User:Nhp5023/Class Blog

From RepRap
Jump to: navigation, search

Main | About Me | Class Blog

Weekly blog posts on topics stemming from 3D printing.

Blog 1

Reims3 preview featured.jpg

A) Something Amazing/Beautiful

The Relms Cathedral Kltset is a beautiful 3D printed piece of art. According to the description, this kitset consists of 62 printed pieces and all parts are drawn from scratch referencing other sources. I personally think it is simply amazing to see the details produced by the printer. This is a work of art that I would love to show it to the world.

8052639115 175cc999d2 k preview featured.jpg

B) Something Funny or Strange

Well I thought I have seen it all, unfortunately I have not. I had a good laugh when I first saw the Stegoasuarus Dinosaur Costume Spikes – LED Halloween. Having this for Halloween at State College would be amazing! I would love to be a dinosaur for Halloween! The spikes that were printed looked really detailed and each has a unique look to it.

Force switch plate preview featured.jpg

C) Something Useless

Although the idea of the Wall Switch Plate is meant to be funny with converting to darkness will save you money by switching off the lights, I just don’t see any useful ideas behind it. It’s a comedic printed piece, and means nothing more. If you are not a Star Wars fan, I think you’ll just think that this is just weird or just won’t pay attention to it.

3 preview featured.jpg

D) Something Useful

I love Sriracha hot sauce and this little object (Dual Chili Extruder) has just made me love the sauce even more. Double the nozzle means double the amount of sauce output! Plus, you can use it to put sauce on two hot dogs!

2014 01 04 7266-calparks preview featured.jpg

E) Something Surprising

I did not know that you can make a tie out of 3D printed parts. This is a really cool and innovative design of a hex shaped tie. There are lots of parts that have to be put together, but in the end, you get a flexible plastic tie!

Blog 2: Open Source Ecology (OSE) Project

A) General Impressions of the Open Source Ecology (OSE) Project

The video demonstrated the greater possibility of modular technology. The fact that a tractor can be built within a couple of hours seemed to be too good to be true. Nevertheless, it is true and the project itself is showing noticeable growth regarding the expansion of the ideas and community. The greatest impact regarding the project would be leaning toward third-world and developing countries. Such development would provide the developing areas with opportunities to grow economically and so the people would benefit in the process. However, with such freedom regarding the constructions and the affordable prices, agricultural companies (i.e. John Deere) would most likely be in opposition to the project as it has a great chance of affecting the market of their agricultural products.

Further research has shown great progression in developing the toolkit for agricultural machines. In fact, OSE has a development wiki that contains the first civilization starter kit, which contains open source manuals for some of the prototypes that the groups have designed. For instance, there is an 89 pages guide on how to make the 2011 version CEB Press [1]. If I have genuine interests and resources, I will certainly make an attempt at building one of these machines.

I personally would love to see this come to fruition. As the saying goes, there are many possible solutions for a particular problem.

B) New Yorker Magazine and Marcin Response

The author of the article “The Civilization Kit” [2], Emily Eakin, wrote a critical piece on Marcin Jakubwski’s ideology on self-sufficient industrial/agricultural machines. Moreover, she rather focused on ridiculing his daily lifestyle than that of his ideology and accomplishments. His early routine of doing yoga and meditation for two hours should not be main concerns, but apparently it does matter according to Emily Eakin. She does mention an interesting point regarding the supporters of the project though. She stated that “the people who show up at his farm typically display more enthusiasm for [Marcin’s] ideas than expertise with a lathe or a band saw.” I agree with it to a certain extent as enthusiasm can only go so far. Skillful supporters are what Marcin needs to bring the project further.

Marcin’s response [3] to the article is considerably professional. He cleared up confusions about certain topics regarding the project such as funding, development and goals. He also used this opportunity to defense his points. I am a little confused on his definition of an average person to rise to the occasion in his “Big Hairy Audacious Goal” section. What does he considered as average? An average person with interests, but no skills cannot just go out and build his or herself a tractor. Perhaps he meant an average person with similar academic and machining skills as him. However, an average outside observer will not consider such case. This project is not an individual, but a team effort.

