Whats special about the goal of 'reprap' vs existing capabilities/realities like CNC milling machines

And I have enjoyed this debate, thank you for asking the question.

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

I dont know how I can make this any more clear.

I have no problem with the reprap cause. I have no problem with the reprap direction or what the community is trying to do. I have no lost faith in the future direction of reprap. I actually like the reprap project, makerbot, ultimaker, etc a lot.

I am here only stating the fact that its not special from the technology perspective or even what its trying to do, and that is certainly is not novel. Thats it. Its the same reason good parents yell at their kids and tell it like it is when they do something bad, even though they love them, because its settinig things straight. Its a completely different concept.

richrap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TTYlater - you have some opinions now, do you feel
> happier about RepRap's hype and reputation?
>
> I personally want media hype, speculation and some
> fantasy about where this technology is heading,
> it's all good and helps the overall cause.
> I have yet to meet a reprapper that was not happy
> about going down the route regardless of what made
> them take the first step. most people seem to
> state the biggest issue with RepRap is that it's
> too addictive and captivating.
>
> You have obviously looked as the plain state today
> and said what's the big deal. Fair enough but when
> the very first computers came out, they were
> rubbish and expensive, look at where we are now.
>
> I can't wait to see what the future holds, and
> it's going to be RepRap shaped, in more ways than
> one.
>
> Rich.

Dude, you don't need to do anything else, we get your point, we got it from the start, but in exactly the same way that Apple fanatic's are not going to tell you the iPhone is nothing special and not worth £600 because it's just a phone and loads of other people make phones, we are not going to tell you - 'yea now that you mention it, it's just another 3D printer' - IT'S NOT - It's just like an iPhone, phenomenal in the hands of people that care.

And I still disagree with your last statement, it is special from a technology perspective, if only for the fact it's accessible at minimal cost, no other 3D printer can get as low cost and flexible as RepRap, especially when compared to the quality it can deliver.

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

No, you are not acting like you understand my perspective. Look at your own reply. It begins with defending the cause of open source FDM printing (defending only to yourself I might add since you are preaching to the converted anyway as far as open source FDM printing is concerned).

Then you write this:

> You have obviously looked as the plain state today
> and said what's the big deal. Fair enough but when
> the very first computers came out, they were
> rubbish and expensive, look at where we are now.

Where am I saying FDM printing technology or other similar 3D printing technologies based on additive fabrication, has no future? I have not stated anyting like this. I have only been saying (1) open source FDM is not special, (2) machine tools fabricating machine tools is not novel, and (3) current FDM machines cant hold tolerances and work materials neccesary for most engineering applications.

However, your reply seems to imply I think FDM is going down the drain and eventually to the shytters with no future. This is why you are saying I am only looking at the state today. The important point to state here is, I never stated opinion as to the prospects of 3D printing technology in general, nor the open source reprap project.

So you are confused still hence my reply. So obviously you didnt get my perspective. So your recent comment:

>Dude, you don't need to do anything else, we get
> your point, we got it from the start,

obviously isnt quite true. You didnt get it yet. I hope you do now though. Again, I have no problem with reprap or 3D printing. More importantly, I did not make any comment about the prospects and future of this technology for the future.

richrap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Dude, you don't need to do anything else, we get
> your point, we got it from the start, but in
> exactly the same way that Apple fanatic's are not
> going to tell you the iPhone is nothing special
> and not worth £600 because it's just a phone and
> loads of other people make phones, we are not
> going to tell you - 'yea now that you mention it,
> it's just another 3D printer' - IT'S NOT - It's
> just like an iPhone, phenomenal in the hands of
> people that care.
>
> And I still disagree with your last statement, it
> is special from a technology perspective, if only
> for the fact it's accessible at minimal cost, no
> other 3D printer can get as low cost and flexible
> as RepRap, especially when compared to the quality
> it can deliver.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2011 06:18PM by TTYlater.

To say old tools make new tools is not self replication. Hammers can't make hammers. Lathes can't make lathes. Yes CNC routers can self replicate a similar percentage as a reprap but where are the tens of thousands of people making self replicating CNC routers?

Routers are noisy and dirty and belong in a workshop. They need significant set up to make complex items. In contrast you can put a reprap on a desk next to your PC and it is no more noisy than a 2D printer and it needs next to no set up per job. This makes it far appealing to a much larger audience, which is why there are tens of thousands people building them and it is creating a revolution.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

Well, Maybe you don't get my perspective - I'm sat here very happy at the level of hype and drama RepRap has finally reached, I have no wish to dampen that, (only perpetuate them) I have no desire to set any records straight as you seem intent on doing, the world operates on these levels, when you achieve them in business or better still with an open source movement why attempt to wave your finger at one aspect and say that's not completely correct. It's tedious and pointless unless you can state a reason for the issue.

I don't believe you think FFF/FDM is going down the drain, I'm not sure what gave you that impression, it's obvious you also like this project and the movement, what I don't get is the real point of your question? Do you believe people are being deceived and this is causing them pain and suffering and that bad things come from the hype and reputation or stating this technology is 'unique' or 'novel' or do you just think that may happen because you personally think it's not correct? what harm is it doing?

