Name one or more topics related to 3D printing which you wish we discussed in greater detail during the course. How might we evolve the course in the future?
I wish the more presentations were given during class time like last semester's class. Reading news articles is one thing, but having people who are directly related or are knowledgable about different 3D printing topics give short presentations would be helpful. Even if it was a requirement that groups give a short presentation on a topic of their choice related to 3D printing, it would be a learning experience for the class. New ideas could be harvested or the class could even try and experiment with some new technologies. This is how the class learned about the filament extruder and now we are attempting to build one.
Due 4/19 Our next big projects on the horizon are the dual extruder and the filament recycler. If you had to focus on one of those two projects, which one would you push and why? What are the relative merits and motivations behind choosing each? How does each advance the RepRap project more generally?
I believe the filament recycler is the project that should be focused on. The class has an abundance of discarded PLA from the past few years, and no way to reuse it at this point. A recycler would reduce the cost of 3D printing since it would reduce the new PLA that would need to be purchased. As with the printers that the class currently has, improvements could be made to the design since it is open source. I have worked on assembling the dual extruder, and I believe it could vastly improve the quality of the prints. Using two materials, a dissolvable one for supports and one for the print could allow more complex designs to be printed. The difficulty will come when the code to run the printers needs to be adapted to coordinate printing with two materials. I am not aware of if the capabilities of the current programs are sufficient to run a dual extruder.
The RepRap project would benefit more from the dual extruder, since commercial printers are available that can print with two materials. To have those capabilities in an open source setting would be a success for the community. The filament recycler could become a staple for owners of 3D printers, not only making PLA filament, but using other plastics as material to print with.
Due 4/19 Given your experience with our OHM RepRap design, are there any parts in particular that you would redesign? How might we improve on what we have?
One part that I would redesign if given the opportunity would be the Z axis/motor rod coupler. There have been numerous instances of the rod slipping off of the motor shaft, which makes it really difficult to reattach the drive rod. If there was a way to put a hole through the motor shaft and place a piece of metal through such as a cotter pin, I believe this problem could be solved. The current design relies solely on friction, and it has shown that this is not effective. If the top frame supports were widened, it could enable printing of taller objects in the current build space. The height of the extruder and drive gears reduce the total printable height. The vertex would probably need to be tweaked since the angles would be greater, but then the spacing of the top two cross rods could be greater.
After reading the responses of my classmates, I was selected in five people’s blogs. The content of my blogs seemed to be the focus of their attention, not the formatting of the blog. Researching the topic that I am writing about helps to provide a thoughtful response. I would like to improve the formatting of my blog responses in order to ease navigation. I am not the best at wiki formatting, however I would like to learn so that I could improve the user experience of visitors to my page. I could also add pictures, the prompt to which I am responding to, and break my blog up into sections.
Laser Scanning- Lasers are bounced off of the objects in order to collect points on the surfaces, and are captured with a camera like the NextEngine scanner that is in the lab. Millions of data points can provide a very precise scan of an object which makes a better end product. Post-scan processing is where the difficulty with laser scanning arises. The millions of points need to be aligned in order to create a solid object. Trimming the supports out of the scanned object is a chore, and it is necessary to make the scan a solid model so it can be 3D printed.
Photo Scanning- This would be the most accessible to average people without expensive laser scanners. Apps for phones are available that let a person make a 3D model from photos. This method may not be as precise, but a 3D scan can be made with minimal effort. An example of this is www.trimensional.com. The trimensional app costs $0.99. I would not consider this open source since it is for profit. Autodesk offers a free option for using pictures to make a 3D scan. The website for the Autodesk software is http://www.123dapp.com/ .
http://reprap.org/wiki/User:Djl5217 Djl5217- The importance of the open source nature of this project is well represented in this post. It points out the benefits of collaboration on projects such as this, where profit is not the first priority. With this project most of the initial design work is done, and the hand is now helping the boy. The recommendation of trying to find people local to penn state to print hands for is an excellent idea. Maybe our mechanical engineering department can also contribute.
