think!
[forums.reprap.org]

Traumflug,

You're not one to mince words are you? ;p

"Hoax" is a bit strong though, however the Kickstarter has clarified the Buckets and tripod legs are considered "Optional Extras" - a little misleading.

Quote
Traumflug
my observation on crowdfunding sites is, the higher the quality and the less risky a project is, the lower the backing is.

Is that to do with the more established, lower risk projects have less risk so have a higher price too?



I don't think we should pour scorn on these different approaches. We use a HP/Stratasys at work, and many of the users of such would pour scorn on a RP for under $1000, categorizing it much as you catagorise a $100 "printer".

Once again I say Let's see how this pans out.

-AS

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2013 12:11PM by andysuth.

andysuth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

Quote
Traumflug
my observation on crowdfunding
> sites is, the higher the quality and the less
> risky a project is, the lower the backing
> is.

>
> Is that to do with the more established, lower
> risk projects have less risk so have a higher
> price too?
>

I would say it has to do with the fact that established products don't cut corners to make price points -- because machines that work well generally have to have at least a few quality parts.

johnrpm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am a cynic, life makes you that way,
> we will never go closed source heard that
> somewhere before.
> but I am prepared to give them the benefit of the
> doubt, time will tell.
> As for the patent thing, some companies have been
> riding the gravy
> train for too long, the whole patent thing needs a
> re-think.


Reply:
Well I would ask that if I ever lost control of peachy printer and it went closed source
that there would be HUGE back lash from the community. In my opinion Using brand power to steel a global community's work it the ultimate betrail. It makes me feel sick to my stomach. Id like to call for a boy-caught on peachy ahead of time, if we ever close our source, Quit purchasing Peachy products immediately, clone Peachy under another name and let the community continue where it left off. Ill be the first to join the clone! Perhaps we can call it "Rotten Peaches Printer Project" or something like that. lol.

You can read more on my Ethics page.
[www.peachyprinter.com]

I Think a lot about how to make it impossible for even me to get Peachy Printer to sell out.
Think bit coin.

Rylan Grayston

johnrpm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am a cynic, life makes you that way,
> we will never go closed source heard that
> somewhere before.
> but I am prepared to give them the benefit of the
> doubt, time will tell.
> As for the patent thing, some companies have been
> riding the gravy
> train for too long, the whole patent thing needs a
> re-think.

Reply:
Well I would ask that if I ever lost control of peachy printer and it went closed source
that there would be HUGE back lash from the community. In my opinion Using brand power to steel a global community's work it the ultimate betrail. It makes me feel sick to my stomach. Id like to call for a boy-caught on peachy ahead of time, if we ever close our source, Quit purchasing Peachy products immediately, clone Peachy under another name and let the community continue where it left off. Ill be the first to join the clone! Perhaps we can call it "Rotten Peaches Printer Project" or something like that. lol.

You can read more on my Ethics page.
http://www.peachyprinter.com/#!ethics/c2208

I Think a lot about how to make it impossible for even me to get Peachy Printer to sell out.
Think bit coin.

Rylan Grayston

Hi Rylan,

One thing I've been learning is that as a STOCK corp (c-corp, s-corp) you are legally obligated to look out for the interests of your shareholders. In otherwords, if they deem your actions not in their best interests (i.e., not going closed) then they can give you the boot (under some specific conditions). So...best not to go that route.

If you set up your company as a privately held LLC you can benefit from the tax breaks without having to every worry about loosing control to stock holders, then you get the last say.

Also, sometimes I fantasize if a company could sue you only to break you down. For example, my patent attourney friend tells me it only costs $10K to launch an attack (like the one against Formlabs) but it can cost 1-2 MILLION bucks to defend. So lets say the photopolymer guys sue you, only to cripple you. Then they have a "meeting" where they tell you they can solve this problem, by letting them buy you out. Now you loose control. Just a fantasy scenario, but maybe we can come up with a protections scheme here.

calebkraft Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I personally talked with Rylan who designed this.
> When he showed me the idea (before the
> kickstarter), I mentioned the whole formlabs
> patent violation issue. He was completely unaware
> and didn't seem to have a plan in place for this
> eventuality. I do not know if any of his partners
> came prepared to deal with it either.

Yes and there was a little meat to my reply.... here is exactly what i said to Caleb Kraft in the said email convo.

Caleb Kraft:
"interesting. Do you think you'll run into any of the issues that Form1 ran into with 3dlabs patent on stereolithography?"

Rylan Grayston:
"Honestly I dont know much about it... about those patents, iv never even seen them.

I think two coils of wire 2 magnets 2 mirors and a laser in any combination should not really be patentable ... its to simple!
and electro magnets and mirrors and uv light have been around for a very long time.

I think patents and the idea of intellectual property has gone way to far, its original purpose was to foster innovation
by protecting risky investments from clonners, but only in the name of the greater good for the greater number, NOT in the name of
Great profit for corporations!

