RE: [rp-ml] SLS vs SL for small part / small feature capability / accuracy.

Ron,

   We've seen the spot size vary slightly between the powders (DM20, DS20,
DSH20, CoCrMo, and Stainless17-4) we run, and a little between the M-250 and
the M-270s but between our three M-270s the spot stays pretty consistent
(per material). If you have any other questions about DMLS please feel free
to contact me.

Kevin Brady

DMLS Manager

Morris Technologies, Inc.

11988 Tramway Dr.

Cincinnati, OH 45241

Direct: 513-618-5242

Fax: 513-618-5290

 <http://www.morristech.com> www.morristech.com

  _____

From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi] On Behalf
Of DeFonce, Ron C
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 1:23 PM
To: Steve Stewart; Scott Tilton; rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
Subject: RE: [rp-ml] SLS vs SL for small part / small feature capability /
accuracy.

Steve, I was too hasty in reviewing the original email; didn't catch
that.:-o

Good point about the spot size actually being larger than the beam itself,
even SLA exhibits that trait . . . is this also the case with metal EOS spot
size?

Ron

  _____

From: Steve Stewart [mailto:steve@protogenic.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 11:23 AM
To: DeFonce, Ron C; Scott Tilton; rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
Subject: RE: [rp-ml] SLS vs SL for small part / small feature capability /
accuracy.

Ron,

I believe Scott was asking about contrasting just the two sintering
machines/processes. All I can tell you is that in a "head-to-head"
comparison of both 3D's machine and EOS's machine, both using virgin powder,
we were not able to discern any significant difference in the detail built.
Both built far better than we expected, but of course not as detailed as SLA
or Eden.

The nominal "laser spot size" for beam compensation purposes on our EOS P385
is .023". As you know, this isn't really the size of the beam, but the size
of the smallest dot you can make, as the powder tends to coalesce.

-Steve Stewart

Protogenic, Inc.

  _____

From: owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi [mailto:owner-rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi] On Behalf
Of DeFonce, Ron C
Sent: Wednesday, July 12, 2006 8:17 AM
To: Scott Tilton; rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
Subject: RE: [rp-ml] SLS vs SL for small part / small feature capability /
accuracy.

Scott, I disagree with that claim from results I've seen from SLS vs. other
technologies, such as SLA and FDM processes.

The Viper has the HR mode which uses a .003 inch spot size. FDM's Eden
machines create super-fine detailed parts; maybe the best for small
features.

The advantage of SLS (my opinion anyhow) is the durability of parts, not
it's ability to produce fine details.

Ron DeFonce

  _____

From: Scott Tilton [mailto:stilton@protoprod.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 11, 2006 5:44 PM
To: rp-ml@rapid.lpt.fi
Subject: [rp-ml] SLS vs SL for small part / small feature capability /
accuracy.

Hi all,

Thanks for the past input I got regarding different plastic sintering
systems from 3D and EOS.

Sorry to beat a dead horse - but I'm still looking for more opinions.

I've heard one claim that the DTM / 3D SLS system was better for accurately
producing small parts or small features.

Possibly due to a smaller spot size?

Is this marketing hype?

Does anyone have a different opinion or experience?

Perhaps some RP-ML'ers over in Europe might know better.

They've had access to both manufacturers for a while longer than us Yankees.

Thanks in advance.

Scott Tilton

 
Received on Wed Jul 12 22:56:19 2006