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

One of the things that keep being touted as the novelty and noteworthiness of the reprap project is the ability of using these 3d printers to replicate itself (but only ever partially except for electronics and metal working).

I am trying to understand what is so novel/special about this whole concept of machine building machine, or sort of darwinian replication. Has mankind not been doing this since the beginning? Man has always been using older tools to create newer and better tools. Actually, the evolution of all machine tools today are the result of older machine tools being used to make better machine tools. CNC mills/lathes have routinely been used in the past for creating other parts that makeup other CNC mill/lathes which carry the 'evolution' forward, for example.

So what is so special about reprap in this case? I dont see how this whole idea of self replication is anything novel. We have been doing this since the beginning of mankind. In fact, mankind is the only reason why there is any tool replication and evolution at all throughout all these years.

I am thinking that the only novelty in the reprap project is the 'green' aspect of the project? That is, focusing on cheap materials and marketing the niche for developing countries? Then again, I dont see why you couldnt also operate a similar project to reprap, but this time for CNC mills/lathes also? Surely one can find local sources of biopolymers for use as stock for 3D printing, as one can find scrap metal for CNC milling/turning?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2011 03:20PM by TTYlater.

Hello to you too.

While there are parts of what you say that I agree with, it's not clear what the purpose of this post was. Even if the self-replication goal doesn't impress you, it's still a darn cool DIY 3D printer community we've got going here. Why not focus on the positive?

@TTYlater

Using your logic why do we have any tools? We should all be using stones as hammers because they all lead to the same thing.

Additive technology can create shapes impossible for subtractive tools to make. (a hollow sphere)

Additive only uses the material needed for the part (unless support is used) Subtractive always has lots of waste.

Additive technology has the potential to reuse any waste material directly to make another part. Subtractive requires the scrap to be a certain shape and size if you want to reuse it. (additive requires a pellet feeder, subtractive requires a foundry for small scrap)

Additive can reproduce itself once a day.

It goes on and on

---

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

There is no point other than purely an academic question.

I keep hearing about reprap and makerbot and then on CNN about how there is this new novel wave of self replicating 3D printers. My understanding is this concept is not new at all. We have been doing this since the beginning when cavemen picked up a rock as a tool and adapted it to an axe to cut wood, so on and so fourth until we now have full sized 5-axis CNC milling machines, milling precision parts that are used in the production of other CNC machines.

There really is nothing that I understand to be novel here in terms of self replication.

The only difference I see is cheap material, relative simplicity in the mechanics/electronics vs precision CNC machines, and marketing for low cost and for developing countries. Then again on this note, by changing the FDM printer head with a rotary cutter, you end up with a CNC mill also. Perhaps there are differences in the ease of operation, because direct 3D printing is easier than CNC mill/lathe machining since you have to choose the correct stock material to begin with and some geometries cant be created that can be created with a 3D printer.

Ultimately though, my point is machine replicating machine is not new at all. I am open to someone enlightening me on how reprap is novel in this regard.

Sublime Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @TTYlater
>
> Using your logic why do we have any tools? We
> should all be using stones as hammers because they
> all lead to the same thing.
>
> Additive technology can create shapes impossible
> for subtractive tools to make. (a hollow sphere)
>
> Additive only uses the material needed for the
> part (unless support is used) Subtractive always
> has lots of waste.
>
> Additive technology has the potential to reuse any
> waste material directly to make another part.
> Subtractive requires the scrap to be a certain
> shape and size if you want to reuse it. (additive
> requires a pellet feeder, subtractive requires a
> foundry for small scrap)
>
> Additive can reproduce itself once a day.
>
> It goes on and on

About your first few sentences, how is that using my logic? That point doesnt make sense. My point has been that old tools have always been used to make new tools. This idea is not new. I never debated about whether we should have tools or not.

I agree with the technical differences in 3D printing vs CNC milling/turning where material is removed. Thats not the point Im arguing. Media has always portrayed reprap and makerbot and the similar wave of new 3D printers as this new path of humanity whereby machines can replicate machine parts used to build those machines.

My point is the whole concept of using old tools to make new tools is engraved in our human existance since the very beginning. We will not be where we are today if not for the fact that man has been using old tools to make better tools was true. So there is nothing novel that I understand of here.

The 'goal' is to make a machine that can completely reproduce itself and nearly all it's bits and pieces. Still a long ways to go, though, but certainly one day possible (though it may bear no resemblance to what we have today)

The novelty, at the moment, is in how easily a single tool can make most of it's unique parts, with comparatively little cost, operator knowledge, or effort. Also the only consumable is filament (and maybe tape.)

I personally think the reproduceability is a little hyped, but it shouldn't be dismissed.

---

www.Fablicator.com

TTYlater Wrote:

> About your first few sentences, how is that using
> my logic?

You keep saying we already have a tool that does the job, why do we need a new one. I say we already had a rock but we invented a hammer. So in your terms this was silly because we already had a rock to hammer things in with.

My point
> has been that old tools have always been used to
> make new tools.

So, if its not new it no good? We better go back to the rock.

> I agree with the technical differences in 3D
> printing vs CNC milling/turning where material is
> removed. Thats not the point Im arguing. Media has
> always portrayed reprap and makerbot and the
> similar wave of new 3D printers as this new path
> of humanity whereby machines can replicate machine
> parts used to build those machines.

Media is not on our side. This is opensource not a corporate venture.

