== Entry 16 == 7/10/13
Still using this... I plan on buying the parts for a reprap within the next few months. First project will be a printed quadroter!
== Entry 15 == 12/12/12
As its getting close to the end of school, I will write a little about how the class was conducted.
Outside criticism of our course has suggested that we do not adequately cover design topics or the design process generally, and sometimes further suggests that the content is not adequately codified. An important question to ask is this: Is there a better way to structure class time? Do we need less open lab time and more lecture time? Was this a ‘real’ class? (by whatever definition you choose) What did you learn in it?
I loved this class. I loved cool structure, I loved the semi relaxed/go at your own pace idea and I loved the fact that is was very hands on. But, I agree with this criticism. Being an EDSGN class, there was very little design teaching. Students could go all semester without designing a single thing. Thankfully I participated in the razor blade design challenge and that was really fun! Designing something completely new and using the repraps as they were meant to be used. It was great, and if i bought a 3d printer, thats what id use it for...Prototyping. I think this class should require the student to be some type of engineering so design can be taught more. So in the end, I think there should have been more design discussed in class.
This is an experimental class structure so i'm not too concerned about the level of codified content. I do think the structure needs improvement however. I think their should be either, more lectures and discussions or quizzes on the content covered in the few lectures given. I've talked to several people who say they havn't learned anything in this class. These people mainly did things in groups and never learned how to fix or diagnose the printers. Not having things that test our comprehension of the material just lets us slack off.
I personally learned a lot this semester. I learned how the printers work. I have a pretty solid base of knowledge of how to diagnose mechanical problems but when it comes it electrical problems regarding the boards, i'm clueless. I learned much mor about 3D printing in general as well as other methods of creating objects layer by layer.
== Entry 14 == 12/11/12
Here is the topic for today,
1.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?
I would definitely prefer to have the ability to see what the firmware of my car is doing and thinking. It just gives everyone more freedom and options to control their own life. For example, someone who is trying to lose weight could have his car programmed so he would always drive by healthy food options on the way home. That way, if he got hungry, he would always know there was a healthy option.
Even if the firmware was unlocked, its not like everyone would be able to change it. Not everyone will be able to go into the code and allow their car to go over the speed limit. Not everyone will be able to program the car for aggressive driving. There will still be some type of regulation for the majority of people; they people who don't care, don't know how, or dont have the money. Its always possible that car companies will make the firmware unlocked but will make it so hard to change that only specially trained people can do it. There are other ways of regulation other than just putting restrictions on everything "bad".
2. Do you think Doctorow's predictions for the future are plausible or likely?
Yeah I think they will be pretty accurate. His argument that the copyright war is small compared to whats coming is pretty convincing. Its true that very few people (comparatively) actually care about copyrights. The much larger issue is how the computer based products of the future will be regulated. As computers evolve to being in almost every commercial product we buy, how will the government protect the public against spying and harmful activity but also prevent users from having free reign over all computers and codes.
3. Can the copyright war be won? Is so, how? If not, where do we go from here?
yes, there will is too much of a following of people who share data that there will always be a new way to get around the latest regulation. Torrents are a great example. Once it became harder and dangerous to download content directly from sites, torrents saved the day. Then when the government giving torrent websites a hard time, they all moved out of the country. VPNs allow us to look like we're a part of a network that we arnt and everyday there are more and more ways that are found to get around regulation. This will not slow down. As the pressures of regulation increase, so will the push of communities that use and love free sharing. the laws may become strong and complex so to cover almost all the bases and look intimidating but like Doctorow said, there is always another problem. People will find that problem and exploit it.
== Entry 13 == 12/11/12
So this is a post with a free topic! I don't believe we've talked much about 3D printing in space so I will elaborate on that.
This is a new take on 3D printing technology could change NASA and space exploration forever. If this technology matures and gets to the point where structures and tools can be made in space, the structures that we have in space would change drastically. Huge structures could be built in space without the cost of launching it from earth. Just the materials could be launched and the printers could build any type of complex shaped structure needed. Space stations, shuttles, probes and manned vehicles could grow to many times the size of current equivalents.
