User:Bbv5002
Benjamin Visnesky
Sophomore at The Pennsylvania State University studying Mechanical Engineering
Blog Post #6 - October 16, 2012 - Printing Organic Objects
Bio-printing is one of the most impressive and potentially helpful uses for 3D printing that has been explored thus far. Using 3D printers to literally print human tissues, organs, and other objects made of cells has the potential to drastically alter the way medical research is done and maybe even eliminate the need for organ donors someday. Although this is an area of research that is relatively new, along with pretty much all of 3D printing, there has already been much progress. In the article How 3D Printers Are Reshaping Medicine, a company called Organovo is described as one company that is already using 'bioprinters' to print actual human tissues. This company produces custom tissues, designed for specific research projects of pharmaceutical companies. This technology is one that could have nearly infinite benefits, but could also create problems. Considering the amount of uproar over stem-cell research, and the idea that this type of technology would likely be able to make great use of stem cells, there are many legal and moral conflicts that need to be taken into consideration. With this taken into account, I think that if the bio-printing research could avoid using stem-cells to advance the technology, then perhaps it would be able to avoid the scrutiny of the media and politicians and instead simply continue to advance until the point where it can be useful for the general public. There are likely, however, technological problems to overcome with the technology as well. Life is a delicate thing, and the only machines that have been capable of replicating it in the history of the world (efficiently and reliably) are other living things.
In terms of using the RepRap project for printing bio-materials, I think that it is a possibility, but that most people probably wouldn't have the means. The places that would benefit the most, and have the most interest in utilizing bio-printing are chemical labs, pharmaceutical companies, and research universities. These are also the places, however, that would likely be able to afford a commercial bio-printer, or the services of companies such as Organovo. In my opinion, though many in the RepRap community might be interested in exploring bio-printing, most would be unlikely to have the means necessary to do so effectively. Since the materials required to print tissues and other organic objects would be living cells, these people would need to have the means to not only acquire the material, but also be able to store it. Furthermore, there would probably be some legal issues that people would run into. The government most likely doesn't want people handling and disposing of all sorts of organic materials without following the proper, safe procedures. That isn't to say, though, that it would be impossible to make a RepRap bio-printer, just unlikely and difficult.
Blog Post #5 - October 4, 2012 - 3D Printing Weapons and Other Regulatory Issues
3D printing is a technology that has a lot of potential to help tinkerers, hobbyists, and companies change the way things are designed and manufactured, but at the same time, the technology also has a lot of potential to allow people to do things that might be considered nefarious. One of these activities that might be considered nefarious, which has also been receiving a lot of media attention lately, is the construction of 3D printed guns. In the past week or so, a group known as Defense Distributed had a 3D printer, which it had leased from another company, repossessed because the leasing company found out that Defense Distributed was planning on creating 3D printed, plastic guns. This repossession seems unfair, but at the same time, who knows what may have been done with a 3D printed weapon made completely out of plastic; a weapon undetectable by security methods like metal detectors. The way I see it, by repossessing the 3D printer, the company Stratasys was protecting its investment as well as looking out for any legal issues it may run into for leasing their printers for the production of weapons. On the other hand, however, since it seems that the group is not creating guns for the purpose of selling them or using them to harm others, but rather just to see if they can do it, the repossession could be seen as unfair to them. Assuming that the group is only attempting the feat of manufacturing a gun using a 3D printing methodology in order to see if it can be done/improve the 3D printing technology/for their own, non-harmful purposes, I think that there are other routes to take to continue on with the project. If I were them, I would take the route of using with the RepRap project to build their own 3D printer to do with as they wish. This way, they don't have to go through other companies or agencies to get the technology they need for manufacture. It might still be considered illegal-ish by the government, because the group would still be manufacturing weapons, but Defense Distributed would at least be able to accomplish their goal of printing a plastic gun. Beyond guns, there are other items that might attract the attention of government and regulatory agencies that could be manufactured by a 3D printer. Items such as any sort of copyrighted or patented design (a topic which has been talked about thoroughly), or perhaps 3D printed drug paraphenelia, would likely draw the attention of either lawyers (of corporations) or the police. 3D printing is a very versatile technology that has a tremendous amount of potential for the creation and manufacture of products and designs, but the matter of the fact is that the technology could also be used for illegal purposes, as well as morally bad purposes.