But yes, one person started out with a RepRap and now tens of thousands have one in only a few years. How is this not empowering and changing the world? The big thing changing the world is the fact we have this power now, not just those with money. This technology has been around for 25 years and big business kept it away from the end user. We now have this technology and we are advancing it faster than any corporation ever did. it is still in its infancy so all the wonderful things you are looking for have not yet happened.

>
> My point is the whole concept of using old tools
> to make new tools is engraved in our human
> existance since the very beginning. We will not be
> where we are today if not for the fact that man
> has been using old tools to make better tools was
> true. So there is nothing novel that I understand
> of here.

Again the power is now in our hands and not theirs.

---

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

Andrew Diehl Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 'goal' is to make a machine that can
> completely reproduce itself and nearly all it's
> bits and pieces. Still a long ways to go, though,
> but certainly one day possible (though it may bear
> no resemblance to what we have today)
>
> The novelty, at the moment, is in how easily a
> single tool can make most of it's unique parts,
> with comparatively little cost, operator
> knowledge, or effort. Also the only consumable is
> filament (and maybe tape.)
>
> I personally think the reproduceability is a
> little hyped, but it shouldn't be dismissed.


If you take what you just said in the first few paragraphs and apply that to describe a conventional CNC mill/lathe, it applies also. How is that any different? In fact, CNC mills have a capability 3D FDM printers dont, and that is PCB board milling. At least it is closer to getting the electronics side in the bag also as well as the structural side in terms of machine replication. 3D printers nowadays are only capable of partially covering the structural mechanics side and none of the electronics as of yet. A CNC machine with the right stock and enough work envelope can create all of those parts needed to replicate its structural parts in its entirety. All the 3D printers still require metal rods, screws etc to meet functional requirements. Guess what made those parts (e.g. metal shaft, bushings etc)? Old school CNC mills and lathes or other machine shop tool.

I am asking these questions from a purely academic perspective. I really dont see how reprap can achieve capabilities of self replication beyond what any old CNC mill/lathe can do also.Production of complex parts can be one differentiating factor since 3D printing can create more complex geometries in one go, but in engineering its about achieving the specifications, and while you can create a hollowsphere for you application, you can still achieve your goal by changing your design such that it can be manufactured using a CNC mill or lathe and still perform to the engineering specifications that you were tasked with. You always have to work around your limitations in life. There is nothing new again. Its like me suggesting CNC mills are actually better since they can work a variety of materials that can not be achieved with 3D printing, so you may even have engineering failure if you try to produce a product entirely from 3D printing.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2011 04:22PM by TTYlater.

I guess then you are arguing about the usefulness of having an additional tool in the form of a reprap or makerbot or ultimaker, etc on top of other tools like CNC mills/lathes.

Well if one were to be discriminating and picky, one can point out that FDM technology has long been around before the beginnings of makerbot or reprap. The technology of FDM itself is not new. Reprap and makerbot did not invent this philosophy of material deposition to create structural components.

So, since FDM is not new, what does Reprap add to the scene in terms of novelty of tools? Whats different? Commercial FDM printers have been around for ages. The only difference, again, is cost. On top of this, the reprap project is consistently portrayed by the media as a novel concept of machine manufacturing machine like humans giving birth to babies. However, I am arguing this has been going on since day 1 of intelligent humans roaming the earth.

Regarding your second comment, you are going side tracked again and injecting philosophy into this. I am not even arguing any of those points. I am ONLY debating about the merit of why reprap is considered a novel concept based on the idea that it can produce its own parts. Again, as far as I am aware, humans have been doing this since day 1.

Sublime Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TTYlater Wrote:
>
> > About your first few sentences, how is that
> using
> > my logic?
>
> You keep saying we already have a tool that does
> the job, why do we need a new one. I say we
> already had a rock but we invented a hammer. So in
> your terms this was silly because we already had a
> rock to hammer things in with.
>
> My point
> > has been that old tools have always been used
> to
> > make new tools.
>
> So, if its not new it no good? We better go back
> to the rock.
>
> > I agree with the technical differences in 3D
> > printing vs CNC milling/turning where material
> is
> > removed. Thats not the point Im arguing. Media
> has
> > always portrayed reprap and makerbot and the
> > similar wave of new 3D printers as this new
> path
> > of humanity whereby machines can replicate
> machine
> > parts used to build those machines.
>
> Media is not on our side. This is opensource not a
> corporate venture.
>
> But yes, one person started out with a RepRap and
> now tens of thousands have one in only a few
> years. How is this not empowering and changing the
> world? The big thing changing the world is the
> fact we have this power now, not just those with
> money. This technology has been around for 25
> years and big business kept it away from the end
> user. We now have this technology and we are
> advancing it faster than any corporation ever did.
> it is still in its infancy so all the wonderful
> things you are looking for have not yet happened.
>
>
> >
> > My point is the whole concept of using old
> tools
> > to make new tools is engraved in our human
> > existance since the very beginning. We will not
> be
> > where we are today if not for the fact that man
> > has been using old tools to make better tools
> was
> > true. So there is nothing novel that I
> understand
> > of here.
>
> Again the power is now in our hands and not
> theirs.

TTYlater Wrote:

> Regarding your second comment, you are going side
> tracked again and injecting philosophy into this.
> I am not even arguing any of those points. I am
> ONLY debating about the merit of why reprap is
> considered a novel concept based on the idea that
> it can produce its own parts. Again, as far as I
> am aware, humans have been doing this since day

And once again I say this time its in the hands of the end user. The "Commercial machines" are priced high so only the people with money can get them. This time WE the people have this technology.

