Mcor launches Matrix 3D printer, only asks for your paper and glue
By Darren Murph 
posted Nov 9th 2008 4:03AM
posted Nov 9th 2008 4:03AM
[Via SlashGear]
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
So, does that mean it's around $2000? not really sure at the price range at the moment....
You could make a 3D Printer with it, and then return the original!!!!
Yeah, you only see that one in every post about 3D printers.
@dwes
That was the most elitest thing I've ever read. How many articles about 3D printers have you read?!
I'm thinking that Weired Science Movie.
Cory Doctorow's Printcrime, which you should read if you haven't yet:
http://craphound.com/?p=573
Soooo what happens when everyone starts copying their ass at the office Christmas party? This might get weird.
Realdoll, here I come!
...but it uses A4 paper.
Those are going to be some NASTY papercuts.
obligatory step 1,2,3...profit comment starts nw
GENTLEMEN WE MUST CLOSE THE PAPER/GLUE BOMB GAP!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxrWz9XVvls
pva glue.
2 parts water 1 part glue.
thanks art attack
PVA at my primary school used to taste a little like apples. Bizarre.
Ok, I'll acknowledge the fact that it's almost 5:00am and I'm about to pass out, but if you don't mind me asking:
"what the hell are you talking about"?
First of all, that's highly offensive.
Second...if the terrorists can figure out how to make a paper-and-glue bomb, aren't we doomed anyway?
1) bring out 3d printer
2) print out "ignorant sob" in 3d
3) appropriately affix said label to tom
Finally I can make my own electronics enclosures... too bad it is not in plastic... Time to make my own iPhone 4G
Enclosures made from paper and PVA glue, could you not manage that already ?
This 3D printer is for making pre-production mock ups.
These 3D printers are used for rapid-prototyping and molding. Obviously you're not going to actually use what the 3D printer produces directly for sale, its used to make the foundation for thinks like injection molding so you can mass-produce it.
What are the commercial applications for this? I can't honestly see a reason for it. I mean, it's paper. I'm sure it'll have all the weaknesses of paper, so maybe just using for basic prototypes?
What I can honestly say is I would buy one, just for the couple of hours fun of printing random rubbish. Also, how much do you think these things would cost to run in paper? By looking at them, I'm thinking it has to use a hell of a lot of paper to be able to produce these things.
As a board game and toy designer, it would be useful to me for making low-cost prototypes of novel game components.
(Perhaps architects could use it to make components for those models they're always making out of paper?)
You could use it to make "lost wax" positive models for sand-casting parts out of metal. Print your model, pack it in sand, poke two holes to the model, pour in your molten metal to burn away the model, let it cool, and ta-dah!
You could make a model, then varnish or shellac it to make it more durable. You could dip it in liquid latex, let it dry, and now it's waterproof and significantly more durable.
The more I think about this, the cooler it is. If it's reasonably priced, I'm totally interested in getting one.
And here was I thinking i'm the only one who studied casting and metallurgy at university! Lost wax casting caused me countless hours of dilemma at university.
*Shakes fist*
@Jonathan
This is called LOM or laminated object manufacturing. This is one the the original Rapid prototyping technologies and has been used by architechts for quite some time now. It's not particularty useful for anything except visualizing (which is why engineers tend to more apt for plastic, resin and metal RPT technologies). I also think that what you are referring to is "sand casting" not "lost wax" casting. "lost wax" casting is what is refered to as investment casting, in which the wax mold is is dipped into a slip (ceramic slurry) and then melted out.
This might be kind of cool if you could use overhead projector transparency sheets to build the model and then friction or laser weld the seams together.
As far as something truly practical in the world of stereo lithography, this is not it. Unless (and it is a big unless) it is to introduce the technology to someone.
The reason this technology is "spendy" is because it is. There is a great amount of design, manufacture and assembly that goes into these systems. And they are not for everyone - as much as everyone would like to have their repilcator in their house, office, bedroom, car, etc.
Ain't gunna happen - yet.
We are working on it. And it won't use A-4 paper, kiddy glue and water.
Without obviously going into detail, my company is developing a rapid manufacturing process that may - just may - be the precursor to the replicator.
It is pretty exciting but it is still VERY spendy. But we will be able to actually manufacture single or multiple millions of items a new way - from basic components, It is in the kinda fun stages right now but it is advancing.
If you want to really get a kick - consider that the ISS does not have a spare parts stores on board and it is a bit of a space walk to the local hardware store - so they have had a rapid mfg sys onboard for a while.
Topic at hand - this should only cost about $3 - 500 at most.
Cheers from Downunder!
...so you can't get it wet.
That's, er, what she said?
According to their site it's 50x less expensive, not 40x....
