3D printing (weaponry)

[Blumf]

http://makibox.com/products - $300 (in fact $200 for the low temperature version) - I'm tempted by that. Unfortunately despite the 8-10 week lead time a sales page, reading the blog it doesn't sound like they've actually shipped any yet - although they are close.

http://www.sumpod.com/products/sumpod-basic-pickup

250 nicker (+p&p), some assembly required.

Been tempted, but doubt I could handle the fiddling. Would probably end up chucking it out the windows swearing.

[Small Man Big Horse]

So can I make a sexy woman out of this or not? And would it feel real, or just all plastic-y?

[Replies From View]

In that case my definition is clearly limited, if it is being used in those terms then that make sense. I didn't realise that the term 'printing' could be used so broadly.

As I understand it 3D printing is not a broad term that means any old mass-production from a design.  It is an additive process, isn't it - unless I'm completely getting it wrong - a material is pretty much fired out of something like a printer head, and objects are up layer by layer.

[Replies From View]

So can I make a sexy woman out of this or not? And would it feel real, or just all plastic-y?

Only as plasticky as usual!!!!

[MojoJojo]

It's more like piping icing - hot plasticky icing.

[The Βoston Crab]

Yeah wake me up when you can make a fanny.

[Zetetic]

It is an additive process, isn't it - unless I'm completely getting it wrong - a material is pretty much fired out of something like a printer head, and objects are up layer by layer.

I'd agree that certainly is the case for now, but I'd be surprised if we didn't see '3D printers' with the capability of doing some subtractive machining in the near future (because it's easier to get higher resolution doing that, right?). We do already have (2D) 'printing' that doesn't involve any 'additive' process (thermal, embossing).

I reckon it's probably fair to say, as the Wikipedia article does, that what currently separates '3D printing' from other (CAM?) processes is that it's additive and that this is somewhat like how most (2D) 'printing' takes place.

You're probably right that my suggestion of 'mass production from a design' doesn't really capture what the term is becoming either but I don't think that 'additive' will remain the essential distinction for long.

[Talulah, really!]

Yeah wake me up when you can make a fanny.

Ask your mum and dad, they already did![nb]...winky emoticon goes here.[/nb]

[MojoJojo]

I'd agree that certainly is the case for now, but I'd be surprised if we didn't see '3D printers' with the capability of doing some subtractive machining in the near future (because it's easier to get higher resolution doing that, right?). We do already have (2D) 'printing' that doesn't involve any 'additive' process (thermal, embossing).

That Sumpod printer Blumf links to above has an attachment for a dremel - so it does have some subtractive ability. I doubt that makes it any higher resolution, but it lets you make PCBs, apparently (I thought you needed an acid bath for that but I guess you can just drill the copper off to make your tracks).

A bit tempted but not sure what I'd do with it.

[Replies From View]

You're probably right that my suggestion of 'mass production from a design' doesn't really capture what the term is becoming either but I don't think that 'additive' will remain the essential distinction for long.

I just wanted to put a line through any relation to "moulding" that had come up earlier.  Additive or subtractive, the process is still a lot more like "printing" (or indeed "piping icing") than any other production method I can think of.  So I'm struggling a bit with anyone thinking it shouldn't be called that.

[MojoJojo]

Isn't it more of a description of what it does, rather than how it does it? It makes real stuff from designs on a computer - like a printer but 3d.
With connotations of being domestic/simple to use.

[Zetetic]

I think it's a bit complicated in so far that '3D printing' as a bit of jargon makes a useful distinction from other CAM processes  but that increasingly its general usage will take on a sense of "It makes real stuff from designs on a computer - like a printer but 3d. With connotations of being domestic/simple to use".

[mook]

I'd agree that certainly is the case for now, but I'd be surprised if we didn't see '3D printers' with the capability of doing some subtractive machining in the near future (because it's easier to get higher resolution doing that, right?).

isn't that how 3d printers work anyway? they just don't print the "gaps" - for example with the adjustable spanner, you have 6 parts, the the main body of the tool, the lower jaw (for want of a better term) the thumb screw for adjustment of the jaws, a spring, a centre pin and a grub screw to hold, and make the mechanical parts function.

doesn't the printer just apply a different material to make the "gaps" that can be removed later?

EDIT...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQ-aWFYT_SU&feature=player_detailpage#t=184s

[Replies From View]

isn't that how 3d printers work anyway? they just don't print the "gaps"

This is what I was thinking.

[Dusty Gozongas]

Depending on the tolerances/clearances required, a product may be printed without requiring any further work. Similar to mouldings castings, there may be a need to do some machining or other adjustments afterwards, as has always been the case, but being able to produce something with moving parts (i.e. "with gaps in it") is unique to 3D printing as far as I'm aware.

[Replies From View]

Depending on the tolerances/clearances required, a product may be printed without requiring any further work. Similar to mouldings castings, there may be a need to do some machining or other adjustments afterwards, as has always been the case, but being able to produce something with moving parts (i.e. "with gaps in it") is unique to 3D printing as far as I'm aware.

As far as I'm aware the beauty of printing is that it is far more precise than moulding, with much less necessity for further machining.

I thought the "gaps" comment referred to anywhere that there was none of the printed material, not uniquely concerning moving parts.  It's where there's "no ink" in normal printing.  Since there's considerable control over where the printed material goes (1) and where it doesn't (0), the need for "subtractive" printing - ie removing printed material that has already been laid down - isn't clear.

[Dusty Gozongas]

As far as I'm aware the beauty of printing is that it is far more precise than moulding, with much less necessity for further machining.