Again, really enjoying this debate, just please state the point of your desire to get to the bottom of the 'novel' aspect of the claim.

I must rush, my printer has just finished another awesome 'novel' print that may just change the world! but then again I don't want to get carried away.

It's time to sleep in my part of the world.

Cheers,

Rich.

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

Obviously that was a conceptual statement, and I even more specifically point to CNC mills/lathes as the example. The importance tends to be the need for computer numerical control of your tool in order to do this properly. But then again, I can imagine a caveman making an axe (composed of say wood, a chiselled rock and some roots to tie the rock to the wood) to make another axe, by using the axe to chop off wood, and using a rock to chisel a new rock to sharpen it. Nowadays of course we look for more precision. CNC is the only way to go, whether it is with an FDM print head or a rotary cutter, or a plasma cutter or what have you.

Routers need not be noisy and dirty. You can have systems retrofitted where the chips formed by cutting action can either be washed away or vacuumed away. It doesnt make the workspace outside of the machine itself any more dirty than a makerbot would. Most modern and high quality CNC machining centers have full enclosures. Your workspace can be very clean and quiet. In fact many design studios of large companies have CNC milling machines in or near design studios, often next to some 3D printer also.

Also, not all CNC milling machines need to be big and heavy. There are many small commercial milling machines that have been in the industry since the 1980s and before that that can literally fit on your desktop and take nearly as much space as a Mendel. There are also open source CNC milling machines just like reprap and makerbot also. Again, that crowd is not as organized nor have as much hype as reprap and certainly Makerbot has.

nophead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To say old tools make new tools is not self
> replication. Hammers can't make hammers. Lathes
> can't make lathes. Yes CNC routers can self
> replicate a similar percentage as a reprap but
> where are the tens of thousands of people making
> self replicating CNC routers?
>
> Routers are noisy and dirty and belong in a
> workshop. They need significant set up to make
> complex items. In contrast you can put a reprap on
> a desk next to your PC and it is no more noisy
> than a 2D printer and it needs next to no set up
> per job. This makes it far appealing to a much
> larger audience, which is why there are tens of
> thousands people building them and it is creating
> a revolution.

There is a difference between saying a maybe unpopular message to a community because one is simply telling it like it is instead of twisting the facts or borderline lying, and being against a certain concept or idea or community.

You are making it sound like you think this because of the nature of your reply. When I never even attempted to envision or make any sort of comment regarding the future of FDM, 3D printing, or reprap, and then you come in here and say I am being closed off by only looking in the present and not looking forward to the future, you are implying that I cant forsee the future of FDM, 3D printing and or reprap. Yet, all I have been saying is Reprap is not special and novel. Thats it. I never said a single thing about its future prospects or its capabilities as whole. Yet you and other come here and start defending FDM and reprap and put down CNC milling by comparing capabilities when I didnt put that on the table. You did. Essentially, you are putting words in my mouth when I didnt even have that perspective. It means you still didnt understand my position.

You see, its like if you were lining up at the cashier and the stranger (who is also a customer at the shop) randomly says out loud to you so that the cashier can also hear, "well you really shouldnt steal anything from this shop you know", all the while you are an honest person all your life with a clean history and were only minding your own business and waiting to pay for your items. Its just wrong isnt it? You'd set him straight too.

Anyway I am glad you like open source 3D printing.

richrap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, Maybe you don't get my perspective - I'm sat
> here very happy at the level of hype and drama
> RepRap has finally reached, I have no wish to
> dampen that, (only perpetuate them) I have no
> desire to set any records straight as you seem
> intent on doing, the world operates on these
> levels, when you achieve them in business or
> better still with an open source movement why
> attempt to wave your finger at one aspect and say
> that's not completely correct. It's tedious and
> pointless unless you can state a reason for the
> issue.
>
> I don't believe you think FFF/FDM is going down
> the drain, I'm not sure what gave you that
> impression, it's obvious you also like this
> project and the movement, what I don't get is the
> real point of your question? Do you believe people
> are being deceived and this is causing them pain
> and suffering and that bad things come from the
> hype and reputation or stating this technology is
> 'unique' or 'novel' or do you just think that may
> happen because you personally think it's not
> correct? what harm is it doing?
>
> Again, really enjoying this debate, just please
> state the point of your desire to get to the
> bottom of the 'novel' aspect of the claim.
>
> I must rush, my printer has just finished another
> awesome 'novel' print that may just change the
> world! but then again I don't want to get carried
> away.
>
> It's time to sleep in my part of the world.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Rich.

Ranting to a community about how the media portrays it... Really? The media makes headlines that sell newspapers (to use an old analogy), it is their job, after all. If the media hypes what we do and call it a novelty, will it automatically be true? No, and you are disillusioned if you think so. At least you should take the rant to the media, not us.

