User:Patman

Introduction

My name is Patrick Mangan, I'm currently a senior at Penn State, majoring in Mechanical Engineering. My interest in 3D printing sprung initially from an interest in creating one-off mechanical parts, and in robotics in general. Since initially learning how to use RepRap machines, I've been using and working with 3D printers for about a year now.

Relevant Accounts

You can find my Thingiverse account here.

Tasks

Future List

• Update all wiki pages of current Blue Team's printers.
• Update wiki to reflect Big Red's new location.

In Progress

• Create portable suite of programs to replicate for use on the space's computers.
• Investigate creating a deployment of our current debian operating system, preconfigured for slicing and printing on a Pi.

Completed

• Write Raspberry Pi OS to several spare flash cards (2)
• Rewire Blue Team's table so that each station is independantly powered.
• Construct and attach spool arms & spool to two separate printers.
• Organize a list of Blue Team member's emails and start a mailing list.

Blog Posts

Blog Post 1: Thingiverse Designs

After browsing some of the newer prints on Thingiverse, here are some of the designs that caught my eye:

A) Something Amazing and/or Beautiful

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:145345

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:145370

B) Something Funny and/or Strange: The Incredulous Party Glasses

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:145160

Don’t ask me what it is about these glasses, the whole concept just tickled me for some reason. For a better idea of what they look like in real life, take a look at the ‘made’ tab on Thingiverse.

C) Something Useless: Yes and No

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:145259

D) Something Useful: 40mm and 50mm Fan Guards

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:145409

E) “Best” Raspberry Pi Case: NES pi

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:129428

Blog Post 2: Topics of Interest

Several topics that I’m interested in working on in the coming weeks:

Alternate heads for RepRap Machines (i.e. CNC heads, laser cutters, etc) When I started working with RepRap machines, I always assumed they were extremely specific in how they could be used. This isn’t the case, apparently, according to various internet sources (mentioned during class). Of particular interest to me in this area is the use of a laser attachment to create a RepRap-based laser cutter.

Dual Extruding Printers The idea of using two separate materials in a single print intrigues me, and seems like it would be extremely useful. Unfortunately, it also adds an entire level of complexity to a machine and the code it uses to prints, if the same level of accuracy is desired. I’m definitely interested in tackling the problems surrounding printing with two extruders, as I think this is one of the areas of 3D printers that greatly expands what they can be used for in real world applications.

Applicable to both of these would be a modular kind of printer carriage, something that anyone could make a head for, for any number of uses. While this is currently a little beyond our grasp.

Blog Post 3: Blog Reviews

Ian Beavers has a wonderfully organized wiki page, with not only the blog posts, but a little bit about about himself, and the project that he is currently working on in the class. All of his material is properly linked and his explanations are in-depth and clear. The formatting of the page takes full advantage of the wiki language. Blog 2 even has properly sourced and displayed images. On the whole, a really well crafted page.

Quinn Carpenter’s blog is also very well done, showing great use of the wiki language. The descriptions of the Thingiverse items are well written and complemented with pictures. One thing I noticed, however, is that blog #3 is actually missing. The prompts for the blogs are also only on two out of the four entries, making it a little unbalanced. Also, at the risk of being extremely nitpicky, italics aren’t really the best way to create titles.

Blog Post 4: Video Commentary

I find the Arduino and RepRap projects to both have admirable goals: the average person (even the average educated engineer) would not be able to create a custom microcontroller for personal projects. Similarly, most people would not be able to, on their own, design, fabricate and assemble the parts required to make a functioning and fairly accurate prototyping machine of any type, let alone a safe one. These projects actually bring these technologies into the hands of anyone who wants them, for a relatively nominal fee (for the hardware) and basic self-instruction. Because the designs are free to replicate, modify and redistribute (to a certain extent), it also provides a common platform for further development, in both free- and closed-source varieties.

As mentioned in the presentation, this is not an uncommon business practice, counter-productive though it may seem. In a situation where your own model is possibly the only thing keeping you ahead of competitors, the idea of giving yours away for free initially sounds like a self-destructive strategy. However, certain commercial arenas can react well to this decision. Software is an easy example, especially since the eventual product of development is information, not a physical object, which is easily replicated and transported to the customer. In this situation the eventuality of theft also has to be considered. Any attempt to control information, as proven many times throughout history, is almost always taken as a challenge by others. You can easily find almost any DRM'd program 'cracked' and distributed on the internet via torrent site. By giving up the control of distribution, you reduce the barrier to entry for the customer, and recover precious resources previously used to create DRM. These resources can best be used to improve the actual product, rather than introducing more problems and points of possible failure by attempting to restrict the customer.

