# Capabilities and Limitations of Using Desktop 3-D Printers in the Laser Sintering Process
## 4 Conclusions  
The conducted study revealed the variability of obtained material properties with regards to the machine's configuration (its commercially available set--hardware, software and raw material).  
1. Every tested powder is suitable for an LS process in terms of its morphology and flowability. A higher number of small particles in the case of PA12 Smooth can act in favour of surface quality, however the dynamic flowability is significantly decreased which can reduce productivity of powder application.
2. The thermal properties of every tested powder are similar. PA2200 provides the longest sintering window, which is in favour for uneven temperature distribution in the build chamber.
3. The differences in mechanical properties discovered in this study between desktop and industrial machines were bigger than between the output of industrial machines which were reported in previous works, for example by [PERSON] et al. [29].  
Figure 11: Porosity analysis: (**a**) dependency of sphericity and pore diameter related to the different building strategy, (**b**) XY, (**c**) XZ, (**d**) ZX.  
Figure 12: 3D pores visualisation: (**a**) PA2000 ZX (Formiga P110), (**b**) PA12 Smooth ZX (Lisa), (**c**) PA12 Black ZX (S1).  
* Despite using a darkened powder which supports the absorption of laser radiation, desktop LS systems did not produce samples with mechanical properties as good as industrial LS. The most noticeable differences are in the case of an elongation at break, where industrial LS shows much higher results.
* The highest accuracy and repeatability was presented by an industrial LS system, which was provided along with good mechanical properties. The low porosity observed in the case of PA12 Smooth was archived by the overheating by laser radiation which is clearly visible in the high surface deviation of the benchmark sample.  
The conducted comparative study shows that the outcome of desktop and industrial LS machines may vary, despite the fact that it should be considered that LS desktop systems are constantly developed and that the changes in software can even improve the obtained production results.  
In the future, it is planned to take into account the issue of the process parameter optimization. The topic discussed in this article focuses on the first iteration of commercially available desktop LS devices. At the time of publishing this article, the next generation of these devices has been announced and should be included in future papers.  
Conceptualization: M.O. and P.G.; methodology: M.O., P.G., and G.Z.; software: P.G., and G.Z.; validation: M.O., P.G., and G.Z.; resources and data curation: M.O., P.G., and G.Z.; writing--original draft preparation: [PERSON], P.G., and G.Z.; writing--review and editing: [PERSON], P.G., and G.Z.; visualization: P.G., and G.Z.; supervision: [PERSON]; project administration: [PERSON]; funding acquisition: [PERSON] and P.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.  
This work was supported by the National Centre for Research and Development in Poland (Grant No. LIDER/23/0098/L-9/17/NCB/2018).  
The authors declare no conflict of interest.