MakiBox $200 Complete 3D Printer

It's even worse than that!

As the technology gets more and more sophisticated (and easy to use) the general populace gets dummer and dummer. Several hundred years ago only the very rich or intelligent/educated could read or write.

Now that people can talk to their phones and tellers and coke machines and get what they want it becomes less and less important that people can read and write.

And of course more and more people require glasses because in our modern society not being able to see well no longer determines if they survive to generate off spring.

Combine that with the fact that it is the poor uneducated poplulation that has 4 to 12 children where well educated financially well off couples tend to have only 1 to 3 children.

That is why in America if you don't speak Spanish you won't be able to go eat, or fly, or get gas...

---

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

Speaking of lawyers...

Why are scientists turning to lawyers, instead of rats, for laboratory experiments?

1. There are more of them.
2. The scientists don't get as emotionally attached to them.
3. There are some things that even a rat won't do!

---

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

... maybe this 'overpopulating'-pressure is the motor behind the spread of mankind and so a total normal or even inevitable fact?

There were four (until now) known 'waves' of outspreads from Africa before the Cro-Magnon ... every bigger expansion after this was driven by mass-exodus from an overpopulated area ... so maybe the next step should be populating the Moon(s), Mars and asteroids

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

Or digging down below earth surface. We just use a tiny fraction of this sphere volume currently

Edit : How did that thread got thaaat far out of topic ?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2013 10:36AM by DeuxVis.

---

Most of my technical comments should be correct, but is THIS one ?
Anyway, as a rule of thumb, always double check what people write.

DeuxVis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How did that thread got thaaat far out of topic ?

... it seems there has been 'triggered' a sensible point somewhere

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

VDX Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... so you'll state, that our society is dividing
> in two separate 'species' - 'tinkerers' <->
> 'morons'
>
> Add the parameters 'wealthy' and 'poor' to this
> and you'll get some more cross-overs, that could
> maybe explain some of the difficulties/problems
> with our actual social, economic and political
> situation


DA, not everyone here has money. Some of us work at a factory and support a family of 3. Some of us had to buy parts for a year just to build a prusa mendel. Quit making it about money. You could save 100$ over the course of a year I'm sure, start small, buy some parts, save a little more buy a little more. Maybe cut back somewhere else to make up the cost of parts buying.

rhmorrison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking of lawyers...
>
> Why are scientists turning to lawyers, instead of
> rats, for laboratory experiments?
>
> 1. There are more of them.
> 2. The scientists don't get as emotionally
> attached to them.
> 3. There are some things that even a rat won't do!





This thread proves how much interest we all have in Makibot.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2013 12:09PM by xclusive585.

Their output looks pretty good.

But for for a little more $ you can build a much better machine...

But A+ for effort.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

xclusive585 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DA, not everyone here has money. Some of us work
> at a factory and support a family of 3. Some of us
> had to buy parts for a year just to build a prusa
> mendel. Quit making it about money. You could save
> 100$ over the course of a year I'm sure, start
> small, buy some parts, save a little more buy a
> little more. Maybe cut back somewhere else to make
> up the cost of parts buying.


That is what I am doing now but with a 15 year old car going kaput, a 5 year fridge on the out, and a 4 year old video card dieing it is hard but my first purchase will be 5 steppers in about a month or 2. So, I will get there for sure, as I said.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

akhlut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Their output looks pretty good.
>
> But for for a little more $ you can build a much
> better machine...
>
> But A+ for effort.

A liitle more dollars? I can't get an I2 (self sourced for least expense) for less that ~470 + $50 - $60 for shipping. That is a far cry from $200 so even if they purchased a million of each part I don't see how they can make one less than 200 dollars.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Just a quick look at the pic/design, can't see them running at a profit, let alone break even, forget a profit. (if they value their time. Which will come into play if they need to hire anyone and actually pay them)

Why buy a kit? There are plenty of machines that can be assembled from raw materials. You just need some tools to make it happen. And stateside an SAE Prusa should be very cheap to assemble.

But why build a Prusa? Why not a mendel 90? MDF is way cheaper than threaded rod, and it's a better machine to boot.

