|Hometown||Sugarloaf, PA (Hazleton area)|
|Current city||Allentown, PA|
Learn to surf
Hike Rickett's Glen
Email: [email protected]
Editing STLs in Solidworks
- Select .STL as the file type and choose your file.
- Click the options button.
- On the Import Options window, select STL/VRML.
- Select Solid Body in the Import As section.
- Select the units that the model was designed in. The units for STLs downloaded from the OHM page are generally in millimeters. Note: If you select the wrong units, your model will look the same, but may be many times larger or smaller than you intended
- Click OK.
- Click Open.
This will open your model as an editable .STL file. If it asks you if you want to run Import Diagnostics, you can click No. Your model will have lines all over the surface that split the model into many triangles. This is normal for an .STL file. To learn more about what .STL files are, click here.
If someone came up to you, and asked you: “So, what good are these 3D printer things, anyway? Why would I want to have one?” What would you tell them?
I would tell them that 3D printers are machines that make models and prototypes from a digital model. They are similar to CNC mills, but instead of starting with a block of material and cutting it down to size, 3D printers use additive processes, meaning they start out with a blank bed, and they add material to the print in layers until the model is complete. 3D printers are awesome because you can go from 3D computer model to an actual physical model in a small amount of time. RepRaps are especially awesome because they are low cost and you can make one yourself! All the models and assembly instructions for RepRaps are open source, so anyone can use them or share your own ideas.
Please watch the following talk by Cory Doctorow entitled “The coming war on general computation” (or download it to your mobile device with http://www.youtube-mp3.org/ ) and listen to at least the first half hour: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
When you finally get your first self-driving car, would you prefer it to have locked firmware, where you would be unable to know whether it drove you past more McDonnalds' when it sensed your children in the back set, or unlocked firmware which you could investigate, but which under-qualified would-be mechanics could alter to suit their own tastes? Do you think the code would be more secure if kept secret, or if it were available to good guys and bad guys alike for community review?
If the U.N. asked you to develop a sketch of a regulatory framework for 3D printing, what would you do?
Do you think Doctorow's predictions for the future are plausible or likely?
Can the copyright war be won? Is so, how? If not, where do we go from here?
I'd want my self-driving car to have locked firmware, at least at first. I can compare this to an iPhone. I've had an iPhone for years, and I've never jailbroken it. Though you can do some cool stuff with a jailbroken iPhone, I don't feel it's worth the risk of getting a bug. Perhaps if I was more experienced with programming, I would feel differently. I don't necessarily think that no one should be allowed to alter the firmware, but I don't think I would want to alter mine. I trust the people whose jobs are to make a product great. Customization could be great, but I don't think it's something I'd want to mess around with just for fun. Especially because a self-driving car could potentially cause a lot of damage to the riders and/or to others, and I wouldn't want to make my car into a safety hazard.
If the U.N. asked me to develop regulation for 3D printing, I would not do so. I think that the open source community for 3D printing is great, and it's not harming anyone... at least not right now. Maybe when 3D printing becomes more advanced and more widely used, a regulation would be necessary or appropriate, but I would not feel comfortable doing it.
I think Doctorow made some very insightful points about the future. I think that the copyright battle will go on for years and years, but the general population will continue to keep a hold of their technological freedoms. His opinions about everything turning into mini (or for some stuff large) computers will likely be true. Over my entire lifetime, technology has been becoming more and more amazing. Everyone with a smartphone now has a mini computer in their pocket with so many capabilities. I'm excited to see what kind of advances are made in the future, with 3D printing among other things, and I am hopeful that copyright issues will not interfere with the natural advancement of tehcnology.
Recycling of Waste material is an important problem, as you’ve all seen. There are several designs for DIY Recycling systems available: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:12948 http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:30642 http://filabot.com/ Do any of the designs above seem more suitable than the others? What kind of influence might a recycling system have on the DIY RepRap community? Does building a filament recycler sound difficult to you, even with step by step guides?
These designs all sound feasible, but it's a bit difficult to tell exactly what's going on by the short descriptions given on these websites. I would say that building a filmaent does not sound very difficult if there is a guide. I would be up for the challenge if there was time left in the semester to build one. One thing that stood out to me as a bit odd is the fact that the Filabot claims you can use random plastic household waste to create filament. It seems like this is a bad idea if you want to use the filament for 3D printing, because all of the different plastics that you put into the filament have different properties. Most importantly, th plastics will respond differently to heat. Some will melt at higher temperatures and some at lower temperatures. If you try to put a hodgepodge filament like that into a printer, it would be difficult to judge what temperature to set the printer at. I don't think you'd get a good print this way. Certain parts will be runny and certain parts will be too solid when extruding. Perhaps the differences in melting points is small enough for it to be insignificant, but I can't confidently believe they are without testing it. I'd probably stick to filament scraps if I was going to try to make my own filament with one of these designs.
