User:Kac487/Blog

Blogs

Blog#1

(A) Something amazing/beautiful:

This item on thingiverse.com struck me as being quite amazing. It is a snap together robotic hand originally designed for people who have disabled or impaired hands. This design can give a whole new level of freedom to people who require prosthetics. These kinds of designs would allow people to print their own parts and modify them to what fits them best. None of that freedom would be possible without 3D printing.

(B) Something funny or strange

3D printed toilet parts seems like an odd application for this kind of technology. However, this goes to show that some day people may possibly use 3D printing to assist with common household jobs/repairs.

(C) Something useless

These Star Wars themed cuff links seem rather useless to me. I can not think of too many occasions where someone would require formal attire and want to show off Star Wars figures at the same time. 3D printed metal cuff links seem like a good idea however.

(D) Something useful

This grocery bag holder strikes me as being particularly useful. This item looks like a compact/portable design that is fairly simple to print. the design could also be easily modified to add more hooks to carry more bags at once.

(E) Something which surprised you

This flexable junction surprised me because of the properties of the material that are being used to make it. I have always thought of 3D printed objects as being rigidly structured that will crack/break when under load. The fact that this object is flexable means that there is potential to design parts that can flex when placed under stress.

Blog#2

(A) General Impressions of the OSE project

The Open Source Ecology project, especially the Global Village Construction Set seems like an idea that would potentially be extremely useful for people who live in places where technological resources are not as abundant as they are here in America. The general idea is to develop blueprints for a number of open source industrial machines that would allow people to live a modern lifestyle. Marcin wants to do this under the constraints that these machines meet the following criteria.

- Open Source - Closed-Loop Manufacturing - Low Cost - High Performance - Modular - Heirloom Design - User Serviceable - Flexible Fabrication - DIY

Looking at the 50 different machines that Marcin is proposing, I believe that it is definitely possible to develop machines that meet most of the criteria. However, some of the machines like the Linear Solar Concentrator, and the Laser Cutter are definitely going to require parts that can not be fabricated. A second thing I have noticed is that safety constraints are not part of the criteria. The fact that these open source blueprints may be utilized by people who are not entirely educated in areas of fabricating machinery could prove to be problematic.

(B) The New Yorker on the OSE project

Link to article and response can be found here

In my oppinion the article written in the New Yorker is overly critical toward Marcin Jackubowski. The author of the article seems like she is trying to pick on any little negative detail related to Jackubowski's lifestyle. She picks at everything from Marcin's ethnic background, to the cloths he wears, to his personality. The article barely brushes on Marcin's goals, and long term plans of creating open source machinery in order to better peoples lives on a global scale.

Marcin Jackubowski's wrote a response to this article in one of his wiki pages. In this response, he professionally clarifies some of the misconceptions that have been caused as a result of the article.

(C) Creating a PSU OSE Project

One of my EE professors that might be interested in participating in an OSE project would be Dr. Jeffrey Mayer. He is a professor who teaches courses on energy conversion and power electronics. This is an area within electrical engineering that would be particularly useful in developing power sources for other machinery.

A second professor who may be interested is Dr. Mark Wharton. He teaches numerous circuit design courses, and he fixes printed circuit boards in his spare time. He may be interested in helping to create integrated circuits that would allow some of the machines in the OSE project to function.

Blog#3

(A) Write a response to the fallowing article

Link to article here

It seems like 3D printing prosthetic parts is increasingly becoming a feasible alternative to purchasing prosthetics developed using prior manufacturing techniques. 3D printing also gives those who are physically handicapped a new level of freedom in terms of the amount of customization that can be put into the prosthetic parts. Apart from hands and fingers, there are other prosthetic pieces being developed using 3D printing technology (see the first link in part (D)). Prosthetic legs, eyes, and even jaw pieces have been developed (granted they may not be as cheap to produce). But as 3D printers become more and more common, the prices of building these objects should begin to drop significantly.

(B) Who created this design and when/where was it done?

Mr. Richard Van As, a man from South Africa invented the Robohand after having lost several fingers in an accident with a table saw. He realized that the only prosthetic parts available for people with missing fingers were extremely expensive so he decide to attempt to construct his own. While seeking out cost effective ways to make a prosthetic hand, Richard came across a Youtube video showing a design for a mechanical hand. The video was posted by a man named Ivan Owen. Richard eventually got in contact with Ivan and the two met in South Africa to collaborate on creating a design. Eventually the two took their design to MakerBot in hopes that they would be able to 3D print low cost specialty parts.