C) PSU OSE Club Possibilities

Although administration or trustees would not support such a thing, I believe there are professors within the Penn State community that are interests and willing to give the idea a try. Since this involves agricultural development, the first group of people I would go to would exist within the agricultural engineering department. I believe that there will be professors within the agricultural fields that would be interests in learning more about the modular technology that the project possesses. Thus, further research would be conducted within the interests of the professors. Furthermore, even manufacturing engineering could relate to what the project is aiming for. Nevertheless, funding could be a big problem. Only through the generation of interests by the majority of the community (i.e. students, faculty, etc.) would spark the possibility of starting something such as the OSE at Penn State.

Blog 3: 3-D Printed RoboHand

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

The article talks about a teenager from Kansas, named Mason Wilde, who 3-D printed a robot hand for his family friend’s young son named Matthew. The young kid was born with a condition called “limb difference”, which causes him to have no fingers on his right arm. Mason decided to take on the project after suffering from a concussion from playing football. The mechanical arm costs him roughly 60$ worth of materials and 8 hours of printing time. The idea of the robotic hand was started by Van As when he lost a finger in an accident. He then got in contact with a theatrical artist named Owen who specializes in making puppet mechanical limbs. The first metal prototype was made in November 2012. It was made for a son of a South Africa woman. Then in January 2013, they created the first 3-D printer version and the instructions were put up online for free.

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

I would go to the Thingiverse website [4] to get more information on how to make one. The page contains different designs and also CAD (.stl) files for one to download and 3-D print. Of course, I would need access to a 3-D printer.

C) How many news articles can you find which reference this technology?

USA Today [5] The Wall Street Journal [6] PC Magazine [7] NBC News [8] MakerBot [9]

Blog 4: Response to Teammates' and Classmates' Blogs (Blog #2)

Response to Teammates' Blogs

My teammate Jarred brought up a good point regarding the fact that such modular technology will make the lives of third world citizens easier. I also agree with his astounding reaction to the potential of the project in the future. Nevertheless, Anthony made a reasonable argument as he pointed out that the "civilization starter kit" is a bit misleading in terms of building the machines within a short amount of time. The people that are involved within the project might not have considered all the possible time they have spent on making the machines. Another great point that Anthony made involves the inefficiency of starting from scratch. Such idea is good for developing countries, but it will certainly be really inefficient within developed countries like Japan and the United States. Eva also agrees that the project is wonderful. She mentioned that with more advertisements, the project could become a lot more bigger. I somewhat agree with this statement. My teammate Wenxin also thinks that the project has great potential.

Response to Classmates' Blogs

Drew made a fair point in questioning the effectiveness of the project when it comes to the "one day goal" objective. The team seek to build a functional machine within a day. This is feasible for the people with designing and machining skills, but to those "average" people that are partaking in the project without machining and designing background, it is not reasonable to think that they will be able to accomplish such one day goal.

Kevin made an interesting point regarding starting a similar project at Penn State. He mentioned that it could peak some interests, but at the end of the day, the project is not practical as there is not a great need for it within the region.

My classmate Dongao is skeptical about the project, which I find interesting. He made a decent point regarding the safety issue of the machine production. It could be dangerous for the team if something were to go wrong during the production process. We are dealing with big machines, and not just a small 3-D printer. It is a different ball game regarding the risks of dealing with it.

It is refreshing to hear from a first hand experience about small scale farmers. Nate's family actually runs a small farm here in PA and he mentioned that it is considerably expensive to buy new equipment. His uncle, who is a farmer, actually bought old equipment (from the 1950's) which in need of frequent maintenance and fixes. So he feels that this project has great potential for small scale farmers.

Sam actually made a great point regarding the unnecessary critique from Emily Eakin's article. He made a great point in saying that Emily could not connect with the team leader and that is why she did not show much enthusiastic toward the project. It was also surprising to find out that she is married to a professor at a prestigious college. Her life is different than that of Marcin's, and her article was perhaps somewhat bias due to this circumstance.

Blog 5: RepRap Media Timeline

1.) An event very important in the progression of 3D printing technology (open source or not)

Although the article [10] was very short and didn’t provide much details. It is an important event in the progression of 3D printing technology as a company called Organovo actually managed to 3D printed a liver which can live for 40 days. The company managed to increase the liver survival time from 5 to 40 days just after 4 months of tinkering around with the technology. It is yet to be perfect as they need to implement a way to incorporate blood vessels. Nevertheless, if one were to think about the potential of such implementation in the future, there will be endless possibilities regarding 3D printed organs! Imagine not having to wait for organs from other people, but 3D printed organs that has no chance of rejecting by your body.