What’s your impression of this use of 3D printing technology?
Would you buy a model of yourself? Would your parents buy one?
Explain the merits (or lack thereof) in this business model.
How much might competition drive down prices in the future for these kinds of novelty items?
I think that the 3D figurines are a really cool novelty use for 3D printers. It would be awesome for children to be able to play with figurines of people they actually know rather than generic people. Having a dollhouse with your own family in it would be pretty cool. I would buy models of myself and my family because I think it would be fun to buy a set of models every few years to see how the family has changed. They would be like 3D photographs that you could put on the mantel in your home. I think my parents would be interested in having these through-the-years figurines also. Hopefully other well-known chains will start getting involved in 3D printing as well. Places that already offer printing services or photo centers could easily incorporate 3D printing into their business. I think that the business model works well, because people can use a 3D printer for things that they want without having to purchase or build their own 3D printer. If you only want to print a few things in a year, then it would not be feasible to have your own 3D printer. Companies could purchase the expensive machines and pay for upkeep, then anyone would be able to use the service without much financial commitment. Overall, I’m glad to see 3D printing services are becoming more widely available.
Read through these links: http://www.3ders.org/articles/20120506-stemulate-learning-integrates-3d-printing-into-classroom.html http://davidwarlick.com/2cents/?p=3630 http://www.informationweek.com/byte/personal-tech/science-technology/geekteach-3d-printing-in-the-classroom/231001199 So, you’re in a class and classroom dedicated to 3D printing - Do you see a place for this in other educational environments (K-12?) What points do you agree with or disagree with in these articles? Support them with something from your own experience.
I think that 3D printers would be great in elementary or high school classrooms. Kids always seem to just 'get' new technology as soon as they see it. Also, young kids are often the most creative because they have an open mind. Our adult minds tends to get convoluted with the loads of other things that we think about daily. I believe that 3D printing is a technology that's here to stay, so every child should have a chance being exposed to it. With RepRaps like ours, young kids may not be able to easily and safely run the machines yet, but they could watch the teacher use it and eventually be able to try it out on their own under supervision. Older students like high school students would be able to do something similar to what we do: use printers, build printers, fix printers, etc. Overall I think that 3D printing is going to be widely known very soon, so it would be great to expose young students to the technology by having 3D printers in classrooms.
Now that you know a little more about the different types of 3D printing or other additive manufacturing methods, You should envision scenarios of a future where this technology is more widespread. What sorts of changes can we expect? What sorts of changes might we not expect? I’ve included some links here to give you something to think about, which we’ve generally talked about before. http://www.3dprinter.net/10-3d-prints-that-defy-traditional-manufacturing http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-burrus/3d-printing-additive-manu_b_1951777.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
One of the most important changes in manufacturing that will come when additive manufacturing processes like 3D printint gain popularity and use is that less material in a part will mean less time. In subtractive manufacturing, you start out with a block of material and remove away some parts until it functions like it needs to. Removing more material takes more time and makes more waste. In additive manufacturing processes, it takes less time to have a low-material part. Additive manufacturing doesn't have to deal with all the extra time it takes to remove excess material, because you only need to print or add the material that is needed. This cuts down waste and time for a manufactured part. Less time and less waste are two factors that will save manufacturing companies a lot of money. 3D scanning will also create a big change in the manufacturing process. People will now be able to save a lot of time that would have previously been used modeling things because they can 3D scan the objects instead. The first prototype of any part can be made in basically any way, then the item can be scanned and printed repeatedly. 3D printing is surely helping launch the manufacturing industry closer to be completely automated.
Read through these links: http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/19/reshaping-universities-through-3d-printing/ ; http://acrl.ala.org/techconnect/?p=1403 ; http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/business-brains/3d-printing-coming-to-a-library-near-you/19964 ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCXlJ36x-q0 Discuss the suitability of libraries as hosts for RepRaps (or other 3D printers). We have a number of libraries on campus, as well as the one on allen street: How many are you familiar with? Do you think any of them would be suitable for this?
