User:Kpb5069
Blog 3
Due: Sept 21st, 2012
Question 1: It seems that 3D printing isn’t going to disappear, but the exact nature in which it will develop is not well defined. On that note, we currently place restrictions (DRM) onto our media to control distribution, with limited ‘success’. Do you think this might be applied to 3D printing? How or why not?
Answer: I believe this may eventually be applied to 3D printing. If I understand the concept correctly, it seems as if the new Makerbot is in fact potentially closed sourced. This will incite a series of patent laws and other legal actions in order to ensure the Makerbot is kept under these laws. Unfortunately, I don't believe that the 3D printing industry can ever be completely restriced. Take the music industry for example. In music, any one can buy a guitar, listen to a song, and copy it or come up with their own version of the same song. In 3D prining, anyone can buy an existing printer and then make their own printer by printing the parts themselves! This is why the music industry has faught so hard to try to improve the copyright issues and if 3D printing puts more restrictions on their products, they will most likely run into the same problems. In his video, Kirby Ferguson mentions the initial foal of Patent Law: "To promote the progress of useful arts." Are these restrictions really helping that cause? I agree with Kirby and think that our society is growing further and further away from this idea as we delve deeper into the restrictions put on our industries. For reference on the closed source Makerbot issue please read: Open Source vs Closed Source
Question 2: According to Bowyer, many people have a great idea (or perhaps a passion) that they love to tell people about. What is yours? Do you see this as a way to attract future mates? (or to get money?) Why/why not?
Answer:
Question 3: Professor Bowyer seems to think that 3D printing will finally kill intellectual property, and he sounds pleased about it. Do you think he’s right about ending IP? Is this a good thing, a bad thing, or somewhere in-between?
Answer:
Blog 2
Due: Sept 13th, 2012
Question 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?
Answer: I believe that it will most likely be accomplished in the future; however there are many blockades preventing this technology from appearing too soon. One of the largest problems I can foresee is the difficulty of storage. If you have self replicating machines which will then, once assembled, begin replicating again, a company or designer will quickly run out of space to put all of these machines and therefore the design will not be a truly automatic process. Instead, a company may form to create and sell such an item. Here we run into another difficulty. If a company were to try to market these items, they might be successful at first but would soon lose profit due to the fact that the machine can easily make 'itself' for the user's friends and family. This causes a limited market pull from the customers, not because of an insufficient or unwanted product, but instead because of the ease at which free trading can occur.
Question 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.
Answer: Wealth without money means acquiring a lot of junk (or in this instance, making a lot of junk). One of the problems he foresees with this idea is that people will begin to make tons of stuff and soon we'll all have piles of useless items. He also mentions that the items don't have to be of good quality anymore because if one breaks, just make another! So although people will acquire a lot of "wealth" no one will have a lot of money or useful things, just a lot of junk.
Question 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.
Answer: I believe that RepRap will eventually expand to larger units, more useful parts, potentially different materials if the technology allows it. Eventually, I believe people will be able to purchase a RepRap kit for their home and use it to make high quality products and parts. I don't believe that a RepRap machine will truly be able to replicate itself completely; however, we have already taken steps to replicate many of the parts needed for a new RepRap machine. This will only increase future possibilities and hopefully it will keep expanding to unknown horizons.
Blog 1
Due: Sept 4th, 2012
1. USEFUL: Among the many useful items in the Thingiverse archives, one tool seemed to rise above the rest. That is, the Car Safety Hammer. In my many hours of watching the Discovery Channel show Mythbusters, I came across an episode attempting to quell myths of car crashes. This episode included cars submerged in water and, through a few experiments, Adam and Jamie discovered that a Car Safety Hammer was the best way to escape from a submerged car before drowning.
2. ARTISTIC/BEAUTIFUL: I have never seen a heart with such unique gears as those in the Keyed Heart Gear Keychain. I wondered how the object actually functioned and found this YouTube video. The way the gears all disassemble and eventually return to the original positions is fascinating and holds a sort of artistic beauty in my mind.
3. POINTLESS/USELESS: Although it could be a great party costume, the Mustache and Monocle on a Thin Stick has no true value.
4. FUNNY: Introcuing the IBITE iPhone 3 Hat Clip! To be honest, the idea of a hands-free iPhone holder is interesting, but lets be real: the picture is hilarious.
5. WEIRD: I'm sure many people would enjoy this item, but for me the idea of opening my beer with a Brain Bottle Opener is just odd.