---

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

Reprap builds from the ground up rather than chiseling down. Resources are saved, creations are cheaper, and the work can be created in less space. To truly understand the enthusiasm of the reprap community, you must decide for yourself whether this will eventually be applied to all kinds of materials and goods; allowing anyone to create whatever they wanted in their own home.

If you decide that is possible, then you will see that the reprap will effectively digitize all tangible goods [excluding food, but who knows lol]. This means everything will be substantially cheaper because you are only paying for the idea someone had by buying their digital design online, and you are only paying for the raw material required to create it. No transportation costs; no manufacturing costs; it gets rid of all the middle manning.

Now a milling machine can not create designs that have complexity within the interior of a closed good [like a support structure that is one solid object but has a mesh like pattern inside of it to maintain integrity while saving material and lowering the weight; possibly increasing its functionality] because they only chisel away from the product. Nor can they create things that are printed fully assembled as has been demonstrated with some 3d printers. So it would appear that a 3d printer could, in the future, let you create anything, where a milling machine could only let you create some things and usually individual components, not complex creations as a whole.

So if you accept all of that, then a 3d printer could in theory create itself; fully assembled or not depending on how far ahead your looking. Also I might add I do not see how a milling machine could ever create electronic hardware, because due to the value of the materials hardware is composed of [e.g. gold] and the microscopic scale they are designed for, I do not see how a milling machine could reproduce them. Now the significance of it being able to replicate itself is at the heart of all the enthusiasm of the community.

If the reprap could truly replicate itself, I think it would be better described as a virus than a 3d printer or any kind of commodity for that matter. Imagine, someone, or actually a group of people, create the first one that can fully replicate itself. The reprap designs are free so you wouldn't have to buy it off anything like itunes. All you would need to buy is the raw materials. Raw materials I think are always cheaper than when it comes in product form, not to mention as the demand goes up they will get even cheaper. Then you can give your materials to your neighbor and if he feels so inclined, he can print one out for you free of charge. Then whats next? does it spread around the world like a virus? moving from one person to another all the while printing out more and more copies of itself, virtually free of charge?

Once it went viral, inventors of all ages and skill levels would sprout up all around the world, inventing new things out of necessity, and because they can finally have the power to create without any significant investment of money, time, skill, or background.

Many people would no longer have to find a job in order to work; or work for a centralized company; or contribute to the power of monopolies; or make other people rich off of their inventions; they could sell the things they create by simply uploading their designs to the internet. Also, everything could now be customized to one's needs, and there would be no surplus or scarcity of products caused by having to predict how many will be sold.

Since the advent of the internet, a social layer has formed on top of the world, aka facebook and twitter. The next layer underway is the gaming layer, which is being worked on by SCVNR at the moment [at this point I'm sort of going beyond the scope of your question, but I find it worth mentioning; also for more information on the gaming layer, look up scvngr to see what its all about, they have a nice video on TED too]. An effective gaming layer will drive people to succeed at life as if it were a game (which it is) without money necessarily being the driving force. The next and final layer, as far as I can see is the open source layer, which really took off with linux and I think will come full circle with the reprap. It showed us that people can be driven to create superior products that are distributed for free. According to standard economics this makes no sense, but it has indeed been effective and especially makes sense in light of game theory.

What really allowed this model to work for linux is that it was a virtual product. It's just information, a string of 0's and 1's that your computer interprets for you, and it costs really nothing to produce a new copy. If you can foresee the reprap possibly turning everything, or even most things into virtual designs, strings of 0's and 1's, what do you imagine is possible?

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2011 02:32AM by kyleeamonahern.

You are getting heavily side tracked in this whole discussion.

My motion is as follows (and ONLY as follows): there is nothing new about machine manufacturing its own machine parts that people say is novel about reprap.

My example is CNC mill/lathes.

Your only possible counter reponse to this debatable motion is to argue that what reprap brings to the table in regards to this motion is novel. By believing so, you must be insisting that machine building machine parts has never been done before. In so doing, you are arguing by example that CNC mills cannot be used to create parts for similar CNC mills.

And since we know CNC mills can create parts for CNC mills, there can only be one logical conclusion, and that is it will be false to believe the notion that reprap is novel and uniqutely changing the landscape because it can 'self replicate for the first time'.

What I think is happening here, is you are refusing to admit that there is nothing novel about the concept of FDM printers printing parts for similar FDM machines. Granted, there is technical/literal novelty of demonstration in that it may be one of the first to specifically use FDM printers to create FDM machine parts. However by no means does this translate to novelty in machine building machine parts, which was the whole argument from the beginning - a counter to the common belief as portrayed by the media and believed by many regarding reprap or makerbot etc. Once you come to that conclusion, this debate will draw to the conclusion which will support my motion all along. In fact, its not even much of a debatable notion, I am merely stating a historical fact and reality of our human existance.

So I say again, we have been using old tools to make similar or new tools since the beginning.

Sublime Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> TTYlater Wrote:
>
> > Regarding your second comment, you are going
> side
> > tracked again and injecting philosophy into
> this.
> > I am not even arguing any of those points. I am
> > ONLY debating about the merit of why reprap is
> > considered a novel concept based on the idea
> that
> > it can produce its own parts. Again, as far as
> I
> > am aware, humans have been doing this since day
>
> And once again I say this time its in the hands of
> the end user. The "Commercial machines" are priced
> high so only the people with money can get them.
> This time WE the people have this technology.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2011 04:48PM by TTYlater.

This is such a silly argument. Let's all get back to the business of inventing the future.

Unfortunately you are being blinded by idealology.

