Loading

Waxuum Version 1.0

by mattmoses, published

Waxuum Version 1.0 by mattmoses Feb 6, 2010

Description

The waxuum is sort of a reverse-extruder. The idea is that a heated hollow needle is used to remove material from a block of wax in a controlled manner, analogous to conventional machining using an endmill. A vacuum pump* pulls the molten wax through the needle, after which it is deposited in a reservoir where it can be recycled. The wax part can then be used directly, or more likely it can be used as a pattern for a mold. Below is a basic overview of how the process might work in a well-developed system. See video of a simple test at youtube.com/watch?v=rnKD9oIzcnM .

1. A heated basin is filled with wax, which is then allowed to cool. This big block of wax forms the working material for our little setup.

2. A waxuum mounted where the extruder usually goes on your 3D printer carves a master pattern (including containment walls) out of the wax block.

3. Elastomer resin is poured directly into negative pattern in the wax block.

4. When the elastomer cures, it is peeled off the wax master and used as a mold to crank out large numbers of parts.

5. The wax master is remelted within its heated basin. The removed wax in the reservoir is added back. The basin is cooled, and the wax is ready to use again for a new master pattern.

--------------------
ADVANTAGES

1. The wax is melted instead of cut, so high forces are not required at the tool-tip. The low force requirement means that the XYZ positioner can be much more flexible (and cheaper and easier-to-make) than is normally required for conventional machining. Unlike conventional machining, there is no need for chip removal.

2. In many cases the surface finish on parts is better than that on filament-extruded parts, due to the smoothing effect of the hot needle moving over the wax. There are also fewer warping, delamination, and anisotropy problems.

3. You get a mold instead of a part: casting from a pattern can produce parts at a much faster rate than printing. You also have a greater choice of materials (plastics, metals, ceramics, and wax can all be cast in silicone molds).

---------------------
DISADVANTAGES

1. You get a mold instead of a part: there are several additional steps and materials, including the manual work of pouring resins. Sometimes you really want to just print your parts and go.

2. Limited geometry: unless you make multi-part molds with cores and such, you are limited to relatively simple geometry. Hollow and concave parts are difficult.

3. The waxuum is relatively unproven compared to the many filament extruder designs currently in use.

------------------------
RESULTS

The test showed it was feasible to use a tool of this design to make wax patterns. The most important thing to consider seems to be optimizing heat transfer from the needle to the wax, while minimizing heat loss due to movement of cool air through the needle. The thin-walled brass tubing is just barely acceptable for this purpose. The next version will use a material with higher thermal conductivity, such as thick-walled copper tubing. The heater should probably be located outside of the case. Possibly two heaters should be used - one for the needle and one to keep the wax molten inside the case.

------------------------
*Update March 6 2010: See this cool article on converting an aquarium pump to a vacuum pump garage-shoppe.com/wordpress/?p=109

Recent Comments

view all

Sorry for the ultra-long delay on this reply. I like your idea of using a solid needle. That approach might be especially useful for making microscopic wax patterns. If gravity was not strong enough to remove the drips one could put the whole thing in a centrifuge (maybe). On the other hand, for microscopic work, capillary attraction might be enough to remove the drips. Maybe even a simple wick wrapped around the base of the needle would work. It would be neat if someone tried this. Maybe people already have...

What if you turn the whole thing upside down and used a solid heated needle so the wax just drips out instead of having to be sucked up?

I'm thinking the wax will end up dripping down the needle and it could be directed to fall into a container for reuse. Although I suppose there would be a potential for the wax to drip down along previously cut areas instead of the needle depending on how deep and steep the cut is. But the needle
could be directed to clean up each layer as it descends back out of the deepest cut to eliminate any drip buildup that might occur.