We don't disagree with you on a basic level, but we don't care about spending time trying to correct the media in a, quite honestly, pretty trivial case.

We prefer to spend our time making the world a better place, which RepRap can, will and already have done. All that, without the technology in itself being especially novel (in the case pictured in this discussion).

---

--
-Nudel
Blog with RepRap Comic

The media is one, but the reprap community itself is the other. Obviously this is an open forum frequented by many people of different opinions etc. Sensibily I wasnt saying EVERYONE and ALL reprappers believe reprap is a novel venture. Funny enough, I never even made any kind of statement regarding the amount of people in the reprap community that I think is responsible for believing reprap is novel. See what you did there? Youre trying to put words in my mouth, like others, again. I only made a few limited statements which I have defended all along and asked a question. Just like the other points I rejected earlier, I never stated anything about all reprappers in this community being ignorant to this fact. Im not blaming the community. I made a statement and asked a question. Theres a difference. If I wanted to blame the community for the ignorance, I'd start of with "you dummies are responsible for so and so".

But now I am saying there is a degree of fault of some members of the reprap community for why there is confusion. First of all, I posted links to certain sites where they have quoted directly from the reprap wiki page, whereby reprap wiki described itself as being a novel self-replicator. This have of course since changed from the reprap webpage, but it at least shows some reprapper (at least one, come on you gotta give me that) that believed reprap's ability to so called "self replicate" is novel.

Also, lets look at the foundation of the name of reprap. Replicating rapid prototyper, something along those lines? In the marketing world you put words that sells your idea, yet it needs to be concise and not involve things which are obvious. You do that in everyday life in how you describe things. If it is so obvious to everyone that a CNC 3axis stage with a FDM nozzle attached to one axis is capable of producing parts that can then rebuild a similar version of itself (the replication part), then why say it? Its sooo obvious right? You say it because you think its special. But the reality is, it is not really that special since CNC mills/lathes can do replication long before this. It is perhaps special because it is the first time maybe that an FDM CNC is capable of replicating.

The idea is that, a car salesman will not tell you (as despicable as most people think they are) that a car has the ability to move. You take that for granted. So trust me when I say you are unlikely to see a Mercedes advertisement stating "New Mercedes with an electric engine running on biofuel/ethanol that is capable of moving". I think they will leave out the "capable of moving part", It should be that obvious. Now the electric engine and running on biofuel ethanol part, that is what makes it special perhaps.



Nudel Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ranting to a community about how the media
> portrays it... Really? The media makes headlines
> that sell newspapers (to use an old analogy), it
> is their job, after all. If the media hypes what
> we do and call it a novelty, will it automatically
> be true? No, and you are disillusioned if you
> think so. At least you should take the rant to the
> media, not us.
>
> We don't disagree with you on a basic level, but
> we don't care about spending time trying to
> correct the media in a, quite honestly, pretty
> trivial case.
>
> We prefer to spend our time making the world a
> better place, which RepRap can, will and already
> have done. All that, without the technology in
> itself being especially novel (in the case
> pictured in this discussion).

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2011 07:42PM by TTYlater.

Quote

Most modern and high quality CNC machining centers have full enclosures.

Yes but they are way outside the reach or most people to have one at home.

Quote

But then again, I can imagine a caveman making an axe (composed of say wood, a chiselled rock and some roots to tie the rock to the wood) to make another axe

The caveman has to use effort and skill. When you print with a reprap it does not require effort and skill to make very complex objects. You can just download and print.

Quote

Yet, all I have been saying is Reprap is not special and novel.

You are completely wrong. Tens of thousands of people now own repraps because they are cheap and suitable to have at home. Show me the opensource self replicating CNC router project that delivers a quiet and clean machine that I can run in my living room and only costs $400, can be operated by a child and can make something like this: [www.thingiverse.com] or this [www.thingiverse.com].

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2011 07:42PM by nophead.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

See you wrote five paragraphs in the first post in which you think you asked a clear question. But the simple fact is NO ONE understood what you were asking and I don't think anyone knows now. You keep asking for our opinions on how its unique and we keep saying it is the community and how the project works. You acknowledge it is a unique community but you won't accept that as the answer. Its almost like you are looking at the machine through a magnifying glass and asking which particular individual part is "Novel". And none of us think any of the individual parts are "Novel". So we speak about how it is new to the general public and how it is different from how things have been done in the past.

Quote

nov·el 2 (nvl)
adj.
Strikingly new, unusual, or different.

Maybe you just need to figure out what you want to ask and make it clear and simple. No riddles, no five paragraphs.

---

FFF Settings Calculator	Gcode post processors	Geometric Object Deposition Tool Blog
Tantillus.org	Mini Printable Lathe	How NOT to install a Pololu driver

Depends on one's budget.

If you are talking about ultra high precision CNC milling centers with all the bells and whistles, of course those are expensive. For a cheapo mill that you conver to CNC, it can be had for roughly ~$600 new. Less used. How much does the reprap cost in its cheapest DIY configuration? Something in the order of ~$400? Youre not too far off to get a CNC mill. How much does the makerbot/ultimaker cost? in the order of ~$1K+?