(C) If you wanted to make one, where would you go to get it?

The (.stl) files to make a Robohand are available for download at Thingiverse.com

(D) How many articles can you find which reference this technology?

Here are a few links to articles covering similar topics:

- textually.org - gizmag.org - iflscience.com - washingtonpost.com - huffingtonpost.com

Blog#4

Response to team members thoughts on Blog#2

Dongao Yang- I like how Dongao brought up the point that the OSE project isn't very economically feasible if followed on a large scale. Using mass production to create machines has is downfalls, but one advantage is that it can be quite efficient in its use of material resources. If the OSE project was followed on a large scale, it would most likely result in much more wasted material than if a factory were used to make the same machines.

Hao Yuan- Hao made the point that the OSE project would prove to be most beneficial to those in undeveloped areas of the world. However, one of the issues with applying this project in those areas is the fact that there is also a lack of education in those areas (you can have all the blueprints in the world but what use are they if nobody can read them). To make a significant difference in undeveloped countries, a number of people would have to undergo training to learn how to build these kinds of machines.

Response to other classmates thoughts on Blog#2

Heisenberg Jones- Heisenberg (is that his real name???) provided some interesting insight into the functionality and goals of the Factor e farm. It seems like if the size of the OSE team/community continues to grow at the rate it has been, then there is definitely potential for the project to succeed at some level. The machines they create may not be ideal models that would meet all the criteria at first, but who knows what might happen further down the road. This is definitely an ambitious project, but then again there are a lot of ambitious people working on it.

Eric Prindible- Eric mentions that this project is essentially a form of engineering that uses modern ideas and concepts in a way that it would be possible to be applied even at a simpler time when the economy and the profits of large companies didn't have an influence on what people did and didn't have access to. This is a good point, there are many unseen benefits to working with open source technology, and it has the potential to develop quickly due to the lack of restrictions (patents, confidentiality, etc..) that these big corporations have to work around.

Brian Prentice- Brian explained in his blog that there is already open source technology for some of the machines that Marcin is trying to develop. More specifically Brian mentioned the Lsasersaur, an open source laser cutter. Since these kinds of projects are open source technology they could help speed along the progression of the OSE protect.

Carson Geib- I think Carson made an interesting point in his blog. He says that it is just as important to be able to perform hands-on work as it is to be able to do conceptual and mathematical work. As engineers we focus more on the conceptual and technical knowledge rather than on hands-on knowledge. Carson also seems skeptical on how Marcin plans to create these machines on such a low budget. I tend to feel a bit skeptical about this as well, especially since not every part in this project will be able to be built from scratch. The tractor engine for example is something that would need to be bought as a unit and then installed.

Tom Vassa- Tom mentioned made a point that he thinks that this project will not be able to affect as large an audience as Marcin intended. One of the main reasons for this is that the people using the OSE blueprints would need access and work with modern materials such as steel, iron and aluminum. These kinds of materials are often inaccessible in undeveloped countries. I agree with Tom, but I still think that developing blueprints for these kinds of machines is definitely a step in the right direction.

Blog#5

Important Posts from Last Few Years

March 5 2013: Meet The 'Liberator': Test-Firing The World's First Fully 3D-Printed Gun

• This article gives a description into the world’s first fully 3D printed gun. Even though this gun may not be very impressive, I expect this a first step in a larger debate that is to come as 3D printing technology advances.

April 26 2013: American Graphite to Develop Graphene 3D Printing Material

• This article describes the development of a new Graphite based material that can be used in 3D printers. I see this as an important breakthrough because it new printing materials can open up a wide variety of new options for the development of 3D printed objects.

October 10 2013: Innovative 3D printer prints on complex and bent surfaces

• I think this article is super interesting because it shows a 3D printer that is breaking the typical X, Y, Z axis system. This printer uses a laser scanner to scan the ground in front of it to allow the printer head to stay perpendicular to uneven surfaces. I can see this technology being applicable in a number of situations where other models would fail.

November 15 2013: Microsoft Releases Free 3D Printing App

• This post gives a description of a free Windows 8 app developed by Microsoft to load and make simple modifications to (.stl) files. I literally just downloaded it and it’s awesome. I would like to look into some of the other technology that Microsoft is developing in the realm of 3D printing and also see what kind of uses this app might have for EDSGN497J.