Personally I have *never* built a kit machine.

And I can't see them making a profit either, even at Chinese prices. Matter of fact the parts are worth more than the kit. Maybe they'll hammer people on shipping...but maybe they're a bunch of altruists. Who knows.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

Idolcrasher Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I found an announcement he made saying the MakiBox
> goes open source after he sells 1000 units.
>
> I dig your electronics work btw


Has anybody bought one of these yet?
1000 units at $200 is $200,000, and they haven't even shipped any of them yet?
Somebody wrote earlier that they've almost presold that many...
People rob banks for a lot less than that...
I smell a rat...

upon reflection and talking to my chinese cnc factory friends, i would be tempted to say it is entirely possible that they could actually build the makibox and make a profit, however to quote them:

"if it doesn't have a 'made in china' sticker on it we will be very surprised, the only way anyone even big multi million dollar companies can do this is with Chinese labor, Chinese manufacturing and brilliant engineering"

Dark Alchemist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, can a FDM build bearing, a spanner, a
> bicycle, all at once that are all functional? No.
> Powder can and they are being researched and I
> suggest you go to youtube to see the BBC story on
> the race to build a Bicycle (all but the rubber
> for the tires) all in powder. **Spoiler Alert**
> They managed it and it ran with the person riding
> it in the parking lot. Was the first one they
> made so not a strong as they wanted but being a
> prototype that was a majoe jump.

I trained at Zcorp over 10 years ago. Back then they were mixing crazy glue with solvents to try and get the fusing with various powders to happen. They "lent" machines to big companies like Dupont to experiment with the different powders and liquids to figure out what worked.

Here is what I remember about the technology:
The parts are not strong and can easily be crumbled, but they can be made stronger with some post treatments - like sprays and dippings.
The process is very messy. The units I saw required their own rooms because of the dust. When you remove a part from the build, the first thing you do is vacuum and blow the dust away. If it is a compicated part, you can only clear it away with compressed air. If it is solid inside, you can't get that dust out without drilling holes. The dust goes everywhere - imagine a cat going crazy in a flour factory. The hallway to the room was full of white tracks leading to it. The people operating the machines were covered in powder. They try to recover the dust too, because it is expensive. Vacuum cleaners clog up. You have to wear a full face mask to keep it out of your ears, nose, eyes and lungs. They were only ever billed as rapid prototyping machines because the parts are weak, and also, back then they were much less accurate than the extrusion machines, mainly because liquid tends to "bleed" into powder and although you can control the liquid flowrate, powder is inconsistant, especially when it gets damp.

I know there are better units built now, but people won't be quick to put that kind of mess in their homes, they belong in industrial places. Repraps are great little hobby type machines and they create useable parts instead of just rapid protyping. They are too dangerous at the moment to make $200 units and sell to just everyone. They need to be in the hands of technically minded people until they develop to the point where UL would certify them for general public use.

One last thing. Zcorp came out off MIT in the USA. MIT put their lawyers on task from day one and they've had a very tough to beat patent on the technology, and the software used to slice STL files. I for one am very grateful to Adrian Boyer for opening up these opportunties to indulge with this stuff for people like me.

I read somewhere here that Zcorps patent runs out this year. If that is true, you can bet there has been a lot of research going on in this area for a few years already, and that we will see some really neat stuff happen when that dam opens....

I've see the bicycle clip. It was built in pieces and then assembled. It wasn't really a race, it was a couple of guys who worked for an aircraft manufacturer who were trying out their newly purchased 3d printer. Zcorp built a fullsized sportscar the same way 10 years ago. The software created holes and pegs to fit everything together. They used to take it places to impress people.

UV polymers, kind of tough material, and I think we could do it with simple inkjet heads and UV lights that hopefully wouldn't need to be as dangerous as industrial UV tunnels.