2.) A not so important event in the progression of this technology (something overhyped perhaps?)

There was an article that was released on June 15th, 2012 [11] discussing about the revolutionized 3D-printing for guitar-making. From what it stated from the article, 3D printing is used to create guitar bodies. The professor named Olaf Diegel from New Zealand, used EOS 3D printer for printing parts. Personally, I did not think this is revolutionizing the 3D printing technology. The article seemed to have overhyped it. The only thing that Diegel could do with the guitar-making process is to make the body of the guitar. The other guitar parts, such as the headstock, neck, strings, frets, pickups, etc. are all traditionally made. Thus I would consider this to be a not so important event in the progression of 3D printing technology.

3.) Something which you found interesting which you would like to think or speak more about. This might overlap with #1 a bit, depending.

Something which I found interesting and would like to further discuss about occurs on July 26th, 2012 [12]. On this day, the first 3D-printed gun was announced. The printed gun was a .22-caliber pistol that had fired 200 rounds without signs of cracking and breaking. The main body of the gun is 3D printed using normal plastic resin, but the chamber is actually made out of metal. The 3D printer was used to create the lower receiver of the gun, in which is the part that is considered to be “legally-controlled”. Such news must have seemed a bit of a shock for some people out there considering the fact that people now have the potential just print out guns without licenses. If one were to consider the date that the article got released and how far 3D-printing has evolved since then, it is scary to think how much more advance with such idea of personalize gun printing could be.

Blog 6: Future Projects

Alexandre presented a lot of interesting projects and made me more aware of the possibilities regarding 3D printing. Projects similar to those like OSE kick-starter, and the prosthetic hand advancement enable me to realize the fast evolution of 3D printing technology. Such development has touched a lot of different branches within manufacturing processes. It has got to the point where 3D printing food is now possible. Although it is still fresh, new, and further research is currently conducted around the world to advance the process, I believe this is where the class could possible pursue in terms of focusing on new projects. With the class getting better at fixing and maintaining the current printers, I believe that pursuing 3D printing research is perhaps a good idea. My teammate Anthony is also interested in this topic and we are planning on working together to learn more about 3D printing food and keep the RepRap page updated with newest findings and progress. We could even pursue to make our own 3D food printer. I doubt getting enough people to be interested in this project would be hard to do since at the end of the day, we will get to taste what’s being printed. I love food, so perhaps it could just be a personal thing.

Another idea could be focusing on like an outreach program for other schools around the world. Developing countries like Africa and Vietnam could perhaps be interested in 3D printing technology.

There are questions to be raised in regards to making a composite printer. I’m not knowledgeable with this type of 3D printing, but what will be price to make such a printer? Would composite material costs more to print? If the class just focus on building just one or a few initially, it should be possible and more can be developed from then. In the case of dual extruders, I have yet it see it in action but I believe it will be a better transition to go with in terms of pursuing new projects for the class since we won't have to start from scratch.

Blog 7: Affordable 3D Printing Research Equipment

Read this article [13]. What do you think about this idea? Can you think of any examples of cheap research equipment we have made?

The article provided information on the advancement of 3D printing technology and how it is slowly benefiting the researching fields. 3D printing technology are slowly being used as an alternative to make researching equipment more affordable. Such idea is considerably reasonable when one thinks about the benefits that it has on developing countries. It will allow “talented scientists”, as stated in the article, around the world to produce necessary research tools. The fact that a colourimeter research tool that normally costs $2,000 can be produced by 3D printing with the comparable cost of just $50 is shockingly true. The open-source feature is one of the main reasons behind the affordable price tag.

On Maker Bot Thingiverse [14], Pearce has several collection of open-source scientific tools available for the public. Some of these designs include wind gauges, electrical compressor, pyranometer, microscope adapter, and etc. I don’t recall any examples of cheap research equipment we have made, but there are two students that are working with Professor Schilder to help him design and built a part for his research.

Read this article [15]. What do you think of this? Does it seem printable to you? Why or why not? Relate it back to the first article. Discuss the importance (or lack thereof) of open source in this.

Aside from the misleading title considering that it does not teach me how to build a low-cost AFM nanoscope, I thought it has great potential. According to the article, “research-grade AFMs typically cost $100,000 or more, and use custom hardware.” The new design that the team is working on, however, has the potential to cost only about $500. The problem I do see with this nanoscope design alternative is that the calibration might be really difficult considering the fact that the machine is dealing with things in nano-unit scale.