I am not even debating the merit of reprap. I think this is where your emotions are blinding you from the academic discussion that is the purpose of this discussion. I think reprap and makerbots are great for a variety of reasons to the end user and what not. This is all emotional mumble jumble.

I am here stating that there is nothing novel about the concept of a machine producing parts for itself. If you believe otherwise, you can state your claim and I am happy to debate it.

kyleeamonahern Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reprap builds from the ground up rather than
> chiseling down. Resources are saved, creations are
> cheaper, and the work can be created in less
> space. To truly understand the enthusiasm of the
> reprap community, you must decide for yourself
> whether this will eventually be applied to all
> kinds of materials and goods; thus allowing anyone
> to create whatever they wanted in their own home.
>
> If you decide that is possible, then you will see
> that the reprap will effectively digitize all
> tangible goods . This means you never have to
> travel anywhere to get anything. This means
> everything will be substantially cheaper because
> you are only paying for the idea someone had by
> buying their digital design online, and you are
> only paying for the raw material required to
> create it.
>
> Now a milling machine can not create designs that
> have complexity within the interior of a closed
> good because they only chisel away from the
> product. Nor can they create things that are
> printed fully assembled as has been demonstrated
> with some 3d printers. So it would appear that a
> 3d printer could, in the future, let you create
> anything, where a milling machine could only let
> you create some things and usually individual
> components, not complex creations as a whole.
>
> So if you accept all of that, then a 3d printer
> could in theory create itself; fully assembled or
> not depending on how far ahead your looking. Also
> I might add I do not see how a milling machine
> could ever create electronic hardware, because due
> to the value of the materials hardware is composed
> of and the microscopic scale they are designed
> for, I do not see how a milling machine could
> reproduce them. Now the significance of it being
> able to replicate itself is at the heart of all
> the enthusiasm of the community.
>
> If the reprap could truly replicate itself, I
> think it would be better described as a virus than
> a 3d printer or any kind of commodity for that
> matter. Imagine, someone, or actually a group of
> people, create the first one that can fully
> replicate itself. The reprap designs are free so
> you wouldn't have to buy it off anything like
> itunes. All you would need to buy is the raw
> materials. Raw materials I think are always
> cheaper than when it comes in product form, not to
> mention as the demand goes up they will get even
> cheaper. Then you can give your materials to your
> neighbor and if he feels so inclined, he can print
> one out for you free of charge. Then whats next?
> does it spread around the world like a virus?
> moving from one person to another all the while
> printing out more and more copies of itself,
> virtually free of charge?
>
> Once it went viral, inventors of all ages and
> skill levels would sprout up all around the world,
> inventing new things out of necessity, and because
> they can finally have the power to create without
> any significant investment of money, time, skill,
> or background.
>
> Many people would no longer have to find a job in
> order to work; or work for a centralized company;
> or contribute to the power of monopolies; or make
> other people rich off of their inventions; they
> could sell the things they create by simply
> uploading their designs to the internet. Also,
> everything could now be customized to one's needs,
> and there would be no overhead or "underhead" of
> products caused by having to predict how many will
> be sold.
>
> Since the advent of the internet, a social layer
> has formed on top of the world, aka facebook and
> twitter. The next layer underway is the gaming
> layer, which is being worked on by SCVNR at the
> moment . An effective gaming layer will drive
> people to succeed at life as if it were a game
> (which it is) without money necessarily being the
> driving force. The next and final layer, as far as
> I can see is the open source layer, which really
> took off with linux and I think will come full
> circle with the reprap. It showed us that people
> can be driven to create superior products that are
> distributed for free. According to standard
> economics this makes no sense, but it has indeed
> been effective and especially makes sense in light
> of game theory.
>
> What really allowed this model to work for linux
> is that it was a virtual product. It's just
> information, a string of 0's and 1's that your
> computer interprets for you, and it costs really
> nothing to produce a new copy. If you can foresee
> the reprap possibly turning everything, or even
> most things into virtual designs, strings of 0's
> and 1's, what do you imagine is possible?

TTYlater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
....Then again, I dont
> see why you couldnt also operate a similar project
> to reprap, but this time for CNC mills/lathes
> also? Surely one can find local sources of
> biopolymers for use as stock for 3D printing, as
> one can find scrap metal for CNC milling/turning?

I intend to attempt something like this within the RepRap community. In the next year I hope to design and build a RepRap capable of 3D printing with performance similar to what we have now, but also sturdy enough for reasonable performance as a router. I intend to incorporate routed plywood and possibly other materials into the machine itself, making more of the machine reproducible.

What the reproducibility of RepRap really boils down to is different for different people. For some it's an idealogical lightning rod, drawing people who are interested in the technical challenge and coolness of a machine that can make all of its own parts. Personally, I don't see it happening in a single machine, and 3D printing as a process isn't capable of complete reproduction (within the reasonably foreseeable future). In this regard, it's not better than ordinary machine tools. But the idea is a rallying cry to those who want to work toward that goal, whether or not we believe it is special in any way or even possible.

For others (and I find myself mostly in this line of thinking) the reproducibility is primarily interesting for its principal secondary effect: less expensive tools that are useful for other projects. I think this is where the vast majority of RepRap users are, and I think it has always been a goal of the project that this should be so. Cheap machines democratizing manufacturing. A machine tool like the multimachine would fit into this pretty ,well, I think.

If you happen to have the inclination and ability to implement RepRap ideas in machine tools, please do. There's room in the project for anyone who wants to build and share machine designs.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2011 05:32PM by Dale Dunn.

