Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Open-Source 3D Printer Lets Users Make Anything

Posted by Zonk on Thu Nov 01, 2007 05:33 PM
from the printer-for-the-people dept.
Printers Hardware Technology
An anonymous reader writes "Picture a 3D inkjet printer that deposits droplets of plastic, layer by layer, gradually building up an object of any shape. Fabbers have been around for two decades, but they've always been the pricey playthings of high-tech labs — and could only use a single material. A Fab at Home kit costs around $2400 and allows users to print anything from Hors d'Oeuvres to flashlights."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] A 3D Printer On Every Desktop? 426 comments
holy_calamity writes "Two Cornell researchers have designed an open source 3D printer that costs just $2,400. The self-assembly kit is part of what they call the Fab@Home project — they hope it will spark development of rapid prototyping for the consumer market in the same way the Altair 8800 did for personal computing in seventies." Here is a video showing a completed machine constructing a silicone bulb (16-MB WMV).
Update: 01/10 04:02 GMT by KD : The developers of this kit are at Cornell, not Carnegie Mellon University as the original post erroneously stated.
Submission: Open-Source 3D Printer Lets Users Make Anything by Anonymous Coward
[+] 3D Printing For Everyone 183 comments
mmacx writes "Technology Review has up an article about Shapeways, a new online rapid-prototyping service that allows users to upload digital designs which are then printed on 3-D printers and shipped back. A spinoff from Philips Research, the service gives small businesses, designers, artists, and hobbyists access to prototyping tools that were once available only to the largest corporations. The fee for a typical printed object is $50-$150. Their video shows the steps behind the process." We've been talking about 3D printing for years.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Open-Source 3D Printer Lets Users Make Anything 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • More Discussion (Score:5, Informative)

    by eldavojohn (898314) * <my/.username@@@gmail.com> on Thursday November 01 2007, @05:34PM (#21204021) Homepage Journal
    You probably remember discussing this almost a year ago [slashdot.org]. Enjoy more on this at that coverage of the same story.

    • Re:More Discussion (Score:4, Funny)

      by The_Mystic_For_Real (766020) on Thursday November 01 2007, @06:11PM (#21204517)
      The editors must have bought one of these for stories.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by TheBrutalTruth (890948)
      Thank you - this is indeed old news. However I love the extra exposure for the Fab@Home project - it's awesome. Also check out RepRap - http://reprap.org/bin/view/Main/WebHome [reprap.org]

      • Re:Any shape? (Score:5, Informative)

        by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Thursday November 01 2007, @05:55PM (#21204315) Homepage Journal
        You solve a problem like this by laying down sand or another substance to act as the free space and support the structure.
        After building you remove the sand and your 3d model emerges.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Spy der Mann (805235)
          Yes, but what about hollow objects, like an egg? Will the inside contain the "filler" sand?
          • Yes, but what about hollow objects, like an egg?

            Squeeze bulb? [fabathome.org]

          • Re:Any shape? (Score:4, Informative)

            by jank1887 (815982) on Thursday November 01 2007, @07:18PM (#21205299)
            commercial software with 'support material' will look at overhanging structures. If the vertical angle is larger than a set value (maybe 45degrees) it will build a support structure under it as it builds. If the angle is less than that (as in the aforementioned squeeze bulb) it will be considered a 'self supporting angle. Enough of the upper layer bead will be on top of the lower layer bead to prevent it from toppling. This usually takes a bit of intuition, however, because simple rules like this will let you build the leaning tower of Pisa at too steep an angle for it not to fall over. (shifting the center of mass outside the footprint)
          • This question is *not* helpful. Not only does it not help answer the riddle: "Which came first the chicken or the egg?", but now if one chooses 'egg' you have to now answer "Which came first the egg or the sand?".

            Thanks a bunch pal! I'll remember you next time I try to print an egg. ;)

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mikael (484)
        Yes, it can. And object inside objects too. These system typically work by having a container of liquid combined with a base that slowly moves down. A laser traced out the intersection of the object with an imaginary horizontal plane. This causes a chemical reaction that converts the liquid into solid. This layer will bind to the layer immediately below. So as the base moves slowly down, the intersecting plane moves up along the height of object.

        I've seen the results of these systems. They could model ever

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by jank1887 (815982)
          Anything with a laser is much more expensive (with fewer material options) than what's being discussed here. You are referring to a Stereolithographic [wikipedia.org] process, primarily commercialized by 3D Systems, Inc. [3dsystems.com]. This group uses more of a heated extrusion, similar to the Fused Deposition Molding [wikipedia.org] process used by Stratasys, Inc. [stratasys.com] Even the liquid resins, though, have limits to degree of overhang permitted before the cured material will sag or fall in.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by ShieldW0lf (601553)
          Early 3d fabs for medical use used this method. They would, for example, recreate a broken skull from x-rays and let the doctor practice putting his hands in it before surgery.

          I've been thinking of sinking the money into getting parts for a Rep-Rap [reprap.org]. These look nice though.

  • Obvious use (Score:4, Funny)

    by LightwaveNet (229843) on Thursday November 01 2007, @05:38PM (#21204075)
    Figured I'd save people from typing the search in...
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=penis+3d+model&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]

  • I'm not convinced... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Maltheus (248271) on Thursday November 01 2007, @05:38PM (#21204089)
    ...until it can print another 3D printer.

  • Alas, slashdotted (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mad Bad Rabbit (539142) on Thursday November 01 2007, @05:40PM (#21204121)
    Apparently it won't let them print more servers

  • Gives new meaning to (Score:3, Insightful)

    by davidsyes (765062) on Thursday November 01 2007, @05:41PM (#21204131) Homepage Journal
    "This printer prints like... SHIT."

  • in other news... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by plasmacutter (901737) on Thursday November 01 2007, @05:42PM (#21204153) Journal
    the plastic storage container manufacturers of america have sent out their subpoena's against the first batch of kids "stealing" their products.
  • Could make toys on demand!

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      "Throw some Chinese out of work for a change!"


      Only if it puts lead in everything it prints.

    • It could be very useful (Score:5, Insightful)

      by paladinwannabe2 (889776) on Thursday November 01 2007, @05:50PM (#21204263)
      I've always thought something like this could be awesome for all sorts of geeky pastimes. Need an army for Warhammer 40k? Need a horde of orcs for D&D? Missing a piece to your favorite board game? You can print out an army, toss them back, then print out a new one the next day.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Trogre (513942)
        A 3D printer that lets you manufacture damn near anything you want, and you're talking D&D figurines?

        I don't want to be unkind and ask if you get out much, but surely we can think of better used for this.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Belial6 (794905)
              That's because Magic the Gathering is a game designed to test the financial fortitude of its players, where as D&D is a game about swords and sorcery.

  • material (Score:5, Interesting)

    by deander2 (26173) * <public@kere[ ]rg ['d.o' in gap]> on Thursday November 01 2007, @05:47PM (#21204237) Homepage
    very neat, but it seems like they're hampered by materials. (silicone adhesive is the most permanent of what i've seen with these types of machines) does anyone have any recommendations for more permanent but still liquidish-at-deposition options? plaster of paris? ultra-fine concrete?
    • I saw one for military use that liquefied metal and deposited it in fine drops to build up a final piece. It was intended to build replacement parts in theatre so they didn't have to be shipped. The machine size was about that of a washing machine, and the company claimed it parts were as good as a machined original. You had to machine the final piece to get a usable say disk brake rotor but still very impressive.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Trogre (513942)
      The RepRap project, while currently using Polycaprolactone, aims to eventually move over to polylactic acid from corn starch or sugar cane.

  • Manufacturing is a solved problem (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mi (197448) <mi+slashdot@aldan.algebra.com> on Thursday November 01 2007, @05:56PM (#21204323) Homepage

    This is just an illustration, that manufacturing is a solved problem. Design, research, and development is where the minds and ideas are or should be going.

    The growing emphasys on the Intellectual Property — the kind, that can be stolen by simple copying (thus leaving the original owner, seemingly, unhurt) — is another illustration of the same trend, like it or not.

    • No it isn't. We still have one really major step to take (that we can see from here/now). Molecular level construction. I don't mean nano-tolerance specs for things this could print, but by building things at the molecular level you finally get the ability to do self-replication. Right now the problem is that you need a scale - if you have a stick you use to measure things by, you add to the error of *every* measurement with each generation... which prevents self-replication. If you use a molecule (or some universal constant) as your stick, though, you lose this problem... stack a certain number of molecules into a stick of a useful size, or use the speed of light (in some medium) to measure distance for your "unit length" as part of the replication process and you'll have the same error in every generation. We already do this for manual manufacture... just, because we don't try to make self-replicating fabricators, we only have to measure (using the standard of the speed of light in a vacuum) once every few years to replace the "standard" used in manufacturing rulers.

      Molecular level construction could also be useful for, obviously, building really small things. Or for building really big things semi-automatically.

      Once you can spec the atomic placement in manufacture.... *then* there will be no need for brains in manufacturing. That we can understand today. Who knows, maybe there is something useful beyond that level that we just don't understand yet. But for now this is the one major step left in the ability to manufacture things.

