User:Jarred

From RepRap
Revision as of 16:33, 30 April 2014 by Jarred (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Hi, I am Jarred Glickstein Find me on my website and on The Thingiverse.

Bonus Blog 3

Blog 15: Blog 11 Reflection

Blog 14: Blog 8 Reflection

Wenxin compared intellectual property in objects to intellectual property in the film industry. She mentions that "object piracy" could be beneficial to manufacturers of goods because, just like piracy in the film industry, it pushes the product's makers to be more creative and innovative. I disagree with this statement because I believe piracy makes the product have less potential value regardless of creative and innovative investments. Regardless of the work you put in, piracy takes a toll on potential revenues and therefore I do not believe object piracy would push creators to be more creative. Perhaps it would make creators strive to be more closed and secretive, but if we are to expect 3D printed parts to rival those made by other manufacturing means, there would be no way for the owner of an idea to prevent their designs from being replicated out of control.

Anthony believes IP will become difficult to enforce in regards to 3D printing. I agree with this statement, though I also believe there are products which 3D printers will not be able to make. At the least, there will always be products better suited to other manufacturing methods such as things made of non-printable materials, or products which are by their nature not something that would be produced by a 3D printer such as an automobile.

Eva mentions open source can/should only go so far. After all, the people who invest hours of work into creating something should be getting compensation for their work. I agree and believe we have to look at the distinction between things made as side hobbies and design work that cuts into work hours and sleep hours. When someone invests a lot of work into designing a product or part, the person should have the opportunity to receive compensation from people who find the part helpful.

Eva makes mention of Creative Commons licenses as an opportunity for designers and inventors to retain the rights to their intellectual property but give away the design for free such that individuals may make use of it. I think this is a good idea but it is critical to mention Creative Commons (enforceability)


Blog 13: Blog 7 Reflection

Wenxin brings up an interesting point about 3D printing laboratory equipment. She says it could be used to give more people the chance to study science and make the necessary equipment accessible. I did not think about this aspect of 3D printing laboratory equipment. It would help me to make some of the equipment I need for my home lab, which I have been forced to dismiss as unavailable due to cost constraints.

Anthony made the point that making lab equipment more accessible could aid in research in areas which are underfunded. He also mentions that controversial research could be made more feasible. I do not know how I should feel about "controversial" research and would have to carefully consider whether I would be comfortable putting out designs for open source laboratory equipment knowing the sorts of things someone could do with it.

Nam linked to a designer on Thingiverse who makes a large collection of open source scientific instruments availible. He also made a good point in mentioning the article about a 3D printed nanoscope is highly misleading. The title suggests the article includes building instructions, but I could not find any.

Yuan Chai talks about how he is trying to design a jig for a transducer, which as mentioned in class could save a lot of money for Dr. Ruud. Printing the parts costs much less than ordering a replacement from the manufacturer. Also, it was clever that he mentioned the RepRaps built in 312. I never thought to consider them research equipment simply because I am so accustomed to working with 3D printers. However, it is worth noting that 3D printers certainly are research equipment that we can and are printing a lot of.

Blog 12: Blog 5 Reflection

Wenxin's blog 5 discussed some of the 3D printing in the film industry which she shared in her show and tell presentation. She also mentions 3D printing being used in constructing buildings and identifies a particular event as not particularly important. I would disagree with this. Although I do not like the idea of 3D printing buildings simply because I prefer traditional manufacturing for large scale buildings, it marks a significant achievement to say we can print buildings even if we do not. It also has some potential applications which can make housing more affordable.

Anthony mentioned Thingiverse in his blog. This is something I was happy to see. Some people have abandoned Thingiverse over the years for one reason or another, leading to fragmentation into far too many tiny object repositories online. Thingiverse stands out as the strongest of these communities and I am happy that Anthony is so enthusiastic about owning a printer after graduation. I do not have an opinion on 3D printing being used to explain theoretical physics. It might seem strange, but if it works I see nothing wrong. On the other hand, surely there are better ways to teach theoretical physics.