Yeah but now we are arguing a huge gap in technological development. We are now at a stage where we can create things to a higher precision with computer aided manufacturing. The point of my example of the cavemen was to counter your suggestion that except for CNC (mills/lathes/FDM) you cant make tools using old tools. I stated that cavemen axe make-belief as only a sample scenario where that is actually true that you can make new tools with old tools. Plus, it doesnt need to be direct via 1 tool to the same type of tool. It can be via the generation of intermediate tools that can finally replicate the original tool. How else do you think humanity has reached its level of technological advancement if not for the fact this was true? The fact that old and existing tools are consistently used to generate the next generation of tools.

We didnt have nanoscale manufacturing capabilities before. We have them now. How did we reach this level of capability when past tools obviously cant do this? We used less capable machines to build a more capable machine. In this case, we used CNC machines and a variety of machine shop tools to fabricate a device, such as a focused ion beam instrument, that is capable of addressing features down to the nanoscale. We use scanning tunnel microscopes to manipulate single atoms on a substrate down to the angstrom scale. This nanoscale manufacturing capability is opening the door to creating future tools that will far exceed anything that is capable in the past. This is the evolution of technology: old tools making new tools.

Regarding open source CNC milling? I know of so many cases. But Ill start by stating again that they are absolutely not as organized nor have as much exposure as Makerbot and reprap (which has less exposure than makerbot). For example they didnt have a Thingiverse sort of thing in the past (actually now they do as I know of at least one website that shares CAD files for CNC milling). They also dont get media exposure like CNN interviewing Bre from Makerbot. People just use a variety of forums or use their friends routers to cut parts for their router. It happens all the time, often at the local level. Off the top of my head I know the MIT media lab is working on something similar (it even looks like a Makerbot):

[mtm.cba.mit.edu]

Theyre using it to mill PCBs because obviously that machine has a low power spindle, low torque stepper motors and no rigidity. But its a milling machine. Its an open source 3 axis milling machine.

Guess what, the motion controller software used to run it is free also. Its called Linux CNC or EMC2. You want to design CAD files? Thats also free although as a reprap community is obviously well exposed to free CAD programs that needs no mention. You want the G-code generated with the CAM software? That can be had for free also and one even has full 5-axis g-code output capability although its very hard to use for the uninitiated (btw commercial CAM software that generates continuous 5axis G-code for machining is VERY expensive). So there is no reason why you can even make a 5-axis CNC milling center at home for very cheap. This is unheard of if you ask most industry folks in the past. They know that 5 axis CNC mills are SUPER expensive. The software that generates the G-code for CAD files also SUPER expensive. Not anymore. If you know what you are doing it can all be had for cheap.

nophead Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Most modern and high quality CNC machining centers
> have full enclosures.
>
> Yes but they are way outside the reach or most
> people to have one at home.
>
> But then again, I can imagine a caveman making an
> axe (composed of say wood, a chiselled rock and
> some roots to tie the rock to the wood) to make
> another axe
>
> The caveman has to use effort and skill. When you
> print with a reprap it does not require effort and
> skill to make very complex objects. You can just
> download and print.
>
> Yet, all I have been saying is Reprap is not
> special and novel.
>
> You are completely wrong. Tens of thousands of
> people now own repraps because they are cheap and
> suitable to have at home. Show me the opensource
> self replicating CNC router project that delivers
> a quiet and clean machine that I can run in my
> living room and only costs $400, can be operated
> by a child and can make something like this:
> [www.thingiverse.com] or this
> [www.thingiverse.com].

Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 11/04/2011 08:16PM by TTYlater.

You are fixated on one point, pretending all else is equal. All else is not equal.

I can use a reprap on my kitchen table while cooking food 3ft away. THAT is why it is getting hype. It just happens most of the media isn't perfectly educated and tends to talk about the replication part disproportionately to everything else people find awesome about it.

Now I'll stop feeding the friendly neighborhood troll

---

www.Fablicator.com

TTYlater wrote:
---------------------------------------------
>in fact many great products we have today are not open source even in the software world, e.g. Windows and Mac OS (yes even windows

Did you know that wallstreet and almost all major companies run their servers off of linux becuase it is better. Did you know that all supercomputers run off of linux? Open source creates better products, but they lag behind in user friendliness. Ubuntu is the first linux distribution to really make a step forward in user friendliness. Did you know that IBM donates billions to linux producers? Did you know that even apple is incorporating linux into their products now? Windows is the only major company that has not done so; and according to stocks it doesn't seem to be a good strategy.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2011 12:20AM by kyleeamonahern.

TTYlater wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------------
>"I am here only stating the fact that its not special from the technology perspective or even what its trying to do, and that is certainly is not novel."


False, your came here asking us our opinion of why it was novel, so we gave it to you.
So if your real intent is to convert us, I don't think anyone here is going to change their mind.

Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2011 12:34AM by kyleeamonahern.

