
Continuous 3D Printing Possible With Transparent Polygon Scanning? - hexa_storm
https://www.fabbaloo.com/blog/2019/8/3/continuous-3d-printing-possible-with-transparent-polygon-scanning
======
MisterTea
The sad part of this whole article is this method of scanning a laser beam had
to be devised to side step a patent that uses common galvanometers instead. So
there isn't any new 3d printing technology here. Only a clever method to
circumvent a silly patent.

~~~
mensetmanusman
I work in the area of new intellectual property generation, and you (as was I)
would be surprised to learn this is not actually a sad feature of the system.

There have been countless advancements in the sciences when people have been
forced to work around existing IP and have uncovered hidden benefits when
working through the actual implementation.

It is a hidden benefit of the western system of IP that China et al. have not
yet caught on to.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
The problem is that, in 2019, most obvious methods of scanning a laser with
moving mirrors should be covered by _expired_ patents from 40-30 years ago.

~~~
hexa_storm
You have to specify application in a patent. Riken desribed it for 3D printing
in 1997 see
[https://sffsymposium.engr.utexas.edu/Manuscripts/1997/1997-2...](https://sffsymposium.engr.utexas.edu/Manuscripts/1997/1997-25-Yamazawa.pdf)
but did not specify the use of laser diode as it was quite new at the time. It
got only invented in 1996 by
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuji_Nakamura](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuji_Nakamura)
who got a patent for the laserdiode but little rewards and fought with his
employer over it.

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
how is "obvious thing ... with a laser diode" any different than "obvious
thing ... with a computer"?

~~~
mikekchar
Obvious things are not patentable in the first place, so it doesn't matter
what the "with a X" refers to. That the patent office continues to patent
things that are obvious to a normal practitioner is a serious problem. I think
part of the problem is that the field of technology is so wide right now that
most patent examiners aren't good at judging whether something is obvious or
not -- so they don't generally attempt it. If it's novel, then it's not
obvious, is what I think they are doing.

Having said all that "with a laser diode" is categorically different than
"with a computer". In the latter case, you can do any general purpose
computation you like. So if you have a machine driven by a computer, you
should not be able to patent it if you would not ordinarily be able to patent
the machine. In other words, the driving of the machine by a computer should
not be patentable, IMHO. Of course it gets complicated as you add more and
more machinery to the machine -- should "computer driving a car be
patentable"? Probably it should as it is not just software, even though it
requires software. I think it's tricky.

If a laser diode allows you to do things you wouldn't otherwise be able to do
_and that use of the diode is not obvious_ , then it probably should be
patentable. However, generally if "machine with a laser" is not patentable,
then "machine with a laser diode" should also not be patentable. There's got
to be something special and non-obvious about the use of the laser diode.

~~~
AstralStorm
Patent offices are patently not doing the job of rejecting obvious
modifications. Of course lawyer mangling of the documents does not help with
discerning whether something is new or not.

------
romwell
If this is about photolitographic 3D printing with resin, then I say not much
is being disrupted. Those printers aren't that expensive now; the resin itself
is quite expensive though.

The price of resin isn't directly comparable to the price of plastic used for
FDM printing because one can print most models nearly hollow with FDM in an
automated way (e.g. with honeybomb-like infill patterns), but I'm not aware of
doing the same thing with resin with ease now, making the resin prints 10X the
price of PLA ones.

Better software would disrupt that tech though.

~~~
hexa_storm
expensive is a matter of taste. The envisiontec 3SP costs well over 5K euros
and can go up to 100K. You can only get a a price if you ask for a quote.
Carbon 3D does not sell their printers you have to lease them. Formlabs does
sell you a printer at 3.5K but you can't use third party resins, so you
decide. I actually know some open-hardware printers which sell for 5K.

~~~
sydd
you can get an Anycubic Photon under $500, its a decent resin LCD printer.

~~~
opencl
The patent mentioned in the article is specifically for _continuous_ SLA
printing (no pauses for lifting/peeling between layers), which the photon and
other similarly-priced models don't do. I have one of the cheap SLA printers,
and the lifting can occupy over half the printing time depending on layer
height/resin type. The continuous printing machines seem to start in the
several-thousand-dollar range.