Not-So Important Posts from Last Few Years

2012 December 8 2012: Are personal 3D printers the next personal computers?

• This article seems to only speculate on whether or not 3D printers will be a part of the average household someday. It doesn’t really describe any kind of technological progression in the field of 3D printing.

December 10 2012: Inside The Worlds's Biggest Consumer 3D printing Factory

• This article give some good insight into Shapeways and their 3D printing process, but it doesn’t really cover anything new in the industry. Shapeways is a Dutch 3D printing company founded in 2007. They are based out of New York, and provide 3D printing services for objects that users upload online. I can see this online concept as being an important event but I do not believe that this article covers this.

2012 October 10 2012: 3D Printing (Additive Manufacturing) Is Turning the Impossible Into the Possible

• Once again this article seems like it is intended to give a status on where 3D printing currently stands rather than focusing on a specific technological development.

2012 October 30 2012: 3D printing- a new industrial revolution

• This article is one put out by BBC news that goes over the concepts as well as some of the current technology behind 3D printing. The video and article seem to focus more on 3D printing as a whole rather than on one specific development.

Noticeable Trends

• One 3D printing topic that seems to be receiving a lot of attention recently is the concept of 3D printing biomedical materials. A large amount of the hype is based around the possibility of one day being able to 3D print fully functional human organs. This would mean that sick patients would no longer have to wait for organ transplants, and drug tests could be performed on these organs which would reduce the need for animal testing. It is a really exciting area that has made significant progress in the past several years.
• Another area that I have noticed is receiving a lot of press is the idea of using 3D printing technology in outer space. Much of the hype is based around the potential to build robots that could "print" objects using materials already in space (e.g. lunar rocks). This could result in the ability to construct objects in space without having to transport the materials from the ground.

Contributions

• I found a few articles on "Anti Gravity 3D Printers". While the name might sound a little odd, this interesting method of 3D printing involves a robotic arm that extrudes a quickly solidifying material. It allows the machine to create structures on non-horizontal surfaces. Their most recent modification to the machine is a welding technique that constructs structures out of metal.

Anti Gravity 3D Printer

Anti Gravity 3D Metal Printer

Blog#6

What Projects Next?

• Sand Box Powder 3D printer-
  
  The Sand Box powder 3D printer is an open source powder bed 3D printing system being developed by Creo. The group claims that it is one of the only open source entry level powder based 3D printers, and the model is in the final stages of development.It has a positioning accuracy of 11 microns over the X and Y axes and an accuracy of 50 microns over the Z axis. The printers build volume is 9 in by 6 in by 5 in, and they claim it has an average printing speed of 3mm/hour. I think this would be a great next step to take the 3D printing class in because it would give us the ability to print more accurate/higher resolution parts. It would also allow students to learn more about other methods of 3D printing. Even though the hardware/software hasn't been released yet, it is definitely something to keep an eye on.

• Ninja Flex filament-
  
  This is a specialty polyurethane based filament that has flexible, rubber-like properties. I found a blog page giving an overview of the print settings used to generate a few test prints with the filament. This would allow us to expand the range of parts that we can print to include those that need to have some give or flexible properties when put under stress. The main setback to using this filament is the price. The blog writer claims that it is roughly 3X the cost of PLA, so it is something we would need to reserve for specialty projects.

• Conductive Filament-
  
  I think this is something that has been out for a while now, and is something that I personally would be interested in taking on as a project. This ABS conductive filament could be used with a duel extruder system to 3D print circuit board designs. I know we are currently working on a duel extruder printer project, and I think that this would make an awesome next step. This might result in us being able to print electronically functional parts with little effort.

Blog#7

Replicating Lab Equipment

• The general idea proposed in this article is to use 3D printing technology to create working replicas of expensive scientific equipment. These replicas could be used for developing labs around the world. Furthermore, open source 3D printing could be used in less developed nations as a means of providing those areas with modern technologies.

I believe that it is an excellent idea to introduce open source technology to poor areas around the world for the means of scientific research and development. The fact that open source 3D printing can be used with low initial costs means that poorer areas can now afford to have one. This is definitely a move in the right direction, however there are still going to be a number of lab items that 3D printing isn’t going to be able to help lower the cost of (i.e. specialty glassware). The fact that this kind of technology is open source means that more people would have a greater knowledge of how the equipment was made. That means that there would be much less dependence on larger companies for obtaining those kinds of supplies and an overall increase in the independence of less developed areas.

