User:Jms6579

From RepRap
Revision as of 13:58, 8 December 2012 by Jms6579 (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Blog 14

Recycling filament material is extremely important for 3D printing. Filament can be fairly expensive, so rationing as much as possible can allow for more prints with the same money. Alternatively, instead of increasing the number of prints, the quality of the print can be improved.

In the case of RecycleBot, the design seems functional, but it is not yet complete. I like the design, but it needs improvements, including good instructions. It was hard for me to follow the description and instructions provided. They need a more concise way of presenting the information.

The Lyman Filament Extruder seems simpler and has a full manual that includes instructions, BOM, and photos. There is also a video that shows how well it functions, including an extruder that uses the filament. I think that this is my favorite recycling design.

This design looks promising, but it doesn't appear to be complete and there are little to no instructions. I like how they categorized melt temperature by filament material.

I think recycling systems can have a profound effect on the DIY Reprap community. With almost every print, it is inevitable to have plastic waste. Rather than disposing this waste, using a recycling system will save people filament; thus, it will save them money.

Personally, I think putting together a filament recycler doesn't sound very difficult. Most of the parts are printable, and the other parts would be easy to buy. I think the difficult part would be the electronics. It might be hard to program for the heat and motor in this context. However, I am very ignorant of electronics and it may be easier than I think.

Blog 13 (Bonus Blog)

While I am interested in 3D printing with plastics, I am especially interested with 3D with other materials. One material currently used with 3D printing is metal, including stainless steel, titanium, and aluminum. The metal 3D printing used byShapeways involves laying down layers of stainless steel powder. Using a binding material, each layer develops the shape of the desired object. The powder is then blown off, leaving only the object of bounded stainless steel powder. The model is then heated, cured, and infused with bronze.

This is an exciting area of 3D printing. Naturally, as with virtually all other areas of 3D printing, there are incredible possibilities and implications of it. One application is the printing of unique body parts and supports, such as customized knee implants. NASA has printed a nickel alloy rocket engine with the utilization of selective laser melting.

An application of this metal printing that comes to my mind is printing the metal parts for 3D printers. If this is possible, the only part of a 3D printer that couldn't be printed would be the electronics. Some problems might arise when it comes to required precision (e.g. threading on bolts), but simply the fact that they can be printed is a huge step. I imagine the future of 3D printers to have printers connected in parallel: a plastic printer, then a metal printer, and so forth, so that objects containing multiple materials can be automatically printed.

Blog 12

My first impressing of this 3D printing is that it's creepy. But the more I think about it, the cooler it seems to be. I think it would be interesting to print myself. It would be even more interesting to print oneself once every year of life and see the spectrum of oneself with time. I'm not sure I would buy a model of myself, but I'm sure there would be many people who would. One application of this would be wedding cakes. Instead of getting models of a generic bride and groom, why not get 3D printed models of the actual bride and groom? Despite the fact that there are understandable uses for it, I feel like there will always be an element of creepiness with them. I fear that, at somepoint, the family photo will become the family set of models.

I think that Staples experimenting with 3D printing is a good idea. They are investing in a technology that is gaining speed and will be popular in the future. I think it will help to grow the company more. However, one problem with this might be when 3D printers start becoming a reasonably common household item. I imagine the same thing that happened to printing companies will happen in this situation. People will see no need for paying to use a printer when they have one. This will inevitably drive down the price of this service. Although, after that happens, the service may become completely useless unless the quality of the Staples printing remains significantly better than a household printer. For the time being, while prices are high, Staples should make a profit with this business model. At the very least, they will get the company good exposure in terms of public relations.