I feel really old in saying this, but Eva's mention of the RepRap Darwin achieving partial self replication back in 2008 made me remember I was there. No, not physically there, but I was involved in 3D printing and the RepRap project back then. Anyway, I agree with Eva that the article about Lady Gaga wearing 3D printed dresses has a bit of an over crediting title, but I think Lady Gaga's wearing 3D printed clothing is actually of significance. Whether we like it or not, getting information to mainstream consumers is difficult and the only way to reach mass market awareness is to identify with the things mass market consumers concern themselves with. Lady Gaga's unofficial endorsement of 3D printing likely helps spread the word about 3D printing to individuals who would have otherwise not heard of it. 3D printing dresses has been done before, and I have personally seen 3D printed dresses and outfits well before the article about 3D printing them was published by Forbes. That is because I read tech news and go to tech conventions. Without someone in mainstream media to call attention to it, any technology will remain in the niche world of techie conventions.

Nam mentioned 3D printing a guitar as not so important. Wenxin also made this distinction. I disagree. I think 3D printing has the potential to be game changing in a lot of different areas. Just as I mentioned earlier regarding my view on 3D printing buildings, it is important to recognize that different people want different things out of technologies. Also, looking at the printed guitar body, I am trying to imagine how it would be manufactured if it were not 3D printed.

PrintedGuitar.jpg

Looking at other class members' blogs, Brian Prentice's blog stood out to me. As with Lady Gaga wearing 3D printed dresses, 3D printing a model of an unborn child is something which is a landmark achievement my classmates underestimate. In addition to the aforementioned public awareness and public relation which can be formed, the fact that an unborn fetus can be scanned and an accurate model produced is fascinating on its own. The technology involved in making this scan and printing the model can then be used for other applications as well. Printing models of unborn children touches the hearts of the public and this is necessary. I always strongly believe that final results which improve lives, regardless of how it is accomplished, are important. In this case, it is by making something new available that expecting mothers and their husbands can use to interact with their unborn child.

Blog 11: Show & Tell

I really enjoyed Wenxin's show and tell presentation about 3D printing in the film industry. It was fascinating to hear about all the different ways 3D printing has been used in films. I have seen a lot of special effects props used in the past, and none of them were made with the help of a 3D printer. It was all made by hand. It will be interesting to see how this technology impacts film in the future and whether it saves money for people in the film industry. If it is much less expensive to use 3D printed materials for props, it might even lower some of the barriers to entry and enable more people to become producers.

I used to imagine real buildings and cars being destroyed in films. Very old and non-useful buildings and cars, but still actual buildings and cars all the same. The only other thing I could think of would be to make small scale models and edit them into the background of a scene. Even with my experience in 3D printing I never imagined it would be used for such an application.

Blog 10: Hot Tips

To start off this blog I would like to point your attention to Recreus, a company which produces Filaflex, a flexible filament. Their website has been unavailable on occasion, so you might not be able to view it. Anyway, their flexible filament demonstrates why hot tip design is so important. On their website, they give information about how to best print with their filament. Part of their suggestions include having a PTFE insulated hot tip and a design which prevents the filament from being exposed (there cannot be a gap between the drive gear and the tube feeding into the nozzle.)

I personally use Makerbot extruders and Makerbot-style extruders, which are also commonly referred to as j-heads although that term refers to a broader definition of the hot tip. I am a huge fan of j-heads because of their tendency to be all bolt-together components. This makes them significantly more repairable. The downfall of these hot tips is that they typically require a fan to prevent them from overheating. If they are not cooled enough, the heat will creep up the hot tip and melt the filament where it contacts the extruder drive gears.

There exists a huge variety of hot ends to choose from, and the page I linked to only includes those which are included in the RepRap Wiki. I have not had any experience with any of the hotends listed on that page apart from J-heads. I will say however that I really like hotends which use groovemounts. It seems to be a good system for universal extruder attachment.

Less specific to the type of hot end, I prefer thermocouples over thermistors. Thermistors are much cheaper to use, but also more fragile. I have found it is easier to attach a thermocouple because it can be bolted onto the heater block securely.

