User:PwNzI
Contents
About Me
Name
Alex Punzi
Contact Information
Majors
Mechanical Engineering, Nuclear Engineering
Certifications
Certified Solidworks Associate, Certified Solidworks Professional, Fundamentals of Engineering Exam Certified
Interests and Hobbies
Racquetball, tennis, basketball, golf
Bonus Blog #1
A turning point in 3D printing?
Open-source 3D printing has prided itself on its extremely low cost (in comparison to commercial methods) and its strong following worldwide. As many users know, the bulk of this cost is involved with startup and purchasing or constructing a machine. If anything would be a turn-off from 3D printing, it would be this facet. But one of the country’s largest office corporations, Staples is planning to capitalize on this fact.
They are launching a new service in the beginning of 2013 in the Netherlands and Belgium, soon to follow in other countries, called “Staples Easy 3D.” This service will allow users to upload their designs to the Staples website and pick up the printed objects at their local store or have them shipped to home. The service supports STL, OBJ, and VRML formats. There is not much pricing detail as of yet, but the service has been advertised by the company as “low-cost.”
The interesting thing about their service is that it uses Mcor Technologies’s new Iris printers. These printers use reams of paper that are cut and printer while being stacked and glued together. The resolution layer thickness is 100 microns, which is fairly high and similar to that of MakerBot Replicator 2. These printers also allow for the incorporation of photorealistic colors, which plastic printers are still unable to achieve. The glued paper has a wood-like hardness and can be drilled, tapped, or screwed, but its material properties are unknown. I believe this service really speaks for how far along 3D printing has come and how positive its future outlook is.
Bonus Blog #2
This is somewhat of an elaboration of Blog #3 Part A). This article discusses a Dutch architecture who plans to create the first building ever fabricated with 3D printing. What really caught my eye about this article was the architecture he plans to achieve. The building, aptly titled “Landscape House,” is described by creator Janjaap Ruijssenaars as “one surface folded in an endless Mobius band.” To really get an understanding check out the picture to the right. The building is essentially a giant figure 8 with the aim of merging indoors and outdoors to attempt to model nature itself, allowing people to seamlessly enter and exit the building.
The architect has already received numerous calls by museums and other individuals who have interest in purchasing one. This is no small commitment, with a price tag on the house between $5 and $6 million. In order to accomplish such a project, a printer of substantial size is required. The D-shape is described by its creators as a “mega-scale free form printer” and consists of a massive aluminum structure. It uses sand as the extrudite, forming it back into a marble-like material. The printer will create such blocks that measure 20’ x 30’ in size, which will be used to create the building.
In my previous blog post, I had thought that using 3D printers to create buildings was a pipe dream that would not be realized. Now, after seeing this article, my opinion has definitely changed. The architect believes his first house will be completed by the end of 2014, and after watching this video about the D-shape, I believe his expectations to be realistic. The technology exists to create never-before-seen architecture like that pictured on the right, and I cannot wait to see what else comes from the 3D printing of buildings.
Blog #5
Read this. It may take some time to read, as it’s rather long. It’s not simple material, but do your best, and we will discuss it in class next week. I’ve given an extra day for this, but I suggest you start reading now.
I wanted to start with a brief discussion of the article. I never realized how much more difficult it was to get a patent than a copyright. I had always known that patents were tedious to obtain, but I never realized copyrights were so much easier. Not only that, I didn’t know copyrights lasted that much longer. I do not think the patent process could be made much easier, but they definitely could be made to last longer than 20 years. Of course you can reapply for a patent, but the fact that a copyright lasts so much longer is a little absurd in my opinion.
Additionally, I like the way the online copyright system operates now (by keeping the website operator out of it) and think it will work well for many different media, including 3D printing. However, it could potentially overload our already busy judicial system and, as a result, I believe there should be a dedicated court system to copyright issues to help ensure universality in rulings.
I also hadn’t realized that the type of media in which an object is acquired can dictate whether or not it is copyrightable/patentable (whether it is scanned or created in CAD). I also feel that the use of severability is likely the best way to handle disputes but could definitely result in controversial decisions. It can be extremely difficult to separate usefulness and creativeness, as I’m sure many judges and juries know. The amount of protection offered by a creative object may lead to more creative, useful designs in order to better protect them under law.
Part A)
Re-examine the objects you found on thingiverse in your first blog. Assess each one for copyrightable or patentable elements.
1. Cubicle coat hanger (most useful) - I would not expect this object to pose any issues with copyrightable elements. There is a possibility for an issue with patentable elements. However, it is such a universal thing and its design is sufficiently different than other current existing items that I do not think it would be an issue.