      • Re:Manufacturing is a solved problem (Score:4, Interesting)

        by MrSteveSD (801820) on Thursday November 01 2007, @10:33PM (#21206925)

        Right now the problem is that you need a scale - if you have a stick you use to measure things by, you add to the error of *every* measurement with each generation... which prevents self-replication.


        It's not just that. Because we can't yet build at the molecular level, we have created all sorts of diverse and complex ways of achieving what we want using bulk processes. The diversity of these means that we need hundreds of huge factories to make all the components for a typical piece of gadgetry. So for example, if a hand-held video camera breaks on a future base on Mars, there is no way they can make another one without thousands of square miles of factories and thousands of workers to produce the components they need. With molecular level manufacturing, you eliminate the necessity of needing a huge set of factories.

        With a molecular manufacturing machine, building something would be a case of having the required data file. I should imagine that there would be a vibrant open-source community designing all sorts of weird and wonderful things which you could download and "print". The potential of such a technology is enormous. There will be all sorts of issues to consider though. How do you prevent people from "printing" hand grenades and machine guns or Sarin?

        If you are interested in this sort of thing, you should read "Engines of Creation" by Eric Drexler which is a non fiction book that explores these ideas. Drexler is the guy who coined the term "Nanotechnology" back in the 80s. You can read it all online here [e-drexler.com].

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by 644bd346996 (1012333)
      This is a rapid prototyping machine. It enables R&D. It isn't meant for mass-production.

  • Horses' Douvres? (Score:3, Funny)

    by turgid (580780) on Thursday November 01 2007, @05:58PM (#21204347) Journal

    Horses can keep their darned douvres in the field where they belong. I ain't going near them without wellington boots. Now don't get me started on cows...

  • RepRap Is Even Cheaper (Score:3, Informative)

    by Dean Edmonds (189342) on Thursday November 01 2007, @06:05PM (#21204445)
    A RepRap [reprap.org] machine costs less than $500 in parts, though it does require a lot more assembly work.

  • Oblig. (Score:3)

    by SeaFox (739806) on Thursday November 01 2007, @06:21PM (#21204641)
    I, for one, welcome our self-replicating overlords!

  • Not ready for prime time (Score:3, Informative)

    by seven of five (578993) on Thursday November 01 2007, @10:49PM (#21207089) Homepage
    I was pretty excited by this as earlier reported, but looking into it for a while, realized that you can't do precision fabbing with one of these el cheapo machines, not yet. The blobs/droplets are too big and the stepper motors spec'd at this price don't have the accuracy either. This will improve with time but 'not yet'.

      • Re:Can I make a 3D fake pussy? (Score:4, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 01 2007, @05:58PM (#21204345)

        Can I make a 3D fake pussy? and fuck it all night long
        I could think of more... constructive things to do with it, but each to his/her own.
        You can think of more constructive things to do with a fake pussy than fucking it all night long? Like what, you sick bastard?!!

    • "... for a second, I could have sworn I read 'flashlight' in the summary as 'fleshlight'"

      You need to print yourself up some new glasses.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bwcbwc (601780)
      the sticker shock of $2400 it just drives home the point that the technology isn't ready for prime-time

      Back in the day, HP sold scads of laser printers to small businesses in this price range. $2400 isn't in your average hobbyist's pocket book, but it's low enough to open up a "We Make It" store-front in your local strip mall. Of course, there's no guarantee how long such businesses will last. If the price on these things drops into the $1200 range or lower, anyone who really needs the fab service would pro
      • Actually there is large scale industrial adoption of this technology already for prototyping, in engineering shops and major manufactured goods factories today, especially in the auto industry.

        PTC / Windchill manufacturing http://www.ptc.com/ [ptc.com] business process software includes pathing for fabbed model creation, for example, and accepts quite a number of 3D drawing file formats incorporated in the workflow. One of the guys we just hired on at our SI comes from mfg background and clued me. It's considere

        • The results are far too crude for any serious use.

          So, build a better one. Where do you think the whole computing sector came from?

          The first personal computers...
          http://www.blinkenlights.com/pc.shtml [blinkenlights.com]

          They all started looking like this thing. Someone will develop a better media, multiple colours, multiple media, a more accurate nozzle, finer motor control, better software etc etc. They might well turn out to be the next Hewlett or Packard.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by skelly33 (891182)
        You could not possibly be putting this machine in the same league as "decent machining equipment" in the 25-500K range, could you?

        For the same budget there are plenty of desktop options for CNC type machines that could be considered to be in the same small form-factor, rapid prototyping league, but with better flexibility and that work with real materials. 5 seconds of effort on a search engine will turn up matches.

        Here's something simple [fireballcnc.com] that I found selling on ebay for less than $500 right now. Surely

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.