RE: [rp-ml] SLS info and experiences

From: Gornet,Timothy J. <>
Date: Wed Dec 21 2011 - 00:04:45 EET

The current version of that is now called the sPro 60. The 2500+/Vanguard/sPro 60 has been a very stable platform over the years. Their have been low/high speed versions and the digital scanning on the current sPro 60 would be a good choice. Integra Services (<>) offers upgrades to the 2500+/Vanguard series as well as being a maintenance provider option. Greg's summary is an excellent overview of polymer LS in general independent of equipment vendor. 3D and EOS offer similar build volume size machines and remember that the input powders/maintenance is a large cost over the cost of the equipment.

LS offers quite a few options between equipment vendors, support offerings, and materials (3D, EOS, ALM, Arkema, and CRP all offer various materials) and expect more to enter the market. Also depends on if you plan to purchase or lease - NCP leasing and the vendors all offer lease plans.

Good luck and the main take away should be Process Control of the machine, process parameters,and material control.


From: [] on behalf of Greg Paulsen []
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 4:20 PM
To: Greg Paulsen; Biermann, Paul J.;
Subject: RE: [rp-ml] SLS info and experiences

Edit: Vanguard is a 2500+ repainted. The upgrades cost extra either way. So either a 2500+ or Vanguard would be a good option for a SinterStation.

Gregory M. Paulsen
Prototype Productions, Inc.
Office 703.858.0011 x314
Cell 540.974.1348<><>

From: [] On Behalf Of Greg Paulsen
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 3:05 PM
To: Biermann, Paul J.;
Subject: RE: [rp-ml] SLS info and experiences

Hi Paul,

New contributor here. I have 4 years of experience running a DTM SinterStation 2500+ (now 3D systems). I also have used FDM (Dimension) and 3DP (Z-Corp 450) for about a year.. and toyed a bit with a RepRap.

I can tell you that with SLS there is only one way to make a part correctly and a whole bunch of ways to mess things up. Process control and routine cleaning is the key to repeatable build successes. The 2500+ we have at PPI is a workhorse; it’s been running for around a decade with continuous operation (3-5 builds/week) with what I would consider “normal” maintenance and part replacement. It does not have high-speed, high-q, or multi-zone heater upgrades.

What I like:

1. Parts can be used in end-use mechanical applications.

a. A lot of our work is DoD related, meaning that the parts see harsh environments and shock/vibe.

b. Tolerance is tight (as long as you scale frequently) so you can make first-article parts and electronic housings before (or instead of) getting a mold

c. Generally the Nylon 11 & 12 (and various filled powders) can fit the particular need for the job.

2. What I don’t like.

a. Constant cleaning of machine, work area, and self. This is dusty and you want some sort of venting or vacuum for powder mixing, sifting, etc.

b. Breaking out part requires multiple workstations (sifting, bead blasting, air blasting).

c. Requires its own room/lab – our is about 20x40’ (this is also where we store powder)

d. Build setup, mixing, etc. can be time consuming.

e. A lot of opportunities for human error.

3. What is most cost effective.

a. I’m assuming you’re looking into buying on a research grant. Go for a used Vanguard because it’s essentially a repainted 2500+ with the high speed and temperature control upgrades.

b. PROCESS CONTROL – again, your material use and quality control has everything to do with how consistently you run the process. You should be treating every job as if it is for a end-use customer. I have managed to get a great refresh rate for my material by double sifting cake powder, keeping overflows and cake separate, and running scales after making a new mix. It is okay to get rid of cake when it shows signs of significant degradation.

                                                               i. Also, as a side note – put everything on wheels… it allows you to clean around things and reduces strain of moving materials from place to place.

                                                             ii. A general process rule for after a build has cooled is to get the chamber ready to run another build BEFORE you go to break out the parts just made. I usually remove the cake and set it on the sifting table, then I go to work on the machine in the morning. The afternoon I program/start build then move to the parts to break out (unless they are next-day priorities).

c. Maximize parts per layer Z. You’ll get some intuition about your machine that will tell you when a Z layer becomes too much or too complex, but if you have high-speed and temperature upgrades you shouldn’t have trouble doing this.

4. Dust.

a. Unfortunately I don’t have experience with newer systems from 3D or EOS. Dust can be controlled using vacuums/vents and a steady hand. Personally, I drag my shop-vac to every work center in the SLS lab.

5. Powder Recycling.

a. Go back to Process Control. I’ve created a system where I have a mix of %Virgin/%Overflow/%Cake that works and simplifies things into 55 gallon drums. I’d like to automate this over the next few years. A melt-flow indicator is a handy tool to determine/quantify mix quality.

6. Changing materials.

a. Cleaning the chamber isn’t too bad of an issue. I have more beef cleaning out the sifter when changing mixes… especially because I’m using a black powder and sometimes have to go back to a white powder. Overall, just add an extra hour or two to your routine and wear a respirator =]

One more thing – there are Cons with SLS, but the parts are much more useful for my company’s application (applied electromechanical engineering) than SLA, 3DP, or FDM. Everything else would just plain fail over time by peeling, snapping, or shattering.

-Greg Paulsen

Gregory M. Paulsen
Prototype Productions, Inc.
Office 703.858.0011 x314
Cell 540.974.1348<><>

From:<> []<mailto:[]> On Behalf Of Biermann, Paul J.
Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2011 10:50 AM
Subject: [rp-ml] SLS info and experiences

Could anyone on the list who has used SLS, either 3D Systems, EOS or any other system share their thoughts? What do you like, what don’t you like? Which is the most cost effective? I know older systems let a lot of dust into the environment around the machines, are the newer ones any better? How well can you recycle the powders? How difficult is it to change materials?

I really appreciate any feedback you can share.


Paul J. Biermann
Principal Professional Staff
Composites / M&P Engineer
Research and Engineering Development Dept.
Johns Hopkins University / Applied Physics Laboratory
(240) 228-6911 (w)
(310) 266-0098 (c)<>


Received on Tue Dec 20 23:56:53 2011

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Jan 07 2012 - 13:25:43 EET