Originally published at: http://boingboing.net/2017/07/27/uv-curing-adhesives.html
…
When I first saw Bondic I loved the idea. I ordered two kits and they just didn’t work as well as advertised. I used the provided UV LED, alternative UV lights and used it on multiple kinds of plastic and tried all sorts of applications and it just never worked as well as it was supposed too. That’s my experience.
I like the idea, but it is more expensive than gap filling cyanoacrylate. I still have one tube left, perhaps it’s time to try again, but until the cost for the compound decreases and I find that it works, then I am not likely to back a Kickstarter for a 3d printer that uses Bondic. The smell wasn’t the best either.
Ok. This is a cool tool, and I’m glad someone invented it.
And I’m really, really glad Cory put “3D printer” in quotes. Because what, exactly, does this do that a glue gun doesn’t, except use UV-cured thermoset resins instead of hot-melt thermoplastic adhesives?
Seriously, not everything is a 3D printer. A pen that melts plastic? Awesome, but again, and for the same reasons, not a 3D printer. CNC milling equipment? Not an “inverse 3D printer.”
I’m willing to grant about as far as the syringe and extrusion based systems b/c doing those with 3D printing-level control makes them truly different than what came before, and because otherwise we lose the whole concept of bioprinting, which I think is actually worth having as a mental category.
There’s enough confusion and disagreement in the industry already over the meanings of names for different processes (Is there a difference between laser sintering and laser melting? Is 3D printing different from additive manufacturing? Is FDM generic like Kleenex or should it only refer to Stratasys?), let’s at least try not to make it worse.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