~~~
hexa_storm
the rotating reflective polygon patent is this one
[https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/29/68/46/da50635...](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/29/68/46/da50635a85b615/US9079355.pdf)
I think it is even more relevant but somehow it did not get posted.

~~~
benjohnson
You'd think laser printers would be prior art - a rotating mirror (usually a
hexagon) was exactly how older laser printers would scan across the drum to
form out the print.

~~~
hexa_storm
You have to specify application in a patent. Riken desribed it for 3D printing
in 1997 see
[https://sffsymposium.engr.utexas.edu/Manuscripts/1997/1997-2...](https://sffsymposium.engr.utexas.edu/Manuscripts/1997/1997-2..).
but did not specify the use of laser diode as it was quite new at the time. It
got only invented in 1996 by
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuji_Nakamura](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuji_Nakamura)
who got a patent for the laserdiode but little rewards and fought with his
employer over it.

------
stcredzero
_Netherlands-based Rik Starmans has devised something he calls “Transparent
Polygon Scanning”, or “TPS”._

Does this mean the linked article is a TPS report?

~~~
hexa_storm
should have named it differently; I use a laser scanner with a prism instead
of a mirror. A detailed description is here;
[https://reprap.org/wiki/Transparent_Polygon_Scanning](https://reprap.org/wiki/Transparent_Polygon_Scanning)

~~~
stcredzero
_should have named it differently;_

Don't sweat it. I would guess that the name will amplify the amount of media
attention it gets.

------
gene-h
I don't think it's that disruptive. One thing that the 2009 roadmap for
additive manufacturing has emphasized is the need to move from point to line
and area deposition[0]. This still scans a point like stereolithography has
done since the beginning. We now have stereolithography machines capable of
area deposition by using a DMD projector[1], often called DLP, that are
approaching manufacturing products at high volume[2]. Some DLP
stereolithography machines now have resolution on the order of 10 micrometers
over a 160 mm by 50 mm area[2]. We're having to develop new ways to describe
3d geometry just so that we can take advantage of this resolution. So there is
potential here for both fast and incredibly high resolution using DLP
stereolithography. We've also seen the development that the 2009 additive
manufacturing roadmap couldn't anticipate: volumetric deposition[3].

In addition, there are some potential disadvantages to prism scanning. Prism
scanning can only do raster scans, we can't define the outline of a part in
vector mode. Although I will admit that this may not be as much of a problem
if we can control the brightness of our laser. In addition, in
stereolithography it is advantageous to carry out raster scans perpendicular
to each other, this is because the photopolymer contracts as it cures and
scanning in both directions helps make this contraction uniform.

[0][https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4716/c69f0b90a158589e54248a...](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/4716/c69f0b90a158589e54248a524a57ad78f4a3.pdf)
[1][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpH1zhUQY0c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpH1zhUQY0c)
[2][https://www.carbon3d.com/case-
studies/adidas/](https://www.carbon3d.com/case-studies/adidas/)
[3][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31xHZvUP1Ls](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31xHZvUP1Ls)

~~~
jacobolus
#3 is pretty neat. Paper: [https://www.epfl.ch/labs/lapd/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/ms3...](https://www.epfl.ch/labs/lapd/wp-
content/uploads/2018/11/ms3790.pdf)

* * *

Inre #1–2, Is anyone selling custom parts produced on that Carbon3D printer?
That is, someone that ingests a shapefile (or whatever) and mails back a part
printed on one of these machines?

------
tiozorak
Hardware is the new frontier of open source, I'd like to see schematics/PCB
versioning on GitHub, with diff viewer and stuff.

~~~
inetknght
That sounds like an amazing idea and is pretty close to what I want as well.

~~~
hexa_storm
There is a blog here [https://hackaday.io/project/21933-open-hardware-
transparent-...](https://hackaday.io/project/21933-open-hardware-transparent-
polygon-scanner/details) also provides all the link to github files. Design
are made in Freecad, Kicad, C++ and Python. My main focus is on developing
prior art. This needs to be done to prevent IP and "liberate" the technology
from patent trolls.

