User:Atk5083

Blog #5 Due 10/5/12

1. Imagine that you were a dedicated member of the DIY gun project: What might you do now?

If I were a dedicated member of the project I would carefully check all of the laws again and make sure that I would not be getting into any hot water with the federal government! I would seriously look into the rep rap community and use the funds that we raised to make our own printer, thus solving the leasing the expensive printer problem. That direction would be more under the radar.

2. Another article asks ”Should 3D printing, especially when it’s being used to create items like guns, be regulated? Can you regulate it?” Check your Blog #3 Questions 1 & 3 (and my comments to them) if you haven’t already. Do you have any more to say about this issue of 3D printer regulation (gov’t or corporate)?

I think the idea of 3D printing guns is scary, but there is no way to really regulate it. Once the plans for a printer are on the internet (or plans for anything) they are out in the public and can never really be totally destroyed without severely interfering with the entire structure of the internet and personal computers. The best way to regulate this kind of activity is to stop the sources of the 3d gun printing and to destroy the original files for these things, although there will always be copies out on the web, stopping this problem at the source is the only realistic way to do it. But hey, America is the "land of the free" and we are allowed by the second amendment to own weapons.

3. Guns (and other weapons) seem to be prone to prohibitions. What other 3D printable constructs might attract similar attention/derision/prohibition?

The unauthorized copying of keys for houses or cars should receive similar attention. Using this technology someone spiteful could copy a key and then take whatever that key opens. Other things that should receive similar attention are weapons and materials for making full automatic weapons.

Blog #4 Due 9/28/12

1.Comment on Makerbot’s position (as far as we know), Prusa’s concerns, and ownership of designs. Should we look for a new thingiverse?

As far as I know, Makerbot is only claiming the rights to the thingiverse so that they can use things off of it to put into their products without getting sued. The fact that they make money off of that information that they freely and legally get off of people is kind of evil...especially if their new model is closed source (even though much of it has come off of reprap). Prusa's reaction is an interesting one....from the article that we read it seemed that none of the information about the new printer was factual, only based on rumor. Prusa could be crying wolf just to get the community all up in a stir about thingiverse, he is clearly trying to shift the community to a different website so who says that he does not have a motive for spreading this "news" about the new Makerbot. He could just be jealous that he did not get a piece of the pie and now is trying to hurt the company by trying to shift the public's opinion about them. Although I am not completely well read or informed about this subject it seems that the thingiverse polices are not new from makerbot and the closed model is only a rumor.

Blog #3 Due 9-21-12

1. It seems that 3D printing isn’t going to disappear, but the exact nature in which it will develop is not well defined. On that note, we currently place restrictions (DRM) onto our media to control distribution, with limited ‘success’. Do you think this might be applied to 3D printing? How or why not?

I do not think that realistic restrictions can be placed on open source printing. Perhaps websites like thiniverse can be regulated, but the building and operation of the machine cannot be limited. This is simply because the items needed to build the printers are not rare things and can be easily obtained for different uses. For that reason, not any governing body can place restrictions on the reprap community for creating and using these machines. Also, the instructions and designs are already out on the internet which means that there are possibly thousands of copies amongst the community.

2. According to Bowyer, many people have a great idea (or perhaps a passion) that they love to tell people about. What is yours? Do you see this as a way to attract future mates (or to get money?) Why/why not?

I have a few great ideas, but I am keeping that intellectual property to myself! Just kidding...I think all the time about alternate energy sources, or different ways to make peoples lives better. At this point in my life I am more concerned with making money than finding a mate and I guess that my thoughts about my passions do reflect that the ideas that I generate are there for the purpose of eventually selling them. In regards to finding a mate these days, I think people who are engineers, accountants, or doctors are not unattractive for using their intelligence for somethings concrete . Instead they are just as thoughtful as poets, musicians, and artists because the products that the technical side produce (although they also are made for money) do help people in their everyday lives. Also, unfortunately sometimes today's society values money more than wit which I suppose makes the technical "geeks" more attractive!