If I do run in to issues Ill stand by what I think which is that my project is for the greater good of the greater number and laws that have run
amiss from there original purpose need to be reformed instead of being brought down upon the peachy printer project."

maboo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Some people seem to get quite jealous because they
> did not have this simplistic idea ;-)
> Kickstarter ist not Ebay. You are a backer not a
> "buyer". If you get a physical product in return
> that works, that is nice, but the general idea is
> to equipp a team with funds, so they can put their
> idea into life. Not to buy a product from the
> shelf.
> I am very curious to see, how they will perform.
> Now they have the means to buy material and pay
> the best engineers in the country to overcome any
> of the issues that may occur. They would be very
> stupid to waste that one-time in-your-life
> opportunity to build up a very innovative
> business.
> If you buy stocks of a startup, anything can
> happen, you may get nice returns or loose it all.
> That is the game. We will see. i backed them and
> it doesn´t cost me sleepless nights. I like to
> have one early model, even if it is not perfect.
> Anyone would rather have a Apple I from 1970s than
> an iPhone 5, no matter how well it works..don´t
> you ?
>
>
>
> [url=http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/15/functioni
> ng-apple-1-sells-for-375000-at-sothebys-auction/]A
> pple I from 1976 sells for +300.000 USD[/url]


Just wanted to say that I love this post and were going to put it in with one of our updates under the heading favorite posts or somthing like that!

Rylan Grayston

Simba Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Rylan,
>
> One thing I've been learning is that as a STOCK
> corp (c-corp, s-corp) you are legally obligated to
> look out for the interests of your shareholders.
> In otherwords, if they deem your actions not in
> their best interests (i.e., not going closed) then
> they can give you the boot (under some specific
> conditions). So...best not to go that route.
>
> If you set up your company as a privately held LLC
> you can benefit from the tax breaks without having
> to every worry about loosing control to stock
> holders, then you get the last say.
>
> Also, sometimes I fantasize if a company could sue
> you only to break you down. For example, my
> patent attourney friend tells me it only costs
> $10K to launch an attack (like the one against
> Formlabs) but it can cost 1-2 MILLION bucks to
> defend. So lets say the photopolymer guys sue
> you, only to cripple you. Then they have a
> "meeting" where they tell you they can solve this
> problem, by letting them buy you out. Now you
> loose control. Just a fantasy scenario, but maybe
> we can come up with a protections scheme here.

Please PM me This is exactly the kind of thinking and suport I need to stick to my word.
PM me so I can give you my phone number.

rylangrayston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please PM me This is exactly the kind of thinking and suport I need to stick to my word.
PM me so I can give you my phone number.

Okay. Will be glad if I can contribute.

The way to structure that with closed source would have been to license the tech to the company that made it whilst retaining the IP yourself.

I don't think that's viable with gpl or os.

Though if you are putting it all out into the public domain immediately during development then you can't retrospectively apply for a patent on the tech (at least in non-corrupt patent systems).

How about splitting between two companies though, one which develops (e.g. a "peachy foundation") and one manufacturing under the open source agreement? The manufacturing company would not ever realise a competitive advantage through the data, but work on the level playing field with other companies in the sector.

Good luck with the rest of the KS.

-AS

P.s. schematics for beta testing, eh?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2013 04:01PM by andysuth.

rylangrayston
OK, you have won me over, you sound genuine, good luck with the project.


I think two coils of wire 2 magnets 2 mirors and a laser in any combination should not really be patentable ... its to simple!
and electro magnets and mirrors and uv light have been around for a very long time.

Thats how us normal people think, but lawyers see the world a different way, I know someone who has a small inovative products business, he was challenged over a patent, it cost him £70000 and 2 years to prove he was not violating a patent.
Its a cynical attempt to hinder or destroy competition, or extract money.

---

Random Precision

How do you prove a not? The burdeon of proof is on anyone in a court of law accusing someone else, not the other way.

I would have said that you couldn't patent the idea of using 2 fingers on a touchpad instead of 1. But Apple went and did it. If you sell a patented idea, the lawyers couldn't give a shit how simple it is -- once you've made enough money, they're going to be on you like white on rice. Big business doesn't like competition and they have a system setup to squash you.

I hope you aren't affected by it the way FormLabs was, but the earlier you start trying to cover your bases, the better.

iquizzle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> andysuth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >

Quote
Traumflug
my observation on
> crowdfunding
> > sites is, the higher the quality and the less
> > risky a project is, the lower the backing
> > is.

> >
> > Is that to do with the more established, lower
> > risk projects have less risk so have a higher
> > price too?
> >
>

Quote
iQuzzle
> I would say it has to do with the fact that
> established products don't cut corners to make
> price points -- because machines that work well
> generally have to have at least a few quality
> parts.

IQuizzle,

Yes, using higher quality components is one way to derisk a product.

But people wouldn't stay away from a project on KS because it had higher quality components.
Its more likely a price point of the higher quality projects Traumflag talks about that keep people away than the less risky higher quality components themselves.

Quote

Its more likely a price point of the higher quality projects Traumflag talks about that keep people away than the less risky higher quality components themselves.

This supports my observation. People prefer cheap trash over (inevitable higher priced) quality.

There's now Smoothieboard on Kickstarter. Arthur developed about a year on this board and I have no doubt it works fine. Let's see when this project breaks the six-digit barrier.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Traumflug,

[www.kickstarter.com]
(SmoothieBoard)

You should link direct to the project, give it a bit more easy publicity.

I'd have gone for one of the early incentives if there were any left.

I'll have to see what's in the other kits before committing more than the whole shiny dollar I've just pledged.....

All the best,

AS.