http://reprap.org/wiki/User:Carina Carina- The post includes pictures and a table that help explain the pros and cons of open and closed source projects. It gives great background about the history of this project and where it may go in the future. Iinks to the website that hosts the project and files is also included. Overall I would give this the most XP since it is a very comprehensive post.
http://reprap.org/wiki/User:YaqiYang Yaqi- The project is summarized well, and points out the reasons behind pursuing an open source alternative to prosthetics. I agree with the stance she takes on open source, which is that more projects should be open source to allow improvements to be made easily without barriers.
http://reprap.org/wiki/User:MarkKeller22 Mark Keller- Pictures and many links help to explain any confusing topics that may arise from the technical basis of 3D printing. The importance of 3D printing is solidified with the president mentioning it in the State of the Union address. I agree that the printers at PSU would not be up to the same challenges of printing out dynamic systems like UVA is currently doing. I would award Mark the most XP since his post is very well organized and helpful.
http://reprap.org/wiki/User:Cjm5325 Cjm5325- The articles are summarized, which helps to identify the key points without reading the entire article. An interesting opinion was given that the mention of 3D printing in the State address might create a push towards 3d printing like it did with solar and wind energy. I agree with the analysis of the two different schools’ 3d printing programs, and that there are pros and cons to each and they shouldn’t really be compared.
http://reprap.org/wiki/User:PwNzI PwNzl- Having the prompts from the course schedule posted on the blog helps the reader to see what is being responded to. The fact that PSU and UVA are on the cutting edge of implementing this 3D printing technology into classrooms says something for the quality of these universities. I agree that the state of the union address will help the public to research the technology and possibly raise interest in people that are outside of the engineering industry.
The 3doodler would be an awesome toy to have. It could make a variety of things, and I would definitely buy one if the price was right. I would be interested in making one myself, if the parts were available. The formlabs printer looked the most promising of the printers that I looked at. The non extrusion way of printing seems more exact than the methods currently available to us. The 3doodler is making headlines due to the small toy like nature of the product. I could see this product on an infomercial, or home shopping network because it looks like there is minimal technical knowledge necessary to operate the 3doodler. With other 3d printers, files need to be made, whereas the 3doodler can be drawn by hand.
Another example of a spinoff of the prusa design uses acrylic as a frame instead of metal rods. http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/vision3dprinter/the-vision-not-just-a-3d-printer-a-dream?ref=live
Formlabs is being sued because it is bringing high precision technology to market without the high ticket price. I can see the appeal in keeping the patents for the big corporations, but that would ensure that the average person would never have the opportunity to use this technology.
I see kickstarter as a way for people to almost interview with possible backers. A pitch is made, and depending on how promising the idea is, determines if individuals want to fund the idea or product. This website allows a ton of products and ideas to be displayed in one place, and is good for the person trying to get their idea off the ground. Hopefully the future of the crowd sourcing fundraising will be open source so that companies can not profit from almost no work.
The drawbacks of kickstarter are the percentages taken for taxes and also for hosting projects. If a goal is not met, the money will not reach the person who is trying to raise it. These are little known facts that and up hurting the people using kickstarter to fund projects. With a traditional storefront, the money raised is kept by the person raising it no matter what, but there is not the same exposure as a well known website like kickstarter. It is a tradeoff that needs to be weighed before pursuing funding on a project, and could be compared to ebay. Ebay takes a percentage of the profits made when their site is used, and this is no different. It is much easier to sell items on ebay than it is to place ads in newspapers, online, or even trying to find friends that want to buy your products. It comes down to whether it is appealing to have a better chance of success at a monetary cost.
The first article talks about how the 3D printing revolution is hitting us faster than we had imagined, and is very different from what our views of the future were a couple of years ago. Our President acknowledged that this technology may be leading us towards better American manufacturing. 3D printing is working its way into almost every industry one way or another, and something of this magnitude cannot be ignored. 3D printers are becoming more prevalent in education, which allows students to learn in ways that have not previously been possible. I think that the industry will keep growing as the price of printers decreases and availability increases. It is allowing expression of creativity in physical form that previously could only be modeled in CAD.
