User:Malcat

From RepRap
Revision as of 18:25, 23 October 2012 by Malcat (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

October 27th 2012

Does this article support your argument then? Do you think this technology will find a use?


October 19th 2012

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?

By being able to print active components as well as passive components, we open up new possibilities for products we can print completely. When we could only print passive components, we would have to go to another source to get sensors, but this makes us more independent and self-sufficient

2. What sort of difficulty would we have in implementing light piping using our printers?

Our printers would have to be adapted to be able to print with the type of material used in light piping. Also we need to make our printers more precise to be able to print objects are this quality.


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?

We use these types of sensors in our labs here at Penn State. It would be cool if we had the capability to print these and could be self-sufficient and not have to buy these items.


October 12th 2012

1. What do you think of bio-printing? What sort of legal problems or technical problems can you foresee?

Bioengineering has always been very interesting to me so I think bio-printing sounds pretty cool. There are lots of technical problems that can be associated with it. I'm sure printing these tissues is very expensive. Legally, all medical research goes through strict regulations so that has to be kept in mind. Since this is so new I'm not sure what kind of precedent there is for this type of research so it could take awhile before these methods are approved.


2. Do you think this might be extended to RepRaps for DIY bio-research?

I don't think RepRaps are really appropriate for bio-research. These tissues are probably very complex and should probably be carried out on bigger scale with more industrial type printers.


October 5th 2012

1. Imagine that you were a dedicated member of the DIY gun project: What might you do now?

It's hard for me to think of a next step because I do NOT support this in anyway. But I suppose I would follow through with the legal procedures so that the project wouldn't get in any trouble that would set it back. Also in the meantime while waiting for that, we could work on the design more so that once we get a printer it would be more likely to work.


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 really have anything new to add. I feel that 3D printing should definitely be regulated for situations such as this. Manufacturing guns in other ways is regulated so why should 3D be exempt? But again, it's hard to do this with people having access to their own personal 3D printers


3. Guns (and other weapons) seem to be prone to prohibitions. What other 3D printable constructs might attract similar attention/derision/prohibition?

Any objects that can cause harm to yourself or others might attact similar attention.


September 28th 2012

Comment on Makerbot’s position (as far as we know), Prusa’s concerns, and ownership of designs. Should we look for a new thingiverse?

Makerbot has allegedly is shifting towards closed-source 3D printing. They want to control who can replicate their printers with the reveal of their new Replicator 2 3D printer. Prusa is concerned because this is not the direction he wants 3D printing to go in. He does not want Makerbot industries to own all the content on Thingiverse. Prusa has already started to stray away from Thingiverse and the rest of us may want to do the same. If we want to sustain the open source community running we will need a new Thingiverse.


September 21st 2012

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?

I think that that some sort of authority may try to place restrictions on 3D printing, however I see no practical way of enforcing this. Because these printers can be home made, it is nearly impossible to track who has these printers and how to make these users abide by these laws. It's similar to music piracy. It something that is so spread out and difficult to control that it can't really be stopped.

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 enjoy the sciences and the ability to convert flour, water, and eggs into a deliciously decorated cupcake is something I pride myself on. Although this may not seem "technical" I can assure there are many similarities to be drawn. The process of trying and improving a recipe is similar to designing and redesigning a 3D printer. Also, the best way to man is through his stomach, giving me a clear path to "attracting mates". This passion can also be profitable. Recently many bakers have been able to create successful businesses and even television shows.

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'm torn on this issue. On one hand, it takes credit away from those who truly deserve it. On the other hand, it allows more developments to be made in a shorter amount of time because there are less legal obstacles to jump.


September 13th 2012

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 don't believe that a fully 'self-replicating universal constructor' is possible, or at least I dont think that it would really be economical to have one. Machines need so many different types of parts (electronics, hardware, motors, etc.) that while a self-replicating machine may be self-sufficient, it would be inefficient to create all these parts from one source.


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.

This phrase means that the users of these reprap machines can make themselves wealthier by being self-sustaining and not having to spend money to make the things they want. Reducing the need for industrial production is what allows this cheaper production of objects. I think one of the main problems goes along with what I said above. Although you may be able to produce your own parts on your personal printer, these parts may not be as high of quality as those produced industrially. Also, you have to account for the down-time required to print your own parts when you could more quickly simply buy another.


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.

As the knowledge and popularity of RepRaps increase, I think there will be substantial growth made in the project. A few ways I believe this will happen are the following. I think that the printers themselves will become more reliable and easier to make due to the input of more designers and users. I think a more legitimate version of the 'thingiverse' site will be created also. I would like to see more classes like ours will be created at other universities as well.


September 4th 2012

After browsing the website "thingiverse.com" there are 5 objects I would like to highlight.

1. Useful: Can Colander This really isn't the coolest thing ever, but I can definitely see it being useful. Personally I eat a lot of canned fruit and vegetables and often either cut myself or loose half my food attempting to use the jagged can lid to strain out the juice.

2. Artistic/Beautiful: Rose Just because it isn't a real flower, doesn't mean it isn't beautiful. It will also never die, so the beauty of this creation could be admired forever.

3. Useless: Steak I'm not really sure why anyone would want a plastic rendition of steak, so I'm going to designate this design as the most useless.

4. Funny: Rubber-Band Bow and Arrow Projectiles are always fun. Being able to shoot something across the classroom is something many students would find amusing.

5. Weird: Haiku As far as poems go, haikus are weird. Therefore, a 3D print out of one is also weird.