I'm finishing up design modifications to my DMLS printed chamber: http://www.rocketmoonlighting.com/projects/printed-chamber
I am planning to have the latest version printed sometime in the next few weeks - there are a few minor tweaks and improvements over the original which worked quite well.
There is a significant price reduction per unit when ordering more than one part, so if people are interested, it makes sense to buy more than one. Depending on the number of units, the price could be around half what it costs to make a single part. The price would be in the very low 4 digit range.
If you're interested, per the specs on the website above, drop me an email (i n f o at rocketmoonlighting.com). If I get a few responses, I'll do some homework and send out an email with more details to those who expressed interest.
3 comments:
Hi,
I have a question - why don't you use EBM (electron-beam melting) instead of DMLS? I hear it's a superior technology, which can work with higher-temperature alloys, and achieves a better melt-quality.
I'll admit I don't know much about EBM. However, I understand that DMLS can achieve smaller minimum feature sizes and minimum wall thickness. Both are key features for building rocket combustion chambers. Also, DMLS often achieves properties that are as good or better than the wrought condition, so the material properties are quite good.
Certainly DMLS allows for smaller high precission details than EBM. Actually EBM is usually building parts in the range of 60 to 120 micron thick layers, while we build parts in DMLS EOS machines in 20 or 40 micron. Particles are smaller and you can clean small ducts from the non sintered power easyly (imagin a spiral 0.6 mm diameter conduit)
With EOS machines we build Inconel 718 parts or Co-Cr-Mo parts which can be used up to 1100ºC.
You are also right in terms of price calculation: the more parts on a building platform the lower the price per part.
EBM is cheaper and faster on bulky parts, no doubt
Post a Comment