However, 3D printers have their limitations. Space crafts have very complicated parts that have to be very precisely manufactured and are made of special materials. 3D printers may be able to handle these special materials in the future but they will probably be able to print to the surface finishes required for some parts. This may be fixed by having some sort of machining device (CNC machine) that can grind down and polish and parts that need to be improved.
There is also research being conducted on using moon dust as a print material. When this technology is perfected, printers can be sent to the moon along with a few robots to construct shelters (or the building blocks for shelters) before humans even get there. Then when all the parts are made, humans can land and quickly construct an initial shelter. From there, they can use the printers to improve and expand upon their shelter.
This could be the beginning of a huge space boom.
== Entry 12 == 12/10/12
So here's an interesting topic, printing a model of yourself out. Miniature version of course. This is one of the latest developments in the 3D printing world and I will be weighing in for this post.
1. What’s your impression of this use of 3D printing technology?
2. Would you buy a model of yourself? Would your parents buy one?
3. Explain the merits (or lack thereof) in this business model.
4. How much might competition drive down prices in the future for these kinds of novelty items?
1. This is a cool new way to utilizes 3D printing technology. The 3d printing community needs to branch out more in to the commercial world in order for the industry to mature. The pressures of commercialism are an incredibly powerful when it comes to innovation. Companies will work hard to get more funding and improve their products technology to make it better and cheaper. Having a more wide spread commercial market for 3D printers will produce printers that have higher resolution, more color and material flexibility, and the printers (and services)will be much cheaper.
2. Yeah I would! maybe not immediately though. I would like it much better once the 15 min scan time was reduced to something more reasonable. Staying in the same position for 15 to allow the 3D scanner to do its job is hard work! Imagine holding a funny face that long?? It would get stuck! But all kidding aside, once it develops a little I would definitely buy one. It doesn't even need to be a full body model. Just a face is fine with me. Also, this kind of thing would be great for wedding cakes. The faces and general body shape of the bride and groom are scanned and supper imposed onto a figures in tuxes and white dresses. Personalized wedding cakes! Another market for these companies. As long as these models don't cost much, I think parents would love a small full color model of their kids; especially if they have gone off the college or are out of the house.
3. I would initially say that there are no real merits to this business model since it seams like it makes slightly blurry models of people who have to stay in the same position for a long time. But, if this technology gets better and more streamlines, it could be a cool thing to have around the house. People could have models of their whole family if they are apart. It still seems like its just an expensive photograph to me. But I would still buy one. Also this business model has a lot more merit if the police start using it for mug shots. This makes a lot of sense because instead of having two pictures, you could have one model with all the details of the real head. Also, you don't even need to print it! They could just 3D scan it and send out revolving models of the face or something to that extent.
4. I touched on this earlier but I will restate it here a little. If the market for models of people and faces grows, more companies will join the industry. With more companies competing for buys, they will improve the quality of their products and lower the cost as well. However, unless 3d printing becomes mainstream and filament and other materials drastically drop in price, I don't think the price can lower that much. The expensive materials are still a limiting factor.
== Entry 11 == 11/29/12
So, you’re in a class and classroom dedicated to 3D printing
1. Do you see a place for this in other educational environments (K-12?)
2. What points do you agree with or disagree with in these articles?
Support them with something from your own experience.
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
1. I absolutely agree that 3D printing has a place in grade school. As mentioned in one of the articles above, students are hands on and like to see things they are learning about. 3d printing is a perfect way to make that happen, or make it easier for teachers to make that happen. A biology or chemistry teacher could print out models of cells or molecules so the students could see how these complex microscopic structures look like in 3D. I think this would be extremely helpful.
Engineering classes would especially benefit from 3D printers in the classroom. One of the articles mentioned a project wher students designed a way for a cup to fit better in an old cup holder. A 3D printer would supplement the design process and let the students imagination run wild. It would give them the capability to create something which is inspiring and motivating for young students.
2. I agree with pretty much everything that these articles are doing. The STEM classes are particularly enthralling. I with I had the opportunity to do something like this as a kid. Through lessons, 3D printers and common components, these students are making their own robots!! Sooo cool. This is a perfect thing to inspired students to learn and become the next generation of engineers that this country needs. In addition, the course introduces robotics as an early age. With the ever-expanding use of robotics in world today, giving a student experience in robotics early is very important.
