Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 36 references

Automatic exposure volumetric additive manufacturing

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Tomographic volumetric 3D printing that sets its own exposure from light scattering matches commercial resin printers on accuracy and repeatability.

desk verdict Solid engineering with real repeatability data; the geometry-independence claim is asserted rather than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09332 v1 pith:RSJU546N submitted 2025-01-16 physics.optics physics.app-ph

Antony Orth , Yujie Zhang , Katherine Houlahan , Daniel Webber , Hao Li , Nicolas Milliken , Joshua Latimer , Derek Aranguren van Egmond
show 3 more authors
Bosco Yu Jonathan Boisvert Chantal Paquet
This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.app-ph
keywords automatedexposurevolumetricadditivemanufacturingtomographic3Dprintinglightscatteringfeedbackphotopolymerizationresinreuseprintrepeatabilitythreshold
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Tomographic volumetric additive manufacturing (VAM) exposes the entire resin volume at once, so exposure time is the make-or-break setting: too long cures out-of-part voxels, too short leaves features missing. The correct time is not fixed; it drops by nearly 40% as resin is reused because previously exposed monomer cures faster, and today operators judge the endpoint by eye. This paper claims that a single scalar—the total camera-visible scattering from the polymerizing resin divided by the volume of the object being printed—reaches a reproducible value at the correct stopping point, regardless of part geometry, position, orientation, or resin history. The authors implement this as automatic exposure, calibrate one threshold, and report 25 identical benchmark prints with 0.100 mm average surface error and 0.053 mm inter-print variation, with first-try success across solid, lattice, and microfluidic geometries. If correct, this removes the main human-skill barrier to VAM and makes resin reuse and multi-part assembly practical.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is the scattering density, defined in Eq. 1 as rho(t) = (sum over camera pixels of the side-scatter image at time t minus the background at t=0)/V, where V is the volume of the desired object. It collapses the 2D scattering image into a scalar reaction-state variable measured in camera gray levels per voxel. Because cured polymer has a higher refractive index than liquid monomer, the scattering signal rises as the reaction proceeds (critical opalescence), and the paper hypothesizes that rho(t) is invariant to the part's geometry, position, orientation, and volume under uniform illumination. A calibration disk with spoke and gap features of varying width fixes the usable threshold range, and the paper uses rho_T = 0.35 gl/voxel for all subsequent prints; a computer stops the 405 nm projector the moment the live signal crosses the threshold.

