Skip to content

A 3D printing thought…

April 20, 2012

Some of the first 3D printers used a UV cured resin extruded by a inkjet printer head.   Variants of this technology using the precision of the liquid extrusion and lasers are still in use today, allowing superfine detail.

I was thinking after reading the news about the breakthrough in graphene superconductors (first relevant google link):

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120315152524.htm

about the form of the feedstock.  The process used by the UCLA folk was to take graphite oxide and heat it with a laser, driving off the oxygen and causing it to link up into graphene.  This, by the way, is a good place for anyone with a laser engraver to start looking at a new business–a supercap the size of a AA or AAA battery will carry enough juice to be useful for some intermittent work, like electric toothbrushes and the like.  Another was an article on “printing” drugs.  They both use somewhat simple setups to do chemical manipulation.

Anyway, Nanosolar uses a semiconductor solution called CIGS to literally print their cells on a regular roller press.  Add a resin for the board, a copper solution of some sort for doing traces, and something for smaller capacitor dielectric and resistors.  Printer head spits out the materials, sets them with the laser, and vua-la!  Circuit board, with all discrete components(and probably a fair number of logic circuits) done, ready for the IC to be plugged in.  Even better, since the setup is a 3D printer, large scale components like inductors can be make too, assuming you don’t also want to make your circuit board 3D, or integrated into another design.

I was thinking though you could probably expand this thought.  Metallurgy is one place where 3D printing is lagging behind.  A large number of the properties of metal aren’t just because of the chemistry, but also the physical structure, which is affected by the production process.  A process like selective laser sintering is limited because it can’t forge the metal, so the item is weak, potentially even weaker than a cast part.  This is not easily solved with a physical process, but perhaps if you were using iron and it’s alloying agents in a solution, the particular solution and it’s laydown could be used to cause an alignment similar to the physical action of working, allowing a more usable structure.

At the point we’re at, there are workarounds though.  A small set of rollers can be made easily enough, and a computer controlled system could take a thin printed part and roll it out, cold rolling the material and then the stronger, more durable material would undergo a tertiary folding and assembly to make something like a toolbox.  The challenge presented here though, is that a lot of things we use are far too durable to make using quick and dirty processes.  The next revolution won’t be making 3D printers cheaper, but finding a way to print the way strong materials like metal need to be made for best results.

Advertisements

From → Uncategorized

2 Comments
  1. Colombo permalink

    Came here via a link from WRSA, like your site. To the point, what I see as a needed tangent to the 3d plastic printers is a wax option to be properly exploited in conjunction with the home smelter guys/tech for durable parts and manufacturing on a small scale. The lost wax casting process has a lot going for it, just take a few minutes and consider the possibilities of a cheap 3d printer as a step in the manufacture of “real” products and they suddenly start looking indispensable.

    • Something like that is reasonable I think. I’d like to make filament, there are a few things I’d like to see, and working on a meltable/burnable material for that might be reasonable. There are soluble filaments, but probably not suitable for lost wax style.

      With the expiration of some of the SLS patents, laser machines are the next big thing, and wax powder would be easy. I think aside from some specialty puproses, they will take over more of the “prosumer” printing market due to their advantages despite the cost.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: