Encouraging development 2 - Incentives

Building off a number of separate forum topics, I wanted to start a discussion about ways to incentivize feedback on developments.

Reprap development is growing at a ~exponential rate, if the reprap family tree is any guide, so encouraging development and mutations is a solved problem. What we need now is constructive feedback. We need people to look at design improvements, print them out or spend money on parts, rebuild their printers, and most importantly, report back their thoughts. If we are really really lucky they take pictures, do testing, and edit the wiki.

It is a lot to ask of experienced users, who know how time consuming it is, and how hard it is to get back up to speed (if the part/design actually works, that is). The users who are most likely to do this are those that have the least reprap experience, i.e. new users.

So the question is, What kind of incentive can we offer? How do we make it worth their while?

Easiest answerer: Money. or money-equivalent (prizes). This worked great for the vertical x contest, and brought a lot of ideas to the table. maybe something similar can be done for feedback: offer a pack of ball bushings if somebody builds and reviews your designs, or a pound of filament of your choice, etc.

the most glaring problem is that if you're buying reviews, you're not going to be happy getting bad ones.

Another option is what you could consider, perhaps unkindly, Ego Boosters . This would be along the same lines as video game Achievements or campaign patches. NASA has unique patches for every launch; maybe we could do something similar. We could do seasonal testing, and everyone that contributes a blog post gets a patch or a jpg to put on their user page. And within that group, you could vote a "best of the best" tester for that season.

Lastly, I think RUGs can and should play a large part in this process. As more machines are built, RUGs will hopefully grow and become more active. Maybe feedback sessions should be part of any meeting. minutes or, better yet, a video of this session posted on youtube would help foster even more discussion online, and get even more people involved. RUGs could even do their own achievements and testing campaigns, focusing in the direction the local community wants to investigate.

tl;dr There is now, or will soon be, too much development, and we need a system to constructively separate the wheat from the chaff.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2012 01:23AM by Buback.

So who and what could help improve quality assurance in a volunteer world?

RUGS, indeed, but they do have dynamics of their own. I am under the impression that most often, RUGS are mostly one or two experienced users assuming leadership. Today, this model offers few definite advantages when compared to commited individual research plus the global network. Outside the particular case of inner city dwellers, it is often easier to order from the net than to do many kms, find some rare parking place then participate in a queue of group printing. RUGS have had less of a role in reprap reproduction than kit & plastic parts sales. Computer clubs thrived before the era of the net because people needed some physical meeting point to trade w4r3z (the primary outcome) and learn from each other (a side effect), those conditions are gone (for now).

Currently some level of sponsorization -however little- is coming from a couple of hardware sellers. You are right to point that critical, objective reviews would not be the most welcome. Same problem in biomedical research etc.

A karma/reputation system along the lines of slashdot has also been mentioned. This sounds quite viable and might actually work well. But let us not forget that any reputation system is prone to be abused and mass behaviour isn't always linear, so we have "karma whoring", "slashdotting" et al.

People tend to get addicted and put a lot of energy in online virtual worlds, societies, quests. It would be tempting to enhance those aspects, a la WoW: painstakingly dig the scady mines of modelling and fight the flaming dragons of prototyping with acetone, to earn a big bag of f-currency ( [www.thingiverse.com] ) then go to the virtual store to purchase... hum purchase what? damn this is about real world hardware. Yes, medal and token systems do work, as the old soviet system showed it, but tends to over-reward the more obsessional compulsive among the creators.

A bit further among proven motivators of human action : what about organizing some cult of the holy reprap that will save the world? Hmmm... Takes time to build, works best with the very very young, and always at risk of being debunked.

So maybe a bit of all of the above, plus some thorough narrative-glue tat revels the fundamental fun behind the reprapping activity?

something like: "i must not fear, fear is the print-killer"? :-)

A slashdot-like karma tracking system would be great, but how to implement it? can we use something ready made and easy to integrate, or would it have to be coded from the ground up (which would likely never happen).

You are right about RUGs; few have enough members to do much to help. There just aren't enough repraps out there yet. the only places with critical-reprap-mass to start RUG meetings are large cities or universities. But they are likely to attract committed users who can get things done. A good example is the whole sarus linkage printer project. can't remember which RUG was working on it, though.

back to money: maybe we should encourage linking to micropayment services on the wiki? I've made a couple euro from my designs with thingiverse and flattr. it's not much, but it's a nice form of feedback. something similar for reviews or build instructions etc might be enough encouragement, and take away the skew-factor money from a single source can have.

Does wikipedia have any type of influence tracking? How do they identify and reward frequent editors?

