Talk:Solid freeform fabrication

Accuracy figures
Can someone with the book used as a source please check the units on the accuracy figures? The figures of 0.003mm for SLA and 0.005mm for SLS are more than likely in inches. Rapid prototyping service bureaus cite promise somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.005" for SLA and 0.0075" for SLS, plus a correction factor for larger parts. If those figures are right, I'm not sure if they're from commercially available machines. --GargoyleMT 13:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this can safely be ignored. The figures for SLA and SLS are a little below what is advertised, but they're not unattainable.  --GargoyleMT 17:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Print Volume
FDM is listed as having a max print volume of 254mm on x/y/z. This is IMHO outdated. The largest build area is now the BfB 3D 3000 at 300mm x 300mm x 200mm ( http://www.bitsfrombytes.com/wiki/index.php?title=BfB_3D_3000 ). I remember there also being a RepRap Mendel derivative that was printing with a bed size of 300mm x 300mm x something so even the BfB 3d 3000 may be a bit out of date, but it is at least not as inaccurate as saying Stratasys still rules this aspect of FDM. --Diploid (talk) 19:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Robocasting
I'm a little confused about how Robocasting represents a distinct category of freeform fabrication. They've got a cartesian positioning system to which they are currently attaching a syringe extruding, if I got it right from reading their literature, things like silicone elastomers and hot glue (maybe).

Casting is not exactly what they're doing. --Plaasjaapie 03:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What devices claim to implement robocasting? It sounds like a better description of RepRap than FDM is (especially since FDM is trademarked by Stratasys).  Classification is a bit hard in this area, since there are so many trademarks and patents.  (Consider: are the Perfactory machines stereolithography?) --GargoyleMT 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Both RepRap and the Clanking Replicator Project's Tommelise use Fused Deposition Modelling. While Stratasys may well hold a trademark for the name of the technology, their patent on FDM ran out in January 2007.  Mind, it may be that RepRap and Clanking Replicator will have to rename the technology if Stratasys objects.  It would probably be a good idea since RepRap and Clanking Replicator's FDM extruder (developed by Dr. Adrian Bowyer of Bath University), unlike Stratasys's operates in a room temperature working environment. Plaasjaapie 04:55, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that all rapid-prototyping controlled by a computer (i.e. making them just as much a robot as Fab@Home), so why is there a distinct category just for Fab@Home? Seems like an attention-grab to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.137.164 (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The fused deposition modeling article currently says that FDM and FFF (fused filament fabrication -- the name invented by the RepRap people for the reasons you mentioned) refer to exactly the same process -- molten thermoplastic comes out of a hot extruder nozzle, and more-or-less immediately cools and hardens.
 * The references I added to the term "robocasting" imply a very similar, but not exactly identical process -- room-temperature paste-like slurries come out of a room-temperature extruder nozzle, and later (immediately? after baking in an oven?) the material cures and the part hardens.
 * Plaasjaapie, I agree that it's not exactly "casting", but the guy who invented it apparently wants to call it "robocasting" -- if you can't think of a better term, then we are stuck with that one.
 * Is robocasting different enough from FFF to make a separate category, or is it better to lump all these extruders together?
 * --68.0.124.33 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In response to the previous comments, Robocasting was developed at Sandia national laboratories and Fab@Home was developed at Cornell University,so they are completely different processes. They are both extrusion based but Robocasting is able to extrude ceramic and piezoelectric slurries because they contain additives that form a dilatant solid upon deposition. Fab@Home was designed to be a personal printer that just did things like silicone caulk, epoxy, etc, whereas Robocasting was designed for laboratory use.

PolyJet™ and Inkjet 3d printing
According to this site http://www.additive3d.com/ink_int.htm and to their official site http://www.objet.com/PRODUCTS/PolyJet_Technology/ PolyJet™ is a brand name that Objet Geometries uses for Photopolymer Phase Change Inkjets that is listed under "inkjet 3d printing", not another form of 3D printing. I propose to delete the entry for "inkjet 3d printing" and to replace "Polyjet" with "Photopolymer Phase Change Inkjets", to add "Thermal phase change inkjets" and to list "Photopolymer Phase Change Inkjets", "Thermal phase change inkjets", "Powder bed and inkjet head 3d printing" close together or under a title that groups them to highlight that they are related. --Argento (talk) 09:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)