The state of the union address was extremely important because it shows that the government is recognizing 3D printing as an opportunity to grow industrially. New uses for the technology are frequently found and this could revolutionize the manufacturing and even some parts of the military. Whether it is making parts on the front lines or printing working organs, there are numerous benefits. It seems important to me because I have had first hand experience with the technology, and would be disappointed if the government were to restrict access to it. Since the state of the union address did not have the tone of restricting 3D printing, I take that as a good sign.
The other universities that are using 3D printers are mostly using commercial versions, instead of the open source options. This is good as far as a quality control aspect, but it does nothing for the open source community. I understand there is a lot more work involved with repraps, but you pay for the convenience of having commercial printers. Having actual models to use and test has its merits, and I think this has many benefits. The actual machining and assembling of parts that is currently in undergraduate curriculum should not be removed since 3D printing of parts will not always be possible. In the higher level college courses, I would recommend classes like the RepRap class at Penn State since it gives hands on experience with design, assembly, and also using the printers.
The printers at Penn State are probably of lower quality than the expensive commercial printers at UVA. The money that is saved by building our own printers allows us to expand the number of printers since they are able to be replicated. That would never be possible with a commercial printer. If we tried to mimic their program, it would be more labor intensive since the printers can be finicky at times. The support that is necessary to keep them running would make it hard to have in all levels of education unless the instructor had experience in remedying problems. The print service that we run is like their program, but without the students printing their own parts.
Bonus Blog #1
I am really interested in the ability to use 3D printing to make molds to cast metal. A version of "lost PLA" casting has been done, see website: http://blog.ponoko.com/2012/10/02/casting-molds-from-3d-print/ . Wax is used to do this currently, but being able to print out almost any shape and make a mold from it could be very useful. The idea is that PLA will melt and vaporize when heated to a very high temperature leaving a cavity for molten metal to fill. At Penn State, we have the ability to cast metal, which in conjunction with 3D printing, could expand the different types of objects that we can make out of metal. This type of casting differs from the expensive "3D printed metal, which uses lasers to melt layers of metal powder into objects. Either of these methods can produce a stronger product than the 3D printed plastic currently can. I have also heard of pouring the molten metal with the PLA piece still in the mold, which vaporizes the PLA, and eliminates the need to heat the mold prior to casting to remove the PLA. It was successful, however it was noted that small vents should be placed throughout the mold to allow burning PLA to escape and the mold to fill entirely. http://boulderhackerspace.com/2012/08/18/lost-pla-aluminum-casting/
The thumb guard for hammering nails is a replica of a part from an Ikea do it yourself kit. It may not be the actual part that was in the kit, however the idea is the same. I’m not sure if patents exist for this object, but it could definitely be copyrightable. The heart shaped vase is simply a heart shape that is extruded and rotated to form a vase. I believe it could be patentable, but is such a small object that would reach such a small audience that I doubt it would be worth it. The swizzle stick doesn’t resemble anything I have seen before, but the name “swizzle stick” could be copyrighted. It doesn’t look professional enough to patent. Hip replacements have been patented, and unless this is a replica of an existing one, it shouldn’t infringe. This object states it is a logically working model of a hip replacement. Instead of calling it a hip replacement, it could be called a ball joint which may not have patent or copyright restrictions. The last object that I chose for my first blog was a combination of many models. The object has many different features such as a bottle opener, whistle, male head, and female torso. These could be copyrighted individually in some circumstances, but as it sits, the status is blurry just like girl talk and his mashups.
Thing 33163-The caddyrack has the cadillac emblem on the front, which could be copyright infringement.
thing:38863- the abominable snow monster was in a movie, so there are probably copyright implications
thing:28270-Wolverine is another character that would probably need to be licensed
Keeping ideas, objects in the public domain is extremely important to foster growth of ideas. Licensing this way gives the creator a way to keep his idea hopefully copyright free. Licensing may not totally secure this, but is a step in the right direction. It goes against copyrighting/ patenting and I believe is for the better. Restrictive licenses shouldn’t exist, since it basically performs the same as copyright without the title.
I think this is a perfect example of how 3D printing technology should be used. The final product was probably worth $50,000 if it were bought from vendors of prosthetics. Now by using rapid prototyping technology, this hand cost at most $100 worth of material. The designs are easily customizable, and can even grow with the kid. The article stated that the PLA that was used to print the hand was stronger than a real live hand, so the material should be durable enough. The difference in cost between commercially available models makes it advantageous to experiment many times with different printed designs, since costs may never add up to $10,000 per finger. The benefits of the commercially available units are that they may use better materials, and have the engineering perfected behind the design. Since the boy is still growing up, his hand size will be changing for many years to come, and it doesn't make sense to invest in the best model right away. We could get involved in the project by tinkering with the design, and seeing how it works. It is and will remain open source, so we could provide the use of our printers to people in the surrounding area that might have this condition, and print the parts at low cost to them. This would be especially helpful to people who might not have health insurance that would help cover the thousands of dollars needed for a name brand prosthetic.
My major is civil engineering, so using 3D printing to construct structures was a surprise to me. I had previously thought that there would be no uses in Civil for this technology, but automating building has many benefits. Costs could be reduced by not having multiple different contractors, plumbers, electricians etc. Structures could be customized in ways that would be difficult by conventional construction methods. An example of this could be following contours on a hillside with curved walls that gave optimal natural lighting to the structure, which would reduce energy costs. I have also seen 3D printing that has been used to make models using GIS information that can print cityscapes or landscapes in great detail and color. What better way is there to view information than having a physical model of the situation that you were describing. http://www.3dprototyping.com.au/Civil-Engineering.html
We have started trying to grow organs in-vitro in the past few years, and I believe some day it will be successful. i came across this interesting article a few years back about a mouse that had an ear growing from its back. Upon further investigation, it was a cartilage form of an ear that was implanted under the skin of the mouse. With 3D printing technology, I believe it would have been easy to replicate this by using cartilage as the printing material. See link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacanti_mouse 3D printing in the biotech industry is gaining ground whether it be in dental, prosthetics, joint replacement, or other areas. What better way is there to replicate body parts than from scanning actual body parts, modeling them, and printing out a copy.
The idea that we can 3D print something and eat it too, is awesome. This could open up doors to a whole new world of "custom" edibles. Imagine printing the Eiffel Tower in cookie dough,or chocolate for a themed party. Printed products would probably be expensive, due to the time consuming nature of printing, although the food would be in shapes unattainable by conventional cooking methods. As this technology evolves, raw materials may become cheap and easily accessible, but at this time there is very limited access to 3D printers that have this capability. A $300,000 burger is ridiculous for a piece of meat, and only the richest people would consider buying it. For that amount of money, you could almost buy a small farm!
3D printing clothes is a novel idea that could produce the most form fitting clothes available. The dress that was printed out would probably be hard to make, since the dress was continuous and had features protruding from all sides. I think that 3D printed clothing would be some of the most comfortable, since it was designed for every individual. Jewelry is another option for 3D printed fashion. Intricate pieces can be made that would take a long time to carve or metal-cast. Making molds with 3D printing would allow jewelry makers to print a difficult piece and then cast it into metal because the printed part would melt from the heat. Personally I don't think I would be interested in printing clothing, but I can see it being successful as a new type of fashion.
The features in the demo are very similar to the word processing programs we use today. It is surprising how well the technology worked and how easy it was to use a pointing device instead of typing all of the commands. This is very impressive technology at least for the time when it was revealed. The user interface was difficult to see because of the low quality video, but he easily performed various typing tasks. It seemed like there weren't any icons to click, but moving around on the screen seemed exponentially easier than using tab or arrow keys. At the time, I don't think the majority of the public would have appreciated this technology, since I would imagine not very many people had access to computers. I am sure that this computer would have been very expensive if not too expensive for the normal public.
Professor Doyle says that the public thought that the demo was fake, since this was so groundbreaking. It deviated from the norm of huge computer systems, which brought doubt into people if something like this could be real. We share the information that we generate in order to receive recognition. However, when there is a profit to be made we want to capitalize on this so we make it intellectual property. That creates barriers for people to access the technology which in turn hinders improvements and innovation. We should share our information because many people think differently about problems, and different solutions can come out of this. If we patent our efforts, the innovation stops dead. Open source helps make better end products, since everyone can benefit from the ideas that are contributed. It is then possible to branch off of the open source track to bring products to market, but this ends up making roadblocks if intellectual property is claimed.