I would like to see maybe more of the core RepRap team assist with things like future standards for things so the rest of us know we are building on the same spec. Maybe it's not the job of the core team? But how else can we evolve aspects of the design? maybe expand the core team? Evolution seems a little random at the moment. But maybe that's the optimum solution for diversity?
I'm all for a few basic measurements - then let people innovate and invent. At the moment maybe we are all stuck? On being compatible with mendel or Prusa dimensions. Both a strength and a weakness and also a safe bet.

I have been doing work on many parts recently but am always a little cautious about straying from the distance between x carriage bars or between z axis rod and screw etc. Where really I want to change everything...

Vertical x carriage/axis was a fine example of defining a standard by committee, not something usually all that achievable.

Maybe Nophead's Mendel90 is another example of focus on the real-world problems discovered, but as far as I know this another Prusa, done by one dedicated individual.

The biggest incentive for me would be someone else liking what I had done and using it or further promoting it. Isit't that exactly how the Prusa became so popular?

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

I do not know how exactly the Prusa set of mods became so popular, but (after printing it and discovering some of its features the hard way like everybody else) I am concerned about how so much alpha & testing-level DNA went straight to the wiki's first page and was sort of officially endorsed by its popularity merits. Excessive enthusiasm?

I do not think we should be excessively concerned about "being stuck" with some compatibility set, most tech evolution seems to work this way: Radical reconsiderations seem quite rare, as innovations follow an incremental and gradualist pattern, even through technological revolutions: the very first clay pots tried to imitate the patterns of woven baskets, early bronze pots tried to simulate the look and feel of their clay predecessors, etc.

There is also a micro-level economical aspect of this conservatism: assuming I have one or two printers: do I prefer to reprint a totally new set and rebuild everything, or do I prefer to just adopt tolutions for the aspects that I feel need improvement?
The anyser may depend also on the key features of the hardware: I do not feel like "evolving" the pirated cupcake as no straightforrward mod will really increase the 100x100mm print area.

"Design by committee" has long grown to have ominous connotations, and individuals are still the real force at the forefront of innovation (that's rather reassuring, sort of). But committees have an important role drawing standards. Standards make sense mostly when large sets of the same thing are going to be produced, so they are often market- and producer- related. The pre-industrial age of artisans did put much less emphasis on standards. Maybe we should have a glimpse at how production at the hands of "artisans" worked back then: lots of tiny "schools" (a "master" and his "disciples") and many secrets. We're not repeating that history, for the most of us we're in for the fun, but what can we learn from 'em? Let us dream of some renaissance of creativity

I am happy we were able to clarify the distances between the axes of the rods. At that time (and up to now) there isn't any reference set of 2D drawings dealing with those fundamental aspects. So everyone was taking a best guess at measurements on projected stls and printed pieces. This was less "standards by commitee" drafting than making good sense of existing parts.
At some point we'll have anyway to break those provisory "standards" (I am confronted to this while drawing plans for 12mm rods and flanged bearings)

About rewards: people deeply drawn in Wikipedia tend to form interest groups and meet IRL after some months or years. The communities are large enough for that (how many hundred thousands are 'em?).

We haven't talked yet about cultivating relations with educational institutions - much in the roots of reprap- I think there are major synergies there. They may not have much money, but have the student-power for organized and multilevel projects like structure optimization, materials tests etc. I see a main potential there, needs an initiative - might be drafted by some of us- plus some "core team" (is there still such entity?) referent.

I wonder a few things.

1. Have we come to a point where there are simply too many designs out there for any single one to become the next Prusa mendel? And if so do we care? If you look at linux there are so many distros out there that there is really no consensus distro. And the top distros are almost all backed by some company (Ubuntu, Fedora, SUSE). Perhaps we have come to that place here as well. I can see printrbot becoming the next popular build due to the amazing success of the campaign as long as it performs well, and there are already many variants of the printrbot design floating around. Many of the other commercial designs rely on laser cut panels so I'm not so sure that any of them will inspire many scratch builds.

2. Is 3D design now so easy that a one off design is the norm for advanced reprapers?

3. Are the current designs at the "good enough for almost everyone" stage such that there is little demand for new designs?

and the big one, which is probably a corollary to 3

4. What does the next gen printer look like. Are there any outstanding goals that aren't met by the current crop of popular designs?

The Penn State RUG is very active, which is great to see. it's even tied to, i assume, a course, since they're offering credits.
I'm assuming Bath has a program going as well still.

--
The 'core team' is less and less visible, which isn't too surprising. After all, this hobby is just starting, and there is money to be made for those with the right experience. as life goes on and the core team members move on to other projects, who is going to take the reigns? That's one of the reasons i am interested in incentives. We'll have a way to identify the individuals that contribute and thereby get achievements/karma. Those are the people who should be establishing standards and setting goals.