This whole 3D printed, plastic gun ordeal does bring up a number of questions regarding whether or not a technology that allows the creation of just about anything should be regulated, and if so, in what ways. From the eyes of the federal government, as well as the general populace, it does seem perfectly reasonable to need to regulate a thing that can create guns, or at least parts of guns, that allow them to be essentially untraceable. I don't think something like a prohibition on 3D printers would need to be implemented in order to regulate the technology, but something like needing a license to operate a 3D printer of a certain size, or of a certain capability (e.g. being able to print multiple materials, super high resolution printing, etc), would be reasonable to implement and police - at least for commercially made 3D printers. As far as the RepRap project is concerned, regulation might be a little bit more difficult because people build the printers themselves rather than buying or leasing them from other companies. At the same time, perhaps RepRaps, at least in this point of time, wouldn't even need to be subject to the regulation. Since the RepRap community is mostly a community of tinkerers and hobbyists, the vast majority of people involved in the project have no criminal intentions. Furthermore, even if they did have criminal intentions, there wouldn't be anything stopping a person from building their own 3D printer, against any regulations put in place, anyways. Thus, it could be a moot point as to whether or not people should be allowed to build their own 3D printers or not. The only regulation that might be feasible for noncommercial 3D printers would be to have them registered with an organization of some sorts. That way there would at least be a list of who has a 3D printer.
Blog Post #4 - September 27, 2012 - Makerbot, Thingiverse, and What's Happening to Open-Source
In recent news relating to open source 3D printing and associated people, companies, and projects, the creator of Makerbot, Makerbot Industries, has been the target of intense feelings over using the open-source RepRap project as the basis for one of its products, the Replicator 2. Furthermore, the company has been criticized for a change in the terms of use for its popular site, Thingiverse, that essentially states how Makerbot Industries is the sole owner of any digital files uploaded by its users to the website, whether they be STL files or other file types. In my opinion, Makerbot is doing some things right and some things wrong. First of all, by creating a product that they intend to market to the general public as a device everyone could and should own, Makerbot is helping to further the awareness of 3D printing, and by extension, the RepRap project. However, by creating a closed-source product that is based on open-source information and technology, Makerbot is limiting the creativity and potential of the technology before its users know what the machines are capable of. Furthermore, the change in Thingiverse's terms of use that essentially renders all of the files uploaded by users to the site the property of Makerbot Industries creates an issue for many contributors because most of the work people upload to the site is work that was either the product of much labor or meant to help others with/improve the RepRap project. The fact that Makerbot is violating the trust of its most loyal users through what almost amounts to stealing their work is unacceptable. In this way, I think that Prusa's concerns are based on real problems. To play devil's advocate, however, Makerbot and Thingiverse have said that the reason's for this clause in the terms of service is so that the company can actually provide the service as described. Without the clauses, Thingiverse would be unable to properly manage and store the vast amount of files that are contributed by its users. As long as Makerbot continues to only use the clause for this reason, I believe everything will remain the way it has been since the sites inception. If Makerbot should choose to exercise what is technically their legal right and use its users ideas to make a profit, then the site will likely have a 'digital riot' on their hands. Until then, it doesn't seem to me to be much to worry about.
Blog Post #3 - September 18, 2012 - Intellectual Property, Copyright Issues, and Passions
Copyright Issues
Digital Rights Management is a technology that is used today in an attempt to limit the amount of digital media and software sharing that is possible. While the idea of such technology is good because it is designed to help the people who make music, or movies, or software (or anything that can be distributed digitally) obtain the money they are owed for their creative property, it can also be very limiting. Sometimes even when a person legally obtains a song or an application, because of digital rights management software included in the file(s), the ways in which the consumer can utilize the products they just purchased can be severely hindered. For example, if a person downloads a song from iTunes that includes DRM, that song become connected to the account with which it was purchased. Each computer or device that the consumer wishes to listen to this song on then has to be authorized with the account to play the music. However, only five computers/devices can be authorized at a time. Furthermore, if the consumer eventually needs to create a new account for whatever reason, it becomes even more of a task to be able to continue to listen to all of the music he or she may have bought using the former account. This is a problem many people have had to deal with since Apple Inc. began to implement DRM into its widely used iTunes software. This article provides a more detailed explanation of how DRM works in iTunes, for those who are interested. Getting more to the point, though, as 3D printing becomes more prominent and digital files containing models of physical products designed for consumer use become widespread, it seems inevitable that some sort of digital copyright management will need to be implemented. Whether or not it is good for the development of the technology, for the consumer, or for creativity in general, corporations and manufacturers will undoubtedly want to implement some sort of system that will disallow all of their profitable ideas from being spread around the internet for free. The way I think it would work is that when a person wants to buy a product or design which they would like to print, they will pay the manufacturer or retailer directly and then be able to download the file. The file, however, will be connected to an account with the store it was purchased from. The manufacturer or retailer would then also provide proprietary software which would be used to connect the computer to the printer. In order to use the software, the consumer would have to log in with their account information for the merchant. They would then be authorized to print whatever product or design it was that they purchased. Depending on what the product is, the manufacturer would most likely be able to limit the number of times it could be printed. Now in my opinion, this type of regulation would severely limit the creativity that could potentially result from the 3D printing platform. However, I think that something like this would be necessary in order to maintain a sustainable economy in the future. If large corporations were to suddenly become unprofitable, there would be dire implications for the world's economy.
