User:Dwj131
Douglas Jordan
Penn State University
Schreyer Honors College
Computer Science and Mathematics
RepRap OS3DP Blog
Blog 8
Does this article support your argument then? Do you think this technology will find a use?
I don't think this article supports my argument. I think that there is a very real possibility that this technology will make it into commercial printers but there is no way that it will infiltrate the open source community. Everything about the open source 3D printer movement is about being open and free and this completely violates that point. Since OS3DP printers are build by the community and for the community, I don't think this DRM will even be able to infiltrate the software. They use the example of iTunes, but it is a closed store which can do whatever they want. In addition, Thingiverse would be nothing if it wasn't open source. If it were to implement DRM, we would just move everything to Github. I don't think this technology will take off in the open source community, but it may be successful with the commercial products as there is a real threat with issues like gun control.
Blog 7
1. Being able to create optical sensing devices on demand is something new, as typically we print passive components. What kind of implications can you imagine resulting from this?
I think that we need to look at what these components really are, and what they are not. These light sensing components are simply different ways to reflect light. They are not the other 90% of a device. In order to use them, you need a both a light source, and controller. This controller is often more complex than a simple mechanical toggle switch. While the concept is cool, I think it is much more difficult in the long run. I think that the one area where this could be big is precise fiber optics. If one needed to print a part, which contained fiber optic channels that were stationary, and a followed a relatively complex path, then this could be very useful. But at the same time, we can already do this rather easily by heating glass fibers and moving them.
2. What sort of difficulty would we have in implementing light piping using our printers?
I think that we would have a lot of difficulty making it precise enough. Our printers are not all that accurate, but these parts require very good accuracy in order to make a part that can transmit light effectively. Also, we would have trouble making the surface of these parts smooth enough. In the videos, they often had to manually sand the part to make it reflective. Yet if the part were complex, it would not be feasible to sand it.
3. In what applications might you find use for these sensors (contact switches, touch sensors, accelerometers, etc)? Do you have some project in mind where these would be useful?
Personally, I think that this light piping is a gimmick. It is like building a structure out of Lego. Sure it will work, but it will be heavy, expensive, and time consuming to build. It would be interesting if we could make intelligent machines with all of these sensors, but the complexity of the controller is simply too great. The size of the components is also rather large with the light source and the controller. One possible use of light piping to build sensors could be simple multitouch surfaces. If you piped lots of little holes to the surface, you could use a smaller array of light sensors at the end of the pipes to figure out where the fingers / hands / objects are.
In addition, here are some cool random os3dp links:
http://www.ted.com/talks/anthony_atala_printing_a_human_kidney.html http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/19/reshaping-universities-through-3d-printing/ http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/19/formlabs-form-1-eyes-on/
Blog 6
1.) I think that if bio-printing get the attention and funding it deserves, it will be incredible. Just imagine being able to produce organs without needing someone to die in the process. If we were able to manufacture organs it would save millions of lives. Right now, there are over 100,000 people on the transplant list in the United States alone (http://www.unos.org/). However, with all of the good that bio-printing would do, there would have to be legal implications for it. The first thing that comes to mind is the movie Repo man. If we could 3D print organs they would be incredibly expensive. If there was no sort of price limit, I could see companies selling the organs with payment plans, and then who knows what would happen if people couldn’t pay them off. The other legal limitation that I could see would be about reselling the organs and how fast that could get incredibly complicated. In addition, there are many technical limitations to overcome before organ printing becomes a reality. I think that right now, the biggest problem is that we are not able to print things that move. We can print static objects very easily but when it comes to moving things, like motors, we cannot print that. Part of the issue is that they are made of more than one type of material, and that applies to human organs as well.
2.) I think that the RepRap project generally follows the commercially available technology, but it is generally a few iterations behind. I think that eventually, bio-printing research will be feasible on a RepRap, with the exception of the extruder. That may be something that must be purchased, as I highly doubt that we will be able to 3d print such a complex part.
Blog 5
If I was a member of the DIY gun project, I would turn to the RepRap project. If you build the machine, there is no limit on what you can print. However, my primary concern would be safety. Even the very best RepRap machines still have their flaws and do not print as accurately as professional machines. As much as I hate to say this, I would consider turning to the new MakerBot Replicator 2. With it's all metal design and incredible accuracy, I would be much more confident using a part printed from that machine in a gun.
Short answer: No. Long answer: It is very hard to do. Does the government regulate 2D printing, or CNC milling, or lathes? No, of course not. I think that it would be reasonable to regulate posting copyrighted materials online, but only if there were acquired from companies. For example, if I steal the CAD files for a gun, it would be illegal for me to distribute them. Yet if I used a 3D scanner and scanned the part myself, then I see no issue with that. It is original content that I am creating, thus it is legal and should be legal to distribute it.
I think other 3D objects that could be subject to denial are ones that companies rely on their designs to profit on. One example is toys. I think one could rather easily print a cast for legos, then make unlimited legos for just the price of PLA. I think that potentially drug paraphernalia could be subject to regulation but then again it is legal to own so it should be legal to print. It is hard to come up with a better example than guns. I think that if the resolution of 3D printers was good enough to be able to print knives, there could possibly be concern but in the long run, you are making it yourself and I don't think there should or could be much regulation on that.
