Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Next gen 3D metal printing

fabric8labs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 127 posts

Re: Next gen 3D metal printing

#51

Post by petermcneeley »

kragen wrote: post #48
petermcneeley wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually got to meet Madden multiple times and he even gave me access to his lab. My physics profs were very impressed by my project but I was disappointed. This electro deposition effect is a bit like lightning and didnt work well with my theories about trying to use a multielectrode head with different voltages to produce a shaped potential.

yeah, i've been thinking about that too. how did you model the field?

I dont think there was any rigor in modeling of the field. I did this entire project as one semester as one of my last undergrad courses. I wish I had more time and resources for the project but by then I knew I was headed outside the university into software development.

https://darkcephas.github.io/MELED_paper/MELED_paper.pdf

From what I heard the state of the art was to move away from electrodes and to use lasers. So how that works is that you have the normal electrolytic solution but you apply a passive voltage below the activation voltage. Then you use the laser to break down the double layer at the substrate surface. This leads to laser controlled deposition.

Re: Next gen 3D metal printing

#52

Post by FrostKiwi »

kragen wrote: post #43
glitchinc wrote: post #33

What distinguishes the offerings from Fabric8Labs from the offerings from long-established companies like Desktop Metal[1] that are capable of printing parts using a wide range of materials including carbon steel, stainless steel, titanium, and tungsten? The tungsten capability really throws me for a loop. As someone who TIG welds in my spare time, I can’t imagine having a machine in my shop that could make electrode…

in general electrolytic processes are very energy-intensive, and i'm sure fabric8labs's process is no exception

Interesting! Can you reference some numbers? Other processes such as SLM and DED require a powerful laser, starting from 3000W. When talking about copper specifically and especially when wanting higher processes speed, you need higher wavelength blue laser reaching 10000W of power. But on the flipside, the process can be quite quick. Non-laser alternatives like Metal Paste Deposition need a furnace, though I'm unsure of the power requirements there.

Any idea or references on how ECAM would compare to that?

Re: Next gen 3D metal printing

#53

Post by kragen »

petermcneeley wrote: post #51
kragen wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah, i've been thinking about that too. how did you model the field?

I dont think there was any rigor in modeling of the field. I did this entire project as one semester as one of my last undergrad courses. I wish I had more time and resources for the project but by then I knew I was headed outside the university into software development. https://darkcephas.github.io/MELED_paper/MELED_paper.pdf From what I heard the state of the art was to move away from electrodes and to use lasers.…

neat! i was wondering if that would work last week

i feel like it's probably easier to have 1000 electrodes than 1000 lasers tho

Re: Next gen 3D metal printing

#54

Post by kragen »

FrostKiwi wrote: post #52
kragen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

in general electrolytic processes are very energy-intensive, and i'm sure fabric8labs's process is no exception

Interesting! Can you reference some numbers? Other processes such as SLM and DED require a powerful laser, starting from 3000W. When talking about copper specifically and especially when wanting higher processes speed, you need higher wavelength blue laser reaching 10000W of power. But on the flipside, the process can be quite quick. Non-laser alternatives like Metal Paste Deposition need a furnace, though I'm unsure…

every metal atom requires two electrons (or three for some metals), and you typically need 1–3 volts, and sometimes there are side reactions that waste most of your electrons; probably 'faradaic efficiency' or 'coulombic efficiency' is the term to google

slm and ded and metal paste deposition just have to rearrange some crystal structures; in electrolysis (including ecm machining) and electrodeposition you have to actually rip molecules apart, atom by atom and electron by electron

basically you're charging a battery, so you can get a rough idea by thinking about how much energy a battery could store if it was the same size as your desired workpiece

Re: Next gen 3D metal printing

#55

Post by dpain »

CTO of Fabric8 here - happy to answer any questions you may have about the technology or company. As you can tell we've got a process that's quite different than other metal AM techniques with some very unique benefits that we're excited to share!

Re: Next gen 3D metal printing

#56

Post by dpain »

tombert wrote: post #20

I saw a video doing something like awhile ago [1], and I thought the idea of using electroplating made sense, but I know absolutely nothing about chemical engineering or material science. It's interesting to see this idea in action, though with my limited experience with electroplating it seems like it'd be absurdly slow. [1] https://youtu.be/W1d36wbx_yg

You're right - electroplating isn't traditionally very fast. Much of the system has been engineered to drive a build speed that's relevant for mass manufacturing while maintaining material properties (think 100-1000x faster than typical electroplating)

Re: Next gen 3D metal printing

#57

Post by Haemm0r »

Iulioh wrote: post #14
WheatMillington wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree we should avoid blanket statements, which is why your statement "current metal AM is more than able to meet material standards" is problematic. What standards? There is no generic "material standards" for all materials, and 3d metal printing is definitely inferior to MOST other manufacturing methods in MOST circumstances, in terms of mechanical properties.

I mean, we 3d print aerospace engine parts, is this "common sense" logic really true?

Just an anecdote: Rocket engineering is the only domain where safety factors (for some parts)

Re: Next gen 3D metal printing

#58

Post by dpain »

AbrahamParangi wrote: post #32

As someone who's built/designed multiple metal 3D printers before, this actually looks really cool. Every metal 3D printer requires high temperatures, inert and reducing gasses to prevent oxidation, and most of them require powdered metal, whether for something like DMLS or powder bed technologies. The accuracy is also impressive. One of the ancillary ideas that I and a few others came up with in exploring binder jet…

Yes! One of the major benefits from not using a powdered metal feedstock is that minimum feature size is no longer limited by powder size, and instead is determined by our electrode "pixel" size which is 33 microns today and will get even smaller over time.

The room temperature deposition process also means we can print directly onto substrates like PCBs, ceramics or Silicon wafers to enable some very unique functionality.

Re: Next gen 3D metal printing

#59

Post by Nathanael_M »

dpain wrote: post #55

CTO of Fabric8 here - happy to answer any questions you may have about the technology or company. As you can tell we've got a process that's quite different than other metal AM techniques with some very unique benefits that we're excited to share!

Where does this fall on the hazardous/toxicity scale? What kind of off-gassing/risks are there, especially compared to existing high resolution powder based systems?

Disclaimer: I don’t know much about this field, this may be a dumb question.

Re: Next gen 3D metal printing

#60

Post by dpain »

kbenson wrote: post #4

My understanding is that most current metal 3d printing yields items with significantly worse properties with respect to shear forces, because of how the molecules align compared to when it's melted together as a whole and cooled (or something like that, I can't find the research paper someone linked to me in the past here regarding that). Do we know if this is better with respect to that?

This is one of the benefits of the ECAM process happening completely at room temperature. Since the metal is deposited directly out of a liquid metal feedstock there's no thermal processing (sintering, melting, etc) which have traditionally caused shrinkage/warpage and porosity issues in other metal AM technologies.

Since the ECAM process has control over the deposit at the atomic scale, an extremely high level of purity is achieved. This is very important for high performance applications requiring thermal or electrical conductivity for instance.

Post reply on HN