Life Passions
Of the things I am passionate about in life, ideas, hobbies, activities - whatever they may be - I think the thing I am the most passionate about in life is music. Since I was a young kid, I have always loved music. My dad used to take me to concerts all the time. In fact, the very first concert I ever went to was Bruce Springsteen and the East Street Band. This was back in about second grade when I had no idea who Bruce Springsteen was, let alone the East Street Band, but regardless, I believe it to be a major reason why I love music so much now. Some people might think that music is a strange thing for an engineering major to be passionate about, but I say that's ridiculous. Music is something that is very free flowing in how it is composed and how it sounds to a listener, but is often times also something that is very structured and calculated. In this way I think it is similar to the field of engineering itself. Engineers obviously do many calculations and take a lot of measurements for whatever project they may be working on, but engineers are also very creative people when it comes to designing machines, mechanisms, or whatever they may be working on. I don't necessarily see this as a way to attract future mates, but then again, I've never really viewed it that way. I suppose it could, as it is probably a good indication of my personality traits, but I don't think it is something I would rely on to woo or win a girl's heart. But hey, you never know I guess...
On Intellectual Property
Intellectual property is an idea that has always confused me to an extent. Is it really possible to own an idea? I think intellectual property is something created by patenting and copyrighting ideas; the idea itself doesn't belong to a person or corporation, but rather the rights to profit from the idea. In this way, I think 3D printing could very well bring about the end of intellectual property, at least for the realm of physical objects. If it turns out that designs and models for objects manufactured by corporations become easily downloaded from the internet, then even if the idea of intellectual property still exists, in practice it will be meaningless. I think this will be both a good thing (for consumers and creators) and a bad thing (for businesses and the economy). For consumers, creators, and tinkerers, this ability to download schematics for all sorts of objects and mechanisms will be a boon never before heard of. These people will be able to tweak designs and products to their hearts desire to better suit their own purposes and intentions. For the people who make money from these products, however, they will need to adapt and find a way to continue to be profitable from the industry, or else find a new job. If 3D printing technology becomes ubiquitous one day, then it may become impossible for companies to be profitable from manufacturing goods. Instead, these companies will become manufacturers of ideas - churning out ideas for possible inventions and products rather than the products themselves. So while intellectual property may be on its deathbed and inventors and creators may have much to look forward to, there are other issues that will undoubtedly arise as a result.
Blog Post #2 - September 9, 2012 - RepRap Background: Then, Now, and in the Future
Universal Constructors
A Universal Constructor, as originally proposed by John Von Neumann, is an idea that, to most people, sounds like something out a science fiction film. A machine that can replicate itself? Impossible! There are, however, varying degrees of self replication. As Adrian Bowyer points out in his background piece on the RepRap wiki, Wealth Without Money, the initial idea for the Universal Constructor was something that could make its own parts and assemble them as well. This is a lofty goal, though, and as such, there are some things that only fulfill one component of the original Universal Constructor idea; some things can make their own parts, but cannot self assemble those parts, or vice versa. The RepRap project itself is a good example of a machine that can make its own parts, but is unable to assemble itself without the help of an outside party. However, just because that is as far as we have come to creating an ideal Universal Constructor so far does not mean that the original idea is not possible. The biggest obstacle to the achievement of this goal is technology itself. There are machines and technologies in existence today that a hundred years ago people would have considered magic or voodoo. In order to create a true self replicating machine, it will need to be possible to simply have raw materials available for the machine to process and turn into more self replicating machines. There are likely a multitude of ways in which this could occur, whether through artificial intelligence or advances in material sciences. Regardless, the main limitations to a true Universal Constructor coming to fruition is the current technology and the amount of time and money put into research and development of the idea.