Such news is related to the content of the above article in the sense that it will help expanding the research capabilities in developing countries. Major discoveries could be made anywhere around the world. By providing the necessary and affordable tools for scientists with different thinking and backgrounds, it will certainly speed up the potential for major discoveries to be made.

If such 3D printing design is to be made open source, it will make a big impact in the researching fields of AFMs. It will most definitely sway researchers to go with the more affordable choice of building their own AFM nanoscopes. This is considerably a major step towards making academic research more available for developing countries.

Blog 8: Intellectual Property Reflection

The definition regarding copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secrets are as follow:

Copyright - The exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work) [16]

Trademark - A word, phrase, symbol or design, or a combination of words, phrases, symbols or designs, that identifies and distinguishes the source of the goods of one party from those of others. [17]

Patent - a government authority or license conferring a right or title for a set period, esp. the sole right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention. [18]

Trade secrets - a formula, practice, process, design, instrument, pattern, or compilation of information which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable, by which a business can obtain an economic advantage over competitors or customers. [19]

Copyright deals with the legal rights in form of expression while patents are solely focused on invention. In addition, both copyrights and patents are regulated by the government. Trademark is also regulated by the government and its purpose is to protect authorship similar to that of copyright, but copyright does not protect things such as a phrase, slogan, or trade name. Trade secrets, however, are not government regulated and is carefully watched by the company for illegal leaks of trade advantages.

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

The five I’s are infringement, identification, impractical or impossible, and irrelevant. These are the five major implications of 3D-printing when printing things without control and with any functionality. 3D-printing has great risks of infringement since an owner of a 3D printer can virtually print anything without the considerations of copyrights or patents. Identification is the second risk due to the open source model of 3D-printing as it could result in difficulty identifying particular designs. This will lead it to being impractical/impossible to regulate it. Then at the end, intellectual property (IP) will become irrelevant.

From the perspective described in the article (or your own if you disagree), what are the futures of copyright, trademark, patent, and trade secrets?

The article is generally stating that 3D printing advancement will make IP obsolete in the future. Personally, I do agree with the interpretation of the article to a certain extent. IP protection will not become obsolete, but it will certainly be a lot more difficult as open source communities are becoming more well-known and growing. As long as they focus on narrowing it down and focus more on regulating the protection of intellectual properties for businesses and industries, then it should be more manageable. If they focus too much on the public printing for recreational or academic purposes, then it is too broadly inefficient to follow through.

How does Creative Commons fit into your perspective?

Personally, I do think Creative Commons have the potential to help with legal sharing of copyright materials in the future. It is a more efficient way of protecting IP. With the continuing growth of open source communities, Creative Commons should be the way to go or at least be more focused on. Nevertheless, this is only efficient if it works alongside with other copyright licenses as there is no such thing as a perfect solution to a problem.

Blog 9: 3D Printing Filament Suppliers


There are plenty of options when it comes to buying filament materials as one could check out the Printing Material Suppliers page on the RepRap wiki page. With such variety, the hard decision is based on which supplier the buyer should go with. Personally, as an experienced online shopper, I tend to look for sites that have reviews from previous buyers, professionalism, and security. So from looking at the list from the wiki page, RepRapSupply USA seems to be a trustworthy site [20]. It costs $33.00 per kilogram of material, which matches and even is cheaper than most of other suppliers around the USA.

Another supplier that has positive reviews is 3D Ink. My classmate Jarred actually told me about this site as he has been a loyal customer of this particular supplier. It only costs $29.95 per kilogram of material. It’s cheaper than the supplier I mentioned above. The best reviews and recommendations come from the people that are close to you, and in this case, Jarred is a part of that particular group of people. I would trust him more than the reviews I see online.


The materials I think we should use for support is PVA. One of the reasons why is due to the optional heated bed feature. With the printers we have right now in class, most of them do not have the heated beds. It is also used to print support structures in complex objects and can easily be removed with warm water. Additional features of PVA include biodegradable and non-toxic. Nevertheless, the max extruder temperature can only be 210C, which would require more configuration of the hot tip so that it would not reach over 210C. That could be a negative feature towards such material.

Matter Hackers has PVA filament for sale at a price of $45 per 0.5kg. So $90 for a kilogram. Maker Geeks also has it on sale for $45.95 per 0.5kg.

Who Do You Choose?