(of course, I don't want an oligarchy. At the least any opposition group with enough members can fork)

@bryan
1- I think that reprap.org will always have a standard printer. it's only been about a year since Prusa came out. perhaps Adrian is hoping natural selection will narrow his options before picking a successor? I do worry a bit about reprap being drowned out by all the commercial competitors, though.
But the linux analogy misses on thing: upstream and downstream contributions, and a single kernel.

2- no it isn't easy. it takes at least 6 months to do right. a lot of that time is just meditating on how all the parts will interact with each other. if starting from absolute scratch, much longer, i suspect.

3- The printing process is not easy, and none of us are normal people (that's a compliment). We have what it takes to accept and ignore all the aggravation and frustration, for the most part. So, there is certainly room for improvement.

4- yes this answerer is related to 3. I'd say a truly next gen printer would either be a SLS powder printer or a UV resin printer. And this is where the colleges and RUGs come in...

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/25/2012 06:10PM by Buback.

I think it's too bad that the core team is not at least helping set the agenda. I think one major incentive that is missing is a clear goal. For instance it seems that the market is clearly favoring less expensive and simpler to build designs. Just look at Prusa vs. Sells Mendel, or the amazing success of printrbot. It seems to me that there would be a lot of incentive in a simple declaration of that goal. for instance you could

1. Find a name for the post mendel full size printer
2. Define the goals (Cheaper, quicker to print, easier to assemble, etc. )
3. Ask for input and testing, have designers and users submit their print times for various parts, build times for different assemblies, cost estimates, etc.

I think the excitement of working on the next "official" reprap printer would be a big incentive. And it might channel the energy that is currently going into 612,003.45 new designs per day into a relatively fewer desings that evolve quicker. And I know I'm not one to talk given that I am currently working on a new design too that will likely be a one-off that never goes anywhere, but I think that's all that is available for many enthusiasts who don't see a way to contribute to the "official" development branch.

For the boring stuff like updating the wiki, maybe the badges and points would at least help.

bryanandaimee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think the excitement of working on the next
> "official" reprap printer would be a big
> incentive.

I could not agree more, Why don't we all start to storm the ultimate spec then?, we will need some control and limits and apart from the General RepRap goal maybe some headline achievements that look like good and important things to work towards.

There are quite a few things I'm a little sad that we as RepRap are not doing as well as some of the others out there -

For example, Dual extrusion, It would be so nice for 'a team' to work on this aspect as a single goal - get that nailed with a Firmware, Gcode and tool-chain changes so it can be added to the grand master new design.

Then carve up and define other focused tasks in teams towards the grand master design.

The other way to do all this is the way that the Prusa has evolved and I expect Mendel90 will also go down is that people just tweak each part of the design a little more and over time it becomes better? (Different, yes) but that's not evolving fast enough.

> For the boring stuff like updating the wiki, maybe
> the badges and points would at least help.

We still need to find more wiki elves, I always find it very hard to face the Wiki especially after writing whatever up on a Blog and Thingiverse, I just want to move on then, not refine instructions to the perfect degree.

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

I think it is normal to see differentiation and speciation at this stage.
People (maybe the majority on the market) who are going to print mostly mashups of the octocat and/or some of their idols or anatomical parts may not care so much about accuracy as about cost. A very simplified and inexpensive design won't hurt.
Other people, maybe nourishing the hope of printing homegrown mechanical parts, may be willing to invest a bit more resources and vitamins. Others will insist on speed, etc.

Setting design goals: yes, but with defined sets of priorities and expectations. Should we start a survey?

Speaking of this: do we have a reference about what we have already? Do we have a common view on what should a "normal" Selis or Prusa Mendel be able to do? at what speeds? The latter has been a moving target.

And we need a non-linear narrative to wrap around all this to stimulate newcomers imagination-wise.

A survey would be a good start. Posting it in General will get the most notice.

A reference design should describe a cubical volume, where the axes are inside that volume, how they are driven, and where/how the drive attached to moving parts. just kinda a skeleton, really. It should be easy enough to codify the reference designs for Sells and Prusa Mendels, and working out the reference dimensions would be the first priority of any new designs.

OK I have a couple of emergencies in the upcoming days but I'll be back in a week or so with a draft of a survey.

As for the survey tool, I have a preference for Limesurvey and might have to prepare a fresh setup (the one I use currently has institutional branding)

In the mean time, let us flesh out together what do we want to know about our fellow reprappers.

Keeping it at a couple of pages (max. 10 to 12 questions long) will enhance the chances of getting people to finish filling it.

richrap Wrote:
--------------------------
...
> For example, Dual extrusion, It would be so nice
> for 'a team' to work on this aspect as a single
> goal - get that nailed with a Firmware, Gcode and
> tool-chain changes so it can be added to the grand
> master new design.
...

