My name is Justin Frazier. I am in my 8th semester at Penn State studying mechanical engineering.
A. Something Amazing/beautiful
Here is a 2-color model of the Statue of Liberty: a long standing symbol of American ideals. This was probably made on a printer with dual extruders.
B. Something funny or strange
Here is a 3d printed model of the Hepatitis D virus ribosome. The attention to detail is amazing!
C. Something Useless
Here is a set of printable party glasses. They might look cool but are incredibly useless. I have found party glasses after parties and have been given sets by promoters at bars and after the night is over, all the glasses do is collect dust. Despite its uselessness, there is no harm in creating party glasses. Plus, the design looks very simple and easy to make. Not much time was wasted in designing these.
D. Something Useful
Here is a printable trouser clamp for bike riders. As a student with a bicycle in a cold-weather university, I find this very useful. Whenever you ride a bike with pants on, the slack in your right leg can catch the chain and rip. This prevents that from happening by holding your pant leg against your leg in the area by the bike's front derailleur.
F. The best printable raspberry pi case you can find
Here is the best Rasberry Pi Case I found. It is functional, customizable, and mountable. Mounted to it's equipment, it is all the protection the Rasberry Pi needs.\
Write about a topic (or two, or three) which interests you which we've discussed so far - or not discussed in detail yet.
The project I am going to work on is machining the hop tips for the extruders but I would like to delve deeper into this idea: variable geometry hot tips. I am not sure how these would be implemented into the current software used for 3d printing but I think this idea could be very beneficial to 3D printing. The current 3D printers use 1 hot tip per extruder. The hot tip is one diameter and only round. What if there was a way to control the geometry of the hot tip as it printed? I could see this being useful for 2 different things: better plastic bonding and quicker printing. Imagine if there was a way to implement the tip diameter as a variable during printing. If a printer was printing a cube, it would use the largest diameter hole possible for printing the body and the smallest possible hole diameter for printing the edges. This would cut down printing time drastically. Also imagine if there was a different geometry that would allow a better plastic bond. I am unsure of the research that has already gone into this, but imagine the possibilities.
The 3D hubs website looks like a fantastic idea for buyers of 3D printed parts and for people who own 3D printers as a hobby. When 3D printing just started taking off, a few companies emerged who would sell 3D printed parts. You had to send your drawing files to them and they would send you back a printed part. This was amazing at the time but it was cost-intensive and took awhile to get what you wanted. 3dhubs.com is designed to eliminate the middle man. It shows everyone with 3d printing capabilities by area so that you can reach out to the closest person and get the part you want for a cheaper price. This is good because the buyers don't have to pay as much and will spend less time waiting for their part but it is also good for people with 3D printers who want to make a little extra money.
Read some of your classmates blogs (you should be able to find them on the link above). I want you to look for the best post or two you can find, and link to it. Explain why you chose it, and what makes it good in your opinion. If there is anything you can think of to improve it, comment on that. While you're doing part two, keep an eye out for other blogs that could use improvement and comment on what might be improved in them. Bonus points for including more blogs in your general commentary. Extra bonus points for commenting on blogs which weren't added to the list by their users in step one (This would require some detective work).
http://reprap.org/wiki/User:Scottmilander This is the best post that I found because the technology used in his post has the potential to save millions of lives. The video itself could be improved by showing how the biological printing process works. The actual post does not need to be improved.
Comment on each project, and their mode of operation (give it away for free). How does this compare with traditional business models? Can you point to any companies using a similar business model? How does this sort of thing strike you?
This post refers to a YouTube video regarding the RepRap and Arduino projects. The idea behind both of these projects is giving away information for free instead of conventionally charging money for service. The advantage of this is that there is a constant influx of improvements done to your design by other people. You do not have to pay anyone to improve your design.
In my opinion, the Arduino project has the best of both worlds. The people involved with the Arduino project can make money from the physical product they provide (the Arduino board) and they openly share their design for improvements. This makes the Arduino boards much cheaper. I was amazed at how one can buy an Arduino microcontroller for $25. I think that from a business standpoint, the Arduino team's biggest advantage is a world of people that do creative things with their boards. They make something cool, post it online, people see it, and want to make something too so they buy more Arduino boards.
The RepRap project is slightly different. This project was started with a common goal of being able to print other 3D printers. The advantage these people gained is worldwide notoriety within the RepRap community. Individually, these people have not made nearly as much money as they would have running their own RepRap printing business, but they get the satisfaction of having many designers practically do their work for them. It truly shows how a little selflessness can go a long way.