Blog 4:
If this news is true, I am really disappointed. I have known (of) Bre Pettis ever since 2005 when I read the first issue of Make Magazine. Make has always been so crucial in the open hardware movement. One of the lines of the Maker's Bill of rights ([1]) is "Schematics shall be included." Now Bre Pettis is leaving everything that he once put so much effort into and going to take the new MakerBot to the "dark side."
While I am very upset at this news, I can see some of the logic behind why it is closed. They are striving to fix all of the problems of the open source 3d printers so that people who don't have the knowledge of how they work can use them without constantly struggling to make it function. It costs a whopping $2200 and for a good reason: It just works, and it works very well. The advertised minimum layer resolution is 100 microns and the nozzle diameter is 0.4 mm ([2]). Our current printers are nowhere near that accurate but they are much cheaper and open source. So the question remains, is it worth it to buy the expensive printer that works without any user interaction, or do you build your own that is rather finicky.
I think Prusa's concerns are very real. While the openness of a printer made by those who were the first to define "open" is bad enough, owning designs on Thingiverse is just wrong. Even if the Makerbot is closed, we can still figure out how to build new printers. But thingiverse is such a central location for those involved in the OS3DP movement to connect and if it truly won't let creators own their own designs, I think we do need to find a new home for thingiverse. Github has been used for several years and has worked flawlessly for the open source software development community. The github template provided by Prusa looks as though it is a good starting point and I think that the community will be able to migrate to github if thingiverse will no longer work.
As a side note, this is pretty cool: [3]
Blog 3
1.) I think that ultimately, this will not be an issue. The government may try to place restrictions on 3d parts, but considering that the RepRap project is entirely community driven, the community will always be able to find workarounds. In addition, everything is man made-with music, the publishers want content to be protected from stealing it. But with 3D models, the creators want them to be given out for free.
2.) I think my passion is computers. I love helping people fix them, or building them, or even trying to break them. I think that while it is not the best way to attract future mates, it can diffidently make me money. I think that one of the best aspects of the human population is that we all have our own niche and enjoy spreading that knowledge.
3.) I think that there will still be IP because people will still be greedy. While 3D printing may solve lots of those problems, I think that creativity is still worth money and people will still want money for it considering the effort put into it. Also, while some people are creative others are not and need to rely on mooching off that and providing other service to communities, like engineering.
Blog 2
1.) I think that while not currently feasible, eventually we will be able to create (almost) self-replicating universal constructors. Currently, a few major tasks still remain. First, we cannot and probably will not be able to print integrated circuits. They are currently made in pressurized argon gas. Printing them is not possible, but it would be possible to use the printer with another type of extruder that effectively acted as a pick and place machine. Another issue is the metal. Any extruder hot enough to melt metal would most likely not be able to replicate itself. But if we were able to melt metal quickly we could potentially make many more of the parts on the machine.
2.) Wealth without money is the idea that currently, many commercial products are extremely expensive due to licensing issues. But if we could simply make whatever we need from raw material, we could save incredible amounts of money. Some problems with the idea are one; there are only a handful of materials that currently can be printed. Yet almost all products are made with at least a handful of materials. Also, currently the exact model of an assault rifle is posted on the Internet. If you were able to print out the parts you could make a fully automatic ar-15 rifle, which is currently illegal to purchase.
3.) I think the RepRap project will do one of 3 things. Either it will take off because people like us can spread the ideas and continue to innovate. Or it will simply stay where it is now and not improve very much over time. Lastly it could die off because nobody is innovating.
Blog 1:
1. useful: eStand for iPhone This little stand is the perfect iPhone dock. It's small, relatively simple to print, and has a smooth and elegant design. On top of that, one could easily make a derivative of it that included a hole for you to place the Apple dock connector to USB cable to make it a functioning dock.
2. artistic/beautiful: Alien Egg Vase I think this vase is incredible. Like most of the Math Art on Thingiverse, it contains many complex mathematical shapes. It is also rather abstract which is why I like it so much. I think it is really cool how the beauty of the design overcomes the fact that it is only one color.
3. pointless/useless: iPhone Mixer Attachment The iPhone mixer attachment is really pointless. Why would you want to every attach your phone to a high speed motor, especially one that is meant for food? Unless you are trying to use your iphone as a mixing blade, this is useless. Or maybe it is meany for taking videos of mixing food, that is if your iPhone survives.
4. funny: Minimal Surface Pencils Holder While this abstract pencil holder looks really funny, I think in reality it is also useful...that is if you like alien art. I am not entirely sure how one would go about printing this as it contains some holes that may have to be bridged. But all-in-all a pretty funny shape.
5. weird: Thing5 Whoever made this really wanted to confuse anyone who looked at it. The designer decided to randomly place things on a base and call it a day. I think that if you were to print this, it would just be a waste of plastic.