2. Camaro Nervoso (most artistic/beautiful) – This is a very likely candidate for copyright & patent infringement. It is a very common, unique design that is both useful and artistic. I do not think severability would save this design. However, it is a scale model and is essentially a paperweight, so it may be more acceptable than I would expect.
3. Stormtrooper valve cap for a bicycle tire (although it is cool) (most pointless/useless) – This one should not have an issues with patentable elements, but it definitely has issues with copyrightable elements. Star Wars is a very popular thing that is most certainly copyrighted, but the usefulness of the item might save it.
4. My Customized Ass! (most funny/weird) – I wouldn't expect any issues with this one.
5. African mask (most scary/strange) – I don’t think there would be issues with this one either, since many African masks are very different. However, if it is an exact replica of something that already exists, there may be problems. If it was scanned in though, as it likely was, it may be exempt from copyright infringement.
Part B)
Look over the things which your fellow students found. If you’re not on the list, please add yourself, and submit it for XP. (see here:). Are any of them particularly obvious cases of copyrighted or patented material which have been found by your classmates?
User: Carina – Reims Cathedral Kitset. This replica of the Notre Dame Church of Paris could definitely have some issues with copyrighted material, as it is an existing entity that many consider to be a work of art.
Additionally, the Minion she found is definitely a candidate for copyright infringement, as it is a direct replica of a very popular movie character.
User: Xiaomo_Zhang – Eiffel Tower. This is another famous work of art and architecture that may be infringing on copyright. However, it is difficult to say, as many such small-scale replicas exist.
Wolverine Claws. This is a fairly well-known item associated with a superhero. I believe a case could be made for copyright infringement. If that isn’t the case, it should probably still be taken down for safety reasons.
User: YaqiYang – Bugs Bunny. Another case of a replica from a well-known movie/tv series. I would definitely consider this a case of copyright infringement.
Part C)
Discuss both reasons why you might be interested in the “licensing of non-copyrightable files”.
The first reason the author gives in support of the "licensing of non-copyrightable files" has to do with a legal reason. Granting a license to an individual makes the usage conditions of the object very clear regardless of what happens with copyright laws in the future. This is an extremely useful thing, as it removes the inherent ambiguity associated with copyrighting & patenting. As long as the usage conditions are not too prohibitive towards others, this still fosters technological advances while maintaining some intellectual property rights. This would be beneficial to me, as I would be able to attain a license for something that I might not have wanted to bother trying to patent.
The second reason involves a cultural purpose. In my opinion, in the world of open-source objects, this is the more important one. Many individuals have already accepted the fact that they will not make royalties on their objects when the publish them in an open-source environment. However, keeping a record of who created certain designs allows individuals to feel as though they have helped their society. Additionally, these designs can be improved upon by others, provided some sort of object history is included with the revision that gives credit to the original creator. This keeps both the creator and the "improver" happy, especially because the "improver" did not have to worry about infringing on the original design. This would make me much more comfortable with using existing designs and files published online, as well as make me feel better about giving credit to the original creator.
Blog #4
Read this (I suggest you also watch the videos):
Part A)
What are your thoughts after seeing the videos and reading the article?
This is a really cool project and what seems like a very improbable collaboration. I am impressed with how well the fingers seem to be working for him. The fact that they were able to pull this off is incredible. I am sure it took a lot of iterations and patience by both parties, but it is awesome that they stuck with it. Their being able to design and print it themselves makes it a lot more applicable for a child, as their hand size will be constantly changing and can be updated. The ability to control the strength of the hand by adjusting the in-fill percentage is also very cool.
Part B)
Compare and contrast this technology to that of a closed-source apparatus. What are the benefits and weaknesses of each? How does the cost compare?
If this project were to be done using a closed-source apparatus, the process would probably be less painful (in that someone else would be performing the iterations and design) and take less time to complete. However, they would not be able to have size updates to accommodate his growth as frequently as with open-sourcing due to cost. Obviously, the biggest weakness of a closed-source apparatus is the cost, with fingers costing at least $10,000 per finger, according to the article. I am sure the largest cost incurred with the open-source version was the printers, which were donated by MakerBot.
Part C)
Find the open source project they refer to starting in the article. How might we participate?
The open source project they refer to starting in the article involves helping veterans who have lost digits or hands. This seems like a really cool way to help a lot of people. We could participate by helping to spread the word about such a project on our Wiki and show our support for it. We could also offer to help with the printing or field questions by the on-base occupational therapists throughout the country about 3D-printing.
