User:Theherschmeister
Contents
Welcome
Welcome to my user page on the RepRap Wiki!
About Me
Below you'll find a brief bio about my history and current activities, as well as my contact information.
Bio
Herschel Pangborn is a senior at Penn State majoring in Mechanical Engineering as a member of the Schreyer Honors College, with a certificate in International Engineering and minor in Music Performance. He also holds a third degree black belt and instructs both youths and adults as a member of the World Tang Soo Do Association.
ENGINEERING: Herschel's study of engineering at Penn State has allowed him to visit and take classes in both China and Singapore. He currently works as an undergraduate researcher for the Penn State Applied Research Lab on EOD (explosive ordinance disposal) ground robots as a member of Dr. Sean Brennan's research group.
MUSIC: In 2008, Herschel attended the Pennsylvania Governor's School for the Arts as a saxophonist. He was a member of the PMEA District 6 Jazz Band on saxophone and a PMEA All-State clarinetist. In May of 2009, Herschel competed with the SCAHS Jazz Band in the Essentially Ellington Program hosted by Jazz at Lincoln Center. That summer, he spent several weeks touring European jazz festivals with the same group. Herschel is a member of the Penn State Centre Dimensions Jazz Band and a participant in the Penn State Jazz Combos. He has studied with Steve Bowman and Rick Hirsch, and is currently studying saxophone with David Stambler and clarinet with Smith Toulson.
Contact Info
theherschmeister-at-gmail.com
http://www.facebook.com/theherschmeister/
Blog
Blog 6
Prompt
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?
2. Do you think this might be extended to RepRaps for DIY bio-research?
Response
Blog 5
Prompt
Read: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/10/3d-gun-blocked/
1. Imagine that you were a dedicated member of the DIY gun project: What might you do now?
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)?
3. Guns (and other weapons) seem to be prone to prohibitions. What other 3D printable constructs might attract similar attention/derision/prohibition?
Response
1. I don't think that the DIY gun project has much hope now of violating any laws and getting away with it--or even playing with gray area between laws without reprimand. Their efforts have become too popularized to fly under the radar of gun control agencies. While Defense Distributed might be able to sue in the attempt to defend their interpretation of these laws, such an action would take great financial resources and years of legal maneuvering to come to fruition. I think that their best bet is to attempt to comply fully with all the governmental regulations in place. This is what they seem to be doing anyway, with the hope that their efforts might enable future groups more flexibility within the legal system. Most of the laws that will serve as the biggest stopping block seem to confine the construction of firearms to those that can be detected by conventional means and also meet the standards required of guns that are purchased and carried legally. In order to bypass those laws, I think that Defense Distributed would have to shape a world where those laws are no longer capable of being enforced, and in which national security is not compromised by and/or has technologies to detect the existence of printable weapons. However, I don't see this happening any time soon. In the grand scheme of things, it's not that hard to build or detect a bomb either, but they're still definitely illegal.
2. Defense Distributed claims that the core of their efforts is to make information available to everyone. I'm not against that goal as a general rule, but I think this is a way for Defense Distributed to hide behind the fact that they really just don't like gun control regulations. There's no lack of information about the function and production of guns in the world, nor is there really that much preventing people from obtaining them (you can get them at WalMart... honestly). In fact, there's tons of information out there about every kind of weapon in the world. What Defense Distributed really wants to do is to take care of the grunt work of synthesizing this information and use crowd sourcing to iterate over designs so that the barrier for any person to make his or her own gun that is completely undocumented and untraceable is as low as possible. I think that Defense Distributed sees this as doing the world a favor, but I disagree with that belief for the same reason I disagree with the opinion that legalizing firearms on college campuses will save lives.
I think that sometimes we have to accept that regulation can be necessary, and trust that the pursuit of violators will match the threat of the crime. For instance, we have laws against distribution of copyrighted digital media, but virtually all of the people who download a song or movie off the internet in their home once in a while never meet any repercussions because we acknowledge as a society that there are bigger fish to fry. Meanwhile, we have laws against the home production of methamphetamines, and work pretty hard to stop individuals who produce and sell them because it's a really evil way to make a living. I think that the same will be true of 3D printing some day. Yes, sometimes people will rip off the designs of commercial products and violate copyrights, and most of the time I think it won't amount to too much of a problem. However, sometimes people will popularize designs for objects that could be used to cause pain and take lives, and I hope that their actions are taken much more seriously.