I have found a few hot ends which I have been looking into. I have plenty of hot ends but I have been interested in different designs. One which I have found is this all metal hotend made by Micron E.M.E., a CNC hardware manufacturer. I find it strange that they sell their 3D printing parts through eBay, but they have pictures of them being manufactured and it looks interesting. The price is ridiculous, but you get a fully assembled all-metal dual extruder. The only concern I would express is whether or not an all metal extruder is really a good idea. Since I work primarily with j-heads, I know from experience that heat conducting up the extruder and into the plastic near the drive gear is disastrous. During long prints, the metal body of the extruder might conduct too much heat.

I have also found B3 Innovations, a company which makes a small, open source, all metal hotend. Their hot end seems like an innovative design because of it's size (I am used to tiny extruders and prefer to stick with them) and because of their method for attaching a thermistor. They claim to have found the optimal place to position the temperature sensor and developed a system for securing a thermistor in that place with a pin. This might make using a thermistor not such a bad option.

B3 Innovations also sells filament, actually. At the moment they only stock PC and it is sold for the price of $71.50/kg. They source their filament from a small business so that would explain the high cost.

It might be a bit difficult to tell before building a relationship with a vendor, but I find any hot tip is better when you purchase it from a vendor who offers proper support and fills orders correctly. As I am currently battling with QU-BD to get the correct parts for the extruder I purchased last June, I would definitely go out of my way to NOT recommend buying anything from them. Ever. Part of the battle with hot ends is finding a reliable source for the components. Whether you spend $70 or $500 on a hot end, it needs to be purchased from a reliable and reputable business or we will not actually get working and well made parts.

Blog 9: Filament Sourcing

I will start with the third prompt as I do not need to pretend I am shopping for filament - I do! I buy most of my filament from 3D Ink. I have been buying from them for years now and their filament has always served me well. Years ago they had the best prices around, although they have slowly had to raise prices closer to competitors and are now $30/kg. I have not purchased in bulk from them in a while but I can say I got a good discount for a bulk order a few years ago, so it might be worth asking.

I also buy filament from MakerBot. 3D ink does not have such an amazing colour palette available and MakerBot has many. MakerBot has been selling filament at $48/kg. With the release of their new 5th generation printers, they now have a new spool size, called a "large" spool, which is .9kg. The price for these spools will remain the same so the price of filament from MakerBot will soon be $53-73 depending on which colour (for ABS and PLA). They have dissolvable filament for $65/kg and, since it is listed as soluble in limonene, I believe their dissolvable plastic is HIPS.

In the past, RepRap community members have done bulk deals with Village Plastics, formerly a plastic welding rod supplier. This is one of the first ways that we 3D printer users got spools of pre-made filament. It seems they have unfortunately been bought by 3D Systems, so I would not recommend buying from them. I am not so happy with 3D Systems' consumer 3D printers, and with their recent attack on the company formerly known as QU-BD, now known as Quintessential Universal Building Device llc. However, they are still a supplier.

The worst supplier I have purchased from is Inventables. They charge $39/kg, which is not a bad price, but their filament is extremely impure. Based on the smell of the filament (which I have been advised to stop using as a metric due to health concerns), I do not believe this filament is so great. I have also not had such great success printing with this filament. It constantly jams in my nozzle.

Taulman 3D has nylon filament available. Nylon filament is unique in that it can be tye-dyed to create interesting effects. We could have multi-colour filament which creates objects with interesting patterns. Nylon is also a much stronger material than ABS or PLA, and Taulman 3D advertises the ability to create much more functional parts. It is worth checking out to create multi-coloured prints without a dual extruder. Or, if dual extruders were to be used for support material and an object, it would give the ability to have a multi-coloured print *using* support material, with only two extruders.

Another note, I have discovered this page on Taulman 3D's website discussing 3D printing as a disruptive technology due to copyright concerns. It is an interesting read which should inform more discussion relevant to Blog 8.

I have also been looking into a special filament that, due to it's relevance to the next blog, will be revealed along with blog 10. Until next time!

Blog 8: IP and 3DP

Copyrights, patents, trademarks and trade secrets are four distinct methods for protect intellectual property. I will discuss each one and their similarities/differences. First of all is copyright. Copyright protects "original works of authorship" according to the US government. It is a method for the protection of a tangible method for expression of an idea. For example, an aesthetic design can be copyrighted. One of the best examples I can think of is websites. You can copyright your own website's overall look and design. This enables a person or entity to claim ownership of a particular stylization. Copyrights are good for one-hundred years.