Blog #3
Part E) (listed first for convenience)
Below are examples where 3D printing is encroaching onto other areas of human endeavour which you may not have considered previously. (Civil Engineering, Biotech, Food Science, Fashion) Discuss each in turn.
Part A)
Watch this:
I would have never thought of applying rapid prototyping processes into the realm of constructing buildings. This provides for an incredible amount of control about the building and would very easily allow for the integration of other products into the walls or foundations (such as plumbing or electrical installation). The fact that the building can be completely customized and is estimated to be printed in 20 hours is outrageous. The addition of easily made curved walls allows for an entirely new aspect of architecture, giving this process a more artistic side as well. The possibility of using it for lunar projects is very cool as well. However, I still feel as though this technology might not be applicable for a decade or two simply because of the scale of the printer and that the cost might not scale like they believe it to.
Part B)
This is definitely an aspect of RepRap that I would have never thought about. This definitely seems like a field with limitless potential, as artificial organs are in more demand than ever and provide a very viable solution, if functioning properly. This area really seems like it has come a very long way in the past few years, and I would expect it to continue to quickly develop. The use in pharmaceutical testing has a lot of applicability and would resolve a lot of moral dilemmas associated with testing, but, naturally, therapeutic applications are preferred. The means by which the blood vessel network was created at the UPenn lab was very cool, and I would have never thought to use sugar to do it. The fact that they applied a casting process to such a different application is ingenious.
Part C)
Both of these applications are cool (and actually not entirely surprising to me), but both are extremely impractical in my opinion. I don’t think, even with all of the advancements and developments that could be made, that 3D printing a steak will ever be economic enough to have a benefit. I don’t mean to downplay their accomplishments; what they did is very cool. However, it just isn’t practical. A similar argument holds for the chocolate printer, but I could see this being somewhat affordable (~$400) at some point.
Part D)
Let me begin by saying that I have never been much of an aficionado of the fashion world and will never truly understand. That’s not to say I don’t dress well or anything; I just don’t understand expensive, high-end fashion. The possibility of 3D printing attire makes sense, as the material is there, and it will make certain patterns feasible that previously were not, but I simply do not see the need for it. Yes, it is a very cool concept but, much like the 3D steaks, I just do not see the practicality of it. I believe that the resources used for it could be better spent elsewhere (no offense intended toward Ms. Van Herpen). That being said, it is definitely an application I would never have expected or thought of, but I could never justify it simply because I do not fully understand it.
How many other examples can you find? (either relevant to one of the categories above or some other field which was not covered)
The use of a 3D printer to develop sports games, such as this mini-miniature golf course.
According to Wikipedia’s 3D printing article, the technology is being used in palentology to reconstruct fossils, in archaeology to replicate ancient and priceless artifacts, and in forensic pathology to reconstruct bones and body parts.
Blog #2
The “Mother of all Demos” is here.
First, watch that first section of the mother of all demos (above), which includes the first computer mouse and cursor ever seen in public. Do you recognize the rough features we use on every computer today in its earliest form? Are you impressed by what he’s demonstrating? Do you think that you would have recognized the importance of this work if you were in the audience at the time?
Then watch this (turn up your sound). In it, Professor Richard Doyle discusses disruptive technological change, open source, knowledge sharing, and ‘creative culture’ among other things. The first 22 minutes is his talk, while the rest consists of questions and chat.
What does he say regarding the initial perception of the mother of all demos?
After watching the first section of the mother of all demos video, I definitely recognize some rough futures included on every computer today. Obviously, the keyboard looks very similar. The cursor looks very similar to those found in a word processing document, with the exception of the fact that it does not become an arrow when moved off text. The mouse had a similar shape (but, understandably, not a similar size) and looked to operate in a similar manner. I am very impressed by what he’s demonstrating, as many of these features comprise the core of what we use in word processing today. The introduction of the mouse and cursor also opened the door for a world of possible uses in a computer and made this far more efficient. I think that if I was in the audience at the time, I definitely would have recognized the importance and how much of a revelation his work was.
The initial perception of the mother of all demos is that, while it was amazing to people, they assumed it was a hoax. They believed that there was something other than the mouse that was performing Douglas Engelbart’s actions. After the mother of all demos, Engelbart contacted some of his funders and wanted to show them his progress, but they said they had already built a copy of it. However, while the funders could replicate it, they couldn’t figure out how to get it to work.
