One of the early Ultimaker workshop participants, Paul Steenbrink (Cardillac) a Goldsmith, experiments with his Ultimaker to make jewelry, casted in gold or silver direct from the printed object. I didn’t know it is possible to cast directly from the printed model. The 3D print is invested in ceramic material and heated to +/- 1500 ºC and vaporizes, leaving a mould ready to cast from. I did some experiments myself with casting aluminum but I made a silicon mold and casted wax models which were casted in aluminum. It takes a lot more work and time than the method Paul uses.
Martijn Elserman
That is exactly what I wish to do with a 3D printer: build a was model to make “impossible” metal objects with the lost wax casting method. Would it theoretically be possible to extrude wax? I know wax is not sold as wire, but if I could roll it to a wire, could it be used?
Hi Willem, if you ask theoretically, then yes. Because wax melts and will solidify again it can in principle be extruded like the thermoplastics. This doesn’t mean that there are no practical challenges to overcome. You probably need to cool it, or print on a Peltier cooler element (e.g. like this)
There’s also a very cool (inverted) approach taken by RepRapper Matt Moses. It shouldn’t be too hard to apply this to an Ultimaker either.
http://reprap.org/wiki/Waxuum
Wax is indeed sold in wire spools.
Such a great idea. Imagine what jewelry Paul could make when the ultimaker was able to print real smooth surfaces (or when he bought a professional 3d printer
Imagine if wood had no grain, would we like it more? I, for one, think it’s nice to be able to see the process of the object as part of its features. I know many people share this attitude. Also, objects printed on open source fabrication tools, in your own home, should not be required to look identical to what you can buy. The whole point is that they can be customized. Objects have a story, it’s a story of reduced dependence on manufacturers who do often do not have a consumer’s interests in mind, moreover, it’s a story of how people are enabled to be much more than just passive recipients of products that they pay for. By nature, humans have always been creators of tools and objects. It’s only in the last few centuries that we have been losing touch of how to make physical things. Our mass-produced objects also have a story, but it’s aways the same story and it isn’t really such a nice one.
I think that the ability to print smooth surfaces instead of the rough surfaces 3d printers currently produce would be a nice option.
You are absolutely right that every material and production method has it’s charm. As an architecturestudent I can tell, perfection can be really boring. Surfacestructure, cracks, seams, bolts&nuts can be the real ornaments of a building.
Having said I´m an architecture student, I’m fascinated by what 3D-printing can mean for making my models and even what it can mean for real buildings. So since I heard you on BNR-radio with Harmke, I’m following you because it was the first time I realised 3D-printing could be done in my own home. But after I found out that with the current resolution it’s just not possible to make accurate maquettes, and I turned to following developements. When a model is a representation of something or prototyping, you want to approach that something else.
I wouldn’t get too attached to the current resolution, because there is always progression and I really think high resolution is the future. For example, I just found out about this guy’s ( http://3dhomemade.blogspot.com/ ) UV-projection-resin project. You’ll also like it for sure.