What would settle it

Print a solid cube and a fine lattice with the same volume in the same resin, stopping each at the calibrated threshold rho_T = 0.35 gl/voxel, then section both and measure monomer conversion or cured wall thickness: if the threshold marks the same reaction state, the conversion should match; if scattering per unit volume depends on feature size or surface-to-volume ratio, the lattice will stop undercured or the cube overcured.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Tomographic VAM prints by projecting a rotating sequence of images into a vial of photocurable resin so the total dose outlines the part, but the nonzero background dose makes exposure a knife-edge. The paper's discovery is that the curing reaction can be watched in real time through an overhead red LED and camera: as polymer chains form, light scattering grows, and the summed camera signal divided by the desired part volume defines a 'scattering density' rho(t) with units of gray levels per voxel. The central claim is that stopping the UV projector at a fixed threshold rho_T = 0.35 gl/voxel terminates every print at the same reaction state, making the endpoint independent of geometry, location, orientation, and resin history. The evidence is 25 3DBenchy prints (0.100 mm mean RMS surface error, 0.053 mm inter-print RMS) spanning fresh to 4x-reused resin whose print times varied from 56.8 s to 39.8 s, plus untouched first-try prints of bunny, gyroid, cubic lattice, pentamode lattice, and microfluidic channel geometries. The paper argues this makes VAM accurate enough that separately printed nuts, screws, and gear assemblies mate with roughly 50 micrometer tolerances.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the scattering signal per unit object volume reaches the same value at the same reaction state no matter what shape is printed, where it sits in the vial, or how many times the resin has been reused; the paper puts this forward as a hypothesis and supports it with successful first-try prints rather than with a derivation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • First-time prints of new geometries need no manual exposure adjustment; all prints in the geometry-demonstration figure were made on the first attempt with reused resin.
  • Reused resin can be used until the vial is nearly empty; the roughly 39% variation in print time across resin generations is automatically absorbed, eliminating the need to discard partially exposed resin.
  • Multiple mating parts can be fabricated in separate runs and assembled: a printed nut threads onto a printed screw, and gear sets mesh with about 50 micrometer design tolerance.
  • AE-VAM achieves accuracy close to commercial SLA/DLP printers (0.100 mm versus 0.081 to 0.094 mm RMS surface error) while resolving small negative features such as blind holes and underside text that those printers fill in.
  • A fixed exposure time is not a viable alternative for VAM because resin pre-exposure changes curing speed; the scattering feedback loop is necessary to keep prints repeatable.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the scattering-density threshold truly marks a fixed reaction state, the same calibrated rho_T should transfer across resin formulations and photoinitiator concentrations once recalibrated; the paper tests one DUDMA/PEGDA formulation in detail, citing prior work with similar acrylates.
  • The volume normalization by V of the desired object could make the threshold sensitive to how the input model is voxelized, especially for sparse or hollow parts where the scattering volume may not scale perfectly with the design volume.
  • Because the method reads only total scattered light, it cannot distinguish curing at the intended part boundary from background gelation; a testable extension would compare threshold-stopped prints with real-time tomographic reconstructions to see whether the endpoint corresponds to the same local degree of cure at the part surface.
  • A radiation-transfer argument could strengthen the geometry-independence claim: if scattering is single-scattering and proportional to reacted mass, then rho(t) measures total reacted volume, and threshold invariance would follow from a fixed conversion fraction, which could be checked by measuring monomer conversion at the stopping point.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents an automatic exposure (AE) system for tomographic volumetric additive manufacturing (VAM). The method monitors the total scattered light from the build volume in real time, subtracts the initial background, and divides by the volume of the desired object to define a scattering density rho(t). A fixed threshold rho_T=0.35 gl/voxel, calibrated on a disk with spokes and gaps, is used to terminate UV exposure automatically. The authors report average reference-to-print RMS surface error of 0.100 mm and inter-print RMS variation of 0.053 mm over 25 3DBenchy prints, comparison with commercial SLA/DLP printers, successful first-time prints of a bunny, lattices, and microfluidic channels, resin reuse across five generations, and multi-part assemblies with approximately 50 micrometer tolerance.

Significance. If the method is robust, it directly addresses a major practical barrier to VAM adoption: the need for manual exposure timing. The paper provides a substantial quantitative dataset (N=25 prints, CT metrology, commercial-printer baselines) and introduces a simple, computationally lightweight feedback signal that could be widely adopted. The core idea is elegant and the empirical evidence is strong. The main risk is that the central 'geometry independence' claim is asserted rather than derived; if the threshold does not transfer to arbitrary geometries, the generality of the method is reduced, though the breadth of demonstrated geometries partially mitigates this concern.

