Fine Detail Plastic Crystallization Formation

Ha! Again with the tie jab? I'll have you know it is 100% pure rayon! 100%!!!
Hilarious....

K... Just reread... for more disclosure, I work for myself, in the field of biopharmaceuticals. And no, I'm not a competitor of SW / 3DS etc. Just a lowely client. But I've technical training, access to equipment and the interest to explore and/or report on this. But I haven't (yet) as I highly suspect 3DS already knows what it is and is sitting on their findings. It simply doesn't take this long to scrape and bake some dust. No conspiracy. Just guilty of old school competitive behavior, rather than new school of empowering their customer base to partner with them (gratis) for their own self benefit.

Also, no, I am not shop owner. Thought I made that clear. So while I respect you guys and your breadth of personal feedback you get (even as I pity your jealousy of my glorious assortment of neck-wear) it's clear SW shopowners have a major conflict of interest here. The continued existence of this phenomenon is a threat to your livelihood. That is crystal clear.

But let's dispose right now of this zany notion that the changing the pricing structure in March of 2017 somehow miraculous resulted in an alteration of the base chemistry. You can damn be sure if 3DP/SW solved the riddle of the phenomenon, and as a result tweeked the resin recipe or the process to avoid, they would have announced it as "New and Improved" bold headlines. Rather, when SW last chimed in on this last Fall, the author admitted they still didn't have an answer (from 3DS) as to what this stuff was exactly. So, it defies logic that they could have rationally corrected this issue in March 2017, when in the Fall of 2017, they still had no clue what it was. With a change in pricing.

ummm.... anyone who buys that spin for even a second has been huffing way too much poly.

-J

Thanks for your response. It is helpful. We do indeed have a mutual interest to solve the problem. I had hoped there was a professional, independent investigation occurring that might contribute to a solution and that you might give us some insight to that investigation's processes and findings.

I am sorry that the crystallization issue has adversely affected members of your railroad modeling circles. Hopefully, the problem has subsided for the members of the San Diego Model Railroad Museum. I wish they had the same positive experience with FUD/FXD that I have had.

In the spirit of clarification, allow me to respond to one of your points. Please bear with me, as this clarification is important and I ask the opportunity to explain why. To be clear, I don't claim to be "patient zero" or the discoverer of the phenomenon. That is not an accurate representation of what I wrote. I wrote:

"SW began the investigation shortly after I received the first customer reports of the crystallization problem and I initiated this discussion."

"I initiated this discussion because it affected a few of my customers."

"... when customers first reported the problem, I invited mine to watch this thread as the investigation and discussion began and to participate."

I am not trying to split hairs here, but the distinction is an important one as a business, some of whose customers were badly affected. I do claim that Shapeways initiated its investigation after a few of my customers reported the problem and I initiated this thread. There was no SW investigation until it became clear in this thread that the phenomenon some people were experiencing was not normal "frosting". That fact is well-documented here early in the thread. The initiation of the investigation is one value among many of this thread.

My assertion yesterday that I initiated the thread which contributed to the opening of a technical investigation is important because it directly addresses and refutes false accusations made by The Old Factory that I personally am part of some nefarious grand conspiracy to hide the problem and to intentionally harm my customers and others. The initiation of this thread confirms to my customers that I recognize that the problem is real and am engaging with Shapeways publicly asking SW to help find a solution on their behalf. I also invited the customers who reported the problem to join the discussion here and some have.

As you know, real business harm can come from false accusations (defamation), mis-characterizations and exaggeration. When others begin echoing those false accusations, otherwise strengthen them or imply that the accusations are accurate, I am compelled to respond and refute in order to protect my reputation, my business and my customers. Some posts made since August of last year were taking on that flavor.

Some good news: based on what we know of the crystallization problem so far, it seems that the advice to paint the parts soon after cleaning with mild, water-based detergents is working. I would also like to emphasize again that I have received no customer reports of crystallization since March, 2017. Thanks to efforts by @patmat2350, we now know that enamel paints can work on FUD/FXD parts if they have been properly post-cured by the customer.

I look forward to your continued participation in, and contributions to, this discussion. Like you, I seek a better understanding of the crystallization problem so that I can best advise customers.

Fair 'nuff. And thank you for your redirect. All good here.

So let's all stop with the meta. Let's get back to being solution oriented.


Respectfully, I doubt enough time has passed on prints since March 2017 (with normal exposure) to have the crystallization be apparent on painted surfaces. So while I'd agree your report as an encouraging data point (and FAR more rational than "SW fixed it by charging me" derp anti-logic) we cannot draw any conclusions yet. Till we UNDERSTAND the phenomenon, it is EXTREMELY counterproductive to pronounce "Issue solved. I have the cure".