A) Re-examine the objects you found on thingiverse in your first blog. Assess each one for copyrightable or patentable elements. B) Look over the things which your fellow students found. Are any of them particularly obvious cases of copyrighted or patented material which have been found by your classmates? C) Discuss both reasons why you might be interested in the “licensing of non-copyrightable files”. D) Bonus: Why might you consider the author of the first article to be naive?
My objects: Statue of Liberty, Ribosome, party glasses, bike trouser clamp, Raspberry Pi Case.
The Statue of Liberty cannot be patented or copyrighted. Even if it could be, the original designer has been dead for centuries. The Ribosome cannot be copyrighted because it is a model of something found in nature. The party glasses probably cannot be copyrighted because there are so many different glasses designs. The bike trouser clamp could be patented as long as nobody came up with it beforehand. The Raspberry Pi case cannot be patented because there are many different designs and some are bound to be like this one. However, I have seen that some case designs have the Raspberry Pi symbol built into it. That symbol is copyrighted.
Two examples of copyrighted/patented material come from user:Patman. The fan guard designs he found have probaby been patented. The NES Raspberry PI design has probably been copyrighted.
As the article says, there are both legal and cultural reasons to license non-copyrightable files. One might be interested in the legal aspect to better mankind. An example of this would be if Tony Stark gave other inventors licenses to copy his suit for the battle of mankind. One might be interested in the cultural reason if they wanted other people to improve their invention. I wonder where I have seen this.....
I think the writer of the first article could be a little naive in thinking that this was the first time a legal threat like that has happened.
Blog 6 is in some sense an extension of blog 5. I want you to go through your classmates responses to blog 5 regarding IP and the penrose triangle model. Your blog should consist of any points which you missed on your own, but which you realized in the process of reading your classmate's work. Try to summarize the most important points as taken both from your own readings and the contributions of your classmates.
Looking through my peers' blogs I found a couple points that I missed. Here are the most important ones: -Licensing a non-copyrightable file can make your usage immune to changes in copyright laws. (Brandon) -With your license, there is no gray area regarding your terms of usage. (Austin) -It could be bad if your competitors obtain a license too and improve upon your design. (Quinn) -Usually the people who obtain the licenses follow the wishes of the creator and makes improvements the way the creator sees fit. (Madeline)
TO summarize everyone's opinions, licensing non-copyrightable things serves to immunize the improver from future changes in copyright laws and it serves the creator in letting other people help you with your design.
Find an article not previously discussed and discussed how the news is "hope" and "hype." Summarize the main points.
I found an article here. Rather than find a regular news article, I stumbled upon this gem in Reddit. It hosts a few predictions of what 3D printing will do to the world in 10, 20, and 30 years.
From a hopeful standpoint, this article's predictions claim that within the next few decades, 3D printing will become a household thing and will save hundreds of thousands of lives annually. This prediction is somewhat realistic as printers are becoming more accurate and able to print in an ever-growing amount of mediums.
From an over-hyped standpoint, this article is probably over-stating the impact of these machines. It claims that wars will be started, printers could print on a molecular level, and how humanity will exponentially grow due to 3D printing. This is the typical Hollywood scenario. It will not necessarily be that intense. used for both good and evil. No matter what happens, it will get better and more reliable as technology advances.
As a summary, this article stimulates our imaginations about what 3D printing will be like in the future. It will be used for both good and evil, but it will definitely improve as technology advances.
Part A) Check out the first 4 projects from the AMRI and describe them. Do any stand out to you as particularly valuable? Can you think of any similar projects we might propose here?
Project 1: 3D Printing by laser Sintering thermoplastic powders: This could be promising. On one hand, it would be more valuable to perform research aimed at making 3D printers more reliable, but I am sure that plenty people in the RepRap community do that already. I could see this adding some value.
Project 2: This project involves the printing of genetically modified living organisms via inkjet printer. The value I see in this involves cleaner methods of planting bacteria onto whatever they are meant to be planted on. However if I were a researcher I would think it would probably not be worth the money to purchase an inkjet printer for bacteria.
Project 3: This project involves using digital light photo lithography to print items. I see this being useful for the bioengineering world, but not for much more.
Project 4: This project involves making a special cell extruder that can axtrude at the microliter level. Unless specific shapes need to be printed with liquid, I do not see much of a use for this. We already have systems that can dispense precise amounts of liquid. I worked with one this summer.
From what I see, project 1 seems to have the most use because it is applicable to every science, not just bioengineering.
Part B) In addition to Open Source, Design, Learning, Education, Research, Additive Manufacturing, and Fabrication, can you think of any other adjectives which might be used to describe what we've been doing more broadly in addition to what is being done in the class and elsewhere?