Yes, this, but please make it multi-extrusion, even if initial development is dual. I think this could be a great rallying point for the "next" RepRap, incorprating all we've already learned from building Darwin, Mendel and Prusa. Multiple extruders was one of the potential developments slated for Mendel, but the mechanical improvements over Darwin, and developing techniques for designing a printer with printed parts overshadowed multi-extrusion as a goal.

Definitely an interesting topic. To my observation, much of RepRap is money driven and all but enhancement of details is done with the ability to sell the design in mind. Currently, this mostly means complete machines. That's why nobody is sitting down and doing fundamental research, for example.

Accordingly, a common design for all can't happen. Because if there were one, individuals could no longer sell it, as their design was indistinguishable from what the cheapeast copy shop offers.

So I'd pledge not for trying on a common design, but on a few standards - has been mentioned above - and some sort of a quality scale. Time to print the 20x20 test cube, size of the thinnest wall, thinnest hole, number of printed and vitamin parts, noise, weight and so on. Define how this has to measured and "demand" people to set up such a table for each design.

That leads to the question: what is important for a RepRap? Isn't the extruder the only piece defining quality and everything else just a matter of price and required amount of handcrafting?

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Traumflug Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Definitely an interesting topic. To my
> observation, much of RepRap is money driven and
> all but enhancement of details is done with the
> ability to sell the design in mind. Currently,
> this mostly means complete machines. That's why
> nobody is sitting down and doing fundamental
> research, for example.

Shying away from the investment in fundamental research is a general trend in western societies at large, and long term consequences for all of us are ominous.
Yes, people focus on the aspects that might bring them quick money, while more research could bring in more money. So this would generate a bunch of small-earners. Looks like few people are really earning their lives from reprap-related development anyway.

I do not feel at ease with this trend, what attracted me to reprap is precisely the mass of background research and open information, plus concepts for machines that any john or jane doe can build in his living room or shed. This idea is very much alive, curuiously more in educational facilities...

>
> Accordingly, a common design for all can't happen.
> Because if there were one, individuals could no
> longer sell it, as their design was
> indistinguishable from what the cheapeast copy
> shop offers.

Yes, but this strategy is prone to corner them into small sales prospects and a weekend activity.

>
> So I'd pledge not for trying on a common design,

I am of the same opinion.
User needs are the other main concern for this: as no single design would satisfy the perceived needs of everybody.

> but on a few standards - has been mentioned above
> - and some sort of a quality scale. Time to print
> the 20x20 test cube, size of the thinnest wall,
> thinnest hole, number of printed and vitamin
> parts, noise, weight and so on. Define how this
> has to measured and "demand" people to set up such
> a table for each design.

I have also been feeling the needs of a quality initiative.
Will put some a question or two about this in the survey

>
> That leads to the question: what is important for
> a RepRap? Isn't the extruder the only piece
> defining quality

> and everything else just a matter
> of price and required amount of handcrafting?

Some structural choices will be dictated by what people want most: for example, multiple extruders will probably impose a stationary extruder block with either superposed XY (a la makerbot) or bowden cables (that should be kept as short as possible).
Our knowledge also evolves. Some years ago there were hopes of hybrid machining for extruded pieces, this has proven less feasible than initially thought with current hardware and price tags. Other stuff has received less attention (AFAIK) like the possibility of reworking plastic surfaces with IR lasers...

This looks like it moving, so here are a few things to think about if a survey or spec is drafted -

One of the main goals really needs to be that it's easy to build, calibrate and maintain. We still want mass adoption so some of the things (dual extruder, scalable size of machine, ultra high precision, print speed) may need to be upgrade options from the base model, but if this is all thought about from the start, no one should end up with 'RepRap V4' that's unable to evolve as they become more skilled and interested.

I find it easy to think about all the things I want my next 'advanced' machine to do, but much harder to think about a basic entry level machine, the choices and options are vast.

Structural materials - Lots of different ones now, three popular ones -

Threaded Rod - Mendel and Huxley - Easy to assemble badly, slightly harder to assemble well, a little bendy and easy to source
Aluminium T-slot - Mendel Max and lots of custom RepStraps - Very easy to assemble if sections are cut for you, quite easy to maintain and adapt parts, high precision and strength, higher cost and not so easy to source.
MDF - Mendel 90 - Straightforward to assemble if sections are cut for you, easy to source and low cost, can be prone to change dimensions with moisture, not so easy to scale individual parts, some people really don't like MDF.

