The 'quality' of a part will always a combination of how a part is designed, quality of raw materials used and the tooling used. Tooling can constrain some upper limits to quality but limits will vary across a design depending on how the design is composed. Quality is not a number but a set of desirable outcomes covering many aspects of part design: including, but not limited to functionality for a purpose, a parts physical appearance, durability, etc. Perhaps this is why "Design for Mass Production 3D Printing" is a series of videos, not a single video.
Thank you so much for the Conversation we just had, I cannot tell you enough how much I appreciate it. You have truly given me a plethora of ideas regarding my super secret squirrel projects.
Good points for choosing fdm, it's important to discuss its short comings as well because if tje shortcomings are not discussed with the customer thier expectations will nkt be met. I operate a resin 3d printer, I print figurines and models that require pixel perfect fidelity. Fdm simply can't do that. It's important as a business to have a small R and d internal think tank that can combine the best of both worlds. You can make an infill designed to interface with a smooth piece printed on a resin machine. I've built things where tje fdm might make the "frame " but the finished stamping parts are resin printed. Fdm will loose once plastics are phased out don't bank on the old supply chain for more than a few more years. Looks like you make your own filament, I'd source bio base for filament and move away from the plastic. I also love how resin printing prints a whole later at one time, true cleaning is a hassle when your unpracticed but really it just gives me more opportunity to scrutinize the piece for qc and give it a bath in the uv curing machine. I appreciate you videos, remember every process has its disadvantages.
With SLS can’t you nest many parts in 3D without the need for support structures? Removing and recycling un-sintered powder seems like “less steps” than breaking off supports that then need a more complex process to recycle, and you are risking damaging the part. Very informative video that I enjoyed watching, but I feel there are conclusions that are reached without a full examination of alternatives.
Nylon powder is more expensive than the plastic pellets, and plastic pellets also allow for a wider range of materials. SLS prints also need more specialized equipment for post processing (enclosed chamber to contain the dust) and possibly other equipment as the powder is more hazardous than anything produced by FDM printers (especially if equipped with an enclosed build volume). Since this company also makes their filament in house, it's even easier for them to recycle support material as they just need to shred it and toss it back into their filament extruder.
@@rahul38474 Agreed, material input costs give an advantage to FDM for this farm application; but on the other hand, the need to invest in large scale filament production to be able recycle an unnecessary waste stream is a big part of why in the long term this seems like an optimization of a fundamentally less optimal solution. Could Slant apply the same optimizations to powder production / automated powder extraction?
Yes, SLS and similar technologies allow for XYZ nesting, unlike FDM's XY-only nesting. Powder reclamation could indeed be automated, and material processing brought in-house if a company wanted to do so.
@@rahul38474 True but the finished parts are better with SLS than FDM. Higher performance. The energy needed to turn pellets into a spool, then heated to print parts, then again to reclaim is often overlooked. Recycling isn't free. Energy costs, and looking at FDM outputs vs SLS outputs I would rather have an SLS print outsources and an FDM machine sitting on my desk. I think if most people are going to outsource prints, a bunch of desktop FDMs wouldn't be the first place I would look. I would go for a process I can't achieve here at home (or don't want to deal with).
@@mggevaer260 The simple fact is that Slant 3d choose the tools and methods that best work for their needs. Another company may choose different tools and processes for the types of problems they want to focus on. The fundamental issues are: a sustainable business needs to be focused on what works best for them.
@@mggevaer260 Their most persistent issue I'm aware of is consistent bed adhesion. Either too sticky and won't release properly at the belt turnover point, or not sticky enough, and the print fails immediately. One variation on this is effectively making a belt that's a bed transfer system that the printer treats as a fixed bed, until the print is done, then the belt ejects the bed on to a rack, where it gets moved to post processing. Then again, that gets you into 'more moving parts' which may not be what you're looking for. You may need to make sure you can track where each 'bed' came from on this print run, so that if post identifies that 'one of the printers' is producing sub-standard parts, you don't have to take down the whole line to address the issue, but that's more or less a solved issue already, so.
😂😂 we have to be experts.... that's why we only use one machine 😅 dudes sitting at home with a fdm, xyz and a resin printer having debugged multiple systems and fine tuned multiple machines, print heads etc etc that what experts ACTUALLY DO
@@slant3d destroyed, completely and utterly destroyed that argument. am looking forward to the 10$/kg filament, would it be possible to ship filament refills similar to what bambu does or offer credits if you return the spools. because I don't want a massive stack of empty spools sitting in the corner of my print room?
Experts do what they can within the time constraints that you're given. You can afford to spend more time on things at home but in a production environment people don't care about you learning new skills, they just want their parts printed and shipped to them as quickly as possible and it shouldn't cost too much. That means no or very limited post processing at scale.
I would love a video just about your 3d printers and the quality expected from the parts produced
The 'quality' of a part will always a combination of how a part is designed, quality of raw materials used and the tooling used. Tooling can constrain some upper limits to quality but limits will vary across a design depending on how the design is composed. Quality is not a number but a set of desirable outcomes covering many aspects of part design: including, but not limited to functionality for a purpose, a parts physical appearance, durability, etc.
Perhaps this is why "Design for Mass Production 3D Printing" is a series of videos, not a single video.
The ones they show in videos have a lot of ringing.
I have gotten a print from them and it's amazing quality. Iirc it's printing at .2 mm layer
What printers do you use?
Looks like they're called Mason V2
Also, you're in the right place at the right time for upcoming tech developments that mitigate current drawbacks of FDM.
