User:Djb5469
Thanksgiving Blog: 12/12/12
Something that I find really interesting about 3D printers is their great amount of uses in the aerospace industry. One of the most common do it yourself projects out their is the quadcopter. There are a dozen websites devoted to getting people together to share their designs in programs. This community is very similar to Thingiverse,and it was a logical next step to combine the two. Many people have uploaded their designs on Thingiverse, with varying degrees of rapid prototyping. Some are entirely 3D printed, but most use 3D printed parts in conjunction with stronger materials, like carbon fiber. Although many of the most important aspects of a quadcopter, such as the motors and flight control software, need to be purchased, most of the components of the frame can be designed to specifically fit the rest of your materials. You could even print the propellers, if you are feeling ambitious. The biggest advantage of using Thingiverse is it acts as a bridge between two very innovative communities, the 3D printers and the copter builders. As these technologies continue to improve, quadcopters will get cheaper, easier to build, and more widespread.
On the other side of the spectrum is how industry is utilizing material additive manufacturing in the aerospace industry. Unlike other industries, when a company needs to mass produce an aircraft, it is usually on the order of dozens or hundreds, not thousands or millions. With such a small order, it makes more sense to utilize 3D printing technology over trying to create a factory to do it. There are companies like Arcam AB that can 3D print titanium and cobalt chronium, which are two expensive metals that are both very common in the aerospace industry. Another advantage of 3D printing is it reduces the amount of waste. Instead of cutting out from a larger piece, 3D printing only uses exactly how much material that is needed for the part. Considering the expensive nature of these metals, this manufacturing process leads to extensive saving. Modern airplanes are already starting to have 3D printing components, and the trend will only continue in the years to come.
Twelfth Blog: 12/11/12
There are many issues where I think information should be available for everyone to know, but self-driving cars is not one of them. The only way that self-driving cars would work would be if they were perfect, if they never made mistakes and always delivered you somewhere on time and in one piece. However, if somebody tampers with the code, to say allow themselves to go faster or something, then the entire system is thrown out of wack. These people would be putting themselves and everyone around them at risk. It would basically be the equivalent of drunk driving. I am not sure how easy it would be to keep this information secret, but every effort must be taken. The benefits of having self-driving cars far outweigh the discomfort of having to pass a McDonald's or see other subliminal advertising. As long as the car takes a fast and efficient route, I could not care how I got from point A to point B.
If the UN asked for my help, I would tell them that they should not make any attempts to regulate 3D printing. Every scenario that I can come with, like putting chips in every printer to authenticate prints, would be easy to avoid by skilled professionals who want to get around it. This action would cost a lot of money, seriously hamper the 3D printer movement, and ultimately not solve the problem. I am unable to think of a spectacular solution that will promote intellectual property without harming everything else. Maybe that solution does exist somewhere, but I just do not know it.
I think his predictions are very likely. Every time that the government has imposed a sanction to try and deal with the issue of intellectual property in the digital age, the solution has wound up being far worse than the problem. SOPA would have been a horrible bill that significantly hampered some of the best qualities of the internet. This technology is more than just an appliance, and putting limits on some of its capabilities would serve to to kill the best qualities of the internet. Now, obviously there are extremes to all of this. Nobody wants to see a terrorist put up a public execution or something horrible like that. However, there are already laws that can take down stuff like that. The biggest draw for new laws come from lobbyists of media companies who see vast amounts of potential revenue that is lost through illegal downloads. This constant pressure, plus some public outcry over a shooting cause by a printed gun or something like that, will inevitably lead to a stupid law that is expensive to enforce that prevents innovation while doing little that skilled hackers cannot get around anyway. It has happened before, and it will happen again.
The war cannot be won. The producers of intellectual property will always want to make more money from their work. Eventually, government will side with them with actions that do more harm than good. The most skilled individuals will be able to get around any sanction or prohibition, and the average people like me will suffer. In this war, nobody wins. However, if people can just let bygones be bygones and only pursue the most egregious breaks of copyrights instead of every instance, then society will prosper. These laws would be unnecessary if people stopped trying to take advantage of the system. At the same time, access to free information would also be less of an issue if things like the spying on kids from Lower Merion didn't happen. If people were honest and trustworthy, this issue would be much simpler. However, I am asking for human nature change, and that will never happen.
Eleventh Blog: 12/2/12
I am a really big fan of printing 3D models of people. The main for the development of photography was people's desires to have pictures taken of themselves. Portraits took too long and were not accurate enough, so even black and white pictures were deemed superior. Family members wish to remember their loved ones, and people wish to leave a legacy, an object that says "I was here, and this is what I looked like." These 3D sculptures are a much quicker and easy method of creating a 3D model of somebody over, say, hiring a professional sculptor to do it. It is much easier to remember somebody through a 3D model over just a picture.
The main problem with me buying a model of myself is price. There is no way I could justify spending over $250 to just purchase a miniature version of me. I can see myself anytime I want. Maybe I would spend that for a model of a girlfriend, but not myself. However, parents are a different story. I am already away from home for most of the year, and my visits back will become even less frequent as time goes on. They have plenty of pictures of me, but I can definitely see them wanting models of all their children.
Right now, the business model is seriously hampered by price. It is not prohibitively high, but it is too much to be an impulse decision. The best way for this to work would be if people can notice this cool technology and buy it right there. With the high price tag, I can really only picture them purchased as a present for a special occasion, like Christmas or an anniversary. This niche group might be able to support the business for now, but prices will need to drop if it wants significant growth.
With the right competition, however, these models may become far more popular. One the printing technology becomes less of a novelty and more of an everyday thing, the cost of these models will be driven mostly by materials, not the cost of the machines that make them. If the costs come down to, say $50-100 a model, I can see plenty of uses for them. ?Some examples are Graduation statues, athletic statues, couples embracing, statues with a baby, ect. There is no rule that these portraits need to be limited with only one person. Pretty much any significant event that people want framed pictures of could be made into a statue to be remembered forever.
Tenth Blog: 11/26/12
I think adding 3D printers to primary schools is a great idea. There needs to be a larger focus on inspiring younger students to pursue STEM fields, and I believe 3D printers are exactly what is needed. There devices not only use science and computers to achieve tangible goals, but also have a coolness factor to them. The ability to create an object from just a computer file references the replicators of Star Trek, one of the most successful science fiction series of all time. Any device that helps bridge the gap between science fiction and reality will be popular among students, and this popularity will cause them to pursue careers in science and math, areas that the US desperately needs more talent in to stay competitive.
I am a big fan of hands-on learning, and therefore I am a great supporter of the STEMulate program that uses 3D printing technology to educate students about robotics. Only a 3D printer allows the freedom to create any structure that they can imagine to go along with their servos and controllers. I know that just teaching the students about these pieces of technology is far less effective than giving them a goal and letting them figure it out for themselves. The 3D printing allows them the freedom to have complete control and design anything that they are inspired to build. I hope that this pilot program is successful and built upon. I also agree with David Warlick's point that innovation will be driven by 3D printers. If technology needs to be developed, but there is no obvious commercial benefit to it, than it will take a long time to be created, if ever. However, 3D printers provide the perfect conduit to help develop this micro-precision technology. The more precise the printer, the better the print. I know there have been plenty of instances where I wished that our printers were better. IN Buzz Garwoods' article, he discussed giving 3D printing technology to 8th graders. I am glad that he only focused on the design aspect of the machines, not on how they actually operated. They work with some pretty advanced robotics, and I believe it is too much for an 8th grader to understand. However, an 8th grader is perfectly capable of using a Cad program to create a model, and that experience is greatly amplified if there model is actual turned into a tangible object. The program is good, and should continue.
Ninth Blog: 11/10/12
3-D printing has a nearly unlimited potential to make a significant impact on the future. There are so many scenerios where 3D printing will revolutionize the way things are done. A soldier in the field can deploy a printer from his backpack and create medical supplies to treat a wound, spare parts to fix a vehicle, or even an entire gun. As long as this individual has raw material and this machine, he can do anything. Another change will be in the classroom. If a teacher needs to show the students how to view a molecule or the bone structure of a person, they can print an example right there. This ability will eventually have 3D imagines become just as widespread as their current 2D counterparts, especially if we can find a way to quickly and efficiently recycle the plastic. Another innovation will be in fashion. With the ability to print designer clothes and jewelry, fashion will progress at an astonishing rate. While many people will also be "in fashion", the leaders will be pushing the envelope so much that dramatic changes in style will be recorded on a weekly basis.
Eighth Blog: 10/26/12
Hopefully Intellectual Venture's new patent will fall apart in court because it poses a great threat to the 3D printing community. Attempting to control 3D printing before an issue has developed is ridiculous. Right now 3D printing is such a small community that any restriction is completely unnecessary. People want others to use and improve on their work, not place controls so that only paying customers will have access. Modern printing technology is not cheap; commercial printers can cost thousands of dollars, and building one yourself requires extensive technical knowledge. At this point, an additional licensing fee would greatly hurt the entire community. And how would this even be enforced? Why would a machine that I build myself refuse to print a file? Can't I just remove the code that is undesirable, or worst case use the CAD model as a blueprint to build my own CAD model. There seem to be plenty of legal issues associated with this patent, and I hope it fails. I agree that this type of regulation may become necessary in the future, but I would hate it to be controlled by such a sleazy company.