Some examples of cheap research equipment that our group has made here at Penn State includes many of the parts that we print out for building other printers as well as for in-class experiments. I know that one group is printing out a housing for a transducer repair.

Low-Cost AFM Nanoscope

• This article describes how a group of students from several universities throughout China have come together and created a low cost atomic force microscope (AFM). The most incredible part is that they only used LEGO parts, Arduino boards, 3D printed parts, and consumer electronics. That means that the entire AFM can be built without purchasing any specialty parts.

This seems like a potentially printable piece of equipment. However, I would say that there is definitely a huge learning curve that one must overcome before attempting to take on a project like this (after all, the students who made this model were all working at a PhD level). Each person who works on this kind of project should probably have a vast understanding on how AFM microscopes work. This project also strikes me as something that would benefit from having higher resolution prints (i’m sure every bit of accuracy counts when working on a nano scale).

This project goes to show just what can be accomplished using open source technology. It is quite impressive to see that this caliber of lab equipment can be made at such low cost. This is an excellent example of what the first article is talking about with incorporating open source 3D printing in order to replicate low cost laboratory equipment.

Blog#8

From the perspective described in the article, what are the futures of copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secrets?

• The overall suggestion in this article is that 3D printing will bring about a type of manufacturing renaissance. The author first looks at several trends that have occurred in 3D printing technology over the past decade and uses them to make a prediction on the impact that this type of technology will have on the enforcement of IP and Copyrights. The main prediction in this article is that, in time, 3D printing technology will eventually lead to an overall democratization of manufacturing. In other words anyone with their own 3D printer will be able to manufacture, modify, and share their own items with little to no expense compared to mass production. This could possibly lead to a black market for numerous types of technological designs. These designs could be shared and reproduced while staying under the radar of larger companies that own the IP rights (similar to the way music/movies are pirated today). This would eventually lead to a loss in the control and enforcement of IP and Copyrights, summarized by "The Five I's"

What are the five I's and what do you conclude from them?

• The Five I's
  • Infringement – infringement away from control will increase when people can manufacture things on their own.
  • Identification – Instances of infringement will become increasingly difficult to identify
  • Impractical – Enforcement of these types of infringement will become impractical
  • Impossible – The trend will continue until enforcement becomes impossible
  • Irrelevant – Without any enforcement IP will eventually become irrelevant
• I can definitely see the five I’s playing out in the future with copyright laws. There are two different scenarios with which I think this prediction could actually happen. In the first, there would be local 3D printing shops where people would be able to quickly and order items to be made (sort of like our class). This would mean that the end user would handle all the designs and CAD modes. The 3D printing shops would handle the materials and machine maintenance. This would make it extremely simple for everyone to print items while letting a select number of people handle the technical work. The second scenario would involve a world where everyone owned and used their own 3D printer. However, there are a number of factors that I believe are crucial for this scenario to have a major impact on IP and Copyrights. First, it would be necessary for basically everyone to have an advanced 3D printer in their own home and be able to use it. Second, the printing materials would have to be extremely cheap, safe, and readily available. Third, the items being created by 3D printing would have to have comparable quality to those being mass produced. Last, this technology would have to be extremely simple to use and be reliable.

• The Disruption Checklist - The author of this article claims that personal manufacturing/3D printing will lead to the irrelevancy of IP only when each of the items on the “Disruption Checklist” have been fulfilled. These Items include the following.
  • Large platforms to produce large objects
  • Speed to rival that of mass production methods
  • The ability to use hybrid materials
  • The ability to print complex structures
  • The ability to print on a micro scale
  • The use of hybrid machines
  • The presence of innovators
  • The ability to do all of the above without being controlled/restricted

• I agree with the author in the fact that it will take all of these things to truly override the concept of IP. Some of the disruptive checklist items have already been accomplished and others are very close. However, for some of the other items (i.e. the use of hybrid materials, and the ability to print complex structures with hybrid machines) it seems as though there will need to be several large developments in the realm of material science and printing technology before these items can be checked off.

Blog#9

What is the good, bad, and ugly with regard to filament suppliers?