Patents are different from copyrights because they protect the actual idea behind something. MakerBot patented their Automated Build Platform because it was a unique and intuitive product. This patent protected the idea of having an auto-ejecting platform on a 3D printer, regardless of appearance. The patent allowed MakerBot the exclusive right to prohibit other entities from replicating and selling their product. By nature of the patent filing process, explicit details of the patented device are made publicly available.

Trademarks are words or phrases which represent a company or their products. For example, MakerBot trademarks the names of their printers, such as the Replicator 2, to prevent other companies from selling products by an identical name. The idea of trademarks are to protect the brand associated with a particular name. Interestingly enough, you do not have to pay for a trademark to get one. You just have to start using it. There are also further legal avenues available in regards to trademarks. Trademarks do not protect any ideas or products, but merely protect the name of a product or brand.

Trade secrets are secret information which is withheld from the public for the sake of protecting it's use as a competitive advantage. Popular examples include the formulae for Coca-Cola and Pepsi. On a 3D printer related note, Stratasys sells a type of plastic they call ABSplus, which is a special plastic blend they offer for their printers. The name ABSplus is a trademark, and the actual formula for the composition of the plastic is a trade secret as it is protected.

The article given in the prompt talks a lot about how intellectual property enforcement could become next to impossible in a world where 3D printers can make anything with any functionality. The five Is are infringement, identification, impracticality, impossibility, and irrelevancy. These five terms refer to the future of copyrights in a world where anyone can make anything. It becomes trivial for any individual to copy a copyrighted work, difficult to identify as copied work, impractical/impossible to enforce, and irrelevant due to the level of sharing of ideas. I strongly disagree with this perspective as, first of all, the likelihood of being able to make absolutely everything is extremely unlikely. There will always be things that cannot be made on a 3D printer.

As was said on the first day of class, "when you have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail." I think the author of this article is blinded by this perspective and fails to realize the impracticality of a singular machine for the creation of all other things. In addition, IP will always have its place. It is nice to see so many people sharing ideas between one another, but IP creates strong industry and encourages innovation in different areas. A lot of copyright and patent law is overused for malicious intentions, such as Apple's crude attempts at patenting rubber bands, springs, rectangles, aluminium, etc. However, I have faith that the intended motives of the systems in place to protect intellectual property are worthwhile to keep in mind because of the benefits they hold. When used ethically to protect innovative and clever new inventions, intellectual property protection creates opportunities for innovators. I do not approve of patents being overused as methods to viciously attack competitors in the market, such as Apple's tendency to sue everyone and everything. I am certain if Apple's lawyers were to read this article they would try to sue me for defamation and claim I am abusing their patented work, the word "Apple". At that point IP is taken far out of hand.

Creative commons is a useful sort of licensing but it does not have the legal backbone necessary to truly protect work. By the intended nature of CC licenses this is often unnecessary as CC licenses are intended to be looser than copyrights and other IP protection. It also offers the promising ability to share and modify designs freely while still respecting the author of the work.

Blog 7: Research Equipment

I think the idea of more accessible lab equipment for developing countries or to save money regardless is a worthwhile venture. I would however not immediately seek the use of a 3D printer to make all lab equipment necessary until it is assessed what should and should not be printed. With that said, I cannot think of any lab equipment we have printed. I have made a dremelfuge, a 3D printed miniature centrifuge found here, as well as a graduated pipette but have not made anything at this school.

As for the printable AFM nanoscope, I would be hesitant to call it "printable" as the entire thing is not comprised entirely of plastic parts. I think a good 3D printer could produce useful parts for such a device, but it is important to also realize not everything is best made on a 3D printer, especially as far as precision laboratory equipment is concerned. The open source nature is critical for it to be accessible to people in many places. Some people may want to build some parts out of different materials, and with the source plans for the products available, it makes it possible for people anywhere to bootstrap the process of building the device. I think the importance is this accessibility

Anyone with access to the tools used to make the nanoscope (Legos and a 3D printer) could also make the actual designed device. While I would question the accuracy of printed parts, I know parts can be made with good accuracy. If this was not open source, it would not be accessible to smaller communities. As the first article mentions, large companies charge high prices for a lot of their products. Open source laboratory equipment which can compete with the expensive corporate products can provide access to these smaller communities. It could also help ease budget stress in any laboratory and give hobbyists around the world access to lab equipment.