major comments (2)
  1. [Calibration, Eq. (1)] The claim that rho(t) is independent of the orientation, location, geometry, and volume of the polymerizing object is not supported by the definition in Eq. (1). The numerator sums scattered light from the entire build volume, including resin outside the intended object that receives the 60% background dose; the denominator is the target object volume. If the background resin scatters appreciably, the contribution scales with the difference between the vial volume and the object volume, so rho(t) necessarily depends on object volume and on the surface-to-volume ratio of the part. The paper provides no measurement of the background scattering contribution or a derivation of the conditions under which it is negligible. This is load-bearing because the calibrated threshold is transferred across geometries with very different volumes and feature sizes (Fig. 5). The flagpole holder failures (Table S1, present in only 19/25 prints) are at least consistent with a geometry-dependent under-cure. Please provide either a direct test of the geometry-independence hypothesis (e.g., objects of substantially different volumes or surface-to-volume ratios in identical vials) or a quantitative characterization of the out-of-part scattering signal, and discuss the flagpole failures in that context.
  2. [Calibration, Fig. 2b] The selected threshold rho_T = 0.35 gl/voxel lies at the upper boundary of the acceptable range (FOM > 2 for 0.15 <= rho_T <= 0.35). The paper does not report the FOM values or their standard deviations for each rho_T, despite N=4 replicates. If the FOM is flat across the acceptable range, the choice of 0.35 is not distinguished from 0.25, and the sensitivity of the headline accuracy and repeatability metrics to the threshold should be assessed. If the FOM declines steeply just above 0.35, the method operates near an overexposure cliff and may be sensitive to batch-to-batch variations in resin reactivity or projector intensity. Please report the per-replicate FOM data and discuss the robustness of the threshold choice.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table S2 and Fig. 4a] The reported Form 4 print time per 3DBenchy is 492 s, but the text states that five 3DBenchy models were printed in one run with a 51 min print time, which would correspond to about 612 s per model. Please reconcile these numbers or clarify the basis of the per-part time in Table S2.
  2. [Fig. 1a caption] The caption states 'a projector projects a sequence of images through a rotating vial of photocurable vial'; the second 'vial' should be 'resin'.
  3. [Discussion, tolerance paragraph] The sentence 'the voxelization and linear interpolation of the 3D model onto the voxel grid results in modified voxelized representations of the model' is awkward and could be clarified, since the point about sub-voxel tolerance control is otherwise clear.
  4. [Results, 3DBenchy features] The statement that AE-VAM is the first demonstration of a VAM-printed 3DBenchy containing 'all resolvable features' should be defined precisely, because Table S1 shows the flagpole holder is clear in only 19/25 prints. Please clarify whether 'all resolvable features' means present in at least one print, present in the majority, or present in all prints.
  5. [Fig. 2b] Consider adding error bars or a statement explaining why the FOM is plotted without uncertainty, so that the acceptable range and the choice of rho_T = 0.35 can be evaluated statistically.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the auto-exposure threshold is empirically calibrated and all headline accuracy/repeatability metrics are measured against external references.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. Equation (1) defines the scattering density rho(t) as total camera signal divided by the desired object volume, and the paper explicitly frames the geometry-independence of rho(t) as a hypothesis, not as a consequence of the definition. The threshold tau = 0.35 gl/voxel is empirically selected from a calibration disk using the FOM in Eq. (2), and it is then applied to different resin batches and to geometries that were not used in calibration. The headline accuracy and repeatability numbers are measured by micro x-ray CT against the external 3DBenchy reference model and against commercial printers, not computed from the fitted threshold. The self-citations provide background hardware, projection-correction, and resin-scattering context, but the load-bearing exposure endpoint and its validation are demonstrated with in-paper data. The main scientific risk is that the assumed geometry-transfer of the threshold is an extrapolation rather than a derived result; that is a correctness concern, not a circularity, because the successful first-time prints in Fig. 5 are an external test of the assumption, not a restatement of the calibration input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim relies on a small number of empirical choices: the calibrated threshold, a fixed background dose, and the unproven geometry-independence of the scattering density. No new physical entities are introduced; rho(t) is a defined observable. The threshold and background dose are honest free parameters because they are chosen by hand or by calibration and are not derived.