Dark Alchemist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Traumflug Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 2D laser printers can, unlike traditional book
> and
> > newspaper printers, print only dots. These
> days,
> > the resolution of those dots is fine enough to
> > make the results pretty much indistinguishable
> > from traditional machines.
>
> That is something I have been wondering about if
> we will go to this route? I doubt we will see
> that being done with a filament printer though but
> using a new technology very possibly. Who is to
> say we can't use the technology of a bubble
> jet/ink jet printer with another liquidy like
> material (like the ink we use in 2d printers now)
> that has a Z added? Print with dots, like the ink
> jets/bubble jets do now, and give it depth so it
> will be extremely hi-resolution, print way faster
> with more accuracy than we have now, and give us
> the possibility of true color prints.
>
> What do you think? Think that might happen?


I service printers.

Laserjets are mechanically capable of printing solid lines. The reason they print dots is because of the software that controls them - they rasterize images. They use a laser that scans across a rotating cylinder one line at a time, the way television does on the screen. Toner (which is plastic of a type), is attracted electrostatically to the drum and then transfered to the paper where is then gets melted onto it. They could be adapted to 3d technology.

Inkjet/Bubblejet - (same thing) - must, by design, print in drops. Each drop is, for lack of a better word, blown out of a tiny chamber, so you can't accually have a "stream" of anything. They can eject very fine drops, and that helps with the resolution, but there is a problem with that because of viscosity. Inkjet ink is very thin, it has to be, or it gets stuck in the hole. Common inkjets currently have a drop size of 4 picoliters. That is not very much ink, and to try to "build" with that would take years. In the powder machines, the powder is much bigger and the drops (put down by older, coarser inkjet heads), are up around 40 picoliters. Smaller than that and they dry up before they can interact with the powder and cause it to "set". Together, that works, but the resolution is poor and the parts come out rough. That is a limitaion of that technology - viscosity thin enough to have substance has nothing to it, and thick enough is too low resolution.

Laser could do it, but toner has no strength when its melted, and kind of flakes and crumbles...

xclusive585 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> UV polymers, kind of tough material, and I think
> we could do it with simple inkjet heads and UV
> lights that hopefully wouldn't need to be as
> dangerous as industrial UV tunnels.

Not cheap stuff...

... I think, the easiest and most user-friendly methode for creating 3D-parts (until other suitable methodes goes public), would be LOM-fabbing.

Here you glue/fuse a sheet of material ontop of the build and cut separating lines in the top sheet.

After the build is finished, you can simply brak away all the surrounding volumes ...

LOM-printers printing with laminated paper were common until 1996, but then replaced by SLA-printers.

One company (can't remember who) sells until today a small desktop-printer laminating PVC-sheets, cutting them with a knife-cutter and fusing/glueing the sheets with a solvent. The parts are stable enough for 'real-life' use and can be defined as rigid or elastic depending on the material and solvent ...

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

... OK, found it - it's the SD300 from Encee - here an advertising vid showing the specs and printing: [www.youtube.com]

And here a part-gallery: [solido3d.com]

Older commercial LOM-printers were cutting the sheets with a CO2-laser - here the cutting depth accuracy was critical ... but this can be handled, when not cutting the sheet when already on the object, but before, so you can cut with max. full power and then glue/fuse the already separated sheet ontop of the body.

Was thinking about methodes to speedup the building proces - could be made until some seconds per slice/layer!

So imagine printing wit resolutions defined only by the height of the single sheets (common 0.1mm, possible until 0.01mm with ultrathin foils) and the mechanical resolution of your XY-axes.

With 0.1mm layer height and lets say 6s per layer this would result in a fabbing speed of a minute per mm!

But this could be enhanced even more with the right ideas/methodes

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

rhmorrison Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking of lawyers...
>
> Why are scientists turning to lawyers, instead of
> rats, for laboratory experiments?
>
> 1. There are more of them.
> 2. The scientists don't get as emotionally
> attached to them.
> 3. There are some things that even a rat won't do!


LOL, remember that from Hook.

Don't forget MCor Technologies!

---

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

... had some parts laminated form paper cutted with a CO2-laser - looks and behaves like wood.

When cutting paper with a knife you'll get issues with the knife-lifetimes - paper is something abrasive, so it's receiveing wear and you have to replace it regularly.

A laser has lifetime-limits too - a CO2-laser in the range of some hundred hours use, diode-lasers of some ten-thousands (or more if 'underpowered').