Why don't we all just concede to TTYlater that there is absolutely nothing novel about RepRap, and then he/she will go away, and we can all stop wasting time on this pointless "debate", and get back to making spare parts and upgrades for our machines?

---

Follow my Mendel Prusa build here: [julianh72.blogspot.com]

Wow! still going on about it isn't he -

TTYlater - This will be my last post to you - When RepRap was conceived (many years ago now- please remember history is important in this) it WAS the very first FDM/FFF printer to for-see that it could replicate itself, some parts initially and in the future maybe 80-100% of it. We are on that journey and the press can say what they like about it, and we want them too! It WAS the FIRST and is still the same project with the same goals.

Almost all other 3D printers do not claim self-replication because they were not conceived as that being an important part of their design, so that's RepRap's unique and novel claim and I think it's very well justified, you may think it's over-hyped. We Don't care because that's not at all important and it's not hurting anybody, it's simply portraying an important message about the project and the phenomenal growth shows it's working.

Good luck.

Rich.

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

Quote

Depends on one's budget.

Of course, so to get mass take-up by people it has to be cheap as most people don't have the budget and space to have a machining centre at home.

Quote

If you are talking about ultra high precision CNC milling centers with all the bells and whistles, of course those are expensive. For a cheapo mill that you conver to CNC, it can be had for roughly ~$600 new. Less used.

No it was you that introduced expensive machining centres:

Quote

Most modern and high quality CNC machining centers have full enclosures. Your workspace can be very clean and quiet. In fact many design studios of large companies have CNC milling machines in or near design studios, often next to some 3D printer also.

Your cheapo $600 mill is not going to be clean and quiet.

Quote

The point of my example of the cavemen was to counter your suggestion that except for CNC (mills/lathes/FDM) you cant make tools using old tools.

No my argument is they can't make themselves. Reprap is the first SELF replicating 3D printer. In that respect it is novel. Of course, given a selection of tools, a craftsman can make other tools. They can even make 3D printers. The novel bit about reprap is it makes the parts that would normally require a craftsman.

Quote

I stated that cavemen axe make-belief as only a sample scenario where that is actually true that you can make new tools with old tools. Plus, it doesnt need to be direct via 1 tool to the same type of tool. It can be via the generation of intermediate tools that can finally replicate the original tool. How else do you think humanity has reached its level of technological advancement if not for the fact this was true? The fact that old and existing tools are consistently used to generate the next generation of tools.

We are talking about SELF replication, not general fabrication, or old tools being used to make better new tools.

Quote

Regarding open source CNC milling? I know of so many cases.

Yes but they aren't 3D printers, don't have the same mass appeal, and therefore don't get the same media hype.

You are arguing that Reprap is not unique, but it clearly is. It is the first affordable 3D printer and has sparked a revolution of people using 3D printers at home, whether you like it or not.

Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2011 05:46AM by nophead.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

I don't pay any attention to the self replicating hype. Just one persons opinion, and here is why...

I visited a Thermwood rounter facility 15 years back. This company makes industrial routers in the 50K to 150K range. When turing the facility I saw many instances where they were using their designed and built machines, to build the next generation of machines. I also worked in the machine tool industry where the exact same thing happened in a far larger scale (size of machine). The point being that using a machine to make more of the same type of machine is very common. No router or machine tool manufacturer advertizes their machines as self replicating. No one buying such a machine would have cared that they were built on the same type of machine.

If self replicating is what the media is stressing, I think it will be short lived. The real power of Reprap is to be able to design a 3D part and print it in a consumer environment. Our youth are not being trained to be machinists, they are good at running computers, and this technology seems perfect for them.

@ TTYlater:

I see you have extensive knowledge of the CNC area. Can you please enlighten me on a few aspects:

1) CNC lathe self-replicating: how do you make its own jaw-chuck body, since ... for a start, you can never catch a brut material big enough in it ... or eventually you could pre-machine the brut on another machine but that means the first lathe cant do itself;

2) CNC mill self-replicating: how does a mill make its own table ... because that table is *always* actually bigger than its own working area?

3) Why, in order to make a mill or lathe, proffesionals do actually need like 10-12 different specialized machines to make their parts; and why each of these machines must have much better precisions than the final product will have; sort of it takes a better machine to make a lesser one, always, no exceptions - didnt machinists heard of replication?

And finally something really tricky. When a young mind is so stubborn that does not want to listen / learn / understand other points of view - who's *loss* is that? And also about trying to convince all others of a certain belief - what can be ever *gained* from that?

Cheers.

Quote

takes a better machine to make a lesser one, always, no exceptions

If this was true we would still be using stone hammers, don't you think?

---

Bob Morrison
Wörth am Rhein, Germany
"Luke, use the source!"
BLOG - PHOTOS - Thingiverse

rhmorrison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> takes a better machine to make a lesser one,
> always, no exceptions
>
> If this was true we would still be using stone
> hammers, don't you think?


Nop. Stone hammers you can do by smashing two rocks together.

