IC-142 Preliminary results


#21

Hi CPS,

"IC 142 prints well at 1.6s a layer"
Do you mind telling us the layer thickness as well?

"The IC131 occasionally had some cracking issues in some geometries"
Do you refer to the resin or the metal piece?

"We used a Dymax light box with a UV bulb for an hour on each side at about 30mW/cm2, but any procedure that gives a hard, scratch free surface will give good casts."
You don’t specify with unit, but Dynamax curing units can easily run for $4K and up . To deliver the equivalent energy with our UV curing solutions we would have to cure a wax for weeks! Could you repeat your test with some more moderate performing units?

“We did some casting with a local jeweler and found that thoroughly post curing the prints before casting gave the best results”

I don’t mean to sound abrasive but I have to raise these questions:
Did you base your research and release two new resins based on the results of a local jeweler?

  • Some casting houses use electricity, some use natural gas, does he use both?
  • How many types of investment did he try?
  • Are we talking about Gold/Silver here or Platinum?
  • Is vacuuming and blowing air in the flask pre-casting your suggested workflow? In other words, does the resin leave residue? The facilities I use have arrays of 6 or more gas-powered kilns, with a capacity of more than 15 flasks each. Can you imagine their face expression when requesting them to vacuum and blow air on the flask containing my models?

#22

Hi Yianni,

Just wondering how your casters got on with the IC-142 ?

-Barry


#23

I am not going to proceed with casting until I receive answers to my questions first.
I am all about field testing new products, provided the developer will do due diligence on their part…
So I am patiently waiting for their feedback to my questions.


#24

Hi Yianni,
My apologies, I print at 50um layers. I refer to the printed piece before it has been cast in terms of cracking. Everything I have had cast so far has been in silver.
As far as lights go, everyone has different ones that they prefer to or can use. I couldn’t possibly test all the lights and conditions that others have, but I hope this information gives a starting point for other users.
Autodesk had more users that they could reach out to in the development of IC131. Based on our jeweler’s results of IC131 and IC142 we felt they both could be released. As far as which gypsums and what kind of burnout they did I can’t say. Getting specific information from most jewelers was difficult even with the help of Autodesk.
As psengraver mentioned, blowing out or vacuuming the investment is often done and I do recommend it. Visually we can’t see any residue when we burn out chunks of resin or crack open the investment, but there might be some there. Many jewelers have been able to incorporate this into their work flow, but if others can’t these resins might not be for them.
The Ember’s PDMS window limits the range of materials that can be print on it. In developing the resins we wanted a resin that would print quickly and reliably and burn out on par or better than other resins of its kind. Resins that melt out that can be printed on the Ember typically have a short window life and do not print reliably.


#25

Hi Yianni,

A little off topic, but I noticed that your settings above mentioned 2.6 seconds for the model layer… is that the cure time for the IC-142, or is that what you’re curing the Emerald at?

I ask, as I think you used to cure at 2 seconds… so I’d be interested to know if bumping to 2.6 has improved things.

Thanks,
Barry


#26

for IC-142 I used 2 seconds but it was too much, according to CPS, exposure should be 1.6 secs for 50um, even less for 25um.