Actually the front page says: "Up to 40 times less expensive to produce"
See for yourself: http://www.mcortechnologies.com/index.html
So it's x/50 instead of x/40. If only we knew what x is.
I don't think PVA glue counts as high explosive.
Uhm, its 40 times less expensive for running costs(since paper is a lot cheaper than light cure or other plastics in other machines). The machine could still cost 30K
And the planet.
I imagine you could make full-color creations if you pre-printed the stack of pages in a color printer.
did you just mixed up obama and osama?
Children shouldn't speak unless they're told to.
Sure the printer's cheap... but they 'ream' you on the consumables!
...I see what you did there.... because a 'ream' is a unit measure of paper.... har har....
Unfortunately, that doesn't work because apparently the 'consumables' in this case are plain paper and PVA glue, which are both extremely cheap for the time being.
This is sad. The unit itself costs over $22,000 US. It's savings over current rapid prototyping is the minimal materials cost, or overall cost. 'up to 40 times less' means less for the refills. The upfront cost . . . 22 grand? They must be on crack to call this affordable, even by commercial standards. And it's LOM, for crying out loud.
http://www.rapidtoday.com/mcor.html
That's actually not that bad. These will be mainly for architects, engineers, maybe high-end designers, etc....not for home use for a long time. I work in a university lab and we regularly buy apparatuses that do specific tasks that are in the $5000-$50000 range and we are just one little lab with around 20 people. If we were an engineering lab and something like this could take the place of a $100,000+ machine that costs thousands to maintain and supply, then this 3D-"printer" would be an excellent contender.
One press report from the company says this will cost around $20 - 22,000, but have a really low operating costs. It's still out of reach of consumers, but businesses will appreciate the low operating costs compared to other alternatives that cost only a little bit less, but are much more expensive to run.
It also says the models are quite durable. It's still paper, after all, but the mythbusters proved toilet paper could be used to repel down a building!
Surely you mean 'Rappel' - to 'Repel' down a building using toilet paper would be quite the feat.
I work at an aircraft company and we actually have a system similar to this, Except ours uses special paper with heat activated glue and a laser to do the cutting. It's useful if we're on a time crunch and we need something for a fit check. There are two big drawbacks to these paper systems. First is the wasted material. Every layer is going to use a full sheet of paper, even if there's just one tiny little section on it use. The next is the fact that when you're done you end up with a big stack of paper all glued together and you have to use exacto knives and dental picks to get your part out of the middle of it. After several hours of picking you're finally left with your part, along with about a thousand little paper blocks.
1) your work for an AIRCRAFT company...
2) in a crunch you make replacements out of...paper...
3) remind me to never fly with that company
Wonder what "It's useful if we're on a time crunch and we need something for a fit check." means. Oh well, it probably means exactly the same as "We need a replacement component for an upcoming flight test because the functioning one fell off when we rolled it out of the hanger.", so no big deal.
this system is different it selectively glues the part so weeding is multiple times faster than that of the helysis or kira machines where the build and waste are glued equally. also there is no need for the knife to unweed the part
Some numbers for reference...
High quality architectural models of medium-sized commercial projects (think a 10-story office building...) of the sort used by a developer in a sales center _start_ at 30K. And that's if you outsource it to Hong Kong. You need a laser cutter to build models of this quality. Those run about 30K, too. For size reference... this hypothetical model would be the size of a large CRT TV.
Printing a model with a "typical" 3-D printer can run $20 or more per _cubic inch_ of material. A hand-held model can cost several hundred dollars. 1/40th the cost for materials is a _big_ deal.
These machines are not to the point where they can replace a laser-cutter for an architectural model...(they can only print 10x10x10 inch pieces for the most part, they only use one material to produce the object, and they are very slow (overnight for that hand-held model mentioned above)). But they have their uses. And they can be left un-attended. It's generally not cost-effective to have your highly-trained employee making a model out of paper. And plastic travels to clients better than paper.
It will be exciting to see what is commercially available in five years or so.
that was a _good_ post....
Hmm... although this makes sense, it sounds wasteful. You can't exactly re-use the leftover areas of the paper as easily as re-rolling cookie dough before performing a second pass with a cookie cutter.
A better idea, would be to use thin rolls of paper chaff that would be reduced to finer size before being plotted onto their respective surfaces. As long as the cuts are small and reusable (as either quads or triangles), the computer could pre-calculate the chaff cuts to precisely match the final build output with no wasted material. This means more efficient prototyping without the excess overhead of recycling and repurchasing the same paper.
It's called LOM technology. NOT new, just scaled down to useless part size. LOM machines lost popularity due to the heat and paper causing fire. This is a joke. RP was here 20 years ago.
this is different, there is no laser, there is no fires, there is no deformatin of parts after they are taking from the machine, the cost is cheaper as not specialised paper, the weeding is not impossible as waste and part are not glued equally