For DIY and paper the actual 445nm-diodes with 1-2Watts of power should be optimal, maybe some better/stronger types in the next years ...

---

Viktor
--------
Aufruf zum Projekt "Müll-freie Meere" - [reprap.org] -- Deutsche Facebook-Gruppe - [www.facebook.com]

Call for the project "garbage-free seas" - [reprap.org]

Lets not forget this older technology (about 2 or 3 years ago on this segment): [www.youtube.com]

Notice all of that labor but it really is metal. From nothing into solid metal able to open big doors. I bet that has been simplified by now, but who knows.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Tekwizard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> xclusive585 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > UV polymers, kind of tough material, and I
> think
> > we could do it with simple inkjet heads and UV
> > lights that hopefully wouldn't need to be as
> > dangerous as industrial UV tunnels.
>
> Not cheap stuff...

UV polymer coatings (something I've worked with for over a decade)
1000$USD per 50 Gallons (wholesale cost), you're right, not cheap. But for arguments sake let's do some really poor math. First off lets double that cost for retail sale= 2000$USD/50 gallons, =40USD$/gallon. Water weighs just over 8 pounds/gallon, assuming UV coating is similar 40$USD/8lbs=

5$USD per Pound
11$USD per KG

Sounds cheaper than filament to me. But again my quick poor math here isn't comparing weight/volume of UV to weight/volume of PLA/ABS. I think per volume UV could easily be twice the weight, which brings the numbers to;
10$US per 1lb equivalent of UV and 22USD per 1KG equivalent.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/21/2013 09:11AM by xclusive585.

xclusive585 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Tekwizard Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > xclusive585 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > UV polymers, kind of tough material, and I
> > think
> > > we could do it with simple inkjet heads and
> UV
> > > lights that hopefully wouldn't need to be as
> > > dangerous as industrial UV tunnels.
> >
> > Not cheap stuff...
>
> UV polymer coatings (something I've worked with
> for over a decade)
> 1000$USD per 50 Gallons (wholesale cost), you're
> right, not cheap. But for arguments sake let's do
> some really poor math. First off lets double that
> cost for retail sale= 2000$USD/50 gallons,
> =40USD$/gallon. Water weighs just over 8
> pounds/gallon, assuming UV coating is similar
> 40$USD/8lbs=
>
> 5$USD per Pound
> 11$USD per KG
>
> Sounds cheaper than filament to me. But again my
> quick poor math here isn't comparing weight/volume
> of UV to weight/volume of PLA/ABS. I think per
> volume UV could easily be twice the weight, which
> brings the numbers to;
> 10$US per 1lb equivalent of UV and 22USD per 1KG
> equivalent.

ummm unless you get free shipping with it or you at picking it up what about postage/shipping on 50gallons? and if it's even anywhere near that cheap ... got a link?

DA,

I said I was done with this thread, but a few things came up that I had to address.

1) You don't need a Ph.D. to talk about 3D printers intelligently. Many of the people here, if not most, don't. But they have experience and knowledge. They got theirs building and tweaking devices. I got mine machining and building an experiment to do basic physics. Based on what you've said here, you seem to have that most dangerous combination of just a little knowledge and a lot of desire. I applaud the desire, but urge you to get practical experience and more knowledge.

For example:

Dark Alchemist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Imagine a printer designed to build a house. It
> could lay wall materials, wiring and pipes all at
> once. Just drive the truck with the printer on the
> bed to the build site, dig a hole, and go.

DA - Not within our lifetimes.
--

Please take a gander at [press.d-shape.com]. They are printing buildings using a stereolithography process, fusing sand with a liquid binder, delivering the binder with a 3d print head. Size is currently limited to a 6 meter cube, so not big enough for a mansion, but a small house or shed is doable. Size scaling looks pretty easy with their method, just more expensive to build the printer, and a bit more setup time onsite. I can see printing PVC pipes into the walls within a decade. Metals and electrical could take a little longer, but well within our lifetimes if the economics work out.

Learn. Discuss. Share. Stop dissing everything.