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:41968 We have all hit our thumbs at some point when hammering. This helps hold the nail for easy driving.
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:42570 A vase with twists is eye catching and could be a good valentines present.
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:20145 A swizzle stick for drinks does absolutely nothing for me.
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:2673 Diy hip replacement might be useful later in life, but hopefully it won't be printed out of PLA.
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:5956 It looks like a mutated human with bottle opener hands. I don't know what possessed these objects to merge.
I feel that I am a tinkerer. I have been tearing apart and fixing things since I was young with my grandfathers help. When something breaks, my first instinct is to try and find out what went wrong and try and find out how to fix it. I agree that modern goods are much less tinkerer friendly. they are not usually made to last, or parts are too specialized to properly replace. American made goods are usually more repairable than foreign goods just like automobiles. I think that the habitat of tinkerers will be preserved no matter what the circumstances because they make things work and are always searching for solutions. Design projects stem from problems and perceived necessities. I feel that our class is similar to the video in that we have a very diverse set of majors that can contribute to the class. The fact that a world renowned inventor is building a 3D printer shows that the technology is relevant and can be used by most people. It allows fast and easy ways to make ideas real. We can use his idea of bringing many different backgrounds together to solve problems and come up with innovative solutions.
Blog #15 G. Printing houses is a neat idea in theory, but until houses are actually printed and their durability is tested, I will be skeptical of the feasibility. One of the good things about printing using plastic, is that the layers harden quickly. When using concrete, the layers may slump if care or time is not taken to solidify each layer. Sourcing of the materials would also be a challenge, as with conventional built houses. The plumbing and electrical systems that would be integrated into the printed concrete would have limited access for repair or upgrading, and we don't know how taking a section of the concrete out would effect the building's strength. This could be compared to 3D printing a solid video game controller with integrated electronics. There would be no way to replace the electronics and the object would have to be discarded. Depending on how much the 3D printed house would cost, I would consider living in one if it was significantly cheaper than other houses. I would not like how it would be very difficult to put additions on because of the structure.
Blog #14 C. The reprap class structure is very diverse. It focuses on a student's individual strengths, by allowing students to choose what type of projects to work on. There are tasks that need to be completed throughout the semester by all students such as blogs and wiki edits, but other than that none of the students are forced to do things in areas that they may not be the strongest in.personally, I came into the class having no experience with 3D printers, and little to no electronic experience. I was able to work on building a printer and also fix and replace parts on printers. Doing things with my hands and troubleshooting mechanical problems is something I am good at, whereas designing in solidworks or writing new code for arduinos I have little experience or desire. The very first day of class I was intimidated having no knowledge of 3D printers, but after completing the class I have a greater understanding of how they work and how to operate them.
Blog #13 All three of the recycling systems look like they would work. The Filabot seems to be the most promising based on the website, however it looks like it would have to be bought, and most likely couldn't be made unlike the repraps. The $250 Lyman extruder has been made before, unlike the recyclebot which has no actual pictures of the physical product. Recycling systems could be very valuable to the reprap community since printing usually creates a lot of waste plastic. Building one sounds like it would be a lot of work, since we haven't had any experience with these before. As with constructing repraps there are tricks that can be used to make it easier. Unless you have many printers such as Penn State does, $250+ is an investment not to be taken lightly. It can however be useful if you don't care if the filament is a uniform specific color. Some of the recyclers can use materials other than premanufactured filament which would allow for re-purposing of some plastics.
I think it is capitalizing on the novelty of being able to print trinkets. The staples idea is smart, because they are one of the first places to offer 3D printing to the public. If 3D printing becomes more popular, Staples will have a lead on the market. I bet that Staples will have to watch copyright infringement closely since they could be held accountable for printing the objects. If anti-piracy software will come to be, I can see public printing stations being the first places to implement them.
