Project PAM - Open Source DLP 3D Printer

Students at SIU are looking to create a prototype of their open source DLP 3D printer. This printer features a rather large 9 liter build volume, and can use up to 2 projectors. This was their senior design project, but they could not get funding from the school to build a working prototype. Now they have hit Indiegogo looking to raise just $2,500 in order to fund the project. If complete, they will release this printer entirely open source. Read more about this at: http://3dprint.com/17504/project-pam/

What do you think? Does the community have a need for a truly open source DLP 3D Printer?

http://3dprint.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/pam.jpg

Hey Eddie,

Daniel Olsen here from Project PAM. During the past few days there has been some confusion on what counts as open source hardware. People have been doubting our claim as being the world's first open source hardware DLP 3D printer. There are a few interesting conversations that we had on Twitter. I would recommend checking them out. https://twitter.com/ProjectPAM

The problem is there are a lot of 3D printers that claim to be open source yet when you go to find their source it's nonexistent or they say will release it, which is not open source instead it is their intention to one day be open source. The other problem we have noticed is that the wrong licenses (licenses for software like the GNU GPL) are being used for hardware designs, and even worse some don't have licenses. both of these cases are the same. The people who created the designs automatically have copyrights, whether they specify it or not, on that design and without a proper license no one else has the right to use, redistribute, and modify. Basically, there is nothing legally stopping the copyright holders from suing someone for copyright infringement.

What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iAmDolsen

Hey Eddie,

Daniel Olsen here from Project PAM. During the past few days there has been some confusion on what counts as open source hardware. People have been doubting our claim as being the world's first open source hardware DLP 3D printer. There are a few interesting conversations that we had on Twitter. I would recommend checking them out. https://twitter.com/ProjectPAM

The problem is there are a lot of 3D printers that claim to be open source yet when you go to find their source it's nonexistent or they say will release it, which is not open source instead it is their intention to one day be open source. The other problem we have noticed is that the wrong licenses (licenses for software like the GNU GPL) are being used for hardware designs, and even worse some don't have licenses. both of these cases are the same. The people who created the designs automatically have copyrights, whether they specify it or not, on that design and without a proper license no one else has the right to use, redistribute, and modify. Basically, there is nothing legally stopping the copyright holders from suing someone for copyright infringement.

What do you think?

---

You claim your maximum volume is 9Liters, that is too vague , you should give about the width, depth and height, a rough estimate number to attract people.
The indiego campaign does not mention the resolution height per layer process, again, give some expected numbers. What are you trying to achieve?
Smallest printable feature.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richardphat

You claim your maximum volume is 9Liters, that is too vague , you should give about the width, depth and height, a rough estimate number to attract people.
The indiego campaign does not mention the resolution height per layer process, again, give some expected numbers. What are you trying to achieve?
Smallest printable feature.

---

The maximum build dimensions are X: 21.6 cm, Y: 19.8 cm, Z: 21.6 cm which gives a total available volume of 9 L. However, the actual build size can be smaller with the use of a smaller vat and/or single/lower resolution projector. I have updated the indiegogo campaign to include these build dimensions. We currently are testing to determine our layer heights so those are not set.

Hi Dolsen,

Having looked at buying a resin based machine for a long time now, and following as many kickstarters as I could find, there is a few questions or comments I would have. Please don't take these as being negative, I am just a realist and a skeptic.
It's a little odd, your kickstarter.

Your goal is $2500... which is so low one would ask immediately why are you kickstarting for such a low figure? Then I'd say.. hang on, your #3 pack is $1500 .. so if you sell just 2 of those, you already get past your goal.. So with only 2 people required to back you to apparently get your project underway, the urgency for development I just couldn't see working publicly, as other successful kickstarters have had hundreds of people waiting, and it was that hype that got them more people to sign on and so forth. Right now, we are so overloaded with people apparently bringing out the next best thing and starting a campaign for it, it is getting very hard to take them all seriously.

Do you have a video I can see of a working protoype?

Hi Geoff, this is Jeff, project manager for Project PAM.

The goal of the project is to have a well designed and thoroughly documented printer. We're not in the business of selling printers, and currently have no intention to be. We're attempting to put together a design and document it as thoroughly as possible. This could then be a solid basis for the community to expand upon. The intention of the crowd funding is to allow us to test a prototype of this design and iterate the design as much as possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by richardphat

You claim your maximum volume is 9Liters, that is too vague , you should give about the width, depth and height, a rough estimate number to attract people.
The indiego campaign does not mention the resolution height per layer process, again, give some expected numbers. What are you trying to achieve?
Smallest printable feature.

---

As a correction, our build volume dimensions are
X: 19.2 cm
Y: 21.6 cm
Z: 21.6 cm
This is with a pixel size of 0.1mm by 0.1mm and a layer height of 0.1mm. This was to match the volume and resolution of most current FDM machines.
That's the large end.
Using full steps with our stepper motors, which have 200 steps per revolution, and a 3mm pitch lead screw, our layer height could be as small as 0.015mm. It would be trivial to substitute a lead screw with a smaller pitch, but we viewed this as unnecessary for our purposes. With cubic pixels that'd be a build area of 3.24 cm x 2.88 cm, assuming the projector will focus that closely without heavy modifications. Height could still be 21.6 cm.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by burdickjp

Hi Geoff, this is Jeff, project manager for Project PAM.

The goal of the project is to have a well designed and thoroughly documented printer. We're not in the business of selling printers, and currently have no intention to be. We're attempting to put together a design and document it as thoroughly as possible. This could then be a solid basis for the community to expand upon. The intention of the crowd funding is to allow us to test a prototype of this design and iterate the design as much as possible.

---

Hey Jeff, thanks for the reply.

Ok, I gotcha now, I was under the assumption that this was a machine you were trying to bring to market, instead , and correct me if I'm wrong, you are bringing a truly open source machine to market , or one that people construct themselves without purchasing some overblown kit. I wish you the best of luck, right now there is only a few good SLA printers that fall in a decent price range for me.

I just wish they were a cleaner machine, from what I understand there is a curing and finishing process with resin? and I have to say I love just pulling an ABS piece from an FDM printer and it's done... no work required.

The post cure is much cleaner than most FDM post processes. Set the piece out in the sun or under a full spectrum light for a short while.
Supports are similar to FDM. Photoresin systems are more dimensionally accurate, as there isn't a big shrinkage or warpage problem. It's less fault prone, especially a top-down like ours, as opposed to bottom up, like the B9 Creator, which have to have a strong bond with the build table, otherwise the build will stick to the vat and peel from the table. Top-down can be much more delicate.