Drive -

Belts - 5mm and 2.5mm pitch - Work well, easy to source, give good results, fast operation.
Threaded rod - OK for Z, not so great for anything else, very low cost, easy to use.
ACME Leadscrew - still low cost (if all you want is the leadscrew) better precision and faster than threaded rod, you need to make (or buy) a 'nut' to run on it (quite easy with Acetal/delrin and a heatgun).
Ballscrew - Expensive, fast operation, required costly ballnut.
Wire - low cost but complicated to implement.
Rack and Pinion - Depends on if it's printed or not, but some big issues to get over before, but potential big benefits and progress towards the RepRap goal.

Electronics -
RAMPS / Arduino - Single source but low cost, easy to get, use and develop on. current MEGA's limit expansion and somewhat performance & operation - a new more powerful one is on the way.
ARM - Lots of sources, needs work porting code, maybe harder for people to use. Could be much more capable for future and current requirements. (Simple stand alone operation / LCD / Keypad / and maybe even STL to Gcode slicing by the ARM, no PC required?)
PIC32 - Single source, not so easy to use (even with Adruino compatibility), can't think of many good points...

Extruder Drive, feed and hot-ends -
Lots of options... and the bit most new people dread.

Size of machine and print area -
Everyone has a different idea of size
Maybe it's a good idea to have a rectangular build area? instead of a square.
Give plenty of Vertical build - ~150mm minimum?
Make the machine scale easily - (easier said than done)
Make it similar print area to other machine out there (new Makerbot / Printrbot)

Any other thoughts?

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

@Richrap:

Yes indeed I do not feel limited in upgradeability with the current Mendel frame. Especially if the addons are "clamp on" rather than "rod thru".
(noticed a a trend among the finer kits being proposed to revert to the old clamping system that provides a larger area of contact)
Most of the "improve precision" can be proposed as addons.
I see the same ecology perpetuating in the mendel90 - be it MDF or acrylic-
MDF should be stabilized anyway, not only because of atmospheric variations, but because repeated vibrations tend to turn it back to the primal sawdust. Two solutions, alkydic paint & varnish (on the cheap side), epoxy (on the higher priced side). An epoxy-stabilized frame becomes almost as immortal as HeLa cancer cells.

Speed: with improved speeds (Marlin...all hail the wonderful Marlin...) our main hobbed-bolt-powered extruding system (direct drive, internally or eternally geared: all very close variations of the same stuff) is showing signs of being the limiting element. The switch to 1.75 mm filament might be part of the response, now that many sources are proposing the thinner filament at the same price (per weight) as the 3 mm one.
Let us keep in mind that high speeds need also high quality (so more expensive) filament, lest starting to love mauling gaps in the infill.

Electronics: Pololus/RAMPS/Arduino as well as Gen7 are clear winners as compared to the previous -unsatisfactory and pricey- situation. They might still be the main staple for a year or more. I do not see any definite advantage given by a more oomphy controller until we sort out the extruder(s) bottleneck. Standalone is not a main concern now that discarded good pcs are everywhere in the thrashbins. Each one of those can simultaneously drive 2, maybe 4 or 6 pinters. Better compatibility of existing host software with X11 distant sessions might be a plus for controlling things through ethernet.

Printing area: don't know about printrbot, but makerbot has still a smallish printing area. The thinking line is, "reduce print area to keep costs low and the frame light" but it doesn't feel comfy after tasting the 200x200 area
The easiest to scale up would be Y with a mendel90 topology, and the lowest axis in a makerbot/superposed XY topology. With the current specs, maybe slightly wider belts, it would not be a major problem to go to 250x300 mm

One definite advantage of a reference design (even if there are many, many variations) is to send a clear signal to the market upstram: Metal pulleys used to be expensive and hard to source (at least in the part of the world I write from), when the specs settled new offers emerged. This makes a significant difference for any would-be builders.

I don't use Marlin and the extruder is my limiting factor on speed. I can't get more than 40mm/s out of a Wade's with a 0.4mm nozzle and ABS. That will be something I concentrate on soon when I finish work.

No machines vibrate more than HydraRaptor throwing 8Kg around but after years of that there is no sign of the MDF turning back into dust. I should really seal my machines but I always forget and then haven't the patience to strip them down again and rebuild them.

I have yet to find a metal pulley I can buy that doesn't need a lathe to bore it out.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

I've been thinking about some of the ways we can define different spec machines, and how those definitions will help us define dimensions/constraints.

I imagine a small machine should be lowest cost/ least experience, while a large machine should be highest quality/ most advanced.

