User:Jwo5069
Contents
About Me
File:jwo5069
Name
Jonathon O'Hora
Major
Mechanical Engineering
Contact Me
Email: [email protected]
Blogs
Week One
Go to thingiverse.com. Use any means you like to look through the objects submitted to thingiverse and pick out 5 designs which you consider to be the most: 1. useful 2. artistic/beautiful 3. pointless/useless 4. funny 5. weird. Link to the 5 objects you’ve chosen, and discuss why you consider them well described by the 5 adjectives above.
Useful
Snap Together Mini Lamp This is a really interesting design and it is useful that you can put a light in it and have a functional light. It also is a replica of the PIXAR icon which is cool.
Artistic/Beautiful
Nautilus Gears These are beautiful and symetrical based off logarithmic scales which makes them more apealing to the eye. It also interesting that you can spin them around and see how the teeth keep interlocking making it spiral.
Pointless/Useless
Troll Statue Well you printed out nine large prints and what do you have? The pieces of a troll statue to glue together haha, though it is a little funny looking, it is also very pointless and also useless.
Funny
T-Rex Cookie Cutter This one is pretty self explainatory, it is shaped like a T-Rex and you use it to make cookies, what isnt awesome and funny about that.
Weird
Rooster Ring So this is a ring with a rooster on it. The making of a ring is a cool idea but why did they choose to put a rooster on it?
Week Two
Read http://reprap.org/wiki/BackgroundPage. This should give you some feel for where Adrian Bowyer was coming from when he started the RepRap project. Respond to the following:
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?
To an extent I do think that a self-replicating universal constructor is feasible. What I mean is that the hardware, electronics, and other some of the other materials would have to be bought because they wouldn't be able to be printed in plastic. Also at this point I think the printers are to complicated for the masses to comprehend and build. The knowledge of assembly and operation isn't simple enough for it to expand exponentially like in the article. So now for the feasible part; the potential is certainly their because the printers can print out parts to copy themselves. As more evolution of printers happens I believe they could have less and less hardware and more reprap pieces.
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.
The phrase means that by having these printers we could replace things that we normally pay for with this cheaper alternative. Also by being able to print anything we can design or imagine we have greater wealth than even the consumer who pays for their goods because we choose what is made and don't have to pick out of what manufacturers decide to sell. Some problems are we are limited by the size of the printers and the size of the product created. Also many things we buy wouldn't befit to be made out of plastic. Such as a car; that would be a really long print.
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 the printers will continue to evolve getting simpler and more reliable as time goes on. Since there is such a large community and they are all eager to share their successes and knowledge, this project has a huge potential to grow and improve. I don't think that these will be life changing pieces of equipment that will be in every home such as the article infers; but I do think they are a really cool idea that many people could have to make cool useful things and explore their own designs and creativity. The reason I don't think it would be as big of a game changer as the article says is because of the limited size of the prints and the durability of the material that is printed with. Many of the things we use need to be made out of metal, rubber, plastics that are molded and not printed. One material can't replace the thousands that manufacturers use when making products.