I think a good reprap machine can:

1) clearly reproduce a "draft 3d version" of most of your design ideeas much faster and much cheaper than any traditional metal machining techiques or any others

2) can produce shapes and objects that traditional machining find impossible to execute; for example check your cnc factory for drill bits that have 2 small tubes inside each spiral to put cooling liquid directly on the bottom of the drill hole - that drill bit was realized in a 3d printer that prints with laser on top of metal (Ti+) powder piece which gets hardened treatment afterwards.


First is the usual market segment of the commercial 3d printers.

Second is just an example like many others. By all means making 2 spiraled 0.2mm hole in helix (adn) shape inside a full metal bar / drill bit, that is clearly impossible to do with any other machines and techinques that i know of.

It did not appear to me that I was speaking emotionally, but rather making possible conclusions based upon factual events. I think those conclusions are the backbone of the reprap community, and I explained them with facts to back up those conclusions or rather, hype, which is an idea surrounded by emotion in and of itself. It is the "hype" that I understand you want explained.

I'm sorry for being confusing, so I will attempt to better answer your question. What is novel about the reprap is not the concept of a machine that can build anything and even reproduce itself. There have been writings on such topics since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The novelty is that for the first time in history, due to economies of scale and recent innovations, the parts required for such a machine have been made widely available. Due to this availability the amateur has, for the first time in history, the capabilities of experimenting and creating so many new things, including that ideal machine which has been fantasized about for so long. The technology itself has been in industry for more than 30 years, but these machines were worth millions of dollars.The reprap maybe isn't even the first amateur machine of its type.

The reprap may be better defined as a community of people, of which anyone can join, with a common goal to create a machine free of charge to anyone, except for the cost of materials, that will undergo constant evolution and eventually be able to manufacture anything, even itself. There in lies the novelty of the reprap, the combination of the age old idea, it being the first time in history that it can begin to come to fruition, and the community that has developed around it along with their creations thus far.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/05/2011 02:35AM by kyleeamonahern.

TTYlater Wrote:

> My point is the whole concept of using old tools
> to make new tools is engraved in our human
> existance since the very beginning. We will not be
> where we are today if not for the fact that man
> has been using old tools to make better tools was
> true. So there is nothing novel that I understand
> of here.

Have some vision - what's wrong with RepRap being another better tool, one of the main aspects to this project is that the technology is accessible to many more people, in much the same way a good hammer became accessible to many people long ago, the thing about RepRap is at some point in time it will be able to operate at a nano-level to build and make things, a Hammer will still be a Hammer and a CNC lathe will most likely not evolve to operating at a nano-level.

Vik Oliver posted this on RepRap Dev today, read and imagine - http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/11/dna-origami-on-reusable-chip.html

We are not being blinded, just embracing the future, if you don't think RepRap is worthy of it's novel status, then check back here in a few years, I personally think it's a game-changer on so many levels and will continue to grow, evolve, astound and delight many more hundreds of thousands of people all over the world. - the last 5 years of exponential growth prove the fact it's important and significant, maybe even more than a hammer

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

> TTYlater Wrote:
> I am here stating that there is nothing novel
> about the concept of a machine producing parts for
> itself.

You are right, if that is all you want to discuss, we agree and can stop the discussion here.

Where you are wrong, is assuming WE think the self-replication concept - at this stage - is extraordinary novel, most - if any - of us, don't.

As said by others, the novelty lies not in the technology, but the availability of said technology.

RepRap is breaking new grounds because it is (in no particular order):
1) Open source
2) Available to everybody
3) Affordable
4) So fun it'll knock your socks off

---

--
-Nudel
Blog with RepRap Comic

Thank you Nudel for summing it up so concisely, but most of all thank you TTYlater. While we have differences of opinion, you have been very thought provoking for me, and I now know how to more concisely present why it is the rest of us and I are so emphatic about this thing. Thank you for having such a difference of opinion and having the balls to voice it on the actual reprap wiki. My friends and family have also had a hard time understanding my affinity for this thing.

Again thank you TTYlater.

Everyone is right according to their model of the world. The discussion of the novelty of an idea or concept maybe good for
one purpose: to examine your own pre-conceived thought about that idea or concept. If that was the purpose of this discussion
then the objective was achieved.

That said, I believe I am utterly consumed by this reprap project......I may need therapy.

Getting back to the OP's original question:

So what is so special about reprap in this case? I dont see how this whole idea of self replication is anything novel. We have been doing this since the beginning of mankind. In fact, mankind is the only reason why there is any tool replication and evolution at all throughout all these years.

Two points in response:

1. Who cares? RepRap is cool - and fun!
2. I'm surprised no-one has gone back to the source: [reprap.org]

RepRap is a free desktop 3D printer capable of printing plastic objects. Since many parts of RepRap are made from plastic and RepRap can print those parts, RepRap is a self-replicating machine - one that anyone can build given time and materials. It also means that - if you've got a RepRap - you can print lots of useful stuff, and you can print another RepRap for a friend...

RepRap is about making self-replicating machines, and making them freely available for the benefit of everyone. We are using 3D printing to do this, but if you have other technologies that can copy themselves and that can be made freely available to all, then this is the place for you too.

Reprap.org is a community project, which means you are welcome to edit most pages on this site, or better yet, create new pages of your own. Our community portal and New Development pages have more information on how to get involved.