With FDM i think there is an approximate maximum single part size. I know there are lots of factors, but if you consider that there is a size above which you don't want to go just because of the risk of warping, and the cost of time and plastic involved, that is a functional maximum size. A general purpose spec for the high end machine shouldn't go larger than that since it will increase machine cost for little (general purpose) benifit. I would hazard a guess that that's probably around 300 mm^3 (as a best case maximum). and since even a Mendel should have larger diameter smooth rods, maybe 12mm rods as standard. (a quick search makes me believe linear bushings at 12mm are cheaper than 10mm)

On the other end of the scale, the smallest machine should use as many recyclable parts as possible. If you can get your hands on laser printer toner or drum cartridges, you can usually find some smooth rods in them. They probably won't be longer than a piece of paper is wide, so maybe around 250mm. There's a particular Brother cartridge that i've found that has 8mm 250mm rods in it that I've been collecting for use at some point. you won't get much travel on such short rods, so they will help define the bed area.
A small machine should also have a somewhat defined upgrade path, so part-reusability should be a consideration. maybe stick with NEMA 17 for all machines, and the same pulleys for all machines.

The problem is the optimum axis arrangement changes at about the 200 x 200 size. Above that you probably want moving head like Ultimaker and below moving table. At 200mm there isn't much difference so a combination of both works as well and is simpler, hence Mendel.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

Draft for a reprap survey
=========================
Request for comments submitted to the reprap form
by lanthan lanthanid at gmail dot com

Rationale:
This survey should provide developers and fellow reprappers with fresh information on the current user base, practice and expectations. This might help deciding on priorities setting about design, research, initiatives and reachout.

Privacy: At the closure of the survey, the data set will be made public _stripped of any IP data or aything allowing to trace back the individual answers_ . Data will be in CSV format, with import tags for the R statistical computing environment.

The survey should be announced/advertised at least in
- the reprap forums and lists
- thingiverse
...

By all means this is not finished nor ready. Please comment, add, substract, amend... what would you like to know?
We should aim to keep it short, the response is inversely proportional to the length of surveys.

-----------------------------------
Section 1: Access

1.1 Access to resources
(check all that apply)

- I own a reprap, repstrap or similar contraption
- I have access to a reprap, repstrap or similar
- I own a laser cutter
- I have access to a laser cutter
- I own a CNC router/mill
- I have access to a CNC router/mill
- I own a selective sintering system
- I have access to a selective sintering system
- I own a drill press
- I have access to a drill press

1.2 building and purchases
(check all that apply)

- I am currently building a reprap, repstrap or similar
- I plan to build a reprap, repstrap or similar
- I plan to purchase an assembled 3D printer
- I am currently building a laser cutter
- I plan to build a laser cutter
- I plan to purchase an assembled laser cutter
- I am currently building a CNC router/mill
- I plan to build a CNC router/mill
- I plan to buy an assembled CNC router/mill
- I am currently building a selective sintering system
- I plan to build a selective sintering system
- I plan to buy an assembled selective sintering system

1.3 Preferences in case of a build (reprap, repstrap or similar).
(check one)

- Self-sourcing and making
- Print parts at a friend or organization (non-commercial/barter)
- Buy parts online
- Buy a full kit (unassembled)
- Buy a full kit (fully assembled)

1.4 If buying a full kit, which is your first choice for a provider:
(check one)


- Makerbot
- Mendel-parts (Orca or Mendel)
- eMaker
- reprapPro Huxley
- GRRF
- Makergear (Mosaic)
- Makergear (Mendel)
- Botmill
- LulzBot
- Ultimaker
- TechZone
- SeeMeCNC
- Romscraj
- 3Dstuffmaker
- Ac123dc
- Thefutureis3d
- Kent's strapper
- SKB-Kiparis
- A2APrinter
- FlemingCNC
- MixShop
- Open-hard-und-soft


Note to all: should we include the upcoming kit sources (Buback, Kludgineer, Nophead... ? Feedback PLZ)

1.5 My budget for getting printing is:

(int) (what units should we use: euros, USD, Yuans, F-coins?)

---------------------------------
Section 2: My current devices and uses

2.1 I estimate I print

(int)

_meters_ of filament per month


2.2. I use my devices for
(check all that apply)

- Hobby (entertainment, mashups)
- Hobby (crafts, utilitary, machine parts)
- Business (self developed)
- Business (employee)
- Business (Artistic creation)

--------------------------------
Section 3: My priorities

3.1 I rank the following concerns about my next reprap:
(to be implemented with a single ranking scale OR several 10 point Likert scales)


- easy to source locally
- easy to build with simple tools
- availability of a full kit
- designed for low cost
- designed for high precision
- designed for high speed
- capability to print support
- capability to extrude multiple (>2) colors
- availability of community support
- availability of dedicated commercial support
- compatibility with pe-existing hardware I own
- good documentation
- compliance with standards and best practices


What other aspects seem important according to you

(long text field)


3.3 If fresh resources were available to the whole reprap domain, I think they should be affected primarily to:
(to be decided: check one or rank)