I simply debate enough time has elapsed under the conditions by which the bloom results for post March 2017 print to show yet. Thus doubt your experience is definitive. And we do not have any control to compare (same print, using a former process that has been reliably shown to produce the effect, and then given same exposure as the test subject, with significant differences in the result). Thus I fear your experience here is illusory.

If any of my multiple working hypotheses on the synthetic route and the specific ID of the resultant material are correct, then no amount surfical part washing in soap and water would cure.

As for enamel paints on FUD/FXD.... I will reserve personal judgement on the claim till I'm sure we are on the same page and I have read and considered. Please point us to a thread in which @patmat2350 described a robust test and his method and his results were discussed.

K - busy week. Will try to check back later.

Later Monkey!

Agreed, time will tell. One year down is very encouraging.

Regarding enamels, I think it best to defer to @patmat2350 to describe his own experience and findings.

I can say that others who have followed Pat's process report good results with enamels. The problem earlier was that some property of the acrylic plastic, likely the presence of uncured liquid resin, possibly the inhibitor, was reacting with enamels preventing them, too, from hardening. This left the very unhappy customer with a gooey enamel mess to clean up. There were early reports that enamel would not harden even over automotive primer.

Since Pat posted his findings, enamels have repeatedly been shown to fully cure on FUD/FXD after sufficient post-curing. Sovereign Hobbies, a UK-based manufacturer of hobby enamel paints called Colourcoats, has demonstrated their enamel paints do indeed harden on post-cured FUD/FXD. Likewise, a US-based hobby paint manufacturer in Arizona, Tru-Color, has demonstrated their solvent-based paints work well with FUD/FXD, too.

To those in the know, correct me if I am wrong, here. As I understand the FUD/FXD printing process, the chemical nature of the liquid acrylic resin causes it to naturally harden quite quickly, nearly instantly. But it must remain in a liquid state in order to be extruded from a 3D printer. So, a chemical inhibitor is introduced to the formulation that prevents the resin liquid from hardening. It is UV light that breaks down the inhibitor permitting the resin to nearly instantly harden. Theory: perhaps it is that same inhibitor that retards the hardening of the enamel paint. It that theory is true, then those wanting to use enamels must post-cure their FUD/FXD models to ensure no inhibitor remains present.

My own experience confirms no painting issues if I leave the parts exposed to direct sunlight for several hours before painting. Anecdotal evidence from others indicates this extra UV exposure, Pat calls "post-curing", is critical to painting success.

Some plastic modelers are accustomed to using methyl ethyl ketone as thinner for airbrushing enamels on injection-molded polystyrene models. Don't use MEK with FUD/FXD. One of my customers used MEK on a large product printed in FUD. He discovered and reported that a white powdery residue formed on the surface of the paint some time later. There was no harm to the product, but it was a nuisance to remove the residue, requiring a second cleaning. I am certain the MEK phenomenon is not related to crystallization formation. It looks very different. Based on his experience, I advise against using MEK as a paint thinner on FUD/FXD.

There is a discussion elsewhere in the forums regarding the use of acetone, acetate (found in acetone-free nail polish remover) and Bestine (heptane) to clean FUD/FXD. Some designers recommend it. I do not. Too many of my customers have reported that acetone, acetate or Bestine damaged the acrylic. I recommend only mild, water-based detergents like Dawn, Fairy, baby shampoo (no conditioner) or Simple Green in warm water to clean FUD/FXD. Those products have never caused me any problems personally nor have I received any reports that they caused problems for customers.

General rule of thumb that seems to work: if you wouldn't use a product to clean plexiglass, don't use it to clean FUD/FXD.

Hi jjschaible,

I found your previous thoughts about the chemistry of what may be going on with FED, FUD interesting. Obviously you seem to know more about chemistry than most of us here, me included (& i just read today you have a bio - chemistry degree). I was thinking it would be great if an independent company would custom design a new material for the 3500HD Max printers that SW uses. I read last year while looking for solutions that there is a very large company from France with a lot of offices and factories in the US which offers to custom design UV-curable acrylates for 3D printing. I don't remember the name but that could be a solution. 3DS would probably not like it, but if they can't or won't fix it themselves why not let others do it ? That would be another avenue for SW. I already proposed that since SW increased the price of FED & FUD because I think they said the price of wax support material was too high, I said they could try to get a similar wax from another manufacturer or have one custom made. If they already own the machines, they have the right do as they please with them (& get rid of the RFID tags/chips that 3DS apparently use on their wax bottles & machines to stop the owners of their printers to use wax made by other sources. Meaning there is probably a less expensive alternative wax already available on the market.