Blog 11

I think 3D printing would be an excellent tool for education, even before college. A lot of students coming into college (including me at the time) are ignorant of much (or all) of engineering, despite a decent knowledge of the sciences. Introduction of a 3D printer into the classroom setting may stimulate an interest in engineering for students that otherwise would not have any interest in science and engineering. A basic knowledge of engineering may also follow such as what engineering is, computer application, structural support, etc. K-3 age may be slightly less useful; the students may care about the products made as toys but the process itself would probably go ignored. Grades 4-8 might show more interest in the printing itself, but I think high school age would be a great opportunity, especially considering that many high schools actually have very specific classes as electives; an engineering class would be an excellent home for a 3D printer. So, while I think high schools would be great for 3D printing, I'm not sure about the possibility of any younger age, especially K-3. Of course, using a 3D printing for such an age would be useful and in no way a waste of time, but I can't really envision a class ever getting funding for it. Many schools seem to be having financial problems as it is, so I don't share the optimism many other people do about incorporating 3D printers into these classrooms. The only thing that would change my mind is if someone developed a good argument about how having a 3D printer may save a school money in the long run.

It's inevitable that 3D printing is going be a widespread technology used by many people in the future. Accordingly, education about them is very important. Exposing students to the opportunities of 3D printing is vital for society. I agree with Paul Glister of Centauri Dreams when he says personal fabrication will be major endeavour in the future.[1] We need to bring as many people along with us in this industrial revolution as possible for it to have a great effect. If I was exposed to 3D printing at a high school age, I know I would be very intrigued and want to learn more. I possibly would be interested at a younger age; however, at least for me, I was not interested in education as much as I was with recess and my social status with other kids. With this in mind, I think funding for a sub-high school age will be extremely difficult to acquire. This doesn't mean it's not worth trying.

Blog 10

3D printing provides many benefits that traditional manufacturing has difficulty with, if it can do it at all. One major benefit of 3D printing is customation. It is not cost efficient for a company to produce a lot of many different shapes and sizes of a product. They would much rather attempt a "one size fits all" type of approach. The implications of 3D printing ameliorating the problem of customations is far-reaching. For example, imagine being able to print the shell of appliances for ears (earbuds, hearing aids, etc.) that fit perfectly for your ear. Also, the plastic of glasses can be printed to fit perfectly on the bridge of one's nose and around their ears. On a larger, more significant scale, the medical field will be able to print unique products for patients. Artificial organs, prosthetic limbs, and other body parts will be able to fit much better to the needs of the patient. Additionally, medical tools used for invasive procedures may also be altered to better adapt to the shape of a patient's body.

Another major implication of 3D printing that will result in widespread use is the manufacturing of small (and not entirely functional/useful) plastic products. This may not sound like a big deal, but it will have major effects on the economy. The United States relies heavily on China and other countries for cheap construction of many produts. Virtually every small plastic item in the U.S. has "Made in China" on it. 3D printing could help the U.S. completely divorce itself from any international reliance on such products. Instead of paying the cheapest people possible to make the products, we can utilize the free labor of 3D printing. Other than the printer and energy needed for the print, the only expense will be the filament. This mechanization will very likely cause a new industrial revolution in the country and world. However, what makes this revolution unique is the DIY aspect of it. This industrial revolution is not restricted to the corporations themselves; every individual citizen can take part if they wish.

