Talk:Stereolithography

Merge with 3D Printing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was not to merge. -- Wizard191 (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"3D printing" is a catch-all for a bunch of technologies, but few are close to Stereolithography. Objet's PolyJet technology is closest (it uses an acrylic sprayed out of a print head hardened by a UV lamp). Ordinarily, "3D printing" refers to machines like Z-Corp's starch printers, that are pretty inexpensive and "office friendly." I think the merge proposal confuses technologies, which won't help users doing research here. --GargoyleMT 04:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too dispute the usefulness of a merger with stereolithography. The two previous comments hold a point which many people will agree is valid. As aforementioned rapid prototyping is the umbrella phrase used to describe a number of 3d printing devices. This umbrella phrase encompasses all 3d printing devices regardless of their application or supposed 'friendliness'. The beauty of wikipedia is the user interactivity. If someone has taken the time to write a detailed explanation of an object, I for one believe it should not then become 'belittled' by placing it in a general category. The rapid prototyping category should remain a succinct explanation of rapid prototyping as whole with links to further explanations of individual devices whether held in the wiki domain or on a seperate site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.164.98 (talk • contribs) 14:10, January 4, 2007 (UTC)

3D printing is a completely different process than stereolithography, so it makes no sense to combine the articles. That's like trying to combine articles on injection molding and machining; in many cases either could be used to make a part, but the processes are not even similar. --Brouhaha 23:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea. 3D printing is a superset of stereolithography, not a subset. Plaasjaapie 17:49, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed merging of these articles is unnecessary and might confuse readers. It seems like 3d Pringing, Rapid Prototyping and Stereolithography are different. I think everyone else pretty much summed it up quite well. I'd vote NO on the merge. Testerer 07:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is more accurate to say that this article does not clearly differeniate SLA as a technology amongst various technologies used for 3D printing and prototyping. I added a note referencing SLS, which is not the same as SLA and PolyJet™. In truth, I came looking for information about how SLS differed from SLA which I did eventually find in the link I added.

Regarding rapid prototyping, I would suggest it is again a superset of 3D printing. Rapid prototyping is also a term used in software for instance to describe methodologies that create fast software prototypes. No printing required. Machining parts from alternate materials, ie, machining a plastic prototype for a part eventually to be made in metal would also be called rapid prototyping. Wiredrabbit (talk) 13:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge with Rapid Prototyping

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was not to merge. -- Wizard191 (talk) 01:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a merge with Rapid Prototyping will be beneficial. Stereolithography is a popular technology used in rapid prototyping, but it's not the only one. It's not even the best selling technology; that falls to FDM. To merge articles would make covering other rapid prototyping topics (techniques like RTV molding or additional machine types) harder. --GargoyleMT 04:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not suggest merging Rapid Prototyping and Stereolithography. Stereolithography is only one rapid prototyping technique. Stereolithography is a technology while rapid prototyping is more of the overall concept. My vote is not to merge. Lchrzan 16:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Posted Photos

As requested, I have posted two photos for this page. --scjules (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Hi I stuck an image I did for my PhD thesis in maybee you want to format it in the same box as the other images cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaterialGeeza (talk • contribs) 19:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comments on History

I'm a classic Wikipedia user, who came to this page to learn about 'SLA'. I think the History section could be improved. The abreviation RP is used without definition anywhere on the page. Also, the history seems to imply that only Europe / UK / Ireland are involved in Stereolithography. Being ignorant of the subject, I suppose this may actually be true -- but I somehow doubt it. Grossrider (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the RP problem. I agree with you that the section is heavily one sided. Wizard191 (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second paragraph of the History section reads like an advertisement for "Laser Prototypes" and Tim Plunkett. It also confuses SLS and SLA so even if valid for an encyclopedia, should be in a more general 3D printing section. It may be worth citing industries using SLA, but not citing an individual company. I know my industry (Formula one racing) uses a lot of SLS, but I don't think it would be a good use of Wikipedia to note how many machines each team has, for instance. Again, something for a more general 3D printing/prototyping entry. Wiredrabbit (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you Wiredrabbit. It should either be merged into the 3D printing or rapid prototyping article. And even at that it needs to be copy edited into a NPOV form. Wizard191 (talk) 01:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