If I were to shop for material for my own needs, I would go with sites that seem trustworthy. I particularly look for positive reviews, professionalism, and security. The Printing Material Suppliers Wiki page would be the first step. I would also check out Amazon as I am a loyal customer of theirs. If I would have to choose one though, I would go with 3D Ink recommended by my friend Jarred as he had experienced with their process and products.

Blog 10: Hot Tip

Hot tip’s main functionality is to heat up the filament and extrudes the melted filament onto the bed as it print. RepRap Wiki page actually contains a lot of information on different hot tip designs. This can be seen in the Hot End Comparison page, which provides information such as the name, designer, nozzle size and reviews.

From looking through the provided links for each of the hot tip design, all are reasonably well designed and are popularly being used by many people. Most of these designs have online forums with tons of positive reviews from users.

J-Head Mk V: Groove Mount, 1.75/3mm Filament, 0.35/0.4/0.5mm nozzle size

E3D – V5: Modified Groove Mount, 1.75/3mm Filament, 0.25/0.3/0.35/0.4/0.6/0.8mm nozzle size

Merlin: M10/J-Head Adapter, 1.75/3mm Filament, 0.2/0.3/0.5mm nozzle size

The E3D – V5 costs about $73 and it has short thermal transition, which improves extrusion accuracy, reduces ‘blobbing’ and less retraction required. It is also recommended for beginners [21]. The J-Head Mk V costs about $57 and a resistor is used as a heater, so there is no need to wrap nichrome wire or bake the heater core. It has received positive reviews from customers [22]. For the Merlin design, it is not on sale and one would have to be custom built. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of information on the design provided by the designer. He or she himself is still testing out the design [23].

I would personally give the E3D – V5 a try since it is recommended for beginners. There is still not a lot of information regarding the Merlin design.

Blog 11: Show and Tell Reflection

There were a lot of interesting Show and Tell topics presented by the class so far, but the one that has a lot of potential in the near future is the 3D scanning apps presented by Drew. The processes of taking pictures, convert it into a 3D model, and then 3D print it out are bit long and tedious as of current. The conversion process is currently closed-source as Drew mentioned. Drew actually successful 3D printed out his boot as he showed it to me one time. The CAD model of his boot is also considerably detailed. Nevertheless, I believe such technology will develop in the near future as the processes will become more fluent and fast.

Blog 12: Response to Teammates' and Classmates' Blogs (Blog #5)

Read Blog #5 for your initial teammates as well as 5 other classmates. Note the points you agree with, disagree with, as well as things which you missed which others noticed.

Response to Teammates' Blogs

Wenxin mentioned in her blog that a very important event that happened is the fact that 3D printing is revolutionizing the guitar-making process. I have to disagree with her as this is not a big leap in the advancement of 3D printing technology. The technology can only print out the case of the guitar, not the main components that is essential to the music production. The capability to print the guitar casing is a good step, but it is certainly not revolutionizing.

Reading Anthony’s blog on a not so important event in the progression of 3D printing is interesting. I do agree with his choice in this case as I also believe that using 3D printing as a tool to explain theoretical physics is not reasonable. There is really no point to print out a physical model for analyzing when you can just analyze it with the .stl file.

Jarred actually pointed out a lot interesting events. He mentioned that the Arduino initial release was a significant event. I agree with this statement due to the fact that Arduino has allow us to do so many things. The majority of the 3D printer models are using it! I actually did not know that the first grandchild RepRap was constructed in 2008. I did not know that this was the second time a 3D printer was created by another 3D printer.

I concurred with Eva’s statement in saying that “lady Gaga goes gaga over 3D printing” is a not so important event in the progression of this technology. 3D printing technology is interesting on its own, even when it comes to dresses. Eva is right in saying that there is no need for promotion from Laday Gaga to help people realize the impressive feat of 3D printing press on its own.

Response to Classmates' Blogs

I agree with most of what Kevin mentioned in his blog, especially when he talked about the most interesting aspect he had read about. A focus on advancing the food printing technology would perhaps help with the world hunger. I did also watch the documentary in Syria that he mentioned. Watching it makes me value the peaceful life I have right now. Nevertheless, the idea of implementing 3D food printing into such environment would not be ideal. Plus I’m not exactly sure how it would work as the food printing technology right now is limited.