So it might be a good option for SW to ask another company to make a new plastic for their machines IF they are not getting real cooperation from 3DS & the maker of their plastics . It's something all small desktop 3D printer companies do all the time so it must not be too expensive as those are all small companies with financing way below that of SW.

In an article published by an observer of the 3D printing industry, he estimated that in 2015 Shapeways had about 35000 store owners. A recent post by a SW rep on the forums put that number even higher, at hundreds of thousands.


Starting from the estimate of one of the store owners here who said he's got 400 models & who said about 1% of his clients are affected by crystallization of FED & FUD parts, & using a conservative number of say 100000 stores, if only 10% of those SW stores actually sell products made of FED & FUD (the rest of the stores selling products made of other materials) & each of those stores selling FED and FUD sell say 1 item each per month (a very conservative number likely lower than the actual one), after 1 year that gives 120000 products sold made of FED & FUD.


Now if only 1% of those products are affected by crystallization, that gives us 1200 products/clients affected by crystallization of their parts.


And those numbers are no doubt below the actual numbers as I voluntarily kept the estimates very conservative.


'The sky is not falling' ? Well, then how does Model Monkey explain that he is the person who started this thread & first came here begging Shapeways for help over 1 year ago saying his own sales had sharply gone down because of crystallization & how do you explain that Shapeways had no choice but to finally admit that there is an issue with the material ? And now some store owners change their tune & act as if the problem have already been fixed by proposing all sorts of home brewed painting & cleaning guidelines when in fact they know nothing about the chemical content of the plastic.


So by continuing to attack those who want you see the problem fixed there are some here who actually work against their own clients because they are telling them they prefer the status quo while they know full well that at least 1 percent of clients will end up with expensively 3D printed parts that are unusable. And given that there are other store owners who seem to have been hit by a lot higher percentage of crystallized parts (Ageofplastic reports that 50% of his parts are affected), that would mean that if we average all store owners affected, the real percentage is probably much higher than the about 1% that one store owner claim. That's a LOT of parts affected.


I am being affected by this too because I have dozens of new designs being held up by the unresolved crystallization problem since over 1 year and I am losing lots of money because of it because my own clients would really Not forgive if ever i sold them defective parts (my own branch of scale modeling is a very unforgiving crowd when it comes to quality or even minor inaccuracies, this is nothing compared to what would happen if they received crystallizing parts instead of super detail parts they paid top $ for. Given that my own strategy is to compete directly against hand cast PU resin detail parts (which by the way these days use tooling made with very high res 3D printers, but reproduced with silicone molds & cast in PU) the whole idea to go with direct 3D manufacturing with FED is to take advantage of the 16 microns resolution & thus compete directly against the traditional hand cast resin aftermarket parts, without the hassle of casting by hand & shipping lots of small parts individually. The last thing I'd want is to sell defective parts to my clients.


And the same applies to all store owners selling FED parts who are honest enough to admit that obviously, if you sell even a low % of defective parts that did cost modelers lots of $$, they will ruin their own reputation quickly & see their market dwindle down. It's self evident. So it's obviously in everyone's interest to see SW & 3DS fix the crystallization problem, & at the Very Least offer all affected clients a complete reimbursement, no matter how long after they bought their products which crystallized. Doing so would avoid damaging client confidence any further. If I was them I'd rush to make the slighted clients happy. Plus if I'm the one who convince SW to do that my clients will really love me. I can't believe no one else thought about that.


Unlike most people my client base doesn't come from SW, they are my own client base I am bringing with me, meaning when I'll be ready to post my detail parts for public sale it's the clients i've already attracted by the advertising work I did elsewhere who will follow me to SW. So basically it is my own hard work of design, marketing & heavily promoting Shapeways on forums other than SW that we are talking about, & my reputation. And the last thing I'd want is to burn it because of a sub-contractor's material quality issue after all the efforts I invested to convince people that SW would be the best option to get the best quality on the market . And right now as long as SW haven't resolved the issue, I'm stuck.


So after having sang the praise of SW to my clients & finding out the hard way that FED parts are being eaten by crystals & no one at SW can give us a guideline on how to clean up & paint these, anyone can understand that if you sell defective parts to lots of clients, you'd destroy your own business. And those who choose to go for quick cash grab while the issue is still unresolved are lying both to themselves & are fooling their clients with a false sense of 'everything is fine' by saying they found all kinds of homebrew methods to clean & paint those parts, forgetting that in fact if they did not get crystallization after using their home made methods it's Not because crystallization suddenly miraculously disappeared on its own but because they were just Lucky that their parts were not from one of the defective batches.