The FIRST team just started popping up when I was in high school. These teams used Lego Mindstorm kits to build and program robots for a specific task. Then the teams would meet for competitions and compete with their robots. Unfortunately, I heard about the team in my school late and wasn't able to participate. This was partially because of poor advertisement and partially because the team was still relatively young. Looking back, I really wish I had been able to take advantage of that opportunity. Even though I was always set on the engineering path, it would have inspired me to pursue robotics harder from the beginning.
== Entry 10 == 11/29/12
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.
The world will be much different once the 3D printer industry matures. In several years, the technology for 3d printing could expand to high quality printing in many different materials. There are already printers that can handle more than one material. The second material is usually used as a support material however. There are also printers that that have more than one nozzle in the extruder.
Imagine a printer with multiple extruder carriages. The machine may be large but it would give it the capability of using many different materials and different colors. With the technology for metal deposition improving, machines may have the capability to make parts with metal and plastic components. This could lead to printed circuit boards, functional toy cars with axles, home hardware and car parts. On a grander scale, a 3D printer of the future could be combined with a CNC machine to produce ready to use metal and ceramic parts that could a dictated surface finish and exact dimensions.
On a different note, this next idea occurred to me when we were talking about hoe 3D printing was being used in the bio medical field. If printers are already being used to print out flesh that can be used for drug testing, and is being considered to be used to print out organs, how much of a stretch is it to imagine a printed dummy with real flesh? Dummies could be printed with known "injuries" "flaws" and "problems" that are associated with typing operating procedures. Then, a surgeon student could practice different procedures on a dummy before going strait to a real person. This would give them actual experience instead of just helping other surgeons to get experience.
== Entry 9 == 11/4/12
We are discussing the proposition to put fab-labs in public libraries this week.
Here are some links that will help with background info.
1. Discuss the suitability of libraries as hosts for RepRaps (or other 3D printers)
2. 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?
1. I think libraries are a perfect place to have a fab-lab. I'm sure independent hacker/make spaces have trouble finding a place that is acceptable for them, and libraries would solve that problem. Having 3D printers and a space where people can be creative would libraries from being behind the curve to ahead of the curve; more futuristic. Libraries are always trying to get kids and young adults excited to go to the library and 3D printers would definitely make going to the library exciting.
libraries are a place of learning and imagination. People learn symbolically,and theoretically from what they read in books and see in pictures. With 3D printers, people would be learning physically and by doing, giving the library and who new dimension of learning. People who go to the library to read novels, and fiction use their imagination to become absorbed the book. People who use 3D printers use their imagination when designing the part they want to print out.
As mentioned in the Engadget article listed above, libraries used to be a place of conversation, not the quiet places they are today. Conversing with other people, bouncing ideas off each other and asking questions are key parts of learning. If libraries call themselves places of learning then why don't they have spaces for conversation? A make/hacker space would be a perfect remedy.
Libraries are also a place that gives people access to things that would be really expensive for one person or family to own. Libraries hold thousands of book that people can checkout and read with a free membership. This membership also gives access to free DVD rents and CDs in some cases. An expensive 3D printer can run in the tens of thousands, remaining almost exclusively a company commodity. It a library could use some of their funds to purchase as 3D printer, it would give everyone with a membership access to expensive and cutting edge technology.
On the downside of this proposal, many libraries are filled with books. Libraries would have to get creative to make space for an make/hacker space. Some libraries might not have space at all. However, this should not deter libraries from purchasing a 3D printer. A professional printer is only slightly bigger than some high end desk printers. There would surely be desk space somewhere in the library for a 3D printer.
2. I personally haven't been to the library on Allen st., or many of the other libraries on campus. I've only been the engineering library in Hammond and the main library occasionally. The engineering library would definitely be a good fit. It already contains scanners and magnifiers, as well as separated group work rooms.
== Entry 8 == 10/25/12
Here is what I will be discussing in this entry....
1. 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?