• Price
  • One blogger on hackaday.com decided to analyze the cost of PLA prices online. He provides a list of 28 different sellers and their PLA filament prices. Based on his results, he estimated a mean price of $43.93 per kg. Note: This blog is from last year so prices may have changed since then but nevertheless it gives us a ballpark figure. A link to the blog page is provided here.
  • 3ders.org also has a price comparison page with many more prices and suppliers listed here.
• Quality
  • ProtoParadigm offers a “3D Printer Filament Buyer’s Guide” providing an overview on a number of factors to consider when purchasing filament. Their prices are app. $40 for a 2 lb. spool. They also have a scientific article on their site relating filament tolerance to print quality. The link to this article is here.
  • Spectrum, a European filament manufacturing company sells filament ranging from $13 to $17 per 50 meter spool. I checked out shipping costs, and shipping for one spool is app. $13.50. Another interesting feature I noticed on Spectrum’s website is their “True Match RAL Colour Picker”. With this tool you can enter any custom RAL code and have your own custom-colored filament manufactured. The link to the Spectrum website is here. Rich rap reviews did an overview of Spectrum’s 3D printing filament. He concluded that the filament had excellent printing properties, however he also noted that there were some issues in the dimension consistency for the material. The full review is here.

What support materials to use?

• It would seem that PVA would be the best option for support filament for several reasons
  • It is water soluble meaning that it can be easily removed from printed objects
  • It is biodegradable meaning that disposal wouldn’t be an issue
  • It has a printing temperature that is similar to that of PLA
• PVA requires extruders that stay at a consistent temperature. If the temperature of an extruder fluctuates beyond 210°C the PVA will start to break down into a tar-like substance and ruin the extruder.
• One downside to printing with PVA is its price. The price comparison on 3ders.org claims that the lowest price for PVA is $88.00 per kg.

What if I were purchasing printing materials for my own needs?

• If I were shopping for materials for my own needs, the material that I purchase would depend a lot on what I was planning to make with it. If I were planning on building a 3D printer and wanted material to test the extruder and perform test prints for calibrating, then I would probably look for cheaper natural-colored filament to do my printing with. I would most likely look at one of the filament price comparison lists mentioned above to find a suitable seller. If I were making functional objects that needed to both look and perform well, I would probably spend a bit more and invest in higher quality filament with a more specific color scheme. Depending on the specifics of the filament I planned on buying I would search for a well-established seller that sold filament with the specific features I was looking for (i.e color, tolerance).

Blog#10

What is the good, the bad, the ugly with regards to hot tips?

• After rigorous searching I could not manage to find a webpage that performed a direct comparison between various hot tips. The closest thing I did find was a blog post on electronhacks.com comparing several different hot ends. The blog concluded that out of all the hot ends tested, the Mk V-BV from Reifsnyder Precision Works came out on top. I followed the link in the blog and found that the hot end costs $57.A link to this blog post is provided here.
• The second link I came across is a site for making your own hot tip out of standard hardware with some machining work. The name for this do-it-yourself hot end is Excalibur. There is a detailed description on how to make the Excalibur hot end here.
• Lulzbot makes a hot end called the Budaschnozzle for $95. It features an aluminum heat sink and mounting plate, and is claimed to prevent temperature fluctuations during printing. The link to the Lulzbot website is here.
• Lastly B3 innovations is planning on creating a kickstarter for their “Pico” hot end. The Pico is a small AA battery sized hot end that they claim can print at temperatures up to 500°C. Printing at those temperatures would open doors to printing with a number of different materials. The link to B3's website is here.

Blog#11

3D scanning and AutoCad123D

• One student (who's name escapes me at the moment) did a show and tell on 3D scanning and a photo based 3D model generation service called AutoCAD123D.I found open-source software clled insight3d that performs a similar process. I went ahead and downloaded the software and am working on making a model of my car. It isn't totally autonomous because it relies on the user selecting key feature points in each of the photos used to create the model. I am interested to see what kind of accuracy I can achieve with this software with the computational power I have in my laptop.

Blog#12

Response to team members thoughts on Blog#5

Mitch Engleka- Mitch noted that one very important event was the creation of the first 3D printer on March 11, 1986. He also noted the creation of "3D Systems" by the founder of stereolithography, Charles Hull. He also noted Adrian Bowyer, the first person to come up with the concept of using 3D printing technology to produce self-replicating machines. I completely agree with Mitch on this topic. I feel that self-replicating technology is truly a revolutionary concept that will most likely have very important roles in the future. This may be especially true in developing in areas too remote for human interaction. For example, self replicating machines may make it possible to begin colonizing planets like mars where it is less practical to transport multiple machines over long distances. Mitch also made note of the first 3D printed implant in 2012. I completely agree that this was an important event as 3D printing is now becoming one of the best ways to construct implants and prosthetic parts for the injured and disabled. It allows completely custom parts to be manufactured at much lower costs than ever before possible. Another reason I feel this is an important development is due to the fact that there have recently been a number of advances in the area of bi bio-3D printing. These two applications may someday lead to implants and prosthetic parts that can both physically and biologically be created specifically for one person. Maybe someday damaged bones or tissue will be able to be 3D printed, implanted, and then healed like a normal body part.