I have not done any more work on this lately. It would be great if someone tried experiments with wax extruding. But my initial feeling is that it would be very difficult to control a wax extrusion-like process. Wax tends to be either liquid or solid, in contrast to thermoplastics which have a nice "rubbery phase" that can easily be extruded. A more precise way to state this might be: Wax has a very narrow "rubber plateau" whereas typical thermoplastics have a wider rubber plateau. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

However, wax is used as a solid ink in some paper printers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... and I think the 3D printers made by Solidscape use wax and inkjets.

-Matt ( mmoses152 -a t- earthlink -d o t- net )

Liked By

view all
wulfCard1024x768

License

GNU - GPL
Waxuum Version 1.0 by mattmoses is licensed under the GNU - GPL license.

Give a Shout Out

If you print this Thing and display it in public proudly give attribution by printing and displaying this tag. Print Thing Tag

Instructions

STL files, Alibre files, and build information are in the associated .zip and .pdf files.

Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

tamarshall on Sep 15, 2010 said:

What if you turn the whole thing upside down and used a solid heated needle so the wax just drips out instead of having to be sucked up?

I'm thinking the wax will end up dripping down the needle and it could be directed to fall into a container for reuse. Although I suppose there would be a potential for the wax to drip down along previously cut areas instead of the needle depending on how deep and steep the cut is. But the needle
could be directed to clean up each layer as it descends back out of the deepest cut to eliminate any drip buildup that might occur.

mattmoses on Jan 21, 2011 said:

Sorry for the ultra-long delay on this reply. I like your idea of using a solid needle. That approach might be especially useful for making microscopic wax patterns. If gravity was not strong enough to remove the drips one could put the whole thing in a centrifuge (maybe). On the other hand, for microscopic work, capillary attraction might be enough to remove the drips. Maybe even a simple wick wrapped around the base of the needle would work. It would be neat if someone tried this. Maybe people already have...

RCcubed on Jun 17, 2010 said:

Where are you on this idea? Have you done any more experimentation with this technology? I can see where you could not only vacuum the wax but also deposit it as well, using the wax you removed. It would take a special valve but would not be overly complicated. Also needles used for veterinarian purposes might offer a wider verity of sizes to offer more options. Also a rotatory table could make a world of difference in the complexity of the part you could make!
Is there any way we could communicate though email?
Nice work!

mattmoses on Jun 28, 2010 said:

I have not done any more work on this lately. It would be great if someone tried experiments with wax extruding. But my initial feeling is that it would be very difficult to control a wax extrusion-like process. Wax tends to be either liquid or solid, in contrast to thermoplastics which have a nice "rubbery phase" that can easily be extruded. A more precise way to state this might be: Wax has a very narrow "rubber plateau" whereas typical thermoplastics have a wider rubber plateau. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

However, wax is used as a solid ink in some paper printers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... and I think the 3D printers made by Solidscape use wax and inkjets.

-Matt ( mmoses152 -a t- earthlink -d o t- net )

Anonymous on Jun 17, 2010 said:

Where are you on this idea? Have you done any more experimentation with this technology? I can see where you could not only vacuum the wax but also deposit it as well, using the wax you removed. It would take a special valve but would not be overly complicated. Also needles used for veterinarian purposes might offer a wider verity of sizes to offer more options. Also a rotatory table could make a world of difference in the complexity of the part you could make!
Is there any way we could communicate though email?
Nice work!

Erik on Feb 8, 2010 said:

Wow, it's really inspiring to see such an extensive experiment with indirect production of parts! When I read about this I expected it would not be practical, after seeing the movie I think it's very valuable for a subset of production tasks. Very valuable work! Thanks for sharing this!

MarcusWolschon on Feb 6, 2010 said:

Are o
´you using Skeinforge with a milling-
&
gt;end mil -profile to generate the gcode of this?

mattmoses on Feb 7, 2010 said:

That is the idea, eventually. For folks who are using RepRap host software there is an option: Preferences-
&
gt;Globals-
&
gt;Subtractive-
&
gt;True that should work also. Right now of course things are controlled manually, and I haven't tried either Skeinforge or RRHost. -Matt

Top