Thank you so much for the Conversation we just had, I cannot tell you enough how much I appreciate it. You have truly given me a plethora of ideas regarding my super secret squirrel projects.
Good points for choosing fdm, it's important to discuss its short comings as well because if tje shortcomings are not discussed with the customer thier expectations will nkt be met. I operate a resin 3d printer, I print figurines and models that require pixel perfect fidelity. Fdm simply can't do that. It's important as a business to have a small R and d internal think tank that can combine the best of both worlds. You can make an infill designed to interface with a smooth piece printed on a resin machine. I've built things where tje fdm might make the "frame " but the finished stamping parts are resin printed. Fdm will loose once plastics are phased out don't bank on the old supply chain for more than a few more years. Looks like you make your own filament, I'd source bio base for filament and move away from the plastic. I also love how resin printing prints a whole later at one time, true cleaning is a hassle when your unpracticed but really it just gives me more opportunity to scrutinize the piece for qc and give it a bath in the uv curing machine. I appreciate you videos, remember every process has its disadvantages.
Im waiting on my first FDM printer tonsit alongside my resin printer. Its going to be interesting to learn another side.
As Tom Peters said, "Stick to the knitting". So know what you're good at, and why you're good at it, and stick to that.
Can you/have you done a deep dive on your printers that you guys designed and use?
I'm having Deja-vu I swear I saw this video in my stream 2 days ago, but just clicked it only to find out it's only been posted 15 hours ago...
Another good video 📹
I’d love to see a video about you’re management it structure and approaches with managing files and printers.
Any chance that you ever release the plans or BOM for your commercial printers?
Thunderhead289 made a Holley to B&S lawn mower carburetor adapter in his garage, your thoughts?
With SLS can’t you nest many parts in 3D without the need for support structures? Removing and recycling un-sintered powder seems like “less steps” than breaking off supports that then need a more complex process to recycle, and you are risking damaging the part.
Very informative video that I enjoyed watching, but I feel there are conclusions that are reached without a full examination of alternatives.
Nylon powder is more expensive than the plastic pellets, and plastic pellets also allow for a wider range of materials. SLS prints also need more specialized equipment for post processing (enclosed chamber to contain the dust) and possibly other equipment as the powder is more hazardous than anything produced by FDM printers (especially if equipped with an enclosed build volume). Since this company also makes their filament in house, it's even easier for them to recycle support material as they just need to shred it and toss it back into their filament extruder.
@@rahul38474 Agreed, material input costs give an advantage to FDM for this farm application; but on the other hand, the need to invest in large scale filament production to be able recycle an unnecessary waste stream is a big part of why in the long term this seems like an optimization of a fundamentally less optimal solution. Could Slant apply the same optimizations to powder production / automated powder extraction?
Yes, SLS and similar technologies allow for XYZ nesting, unlike FDM's XY-only nesting.
Powder reclamation could indeed be automated, and material processing brought in-house if a company wanted to do so.
@@rahul38474 True but the finished parts are better with SLS than FDM. Higher performance. The energy needed to turn pellets into a spool, then heated to print parts, then again to reclaim is often overlooked. Recycling isn't free. Energy costs, and looking at FDM outputs vs SLS outputs I would rather have an SLS print outsources and an FDM machine sitting on my desk. I think if most people are going to outsource prints, a bunch of desktop FDMs wouldn't be the first place I would look. I would go for a process I can't achieve here at home (or don't want to deal with).
@@rahul38474 Counterpoint, if they convert pellets into filament, they could probably make powder from it.
you should show your printers a little just curious
"Pluck" I had to rewind and listen again lol
Why don’t you try using belt printers?
Dont work
@@slant3dinteresting, what's the fundamental issue with those that can't be worked around?
Bed adhesion and uneven printing surface are 2 main ones@@mggevaer260
@@mggevaer260 The simple fact is that Slant 3d choose the tools and methods that best work for their needs. Another company may choose different tools and processes for the types of problems they want to focus on.
The fundamental issues are: a sustainable business needs to be focused on what works best for them.
@@mggevaer260 Their most persistent issue I'm aware of is consistent bed adhesion. Either too sticky and won't release properly at the belt turnover point, or not sticky enough, and the print fails immediately. One variation on this is effectively making a belt that's a bed transfer system that the printer treats as a fixed bed, until the print is done, then the belt ejects the bed on to a rack, where it gets moved to post processing. Then again, that gets you into 'more moving parts' which may not be what you're looking for. You may need to make sure you can track where each 'bed' came from on this print run, so that if post identifies that 'one of the printers' is producing sub-standard parts, you don't have to take down the whole line to address the issue, but that's more or less a solved issue already, so.
Mobile accessories
😂😂 we have to be experts.... that's why we only use one machine 😅 dudes sitting at home with a fdm, xyz and a resin printer having debugged multiple systems and fine tuned multiple machines, print heads etc etc that what experts ACTUALLY DO
Now do that 1000 more times.
@@slant3d destroyed, completely and utterly destroyed that argument. am looking forward to the 10$/kg filament, would it be possible to ship filament refills similar to what bambu does or offer credits if you return the spools. because I don't want a massive stack of empty spools sitting in the corner of my print room?
Experts do what they can within the time constraints that you're given. You can afford to spend more time on things at home but in a production environment people don't care about you learning new skills, they just want their parts printed and shipped to them as quickly as possible and it shouldn't cost too much. That means no or very limited post processing at scale.
way to much face
way