free parameters (2)
  • Exposure threshold rho_T = 0.35 gl/voxel
    Chosen from calibration prints (Fig. 2) as the highest threshold in the acceptable FOM>2 range; it is camera-, resin-, and optics-specific and is not derived from first principles.
  • Background dose fraction = 60% of object dose
    Fixed for all prints; affects dose contrast and enables pseudo-negative projected dose, chosen from prior practice rather than optimized in this paper.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Scattered light intensity increases monotonically with the extent of polymerization and can be used as a reaction-state variable.
    Invoked in the Experimental section through critical opalescence [26]; no quantitative model links rho(t) to conversion fraction.
  • domain assumption The quantity rho(t)=S(t)/V is independent of object geometry, orientation, location, and volume.
    Central hypothesis in Eq. (1); asserted without derivation and only indirectly validated by successful prints across geometries.
  • ad hoc to paper A single threshold calibrated on one disk in one resin batch transfers to other resin batches and to resin generations with different pre-exposure.
    Calibration used batch 1 resin; 3DBenchys and Fig. 5 and 6 prints used separate batches, yet a single rho_T=0.35 is used throughout.
  • domain assumption The red LED illumination is sufficiently uniform that background subtraction and volume normalization hold across the vat.
    The text notes the LED is 'approximately collimated' and illumination 'approximately uniform'; vignetting is not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Automatic exposure volumetric additive manufacturing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RSJU546N

@misc{pith2026250109332,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Automatic exposure volumetric additive manufacturing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RSJU546N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09332}
}
read the original abstract

Tomographic volumetric additive manufacturing (VAM) achieves high print speed and design freedom by continuous volumetric light patterning. This differs from traditional vat photopolymerization techniques that use brief sequential (2D) plane- or (1D) point-localized exposures. The drawback to volumetric light patterning is the small exposure window. Overexposure quickly leads to cured out-of-part voxels due to the nonzero background dose arising from light projection through the build volume. For tomographic VAM, correct exposure time is critical to achieving high repeatability, however, we find that correct exposure time varies by nearly 40% depending on resin history. Currently, tomographic VAM exposure is timed based on subjective human determination of print completion, which is tedious and yields poor repeatability. Here, we implement a robust auto exposure routine for tomographic VAM using real-time processing of light scattering data, yielding accurate and repeatable prints without human intervention. The resulting print fidelity and repeatability approaches, and in some cases, exceeds that of commercial resin 3D printers. We show that auto exposure VAM generalizes well to a wide variety of print geometries with small positive and negative features. The repeatability and accuracy of auto exposure VAM allows for building multi-part objects, fulfilling a major requirement of additive manufacturing technologies.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09332 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. a) Schematic of the VAM printer. A projecto [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a) Rasterized image of the calibration dis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Comparison of 3DBenchy models printed with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: a) 3DBenchy print time as a function of re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: A variety of auto exposure VAM-printed obj [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a) Cap screw and nut printed with auto exp [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [8]

    A. Orth, K. L. Sampson, Y. Zhang, K. Ting, D. A . van Egmond, K. Laqua, T. Lacelle, D. Webber, D. Fatehi, J. Boisvert, C. Paquet, Additive Manufacturing 2022 , 56 , 102869

    work page 2022

  2. [31]

    A. Orth, D. Webber, K. L. Sampson, Y. Zhang, X . Liu, T. Lacelle, J. Boisvert, C. Paquet, in Emerging Digital Micromirror Device Based Systems and Applications XVI , SPIE, 2024 , p. PC1290003

    work page 2024

  3. [1]

    Loterie, P

    D. Loterie, P. Delrot, C. Moser, Nature Communications 2020 , 11 , 852

    work page 2020

  4. [2]

    B. E. Kelly, I. Bhattacharya, H. Heidari, M. Sh usteff, C. M. Spadaccini, H. K. Taylor, Science 2019 , 363 , 1075

    work page 2019

  5. [3]

    K. L. Sampson, B. Deore, A. Go, M. A. Nayak, A. Orth, M. Gallerneault, P. R. L. Malenfant, C. Paquet, ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. 2021 , 3, 4304

    work page 2021

  6. [4]

    J. R. Tumbleston, D. Shirvanyants, N. Ermoshkin , R. Janusziewicz, A. R. Johnson, D. Kelly, K. Chen, R. Pinschmidt, J. P. Rolland, A. Ermoshkin, Science 2015 , 347 , 1349

    work page 2015

  7. [5]