3. Professor Bowyer seems to think that 3D printing will finally kill intellectual property, and he sounds pleased about it. Do you think he’s right about ending IP? Is this a good thing, a bad thing, or somewhere in-between?

Somewhere in between I suppose. An advantage would be that some products would evolve quicker and better without the bounds of intellectual property, however I think that because of intellectual property the strong ideas have withstood the test of time and only serious competition could compete with the best ideas. Many of Bowyer's ideas seem too romantic and unrealistic to be achievable in the real world, or at least the world that we live in now. If we have a new generation that we teach to share in the way that he envisions then maybe it would be possible, but with the older generations now these ideas would seem like doom. I do not think 3D printing has the power to kill all intellectual property simply because you cannot 3D print a car with better quality than you can make one now.

Blog #2 Due:9-13-12

1. Do you think his goal of a ‘self-replicating universal constructor’ is feasible? What remains to be done to achieve this, or alternatively what would prevent such a goal?

Perhaps such a machine is possible, however from what I have seen so far some work needs to be done. For example producing the microchips, motors, and assembly items is still an outside process. Also a machine that creates and assembles a new "child" is still somewhat science fiction. The closest thing could possibly be an automated manufacturing line, but those are many machines with some human intervention involved. The 3d printing project is on a very interesting path and someday they could maybe realize this goal (as long as large cooperations do not try to crush them)

2. The phrase “wealth without money” is both the title of his article and the motto of the reprap project itself. What does this phrase mean? (To him and to you if they differ). Discuss implications, problems, and possibilities associated with this idea.

The basic idea is to be self-sustainable without having the need for money and to reduce industrial manufacturing by creating wealth for yourself with one of these machines. Maybe the main problem with this statement is that it is totally backwards from what most people are taught by today's society and that no matter how you produce goods (in your home or in a large manufacturing plant) there will be people that will try to make a profit and to control the money associated with this project. Also as the author states, some people will make things less durable because they can make another one, this shows that the progress of development might slow down if everyone can produce cheap products by themselves, then there is no need to make things better.

3. The Darwin design was released in 2007. It is 2012 now. Imagine future scenarios for RepRaps and their ‘cousin’ 3D printing designs (Makerbots, Ultimachine, Makergear, etc.) how do you think the RepRap project (community, designs, website, anything and everything) might evolve in the future? Describe as many scenarios as you can envision.

The community and associated websites are already impressive. I think a more useful version of thingaverse will come about. A website that is easy to search for any products around the house that you can make with their respective designs. That idea will push the wealth without money motto in the right direction. Also making these machines better known about and easier to purchase or put together would also expand the usage of the machines. The article written by the creator of this project is idealistic, but not unrealistic. I think that better resolution or multi colored printers will also be in the future of the next generation.

Senior ME student at PSU working on RepRap in class.

Blog #1

1: Useful

This thing is very simple, but also very useful. In the case that you misplace the battery cover for any electronic device, this thing has you covered (literally). To help keep the batteries in place for sanity or safety reasons this thing is useful in every day life.

2: Beautiful

This thing I found is a mechanical clock. The way it is fabricated and has an open setup to watch the clock move is interesting. In my opinion it is a beautiful machine that someone took a lot of time and effort to construct.

3: Pointless

This thing I found is a CTRL-Z Ring, which you can punch the thing you want to undo and supposedly it is undone. This is humorous but very pointless as well because it does not have any function.

4: Funny

This thing is a desk catapult and I think the idea of having a catapult on your desk at work would be a fun addition to the office. It is a conversation starter and it deters annoying coworkers. It is humorous that someone would design something like this and I am glad they shared it on thingverse.

5: Weird

This thing is a pet monster that someone designed. It is called Frankensteam because it is a compilation of different strange parts including the possibility of a bottle opener arm, which also makes this thing useful.