 I would like to change the "History" section to include more information on stereolithography's past previous to Chuck Hull's patent and the lead up to modern stereolithographic processes.  Ashley.delmar (talk) 03:05, 15 November 2015 (UTC)ashley.delmar[reply]

What is a "re-coater blade"?

In the last paragraph of "Technology Description", there is a reference to a re-coater blade. It is not defined on the page, and I have never heard of it as a general term. Can someone please fill in what it is, and how it is relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oanjao (talk • contribs) 22:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SLA printers do not have a recoater blade. Due to the liquid state of the photosensitive resin, the base (build platform) is simply lowered by one layer thickness allowing a new layer of resin to simply sit atop the previous layer. 146.87.52.53 (talk) 00:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC) Anon.[reply]

Most Sla printers do have a recoater blade. After the platform dips an arm with a blade attached (some machines have a vacuum that holds some resin in the blade) sweeps across the build area to ensure an even layer of resin on the parts. Even some of the DLP machines that build inverted have an arm to help even out the resin once the part breaks the surface. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.83.156.253 (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined term

“SLA” is used without definition or reference. -Ahruman (talk) 10:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added it. Wizard191 (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term "SLA" is generally understood and widely accepted as meaning "stereo lithography apparatus" Please note, the process uses a single point laser beam to draw each cross section of the part being made on the surface of a light sensitive epoxy resin. After each cross section has been drawn the part, which is attached to a perforated platform, is lowered by the cross section thickness( typically 0.1mm) into the tank . A "re coater blade" sweeps across the tank thus coating fresh resin onto the previously solidified cross section in readiness for the next cross section to be drawn on top of it. The process repeats until the finished part has had all the cross sections so drawn sequentially one on top of the other. At the end of the build process the part is now immersed in the tank of liquid.

The perforated tray with it's completed part is automatically raised above the surface of the liquid in the tank to allow excess liquid to drain back into the tank for future use. The part is then washed to remove any further liquid before being post cured in UV chamber. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.145.103 (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Stereolithography (medicine)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge per WP:SILENCE and WP:MERGECLOSE. Greatedits¹ _{(I hope so | If not, let me know)} 19:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that Stereolithography (medicine) should be merged into Stereolithography. There is a significant overlap between the two articles, as one is only about a particular use of stereolithography, while the other is about the full topic. Therefore, the content in both articles would go well together. Undue weight could be a problem due to the large size of the medicine-related article, but the material from that article could be trimmed if necessary. Greatedits¹ _{(I hope so | If not, let me know)} 19:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There don't seem to be any objections to merging, so I'll probably merge in the next week or so. Please comment if you have an opinion. Thanks! Greatedits¹ _{(I hope so | If not, let me know)} 21:51, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rename the article to "Vat photopolymerisation"

I propose that this article is renamed to "Vat photopolymerisation". According to ISO 52900:2021 (Section 3.2.7), this is the correct terminology. SLA, DLP, LED are types of vat photopolymerisation (Section A2 of ISO 52900). The ISO standard proposes neutral terminology that is impartial to various commercial patents and trademarks.

There is a lot of ambiguity in the press as well between SLA and vat photopolymerisation. However, rigorous research publications mostly get it right. You can also see a media article clarifying this on all3dp. Stratocaster47 (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, the article name could stay as is, but references to LCD masking and DLP projector should be removed:

"Other forms of stereolithography build each layer by LCD masking, or using a DLP projector."

as these are not forms of SL. They are types of vat photopolymerisation Stratocaster47 (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Математика 92.53.25.37 (talk) 11:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]