I find Drew’s reflection on 3D food printing to be interesting as he might be one of the few that dislike the hype that it is getting. He believed that it is hard to take such branch of 3D printing seriously and it is not worth the investment. I would have to disagree with him on such statement. Great ideas always start from something small. Although food printing is not in such an advance stage, it will be in the future. Nevertheless, it has to start from somewhere and I believe printing chocolate is a good initiator.

Tony did mention a good point in saying that a 3D printed model of your unborn baby is not so important in the progression of 3D printing technology. I see no point in having a physical copy of what your baby is going to look like when you can just view a picture. I doubt this idea would last. Rapid printing of circuit boards is an interesting idea that will have huge potential in the near future. Fast customizable circuit board production would give more flexibility regarding the design.

I do agree with Sam in stating that the creation of direct laser sintering of metal (DSLM) is an important event in the progression of 3D printing technology. Increasing the number of materials that 3D printers can print is always a big leap for the technology. Sam also talked about the 3D printers were used to make the models for a Chipotle commercial. I also thought it was interesting and I do agree that it would help the still animation industry. Nevertheless, I don’t think it will “drastically” cut down on costs though.

Ben’s discussion about 3D printed guns really peaked my interest as such topics also draw me in. I find 3D printing gun technology to be really interesting since an advancement in such field would allow for so many possibility and confliction. It’s a controversial topic that is considerably interesting to talk about in terms of morality and accessibility. And apparently the first 3D printed metal gun was produced last year in 2013.

Blog 13: Response to Teammates' and Classmates' Blogs (Blog #7)

Read Blog #7 for your initial teammates as well as 5 other classmates. Note the points you agree with, disagree with, as well as things which you missed which others noticed. Choose some different classmates blogs from the last time.

Response to Teammates' Blogs

I agree with Eva’s statement in saying that the lego version microscope is a good idea. She actually looked for the open-source in reference to the microscope but could not find any information on it. I expected this to happen if you really think about it. If you can produce a product that has a fraction of the price of the commercialized version, would you just go and upload it to the public without any sense of incentive? I doubt it. I personally would not unless there is a reasonable incentive to do so.

Wenxin did not offer any insight on the lego version of the nanoscope. She did talk about the significance of the making affordable research equipment however. I also learned a bit of history as she mentioned the World Health Organization and how the idea of using appropriate technology to tackle poverty started back in the 1970s. I agree with her statement in saying that with accessibility of 3D printing technology are advancing, more people would have more chance to make a difference in the world.

Anthony makes some good points in his blog regarding making research equipment more affordable through 3D printing technology. He pointed out that if there is a demand in 3D printing research equipment around PSU campus, then the 3D printing club can certainly handle such a task. I agree with this and I believe that it should be promoted to spread out the words. Perhaps there are people around campus that do not know such service exist. Anthony did mention a similar concern that I have regarding the lego version microscope, which is the calibration process. The price tag is cheap, but is it easy to calibrate and is it reliable?

Jarred is a little skeptical in regards to making lab equipment more accessible. A reasonable point he made was in saying that he would not immediately seek the use of a 3D printer to make all lab equipment until there is an establishment on what should or should not printed. I think it makes sense since not all lab equipment are the same and should not all be considered as the same. I also agree with his statement in saying that not everything should be 3D printed out when one consider the importance of precision. Nevertheless, if one were to compare the price tag of $500 to $100,000, questions are raised on why there is such a big difference between the two versions.

Response to Classmates' Blogs

I do agree with Yuan’s response in saying that developing needed tools through open-source is a great idea as long as intellectual property rights are not considered. He also made a good point in distinguishing between the developing and developed world in terms of the reliability of the intellectual property rights. I also did not realize that Yuan and another classmate were working with Dr. Ruud to design a jig for the transducer machine and have it 3D printed out. That could have been a perfect example of cheap research equipment that we have made in class.

Nate provided an interesting article that is a perfect example of printing affordable research equipment. Instead of wasting $2000 on buying a colorimeter, he 3D printed it and spent only $50. This is the kind of things that is worthy to talk about. Nate also discuss about the 3D printed lego version of the AFM nano scope. It costs the Beijing team only $500 to replicate the research equipment compares to the $100,000 price tag that it would cost to buy it. He praised such accomplishment and I would have to agree with such statement. The money saved can go into something else.

