User:Asb5165

Blog Post #1 - September 4, 2012 - Exploring Thingiverse

Thingiverse.com is a very interesting concept, providing a space for anyone to contribute designs for a wide variety of objects. In exploring Thingiverse I discovered many of the applications and possibilities that a 3D printer offers. Listed below are a couple of things that I found note-worthy.

Thing 1 (Useful) - Luther College Norse Bottle Opener

~ This is a bottle opener which obviously would come in handy while also looking cool. An interesting aspect which should be noted is the penny that is used to make the part more durable.

Thing 2 (Artistic/Beautiful) - Gothic Cathedral Play Set

~ This print is a massive undertaking, described by some as the Everest of MakerBot prints. The full assembly is made up of 20 parts many of which test the limits of the machine.

Thing 3 (Pointless/Useless) - Cool Finger Cup Tool

~ This print was originally intended to be used to bind your hair together with one hand. As the creator states it failed miserably, making it pretty useless.

Thing 4 (Funny) - Bender, Futurama

~ As a true lover of Futurama, I was ecstatic to see a rendition of Bender. I feel he would truly appreciate having mini Benders being printed up. Seeing these just brings a smile to my face.

Thing 5 (Weird) - Chinese Throwing Spork (hire-shuriken)

~ Throwing star I can see. Even throwing fork, but a throwing Spork come on.

Blog post #2 9/13/2012

1. Do you think his goal of a ‘self-replicating universal constructor’ is feasible? What remains to be done to achieve this, or alternatively what would prevent such a goal?

I think that the goal of a 'self-replicating universal constructor' is feasible, however not at this time. Much of it can be done now, reproducing gears and structural components. The issue lies in the motors, computer chips and wires necessary for the machine to run. Another issue is the assembly, this could be achieved by making the parent machine much more dynamic. While this goals is an attainable one in my mind there is much work to be done in order to realize it.

2. The phrase “wealth without money” is both the title of his article and the motto of the reprap project itself. What does this phrase mean? (To him and to you if they differ). Discuss implications, problems, and possibilities associated with this idea.

Wealth without money is the idea of having many things without having to pay for them. Wealth is material goods or products we usually buy with money. The concept of Rep Rap is to be able to create wealth without using money, or as little as possible. This can concern some business minded people, how are they going to convince people they need to buy their goods if they can simply make it themselves. Also if we can simply print out a component when one breaks there is less of a need for durability, and much more waste as the article discusses.

One solution offered is to have a Rep Rap machine that can "eat" this material and reuse it. If this continues and the 'self-replicating universal constructor' is realized it will be able to multiply exponentially. Why would this machine still need us? Maybe we should remember Sarah Connor's warning about a storm coming.... Don't worry I am just kidding.

3. The Darwin design was released in 2007. It is 2012 now. Imagine future scenarios for RepRaps and their ‘cousin’ 3D printing designs (Makerbots, Ultimachine, Makergear, etc.) how do you think the RepRap project (community, designs, website, anything and everything) might evolve in the future? Describe as many scenarios as you can envision.

I think that future designs will incorporate parts of all of the 3D printer designs, taking the advantageous features from each. I also think that printers will be able to re-orient parts while making them, this would increase the types of shapes available. Also using multiple materials (one water soluble) at once would allow shapes to be created with supports that dissolved leaving only the desired shape.