1. I wasn't expecting something like this to happen, especially so soon. A private company just received a patent for printers to be able to determine what objects are legal to print. First of all, I'm surprised that something like this would happen so early on in the life of 3D printing. Obviously someone thinks the technology will take off and be a common place item and wants to jump the gun in order to get some cash out of it. I don't blame them, I think this technology will blow up in popularity soon too. Second of all, I wasn't expecting this first move toward DRM to come from a private company. I would have assumed nothing would happen and the market would go unregulated for a long time. Then the government would step in seeing that a big community needs rules to follow and implement some type of regulation that is similar to anti-piracy laws. So this new development is doubly shocking to me. Granted, this isn't DRM yet and isn't even close. And the patent probably would hold up in court anyway.
I am not sure that this technology would affect the 3D printing community substantially. Due to the open source nature of the community, not many designs would have copyrights and printing restrictions on them. This technology could be used to regulate the printing of plastic guns though, or any other lethal/illegal object. This might actually be a way to temporaritly restrict copyrighted files from being printed until someone finds a way around it.
== Entry 7 == 10/21/12
This is the second topic I'm discussing today.
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?
1. Well, this could bring the possibility of printing out interactive toys like the one in the video or possibly printing game controllers in one solid piece. Also, remotes go along with that too. A TV remote might be able to be printed out with all the basic electrical components laid in during the print. All the buttons could use optics instead of electrical contacts? maybe? I don't know, I'm not much of an electrical guy.
2. Right now, when a printer is running well, it is still not perfect. I think light piping would need a very smooth path to transmit the light though. Fiber optics can bend but I'm sure the the fibers inside are still very smooth and ripple and bend free. Our printers may not be able to print that smoothly all the time.
Also, we would need to be able to print very clear material. I am not sure if there is a PLA that is clear enough to transmit light well.
Finally, light piping would require direct control over the movements the print head. We would need to be able to tell the printer what direction we want the light pipes to go. We would want to be able to direct the light to a certain place so we would have to let the printer know how to print the pipes correctly. Normally we let skeinforge decide how the print head will move in order fulfill the commands we give it as far as infill and shells. This only lets us design how the outside of the same looks. This would require us to decide of the inside of a shape looks. This would obviously be done by manipulating the GCODE, but I'm sure that is no easy task. Especially since slicer and skeinforge don't have those capabilities.
3. Many of the things I talk about here are #1 as well. With contact switches, contact sensors and accelerometers, some many more useful things can be printed out. Pretty much anything with a buttons could be modified or simplified to be printed. Game controllers, tv remotes (resulting in completely customized entertainment center remotes!!). These things could be partially printed, and just like in the video, have the boards placed in and the printing could be completed. This gives printers a whole new genre of things to print.
== Entry 6 == 10/21/12
So it's been while since the last blog but I'll be pumping through two today. Here's the topic of the first one.
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?
If you are unfamiliar with bio-printing, here is a link that will shed some light, [].
1. I think bio-printing is a great idea. I had no idea bio-printing was possible before I read the CNBC article above. The pharmaceutical industry is huge and if 3D printing can help them, then 3d printing will get lots of good publicity. Also, with the industries 31 billion dollars R&D budget, pharmaceutical companies could be a great ally for printer development and improvement. If one of those companies backed a printer company to improve their printer for more precise tissue samples, I'm sure the result would be a much more advanced printer than ones we see today. Money can go a long way and with a relatively new field of 3d printing, a large research grant would do wonders.
That being said, if bio-printing becomes very successful, there could be some major implications. Printed body parts???? could that eventually happen? I don't know but that seems good and bad at the same time. Yeah it would be good for amputees, but what about other things. People are working on printing with skin cells, so what about fingertips with someones finger prints? Or a different face? I know its really far fetched but it looks like it could more in that direction. Anyway, a machine that could so that would have to be really complex and be able to print many different kinds of cells and material. Thats over 20 years away in my opinion.
2. I guess a basic form could work for the RepRap. I really don't know what it takes to be able to print tissue bu I'm sure it would take a better, more precise machine than the current repraps. Of course the repraps will continue to improve so maybe someday it will be good enough for people at home to have a bio-printer. If this ever happens, it will be a big step for DIY biomed. A cheap printer that could print out tissue samples for people at home to test on would be great.
== Entry 5 == 10/5/12
These are the topics this weeks:
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?