    D. A. Walker, J. L. Hedrick, C. A. Mirkin, Science 2019 , 366 , 360

    work page 2019

  8. [6]

    Webber, Y

    D. Webber, Y. Zhang, K. L. Sampson, M. Picard, T. Lacelle, C. Paquet, J. Boisvert, A. Orth, Optica, OPTICA 2024 , 11 , 665

    work page 2024

Show all 36 references
  1. [7]

    Bhattacharya, J

    I. Bhattacharya, J. Toombs, H. Taylor, Additive Manufacturing 2021 , 47 , 102299

    2021

  2. [9]

    A. Orth, D. Webber, Y. Zhang, K. L. Sampson, H. W. de Haan, T. Lacelle, R. Lam, D. Solis, S. Dayanandan, T. Waddell, T. Lewis, H. K. Taylor, J. Boisvert, C. Paquet, Nat Commun 2023 , 14 , 4412

    2023

  3. [10]

    Nicolet, F

    B. Nicolet, F. Wechsler, J. Madrid-Wolff, C. M oser, W. Jakob, ACM Trans. Graph. 2024 , 43 , 228:1

    2024

  4. [11]

    C. M. Rackson, K. M. Champley, J. T. Toombs, E . J. Fong, V. Bansal, H. K. Taylor, M. Shusteff, R. R. McLeod, Additive Manufacturing 2021 , 48 , 102367

    2021

  5. [12]

    B. Wang, E. Engay, P. R. Stubbe, S. Z. Moghadd am, E. Thormann, K. Almdal, A. Islam, Y. Yang, Nat Commun 2022 , 13 , 367

    2022

  6. [13]

    Webber, A

    D. Webber, A. Orth, V. Vidyapin, Y. Zhang, M. Picard, D. Liu, K. L. Sampson, T. Lacelle, C. Paquet, J. Boisvert, Additive Manufacturing 2024 , 94 , 104480

    2024

  7. [14]

    Kollep, G

    M. Kollep, G. Konstantinou, J. Madrid-Wolff, A . Boniface, L. Hagelüken, P. V. W. Sasikumar, G. Blugan, P. Delrot, D. Loterie, J. Brugger, C. Moser, Advanced Engineering Materials 2022 , 24 , 2101345

    2022

  8. [15]

    P. N. Bernal, P. Delrot, D. Loterie, Y. Li, J. Malda, C. Moser, R. Levato, Advanced materials 2019 , 31 , 1904209

    2019

  9. [16]

    Barbera, J

    L. Barbera, J. Madrid-Wolff, R. Emma, K. Masan ia, A. Boniface, D. Loterie, P. Delrot, C. Moser, A. R. Studart, Advanced Materials Technologies 2024 , 9, 2202117

    2024

  10. [17]

    P. N. Bernal, M. Bouwmeester, J. Madrid-Wolff, M. Falandt, S. Florczak, N. G. Rodriguez, Y. Li, G. Größbacher, R.-A. Samsom, M. van Wolferen, L. J. W. van der Laan, P. Delrot, D. Loterie, J. Malda, C. Moser, B. Spee, R. Levato, Advanced Materials 2022 , 34 , 2110054

    2022

  11. [18]

    Madrid-Wolff, A

    J. Madrid-Wolff, A. Boniface, D. Loterie, P. D elrot, C. Moser, Advanced Science 2022 , 9, 2105144

    2022

  12. [19]

    C. C. Cook, E. J. Fong, J. J. Schwartz, D. H. Porcincula, A. C. Kaczmarek, J. S. Oakdale, B. D. Moran, K. M. Champley, C. M. Rackson, A. Muralidharan, R. R. McLeod, M. Shusteff, Advanced Materials 2020 , 32 , 2003376

    2020

  13. [20]

    J. T. Toombs, M. Luitz, C. C. Cook, S. Jenne, C. C. Li, B. E. Rapp, F. Kotz-Helmer, H. K. Taylor, Science 2022 , 376 , 308

    2022

  14. [21]