Blog 9

Libraries are excellent hosts for 3D printing technology. I think Tod Colegrove brings up an interesting point about the purpose of libraries. Rather than being a quiet, independent work area with no food or drink (of course, certain areas of the library should be reserved for this environment), it should be a center of conversation and activity. This a perfect environment for 3D printing. Students and faculty alike can discuss molecular models, engineering apparatuses, or pieces of art with the object in hand. Illustrations in books can only go so far in facilitating comprehension. However, a model of the object itself can ameliorate understanding in ways pictures cannot. As a student who has taken two classes of organic chemistry, I cannot stress enough the importance of having models rather than pictures. We live in a world of three dimensions; sometimes a two-dimensional representation is just not enough for proper learning. However, I think that if a library is to provide 3D printing services, the printer must be a high-end model. An original Mendel REPRAP would probably not be able to handle the massive amounts of printing it would have to endure. A lot of troubleshooting would be needed, which would probably frustrate the users and require a librarian to be frequently working on it. Additionally, it also may not provide the quality people would want from it in the time that they would want it. Overall, I think libraries are great hosts for 3D printing. Maybe 3D printers may even save many public libraries from total abandonment. However, not everyone agrees with this. An editorial post in PublicLibrariesNews.com says that preassembled 3D printers used to be $1000 and are now about $500; this means, according to the author, that they will get even cheaper and libraries will have wasted their money because people who want to use a 3D printer will have bought their own. I disagree with this. As I said previously, libraries should invest in high-end printers, rather than cheaper ones. Yes, many people may have a REPRAP for a few hundred dollars, but libraries should invest in high-end printers like the Stratasys uPrint SE Plus. Quality, speed, and reliability will be greatly improved, and most people would much rather use a printer like this than a REPRAP they got for a few hundred dollars.

The only libraries I am familiar with are Pattee, Paterno, and the Hammond Engineering Library. I think Pattee and Paterno would be good hosts for 3D printing for a number of reasons. First of all, there are a wide variety of disciplines being studied in the libraries. Therefore, the printer can be used for any science, engineering, art, or anything else that would find use in it. It would also surely be used, considering that these libraries are very crowded. However, I'm not sure where the printer should be placed specifically. Perhaps it should be in a common area between all of the different individual libraries within Pattee and Paterno. I think the Engineering Library would be good for a 3D printer as well. I picture engineers using it if they need to describe an apparatus to others, perhaps even in a presentation. There is probably opportunities for the printed parts to have functional use as well. One of the first libraries to do this was the DeLaMare Science and Engineering Library, in which their first job involved a rotor for an impeller pump being prototyped by a team of senior engineering students. I don't see why applying 3D printing technology in Hammond would be any different.

Blog 8

Once again, I think that this digital rights management system by Myhrvold will fail. As the article says, the same thing was tried with Apple iTunes tracks. Apple tried to make them impossible to copy, but to no avail. Clever people found a way around it, as usual. Even though this DRM system is being implemented, I don't think it will last very long before it's seen as a hopeless waste of time and money. Cory Doctorow has stated quite eloquently, "Like other DRM systems, this won't work (it will either have to be so broad in its parameters for recognizing prohibited items that it will balk at printing innumerable harmless objects, or it will be trivial to defeat by disguising the objects beyond the system's ability to recognize them)." I really don't think there's any real use for this technology - at least not in the application of DRM. The progress of 3D printing is evolving exponentially at a rate where I can't begin to imagine what it will look like in just five years. Right now, DRM will just hinder this progress; it should not and most likely will not succeed.

Blog 7

I think we will begin to see REPRAPs being used for less passive activities. I think there will be a bright future for cheap, yet very functional toys like the ones shown in the video. There will be many minor applications like this, but there may also be larger applications like utilization of light piping to manipulate the direction of the sun's rays. Maybe such a thing could be used to give natural sunlight to the side of a building that isn't at an angle to receive good sunlight at a certain time of day.

We may have trouble implementing light piping into our printers because there needs to be unusually excellent precision to make effective light pipes. Also, we do not have the necessary feed stock, but this can probably be obtained without too much difficulty.

There's a few categories of things I have in mind for the light sensors. The first of which is signs. Small signs could be made that can be switched to a different message. A simple example would be an "open" and "closed" sign. Additionally, perhaps some very simple game could be made like a checkers game with lights.

Blog 6

I think bioprinting is an incredible and very promising area of research. However, I think it has a long way to go before it has any major benefits. This isn't as simple as just printing plastics; this is real living cells. Not only is chemistry and physics involved, but now biology is as well. The body parts that are printed will have to function and be the right specifications, just as any 3D printed device. But now, possible rejection by a body, viruses, and diseases may be involved. Additionally, there may be legal and politial problems. Simply the mention of the word "life" in the political ring seems to stir up emotion. As a result, there may be debates over the morality of toying with life and harvesting organs (even if they didn't come from anyone).