3. As stated above, I think it likely that most objects which are protected as some type of intellectual property or regulated by law will eventually see scrutiny if free designs become rampant. However, I think the ones designed to cause physical harm to others that will receive the most derision and attention by law enforcement. This includes any type of concealed weapon or blade. Objects that are unknowingly dangerous to their users are also a point of concern. There's no commission to safety test designs on Thingiverse. If someone posts a razor blade holder that is very likely to break in half and send a razor flying into someone's face, it probably would take a few casualties before the community would be able to get the design modified or removed.
Blog 4
Prompt
Read: 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?
Response
I definitely don't agree with Makerbot's transition to a closed source system. Newton said that "if I have seen further it is by standing on ye sholders of Giants," and this sounds to me like using that altitude to spit in the giants' eyes. As acknowledged in the article, Makerbot does have corporate considerations to make in its business plan, but this move is clearly not in the tradition of the culture from which the company emerged. Prusa's concerns, if founded, are also troubling, especially with regards to the ownership of materials posted on Thingiverse. Even though Makerbot's response (http://blog.thingiverse.com/2012/09/26/terms-of-service-and-moral-rights-explained/) contradicts Prusa's conclusion about the Terms of Use changes, it is worth considering the potential conflict of interest in having a for-profit company hosting open source designs. It might be more prudent to move the user community to a host that is more centered on the free sharing of information.
Blog 3
Prompt
Read: http://reprap.org/wiki/EndOfIntellectualProperty.
Watch: http://vimeo.com/47322970
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?
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?
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?
Response
1. It's clear that attempts to capitalize on the market for home 3D printing involve the invention of closed-source devices. These may make life easier for potential users who don't have the skills, tools or time to invest in an open source alternative, but it also draws us away from the stated goal of RepRap to have individuals share their work with the community and let the natural selection of ideas determine trends in the technology. While I don't have a lot of historical knowledge on the subject, I would suggest that there is a common trend among such technologies that have a market potential. They begin as open projects among a group of dedicated thinkers and are adapted by companies and sold to the masses while a small group continues to value and support open-source. Such is the case with PCs, in which Apple and Microsoft dominate a market, but are often put aside in favor of Linux by those seeking a cheaper and more flexible alternative and who have the skills to operate a less finessed system. However, RepRap has a significant advantage in that the push for maintaining it open-source has been present since its inception. Attempts at closed-source distribution appear to be largely frowned upon, and while some companies are selling the printers themselves, RepRap has also not compromised on making individual's printable designs freely shared. In other words, one may be using a closed-source printer, but he or she will be printing all free designs. This is almost like buying an iPhone but having access to all the software for free. Even if some entity does attempt to sell designs, it won't be long until a plethora of reasonably close free alternatives appear on the web, posted by the RepRap faithful.
2. One of my passions is synthesizing the information I have absorbed from my involvement in engineering, music and martial arts. I often find that the same general principles apply in my efforts to become the best engineer, musician and martial artist that I can. Each activity has an established methodology used to help practitioners learn and digest information and aid in the improvisational application of that information, however every time I have taken an approach from one activity and applied it to another, I have been pleasantly surprised at the outcome. I have come to realize that the pursuit of mastery is a universal process when properly viewed. There are some obvious examples, such as "you have to work hard to succeed," but there are some more subtle crossovers as well. It's actually fairly rare for a musician to sit down and play through an entire piece without stopping. Most of a given practice session is spent analyzing just one note or musical phrase, deciding how it should be contextualized in the piece, and mastering the technical skills necessary to achieve that effect. I have spent hours trying to perfect so small unit as the transition from one note to another-- what might amount just half an inch of movement in my right index finger at times. The same lies true in engineering. If you only spend your time running through a complex problem or topic from start to finish, and never stop to rehearse component skills, organize your thoughts, or understand the limitations of the analysis being applied, you are not preparing for the day when it is time to put the whole shebang together (nor will you likely get the correct answer for the problem). The greatest motivation behind this interest for me is in finding ways that others might not have explored to improve abilities in an activity. As "Embrace the Remix" suggests, I take good ideas across the boundaries of the activity to which they are implied and experiment with them in untested waters.