But if you use a 0.001 precision to make 3 components and put them together in an assembly you get the errors added for each surface contact that had an operation done with initial precision. Like 3 parts will contact in 2 places hence the error of the assembly is 0.004, or thats the max guarantee. Because when a machine specifies: head tool max (not sure of word) dis-concentricity 1/100 thats a *guarantee*.

Quote
Terry Pratchett, The Truth
The only tools a dwarf needed were his ax and some means of making fire. That'd eventually get him a forge, and with that he could make simple tools, and with those he could make complex tools, and with complex tools a dwarf could more or less make anything.

---

Bob Morrison
Wörth am Rhein, Germany
"Luke, use the source!"
BLOG - PHOTOS - Thingiverse

Quote
nophead
Of course, so to get mass take-up by people it has to be cheap as most people don't have the budget and space to have a machining centre at home.

No it was you that introduced expensive machining centres:

Your cheapo $600 mill is not going to be clean and quiet.

No my argument is they can't make themselves. Reprap is the first SELF replicating 3D printer. In that respect it is novel. Of course, given a selection of tools, a craftsman can make other tools. They can even make 3D printers. The novel bit about reprap is it makes the parts that would normally require a craftsman.

We are talking about SELF replication, not general fabrication, or old tools being used to make better new tools.

Yes but they aren't 3D printers, don't have the same mass appeal, and therefore don't get the same media hype.

You are arguing that Reprap is not unique, but it clearly is. It is the first affordable 3D printer and has sparked a revolution of people using 3D printers at home, whether you like it or not.

You are not handling this fairly. You are attempting to put down the entire field of CNC milling machines vs the reprap CNC FDM by comparing full scale commercial machines with a cheap DIY home build that is the reprap? Equally as unfair will be for me to put down full scale commercial FDM or other 3D printers because of their size compared to cheapo home CNC mills, since as we all know most of the commercial 3D printers are quite big, e.g. Z corp machines are actually bigger than some micro milling CNC centers. You should compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges. The size of the reprap is similar to the size of some home milling machines. I even know one brand of milling machine that is smaller than the reprap mendel. It is also cheaper than the mendel before CNC retrofit and not too far off after CNC'ed.

Your comment about milling machines being loud isnt true at all. Have you seen homeshop size mills in operation? I have used and seen all varieties of machines, a wide variety of CNCs (full scale commercial and home type) and 3D printers (commercial and DIY types), and the blanket comment about noise isnt true. Firstly, for milling, the noise depends on a lot of parameters, but one main point is the cutter used, the cutting parameters and the material used. For example, if you are cutting hard ferrous materials like stainless steel or iron, expect it to be loud without full enclosure; or if you use certain tools it will tend to be louder than others e.g. fly cutting with a relatively high angle cutting edge is often louder than using an end mill with a much sharper cutting tip (also depends case by case and other parameters like feedrate and depth of cut etc). However, CNC mills dont need to be loud. A lot of times if you are machining say aluminum or some kind of polymer its not that loud even without enclosure. With a full enclosure and you can be machining all night long and not wake up your neighbor.

In fact, most of the DIY 3D printers like the mendel and makerbot etc have such poor quality mechanics and design, that from my experience they are actually way louder than CNC milling machines when you are jogging around on the axis. For example, a makerbot makes a hell of a lot of noise for a machine not even having to exert any additional forces other than enough to overcome frictional forces from moving on the axis. Its wood construction and everything is always never precisely aligned leading to a lot of unnecesary bending, friction and structural resonance everywhere and generating all that noise. You compare that to a CNC taig or sherline? They move around with way less noise. The CNC mill has a spindle, but they are also often very quiet (unless you get a crap spindle). And if people add in high RPM spindles, those tend to be even more quiet due to the high frequency of operation and low shaft eccentricity as well as gyroscopic stabilization, and the fact the humans dont perceive high frequency noises well. The end result often is, What you hear is cutting action on a CNC mill (well that and stepper motor noise but you get that with a mendel also so its fair game there).

Reprap is not a self replicator. Reprap is no more capable of sel-replication than any other computer numerically controlled manufacturing device. Reprap will never be a true self replicator until it achieves artificial intelligence capabilities and has the ability to be self aware and create things on its own on demand to meet its own needs that it determines by itself to adapt to its environment. Otherwise it is only ever going to be merely a tool for a human operator. What you are trying to get at is that the reprap is automated. This is where some of the manufacturing operations are automated by the electronics and mechanics (i.e. less manual labor). Reprap is still only doing what the human operator is assigning it. Other than the fact a reprap is automated, it is no different to the example I gave about the caveman using a rock axe to make another axe. Both are merely tools used by humans to make parts for itself. The difference is the automation. At the heart of it is still the human operator performing duties assigned to it by the human, whether it is commanding his own muscles to do the job, or assigning controls so that the electronics and mechanics does the heavy lifting.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2011 05:27PM by TTYlater.