Blog 6: Direction of Future Projects

One of the most significant ventures to explore moving forward is dual extruders. My interest in dual extruders lies in the potential for using a dissolvable support material to print extremely complex objects. Currently we are limited by overhangs and other structures which are not deemed printable. In many cases, we can worth through those challenges by designing parts to be printable. In my personal work, I am often faced with a need to print parts for myself which would be difficult to design as printable. More often I am asked by other people to print parts which are difficult to print, but I am unable to tell the person I am printing for that he or she needs to come up with a different model for it to be printable. It is my hope that dual extruders would let us push past that.

Plastic extruders jam a lot (in my experience, but mileage may vary). They have a variety of benefits and drawbacks, which similarly influences my above statement that some things are printable and others are not. If we invest time in syringe extruders, we will be able to work with a much greater variety of materials. This in turn would enable the printing of parts under different constraints. We could also make flexible parts out of silicone, strong hardware parts with epoxy, and other things in between. My class group is considering syringe extrusion as a part of our project. This overarching theme could enable a variety of projects which we have not thought about as there has been a limit to the sorts of materials we can use. Therefore I have no practical world projects to suggest so much as I expect the concept of paste extruders has the potential to unlock a variety of new possibilities.

In the end, my interest in syringe extruders is driven by one of my personal philosophies that, when something gets difficult to work with, I like to trade my headache for a new headache. Whether syringe extruders are the be all and end all solution to the worlds' problems or not is questionable, but it will be a different challenge than the one we are working with now. Plus, we could frost cupcakes.

Blog 5: Time

This may be from a while back, but Arduino was first released in 2005. I consider this to be an extremely significant and noteworthy event on the timeline. Arduino makes a lot of projects possible, including 3D printers. Many 3D printers use Arduinos, and many use electronics that grew out of an Arduino such as the Sanguino or Makerbot electronics.

In July 2012, researchers created the first artificial liver using 3D printing technology. This a very important event that marks the beginning of a new era of medicine. 3D printing has the potential to create a world where anyone in need of a replacement organ can get one without being on a waiting list. We have seen the significance of Robohand and how many people it has touched. Imagine what will happen if/when 3D printing can re-create a hand from human tissue.

I added several events to the media timeline. First, in 2007, the RepRap Research Foundation was founded. This was a venture by Zach Hoeken which made 3D printer parts more accessible to people who want to get involved. This event is of paramount significance. Considering the RepRap is made by a RepRap, I remember having difficulty in building my first printer. My first two printers were made out of wood and did not work well. It was the RRRF that really made parts accessible to me and many other people who wanted to get involved but faced the barrier of inaccessibility. This event is worth thinking about. Over the years I have seen 3D printers become much more accessible. It is due to the RRRF and similar ventures that I myself was really able to get involved. When I started to build my first printer in 2006, I could not even afford the electronics because getting PCBs made was too expensive. The RRRF is an often underlooked yet significant game changer in getting 3D printers to people who want them.

In May 2008, the first grandchild RepRap was assembled. This was the second time a RepRap had created another RepRap and it was an exciting beginning to the concept of a RepRap making its own parts. I also added the founding of MakerBot Industries in early 2009. They created the first easily buildable do-it-yourself 3D printer kit and went on to churn out a lot of innovation in the realm of 3D printers.


Blog 4: Reflections

This week I was asked to read the blog posts about the Open Source Ecology project made by my team mates and other class members and note any thoughtful points I did not touch on. I started by reading my team mates blogs. Wenxin mentioned OSE can be used to maximize profit by manufacturers, which I did not think about. I was focusing more on making technologies accessible to people who otherwise could not access them. She also cites efficiency and convenience, offering OSE as a solution in cases where a non-open source machine is not as fit for the job or would be less accessible. This makes me think about how I could use these machines as more accessible forms of machines I use already.