Response to other classmates thoughts on Blog#2

Zachary Cameron- Zack mentions an article discussing the relation between 3D printing and intellectual property. He notes that now and in years to come there are most likely going to be conflicts between those who hold patents and those who wish to reproduce objects relating to those patents. I feel that these kinds of conflicts are both good and bad. They are bad in the sense that larger companies may feel threatened by open source 3D printing technology and try to inhibit it's progress. On the other hand, the conflicts may lead to more innovative 3D printed designs to find "loop holes" in patent issues. As for now, I think that using 3D printed parts and objects to replace those which are patented is a great idea and is something that will benefit everyone in the long run. I feel like this topic can be related to the music industry. Even though millions of songs can be pirated and shared doesn't mean that any of the musicians are going bankrupt.

Eric Prindible- Eric mentioned in his blog that the development of the first Chocolate 3D printer was a not-so important development in the history of 3D printing. He notes that it would be faster and easier to either sculpt or mold chocolate rather than to extrude it, and on top of it all the printer costs $5000. I pretty much half agree with Eric's position on this topic. I do realize that a 3D printer for Chocolate is pretty much a novelty for those with lots of money. However, I think that the technology behind this printer has could play an important role in the future. Chocolate is a very different material from the polymer based materials that are most commonly used for printing. The same technology behind a Chocolate 3D printer may be useful for printing other paste-like materials that behave similarly. One example might be concrete or asphalt. Some of the technology that went into producing this Chocolate printer may prove to someday be useful in applications like these.

Sam Carroll- Sam wrote about the importance of the development of direct laser metal sinistering (DLMS) printing. Prior to this there was no effective way to 3D print with metal. This unlocked a huge number of applications for 3D printing technology. I think that this is a great advancement, but there are still a few factors that I feel place limitations on the technology. The first are dangers of working with powdered metals. Many of these kinds of materials are extremely combustible and can be dangerous to use and transport. Also this process most likely requires high powered lasers that can also be dangerous to use. The second is the cost of this technology. I'm sure that many of the parts that go into making these printers must be high precision and expensive to produce. I agree that this was an important development in 3D printing technology but I have a feeling that there will be other ways of 3D printing metals in the future.

Todd Trautman- Todd noted that the creation of Thingiverse in 2008 was an important event in the history of 3D printing. Thingiverse provides a large and diverse selection of objects that are free for anyone to download and print for themselves. I completely agree with Todd's comments on Thingiverse. It is really incredible how such a large community exists to provide and share printable designs. Also, any of the files can be opened and edited by anyone who knows how to used CAD software. It would actually be interesting if a competing site were to arise to try and develop similar free designs that were superior to those on Thingiverse. That way the competition would promote overall better designed files.

Blog#13

Response to team members thoughts on Blog#7

Mitch Engleka- Mitch made pretty much the same arguments regarding the concept of using 3D printers to produce laboratory equipment. He felt that using 3D printers to produce laboratory materials is a great idea that could benefit both developed and undeveloped countries. He also noted that material limitations are one limiting factor in the types of equipment that can be produced. Overall I agree with Mitch that 3D printing laboratory materials is a great way to drop the overall price on otherwise expensive objects. Mitch feels that the resolution and resilience of the nanoscope may be subpar to other more expensive modes. However, this goes to show that complex testing equipment can be produced at a fraction of the cost. It also goes to show that it is worth looking into what kind of quality is achievable with newer lower priced materials and technology.

Response to other classmates thoughts on Blog#7

Jarred Glickstein- Jarred brought up a good point in his blog. He noted that even though using 3D printed laboratory equipment could lower costs and make it more accessible in developing countries, we need to assess what types of laboratory equipment can and cannot be 3D printed. There may even be safety issues with using 3D printed polymers with certain experiments (chemical properties and so on). Jarred made the comment that the AFM microscope is not entirely made of 3D printed parts, and in a number of applications 3D printing isn't necessarily the way to go (especially in some areas involving high precision). I agree with Jarred with the argument that the most important aspect of this nanoscope is that it is open source. It goes to show what is possible through open source technology.