RepRap was the first of the low-cost 3D printers, and the RepRap Project started the open-source 3D printer revolution.
[My emphasis]

---

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

TTYlater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One of the things that keep being touted as the
> novelty and noteworthiness of the reprap project
> is the ability of using these 3d printers to
> replicate itself (but only ever partially except
> for electronics and metal working).
>
> I am trying to understand what is so novel/special
> about this whole concept of machine building
> machine, or sort of darwinian replication. Has
> mankind not been doing this since the beginning?
> Man has always been using older tools to create
> newer and better tools. Actually, the evolution of
> all machine tools today are the result of older
> machine tools being used to make better machine
> tools. CNC mills/lathes have routinely been used
> in the past for creating other parts that makeup
> other CNC mill/lathes which carry the 'evolution'
> forward, for example.
>
> So what is so special about reprap in this case? I
> dont see how this whole idea of self replication
> is anything novel. We have been doing this since
> the beginning of mankind. In fact, mankind is the
> only reason why there is any tool replication and
> evolution at all throughout all these years.
>
> I am thinking that the only novelty in the reprap
> project is the 'green' aspect of the project? That
> is, focusing on cheap materials and marketing the
> niche for developing countries? Then again, I dont
> see why you couldnt also operate a similar project
> to reprap, but this time for CNC mills/lathes
> also? Surely one can find local sources of
> biopolymers for use as stock for 3D printing, as
> one can find scrap metal for CNC milling/turning?

Well...for one....you can print cavities INSIDE an object. Try that with a CNC machine OR a mold. Difficult. The RepRap can print holes INSIDE objects. It's awesome.

main difference?

Show me a CNC model/design that DOES replicate.
yeah sure they probilby can, but RepRap was designed to do so, and there's talk of starting a familiy tree type project to map who made who's parts.
show me a cnc machine that has that.

in a nutshell, I guess your answer is: the comunity.

I don't believe its possible to compare a cnc milling machine to reprap in the first place. Milling machines are industrial metal cutting machine used by machine shops and fabrication departments in large companies. In order to cut metal they are need to have spindle stiffness up to a million lbs per inch. Milling machines are not for the home, admitting that there are folks who managed to fit a bridgeport in somewhere.

So for the home the comparison should be between reprap and a CNC router (designed to cut soft materials like wood). I have my reprap sitting on my home built router. These days the reprap gets far more use.

Now for industry, if I look at the trend in my company, rapid prototyping is growing and the use of convential cnc machines is declining. The ease and speed of printing models and lack of skilled workers is influencing that trend. I'm sure this varies widely from company to company.

So I believe that the comparison is
Reprap to CNC Router for the home or SLS vs CNC machining centers for buisness.
a Reprap is not a SLS machine and a CNC router is not a milling machine.

I think the exciting thing about this community is that they are committed to making the Reprap do the kind of thing that were only possible with an industrial rapid prototype machine. Go and check out the equivalent to this forum in the cnc machining world called cnczone.com. The forum as great stuff but that drive to evolve isn't there.

First of all, I have an el-cheapo home DIY 3D printer too. By no means am I putting reprap machines down. I am merely stating an academic fact and based on my observation that many people and the media, seem to have this unfounded belief the reprap or makerbot community is leading some kind of revolutionary paradigm shift in technology because "now machines can build parts for itself! OMG!" - no, sorry we've been doing this since day 1 when apes began the transformation of having "human" intelligence. Old tools have always been used to make similar or newer better tools. Nothing new here. In fact, the current stage reprap machines isnt even capable of building all of its structural parts let alone the electronics. CNC mills/lathes do have the capability of replicating itself in its entirety if so designed.

As I have said from the beginning, I think the advantage of reprap is that is is accessible to more people particularly for the poor (which means both developing country folks and us normal home folks without a corporate R&D bank roll to fund expensive machines like a $300K 5axis CNC machine).

CNC mill/lathes is just one example I wanted to use to show that there have always been tools well before the days of FDM printers and then later after that reprap/makerbot for manufacturing parts that can be used to make other machines. To make it clear, reprap itself is also a CNC machine. Computer Numeric Control means a computer controlled machine, this is exactly what a reprap mendel is. The difference is the tool attached to one of the axis of the machine. If you take out that FDM print head and bolt down a rotary cutter onto your mendel 3 axis stage, you get a CNC 3axis mill also.

Which really goes back to the whole point from the beginning also, there really is nothing too special about the reprap project in this regard. The moment you decide to take that FDM print head out to adapt something else to it, it loses even more novelty. If anyone attaches a rotary cutter to the axis, then it becomes a boring old CNC mill with much less precision and rigidity.

Also, I think there is simply a disconnect of understanding between different crowds of people. Home CNC folks have been doing something similar to what the Reprap/Thingiverse crowd has been doing, which is sharing designs and ideas for CNC builds. They are just a little less organized because noone stoodup to make a website for uploading files. Actually thats not even true anymore since I know one website that is similar to thingiverse where peple upload machine parts CAD files used to build other CNC milling/router machines.

And onto the subject of comparing capabilities which seems to be a common 'comeback' here. Firstly, its way off topic, because my point from the beginning, as I have kept on insisting throughout my replies, is that I was not comparing capabilities of CNC mills with FDM reprap machines, but only stating that old tools make new tools. But since we are onto that note, Id like to point out that CNC mills can certainly be used to create parts for replication. In fact, if you were given an FDM or CNC mill/lathe to choose to replicate that machine for which you are given, you will have a much easier time with CNC mill/lathes than you will with the FDM. Simply put, CNC mills work more materials and hold better tolerances thus providing much better flexibility.

