New Method Of Liquid Printing Creates More Accurate Results

A patent on this technique would be worth a metric crap-ton... if only it weren't going to be ripped off by manufacturers of cheap crap in China.
 
A patent on this technique would be worth a metric crap-ton... if only it weren't going to be ripped off by manufacturers of cheap crap in China.
I would be surprised if they didn't patent the software behind all of that, unless they just used existing software and tweaked it to what they needed. Looks like I have some reading to do. I'm curious.
 
Seems like it would be hard to get this to scale. The viscosity of the liquid and speed at which the object is submerged have to be very carefully controlled to get this to work consistently. There's a mind numbingly complex amount of physics involved.
 
Since it's in liquid couldn't it shift slightly and pretty much ruin the print?

Why its a dymanic fluid simulation.

A certain fluid has a certain property, they use a microsoft kinect (Seriously) to scan the item's surface dynamics to make a 3D render of the object, then the computer dumps it into a simulated liquid.

After which you take the design of your object and paint it onto your object in the computer.

The computer looking at the fluid simulation, then designs a ink stencil for the object as its put into the fluid, often wildly proportionate to the object itself as its put in. You then print it out.

Because fluid acts a specific way, the computer then gets the object to line up with a specific point in the ink stencil and then the ink wraps itself around the material as it sinks into the fluid, creating a perfect wrapping of the object with no seems etc.

At least this is my understanding of what is going on in this video
 
This seems kind of ridiculous to me, I obviously haven't seen it in person, but in the video it looks pretty bad. Why wouldn't they go straight to creating a moveable inkjet or paint sprayer that sprays directly to the 3d surface?
 
This seems kind of ridiculous to me, I obviously haven't seen it in person, but in the video it looks pretty bad. Why wouldn't they go straight to creating a moveable inkjet or paint sprayer that sprays directly to the 3d surface?

Because its beyond the scope of computers.

Spray painting is a unique art form. Requires dynamic adjustments as you work.

This is making a job where you just basically dunk something into a stencil far more precise to make far better patterns. Its perfecting a form of mass production for something that a company makes hundreds of a day.
 
Because its beyond the scope of computers.

Spray painting is a unique art form. Requires dynamic adjustments as you work.

This is making a job where you just basically dunk something into a stencil far more precise to make far better patterns. Its perfecting a form of mass production for something that a company makes hundreds of a day.

Because who could imagine a computer dynamically adjusting its behavior while it is working :rolleyes:
 
UV unwrapping for real physical objects. Surprised it hasn't been done sooner.
 
Because who could imagine a computer dynamically adjusting its behavior while it is working :rolleyes:

You're asking a computer to relay making something "Look nice"

You can tell a computer to make something "Look straight" etc, but not "Look nice"

"Look nice" is our perception of something like a flower etc.
 
It's not perfect but probably a great cost savings compared to an equal quality computer-driven spray-paint system.
 
Back
Top