- the development of selective sintering systems (including metallicarap)
- the scaling up of extruding systems (concrete, etc)
- the development of multi-color / multi-material capable extruders
- The development of a plastic recycling system
- the development and standardization of a modular, universal frame and drive systems
- The development of closed loop linear positioning systems
- The improvement of the electronic subsystems
- reachout initiatives to implicate more educational institutions
- streamlining relations with business & industrial partners
- improvement of the documentary resources (wiki etc)
- reachout initiatives with technology transfer & fablab networks
- reachout initiatives with reycling and durable development concerns



other: (long text field)


3.4 My material of choice for a frame is:
(check one)

- threaded rod (<8 mm)
- threaded rod (8mm)
- threaded rod (>8 mm)
- aluminium T-slot (20mm)
- aluminium T-slot (30 mm)
- aluminium T-slot (>30 mm)
- aluminium L profiles
- welded iron profiles
- MDF (mendel90)
- plywood (makerbot, ultimaker etc.)
- acrylic (mendel90, Prusa Air etc.)
- Other (text field)

3.5 My preferred choice for the slide system:

- bearings (a la Selis Mendel)
- sleeve bearings (LM8UU and smaller)
- sleeve bearings (LM10UU and larger)
- Bushings, bronze
- Bushings, plastic
- Busings, printed
- linear sliders (a la Mosaic)
- other (text)

3.6 My preferred solution for the X & Y drive system

- belts (T5 and similar tooth size)
- belts (T2, T2.5 and similar tooth size)
- rack and pinion
- acme threaded rod and similar w/Delrin nuts


3.6 My preferred solution for the Z drive system

- M8 threaded rod
- acme threaded rod and similar w/Delrin nuts


3.7 My preferred print area is

- smaller than 200x200 mm
- 200x200 mm
- larger than 200x200 mm

--------------------------------
Section 5: About self

5.1 I am a:

- male
- female
- sentient printer
- cat

(check one)

5.2 Year of birth

(int)

5.3 What best describes my main professional activity:
(check one)

- self-employed
- administration and services (private sector)
- administration and services ( public sector)
- technology, engineering
- agriculture
- publishing and media
- banking and finance
- teaching, educational (primary / secundary)
- teaching, educational (university / tech institute / high school)
- no professional activity (unemployed)
- no professional activity (student)
- no professional activity (pensioner)

5.4 I spend

(int) hours per week

making and dealing with reprapping concerns

5.5 I have been interested with reprapping for

... months


5.6 I first discovered reprap from:
* Internet search
* A blog or forum
* An article (e-zine, journal...)
* A friend
* School
* Other:

@Lanthan - I bet your a programmer

That's a really good start, It gets interesting at section 3, and 5.1 made me smile and 5.4 made me think... I spend almost all my waking hours thinking about RepRap ! (and some of the sleeping ones).

I think it needs a section on Extruders & hot-ends, it would be good to get some feedback on what's working for people and what issues are still causing problems with extruders and hot-ends (lots I bet).

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

richrap Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @Lanthan - I bet your a programmer

Not at all, alas. I'd love to, I get bored to near death in a corner of a normative, uncreative and strategically blocked domain. I do reprap to check if I'm still alive.

> That's a really good start, It gets interesting at
> section 3, and 5.1 made me smile and 5.4 made me
> think... I spend almost all my waking hours
> thinking about RepRap ! (and some of the sleeping
> ones).

This is normal at least, here.

> I think it needs a section on Extruders &
> hot-ends, it would be good to get some feedback on
> what's working for people and what issues are
> still causing problems with extruders and hot-ends
> (lots I bet).

Yeah. This is where I need your expert help, because from my point of vew, the various hotends and pushing systems are pretty much the same, and we seem to have reached a ceiling of extrusion rates.

At the very least, to know how many of them are extruding 3mm, 1.75 mm and the nominal nozzle sizes. Then, if they are using a bowden, an internally geared, a Wade...

I know the feeling.

Maybe we need to thrash out Extruder's soon then, I have built quite a few different types to test and experiment with, for me the most disappointing part is always the hobbed bolt or knurled/grooved/spiked/geared filament drive.

One thing I really want to try is a Hobbed wheel - Say a 60mm diameter disc/pulley hobbed all the way around and an Idler with a number of smaller bearings to push the filament into/around 1/4 of the circumference. Still needs lots of gearing from the motor drive and a good hot-end - Then if it works well the weakest point should be the hot-end and not the drive.

We may also need a quicker way to ramp up and down the power dumped into a hot-end, for slow and fast printing.

I agree, survey what's out there and what problems people have first.

---

[richrap.blogspot.com]

I'm not that interested in 1.4 unless you want to use it as a gauge for different design choices by the respective companies. Otherwise, that question sounds a bit too market-researchy to me. just my two cents

Otherwise it's great and should help us decide where to concentrate our efforts.