Nam Pham- Nam mentioned in his blog that there are already a number of objects on Thingiverse that fall into the category of research equipment. He mentions wind gauges, electrical compressors, pyranometers, and microscope adapters. I think that it may even be a good idea to advertise Thingiverse to other universities and laboratories. That would be a way of obtaining and sharing more developed equipment designs since universities and laboratories are most often the ones who have the largest need for this type of equipment in the first place. In the second article, I hadn't realized how misleading the article title actually is. No where does the article actually explain how to build an AFM nanoscope. Nam mentions that low-cost open source developments like this nanoscope have great potential in providing affordable tools for a wider range of scientists. The result is that more people with different backgrounds and ways of thinking will be able to make progress on cutting edge topics.

Lee Schwartz- Lee gave a good explanation of the first article and made an interesting statement about how 3D printing may have a huge impact on the monopoly pricing that large companies place on their items. I agree with Lee in the idea of having competitive pricing on objects like laboratory equipment. I see two possibilities in how this may work. Either small companies will arise that will use 3D printing to overtake larger companies (disruptive innovations), or larger companies will be forced to adapt and change the way they manufacture their equipment. Either way it will cause a significant price reduction in laboratory equipment. In the article about the AFM microscope, Lee mentioned that he did some digging to try and find a set of actual instructions on how to build the open source AFM nanoscope. (unlike what the misleading title says) Lee said he could not come up with anything on how this device was actually built. I think that to make this a true open source project, there needs to be (at least) some sort of documentation posted somewhere online. I think that if a group here at Penn State wanted to take on this project, our best option would be to try and directly contact one of the universities involved in the project. There may be other reasons why they are not yet sharing this information.

Blog#14

Response to team members thoughts on Blog#8

Mitch Engleka- Mitch mentions in his blog that it seems as though IP is doomed once the 3D printing movement starts to take over. He argues that the technology will need to be improved before we see any real conflict between large companies and those using the technology. I completely agree with this statement. As of right now there aren't enough people who know enough about 3D printing to make it a true threat to these larger companies. I believe that the first real areas of conflict will involve printing items that have other restrictions. The 3D printed firearm is one great example. These are items that are illegal to purchase without permits. The ability to print these turns all the rules on their head. Firearm manufacturers may one day have to worry if parts of their weapons are being illegally reproduced via 3D printing. Regardless of what happens regarding IP, it will be interesting to see what the overall outcome is.

Response to other classmates thoughts on Blog#8

Jessica Mewkalo- Jessica made a great point in her blog when she said that a 3D printing revolution could cause issues with people producing too much of a product. I feel this holds true for a number of items where design is the limiting factor, but I still think that there will be ways for larger companies to place restrictions on other items based on their composition. In other words, the materials that are required to make certain items like drugs and explosives can still be restricted to the public. That will most likely be the one thing that limits the revolution in personal manufacturing. Jessica also mentioned Creative Commons, a site that allows inventors to put a type of copyright on their idea and still allow others to openly use and improve upon it.

Drew Golterman- Drew argues that IP rights may become deteriorated and inefficient on the scale of individual users, but unlike the article, he doesn't think that they are going to completely go away anytime soon. I agree with Drew's position on this topic. I think that many of the predictions of the article are completely dependent on a large number of advances happening in a a relatively short period of time. If, however, that isn't the case there may be changes in patent laws that could possibly place more power back into the hands of large companies (maybe limiting the sale of printing materials like ABS and PLA).

Ben Gorenc- Ben also believes that there is most likely going to be some sort of middle ground between the IP we know of today and getting rid of it all together. He feels that there will need to be a number of law reforms to find this middle ground though. He mentions that there are still likely to be issues with keeping trade secrets. Especially since data is becoming increasingly easy to pirate and internet security is never 100% bulletproof. I think that these laws are going to need to be very technical and detailed especially with how share-able and customize-able CAD files are. It would only take minor changes in a design to find loop holes in IP laws on an object.