So, that's to answer the few store owners who are paranoid about why i supposedly 'only' have metal designs on 1 of my stores (hint: it's none if your business & it's not my job to explain my company's plans to paranoid people to assuage their fears), but to stop their wild theories, a little explanation here so they'll stop thinking 'someone is out to get them' :


I have yet to see my 3D printer. They are still doing tests to certify them.
It won't have the same resolution as a 3500HD Max. So I still need a 3500HD Max to do the job for almost all my line of small highly detailled parts because they were custom designed specifically for the minimum requirements of SW's FED plastic. The machine I bought is more of a stop gap til SW fixes the problem with FED for Some of my designs. To be honest that machine will serve principally for One specific new part that's too tall for SW to print (well over 5cm). SW doesn't do FED above 5cm in the Z axis. After that i don't know what i'll be able to use it for yet. So there's the answer, & to avoid further people to think just because you just bought a small 3D printer it doesn't mean that you don't need SW services anymore: these machines don't do brass, steel, bronze, silver, nylon, & many parts have features too fine to print with anything else than FED.

And to confirm this: there is a thread started by SW asking people what 3D printer do you use at home ? Lots of SW Designers already have one. Even a SW employee mentioned having one. So please stop the conspiracy theories & jumping to conclusions, you have no idea what people are using 3D printers for nor what applications. I was upset at SW's lack of progress when I wrote that I ordered a printer,. If you are smart you would also have understood it's a way to push them to fix the issue faster. If everyone here would get a high res small printer, they would take notice, trust me. Especially that the prices have gone down to 600$. In about a couple years I might be able to upgrade the machine to a res similar (?) to the 3500HD Max, I hope, when the technology will have progressed sufficiently.

The small handfull of people here who seem to prefer conspiracy theories & attacking those who are pushing to get the issue resolved are absolutely not helping, what we need here are people who push SW & 3DS to Really fix the issue & to Satisfy our clients, not people who try to DIVIDE Designers & weaken our case & rave about conspiracies against their shops. Perhaps if he realized that I don't model anything remotely resembling a warship he would stop seeing things. But if you keep screaming how many sales you make per months with those & how lucrative they are perhaps a Lot of people will wisen up & start selling that kind of subject. You didn't think about that one did you ? Maybe you should have been less boastful. You maybe just split your market into 1/10th if 10 guys here decide to do warship parts. (Boy, I should really have kept my mouth shut... now the paranoia of some might really go into high gear).


People making up pseudo solutions just because they were lucky to not get hit by crystallization can induce clients into thinking that the issue is gone... If some people are doing that on purpose with a goal to cash in some more at the expense of unsuspecting clients then their actions are quite unethical & in many countries that could fall under false advertising or worse.


I would also recommand that people from the general public (modelers) who 'THINK' they found a cleaning or painting technique that works for them without crystallization occuring & thus feel secure & think they can universally recommand it as a technique that would apply to everyone who bought FED & FUD parts should REFRAIN from making such MISLEADING declarations because what may have worked for them just because they were LUCKY NOT to HIT a CONTAMINATED BATCH of FED & FUD may cause a catastrophe for other less lucky modelers who, them, did get a problematic batch...

So STOP once and for all the 'homebrew' painting /cleaning 'advices'. It is totally unscientific, at best badly informed and at worse dishonest and voluntarily misleading to clients & statistically will cause more occurrences of crystallization, AND more clients losing confidence in those people's stores (greed can sink your own ship).

*** So the job i suggest we should now do is to continue to Push both SW & 3DS and Email them about the status of their research and ASK them now about a timetable, as posting on the forum is not enough. If we don't ask them When they will finish this on a specific date, I am afraid we might wait forever. And job number 2: convince SW to go ask an independent manufacturer of uv-curable material to design a new, better plastic for their FED printers. THAT should get 3DS to move faster.

One odd thing though, through my research I was told that one of the plastics 3DS sells for the 3500HD Max is more stable than the one SW uses for FED. It's white, not translucent. It is also stronger than FED. The people I spoke to were using both of these materials in their printer. I mentioned my find here. Why didn't SW introduce it as a replacement (even temporary) to FED ? At least it might reduce the occurrence of crystal blooms.