"Wealth Without Money"
The phrase "Wealth Without Money" is an interesting concept. In today's society, most people consider wealth to be the equivalent of money; if you have a lot of nice things, a big house, lots of shares in a valuable stock, or even a stockpile of cash, you are considered to be wealthy. However, this phrase debunks that idea. With the idea of a Universal Constructor and the continued development of the RepRap project, soon wealth will not be the same as having a lot of money because the things that a person would buy with their money today, they will simply make with their Universal Constructor tomorrow. The implications of this idea, that anyone will someday be able to make anything, are resounding. If a person can make their own goods instead of buying them from a manufacturer who mass produces the same goods, it is great for the consumer because it is cheaper and requires only time and raw materials, but it is horrible for companies that manufacture goods and their employees because they no longer have a business. Furthermore, because of the prominence of the internet and file sharing, anybody with a Universal Replicator would literally be able to manufacture anything. As a result, anyone with access to the technology would be in effect infinitely wealthy. They could make whatever their heart desires with no regard for how much money it costs because cost would be a non-issue. To be honest, this idea is a great one, but a dangerous one. The possibilities are wide ranging and could have dire implications. For example, what happens when normal people start making weapons of mass destruction, or even just hand guns. These are things ideas that will need to be dealt with for the technology to be both successful and safe.
The Future of RepRap
In the years since its inception, the 3D printing and RepRap community have come a long way. However, the strides that have already been taken in the development of the technology are less an indication of its current greatness than the greatness it could one day embody. Today's 3D printers, for example, are not true Universal Constructors because they are unable to assemble themselves. With the continued development of the technology and input from the greater community, though, that could very well change. Someday RepRaps and 3D printers may be able to literally print out a working copy of themselves. Furthermore, more and more uses of the technology are being thought of. Innovators in the architectural and civil engineering fields have already adapted the technology, to an extent, in order to print out actual scale buildings and structures. Though the structure in this article is only a monument, modern art type of creation, someday the technology could allow for much more. Just think, being able to print an entire skyscraper with HVAC, electrical, and plumbing systems integrated directly into the structural components and walls of the building. Construction crews could be a thing of the past. This application, however, is only one of the nearly infinite possible uses of the 3D printing and RepRap technologies. It could also be used to create ornate drawings and paintings, make foods, or manufacture just about anything. The possibilities are nearly limitless.
Blog Post #1 - September 4, 2012 - Exploring Thingiverse
Thingiverse.com is a very cool website on which anyone can contribute designs for a wide variety of objects, which users of the site can then download and create using a 3D printer. I found exploring Thingiverse to be a great exercise in discovering the great variety of things that can be 3D printed, both useful and useless. These are just a few of the notable designs that I found while browsing the site.
Thing 1 (Useful) - Camera Lens Cover
~ This is a lens cap for a small, pocketable camera designed to prevent the lens damage while being carried in one's pocket. It is a one piece print and requires only minimal assembly.
Thing 2 (Artistic/Beautiful) - Fractal Lamp Shade
~ This is a lamp shade created to mimic the appearance of a fractal pattern. Because of its intricate features, I think it would be a very complex and difficult print, but at least one user in the Thingiverse community as successfully managed to print the design.
Thing 3 (Pointless/Useless) - 'Fire'
~ I suppose that some things are designed and created just for fun. This printable 3D 'fire' is a great example of that. Beyond having no actual purpose, in my opinion it does not really look all that much like fire...
Thing 4 (Funny) - Decorative Garden Frogs
~ These little decorative garden frogs are a good example of the more comical side of things that can be 3D printed. I find these frogs to be funny simply because of their goofy, quirky appearance. These frogs are also interesting, however, because the .stl files for them were made using a program called 123D Catch, which turns a set of 2D pictures of an item into a 3D rendering of that item. At least in this instance, the program worked extremely well.
Thing 5 (Weird) - Strange Sculpture
~ This is a thing that was derived from a statue of a lion that was posted to Thingiverse by another user, but was altered to feature a different head. As noted in the comments on the design, the head seems to resemble a young Frank Sinatra or perhaps Lee Harvey Oswald. Needless to say, it is a strange thing.