Out of all the libraries on campus, I am vaguely familiar with several of them, but I don’t spend much time at any of them. I think that the Pattee/Paterno library would be a good place to put a 3D printer. To have a good place to put a 3D printer, you need a big enough room to fit the printer and several computers. You also need a room that can have noise that won’t affect people who are reading or studying quietly. 3D printers make some noise, and people collaborating together can also cause a bit of noise. In small libraries like the engineering library in Hammond, I think a 3D printer would distract other users and destroy the quiet place that people often look for in a library. Pattee/Paterno library has a lot more space, and there are already rooms for group study, sound recording, etc. that don’t distract studiers. I think that libraries are a great place for 3D printers because they will allow people to learn tactically as well as become experienced with 3D modeling. 3D printers can be fun and functional, so having an affordable way for ordinary people to access them would be a great addition to any community. A library should be “a university of people” as discussed in this article (http://blog.makezine.com/2011/05/11/public-libraries-3d-printing-fablabs-and-hackerspaces/) meaning that all kinds of information are free to share, not just information in books. People have the right to learn and to experiment, and easy access to 3D printers would do just that. Since libraries are utilized less and less while the internet is used more and more, why not switch out some books with obsolete information with a more useful tool? How many people really actually prefer to go to the library to do research over googling something these days? I think the answer is “not many,” so why not change the focus of the library system? That being said, I’m not sure that RepRaps, in their current form, are right for libraries. A library is a place where you go to use technology, not a place where you go to find a broken machine. RepRaps require a lot of tinkering, and I don’t think a library is the right environment for that. Imagine if someone decided to go to the library and print out a part, and when he arrived, he found a broken printer. Some users might make the attempt to fix the printer, but others will just be frustrated that they can’t do what they wanted to do. And some people who try to fix the printer might break it even more. I think that for now, a more reliable printer (read: more expensive) printer might be best.
http://gizmodo.com/5952780/new-patent-could-saddle-3d-printers-with-drm Go back to your previous posts regarding DRM and control of 3D printing. Does this article support your argument then? Do you think this technology will find a use?
This article has a similar point to what I thought about DRMs on 3D print designs in previous blogs. DRM can be useful for certain things, like 3D printed art or a company's design for a product, but at the same time, if you design something that you want to keep secret, all you have to do is not distribute the file. Adding DRM checkers to 3D printers will greatly stunt the creative explosion that has emerged on websites like Thingaverse. Average people can build stuff in their home using other methods, so why should 3D printing be limited? Say I broke a piece off of a piece of furniture at my home. I could 3D print a replacement part, sure, but I could also make a replacement part with other materials. A 3D printer is a machine that creates things, and those willing to make or purchase one should be able to do so freely. If I bought a melting furnace and started casting aluminum parts in my basement, no one would regulate that, so why regulate 3D printing? I think the DRM checking technology could definitely have a use, but it would only benefit a few people, and it would seriously injure the RepRap community as well as independent creative minds who just want to create things.
Check out this article related to what Dan was describing to us on Thursday: http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/05/seeing-is-believing-disney-crafts-3d-printed-optics-video/
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?
Being able to print optical sensing devices will help lead our society away from being dependent on large manufacturers for goods. One machine will be able to produce parts that previously needed several machines (and probably a human worker) to produce. Barring price, this technology will allow any company with just a small amount of space to produce these parts. Unfortunately, this technology, along with any other automated technology, decreases the amount of jobs in our economy, but that is the nature of automation I suppose. Since this technology prints parts without assembly, this decreases the user's ability to repair the part, so the cost of production would need to be quite low in order for this to be a feasible manufacturing method. On the other hand, it will remove the possibility of human error during assembly which might be the cause of some failures.
2. What sort of difficulty would we have in implementing light piping using our printers?
Our printers are not very accurate, and they can't print solid objects. Our printers deposit lines of filament that can be put close to each other, but they never really bond into one smooth solid object. This will affect our ability to produce clear material. If the material is not completely fused and solid, light will not pass through the material effectively. It will be like looking through a window that has chips all over 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?
The first application that comes to mind is enhancing our printers. This technology would allow us to print more parts of a RepRap. Power buttons and end stops wouldn't need to be purchased hardware anymore. This enhances the self-replicating nature of a RepRap. We could also add new features to the machines without having to add more purchased hardware... maybe xyz movement controls right on the RepRap rather than in the computer program.
Check out this: http://www.cnbc.com/id/49348354 Most of our discussions have discussed printing object which are not alive, however many researchers are now looking into using 3D printers to create different organs or other bodily components. The NovoGen MMX bio-printer could change the field dramatically.