I don't see anything that would stop bioprinting from being a DIY project. The bio-ink will have to be available to buy, though. As long as something of scientific interest can be done with a REPRAP, people will find ways to do it at some point.

Blog 5

If I was a dedicated member of the DIY Gun Project, I would now find a different printer that has previously agreed to allow the production of the weapons. Alternatively, I could also print the parts for a new printer from a REPRAP. The print quality may suffer, but at least the project can continue. Other than that, it seems like a hiring a lawyer and fighting for the legality of what the project wants to do is the only option.

I do not think that 3D printers and what they create should be regulated. Perhaps my best reason for thinking this is the simple fact that they can't be. I think a comparison to the "war on drugs" is very relevant. Both are federal (I'm tempted to say tyrannical) approaches to solving a social issue. Ultimately, both will be a massive waste of money and will show little to no results. It's difficult for me to even think of how government could enforce 3D printing regulations. Perhaps every printed material must be recorded? This begs the question, wouldn't there be an easy way to get around this? You could also enforce printed gun regulation by arresting someone when they use it, but at that point it seems like the fact that the gun was fired would be more important than the fact that it's a 3D printed gun.

If the government began to prohibit 3D printing certain objects, I'm not sure where the line would be drawn. How much freedom would people actually have to print things? I think similar prohibitions might be seen for drugs and drug-related objects. As 3D printing begins to dabble in the realm of chemistry, drug synthesis might be very realistic with the proper reactants and catalysts, not to mention all the necessary lab materials could be printed. Additionally, patented inventions could be printed if proper access to them was given. Additionally, for some reason I feel like it's inevitable that someone will eventually create a representation of the prophet Muhammad. While the first amendment protects this, it will nonetheless garner attention.

Blog 4

Makerbot Industries has made a significant move in its decision to make Replicator 2 closed source. It's worth noting that it is only rumored that this is the case, but every day it seems to be more clear that it's the truth. In addition to this, Makerbot now owns everything on Thingiverse, prompting many people to take down everything they've posted. I agree with Prusa that this is a sad day for reprap. Makerbot Industries are essentially taking all of the great things that have come from reprap being open source (printer designs, thingiverse things, etc) and making it closed source. Yet, as sad as all of this is, I can't say I'm surprised. I think it's to be expected that the concept of closed source is too appealing for everyone to abandon. This is what makes it so incredible that reprap is as open sourced as it is. I think that, for the most part, reprap will remain to be open sourced, but there will be people attempting closed source endeavours along the way.

I think an intesting occurence, if true, is what has recently happened to Dave Hinz . He claims on Prusa's Occupy Thingiverse page that Makerbot has given him $100 to commercially produce a thing he designed despite the fact that he stated, "commercial use is OK with attribution." It seems that even though Makerbot Industries is legally taking what people have posted on thingiverse, they are somewhat sympathetic to the people they are taking it from and perhaps less greedy that a lot of people think. Of course, this is only a case study that may not mean much. Nonetheless, it is intriguing.

While I respect Prusa's hostility towards Makerbot, Makerbot is not reprap. Additionally, Thingiverse is not the only possible place to share things. At the risk of downplaying the significance of these events, I think these occurences can be minimized into a minor setback in the history of reprap. Prusa's idea of creating an Ocuppy Thingiverse Movement is interesting, but I fear it will be all too similar to the Occupy Wall Street movement in that it may increase awareness but cause no real change.

I think it's time to look for a new Thingiverse. If we do, there is one crucial point to keep in mind: We must have a consensus of what this new Thingiverse will be. Competing new Thingiverses will be counterproductive and ineffective. If we want the new Thingiverse to be as impressive and widespread as the current, there needs to be only one (others may exist, but there needs to be one main site). These are my current opinions, but they are extremely subject to change as the situation continues to develop.