    S. Peng, G. Chen, X. Luo, X. Zhang, D. Li, Y. Xu, C. Sun, E. Shang, X. Wang, Y. Liu, Additive Manufacturing 2024 , 95 , 104536

    2024

  15. [22]

    Thijssen, A

    Q. Thijssen, A. J. Ortega, R. P. Vieira, S. Va n Vlierberghe, Reactive and Functional Polymers 2024 , 205 , 106096

    2024

  16. [23]

    A. Orth, K. L. Sampson, K. Ting, K. Ting, J. B oisvert, C. Paquet, Opt. Express, OE 2021 , 29 , 11037

    2021

  17. [24]

    Chung Li, J

    C. Chung Li, J. Toombs, H. Taylor, in Symposium on Computational Fabrication , Association For Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2020 , pp. 1–7

    2020

  18. [25]

    #3DBenchy,

    “#3DBenchy,” can be found under https://www.3d benchy.com/, n.d

  19. [26]

    Pekcan, D

    Ö. Pekcan, D. Kaya, O. Okay, European Polymer Journal 1999 , 35 , 2025

    1999

  20. [27]

    Cignoni, M

    P. Cignoni, M. Callieri, M. Corsini, M. Dellep iane, F. Ganovelli, G. Ranzuglia, Eurographics Italian Chapter Conference 2008 , 8 pages

    2008

  21. [28]

    Form 3 Dimensional Accuracy Report,

    “Form 3 Dimensional Accuracy Report,” can be f ound under https://3d.formlabs.com/form-3- dimensional-accuracy-report/, n.d

  22. [29]

    Schittny, T

    R. Schittny, T. Bückmann, M. Kadic, M. Wegener , Applied Physics Letters 2013 , 103 , 231905

    2013

  23. [30]

    Zhang, M

    Y. Zhang, M. Li, T.-M. Tseng, U. Schlichtmann, Commun Eng 2024 , 3, 1

    2024

  24. [32]

    Trimesh,

    M. Dawson-Haggerty, “Trimesh,” can be found un der https://github.com/mikedh/trimesh, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    van der Walt, J

    S. van der Walt, J. L. Schönberger, J. Nunez-I glesias, F. Boulogne, J. D. Warner, N. Yager, E. Gouillart, T. Yu, PeerJ 2014 , 2, e453. Supplementary Information Fig. S1. a) Optical scattering photograph of a calibration disk approximately 2 minutes after exposure is terminate...

    2014

  26. [34]

    FFG ) -0.013 0.053 ( ±F

    AE-VAM 3DBenchy print details Mean reference-to- print RMS (±std ) [mm] Mean reference-to- print deviation [mm] Mean inter-print RMS (±std ) [mm] Mean print time (±std ) [s] Generation 1 resin (fresh) 0.111 ( ±0.004 ) -0.028 0.045 ( ±0.011 ) 56.8 ( ± 0.4 ) Generation 2 resin 0...

  27. [35]

    Partially filled, distorted on some prints

    3DBenchy print summary Form 2 Form 4 Asiga PRO4K AE-VAM (G2) Slicing thickness [μm] 100 25 50 67 Reference-to-print RMS (±std ) [mm] 0.081 (±0.004 ) 0.094 (±0.002 ) 0.085 ( ±0.004 ) 0.099 ( ±0.008 ) Inter-print RMS (±std ) [mm] 0.042 (±0.008 ) 0.062 ( ±0.022 ) 0.036 ( ±0.008 )...

  28. [36]

    Mean measured thickness and diameter of all G1 (N=12) and G2 (N=11) dimensional test disks printed with AE-VAM

    Dimensional test disks Vertical Position [mm] Mean thickness error [mm] Thickness std [mm] Mean diameter error [mm] Diameter std [mm] +6.2 -0.06 0.04 -0.01 0.02 0 -0.16 0.01 -0.01 0.04 -6.2 -0.02 0.03 -0.04 0.06 All -0.08 0.07 -0.02 0.05 Table S3. Mean measured thickness and d...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.