Graham actually brought up a good point in saying that people are obsessed with ownership and financial advancement. As a result of this, true advancement in sharing ideas are limited, even in the case of 3D printing technology. Nevertheless, such perfect world does not and will not ever exist as it is in our nature to be like that. There are always a few exception that will help make the world move forward though. Graham also made a good observation in saying that the title to the second article it misleading as it does not show you how to build the nanoscope. It was just mentioned in the title to catch the reader’s attention and it is a bit misleading. I also agree with his statement in saying that the chances that the team working on this to share it out for free is unlikely. They would need some kind of incentive.

Carson’s discussing about the two articles are similar to what I had to say. Affordable research equipment is necessary, especially in the developing countries. With access to such technology at a low cost, it will broaden the range of research around the world. This would allow more discovery to be made and help make the world move forward. Carson is a bit skeptic about the second article as he mentioned that he is unsure of the quality, convenience, and user friendliness of the lego version of the microscope. This is an interesting point, but nevertheless, it is $500 compared to $100,000. The price difference is a bit too significant to consider all of the features he mentioned in his blog.

Mitch also make similar observation toward affordable research equipment in saying that it is a great idea. He had some experience in research labs and he knows that research equipment can be a bit expensive, even the simple devices. He brought up a good point in worrying about the resolution and durability of the lego version nanoscope. I also feel like the calibration would be really hard to do. There is room for improvement though. I think this will advance faster if it were to become open-source. However, the chances of that happening is rare I believe.

Blog 14: Response to Teammates' and Classmates' Blogs (Blog #8)

Read Blog #8 for your initial teammates as well as 5 other classmates. Note the points you agree with, disagree with, as well as things which you missed which others noticed. Choose some different classmates blogs from the last time.

Response to Teammates' Blogs

Wenxin’s response to the effect of 3D printing on the future of intellectual property is positive. I agree with her optimism for the technology, but she did not consider the negative effects that it could have on the law. Where do we draw the fine line of what is copyright or patent if it does become too big and out of control? She compared this modern case to the internet privacy in the film industry. Although she made some good points regarding the hard work that go behind the scene, she did not give insight on the illegal sharing of media that goes into it. This is where the topic gets controversial.

Anthony made some interesting points regarding the IP infringement in the future as 3D printing technology and sharing progress. Website like Thingiverse will most likely allow a feature where certain designs will be downloaded for money, giving the share to the creators of the designs. Even if the designs only cost a couple of dollars is still more reasonable than nothing. Nevertheless, it is up to the designer to decide whether or not he want monetary compensation for it. I agree with Anthony in saying that it will be really tough to distinguish IP infringement.

Jarred made some interesting opposing views on the IP infringement article. I happen to find his argument reasonable and perhaps worthy to take into consideration. He stated that the likelihood that a 3D printer can make everything is extremely unlikely. This is a statement that I would have to agree. If one were to agree with such statement, then IP infringement can never get out of control.

Eva mentioned that it is only a matter of time before IP infringement will occur. This is due to the open source community. I could perhaps understand what Eva is talking about as the open source community draws a fine line between what is right to share. Once it is uploaded to the public, could you ever take it back? In other words, would it infringe IP if one were to decide to withdraw his or her design and make it close-source? Eva also talk about how Thingiverse could start charging for the designs uploaded. Such feature would perhaps help prevent the IP infringement to occur as it gives credit to the designer. Her views on Creative Commons is also reasonable.

Response to Classmates' Blogs

Drew agreed with the article in terms of general viewpoints, but he also said that IP protection will not completely become nonexistent. To tackle such problem, he mentioned that the IP regulation needs to be less restrictive and focus more on a few area and not all. There should be more of a focus on businesses and their protection. It’s an interesting observation and I somewhat agree with him. I also agree with his concern regarding the Creative Commons. If a more powerful business decide to steal an idea from an inventor without his permission, would Creative Commons be able to protector the inventor?

Heisenberg made similar statements to mine in saying that IP will likely disappear in the future. Nevertheless, he also mentioned that not all group of people will be affected as lower income people will still stick with the normal consumer goods. On the other hand, businesses that do complex design products might be at risks due to the advancement of 3D printing technology. Nevertheless, I’m not sure if I totally agree with his statement in saying that Creative Commons is just slowing the downfall of IP.

Zach actually disagree with the writer of the article. I do agree with his statement in saying that it is general hard already with the freedom of file sharing and torrenting nowadays. And somehow, production companies are still making significant profits from it. I guess at the end of the day, if there is a will, there is a way.