Anthony brings up the point of practicality in a developed nation. I did not mention this directly in my post. He says it would be rather impractical to implement Marcin's civilization starter kit in a developed nation because it requires you to start "from scratch". I would have to partially disagree. I agree it would not be likely to see many people in, say, the United States building every machine he has in the civilization starter kit. However, I believe the project has the potential to make some tools more accessible to people in any country. You do not have to use everything he designs.

Nam and Eva both saw some more positive notes in the New Yorker article. I seemed to miss any hint of a supportive attitude in the New Yorker article, but Nam (while he does call the article a criticism) says the article's discussion of some of the people who tried to participate in the project is true and worth consideration.

Outside of my group, Graham Deever thought service related clubs and groups might be interested in Open Source Ecology to enhance helping people in need. Graham, Kyle Casterline, and Carson Geib all comment that the New Yorker article is unnecessarily critical and overly cruel. I did not make such a remark in my blog. It is my belief that a positive outlook is better than a negative one. However, in this case, seeing this article as extremely critical is entirely accurate. I do not know the motive of the article's author

Lee Schwartz and Kevin Moyer both discuss the potential threat posed by Open Source Ecology to mass manufacturers of these products. I did not consider the reaction of large companies when I investigated Open Source Ecology. With consideration to OSE's open source nature, it would be challenging to fully "shut down" this project, although, like other open source projects in the past, it could be made difficult to access design files and conduct further research.

Blog 3: Robohand

This design is called Robohand, and it was created by Ivan Owen, a designer in Seattle, WA, and Richard Van As, a carpenter in South Africa. You can read more about the project and its origins on their project website. It began in early 2011 when Van As lost several fingers in an accident. This pushed him to want to design something in response, and led to his eventual collaboration with Ivan Owen. In early 2013 Ivan flew to South Africa to collaborate with Richard Van As directly. They were approached by a lady looking for help for her child, who suffered from Amniotic Band Syndrome, a condition which can prevent the proper formation of limbs in newborns. The duo was able to craft a new hand for the child out of metal parts.

Eventually, Makerbot donated a 3D printer to each of them to assist in their design process. One thing led to another and Robohand was born. You can print your own version with their design on Thingiverse, or contact the people who are involved in the project on their website. Unfortunately, the newest versions of their designs are no longer open source and released for free. It is still the goal to make the technology accessible, but the open source nature of the project turned bad.

Makerbot created their own snap-together version of the Robohand. This version was intended for publicity, but some people in the community actually printed it and tried to use it. The real Robohand is designed to be made with stainless steel and medical orthoplastic in addition to printed parts. However, the snap-together version is both weak and liable to cause skin damage and infections if used in the place of a proper Robohand. Robohand gives this information on their FAQ page and uses it as an explanation as to why they had to stop releasing their project designs. If you read this article, at the bottom of the article it describes Makerbot's Robohand as a "new version" and uses that to explain how fast 3D printing improves designs. This is an issue because Makerbot's derivative is not a "new and improved" version, but rather something which confused the community.

Further Reading:

Blog 2: Open Source Ecology

When I watched Marcin's TED talk I got the feeling this project has high potential. The Open Source Ecology project is absolutely astounding. I would describe this effort as a positive and potentially world changing effort to put basic technologies in reach of anyone.

There are people around the globe live without houses. Those people have to spend days on end making bricks to build a house. If those people had access to the plans to make an open source brick press, their lives would be changed. Suddenly the basic human need of housing, formerly difficult to attain, is brought within the reach of many people who can now produce bricks faster and spend less time on such a basic need. It frees people. Such is the idea of the OSE project, which aims to free people and empower the world with the ability to build industrial machines and maintain cilvilized living for yourself. They publish fairly regular videos documenting their progress on Vimeo.

The latest update to their development blog was made last November and showcased an open source 100W lasercutter. This effort proves the potential of the project to have a wide scope and that the fifty tools they are developing have the potential to enable you to make anything.