Also, even though FDM or other 3D printing technology can create enclosed geometries that will be hard or impossible to replicate with a CNC milling machine (even a 5 axis one), doesnt mean it is problematic. In engineering you need to know your limitations (in this case manufacturing) and you work your design around this until you meet the specifications. If you are given a CNC mill, you should not design internal geometries, but you design it differently such that it can be manufactured. The end goal is meeting the design specifications. If you meet this, then you are done as far as engineering goes it doesnt matter. Internal structures are not neccesary or can be overcome. For example, you can weld parts together or fasten multiple parts to get internal structures if you desire. This is what the manufacturing industry has been doing in the past. By the same token, one can point out that 3D printing, while it can create internal structures, it cannot work with a large variety of materials and the materials are not homogenious, but rather porus at best. Even with the metal power printing a binder with the 3D printers and then sintering the part to create metal or ceramic parts using 3D printing technolgy, those parts still dont hold tolerances to what CNC mills are capable of.

CNC mills were mentioned to point out there have always been machines around that can make parts for itself. Again, it is comparing the concept or purpose. I was not comparing capabilities because they are obviously very different beasts and vary greatly in cost.

Ultra high precision milling machines will need rigidity, but there are plenty of home milling machines that work just fine and can cut all types of metals, plastics, wood etc. For example, you can check out the Sherline, Taig or X3 milling machines. They have less rigidity, slow, cant hold super high tolerances, but they work. Infact those machines can be used to produce high precision parts than what mendel or makerbot is currently capable of doing.

A router is also a CNC milling machine. Some people like to draw the distinction between what they consider a 'Mill" and what is a "router", as one where the part moves and the cutting tool only moves down, in the case of the former; and one where the cutter moves in all axis and the workpiece stays still in the case of the latter. This is a wrong distinction IMO. They are pulling a concept from a "classical mill" like the bridgeport machines since that is how they were built (i.e. the workpiece moves in X and Y and the cutter in the Z). Modern CNC machines do not have this distinction anymore as any one of the axis can be moving and or holding the workpieces as long as you have access to the work envelop. For example there are many many designs for 5axis CNC machines were the piece can rotate in 1 or 2 axis and the cutting tool moves in the remainaing degrees of freedom, or the workpiece stays completely still and only the cutter moves. CNC milling machine means a computer controlled robortic stage with a rotary cutter tool attached to one axis. A 'router' and 'mill' is really one in the same breed with a differnt nature in which the cutting tool movement relative to the workpiece is controlled. They are both CNC mills as far as that goes.

For the forseeable future, CNC machines will still be in the manufacturing industry because they are usually the first front to creating a precision machine part (e.g. prototype, precision part for creating a mold or direct fabrication of the actual mold for mass production). FDM machines currently cant create parts that hold tolerances that is neccesary for most engineerign applications. Also, both FDM and CNC machines are serial manufacturing processes. Both are going to be slow and not optimized for mass production, so they at best will tend to suit similar roles in the industry, and that is prototyping and maybe creating parts for molding, etc. Except again, FDM machines currently do not create highly precise macro scale mechanical parts and CNC machines can.

Yes, the reprap is good because its 'open source' and many people love the 'open source' revolution similar to that with software because most also tend to hate big mean corporate greed right? But open sources doesnt mean its better, it just often means its free (even though people can profit still), 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). BTW, just like how I own an FDM DIY printer and at the same time ball bust reprap, I use Linux also and respect Windows.

dean448 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't believe its possible to compare a cnc
> milling machine to reprap in the first place.
> Milling machines are industrial metal cutting
> machine used by machine shops and fabrication
> departments in large companies. In order to cut
> metal they are need to have spindle stiffness up
> to a million lbs per inch. Milling machines are
> not for the home, admitting that there are folks
> who managed to fit a bridgeport in somewhere.
>
> So for the home the comparison should be between
> reprap and a CNC router (designed to cut soft
> materials like wood). I have my reprap sitting on
> my home built router. These days the reprap gets
> far more use.
>
> Now for industry, if I look at the trend in my
> company, rapid prototyping is growing and the use
> of convential cnc machines is declining. The
> ease and speed of printing models and lack of
> skilled workers is influencing that trend. I'm
> sure this varies widely from company to company.
>
> So I believe that the comparison is
> Reprap to CNC Router for the home or SLS vs CNC
> machining centers for buisness.
> a Reprap is not a SLS machine and a CNC router is
> not a milling machine.
>
> I think the exciting thing about this community is
> that they are committed to making the Reprap do
> the kind of thing that were only possible with an
> industrial rapid prototype machine. Go and check
> out the equivalent to this forum in the cnc
> machining world called cnczone.com. The forum as
> great stuff but that drive to evolve isn't there.

Quote
TTYlater
First of all, I have an el-cheapo home DIY 3D printer too. By no means am I putting reprap machines down. I am merely stating an academic fact and based on my observation that many people and the media, seem to have this unfounded belief the reprap or makerbot community is leading some kind of revolutionary paradigm shift in technology because "now machines can build parts for itself! OMG!" - no, sorry we've been doing this since day 1 when apes began the transformation of having "human" intelligence. Old tools have always been used to make similar or newer better tools. Nothing new here. In fact, the current stage reprap machines isnt even capable of building all of its structural parts let alone the electronics. CNC mills/lathes do have the capability of replicating itself in its entirety if so designed.

You are being thick. Of course you can make parts for a CNC machine with a CNC machine. Of course you can make parts for a laser cutter with a laser cutter. Of course you can make parts for a lathe with a lathe. People are actually doing this.