Seventh Blog: 10/23/12
The ability to print optical sensing devices would greatly increase the relevance of this class, and significantly improve our capabilities. Right now Rapid Prototyping is held to only printing structural components or preparing a 3D model. However, with this sensing technology, a whole range of possibilities emerges. We could make automated robots that can sense their environment. We could create new controller interfaces for games. Currently, our printing technology cannot produce electronic components, but this new technology would go a long way in bringing that gap.
The main difficulty in using this technology exists in attempting to extrude it. The video showed that the manufacture required industrial machinery that looked very expensive. The fibers would have to line up perfectly for the effect to work, and I am not sure that our current technology has that much precision.
I think these sensors would be great in some sort of robotics project. The structural components can be made from traditional printing methods, and the sensors can add capabilities to the artificial intelligence. Nothing complex needs to be done, but building something that can roll across a room and not hit walls would be a great experience. Another idea would be to build an elaborate haunted house using the touch sensors to trigger specific scary events, but that is not really feasible in the short time frame until Halloween.
Sixth Blog: 10/23/12
I believe that bio-printing is a great way to move the industry forward. Tissue is just a collection of cells layered in a specific order, and that is exactly what 3D printing produces. Instead of using plastic or metal as an input, living cells can be substituted. The potential applications of this technology are limitless. I envision a future where a heart transplant list no longer exists. If you require a new heart, all you have to do is order one, and it can be quickly constructed. Depending on the speed of these printers, some mortal injuries may be survivable. However, there are many legal issues that are associated with this technology. Where does ownership of these printed tissue end? Can somebody own and sell a heart or a leg? What about an entire person? In the TV show Eureka, they had an advanced printer that could print an entire human body in a manner of hours. Would these artificial people have the same rights as you or me? The bthe iggest technical problem with this technology is finding a way to keep the cells alive. Do you store them in large vats? Do they grow on there own? How do you feed them? Also, could you combine different types of cells in one print? Could I combine bone cells with muscle and skin to print an arm?
I think that once the technology becomes established, there is a very good chance that this bio-printing could be expanded into somebody's private laboratory. There would be many specialized components (I cannot even picture how the extruder would function), but a traditional 3D printer should be able to make these machines. Once large companies pay the extensive R&D costs and solve the problems with bio-printing, I can see no significant hurdle preventing somebody from creating small tissue samples. I doubt that home printers will be able to produce a heart, but they should provide good test surfaces for biology enthusiasts.
Fifth Blog: 10/5/12
If I was a member of DIY trying to 3D print a gun, I would attempt to obtain a printer in a less public manner. The reasoning that Stratasys used to take away the printer was that they could not knowingly allow people to break the law. The solution is to not let Stratasys know what they intend with the printer. Or, just use a different service to buy a printer from. There are plenty of companies out there that sell 3D printers, and $20,000 will go a long way. I understand that they wanted publicity, but there cause would go a lot farther if they advertised it after they had a completed gun.
It is very difficult to regulate 3D printing, and I cannot imagine a system where it is done successfully. The printers are so easy to build with off-the-shelf components that any successful regulation seems impossible. The government could put some form of print-tracking chip in pre-made models, but the next generation of printers would not contain this restriction. Unless the government banned all 3D printers, I do not see how they could effectively regulate the industry. I guess all they could do is make it illegal to have one of these banned prints, like a home-made gun.
The possibility that comes to mind is a key. If somebody could match a borrowed key, then they could easily break into a place. In fact, if only the lock is known, a person could theoretically produce a key that would fit the lock. A key printed out of plastic, as long as it has enough precision, could be able to match any metal key.
Fourth Blog: 9/27/2012
I understand that Makerbot is a company that is trying to make money, but they are treading a very dangerous line. The great thing about 3D printers is that they can create copies of themselves. However, Makerbot does not seem to understand that even a device that replicates still needs to have a parent. Makerbot is concerned that people will not buy their new model, and that is simply wrong. People who want to get started with 3D printing still need an initial printer. That is where Makerbot comes in. Their goal should be to create the initial printer, and to make a printer that is higher quality than what people can manufacture at home. The only people who would buy a Makerbot product in the first place are one's without printing capability. Nobody would pay that much money for a slightly better printer than they have at home.