The New Yorker's article was an interesting critique which offered insight into what really happens on the farm Marcin Jakubowski, the OSE project founder, purchased to be the foundation for his open source civilization. A lot of the article reveals appalling living conditions and a lack of work effort on the part of some of the inhabitants. It mentioned comments made by people who had been a part of the project at one point or another. Many cited a lack of skills, stating the project had a lot of interested individuals who were more interested in the idea of the project than they were actually able to help. I find this critique interesting as it reminds me of the idea of the invisible hand in economics. Economists use the idea of the invisible hand to explain why things fall into place - as in why, without someone dictating each thing to do, modern life fell into place piece by piece, owing its creation to millions of people with skills. The New Yorker article pointed out that the OSE project has an ambitious goal with specific steps to get there. I think that by dictating what will happen and what the goal is, it makes the project difficult to achieve in comfortable. I have no doubt that the goal of designing fifty open source machines is achievable, but the idea of being totally self sufficient from the beginning is unthinkable, as the article indicates, because it forces people to live without heat, cooling, clean water, and even food while trying to put together these machines.

Marcin's response to the article clarified the purpose of the project. He redefines the scope of his project, which is specifically to create the fifty open source machines he identified as the basis for civilization. He specifically mentioned that it is not their goal to create a commune or other small community. This was a view that the New Yorker article pushed, but Marcin retorts it as innacurate. The poor living conditions mentioned in the New Yorker article, according to Marcin, are due to his pushing all of his funding into building machines. It is not a lack of resources so much as it is an intentional focus on just the project. Marcin is so focused on his project he is willing to give up conveniences of modern life.

When I think of Marcin's project, I see his goal as giving people access to information, and by extension access to machine tools. I do not think the administration would be willing to support such a thing, but I think the administration should. It would be the goal of our own OSE project to provide access to basic and complex machines to students. Considering this is a university, that seems like a good way to enhance our learning. Marcin stated in his TED talk that he graduated with a PhD and "realized [he] was worthless". Imagine if we had access to practical machine tools now. We could produce things for ourselves, and upon graduation have more confidence in our skills, more self-sufficiency, and a greater appreciation for the skills required to produce products. I cannot think of any specific professors or students who would be interested in this project. However, if I was going to look for allies in such a project, I would identify people with a common interest but different skill sets. I would want people with a variety of talents and abilities, a positive attitude, and the willingness to do work. From the way the OSE project is designed, funding should not be as much of a hurdle as one might think, as we would be building our own machines. Much like building open source 3D printers for $500 or so rather than buying $500,000 stereolithography machines, an open source machine project makes a variety of tools and machines more attainable.

Blog 1: Objects from Thingiverse

GothicCathedral.jpg

Something Amazing/Beautiful

This Gothic Cathedral Playset design was posted to Thingiverse just less than two months before I got my first 3D printer working. I remember how astounding it was that it was printable. At that time it was a huge stretch to be able to make this. 3D printing has come a long way since then but this model remains astounding.




BreOfLiberty.jpg

Something funny or strange

Bre Pettis, cofounder of MakerBot Industries, had no idea what he was getting himself into when he uploaded a model of his head to Thingiverse. The Bre of Liberty is just one of many strange mashups made with various objects. If you direct your attention to a Thingiverse search for "Bre mashup", Bre has been mashed up with a dolphin, a bust of Beethoven, and more!




PrintedCupcakeCNC.jpg

Something useless

This is a printable Cupcake CNC chassis. I do not like to judge other people's work, especially not to the degree of calling someone's work useless. However, my adventures in 3D printing have shown that there is a time and place for every machine. The MakerBot Cupcake CNC chassis was made on a laser for a reason. Printing it out of tiny interlocking squares seems a bit pointless. These large, flat panels are better suited to being made on a laser.



RoboHand.jpg

Something Useful

The Robohand project goes above and beyond the call of duty in terms of usefulness. This is an open source, freely available, and printable mechanical hand, designed to be used as a prosthetic. The aim of the project is to make prosthetic devices that are more comfortable than commercial alternatives and more available to people who are missing fingers for any reason.




Pfiercestruder.jpg

Something which surprised me

The Pfiercestruder is an interesting piece of work. MakerBot Industries released a paste extruder months prior and began to sell kits in their online store. However, someone without a laser cutter made a printable version! This is surprising because it demonstrates the unexpected resourcefulness of 3D printer operators. Even more so, it surprised me because it was unexpected. MakerBot was putting out products to make a profit, and their community of users was figuring out ways to not buy these products and instead use their home MakerBot printers to print everything else MakerBot has designed.