1. What do you think of bio-printing? What sort of legal problems or technical problems can you foresee?
Honestly, bio-printing blows my mind. I am surely not a biology person, but I have a hard time believing that many of the things that were discussed in the article would actually work. Sure, you could print prosthetics, and maybe even lay out new skin over a wound, but once you start talking about printing full organs, I start getting skeptical. As far as I know, organ function depends less on shape and more on interaction between cells. I think it's totally possible to print something that looks like an organ, but to have it actually function in the way that it needs to might be a long shot. The article says "bio ink" is being used to print these things, but what exactly is in "bio ink"? I assume it is some type of stem cells, which may cause an ethical issue. The most useful type of stem cells is embryonic stem cells, and many religious groups are extremely against using these stem cells for research. If printing organs was possible, it could save a lot of lives, but it could also cause some sort of black market for organs. People might start selling organs for very high prices to people in need. This would call for some legal intervention.
2. Do you think this might be extended to RepRaps for DIY bio-research?
Perhaps this will be extended to DIY research with RepRaps, but I sort of hope not. It creeps me out to think that some dude in his basement may be printing out a stockpile of organs. It would be difficult for DIYers to get involved in independent research of this type because the matter used to print ("bio ink") is probably not easy to come by. I really hope that people don't try to start extracting their own bone marrow or something to have material to print with.
1. Imagine that you were a dedicated member of the DIY gun project: What might you do now?
I would build a RepRap myself to do the printing rather than use a rented commercial printer. The quality of hobby printers may not be as high as that of commercial-grade, but for the beginning stages of the product, a hobby printer should be fine. Obviously, when they plan to test a prototype, it needs to be very accurate for safety reasons, but until then, a hobby printer will allow them to create the part without having to work around the policies of another company. Building a RepRap would take a bit more time than the project was intended to take, but it would free up the regulations that they are dealing with. While building a RepRap and printing preliminary prototypes, they could shop around for a print rental company that is open to their project or work on changing their design to be considered legal.
2. Another article asks ”Should 3D printing, especially when it’s being used to create items like guns, be regulated? Can you regulate it?” Check your Blog #3 Questions 1 & 3 (and my comments to them) if you haven’t already. Do you have any more to say about this issue of 3D printer regulation (gov’t or corporate)?
I don't think 3D printing should be regulated. Personally, I believe that people should be able to freely create things in their home. Regulations should only be applied when something affects others outside of the home. Though you could argue that creating things like guns can affect others because weapons are dangerous, people can create weapons in so many other ways besides 3D printing them. Right now, 3D printing guns is about whether or not it can be done. Since a fully printed gun would probably only be able to shoot one bullet, it is obviously not meant to be used in a shoot-out. In many states, it is not necessary to get a permit to purchase a gun, so obviously state governments are not intending to limit the amount of people who have guns at home. Regulating 3D printing is probably more hassle than what it's worth for the government.
3. Guns (and other weapons) seem to be prone to prohibitions. What other 3D printable constructs might attract similar attention/derision/prohibition?
Drug paraphernalia would be problematic if someone tried to print it on a 3D printer. The government might rightfully become involved in the control of this, but probably not actively. If a person has 3D-printed drug paraphernalia that is found by a police officer, they should be punished in the same way that a person would be punished for other drug paraphenalia.
http://hackaday.com/2012/09/20/makerbot-occupy-thingiverse-and-the-reality-of-selling-open-hardware/ Comment on Makerbot’s position (as far as we know), Prusa’s concerns, and ownership of designs. Should we look for a new thingiverse?
Having an open source 3D printer model seems like a great idea... in theory. But people aren't as honest and full of integrity as you might hope. Many people take any opportunity to work the system to their own advantage, and this may have been a factor that pushed Makerbot to shy away from an open source model. Let's be realistic here... companies are formed to make a profit. Giving away all the designs and information needed to make a product is not a great way to make money. Though it is a nice thought that a company would give away their designs for the benefit of the 3D printing community, it may not be a feasible business model. For all the time and effort that the people at Makerbot spend on their products, they do deserve recognition and reward for that. Perhaps they feel the only way to be justly rewarded and/or to protect their rights to their designs, they had to stop making open source models.
As far as Thingiverse goes, I am unsure of exactly what rights Makerbot is attempting to gain. Saying that they "own" everything on Thingiverse is not very clear. Maybe Makerbot is just trying to protect themselves from lawsuits. Maybe, though, Makerbot is trying to make profit on other people's designs, in which case it would seem unethical. I would need more information on the legal details of this issue before passing a judgement, but to play it safe, I would say that we may need to start using a site other than Thingiverse. If you ever intend to sell a design or profit from something you may post on Thingiverse, think again, and protect yourself before you risk losing rights to your own design.