Eric stated that 3D prints cannot be claimed as IP and suggested that you should hide the .stl file. It’s an interesting argument. I’m not sure if I agree with it. He does see potential in Creative Commons though, which I also agree.

Vicent actually pointed out a lot of interesting things regarding the IP infringement case. He talked about the “pay what you want” system that the music and video game industries are attempting to do and is working well. It might be a good solution to the IP infringement problem as Vicent stated that “each buyer is happy with the price”. He also said that Creative Commons will work extremely well, which I agree.

Blog 15: Response to Teammates' and Classmates' Blogs (Blog #11)

Read Blog #11 for your initial teammates as well as 5 other classmates. Note the points you agree with, disagree with, as well as things which you missed which others noticed. Choose some different classmates blogs from the last time.

Response to Teammates' Blogs

Wenxin has a lot to say about Sam’s S&T since she is also involved with the project of bio-printing. It seems as though the technology is a bit over my head. Nevertheless, this has great potential in the future in regards to the medical field as it allows us to build human tissues.

Anthony also thought Drew’s S&T were interesting. The 3D scanner app actually is called 123D Catch and he actually tried it out. I do agree with him that this is a really interesting idea. As I expected though, he gave it a try and the scanned model did not turn out well. The scanned pictures also need to be trimmed to convert it to an .stl file. This is a sensitive process.

Jarred found Wenxin’s S&T to be the most interesting as she talked about 3D printing in film industries. I also was very surprised that 3D printing technology is being used within the industries. I agree with Jarred statement in saying that it would be really interesting to see where this would lead in the future.

Eva’s favorite S&T was from Todd. I unfortunately does not recall this at all even though Eva did mention that it was about how “3D printing is slowly moving towards construction and helping third world countries.” What are they trying to implement? I have no idea, but the general concept of using it to help people in needs are what ultimately matters. So kudos to Eva for choosing a very influential topic.

Response to Classmates' Blogs

Vicent talked about the 3D Printed House event that was talked about during one of the previous S&T. I thought his choice is a really interesting one in regards to the practicality of the event and the potential that it has to disaster situations. I can’t imagine how beneficial it is to the victims of hurricane or tornado events if they can receive temporary houses within a reasonable time period post disaster-wise.

Ben talked about the S&T done by Kevin regarding 3D printing chocolate. I also thought that this was really interesting and hopefully it will someday revolutionize the 3D food printing technology. I can’t wait until the day where I can print my own custom design of a chocolate bar. Talk about a special Valentine’s Day gift for the person that you care about heh?

Tony talked about Drew’s S&T on 3D scanning of which I also thought it was an interesting topic. He also mentioned his difficulty with his Gold printer prevented him from fiddling around with the scanning program. From what I can remember from Drew’s S&T, the process is a bit tedious as you have to take multiple pictures in different angles for it to work well.

Brian also talked about Drew’s S&T on 3D scanning. I agree with his statement in saying that the technology has the potential to be huge. Instead of replicating a CAD model of a design, if one were to have the design physically, he or she could just scan it and have it saved as a software file. This could definitely save companies a lot of money.

Yuchao (Oliver) mentioned two of his favorite S&T and that includes using 3D printer to build houses, and 3D printing chocolate. I agree with his choices as both have the potential to revolutionize the 3D printing technology and the world. Later on he actually did S&T about a company in Shanghai that built 10 houses using 3D printing technology. It was very interesting to watch it.

Bonus Blog: 3D Printing tattoo

I stumbled across a really interesting article while searching for a potential Show and Tell. The article talked about a potential 3D tattoo printer (this article can be found on the media timeline in last month of April 2014). The whole idea has a really interesting origin as it is started in France. Three French students were competing at an event and they decided to implement a pen into a 3D printer. They got a lot of praises from the demonstration. Afterward, they decided to continue with the project, but this time they decided to take it a step further by implementing a tattoo gun.

There is a link on instructable describing the process that they have made thus far within the project. They actually tested the 3D tattoo printer on artificial skin at first. It went perfect as they printed a simple circle to show the precision of the print. Then they switched to a human genuine pig. This is when they ran into trouble as the skin surface is not completely flat and soft. They tried many methods to tighten up the skin. The thing that worked was using an inner tube of a scooter. In the end, the genuine pig guy actually has a tattoo on his arm that was done by a 3D printer. He must have been the first to ever do it.

I will keep an update on this project and follow up on its progress. Maybe tattoo artists will loose their jobs in the future! Machines are taking over the human race!