At 'Model Monkey',

I would rethink what I am saying if I was you. Last I checked YOU were throwing defamatory comments against me on several occasions on this very thread pretending that by asking Shapeways in various ways to fix the problem it was somehow 'harming' 'real stores' who have 'real sales' and a load of similar boastful nonsense as if by my very presence I was going to attract the attention of 'more clients' about this problem and 'scare' them and make 'you' 'lose money'... I think you have an extremely short memory & forgot what I told you before. If you want to threaten me with legal action go ahead buddy, it's a game that two can play and I don't think you want to burn all your hard earned profits to fight a totally frivolous legal dispute. So take a deep breath and imprint this into your memory: this is the Internet buddy, the news of the crystallization is Already out: YOU started that very thread so don't you dare coming again a 2nd time trying to accuse others of what you yourself started: the whole planet can read this post you started over a year ago. So too late to play nonsensical games to try to pretend it's someone else' s fault. If you didn't want more clients to know about this you just had to shut your mouth a year ago instead of starting this thread.


One of your statements:



My assertion yesterday that I initiated the thread which contributed to the opening of a technical investigation is important because it directly addresses and refutes false accusations made by The Old Factory that I personally am part of some nefarious grand conspiracy to hide the problem and to intentionally harm my customers and others. The initiation of this thread confirms to my customers that I recognize that the problem is real and am engaging with Shapeways publicly asking SW to help find a solution on their behalf. I also invited the customers who reported the problem to join the discussion here and some have.



*** Your choice of words, tone and inflammatory comments as well as your totally ludicrous accusations and insinuations of an alleged so called 'nefarious grand conspiracy' are laughable and make me wonder what is going on with you. No one and certainly not me is contesting the fact that you started this thread and that when you started it you were acknowledging that there is a problem and asking SW to fix it as your were reporting sharp loss of sales. What begs for answers is why after you are publicly admitting that there is a problem with the material, why is it that you kerp pushing on various parts of the forum homebrew methods for painting and cleaning FED & FUD plastics since last year, and the last time as recently as yesterday on this very thread, why do you keep pushing those totally unscientific methods when you have just admitted that THERE IS a problem with FED & FUD crystallization ?? And given that you know full well that a percentage of clients will be affected by crystallization if you put enamel on their parts because unless you are totally blind you know full well that some people are affected & others not ! So, unless we are missing something now I have another question for you : Are you a chemist specialized in uv-curable acrylate plastics from 3DS ? Because if you are and know things we don't I will ask you to show us your credential right now. Otherwise you are only posting information which can be misleading for unsuspecting would be clients & you know Nothing about the chemistry of 3DSystems materials. And no one here knows either, only the 3DS specialists know. So you should really refrain from giving out 'technical' advice for which you have no competences. And yes everyone knows here that the crystallization crisis hurts, everyone wants to make money, including me, but your way to go about it really doesn't help right now, and you are trying to insinuate defamatory comments against me doesn't help either.

As you kow, real business harm can come from false accusations (defamation), mis-characterizations and exaggeration. When others begin echoing those false accusations, otherwise strengthen them or imply that the accusations are accurate, I am compelled to respond and refute in order to protect my reputation, my business and my customers. Some posts made since August of last year were taking on that flavor.

***Read below because you have a lot of explaining to do:

Another one of your statements:

Some good news: based on what we know of the crystallization problem so far, it seems that the advice to paint the parts soon after cleaning with mild, water-based detergents is working. I would also like to emphasize again that I have received no customer reports of crystallization since March, 2017.Thanks to efforts by @patmat2350, we now know that enamel paints can work on FUD/FXD parts if they 4 been properly post-cured by the customer.

*** And here you go again: based on the very unscientific tests of one Lucky client of FED & FUD, someone who unless you know better than us is most likely NOT a chemist of 3DSystems, you proudly announce and that's not very responsible) that good news, enamel can be used on FED, FUD. Even though you know that this could lead to More ruined parts for those unlucky buyers who them will hit a problematic batch of FED & FUD, precisely because the crystallization issue is Still unresolved. Now I'm not saying post cure might not work to fully cure a perhaps incompletely cured FEDOR FUD part. Anyone who have read even a little on uv-curable acrylates knows that those require post cure. It's all the other chemical variables, cleaners, paints, unstable batches added to that that we cannot advise people about because, we are not chemists from 3DS.

So any observer here can only conclude 2 things: either you are completely irresponsible & blind, or else you so are afraid to lose more sales that you don't want to wait until SW fixes the problem & give us the Real guideline from 3DS which you could then SAFELY tell your clients to use (& same for all of us) without fear of it scraping their parts. But it looks like because its now taken so long you throw all caution out the window & you act as if the problem was gone & give advice which cannot be backed by any scientific evidence and say it will not cause problems because it 'worked' for so and so... You know it may cause crystallization for a percentage of people.