Arduino is also a part of a unique market, as it is sold as a component, not necessarily as a finished product. People buy arduino boards to create other things with that technology. Because it is used to create, and to innovate, having a well-maintained, well-documented and well-understood base of information is extremely helpful to the customer. A closed design would necessarily hinder the available information for the product, and therefore get in the way of the customer's application of the device. By being open source, the Arduino is able to provide the customer with a better experience over their closed-source competitors. Especially in prototyping applications, a customized or high-quality component is not as important as ease of development and availabliliy of information.

As for my personal thoughts on the open-vs-closed debate, I focus my argument on the progress of technology as a whole. Well documented and open-source applications of any technology is superior in my book, almost 100% of the time. I find this to be true because it exposes all the progress and processes developed to the entire world, to be used again and improved as needed. In a closed-source environment, bug testing is usually heavily limited until release, and a limited number of people are able to make changes (or even have read access) to the design. By exposing the design, you expose it to effectively the whole of humanity, and therefore expose it to both the judgement and improvements of said group. It is likely that someone else will have an idea that radically improves your design. The replication, redistribution, or even the attribution of the work's origin is less important to me than the improvement of the craft overall, no matter what craft that may be.

Missing Blogs

These are currently under construction, apologies for the wait. Until these are complete, there should be at least one new blog every day.

Blog Post 9:

Comments on the coffee grinder and other OS designs

My immediate, knee-jerk response is that this is somewhat dangerous. Now let me quantify that by saying this has nothing to do with the design. The design itself looks pretty cool, and as far as I can tell, perfectly safe on a mechanical level. This is, of course, assuming that the parts the builder has shamelessly cannibalized from other machines are themselves in working order, and similarly safe.

My concern springs simply from the fact that these designs can be applied anywhere, to any material. Now, I’m all for this, of course, as freedom of information is one of my highest priorities while measuring these situations. However, I’m also painfully aware that people are going to create these machines out of materials and in situations that are highly unsanitary, or generally unsafe. The effects of various 3D printing materials and processes on health are still being studied extensively, and until there’s a definitive answer from said studies, I would hesitate to drink or eat anything out of something that has been 3D printed from said materials.

Even in the case of blatantly dangerous materials, there will always be at least one person who, for some reason, thinks that it’ll be perfectly fine to make utensils out of, say, lead. Those are the people I fear for, ever so slightly, as these designs make their way into the world.

However, the upside to this is the potentially enormous impact on both the environment and the economics surrounding household appliances. If this becomes a popular idea as 3D printing expands, it could cut back on a lot of the non-recyclables that are both pervasive in every household kitchen and thrown away without much of a thought. Considering that a lot of these machines are crafted with plastic shells and electronics, this can really cut back on the yearly impact of our lifestyles on our natural resources.

Economically, there are a few different aspects to consider. It’s possible that this will allow lower-income families to keep their current appliances working longer, for less. However, one more interesting aspect of all this to consider will be the reaction to this information. It’s possible that, keeping in mind that appliances will last longer than planned, manufacturing companies will react to compensate. It’s quite possible that the parts required for the construction of the open-source counterparts will be built to be the point of failure, forcing consumers to buy more often. Counter to this, there are some companies that would definitely jump on this opportunity, offering cheaper units and concurrent replacement parts to consumers. This would be ideal, if done correctly, as it would cut down on overall waste and cost to everyone involved. In addition, there would be a higher measure of safety, as the company would be responsible for the health of their customers, and would take a more professional approach to producing the product than some of the potential do-it-yourself users.

On the Scalability of Production

To be honest, I think that there are a few things left out in the final estimates of each unit price. The materials may only cost that much, but because he didn’t show his math, I have no idea whether the coordination of said materials were taking into account, i.e. shipping, sources, time & work for assembly, etc. I can only assume that he stayed slightly more conservative estimates to prove a point. However, the point is still valid, being that this is an economic possibility.