Open-Source 3D Printer Lets Users Make Anything

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."

More Discussion

[eldavojohn (898314)]

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

[The_Mystic_For_Real (766020)]

The editors must have bought one of these for stories.

Re:Any shape?

[LiquidCoooled (634315)]

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:Any shape?

[jank1887 (815982)]

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)

Obvious use

[LightwaveNet (229843)]

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...

[Maltheus (248271)]

...until it can print another 3D printer.

Re:I'm not convinced...

[ZeroExistenZ (721849)]

I think they'll have some recursion protection inthere, to avoid the collapse of the universe.

Re:

[lastchance_000 (847415)]

I'll get one when it can print "Tea, Earl Gray, hot."

Re:I'm not convinced...

[Ed Avis (5917)]

I'll get one when it can print something almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.

Re:I'm not convinced...

[monopole (44023)]

Erm, Rep Rap [reprap.org]
I know, it won't fab everything but the few remaining bits are easy to get.

Alas, slashdotted

[Mad Bad Rabbit (539142)]

Apparently it won't let them print more servers

Gives new meaning to

[davidsyes (765062)]

"This printer prints like... SHIT."

in other news...

[plasmacutter (901737)]

the plastic storage container manufacturers of america have sent out their subpoena's against the first batch of kids "stealing" their products.

Throw some Chinese out of work for a change!

[tjstork (137384)]

Could make toys on demand!

Re:

[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

[paladinwannabe2 (889776)]

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.

material

[deander2 (26173)]

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?

Manufacturing is a solved problem

[mi (197448)]

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.

Re:Manufacturing is a solved problem

[PieSquared (867490)]

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

[MrSteveSD (801820)]

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:Can I make a 3D fake pussy?

[by Anonymous Coward]

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?!!

Re:Replicate some more web servers!

[trolltalk.com (1108067)]

"Slashdotted!"

No, they're just busy printing up another web server.

Re:That's pretty cool...

[PayPaI (733999)]

With wording like that you'd think they were making another Segway.

Re:New Organs

[nuzak (959558)]

> Im printing me a new liver :)

We recommend having it professionally installed.

Re:Obvious Use -- Make Fingerprints

[griffjon (14945)]

No need to hack off their fingers now.

Well, THAT takes the joy out of ID theft, now, doesn't it?