Buback Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not that interested in 1.4 unless you want to
> use it as a gauge for different design choices by
> the respective companies. Otherwise, that question
> sounds a bit too market-researchy to me. just my
> two cents

I'm not into marketing... all those emerging/struggling/just created companies are an interesting socio-technical phenomenon, anyway.
It is rather what you say first. But that question tests not only the models being offered, also the reputation...
>
> Otherwise it's great and should help us decide
> where to concentrate our efforts.

I'll sleep on it and re-read the whole thing at the end of the week. In the mean time I have added a couple questions about extruding. I hope to find the right balance between rather technical stuff and what appeals to the less technically inclined, since we will be receiving input from everybody and not just the experts.

I hope we do not find us in the same eddy currents as early car marketing research, where everyone wanted a speed bolid, but that was not the car most people actually bought. Need to model the mind of a reprapper/fabber/maker...

I project to run the survey on a server I have the keys, I'll probably ask the people at the institution anyway. Should we ask the Core Team demigods for the permission to use the green teardrop logo - limited to this particular use?

All of this talk recently about standards, established goals, 'grading criteria' for designs, and even the suggestion of certification, presupposes a group consensus on a type of project that will benefit all parties. The thing is these conversations while seemingly new to the RepRap community are not only rooted in the early days of open source software, but they have been happening with quite some intensity regarding open source hardware in general and the specific design at one time by the Arduino Foundation (before that was officially a thing) to only release the schematic of the Arduino and not the design files. While this decision was eventually reversed, it sparked quite a lot of reverse engineering to make a whole crop of Arduino clones.

Anyway, Ive been a part of the Grounding Open Source Hardware residency in 2009 and the Open Hardware Summit in 2011 and hear these conversations about standardizing open hardware projects all the time. The group formed at GOSH called OHANDA sought to create a certification process and registry that designs could be submitted to and granted the right to a logo so long as it met certain criteria. This has yet to even get off the ground despite fervent opinions that designs need to fill some criteria to join the club. The Open Hardware definition and license is the closest thing to any consensus that's been put out there on what makes a successful open hardware design and even this has to be broadly defined to allow for the greatest flexibility in individual's interests.

The real crux of the open hardware movement is the need for tangible things that cost real money to produce. Much of the reprap project is easy to obtain for most people but the extruder and electronics are still all just elaborate hacks. The only way to really move forward with the technology is to get some material science behind it and this needs the kind of money that Makerbot now has as opposed to what most of us working in our garage have. Look at Sparkfun, Adafruit, and Arduino. The Arduino has been successful for the small group that is its foundation that guides the direction of the platform whether most of us like it or not. The .1" pin headers have never been fixed and thats the way they like it. Essentially, consensus of the many is not a prerequisite.

I guess it seems unfortunate to me to hear this group wanting to pigeon hole these designs and to wrangle this beautiful and chaotic design process into some form of mold that the rest of us are stuck with. Maybe before those here begin creating these artificial constructs for the reprap project, begin first by looking at all of the work that has gone into the open hardware movement in the last 7 years or so and see how that's turned out.

I think your mischaracterizing what we are talking about. We aren't trying to establish standards as a way to lock down the design. In fact I think it's the opposite, we need standards so that people can base their development on something. If you want to design a new x carriage (for more than just yourself) you need to know how far apart the x rods are, and where the belt runs, and where the endstop is, etc. Take your Arduino example: If they changed the pin headers, all the shields would be worthless and need a redesign.

I would rather not have 50 Mendel copies with slightly different distances between the x rods, and 50 different standards for x carriages. If I release a carriage, I'd be bound to have someone asking me to redesign it to fit on his N-mendel.
Another example: we've learned, since mendel's release, that 8mm rod is too flexible for a mendel-sized machine. If we are going to break compatibility and move to a larger diameter smooth rod, we'd better agree on some stuff before people go out and invest some money on hardware. I don't want to chase off a brilliant designer just because he's wasted too much money heading down the wrong rabbit hole.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/07/2012 05:31PM by Buback.

With Mendel90 I have the opposite approach. You select the vitamins you want to use and it works out all the sizes of things. Nothing is compatible with Mendel except the extruder mount holes as I consider that separate from the Cartesian bot. I don't actually know what my X bar spacing is but it came out a bit bigger than Mendel.

I think standards were good in Whitworth's day and enabled mass production but a big point of 3D printing is everything can now be bespoke and customised.

---

[www.hydraraptor.blogspot.com]

Aren't you implicitly defining a standard? It is based on standard parts and it is all a defined algorithm in your OpenScad file. Others will need to refer to your .scad file in order to make alterations. (and it basically restricts designers to using openscad)

even bespoke suits were based on standard styles, after all.