~~~
hexa_storm
Of course, what’s worse than a weak start is simply not starting at all.
Moreover, if you’ve publicly disclosed your invention, then you have only a
one-year grace period to apply for a patent. You forfeit your patent rights if
you fail to file within the 1-year grace period.
[http://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/first-to-file-patent-
rule...](http://www.patenttrademarkblog.com/first-to-file-patent-rule/)

In the EU.. you destroy immediately.. there is no grace period.

------
ragebol
Interesting, I've used something quite similar to the scanning-through-prism
technology a few years ago, though with an 8-sided polygon for the application
of exposing PCB masks. We were looking at 3D printing too IIRC.

To get to the desired ~80x80cm PCB size and the accuracy needed, we had to
achieve super high throughput and super low timing jitter on the UV-LEDs. Very
interesting technology, unfortunately we took too long to get a smaller scale
proto working and funding was cut right after we delivered that proto :-(.
Calibrating the whole machine from scratch was clever too.

Learned a lot there.

~~~
hexa_storm
do you have a link?

~~~
ragebol
The domain name has lapsed, but some articles remain: \-
[https://www.alexandergroenewege.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2016/0...](https://www.alexandergroenewege.nl/wp-
content/uploads/2016/04/eindhovens-dagblad-2015-09-09.pdf) \-
[https://www.linkmagazine.nl/maskerloze-pcb-machine-ldi-
syste...](https://www.linkmagazine.nl/maskerloze-pcb-machine-ldi-systems-gaat-
proefdraaien/)

In Dutch unfortunately. Looking at OP's article, it could very well be that we
had licensed some of the tech of the Rik Starmans mentioned int he article.

------
bfrog
Are there things beyond modeling where 3d printing is useful? The parts I've
seen using dlp or sla never seem structurally useful to me. Sintered metal
printing seems like although it may be less precise might be more useful
structurally?

~~~
kriro
Small scale stuff you want on premise is a decent use case. The prime example
being medical/dental. Imagine a patient with a crushed jarbone. You can model
and print a custom prosthesis on premise and print it in maybe 16h-38h.
Compare that to sending the job to some lab, custom molds being created and
waiting for the item to be delivered (while the patient is waiting).

I know it's used quite a bit for custom tooling as well. Think special tools
needed on an assembly line in automotive where pausing the assembly is very
expensive or lead times for some custom tool to grab a wheel while working on
it and whatnot are expensive.

I think one of the biggest success stories is cutsom made hearing aids. Return
rate a lot lower, easier to iterate and produce the perfect fit etc.

Another example (maybe a bit more high end) is turning some item that is made
out of many parts into a single item both for cost saving and other reasons.
Iirc NASA uses ultrasonic welding (which is 3d printing of sorts) for this.

~~~
bfrog
I'm guessing the resin used for medical applications isn't the cheapo toxic
stuff.

Neat use cases though, and certainly makes some sense. I guess I would've
expected precision cnc to be faster/better for such cases though, unless you
absolutely need the impossible to create voids

------
digdugdirk
Hmmm... Seems interesting (and perhaps questionable?) from an infringement
perspective.

What possible recourse would the original "continuous printing" patent holder
have now that this prismatic design has been open sourced, rather than used in
a commercial application?

~~~
hexa_storm
patents are expensive and you don't know the results.. Patent in my name is
here
[https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/43/72/4e/1ee7792...](https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/43/72/4e/1ee7792f56148f/US10114289.pdf)
.. but is for a plurality of sources. So I avoid my patent, I am author of :P

------
patrickread
Came here for the 3D printing of unicorn animals using lasers. Disappointing.

~~~
DonHopkins
I prefer highly significant Bladerunneresque origami unicorns.

[https://br-insight.com/library/significance-of-the-unicorn/](https://br-
insight.com/library/significance-of-the-unicorn/)