Quote
Noobman
NoobMan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ TTYlater:
>
> I see you have extensive knowledge of the CNC
> area. Can you please enlighten me on a few
> aspects:
>
> 1) CNC lathe self-replicating: how do you make its
> own jaw-chuck body, since ... for a start, you can
> never catch a brut material big enough in it ...
> or eventually you could pre-machine the brut on
> another machine but that means the first lathe
> cant do itself;
>
> 2) CNC mill self-replicating: how does a mill make
> its own table ... because that table is *always*
> actually bigger than its own working area?
>
> 3) Why, in order to make a mill or lathe,
> proffesionals do actually need like 10-12
> different specialized machines to make their
> parts; and why each of these machines must have
> much better precisions than the final product will
> have; sort of it takes a better machine to make a
> lesser one, always, no exceptions - didnt
> machinists heard of replication?
>
> And finally something really tricky. When a young
> mind is so stubborn that does not want to listen /
> learn / understand other points of view - who's
> *loss* is that? And also about trying to convince
> all others of a certain belief - what can be ever
> *gained* from that?
>
> Cheers.

You will notice I always use the term "CNC mill/lathe", since I was being generic. There are so many varieties nowadays its hard to draw a real definition, but there are machines that combine both milling and turning capabilities in one machine so it will be able to do both. For example, the so called "swiss" CNC machines often have multiple spindles for work holding and/or cutting. Alternatively, just get a multi axis CNC milling machine and you can do almost everything. Hell, even a three axis CNC milling machine can be used as a lathe for turning. You hold the workpiece on the spindle and use the stage for tool holding, and you essentially get a lathe. This is commonly done in the industry and in home shops. A milling machine with sufficient work envelope has no problem replicating parts for itself when used intelligently.

Thats an unfair and loaded challenge. First of all, it doesnt have to be one step process. You can make intermediate tools that make the end product. Alternatively if you are so inclined, the stage can be designed so it is assembled. Then I will end by point out the reprap cant even make all of its own parts other than the extruder and the joining connectors. For example, how does the mendel make the metal shaft, bushings, timing belts, screws, threaded nuts, etc. The reprap hardly holds weight in this line of debate for self reliance, so Id say it is definitely in one's interest not mention this as a point of debate at all when trying to put down other CNC machines. As a devils advocate, I'd say this point will most likely be used by the opposition to put down reprap, the fact it really cant fabricate nearly enough of its own structural parts to call itself "self replicating".

Your last comment is just not true at all and shows a lot of misunderstanding on your part. The technological prowess we have today is built on the very foundation that less capable tools can make more capable tools. With some human intelligence, innovation and ingenuity, this has and will continue to be the truth in how technology evolves. Again, I point to the fact we can now do directed nanoscale fabrication, e.g. electron/ion beam milling. Back when we were cavemen, we'd be lucky to chop down a wooden branch without breaking our stone axe. If what you say is true, and we cant ever make something better with something worse, then we'd be dead because humanity could have only gotten worse. The fact this is not true should be evidence enough for you to revise your views.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2011 05:50PM by TTYlater.

Oh wow, I might add also, quoted and advertised directly from reprap.org (I thought they changed this but apparently not):

Quote
http://reprap.org/wiki/RepRapWiki:About under "Realization"
a much cheaper machine with the novel capability of being able to self-copy (material costs are about €350)

TTYlater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You are not handling this fairly. You are
> attempting to put down the entire field of CNC
> milling machines vs the reprap CNC FDM by
> comparing full scale commercial machines with a
> cheap DIY home build that is the reprap? Equally
> as unfair will be for me to put down full scale
> commercial FDM or other 3D printers because of
> their size compared to cheapo home CNC mills,

No I am arguing that reprap machines are more popular than CNC routers because you can put one in a normal domestic setting due to being small, quiet, clean and cheap.


> since as we all know most of the commercial 3D
> printers are quite big, e.g. Z corp machines are
> actually bigger than some micro milling CNC
> centers.

Irrelevant statement. What has the size of a Z corp machine got to do with reprap?

>You should compare apples to apples and
> not apples to oranges. The size of the reprap is
> similar to the size of some home milling machines.
> I even know one brand of milling machine that is
> smaller than the reprap mendel. It is also cheaper
> than the mendel before CNC retrofit and not too
> far off after CNC'ed.

>
> Your comment about milling machines being loud
> isnt true at all. Have you seen homeshop size
> mills in operation?

Yes I have one. Much louder than my Pursa, which is almost silent. Just the spindle running with no load is louder.

> I have used and seen all
> varieties of machines, a wide variety of CNCs
> (full scale commercial and home type) and 3D
> printers (commercial and DIY types), and the
> blanket comment about noise isnt true. Firstly,
> for milling, the noise depends on a lot of
> parameters, but one main point is the cutter used,
> the cutting parameters and the material used. For
> example, if you are cutting hard ferrous materials
> like stainless steel or iron, expect it to be loud
> without full enclosure; or if you use certain
> tools it will tend to be louder than others e.g.
> fly cutting with a relatively high angle cutting
> edge is often louder than using an end mill with a
> much sharper cutting tip (also depends case by
> case and other parameters like feedrate and depth
> of cut etc). However, CNC mills dont need to be
> loud. A lot of times if you are machining say
> aluminum or some kind of polymer its not that loud
> even without enclosure. With a full enclosure and
> you can be machining all night long and not wake
> up your neighbor.