Blog 3

1 If there are ever restrictions placed on the distribution of reprap and the things it creates, it will be short-lived and ineffective. I can't conceive of a single way that there could be an attempt to stop this distribution that would be fruitful. People will always be able to print whatever they want in the privacy of their own homes.

2 There are a great number of things I am passionate about and love to tell people about, but one that stands out is my interest and support of a resource-based economy. It may not be relevant to public discourse for a few hundred or thousands of years, but it is still something that I think is important to know about. This passion is clearly not a good way of making money and I don't think is a good way to attract mates. This is not a good way to attract mates because, as Bowyer states, this is not a flashy show of cleverness like acting and music.

3 I think Bowyer is correct about intellectual property coming to an end. For the most part, this is a good thing. Claiming something as IP drastically decreases the progress of that item. Something that is IP can only be improved by a select group of people with limited direction to take it. If something is open-source rather than claimed by someone, anyone can help in its development. Amelioration of the item with increase exponentially and the benefits can be reaped much earlier. IP decreases progress.

Blog 2

1. I see no reason to think that a self-replicating universal constructor will not be feasible in the future. As of now, 3D printers are unable to print vital parts such as screws, electronics, motors, etc. Despite this, what would stop this from happening in the future? Or rather, what would stop a separate machine to be able to do this particular part of it? And what's stopping these machines from being combined into one? One possible (and perhaps paranoid) situation that would prevent the construction of such a machine is government. This constructor could drastically damage industry when everyone can make almost anything they want for practically free. Government might get involved in an attempt to prevent an economic downturn.

2. To me, "wealth without money" refers to how a self-replicating universal constructor would provide seemingly endless possessions for little to no money. This "wealth" could also be thought of as the affordable value of 3D printing technology towards the progress and evolution of mankind. The former interpretation poses, as stated earlier, economic difficulties. It goes without saying that such a powerful machine would decrease the value of the dollar. Drastic government and banking intervention would be required or, at the risk of sounding utopian, a revolution where people no longer see any value in money and care about technology and progress for its own sake.

3. As long as the REPRAP project remains open source, I think it has a very bright future. Unbelievable progress has been witnessed just in the past few years. As more of them are made, and as more people find out about REPRAP, the faster it will grow. I imagine that at some point, REPRAP will move beyond plastics and other similar materials into various others. Perhaps a massive, metallic REPRAP will be the future of industry. At that point, anyone can have their own industry of anything and give it to others. I imagine something similar to illegal music downloading might happen. People can share what they construct (and a duplicate of the constructor) and give it to others for cheap. This will hurt not just one industry, but all industries that REPRAP gets involved in. This sounds disasterous, but if humanity can find a way to overcome these hardships, it could be a significant step towards ameliorating our situation on earth.

Blog 1

Useful: The High Velocity Beverage Delivery Harness [2] is a triumph of human ingenuity. The design allows for a can to be shot out of a pneumatic cannon toward a thirsty individual, with a parachute attachment for safe landing. The only weakness I can see is having to wait a while after shooting carbonated beverages to avoid fizzy explosions. Maybe there's a way to use some sort of valve to avoid this?


Artistic: Nothing says disco quite like a rhombicuboctahedron with controlled RGB LED's. The LED rhombicuboctahedron disco ball [3] has an elegant geometric design with multicolor LED lights.


Useless: The United States Capitol Building is useless. This model is, too [4]. While impressive, I don't know why anyone would want this.


Funny: Not only does Admiral Ackbar [5] look funny, but this print is a constant reminder that he has one of the most enjoyable lines to quote in cinematic history.


Weird: It should go without saying that this Bart Simpson walking toy[6] is strange. Perhaps a second version can be created that will look a little less inaccurate and unnatural (even by cartoon standards). It's an interesting project, though.