Prove me otherwise, you have the opportunity to explain here your behaviour. And dont tell me because modeler so and so did it and nothing happened on his parts we are all supposedly safe... We both know this modeler is most likely not a chemist from 3DS either.

And beside what's the big rush about painting the parts ? Clients can wait a few more months until SW & 3DS fix the issue, they are not stupid, they can wait to paint their models. Just tell them that there is an issue with the material, SW is working on it & will no doubt resolve this (if they & 3DS are responsible companies). Et voilà. And your clients will love you even more because you will have avoided them from ending up with scrapped parts by using unscientific painting methods.

This really could go on couldn't it?

Having just read your response to Model Monkey (Old Factory) you've essentially defeated yourself with your own argument:

"based on the very unscientific tests of one Lucky client of FED & FUD, someone who unless you know better than us is most likely NOT a chemist of 3DSystems, you proudly announce and that's not very responsible) that good news, enamel can be used on FED, FUD. Even though you know that this could lead to More ruined parts for those unlucky buyers who them will hit a problematic batch of FED & FUD, precisely because the crystallization issue is Still unresolved. Now I'm not saying post cure might not work to fully cure a perhaps incompletely cured FEDOR FUD part. Anyone who have read even a little on uv-curable acrylates knows that those require post cure. It's all the other chemical variables, cleaners, paints, unstable batches added to that that we cannot advise people about because, we are not chemists from 3DS"

So let's flip that on it's head shall we and say so based on your equally non-scientific evidence of 5 or 6 complaints about crystallization then the entire product is flawed.

The other dude with the tie mentioned about people at his Railroad club having problems with the material.
Then if we're treating this as a scientifically as possible then we need samples to back this claim up. We need dates, names, photographs of the affected products, the date of purchase etc. If these can't be supplied then we're still looking at a 5 or 6 cases out of 10's of thousands aren't we? Now I don't have a science degree but I know if you're looking to prove something you need hell of a lot more evidence than that.

I really don't know what your issue is. Until you can bring something new to the table then you really don't have any kind of hand to play. Come back with hundreds of documented cases with supporting evidence and then there may just be something to your claims.

Until you or anyone else can PROVE that FUD /FXD is unstable which you can't then I suggest you stop trying to fear monger. Once again I reiterate that out of 100's of sales every month I have had NOT ONE single report from a customer of crystallization. Rough surfaces from support wax yes (which I try to minimize), but breakdown of the material not one single one.

I am of course expecting some kind of comeback, which again you or the other dude that used offensive language against the troll no doubt will do. You might surprise me though and actually take on board a more logical argument than your own. That's all we can do here, apply facts and known variables. Which I'm afraid don't stack up too well for your case. Have a think about, if you want to carry on the battle then good luck and best get that evidence together. Oh and I suggest reading up on scientific method to prove a theory, very interesting.

Anyway, it's Sunday night here in New Zealand, I have a life to get back to.

I think my foul mouthed tie and I will try to stay out of the fray.

So in reply to all the above, I'll confirm again, no, I've no interest to start a newco developing novel resins to compete with 3DS or even buy a 3DP to start to compete with SW. That is not where my head is at.

I've great respect for the technical advantage 3DS (and its existing competitors) have in engineering and resin chemistry. And I rather see 3DP being like copy service, where yes, some might have retail grade units at home, but the biggest and baddest boxes that produce the results I seek will be run by service providers.

A man's gots ta know his limitations....

Rather my focus is:

1) Get a crystal clear understanding of WHAT this is.


2A) If the results point to A, then would know to press SW/3DS to assurances they made the needed improvements.


2B) Shift my energy to rationally testing various post FXD/FUD print interventions, with the aim to see if we (again, we - the community of SW clients, both shop owners and end users) can test and find rational ways to neutralize this chemical effect with the aim to extend the shelf life one can get from FXD/FUD based models.

>>Until you or anyone else can PROVE that FUD /FXD is unstable which you can't then I suggest you stop trying to fear monger.

Is FUD/FXD unstable?

In some exposures, absolutely.

Drop a part in MEK. Kiss it goodbye.

Q.E.D.

Not a reasonable expectation, granted. But underscores that stability is an attribute of exposure and is not the same for all applications, and stability is not black or white, but a material characteristic that is placed on a range of inertness.

No material last forever in all applications. Not rock (not even diamonds - despite what DeBeers wants us to believe). Not metal. Not wood. Not glass. Not thermoplastics. And certainly not UV cured resins.