Blog#15

Response to team members thoughts on Blog#11

Mitch Engleka- In Mitch's blog, he commented on some of the advantages and drawbacks of remote printing. He noted that (ideally) a 3D printer can be sent a job and used without being monitored. I think that remote printing is a great idea in the long run but there are still a number of obstacles that first need to be overcome before it would be something that is practical for us to do. The first is getting the first layer of the print to align and stick without any external interaction. That will most likely require using some additional sensors to accurately align the Z-axis when the print begins. The second issue will be autonomously slicing each .stl file with the correct settings for the printer being used. That will probably require some scripting code and a printer that is guaranteed to give consistent prints without fluctuations in the temperature.

Response to other classmates thoughts on Blog#11

Kevin Moyer- Kevin wrote about the Bio-printing Developments presentation in his blog. He expressed interest in the Fab@Home printer project which explores options of printing a 2D image onto a petri dish using E. Coli. I think that science is only now scratching the surface of the possibilities of using bio printing. Although bio printing is not an area that I have a lot of personal interest in, I can see it someday playing a key role in the development of prosthetics and transplants.

Eva Abeniacar- In her blog, Eva mentions Todd's presentation about using 3D printing technologies to help aid development in third world countries. She mentions how 3D printing is offering cheaper solutions to problems like building shelters, and water purification systems. I personally think that 3D printing is a great solution for problems like these. I think that one of the best approach would be to train people in these undeveloped countries how to use and repair their own 3D printers. An open source system (like reprap) would probably be the best solution in this case since all of their parts are the easiest to modify and repair. A single printer could have the potential to have huge impacts on entire communities if utilized correctly.

Eric Prindible- Eric commented on a presentation about 3D printing buildings and other structures to provide temporary shelters after a natural disaster. He mentioned an article he had read that involved 3D printing low density structural materials that were stronger than steel. Eventually Eric concluded that this kind of technology would be a great solution for pre-fabricating structural parts of homes and bridges but not for building an entire home. I agree with Eric in his opinions on this topic. I don't think there is any good substitute for the number of different processes that go into constructing a house or a bridge. However, I can definitely see the notion of pre-fabricated structural parts becoming a a reality someday. It would basically be a way to lower material costs when new structures are being constructed. There also may be a way to incorporate some kind of autonomous additive process into constructing part of the structure. Maybe there could be a way to have a machine that would autonomously lay bricks or floor tiles in a fraction of the time that it would take to do by hand. The entire house wouldn't be built autonomously, but it would certainly be a way to speed up the overall process.

Blog#16 (Bonus)

3D Printing Post-Processing

I had been talking to Ryan about some of the 3D printed parts he was using for a project had been working on. He mentioned that one of the larger parts was built by printing several smaller parts, gluing them together by holding them in place and melting PLA across the joints, and then sanding the entire piece to give it a nice finish. This got me curious about what other kinds of processes there are that can be performed on polymer-based 3D printed parts.

Welding PLA

I found a few different techniques for welding PLA parts together. The fist technique that I found was a video for using a glue gun as a makeshift extruder. A 3D printed artificial glue stick was first made from PLA and inserted into the back of the glue gun. This technique would basically enable us to bond parts by applying PLA more accurately than simply holding them under the extruder of a printer. A link to this video is included here.

The second technique I found is a form of friction welding. The article included here shows a technique using a Dremel with a small piece of PLA filament. The advantage of this method is that it is a quick technique for bonding large materials without any additional applied heat. It can also be used to form hinges by stacking items and friction welding a pin through the center.

Vapor Smoothing Printed Parts

I found out that there is an easier way to put a smooth finish on 3D printed objects than simply sanding them. A common method of doing this is placing the object in a vapor bath of solvent to eat away any small ridges or blemishes created while the object was printed. An article on 3Ders.org (listed here) shows a simple method of using acetone vapors to smooth printed objects to enhance their overall finish. The object is suspended in a jar partially filled with acetone. The jar is sealed and placed on a heating pad for a set duration (this depends on the desired smoothness of the finish). The object is then removed and allowed to dry. When I searched for methods of vapor smoothing PLA, I found that a chemical called tetrahydrofuran (THF) is most commonly used. The best article that I found explaining this process was by ProtoParadigm.com (link is here). THF is used because it is (allegedly) the safest solvent commercially available for PLA. However, there are still a number of precautions that must be taken when working with THF (it is both flammable and toxic in large amounts). The article advises reading about the dangers of THF and working in a well ventilated area. Parts can either be placed in a vapor bath (similar to acetone) or polished with THF on a cloth. Despite all the precautions, I think that vapor smoothing some of our 3D printed parts is something worth looking into (especially if they are being placed on display).