Just picked up a Pantheon HS3
Which maxes out at 1100mm/sec. That’s likely well within a diode laser’s capabilities for speed … so that begs the question, what would be too fast? Thoughts?
That kind of speed from a screw drives seems pretty incredible…
If you’re asking how fast is fast for dpssl, nothing mechanical could keep up with it… Even a jet engine…
I know of a couple articles that show examples where they are using dpssl laser measuring devices on this stuff…
I’m still awed at those kinds of speeds… you’ll have to post a video of it running that fast…
Looks like another mind bender…
Have fun…
The specs say the extruder is good for 25 mm³/s, so if it’s laying down a 0.25 mm thick × 0.4 mm wide thread it can run at 250 mm/s, which Is cooking right along.
I have my doubts about actually printing at that speed, though.
My Makergear (RIP) M2 can move at 450 mm/s, but prints PETG at 50 mm/s = 5 mm³/s. Any faster and the success rate falls off, which may be a function of the extruder’s heat transfer ability or lack thereof.
Guy in the local makerspace conjured a large-format printer with a 1 mm nozzle to crank out large low-spec parts in a big hurry. It’s a wonder to behold!
Per the bullet list:
designed exclusively for use with Pantheon’s material library
Puts it in red-flag territory for me, having watched similar lock-ins fail in heartrending ways over the decades.
Seems designed for specialized materials and very high-end projects: looking forward to seeing what you produce, even if they’re not laserable!
These guys are my friends - you can use whatever materials you want. It’s not locked down whatsoever. Their profiles are really really good and their cf-petg spools are also, very very good. Comes out to $50/kg so right on par for pricing. And yes, it does print that fast
new toy… oh yerrrr
I first read this as $50K/g and thought it a bit unreasonable. What you wrote is much better.
Volumetric feed Continuous: 25mm3/s Yes, I would call a cubic inch per second FAST!
Um, a cubic inch is 25.4³ = 16387 mm³.
Seen from the other end, 25 mm³ = 0.0015 in³.
Hummmm… 25mm is about 1 inch. So it is 1" × 1" × 1", right?
New Math? I am too old to comprehend this stuff!
Nah… 1 is the cube root of 1, but 25 isn’t the cube root of 25.
10 SqFt isn’t 10 Ft x 10Ft
it’s 10 Ft x 1Ft and it’s fun to watch folks buy patio blocks.
That wacky American Common Core “new math” freaks me out and I just don’t get it.
Yeah, gotta watch out for those Pesky Pavers! And math shenanigans too!
No, but 10ftsq is. (10ft^2)
Obviously, but it is the cube root of 15625, whuch is still a lot of PVA.
It went from volume to 2d area…
Sqft is 2 dimensional … anything with volume has to take into account the third dimension…
Not to be confused with the 5th Dimension
I do it the way I understand how it works… can’t argue with success…
Ok, 25mm^3 is 2.9240175 mm on a side.
The ad should have said 25^3mm or 25 cubic mm, not 25 mm cubed, which is a lot more.
That is what you get for letting Sales write engineering specs.
The exponent applies to the unit of measure, not the numeric value. In this case, “mm³” denotes “cubic millimeter”, so the numeric value reads “twenty five (cubic millimeters)” as a volume.
Applying the exponent to the numeric value leaves the unit unchanged as “millimeter”, so it would read “(twenty five cubed) millimeters” (= 15625 mm), as a length.
We could be using litres, rather than cubic millimeters, but nobody goes there. Examples of the litre in other units, per the Wikipedia entry, show how the unit exponents work:
It is equal to 1 cubic decimetre (dm³), 1000 cubic centimetres (cm³) or 0.001 cubic metre (m³). A cubic decimetre (or litre) occupies a volume of 10 cm × 10 cm × 10 cm
As you correctly note, 25 mm³ is the volume of a cube 2.92+ mm on a side:
25 mm³ = (2.92)³ mm³ = 2.92 mm × 2.92 mm × 2.92 mm
A cubic inch is a cube one inch on a side:
1 in³ = 1 in × 1 in × 1 in
Convert the linear measures to metric, do the multiplications, and you get 16387 mm³.
That is how units work.
Good reference. I will visit it to learn how to say what I know correctly.