Yes you keep taking about machines with full enclosures. Not something you can buy for the price of a reprap.

>
> In fact, most of the DIY 3D printers like the
> mendel and makerbot etc have such poor quality
> mechanics and design, that from my experience they
> are actually way louder than CNC milling machines
> when you are jogging around on the axis.

Maybe true for Makerbots with no microstepping, but not true for the current generation of Reprap, which is Prusa with 16th step drivers and it is almost silent, quieter than a laser printer.

> For example, a makerbot makes a hell of a lot of noise
> for a machine not even having to exert any
> additional forces other than enough to overcome
> frictional forces from moving on the axis. Its
> wood construction and everything is always never
> precisely aligned leading to a lot of unnecesary
> bending, friction and structural resonance
> everywhere and generating all that noise.

True, but what has that got to do with Reprap?

>You compare that to a CNC taig or sherline? They move
> around with way less noise. The CNC mill has a
> spindle, but they are also often very quiet
> (unless you get a crap spindle).
> And if people add
> in high RPM spindles, those tend to be even more
> quiet due to the high frequency of operation and
> low shaft eccentricity as well as gyroscopic
> stabilization, and the fact the humans dont
> perceive high frequency noises well. The end
> result often is, What you hear is cutting action
> on a CNC mill (well that and stepper motor noise
> but you get that with a mendel also so its fair
> game there).

Here you go mixing up cheap CNC mills and expensive ones again. If you get a CNC mill for a similar price to a reprap it will have a noisy spindle and no enclosure. If you get a nice quiet one with a full enclosure you are in a another price bracket.

>
> Reprap is not a self replicator. Reprap is no more
> capable of sel-replication than any other computer
> numerically controlled manufacturing device.

Again you are dead wrong. A CNC lathe cannot make much of itself. Most mills and routers cannot either. Yes CNC machines are used to make other CNC machines, but not copies of themselves. For example a major part of a lathe is the bed. Not something you can pick up in a hardware store. Also not something you make with a lathe. The spindle of a mill is not something you make with a mill, you need a lathe.

Reprap is a replicator in the sense that it makes all the parts that you cannot buy cheaply off the shelf and would otherwise require another machine or some human labour and skill to make. The fact it doesn't make nuts and bolts and stepper motors means it technically falls way short of self replication, but practically it doesn't matter because you can buy such things cheaper and better than you can make them.

> Reprap will never be a true self replicator until
> it achieves artificial intelligence capabilities
> and has the ability to be self aware and create
> things on its own on demand to meet its own needs
> that it determines by itself to adapt to its
> environment.

No if you read any definition of self replication it does not require intelligence. Take bacteria and viruses as prolific examples.

>Otherwise it is only ever going to be merely a tool for a human operator.

Yes it is a tool for humans to use. That is why people want them.

>What you are trying to get at is that the reprap is automated.
> This is where some of the manufacturing operations
> are automated by the electronics and mechanics
> (i.e. less manual labor). Reprap is still only
> doing what the human operator is assigning it.
> Other than the fact a reprap is automated, it is
> no different to the example I gave about the
> caveman using a rock axe to make another axe. Both
> are merely tools used by humans to make parts for
> itself. The difference is the automation. At the
> heart of it is still the human operator performing
> duties assigned to it by the human, whether it is
> commanding his own muscles to do the job, or
> assigning controls so that the electronics and
> mechanics does the heavy lifting.

Yes but that makes a massive difference. You tell the machine to start and then leave it to get on with it while you do something else. Manual tools need time, effort, and in a lot of cases skill. They are also expensive and take up a lot of room because you need a small workshop to be able to hand make the variety of things you can print with a 3D printer. Very few people have enough tools to make things, they just buy them.

Whether you like it or not repraps are popular and they replicate, proof is tens of thousands of people now poses them, and they have caught the attention of the media. In that respect they are different from everything that has gone before. Get over it. If you prefer CNC routers and lathes go troll cnczone.com.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2011 07:39PM by nophead.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

lol!! maybe this dude is working for some company, and the open source 3d printer threatens its monopoly, so he is either trying to waist our time or change our minds about the reprap so we spend our resources on something else. At this point I dont understand why else he would be keeping this up! lol

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/07/2011 08:02PM by kyleeamonahern.

If Design News is considered media hype, this is the kind of hype I can agree with.

Design News

Start

Early 3D printers were highly complex and very expensive, targeting only the largest manufacturers that could afford their several hundred thousand dollar price tags. Not anymore.

............

A recent wave of home printers and service bureaus are opening up the technology to "makers" and consumers who want to flex their creative muscles, prototyping everything from food and fashion to artificial limbs.

end

This is about enabling more people of all nationalities and age, that wouldn't have access to high cost equipment, to be creative.