1. If I were a member of the DIY Gun project, I would first find a way to print and test guns legally. That way no company or agency could shut me down for experimenting. I would dedicate a lot of time to this so I wouldn't lose any progress I'd make or have to pause my progress if I were on a role. Maybe this is just me being ignorant, but I don't think companies should worry so much until a plastic gun has successfully fired and had a fast enough velocity to do someone harm. Once this happens and the gun design is verified, then companies should be worried. Actually, now that I think about it, one of the reasons Stratasys took back the printer was to try to prevent of slow down the development of the model. Im sure they are a little afraid that guns could be printed on their printers.
2. My answer here is very similar to what I said for question 1. I don't think 3D printing will be regulated until there is a death from a 3D printed gun, someone tries to get though airport security with one, or someone starts printing lots and lots of guns that actually work. The government would be the one that would have to regulate 3D printing and they are never have great foresight. There will have to be a tragedy that makes it to the news or a threat is made of something big is discovered (like a stockpile of fireable 3D guns)in order for any regulations to be made. I don't think regulations of 3D printing will be very successful. Case and point?...music industry. They have tried to regulate/stop the sharing and free downloading of music for years and they still haven't made much progress. All they have done is sued a few individuals and shut down some websites (which eventually all moved to the less regulated European domains). People still get most of their music for free and don't think twice about getting more. The same thing will happen with 3D printing. Files are the thing that is shared and files are extremely hard to track, fully delete, or prevent from being shared. They can try, but they wont succeed.
3. Maybe models relating to drugs? I'm sure someone could print out a bong that works. But I guess they could just get around all the fuss by calling them tobacco pipes just like every head shop in the the country. Knives could be something else that could be regulated. Once the resolution and strength of the process and material improves, knives will become sharper and more lethal. This could also be a cause for concern, especially since most body scanners don't detect plastic.
== Entry 4 == 9/30/12
Here is the topic for today: Comment on Makerbot’s position (as far as we know), Prusa’s concerns, and ownership of designs. Should we look for a new thingiverse?
I think a place that hosts a free designs that is supposed to be shared with everyone for free should not be owned by a company. It should be hosted on a not profit website that is run by a few of the communities most prominent members. This to ensure that the site stays dedicated to open sourcing. So, yes I think the community should choose a new website to be the main site for uploading designs.
The topic of ownership of designs is a little more tricky. I think if someone makes a design, that person owns the design. BUT, when they upload it to a website with the intent on it to be available for open sourcing, then the designer gives up ownership of the design. The design is know owned by the community but no one person in particular. The designer should be still credited with making the design but they don't own it anymore.
== Entry 3 == 9/23/12
For this post I will be responding to three topics:
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?
1. I think the answer to this question really depends on how 3D printer develop. Its inevitable that 3D printers will get cheap as time goes on, and this will let more and more people have one in their homes and businesses. The real question is what will be the extent of what the printer can print? Will future 3D printers be able to print basic electronics and circuit boards? Or high strength parts that can be used in commercial machines? If the answer to these questions is yes, then I believe the government will become involved to try to conserve commercialism. If a house hold 3D printer can print out circuit boards and high strength parts, many companies will be in trouble and the government will inevitably try to prevent a mass extinction of companies. If, however, 3D printers continue along the path of printing solid parts that have limited commercial use and are used more for illustration and tinkering, then the government will not get involved. This would not be a threat to commercialism and it will continue to be encouraged for its creative benefits.
2. I don't have a singular idea or passion that I love to talk to people about. I have a lot of different things that I'm interested in that kind of fall into an over-arching category. I love to make things/create things/design things. From making wooden furniture to attempting to melt/mold glass and metal in my back yard to modeling objects in Solidworks for fun, I love it all. And even though I don't talk to many people about it in conversation, I think about it a lot. That is why I have developed a liking to the RepRap printer. Its a low cost way for me to create whatever I want.
I don't see this as a way to attract a future mate at all. Its purely just fun for me. Although the gratification of someone commenting on things I make does drive me to do more and make things better, its not a way to make people notice me. I guess this could be a way to make money, mainly in the sense that I want to work as a designer, but none of my personal projects have even meant to be sold. If I sell the things I make I wont get to see them again. I take pride in the things I make and will give them as presents, but I will still see them again when I visit that person. So in conclusion, no I don't see this as a way to attract a mate or make money.
