> This type of printer is a great technology for creating models and
> forms for casting.  However I've heard that it's not as tough as the
> ABS material that comes from the extrusion machines, so it's less
> directly useful for creating usable components.

I don't think anyone really envisages producing finished components, unless=
 it is a one-off - the process is just too slow. The B9C talks in terms on =
0.95" height per hour ...

> How can they claim to be the first... B9 Creator beat them by several mon=
ths.
>=20
> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/b9creations/b9creator-a-high-resoluti=
on-3d-
> printer?ref=3Dlive
>=20
> >
> http://www.reghardware.com/2012/10/01/formlabs_form1_home_stereolithic_3d=
_printer_re
> lease_date_named/
> >
> > I want one of those ...
> >

In a lot of ways the Form1 seems to be a better piece of kit - at least to =
me. The presentations come across as more professional, and it is nicer loo=
king, the B9C looks like it is cobbled together.

However, having said that, the B9C claims 100um horizontal resolution, adju=
stable down to 50um, where the Form1 claims 300um, and 25um possible vertic=
ally (10 to 100 for the B9C). Also the Form1 has a larger bath area (125mm =
sq, versus 102.4 x 76.8um for the B9C at 100um, less at 50um) but less poss=
ible height (6.5" versus around 8" for the B9C).

Actually re-reading and listening to the Form1 video, the minimum feature s=
ize is 300um, but the positioning resolution is better that that, and that =
is borne out by the finish on the illustrated parts.

Form1 is considerably lighter, 18lbs versus 30 for the B9C.
The Form1 has a smaller desk footprint, but is higher.

I think my preference would still be the Form1, it also appears to be a lit=
tle cheaper.
--=20
Scanned by iCritical.

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.