Preparing, Clarifying, Applicable, prosperous, experimentation, troubleshooting, improving
Part C )Can you think of any memorable word which might be used to house the descriptors from part A? Unified Network of Innovative Rapid Prototypers....UNIRAP
Discuss this. What is good about this? Anything negative? Can you think of other things which might be made using these design principles? See this as well. Describe the differences between making 1, 10, 100, and 1000 of these objects (scroll down) Is this over-elaborated by Jesse? Can you state what is described in these images as a design/manufacturing principle?
A) Overall it seems like a clever way to turn trash into treasure. I have just a few gripes with it. It might be a little difficult finding/fabricating the stainless steel blade. Improvisation would be key for this design. Another thing I would be worried about is plastic getting into your food. RepRap'd parts aren't ever perfectly accurate and I would be worried about the plastic wearing away somewhere and getting into my food. There could be ways to mitigate that though. Maybe coat the part that touches the food in something?
B) What is shown in this link is another way to turn your broken appliances into a neat project. It takes a few parts from a coffee maker and makes a hot water heater out of it. As cool as it is, it has a few flaws. No married man will be allowed to keep that in the kitchen. Also, the heater from the coffee maker only covers a portion of the material needed. The total cost is estimated to be 32 Euros, or $44. It would be better to just buy another coffee maker or water heater. Even if you simply wanted the learning experience it would prove expensive. But hey, it's your money. There is a big difference between the production model and the custom model made here. The production model has been carefully thought out, engineered, and commissioned. The perfect materials have been chosen to optimize cost, functionality, and aesthetics. Special tooling has been made to make thousands of the same thing. This project involves high quality materials and is not an exact science. It is a learning experience. Mistakes will be made. In these images, this person tries to make a customized product.
Do some research into Jeffrey R. Immelt and Terry Guo. Who are they? What have they each said about 3D Printing? Can you come up with any rationale for why they might have the opinions which they express?
Jeffrey Immelt is the CEO of General Electric. He is a member of the President's Economic Recovery Advisory Board. in this video, he mentions how today's 3D printers can print unique parts using high-tech materials. He goes on to say that 3D printing is completely worth his investment because of the efficient nature of using the raw materials. It is obvious here that Immelt has had prior experience with some form of engineering. His opinion is one of a CEO that has had some sort of engineering experience. He sees 3D printing as a promising manufacturing alternative for his company.
Terry Gou is a Taiwanese tycoon that founded Foxconn, a major electronics manufacturing company. His opinion on 3D printing is that it's just a gimmick and is not suitable for production. His experience lies with manufacturing highly intricate devices with hundreds of components. For a company like Foxconn, it makes sense that 3D printing does not work for them. However, I think that Gou's opinion is somewhat closed-minded. AT this moment, 3D printing has a few niche markets and the technology has started to grow very fast. Foxconn is probably using the technology for a few things but might use it more effectively as technology increases.
Now that you've had some experience working with the printers, what are the things which have frustrated you the most or occupied the majority of your attention? Mechanical problems? Software? Wiring? Construction? Describe some issues you have encountered and what you did to solve them. On that note, also describe any problems which you failed to solve or gave up on, or are still working on. What's wrong, and how else might we try to fix it?
One of the most frustrating things about building a printer was trying to stay motivated when the team is doing a one-man job. At this point, we all have a general knowledge of what needs to get done and can divide tasks accordingly. However, when we were first assigned to build printers, one student would be holding the printer to put something on. The other team members would stand around and not know what to do. The Wiki build guides weren't exactly step-by-step directions either.
Another frustrating aspect of RepRap 3D printing is how unreliable the printers are. Sometimes it seemed like I had the Anti-Midas touch. Any printer I touched would develop a problem. Often the fix was easy but without prior experience it took much longer to find out what the problem was.
Also, wiring seems to always get in the way. This can be easily mitigated with the addition of conduit (which I am working on with the Blue and White printer).
What are the strengths of a platform like OpenScad? What are the weaknesses and limitations? Would you ever be tempted to use it, or the process of turning images into models shown above? If so, for what?
OpenScad is a CAD program with many advantages compared to traditional CAD programs. First off, it is free and open! You can create many different simple objects very easily. You can also vary parameters of these objects very easily. It has all the commands needed to create intricate designs if desired. Rather than viewing the object that you are creating in realtime, you manually type in commands into a prompt.
