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 8
Prompt
Check out: 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?
Response
In my previous post regarding DRM, I mentioned that RepRap has a significant advantage over the trappings of intellectual property enforcement because access to files has largely been on an open basis, even when they are being printed on a closed-source printer. However, the patent suggests that this may not always be the case. Despite the patent, I imagine that commercial 3D printers will always have to allow users to print files they have generated themselves. 3D printing is not like digital music services in that consumers are not only interested in accessing files generated by others (like their favorite bands). It is more like being a musician--both interested in creating your version of other's work as well as generating your own unique art. However, DRM could be used to force developers to create their models with a licensed software by having the software embed the necessary authorization code and link it to a particular individual's account when it generates the printable file. It might actually be good that 3D printing technology has been licensed by a patent trolling company. Perhaps manufacturers of 3D printers will decide it's not worth paying Intellectual Ventures for the right to enforce DRM on their product, or realize from the reaction to this patent that it would be an unbelievably unpopular decision.
Blog 7
Prompt
Check out: 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?
2. What sort of difficulty would we have in implementing light piping using our printers?
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?
Response
1. This vastly increase the capabilities of the objects we print. Most printed items are structural or decorative in nature and serve as alternatives to materials such as wood, aluminum, and plexiglass. The advent of printable optical sensing devices allows 3D printers to create alternatives to several orders of magnitudes more components - from switches to sensors to displays. Rather than using 3D printed parts as mounts for outside hardware- as we currently do for most of the components in our 3D printers themselves - we might be able to print both the mount and the sensor. One great example of this could be our end stops. While it would be a slightly more involved print than usual because a few electrical components might have to be inserted into the print halfway through, it would be much more convenient in the long run because the sensor and mount would be integrated by design and could be customized to their implementation. We would no longer have to design a suitable mount to work around the dynamics of an "off the shelf" end stop.
2. In order to implement light piping into our printers, we would first have to ensure that our printers are precise enough to meet the tolerances required for reliable functionality. We would also have to be able to print with the correct material and lay it the correct orientations to facilitate the pipes. The latter would require added control of tool path design, and the former may require different extruders and/or temperatures.
3. The use of optical devices inherently provides electrical isolation between input and output, which would allow electronics to be more modular and decrease the chance of a malfunction in one part of a circuit affecting others. In other words, it's as though the parts come with built-in opto-isolators! These parts are also much simpler than their electrical counterparts, which would make them less expensive and more reliable. Additionally, optical devices are less subject to sources of error like static charge, temperature, and moisture levels, which makes them more accurate and reliable across a wider range of environments. Finally, their compact size and the ability to integrate these parts directly any printed components makes them ideal for consumer products that need to be small, light, inexpensive, and mass-produced. For instance, the buttons on a cell phone could be printed as a part of its casing instead of being separate components installed inside the phone's body.
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
1. Bio-printing sounds like a great idea to me. Its ultimate goal--the ability to reproduce organsp-has the capability to solve several of the conundrums associated with organ donation, and even organ cloning. Organ donation (while a great deed) is subject to the problems of limited supply, and also has compatibility issues to consider between possible organs and recipients. Cloning involves the careful cultivation and sustaining of an organ throughout its growth cycle. By contrast, bio-printing would be much more time efficient and allow the final product to be customized as a perfect fit for its recipient. Even better, the supply is limited only by how many printers and technicians there are and by how fast the necessary cells used to build the organs can be supplied. However, one can imagine many scenarios in which bio-printing may clash with societal conventions. For instance, will this technology only be available to the very rich at first, or can it be prioritized from its outset for those in dire need? When replacing ones organs is as simple as running a printer and installing a new hard drive, will its implementation, like that of cosmetic surgery, be used both by those who are ill and those who simply want to augment their bodies? How will the governing bodies of athletics respond when an athlete can improve his or her performance simply by having a stronger heart or more efficient lungs installed? The answers to these questions may take a great deal of discussion, but are well worth the existence of such technology in medical practice. I'm sure that there are many technical issues associated with bio-printing as well, although my lack of experience with bioengineering does not lead me to be very confident in their prediction. I imagine that one concern would be for the long-term health of bio-material produced with 3D printers. These might hold together for a short time, but it needs to be proven that they can be as durable, regenerative and compatible within the body as that produced the old fashioned way.
2. I can definitely imagine interest in open source technology on the part of research institutions studying bio-printing as a way of conserving funds, but at present there is no way that DIY models provide the kind of precision necessary for such uses. It might be something like trying to use DIY rocket kits to design a manned spacecraft capable of reaching Mars! However, this is not to suggest that RepRaps will never reach the degree of technical advancement necessary for bio-printing, or that the open source community would not have something to contribute to efforts within this field. For example, if I were assigned to design and build the next generation of cell extruder for Organovo, I would probably start by searching on Thingiverse to see if any of the extruder innovations there could be applied (even if the STL files themselves could not). If I could receive permission, I might even pose some of the design challenges and constraints to the open source community to see if a solution could be made via crowd sourcing. If Phylo has taught us anything, the online community is always willing to help out with science, as long as there is some fun o be had along the way.
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!"