In another post you mentioned that injection molding was used to produce finished parts while 3d printing was more for prototyping. However, the reason behind this is economics. It costs a lot to make an injection mold, but once made, the cost per part is very low, so a decent profit can be made. A 3d printer can produce a variety of parts, but the cost to produce (including time) is higher. It's about the money more than the method. If it were cheaper to 3d print everything, someone would work on a technique to make 3d printed products as smooth as injection molded ones. In fact, I'd wager several someones are working on just that.

-----

> It's not my job to teach you anything; and if it were, the salary would have to be
> a lot higher than what it costs to build a 3D printer.

DA - Good ole capitalism at its greediest.

Not really. My time has value. I only have a finite amount of it. But this was more of a humorous jab than a statement on economics.

The bottom line here is that highly worked objects have capitol value. Take a big block of aluminum. It's been refined, processed, and has some value, but I could buy one easily if I wanted to. Now put several smooth cylinders in it, inlets and outlets for valves, cams, etc., and make it into an engine block. It now has a much greater value, because of the time put into it, and more importantly, WHAT IT CAN DO. The long term altruistic goal of 3d printing is to allow people to create more value for less cost, making everyone "richer" in value. This is accomplished in part by giving the means of production to everyone at reasonable initial cost, and in part by allowing the creation of way more value by that production. Another way to put it is that the efficiency of manufacturing increases and the initial investment decreases, so people can have more useful and valuable stuff for less cost (where cost includes money, as well as time and effort.)

What I was trying to say is this. I suspect you are fairly young, at least in attitudes. I'm not the only one to imply it, and even if you are pretty old, you don't sound like it. You seem to have the attitude, typical of many younger people, that they know more than everyone else, more than people older and more experienced than themselves, and there is nothing for them to learn from others that they haven't already figured out. I had this attitude when I was young too. But one of the first things I learned is that people out there have a ton of knowledge and experience, far more than I could get in a lifetime devoted solely to learning. It's a lot easier to use a wheel than reinvent it. Take advantage of the experience and wisdom of others. Further, the community is the best testbed to try all ideas and find out what works and what fails. This is what the success of Linux and Arduino have taught us about the advantages of open source. It can even produce economic rewards - look at what the Apache group has done, and AFAIK Arduino is making a profit despite competition from knockoffs using their own designs.

Sadly, based on your replies and attitude, it seems as though you aren't at the point where you are willing to learn from others or appreciate the vast resources the community brings to the table. As such, I don't want to waste effort sharing the few things I know with you if you aren't willing to learn. It's not about money, or degrees. It's about knowledge and attitude.

Again, best of luck with your 3d printing endeavors.

Regards,
aeronaut

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2013 12:13PM by aeronaut.

thejollygrimreaper Wrote:
>
> ummm unless you get free shipping with it or you
> at picking it up what about postage/shipping on
> 50gallons? and if it's even anywhere near that
> cheap ... got a link?

I tried finding something online, but that's pointless. We purchase from Actega and a few other compaines in bulk orders typically 3-6 50Gallon barrels. Those orders are running us 900 something $ USD per barrel.
But we are a bulk buyer with an account, and this is printable/screenable UV coating and what we would need here may be very different stuff. But I think with a reseller buying it and carrying it, it wouldn't be as expensive as you think.

(ok, done being off topic here.)

aeronaut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Best of luck to you as well.

---

_______
I await Skynet and my last vision will be of a RepRap self replicating the robots that is destroying the human race.

Dark Alchemist Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lets not forget this older technology (about 2 or
> 3 years ago on this segment):
> [www.youtube.com]
>
> Notice all of that labor but it really is metal.
> From nothing into solid metal able to open big
> doors. I bet that has been simplified by now, but
> who knows.

That is exactly how the zcorp machines worked 10 years ago, and they were experimenting with several different metal powders. Back then, I remember that the binding liquid caused the resulting metal pieces to be crumbly - like compacted sand. If they heated them high enough, the metal powders would fuse somewhat, but not enough to be strong like extruded or poured metal, and as the binding agent was burned away, the metal would shrink and distort. But, like I said, that was over 10 years ago and they were just starting to experiment with that.