Obviously RepRap is a printer designed to be able to print its own parts and potentially parts of future generations. Please point to where it is stated that printing parts for the machine by the machine in the case of RepRap is a novelty. Either you point to such material and we will all say you're right. Or you don't and you're a troll. What's the point here really? How much longer do you intend to drive your point home?

Who knows how 'the media' is coming to its conclusions? Who cares? Why bother us with your opinions much more than is necessary?

You are the one being thick. Thats the whole point I was insisting all along. This was obvious from the get go. Its also why I came here asking whats so special since its so obvious. From the defensive crowd blinded by their ideology, and their resistance to something for which I stated, which also happened to be true also shows a huge disconnect.

Instead of all users agreeing to my statement, you have people sidetracking into defending the cause. That is being blinded by emotions and ideology. The whole point of the discussion was to get a yes/no answer but instead it went into this whole debate about machine capabilities.

Firstly, when you are trying to convey a message and something is obvious you dont need to state it implicitly when you are advertising. You often say or advertise certain key points to hit home a message in which is either consciously or subconsciously think is important. You can tell your friends you bought a new watch, or you can say you bought a Rolex watch because its more expensive, or you can say you bought a diamond framed Gold Rolex watch because its even more expensive. You specify more points because they are distinctive. Yet you dont say you have a diamond framed Gold Rolex watch with the ability to tell the time and the date. You leave out the "ability to tell the time and the date" part because it is obvious.

So, when reprap advertises itself as a rapid prototyper that can replicate itself (where the name came from), its sort of trickery in its message. Its saying its special because it can do this. Well its not. THats the whole point I was making. And people, the media, will unknowingly absorb this message in the wrong way because they may not be people with technical knowledge, and then believe like a layman that this is some kind of novel revolution, since they were not really aware of the idea before, as a laymen, that machines can create parts for itself. And so goes the wrong belief. In fact, a true replicating machine needs artificial intelligence. Up until the day the reprap integrates artificial intelligence, it is not a true reprap because it requires human intervention, plus the fact it cant really create all of its own parts.

The second point of my argument also, is that there is nothing special about a reprap FDM machine. Why couldnt there be a similar parallel project that is similar to the whole reprap project, but for CNC mill/lathes machines. They can be used to replicate its machine parts also. So a whole new project and community called RepCNC perhaps? Why not? With that in mind, what so special about reprap - hence my original question. Its special because its a prototyper based on an FDM print head with 3axis numeric control? Well, the rest of the engineering world has been doing machining (rotary cutters, electrical discharge machining, etc) with 3, 4 and 5 axis numeric control for along time without a fancy 'open source' community for a long time. Again, I point out its not really that special, its just an open source for FDM tool heads. Then I should also point out since most operate on emotions, that I find nothing wrong with the fact its not special. I think its great because it is open source and is accessable to many people and is affordable. Reprap is great in all respect. Its just the academic fact that it really is not that special based on historical realities.

Regarding examples of people point to reprap and makerbot as a novelty, well you should do your own research and watch the news a little more perhaps. Ill do some limited grunt work for you, here is by a layman from a forum dated in 2010 (first Google search result, go figures):

[teamotec.net]

Check out the quote also, not just the post by the OP. It quotes the word "Novel", presumably quoted directly from the reprap page, which have since changed as far as I can tell. Interesting. Then again its a wiki so everyone can change it, which drives home the deeper point that there is obviously disconnect with some people? False advertisement perhaps? Perhaps not done in malice but lack of understanding as I have been like you said 'driving home' the entire thread? Who cares. The point is its not novel right and that shoudl be obvious also to everyone, right?

Here is mainstream media at its best:

[www.cnn.com]

Notice the description. "Invention". Invention signals novelty. Makerbot is not novel in its technology. It is novel in its marketing, that is making it cheap and accessible to the masses. THere is a huge difference. Again, false advertising? Innocent mistake? Shouldnt this be obvious like you state.

Here is a seller:

[www.kith-kin.co.uk]

Notice the advertisement. "Novel" capability of "self-copy".

Again, Im not making this up. So I state again then. you are the one who is being thick because you just couldnt see the whole picture (including the social perspectives).



sdevijver Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > First of all, I have an el-cheapo home DIY 3D
> printer too. By no means am I putting reprap
> machines down. I am merely stating an academic
> fact and based on my observation that many people
> and the media, seem to have this unfounded belief
> the reprap or makerbot community is leading some
> kind of revolutionary paradigm shift in technology
> because "now machines can build parts for itself!
> OMG!" - no, sorry we've been doing this since day
> 1 when apes began the transformation of having
> "human" intelligence. Old tools have always been
> used to make similar or newer better tools.
> Nothing new here. In fact, the current stage
> reprap machines isnt even capable of building all
> of its structural parts let alone the electronics.
> CNC mills/lathes do have the capability of
> replicating itself in its entirety if so designed.
>
>
>
> You are being thick. Of course you can make parts
> for a CNC machine with a CNC machine. Of course
> you can make parts for a laser cutter with a laser
> cutter. Of course you can make parts for a lathe
> with a lathe. People are actually doing this.
>
> Obviously RepRap is a printer designed to be able
> to print its own parts and potentially parts of
> future generations. Please point to where it is
> stated that printing parts for the machine by the
> machine in the case of RepRap is a novelty. Either
> you point to such material and we will all say
> you're right. Or you don't and you're a troll.
> What's the point here really? How much longer do
> you intend to drive your point home?
>
> Who knows how 'the media' is coming to its
> conclusions? Who cares? Why bother us with your
> opinions much more than is necessary?

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.

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]