So a "stable/nonstable" semantic discussion is nearly meaningless without understanding the applications and shelf life expectations of the end user. Now perhaps @sozzap23, the buyers of your(absolutely awesome) SW parts are fine building their model, taking a few photos and then chucking it in dumpster. And others use FXD/FUD for getting a rapid prototype or producing an initial pattern for development of molds to cast more durable materials. For these applications, stability without a degradation bloom that may occur after a year on display isn't any issue. But for models with a display duration of 3 years in an environment with some humidity and UV exposure? At this point, with what we are seeing and the little we know about it, if I was a professional modeler and my client was a museum with a long term expectation to display? I simply could not advise they guarantee a FXD/FUD based model will look as good in a few years as it was when delivered. In fact, to be customer focused, I would be sure they were aware that in some cases, some issues have been reported and that the maker of this material still has not been forthcoming about it.

But none of anyone's intent here with us poking SW/3DS for an answers is "fear mongering". Such an accusation is mindless meta. And equally shrill as "Chicken Little" hyperbole demands that 3DS/SW discontinue FXD/FUD immediately.

Anyway, it's Sunday night here in San Diego, and I too have a life to get back to.

Shorter:

Dear Guy without a science degree, suggesting others read about the scientific method.


The truth is there are far more the 5 or 6 instances that have been reported. I've now seen that many personally. And there are that many with photos posted in this thread alone. So I suggest, sozzap23, before you reply, I invite you to spend a sec to review this from the start, skimming for photos.

Clearly, SW agrees this is an issue.
They seem to be taking it seriously.
And they haven't suggest it has been fixed. Or even understood.

So the logical questions is, why do you doubt SW?

- dude with the tie

(who kinda knows the scientific method cold / for ex. see US Patent 6579522)

So thanks to your combined efforts, what started as a suggestions and data gathering thread has now completely devolved into a rant and rage thread with nobody any wiser as to frequency, geographic distribution etc. of "unstable" prints. For all we know, this could be a rogue production partner, or even something that precipitates during shipping (perhaps triggered by elevated temperature or humidity, or perhaps even low ambient pressure if air transport is involved). Many instances in a small geographic region may still be events in the ppm range compared to worldwide production of 3DS acrylic prints, but only shapeways and 3DS are in a position to know this (and I bet there is still enough confusion of the rough "frosted" areas previously in contact with support material with the much delayed "bloom" of whitish materials on cleaned and painted parts.)
I do have the impression that shapeways used to be more forthcoming with information about technical issues in the past, when providing background information, updates on site development and giving general helpful hints in this forum was more the norm than the "email us so we can discuss this privately" now seen from customer service agents.

I've been following this thread for a while now. I've had several orders done in FUD/FXD for model railway parts and have sold a few to other people. I usually tell them what steps I follow for 'post processing' my own prints but also advise them that there are multiple opinions on the subject.

I'm constantly looking for better answers about how best to deal with FUD/FXD. There has been some useful advice on here, so my thanks to those who have contributed.

My own take...

I have a hard time following the Shapeways official (I think) advice 'only use detergents for cleaning'. I followed this to the letter for my first model and used only acrylic paint (Halfords primer and Tamiya top coat). The result was poor paint adhesion. My take on this is that there is some porosity in the surface of FUD and purely manual cleaning
with detergent is not enough to shift residual wax, oil and (possibly) uncured raw materials from the pores.

My cleaning regime now uses detergent in an ultrasound cleaner followed by a good rub-down with Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA) on a cotton bud (Q-Tip for the Americans). A further rub-down with IPA happens before priming if any manual handling has happened after the initial cleaning. I never immerse the model in solvent and I never use anything more aggressive than IPA.

I do wonder whether we can draw any conclusions about prints stored in their original bags for however long before cleaning. In my experience they always have a coating of oil and sometimes wax which would make crystallisation more difficult to see.

So far I have only seen the crystallisation issue once and not on my own model. To the best of my knowledge this model was not stored for long after printing and was painted with acrylic paint soon after it was received. We did not know about the issue at that time so I don't have chapter and verse on exactly what happened and when. The crystals appeared on top of the painted surface several months after painting. The painted model had spent almost all of its time stored away in a padded box. Air exposure would definitely happen but UV exposure should not be a factor for this model.

I now also give my own models a UV soak by waiting for a sunny day and leaving them outside in full sun for a whole day, protecting them from theft by wildlife with a wire mesh cover. So far I have been cautious and stayed with acrylic paint though.

I would like to remove the dependency on the UK weather by using some sort of UV exposure box but as far as I can see there is no advice from Shapeways or 3DS to say that any UV exposure is required, let alone what wavelength of UV would be correct. I assume that sunlight has a broad enough spectrum to cover most possibilities.