I feel like the person printing service will only appeal as a novelty to parents since they value memories of their children. I can see a use in weight loss as a motivation for losing weight and to also track progress. It is semi expensive and would probably survive in shopping malls with all of the other novelty displays. The initial investment on the printer and the need to be scanned for 15 minutes for the sole purpose of replicating portraits makes it less attractive to potential startups. Competition is not likely to drive the price much lower, due to the expensive nature of the printers. The makerbot print service should make it less expensive due to the lack of multi-colored prints.
I could see the technology being useful in the high school educational environment. Knowledge of CAD and 3D modeling is necessary in order to produce files to be printed. Usually schools do not teach this before 9-12th grade. The digital repository that was talked about in one of the articles would be too complex for most schools. Simple parts could be printed using only the teachers help, and get rid of the need to have off site support and printing services. The idea is to be a self sufficient printing center. Hopefully the printers would be of quality that would need minimal fixing, or at least have technical support available unlike the reprap printers that we use. The use of 3D printers will help students with creativity, since you can print almost anything, and it is relatively cheap.
1. 3D printers are becoming more common and cheaper to obtain. Reprap type printers do not have the extreme precision of the multi- thousand dollar printers. Costing a couple of hundred dollars, it isn't impossible to imagine printers in households. They can be marketed to do-it-yourself people or even for children's toys. Just like we had easy bake ovens as children, we could have cheap printers that made custom shaped food. We will however see a big push to try and combat pirating of objects. This may hinder the advancement of 3D printing depending if there is government intervention. Schools could use the technology to bring ideas to life whether it was designing art projects or CAD-like models.
1. Libraries are an excellent place to have 3D printers, especially in a technologically advanced area such as a university. The possibilities are limitless for many different backgrounds as stated in the article about printers in libraries. One of the downsides is the cost of a 3D printer, which means all libraries couldn't afford one. If students had greater access to 3D printers, it would allow things such as models to be made with ease without consuming a lot of time. Even if you paid for the filament that was used, the public having access to this technology without buying a printer would be invaluable. It would be like renting a book from the library, except you would be renting time on the machine.
2. I mainly use the engineering library, since it has material that is relevant and useful for my studies. It would be valuable to have a 3D printer that students could use for projects like the EDSGN 100 students do with the print service that we are running. If funding permits, hopefully the technology will be integrated into libraries so that 3D printing can be affordable to everyone. Libraries that are accessed by architecture students could be great candidates for 3D printers because they could print the models that they usually make from hand from only a CAD file.
1. Patents for DRM will be detrimental to the 3D printing community. Patenting a way to control distribution of files is a huge opportunity to make money. It will cut down on freedom, and make more things illegal. This technology will definitely be used since companies will try their hardest to protect "intellectual" property. This is going to hurt the open source nature of the 3D printing industry. This DRM should be placed on for profit printers, since they are corporate run machines. If you build a printer from the ground up, it should be able to print every thing you want it to.
1. Optical sensing capabilities may make more precise devices such as computer mice, which no longer use a ball to track movements. The fewer the moving parts a device has, the less likely it is to break. as shown in the video, controllers will become more touch oriented by using light as a way to sense movement.
2. Light piping requires crystal clear fiber optic quality. There is no good way to print fiber optics currently, since usually fiber optics are glass based. Making the piping reflect light and not dissipate it is a challenge that needs to be overcome. We may be able to place pre-existing light pipes in while the printing is taking place.
3. Gaming systems such as PS3 might benefit from this technology since it would be possible to reduce the moving parts and reduce the possibility of buttons breaking or wearing out. Cell phones could be printed that are waterproof since the electronics would be contained in the material that it is printed from. It may mean that you would have to throw the phone away if it malfunctioned, but that is the direction phones are already moving with non user removable/ replaceable batteries. I currently don't have any ideas or projects that could use this technology.
Blog #6 1. I think bio printing could be an excellent medical innovation. If we are able to print parts like ears that are made of living tissue it could change medicine as we know it. The stem cell research is being done, which could provide a material to print with. Legal issues can arise when the printed organs don't live or function correctly which may result in lawsuits.
2. Repraps in university settings may be able to to do bio research, but I do not foresee personal uses of this technology. Sterility is a big concern when dealing with tissues and organs. Being able to keep the environment around the printer clean and at safe temperatures would be almost impossible for your average reprap owner. I think it is best if the professionals do the research that may impact our health at some point down the road.