3. For the same reasons that Mac OSX has a much greater market share than Linux, I do not think that intellectual property will be ended any time soon. While the free collaboration of individuals has the potential to create amazing things, the organizational structure, incentives, and leadership of successful corporations is tough competition, even when consumers are faced with the choice between a user-friendly product and a free product. I think that people who do not have the specialized skills or interest in a field will always gravitate towards the closed-source option because it requires so much less individual investment to get up and running. As long as this occurs, those companies will sustain intellectual property as a way of protecting their investment in new (or remixed) work. Even though I despise the barriers that intellectual property presents to creativity, I understand why it exists. People have the right to have their ideas protected--to receive credit for their mental successes if they so desire, just as an athlete is rewarded for his or her physical abilities.
Blog 2
Prompt
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?
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.
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.
Response
1. I believe that a self-replicating universal constructor could be feasible, but that it would ultimately require a complexity which may result in its bringing diminishing returns when being developed from machines that fall short of both self-copying and self-assembling features. Bowyer compares the four possible combinations of self-copying and self-assembling machines to rocks, proteins, viruses, and humans. The differences between each of these items are tremendously vast--they are essentially four data points in the spectrum between inanimate objects and intelligent life. I think that as replicating prototype technology expands, we may find that it is simply not worth trying to build a device that can make ALL of its parts. We may have so much easier a time building a "protein" than a "human" that we're happy to stick with proteins and bridge the gap through manual assembly. We might also find that it is much more sensible in the long run to divide the processes of copying and assembling into sub-functions that are completed by different machines. One machine might specialize in printing metal components, while another does plastics. A third might be dextrous enough to assemble these together. Working in consort, these machines form a self-replicating constructor system. Whether they are split amongst different devices or not, to achieve the goal of self-replicating, we need to develop processes for completing all these sub-functions. Right now, we are making strides in printing with plastics. However, the creation of intricate items made out of steel, for instance, remains largely a task of industry. Similarly, the microscopic circuit boards found in modern computing devices cannot yet be produced in one's home.
2. Wealth without money refers to the ability to produce an abundance of valuable resources without needing to purchase them through market purchases. Specifically, Bowyer discusses having people use their rapid prototypers to print all the items that they need in life instead of having to buy them. Users may even be able to produce or recycle their own raw materials for these printers. This suggests that, assuming it lies within the bounds of their printing capabilities, any person could have any item at his or her disposal for free, largely undercutting the theories of supply and demand. A system such as this would require the free sharing of information in the form of instructions on how to print a particular item. It also would require people to develop these items out of their own desire to help humanity. History has demonstrated that this can occur in some cases, as with the development of open source operating systems, however it is also likely that we would not have a device as amazing as the iPhone if massive teams of engineers and designers were not rewarded monetarily for their cooperation in producing such an item. In other words, there may be some tradeoffs associated with eliminating the driving force of market competition.
3. RepRap technology is currently primarily a hobbyist's task--not a consumer's. While a hobbyist is willing (and expecting) to tinker around with his work and employ "duct tape" style solutions throughout the process, the consumer expects everything to function out of the box as intuitively and effectively as possible. I think that RepRaps will branch out into this field if they are to become popularized. Printers will become easier to build as people learn to develop systems that are better described by "some assembly required" than by "a great deal of tinkering required." Similarly, the design, modification, and production of parts will become easier so that the system becomes less specialized. It used to take a special operator to send a message using morse code, yet now anyone can pick up a phone and dial a friend. This parallels the scenario that I envision for the future of RepRaps.
Blog 1
Prompt
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.
Response
Useful
Bag Holder
I think that one of the great motivations for personal 3D printing lies in creating those little bits and pieces that make someone's day just a little bit easier. This device is so simple, but it would be harder to make by other processes or out of other materials. It's something we all wish we had in hand for our next trip to the grocery store.
Artistic/Beautiful
Vase
This user has posted a bunch of very cool and beautiful designs. This one reminds me of the intricate wares that can be purchased from glass blowers at art shows, except you don't have to worry about it getting shattered on the way home.
Pointless/Useless
Gasket for Model T Ford
I suppose this would save a machinist somewhere a lot of time, but I'm not sure how well a plastic gasket would hold up in an engine... even if it was a really old engine!
Funny
I'm torn between two things, so I'll just post them both.
Compost Toilet
Aren't there laws against this kind of thing?
Adimiral Ackbar
Don't try to print this... it's a trap!
Weird
Brine Shrimp Hatchery
There seems to be a lot of interest in this, so maybe I shouldn't be one to judge. However, learning 3D printing has definitely not made me think: "Awesome! Now I can finally make that brine shrimp hatchery I've always needed!"