I believe ending intellectual property is a good thing and a bad thing for different entities. It is not a good thing for individuals and small companies who are trying to make a living off of an idea they have. Small businesses need some form of protection from big companies and IP is part of that protection. However, It is a great thing for humanity and the world in general. Without IP laws, people will share and collaborate more because they wont feel that they need to keep it to themselves so they can make money off of it. If they try to make money for the idea, an big company with more resources would just take it and use it for their own benefit. So, people wouldn't keep ideas to themselves as much and would share them and collaborate more. This would result in increased innovation and creativity; something that everyone will benefit from. Maybe that will create more opportunities for those who initially had the idea, I'm not sure. Regardless, I still feel the loss of IP would help everyone though increased collaboration but hurt the individual who tries to use that idea to make money.
== Entry 2 == 9/10/12
For this post I will be responding to three topics:
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?
1. I do think it is possible for a machine to become a self-replicating universal constructor. However, this machine will be drastically different than the current RepRap models. Here is a list of some things that need to be accomplished in order for this dream to be realized.
a. The machine will need to be able to print with multiple materials. This is already realized to a point. There are 3D printers that can print in two different plastics. One as the structural material and the second as a support material. This capability has to go a step further. A self-replicating machine will need to be able to print with metal(or at least conducting material) and plastics. The list of parts that could be purchased that is defined in the reading does not include circuit boards and wires. This means the machine will need the capability to print parts that can conduct electricity well.
NOTE: I think that wire should be added to the list seeing that it is a very standard part.
b. The machine will need to be more complex than current models. In order to tackle the task of printing multiple materials, the structure and mechanisms will have to accommodate for this.
c. The machine will have to increase its print resolution. In order for the machine to be able to print circuit boards and other intricate parts successfully, the resolution will need to increase to make accommodate for the tight corners and small detail. This will also increase part accuracy and quality.
2. I think the phrase "wealth without money" means being able to obtain more possessions without paying for them. This is obviously focusing my on the idea that possessions are wealth, not necessarily money. One could acquire wealth just by printing things they need instead of purchasing things with money. I think that this phrase is an over-generalization. Even in his description of the project Adrian mentions people will have to pay for the raw materials to build a printer and pay for the print material. If this project takes off similar to the printing press revolution, there will be substantial implications. This phrase, 'wealth without money' will actually start to be realized. A situation may arise where certain industries will fail due to the popularity and capabilities of self-replication 3D printers.
3. The RepRap project has a very good member base and with programs like this class, more people with good ideas and experience will help evolve and develop the technology. Looking into the future of this project I can see a few things.
a. There will be substantial advancement in the range of things the RepRap can print. With the addition of the capability to print multiple materials (which is not that far off) many different designs and parts can be printed.
b. The project will continue to receive media coverage in magazines, occasionally the news and on the internet. Fan and member base will grow to the point where the project will not fizzle out.
c. RepRap will be introduced into high school and tech schools so supplement learning.
d. More of the machine will be printable. New designs will focus on maximizing this fact and accommodating the use of less advanced technology that is printable. For example, circuit boards that are large to match the print resolution.
e. The printers resolution will increase through smaller extruders and increased printer head speed.
f. Online library of free models will grow exponentially. With more users, more models will be submitted.
g. The addition of models that will be available for purchase. Some models that are for advanced functional things, not necessarily for the printer, will be available mainly because of the long development time and greed.
== Entry 1 ==
For my first blog, I will report on my first experience with thingiverse.com
Here is a list of a few models I found interesting:
Artistic: 8 Torus
These types of models, that usually involve math to create, are very intricate and beautiful. These shapes are incredibly hard to make with traditional manufacturing techniques but are relatively easy for 3D printers.
Useful: Bag holder
I don't really have a problem carrying lots of bags, but many people do. This model allows people to carry many more bags than they normally could, as long as they can actually carry the weight.
Maybe it's because it's in 8-bit format or maybe because I don't play Minecraft. Either way, this model seems completely useless....except as a paper weight.
Funny: Action chess
It amazes me that someone would model up something like this. This was a contender for the useless category as well but I thought a robot made out of chess pieces was much more funny than an 8-Bit figurine.
An armchair for your iPod. Cool, except its a waist of material. Its not going to be soft, so why bother making one? There are plenty of other iPod holders out there so why model an armchair? Its just so.....weird.