Do I think that Shapeways and 3DS could be telling us more? Yes, absolutely.

I shall continue to watch this space and would ask everyone here to please keep things respectful.

Regards, Andy

> The painted model had spent almost all of its time stored away in a padded box. Air exposure would definitely happen but UV exposure should not be a factor for this model.

It is one of the mysteries. However note there are different classes of UV rays (and non UV rays)

UV-C is blocked by ozone.
UV-B is effectively blocked by even thin sheets of glass (hence neither are likely culprits)
But UV-A (400 - 315 nm) is more penetrating, goes through most glass and many clear plastics with ease.

Furthermore, if UV - A is activating an unknown oxidative photodegradation reaction, it may be a multistep process. First, say UV-A may be energizing a catalyst, which eats the matrix as substrate,gated by say O2, and a product of the reaction is a mobile phase in certain environments, that migrates - even through the painted surface - and, later, crystallizes on that surface (perhaps as the result of additional chemistry) to form this iridescent bloom.

Or the lack of suppressive UV might be setting free the beast....turning on an inhibitor that starts breaking down the matrix...and blah blah blah....

The obvious first step towards an answer is to determine exactly what is the final crystal.
And that is something, I'd bet the bank, 3DS has already determined.

Sharing this information is the most basic and minimal embodiment of the disclosure we've been asking SW to release from the start. We (royal) have the ability to determine it ourselves if they don't...and again, if we do not hear from them soon, may do just that.

I doubt that it was exposed to UV. I think it was inside a wooden box or drawer but I can't be 100% sure because we knew nothing of the issue until the crystals appeared on this model.

Whatever the crystals are, they seem able to form after migrating through a layer of primer and a layer of Tamiya acrylic paint.

I shall watch this space and will be very interested to see any definite info, whether from you, Shapeways, 3DS or anyone else.

Regards, Andy

Ive been away from my parts so when I got time to pull them out and took a look. My first print is continuing to degrade, filling up with crystals, while my last print otherwise every thing else has been done in other materials. The last print is also so "chalky" looking from the wax I cant tell if some of that is crystals forming or not.

Anyhow, this was printed on a block for handling as it was meant to be shared and passed around so the finer parts, the legs are protected from breakage, the back side has the motor and details but doesn't photograph the crystals as well.For those trying to figure out what it is, its an industrial floor ventilating, fan for a diorama, about 4 feet diamater in HO. When it was clear inside it appeared nearly transparent in spite of the center 1/3 being solid to support the grill on front and back.

@crashtestdummy Thank you, but not sure I fully follow.

A) What is the age of the top "first" print?
The lower seems to be a second image of this same "first" print. Not a "last" print. do I have that correct?

B) Not clear I see a difference as I thought you previously described - apparently crystal appearnce differing on the side related to orientation to light exposure? Perhaps the part has been moved/handled/ ect so that the difference you previously claim has been muted?

D) Seems to be not painted or otherwise treated. Can you confirm?

In my experience, the crystals that show up on painted surfaces are far easier to see. And even then, it is a challenge to capture in static photos... shows best in video on a dark painted surface.

@crashtestdummy and @andycarlson, thanks for getting this thread back on track!

Yes, I agree with @jjschaible, please tell us more about the fan. @andycarlson, likewise. It would be very helpful to know when it was printed, from where (which factory, or was it produced from a 3rd party SW partner?*), and when you first started noticing the formation of the crystals.

I think knowing printing location is important. For example, some of my customers have reported their products were shipped from Utah and none of those customers have reported crystallization. As far as I know, all the products I personally have in hand were printed in New York. None of the products I have show any crystallization, just the normal frost from waxy support material contact. Some of mine have been cleaned in Dawn (soaked for a few hours) then painted with acrylics shortly after cleaning. Some of my products are still in the bag. None of them are affected.

One customer in New Jersey was affected. I presume, but can't confirm, his product was printed in New York.


*3rd party partners may ship from their printer location so the "shipped from" address on the package can help us know that.

Perhaps the (vast) depth of my ignorance will be exposed here, but is not SW FUD = VisiJet® SR200 Natural?
Unless I'm mistaken, this has been confirmed to me by SW.

So @Rogalskij as far as I know, "VisiJet® Crystal" seems to be a different recipe aka "EX200"

SR200 =/= EX200... at least that seems to be the case is you compare the SDS of each.

http://infocenter.3dsystems.com/mat...asds_ghsenglishvisijet_ex_200_and_crystal.pdf