Doyle makes a number of arguments regarding the importance of our open source efforts in comparison to models requiring intellectual property. Why do we and why should we share the information we generate? (Or shouldn’t we? Are we missing out by not trying to patent our efforts?) How might we better share our knowledge?
Sharing the information we generate helps us to return to the roots of science and helps us to overcome obstacles that have kept us from moving scientific & technological innovation into the world (through the use of network science). You still get individual creativity; it is just placed within a collective effort. The culture of creativity allows for novel ideas to be generated and is helping to keep us ahead technologically. If the information is not shared, it tends to be hidden away and is ineffective toward advancing society. There will always be a level of self-righteousness in people, especially inventors. This tends to lead to an attempt to copyright and obtain intellectual property rights, which can easily get in the way and inhibit the development and production of technologies. However, if this characteristic can be overcome and the technology is open-sourced, the development of the technology is usually greatly accelerated. The downside is that the original ownership is usually blurred after this point, and someone else may be receiving credit for your idea.
The way the knowledge is currently shared (through the use of wikis and forums) is a fairly good means for it. However, having a dedicated search engine of open source products and ideas (“Open Google,” if you will) would greatly facilitate the sharing of knowledge, in my opinion. Search engines have become the primary means to obtain information and answer questions, and with how quickly open source products are changing, the use of printed materials would become outdated very quickly. I believe that having an online catalog of open source information that is easily searchable and found would do wonders for the sharing of knowledge and technological advancement.
Blog #1
Part A
Go to www.thingiverse.com and find 5 things which have stl files associated with them for printing (some things are not 3D printable, but just shared designs). You should find five designs which you consider to be partcularly: 1. useful 2. artistic/beautiful 3. pointless/useless 4. funny/weird 5. scary/strange. Comment on why you have chosen these things.
From Thingiverse, here are five designs I found that have stl files associated with them for printing.
1. Most useful – Cubicle coat hanger (special mention: Pool cue holder)
2. Most artistic/beautiful – Camaro Nervoso
3. Most pointless/useless – Stormtrooper valve cap for a bicycle tire (although it is cool)
4. Most funny/weird – My Customized Ass!
5. Most scary/strange – African mask
Part B
Read this article
Watch this video: Charlie Rose interviews a successful Designer
Do you feel that you are a tinkerer? Do you know anyone else who is? What do you think about the argument regarding the influence of corporate culture on tinkering? At the end of the article is the line, "...preserving the habitat of the tinkerer is one of the few time-proven ways we as a nation can get back on track." What do you think about this idea? What are the primary design principles you took away from the interview? What did you think when you saw his final project with his daughter? Can you think of how some of his principles might apply to our work?
While growing up, I was often discouraged from taking things apart since I usually had a tendency to not return them to an operational state. However, since entering college, I did not have to worry about such discipline (having a better idea of how things worked and the ability to correctly put them back together definitely helped too). As a result, I definitely consider myself to be a tinkerer. If something is broken, my first instinct is to take it apart (possibly voiding warranties along the way) and try to figure out what is wrong with it. Another part of tinkering comes from wanting to modify things, and I most certainly have that trait too. A couple of my really good friends from college fit the tinkering persona even more than I do. One of them, in fact, talked me through my first couple of things I took apart and helped me get comfortable with doing so.
Corporate culture has certainly discouraged tinkering over the past few years. Whether it was intentional or not is up for debate, but it is most certainly influencing the nation’s attitude toward tinkering. The idea that “...preserving the habitat of the tinkerer is one of the few time-proven ways we as a nation can get back on track” seems like a bit of a moot point to me. I agree that tinkers have a tendency to discover cutting-edge, revolutionary technology and that they are vital to our nation’s success, but I do not foresee a situation in which the tinkerer’s habitat will be destroyed. There will always be a natural curiosity in many people and a way to open up commercial items. Barring a national ban on tinkering (which I am not sure how that would work or how constitutional it would be) and the removal of tinkering videos on Youtube.com, I do not think we have to worry about destroying the habitat of tinkerers.
The primary design principles that I took away from the interview of David Kelley was to always keep the user in mind and keep it as simple as possible. The design process they used, involving having a diverse group of people that can build on each other and watching humans to improve products, makes perfect sense and is something that everyone should consider doing. While it may take the project longer to complete, it will do a lot more to ensure its success. I thought it was really cool that he was making a 3D printer and makes us doing it even cooler. His design principles are definitely applicable to our work, as keeping things simpler and more user-friendly would potentially drive costs down and increase popularity.
