The system is reported to have a 100 x 100 x 100 mm a 200W laser at 915 nm and be able to make layers between 20-100 um. There’s a HEPA filter, and it’s built on top of Klipper, while the slicers are PrusaSlicer, OrcaSlicer, and their own flavor, ScrapSlicer. The company wants to offer stainless steel, tool steel, copper, nickel alloys, and cobalt-chrome (CoCr). Now I’m intensely skeptical about the copper. Also, you should know that leftover powder can trigger thermite reactions with other powders and cause metal fume fever. I’m thinking that this will be dangerous to do. Furthermore, there is an oxidation risk. Nickel is a 2B carcinogen.
CobaltChrome LPBF Powder is a Presumed Human Carcinogen
But the idea of 3D printing cobalt chrome (CoCr) on a home machine is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. Cobalt Chrome powder is a skin irritant, leads to skin sensitization, causes allergic contact dermatitis, is a carcinogen, and causes respiratory disease. Cobalt chrome powder has been known to cause lung cancer. A study specifically on the “Dermal exposure and surface contamination associated with the use of a cobalt-chrome alloy during additive manufacturing” concluded that,
“These metals were also detected on the skin of AM operators and on surfaces within the AM and non-AM areas of the facility. Dermal exposure occurred on all of the anatomical areas, with the highest total metal concentration detected on the index finger during the post-processing phase of AM. Surface contamination occurred on all AM and non-AM sampling areas after a full shift.”
Cobalt chrome is a presumed human carcinogen, classified as a 1B carcinogen, and is known to be reprotoxic. In case of a fire or explosion, the oxide fumes are carcinogenic.
Since we know that cobalt-chrome in dental restorations and implants releases ions that provoke “cytotoxic, oxidative, and inflammatory responses at both cellular and systemic levels.” So the question arises, why would you use it? If it’s not for dental, then why? And if you are using it for dental, is that a good idea? Why not use stainless steel or another material instead? Usually, this kind of thing would make me completely not write about the firm. This is irresponsible and unnecessary. But one of the founders is Matt Woods, who co-founded Xact Metal. His experience there gives him a unique insight into working with sub-$100,000 systems, a category that Xact pioneered. I really hope that Scrap Labs becomes more safety-conscious. Some of the other safer materials, coupled with a $15,000 printer, should be exciting enough. There’s no need to kill people to flesh out your pitch.
Why is this happening?
With Scrap Labs and Metal Base, the ultra-low cost category of LPBF metal systems now has two entrants. Rather surprisingly, none of them is Chinese. Whereas several Chinese firms are active in the $25,000 to $100K category, the entry-level category now consists of a European and US-based player. To me, this is very exciting. Hardware innovation was becoming a Chinese-only affair; it would be good to see it become more of a global competition.
The cross-fertilization from the desktop market is also notable. Klipper, OrcaSlicer, and a motion stage derived from material extrusion seem to be driving both participants’ efforts. This could mean more people who are used to working with these tools could join the fray. It also makes it more likely that established Material Extrusion firms may consider this someday. The Material Extrusion volume is unlocking opportunities in hardware platforms. Importantly, however, we can see that open-source software packages are driving innovation. Without Klipper and Orca, these teams would need to do lots more work.
An increase in the capabilities of low-cost lasers and new diode laser forms are the real forces behind the throne here. And I’m going on a limb here, guessing the lasers will probably be Chinese. That is the real wave that is pushing this forward, the same wave that previously made it possible for Sinterit, Sintratec, and Formlabs to make accessible polymer LPBF systems.
What is significant here?
These are both companies that seem engineering-driven. Small headcounts and crowdfunding are used to get the printer off the ground. This isn’t a 40X, growthacker, raise 200 million world. Times have changed, and founders have too. Both firms, for now, seem focused on the product and getting it out there. If these systems work and more people will become interested, then improved, value-engineered, more stable future systems from companies like these are likely to drive growth in metal laser powder bed fusion.
But it’s not going to compete with the existing LPBF market; instead, it will enable a whole new market of users to join the additive space and drive up system numbers. It would be very good for existing powder bed firms to look at this. Heck, I’d love it if they developed $100,000 systems. These segments will be where the growth is, where the huge number of businesses that want metal things can be found. This will enable thousands of applications we cannot touch now: fasteners, connectors, inventions, aftermarket car parts, and more. The larger firms will not be interested, but what about the even larger ones?
Imagine you’re Formlabs? I’d get a couple of people to try to make me a bodged-up one to see if we could do it if I were them. Formlabs’ eventual entry into this space would accelerate adoption significantly. Bambu could do this as a side project, too. These firms are much more agile and experimental than the established LPBF firms. I’m sure that we will see more startups like this. This could be a momentous development and one of the most significant things to happen in additive manufacturing.
Subscribe to Our Email Newsletter
Stay up-to-date on all the latest news from the 3D printing industry and receive information and offers from third party vendors.
Upload your 3D Models and get them printed quickly and efficiently.
