Re: [rp-ml] Comparison of ABS parts from Stratasys and Others

From: Michael Armbruster <>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2013 13:44:30 -0700

The only machines that are over $100k are the Fortus systems, which offer
much larger build envelopes and much better mechanical properties than even
the Dimensions or uPrints that Stratasys makes. Things like tensile and
impact strength are the result of so much more than the filament itself.
There are different ABS materials even within Stratasys, some of which
Stratasys says are 40% stronger than their other ABS materials (again, all
within Stratasys itself). Also, the machines that are over $100k can do
materials like PC. Furthermore, they make support structures (which
dissolve away later) that allow for overhangs and essentially any geometry.
Trust me, people who spend $100k on a Fortus aren't slapping themselves for
not simply building their own RepRap. I talk about more of this stuff in
the video halfway down the page

Any test on the comparison between the two would be very difficult because
it all comes down to what you're printing. A RepRap probably can make a
solid cube that's very similar in strength to what a $100k+ Fortus would
do, and it's also extremely good at making crude looking Yoda heads.

- Michael

On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Markus Hitter <> wrote:

> Am 27.06.2013 19:42, schrieb Mullen, John:
>> Some do it well others don't.
> Thanks for all the answers, let me pick this one as an example.
> You see, some do well. And that's the most important difference between
> these self built printers and the $2000 and up models: you have to choose.
> There is so much choice (rubbish to excellent software, rubbish to
> excellent mechanics) to the extent there isn't even a brand. Reading things
> like "this cheapo printer printed ..." makes me cringe a bit. Which
> software, which controller, which extruder, which layer thickness, which
> head moving speed ... ? For example, reducing the layer thickness to get
> smoother surfaces is a matter of a minute, but you have to know about this
> and you have to do it. Accordingly, considering one of these printer models
> to print at a fixed, given quality is pretty pointless.
> BTW., none of the two initial writers asked for software comfort, accuracy
> or build time, so the sturdiness of the mechanics doesn't matter much. Even
> the weakest printer can print accurate if it prints slow and (almost) every
> printer can print fast if you don't care about accuracy.
> This picture was discussed a year and a half ago in the RepRap community,
> showing a print of a (back then) well tuned cheap printer vs. an expensive
> one at standard (the only possible?) settings. You can see a substantially
> higher quality on the cheap one:
> You get the point? Thanks :-)
> Markus
> Blog post I picked the picture from:
> quality-open.html<>
> --
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Dipl. Ing. (FH) Markus Hitter
Received on Thu Jun 27 2013 - 23:25:05 EEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Feb 13 2018 - 12:38:45 EET