Prusa has a right to be concerned. He was one of the initial investors in Makerbot, and Makerbot has done many great things in its live, like run Thingiverse and provide start up printers. However, it now seems that Makerbot is attempting to take control of 3D printing, and that is unacceptable. The best part of 3D printing is the fact that it cannot be owned by anyone, that it is a group of people who just want to create cool things. The community cannot exist unless it is open source. Hopefully Makerbot's attempt at ownership is just legal junk, but if they truly try to control other's designs, then the community will just move to other sites, like GitHub. The transition will be awkward and slow the development of 3D printing, but it will by no means stop it.
Third Blog: 9/21/2012
1. I see only two paths for restrictions to be placed on 3D printing. The first is if it becomes such a large industry that a person's entire job becomes creating new items. Since the company is paying money to produce this complex design, they will want to charge people to download it. However, this restriction should only apply to really complex and fancy designs, far more intricate than what is currently available. The other path I see is that if this technology becomes dangerous, such as the modeling of firearms, then the government will be forced to step in and monitor it. This would only happen after some sort of tragedy, but the government moderation could make the entire society so inconvenient that nobody uses it anymore.
2. Back in elementary school, I had this great idea for a food converter. You would put bad food into this device, like broccoli, and it would produce delicious food, like chocolate. The chocolate would have all the nutritional value of broccoli, but it would have the taste and texture of chocolate. I never really thought about how this transformation would take place, but I figured some sort of science would be involved. Now that I am older, I think the idea would still be amazing, but I have no idea how it would actually be implemented. Right now I doubt anyone would be attracted to this idea, but maybe that would change if I actually develop it out further.
3. It would only be a death to IP if people are still willing to make designs without some sort of reimbursement. In an optimal world, everyone who contributes to thingiverse will be able to use thingiverse, and that access to thousands of designs would be their payment. However, people usually require some sort of more tangible reward for their efforts, so I doubt this form of utopian society will ever develop. IPs do have a lot of downsides and wastes, but it does cause people to spend the time and money to create great things. This can only be removed if people will still be willing to create great things.
Second Blog: 9/13/2012
1. The dream of complete self replication isn't really feasible, at least given the current technology. Right now we have a system that is pretty good at quickly making almost any object out of plastic. This system is pretty good for making joints and specialized components, but there is no way that an entire machine can be constructed with this method. For this system to begin to look feasible, the rep rap community needs to begin experimenting with ways to build with other materials. There is no way to produce a power brick or a motor with one of these machines. The way I interpret the dream, he machine is able to construct anything, as long as it is given the right raw materials. Unless we find a way to work with things like metal, that dream can never become a reality.
2. Wealth is tied into the means of production. If you own the means of production, then you are wealthy. However, to obtain a means of production, you must also be wealthy, because it is prohibitively expensive. The goal of rapid prototyping is to give people wealth without costing them a lot of money. If machines can duplicate themselves at little cost, then nearly everyone can afford to own one. Eventually, if the machines evolve enough, people will be able to have whatever they want, which is the definition of wealth. However, there is a problem with this plan. If the machines are used by everyone, the materials needed may become scarce, thus driving up their cost to prohibitively high levels. If this problem is overcome, then the economy could eventually be revolutionized. It would focus almost entirely on food production and these machines.
3. One future scenario is that this technology will eventually be scaled down small enough that it becomes nano technology. Medicine will be revolutionized with little particles that could travel inside a body and internally fix any health problem. Any of this machines that wear out or are destroyed can be easily replicated if the person swallows a special pill. A different advantage of this nano technology lies in space exploration. Send a few of this small machines at really fast speeds to distant planets. When they arrive, they can begin replicating using natural resources. Once they have enough numbers, they can begin construction of habitats and infrastructure that will eventually be used by humans.
First Blog:
Useful [1]
This wheel can be modified in a large variety of ways to fit nearly any situation or design. People building models will find many uses for such a versatile wheel. The wheel is one of the greatest inventions of man, and here is an easy way to manufacture one.
Artistic/Beautiful [2]
The light shade is a beautiful flame shape that is very aesthetically pleasing. Any colored LED can be placed inside it to change the color of the fire to the user's preference. It is a great room decoration.
Pointless/Useless [3]
While this steak could fit under a variety of different categories, it is primarily a rather useless object. Steaks are meant to be eaten and enjoyed. A steak constructed out of plastic cannot be eaten, and is therefor a pointless object.
Funny [4]
The mustache Ring is a humorous object that can give anyone an instant mustache. By wearing the ring, the mustache will always be only seconds away. Everyone looks silly in a fake mustache.
Weird [5]
Bobble heads are usually nice paperweights, but this one is just plain weird. Why is Black Dynamite's head on the body of a space marine? The combination makes no sense, and so this strange object will remain a mystery.