While OpenScad is a compelling addition to the CAD world, it is not without its weaknesses. It is easy to start but very difficult to master. It requires intricate attention to detail and allows little room for error. Designing a detailed part can take a very long time due to all the commands that are needed. Most of the time it requires much less work to create the same part on Solidworks. Also, you cannot simulate moving parts with it and there are no templates for printing out the designs.
Personally, I would be very tempted to use OpenScad, especially for my own use. Its biggest advantage is that its free. I would never have to pay for a license. However, if I needed CAD for work and was given the choice of Solidworks and OpenScad, I would choose Solidworks.
Why would we want to incorporate Circuit Scribe into our printing? What capabilities would this give us. If we could print conductive pathways into objects, what would you try to make with it? How might we try to make it work with the printers we use?
The idea behind Circuit Scribe is being able to draw working electrical circuits using a special pen that writes with conductive ink. This would be a nice way to eliminate all the messy wires in our 3D printers, especially the fan and motor wires. This would also allow us to fix loose connections with ease. If we were able to print conductive pathways into objects, I could make the statue of liberty with a working torch with no wires attached. I would also design my own alarm clock. To make it work, we could start on our current printers by letting the printer print until a connection is needed, pause the print, and draw in the connection manually. We could later use a dual extruder design to switch between plastic and conductive material. The conductive material extruder would be simpler than a normal extruder because you wouldn't have to heat it up or retract it.
What sorts of strengths and weaknesses do you predict/project, as compared to the systems we currently build?
Some strengths of the Smartrap is that they are lighter, require less parts, and are cleaner than the OHM's that we use today. Weaknesses include less durability and more prone to calibration errors, since parts are more likely to become jarred from being out in the open. It would also be more difficult to mount goodies such as fans and tool holders on the diminished frame. I think trying to build one would be worth it. We never really have any accidents in the classroom, so it's not like the Smartrap would risk being knocked over.
I think that we are currently getting too caught up on the actual design of the printers themselves and aren't paying enough attention to making many little changes over time. A good example to follow is in the automotive industry. Fuel economy improvements to standard cars are mostly brought about by simple changes (ie direct injecting, decreasing friction, etc). These changes add up over time and before you know it, we have full size, non-hybrid cars reaching 40mpg. The same thought process should be applied to 3D printers. Maybe make the frame lighter with PVC, maybe put heat sinks on the motors, and do everything needed to increase the reliability and durability of our printers!
Is there anything in there which you've not been exposed to during this course. Point out anything which seems new to you.
I think most of the things on this list are relatively new, but I am not surprised by any of these. Anyone that is not exposed to 3D printing on the reg would be pretty impressed though. I will also admit that this top ten list isn't bad. It's alot better than those crappy Buzzfeed articles that are designed to get people's attention and nothing else.
This article does miss the practical things that anyone can make on their own RepRap. I think the point is to show people things that nobody even knew could be 3D printed. I think anyone that knows anything about 3D printing could guess that you can build plastic parts on them, but very few people know that you can print food.
Can you find any components which can be made with a 3D printer? What value does having a laser cutter add which a 3D printer does not? Why might we want an open source laser cutter ourselves?
From looking at the BOM, it looks like the X Cart, the wire conduit and the motor mounts could all be 3D printed. Laser cutting can make better 2D shapes than then RepRaps can currently make. It can also cut simple, extruded shapes much faster than a 3D printer can print something. I could definitely see its use for our situation. It takes so long to print the frame parts for our printers. If we had a laser cutter, we could possibly make all the frame parts needed on a new 3D printer in 1 class's time.
Read that article and comment on being a part of the process. If it weren't for the participation of you and your classmates, such a transfer would not be possible. Do you get any satisfaction from knowing that your work will go on to be used by other students? Any dissatisfaction?
I am proud to have been part of the process of making these 3D printers and shipping them off to other Penn State Campuses. I get satisfaction knowing that my work will help Penn State develop new technology ahead of other schools. I don't have any dissatisfaction. I am so happy that I was able to find this class and gain access to new 3D printing technology. Not to mention this class has been a grade booster. I plan on keeping touch with the SCRUGMembers in the future and helping out whenever I can.
Bonus Blog 1
It has been pretty cool being part of the 3D printing buzz for a semester now. It seems as if the only people unfamiliar with 3D printing are those that are completely detached from the world. One thing that I am flabbergasted at is the fact that I hear almost nothing about the combination of 3D printing and other manufacturing machines. This should be the latest buzz. This would play to the strengths of all the machines involved. A knows weakness of 3D printing at the moment is in high-strength applications. Imagine a 3D printer-forge combo. Print the complex shape required, strain-harden the material to strengthen it. The possibilities are endless and I think that this should be focused on in the near future.