User:Jwo5069

From RepRap
Revision as of 22:35, 7 October 2012 by Jwo5069 (talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

About Me

File:jwo5069

Name

Jonathon O'Hora

Major

Mechanical Engineering


Contact Me

Email: [email protected]


Blogs

Week Four

http://hackaday.com/2012/09/20/makerbot-occupy-thingiverse-and-the-reality-of-selling-open-hardware/ Comment on Makerbot’s position (as far as we know), Prusa’s concerns, and ownership of designs. Should we look for a new thingiverse?

Makerbot releasing the replicator 2 is bound to have a significant impact on the 3D printing world. Another attempt at releasing a commercially viable printer on the market to make to make a profit could have adverse effects. But for the first time the printer isn't completely open source. From a financial standpoint it makes sense, but is it the right move for the community. I think it can be beneficial for the community in many ways. For one if they are making it commercially viable then more people will get into the 3D printer community. This adds more minds and ideas to the open source community. Also Makerbot defends its position by saying most things are open source just not the things that make the replicator 2 easily replicated by competing parties. At the same time it is a little bit of a shady move because the evolution that got Makerbot to the replicator 2 was all free to them but they are going to close source the advances that they have made. Also one of the largest source of communal communication and ideas; thingiverse is owned by Makerbot and they have all legal rights to the ideas that have been posted. Prusa the maker of one of the most popular 3D printer models does not seem to be a fan of what Makerbot has done. He personally took down all his postings from thingiverse and prompted others to do the same. He sees what Makerbot is doing as counterproductive in the evolution of 3D printing. I also think that Makerbot shouldn’t try to make a profit from other people’s ideas just because they made the website. If they do want to use an idea they should give part of the profit to the designer, whether it be for a toy, knick knack, or something critically useful.”

Week Three

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?


As with anything in the world greed can come into play. At the moment I think it is pretty far along and it would be hard to regulate design control. But even with that said if a company can find a profit out of putting controls on it and making them commercially viable then that may happen. I n our economy things are looked at as an investment and the only way to get return on investment is by controlling the product. In this case I don't see that happening in the near future. Hopefully.


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 would say my passion is being active. Whether it being sports, exercising, or just being outdoors. I share this passion comes from how and where I grew up. I don't think this is something that I will financially profit from but in the wealth of me enjoying life, I will prosper. I think that these activities will be part of me and my mates future."


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?


I don't think it is possible to absolutely kill IP. This is because huge things, complicated things, specialized things, and so on would still be unable to be printed. I think that the fact that people share all there ideas that the technology worldwide would grow more rapidly and there would be less poverty worldwide. Still things needed to copy these IP wouldn't be available to people worldwide. And also I think we overestimate people in general. I mean people aren't going to take the initiative to go out and build these printers or buy them if they don't see fast return on them.



Week Two

Read http://reprap.org/wiki/BackgroundPage. This should give you some feel for where Adrian Bowyer was coming from when he started the RepRap project. Respond to the following:

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?

To an extent I do think that a self-replicating universal constructor is feasible. What I mean is that the hardware, electronics, and other some of the other materials would have to be bought because they wouldn't be able to be printed in plastic. Also at this point I think the printers are to complicated for the masses to comprehend and build. The knowledge of assembly and operation isn't simple enough for it to expand exponentially like in the article. So now for the feasible part; the potential is certainly their because the printers can print out parts to copy themselves. As more evolution of printers happens I believe they could have less and less hardware and more reprap pieces.

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 phrase means that by having these printers we could replace things that we normally pay for with this cheaper alternative. Also by being able to print anything we can design or imagine we have greater wealth than even the consumer who pays for their goods because we choose what is made and don't have to pick out of what manufacturers decide to sell. Some problems are we are limited by the size of the printers and the size of the product created. Also many things we buy wouldn't befit to be made out of plastic. Such as a car; that would be a really long print.

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.

I think that the printers will continue to evolve getting simpler and more reliable as time goes on. Since there is such a large community and they are all eager to share their successes and knowledge, this project has a huge potential to grow and improve. I don't think that these will be life changing pieces of equipment that will be in every home such as the article infers; but I do think they are a really cool idea that many people could have to make cool useful things and explore their own designs and creativity. The reason I don't think it would be as big of a game changer as the article says is because of the limited size of the prints and the durability of the material that is printed with. Many of the things we use need to be made out of metal, rubber, plastics that are molded and not printed. One material can't replace the thousands that manufacturers use when making products.

Week One

Go to thingiverse.com. Use any means you like to look through the objects submitted to thingiverse and pick out 5 designs which you consider to be the most: 1. useful 2. artistic/beautiful 3. pointless/useless 4. funny 5. weird. Link to the 5 objects you’ve chosen, and discuss why you consider them well described by the 5 adjectives above.


Useful

Snap Together Mini Lamp This is a really interesting design and it is useful that you can put a light in it and have a functional light. It also is a replica of the PIXAR icon which is cool.


Artistic/Beautiful

Nautilus Gears These are beautiful and symetrical based off logarithmic scales which makes them more apealing to the eye. It also interesting that you can spin them around and see how the teeth keep interlocking making it spiral.


Pointless/Useless

Troll Statue Well you printed out nine large prints and what do you have? The pieces of a troll statue to glue together haha, though it is a little funny looking, it is also very pointless and also useless.


Funny

T-Rex Cookie Cutter This one is pretty self explainatory, it is shaped like a T-Rex and you use it to make cookies, what isnt awesome and funny about that.


Weird

Rooster Ring So this is a ring with a rooster on it. The making of a ring is a cool idea but why did they choose to put a rooster on it?