1. The gun project has faced a setback, however I doubt this will stop progress completely. Since they don't have any way of printing now, time should be spent designing the guns, and also trying to get the FFL license. The goal is to distribute plans for making a gun, so that is comparable to selling weapons. If they go the legal route, they can be on the same level as companies with more credibility.
2. As someone who thinks it would be neat to try and print a gun, I think the element of safety should be most important. If everyone tries to print these out, and they all explode causing injuries, there will be a big problem. Regulation takes away freedom, but safety is a goal here. Most likely, gun manufacturers will not use the plastic parts to actually fire bullets, nut only to mock up parts that will be made of metal or stronger material. Regulation would have to come in the form of software from the manufacturers of the circuit boards being used. In the open source community, this will be very hard to do, at least for the printers that already exist.
3. I think that objects such as handcuff keys that are hard to obtain or illegal to carry will be a problem. The dutch police have had problems with the replication of their hard to reproduce handcuff key.
The 3d printing world seems to be moving away from being totally open source. Makerbot is a profit driven company, and is trying to capitalize on the fact that free support for setting up the machines is not making the company much money. Open source is good in theory, but the time it takes for everything to run well motivates people to make money instead of doing that for free. I think that we should move away from Thingiverse, because everything that has been uploaded they now own. Another site could easily be made that serves the same purpose, without having Makerbot own it. I agree with Prusa in that each person should remove their files from Thingiverse and not upload any more, since Makerbot has shut the open source world out.
Blog #3 1. DRM will most likely stay due to the possibility of profit being made. Either the files can be sold for profit, or enforcement of illegal downloading of the files by way of lawsuits are the two options. The creators of the files and designs don't want to give up their ideas for free, so that is why DRM will still be around.
2. I am passionate about helping the public have a better place to live. I will try to achieve this with my career as a Civil Transportation Engineer. The roads designed will hopefully help ease movement from place to place. I think this would be attracive to a mate with a higher intellect due to the engineering background.
3. 3D printing may kill intellectual property if there is still a way to distribute ideas and designs. Shutting down sites that host such material has become a goal of the government, so this is one obstacle for the 3D printing world. I agree that intellectual property should be killed, because it hinders creativity and modifications that make products better. Intellectual property allows the creator to reap the benefits of his or her design, but if the design could be better, the best design should survive.
1. His idea is feasible up to a point, which is the limitation of electrical hardware. Different materials can be printed, but the hardware such as the micro controllers would have to be manufactured elsewhere which is a limitation. With the evolution of the printers, small improvements are made and more printed parts can be used. Printers that are able to print circuits would help solve the problem with the electronics.
2. "Wealth without money" is an accurate description of 3D printing. These printers will allow regular people to do what industry can do but on a smaller scale. If there is a part you want to print, all that needs to be done is to make the file and the sky is the limit. There will be no more ordering parts from manufacturing that are not too specialized when you can just print them. It will probably mean tighter cracking down on patents and the associated CAD files of the objects.
3. The evolution from the Darwin design has been rapid and efficient. The open design of the RepRap community does wonders for the evolution of 3D printers, since new ideas are tested and shared throughout the community. Future designs for RepRaps may include being able to use metal and other stronger materials which would hold up better than the plastic being used today. More commercialized vendors of open source printers will probably have a hard time surviving due to the technical support aspect of maintaining a printer. The community will probably not want to support a for-profit private vendor, when there are endless opportunities in the RepRap open source community.
This is a filter cap for 3/8 in pipe. I have made pipe covers from cloth before, but a printed cap would be more durable and allow water to flow better.
This object was made by taking a mathematical surface and turning it into an actual object. It would be really hard to make this with any other method such as CNC milling, so that is one advantage of 3D printing.
I have seen this box made of wood before, but a printable model will do nothing for you as you cant keep the switch on.
iPhones are everywhere, and most people use them when eating lunch dinner etc. so the iSpork is a spork that attaches to your phone so that you can be the ultimate multi-tasker.
I think everyone could use a bowel disruptor at some point, but someone should figure out how to make a functioning model.