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?
Yes, I do think that some designers may attempt to put DRM protection on their designs, but I don't think that it will be an effective way of protecting their designs from being distributed. As seen in other media industries, DRMs are only slightly effective. For instance, DRMs on digital books only prevent people from converting the file to a different file type; they do not prevent people from sharing their Kindle book with all of their friends who also have Kindles. People will still distribute them on a black market of 3D printing designs like they do with music on P2P sharing programs.
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?
I am passionate about 3D modeling. Ever since I took Edsgn100, I have enjoyed 3D modeling as a hobby and as a tool for classes and jobs. I have been a TA for Edsgn100 for three years, I took a 400-level Solidworks class, I used Solidworks at my internship, and I tutor students who are struggling with 3D modeling concepts. I love learning new things about Solidworks and sharing tips and tricks with fellow users. I don't think this passion is necessarily very useful in attracting a mate. I doubt that any men have a checklist of ideal traits in a woman with "proficient in 3D modeling" listed. This passion may be useful to get money though, if I use 3D modeling in my career after graduation.
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?
I think it's somewhere in between. On one hand, people may not benefit from their inventions or designs like they once could. Someone could design the next big thing that everyone has to have and not get recognition for it. On the other hand, the design world will be rid of the people who design just to get rich, so people who genuinely care about something will be the only ones creating and improving designs. I believe this will result in better quality designs. Passion is a much more respectable motivator than money.
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?
I do not that that a self-replicating universal constructor is feasible. Many parts of a 3D printer can be made by another printer, but to have a printer be completely self replicating, it would require every single piece of the printer to be made from another printer. A problem I see with this is that the printer would have to print the electronics, hardware and extruder. The electronics would need to be made from conductive material. The hardware would need to be very precise and strong. The extruder would need to bemade from a material that is easily melted for original extrusion but heat-resistant when it came to printing other things. These issues, along with the fact that printers often have unforeseeable problems during the construction that would be hard to troubleshoot without human interaction, make the idea of a self-replicating universal constructor seem far-fetched.
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.
Wealth without money means being able to create anything you can imagine without having to go to a store or order the product online. Having an advanced 3D printer essentially allows a person to create any product at home. On another note, manufacturing can grow exponentially if a 3D printer can make products to sell along with new printers. Eventually, there would be more printers than a person or a company could ever think of using at once.
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.
In the future, RepRaps will continue to evolve, but at some point, the advancements will level off asymptotically. When the price of fully-assembled industrially-produced 3D printers has dropped low enough, I believe that a 3D printer will become a household appliance like a refrigerator or a stove. Every family will have one. Objects printed on 3D printers will be used for fun and for functionality. Kids will make art projects using 3D printers, people will create their own knickknacks on 3D printers, and some people will use a 3D printer to fix things around the house. I think that, like the way it is now, only very ambitious people will attempt to make their own 3D printers. Like any other hands-on task, many people will rather just pay for the work to be done instead of doing it themselves. For instance, anyone can buy parts for their car and do their own maintenance, but the amount of people who spend the time learning how to do repairs versus the amount of people who just pay a mechanic to do the repair is quite small. I do not think RepRaps will die off, but I also do not think that the use of RepRap machines will grow much larger in the coming years.
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||Carabiner||I find this carabiner to be useful because I used to constantly lose her keys,and having a carabiner saved me from so much frustration. This design would remove the need for a spring in a carabiner, which is generally the piece of a carabiner that I break. If the right type of plastic was selected to print this carabiner, it would theoretically last much longer than a store-bought carabiner. This design may not be appropriate for climbing or other adventure sports, but it would work very well to hold keys.|
|Artistic/Beautiful||Chen-Gackstatter Thayer Vase||This vase is very beautiful. The level of detail contained in this design is astounding, and the symmetry of the object makes it very visually pleasing. According to the description of this vase, the shape was created mathematically using a Chen-Gackstatter Thayer Surface.|
|Pointless/Useless||Buttered Corn||I find this Buttered Corn design to be extremely useless. I'm not really sure why anyone would waste their time modeling an ear of corn, let alone add butter and a husk.|
|Funny||iPhone Upgrade Kit||This design of an iPhone Upgrade Kit doesn't do anything other than bang the life out of an iPhone. It is a humorous idea but could also be classified in the "useless" category... unless you're looking to destroy your iPhone, that is.|
|Weird||Beaver||This beaver model is apparently supposed to be a chess piece. Why anyone would like to play chess using a beaver as a piece is beyond me. I find it quite odd that someone took the time to create such a detailed design of a beaver.|