It depends on what you're manufacturing, what it's made of and how you're manufacturing it. You're also usually looking for the most cost effective approach if you're in competition with other manufacturers. I'm not splitting hairs here by the way - blame it on thirty years experience in industry.

I thought the "gaps" comment referred to anywhere that there was none of the printed material, not uniquely concerning moving parts.

Not uniquely, no, but obviously if you're making moving parts (and want to print an assembled piece in one go) you can leave those gaps in the appropriate places.

It's where there's "no ink" in normal printing.  Since there's considerable control over where the printed material goes (1) and where it doesn't (0), the need for "subtractive" printing - ie removing printed material that has already been laid down - isn't clear.

In simple terms, if the printer or printing medium isn't capable of producing a piece with sufficient accuracy you'd just make it oversize and use another process afterwards to remove the excess and bring the piece within tolerance - as is always the case in manufacturing.

[Zetetic]

I was underestimating the resolution of 3D printers for one thing - so my suggestion that subtractive machinery would improve it is seemingly bollocks.

I presume you can only really (well, sort of) do gaps in the X-Y plane. Wikipedia:

Some also utilize supports when building. Supports are removable or dissolvable upon completion of the print, and are used to support overhanging features during construction.

So you do need to do something 'subtractive' in those cases, even if it's just a bath of some sort.

[Replies From View]

So you do need to do something 'subtractive' in those cases, even if it's just a bath of some sort.

Well, if they were never part of the final product, I wouldn't call it "subtractive printing", not really.  It's more like putting up a couple of bits of wood to hold something up while you build something beneath it, then taking the wood away again.  Or briefly sticking a bit of padding into something to stop it getting crushed in transit.  It's multiple stages of a manufacturing process, but not really subtractive printing.

[Zetetic]

It's multiple stages of a manufacturing process

If you had a machine that both built-up layers of material and then dissolved some of it later on, would you call it a '3D printer' or a '3D printing and dissolving apparatus'?

[Dusty Gozongas]

Just to add...

Bear in mind that the adjustable spanner that was made in the previous video is only an example of the reasonable tolerances that can be achieved by such printers. As an actual spanner it's useless (even if it could be made with materials with similar properties). I'd love to see the CAD file to see how many distinct components it was made of - my guess would be three, whereas a regular spanner of this kind is made from at least five.

[mook]

I presume you can only really (well, sort of) do gaps in the X-Y plane. Wikipedia:

am i being as dumb as as hell here, but the lowering of the printer bed, or the raising of the heads are what makes it 3d?

[Zetetic]

Yeah, you print a layer at a time. This means you have to be careful about overhangs at the like (and have to build in temporary supports that are later removed by dissolution or further machining), at least in some 3D printing processes.

[Replies From View]

If you had a machine that both built-up layers of material and then dissolved some of it later on, would you call it a '3D printer' or a '3D printing and dissolving apparatus'?

A 3D printer.

But if it wasn't dissolving some of it later on, and instead the product required a separate bathing process to deal with the soluble material, I wouldn't consider the printer itself capable of "subtraction".  That's all I'm saying.  I'm not arguing that it couldn't or isn't going to happen.  I don't really know what I'm arguing!

[Zetetic]

But if it wasn't dissolving some of it later on, and instead the product required a separate bathing process to deal with the soluble material, I wouldn't consider the printer itself capable of "subtraction".  That's all I'm saying.

Sure, I'd agree with that.

[mook]

Yeah, you print a layer at a time. This means you have to be careful about overhangs at the like (and have to build in temporary supports that are later removed by dissolution or further machining), at least in some 3D printing processes.

no, in that video i posted, it looks as if the "supports" were just inert* powder that made up the "gaps" required to make the spanner function. and that was just blasted away with an air hose at the end.





*i'm using the word inert there to imply non-sticky - easy as fuck to blow away.

[Dusty Gozongas]

If you had a machine that both built-up layers of material and then dissolved some of it later on, would you call it a '3D printer' or a '3D printing and dissolving apparatus'?

To be honest, I can't see any need to try to make a printer that does it like that. Like I said earlier, you'd make the piece oversize (deliberately so, knowing that your printer isn't capable of being spot-on) and then use other methods as required by the specification requirements. It's often the case that a number of different processes are required on various parts of an individual piece.

[Zetetic]

no, in that video i posted, it looks as if the "supports" were just inert* powder that made up the "gaps" required to make the spanner function. and that was just blasted away with an air hose at the end.

ZCorp's stuff appears to build stuff in a supporting surround of 'inert' (as you say) 'loose powder' (which can then be recycled back into the machine I believe) which seems to be a selling point for their process. As you note, there's still a subtractive process involved, although it involves just blowing the powder off rather than solution or machining.

To be honest, I can't see any need to try to make a printer that does it like that.

For example some of ZCorp's models handle the 'powder removing and recycling' automatically (850) while some don't (150).

[mook]

ZCorp's stuff appears to build stuff in a supporting surround of 'inert' (as you say) 'loose powder' (which can then be recycled back into the machine I believe) which seems to be a selling point for their process. As you note, there's still a subtractive process involved, although it involves just blowing the powder off rather than solution or machining.
For example some of ZCorp's models handle the 'powder removing and recycling' automatically (850) while some don't (150).

EDIT... nothing that is integral to the piece being made is removed. it's not like making turning a wooden bowl on a lathe.

that what i was trying to get at - i'm terrible at explaining things without loads of hand gesturing, a sprinkling of swearwords and a good few scrawly sketches.

i wonder how durable this resin stuff is? even though i presume they could "print"  and assemble the internal workings of a patek philippe watch. how long would it keep time. but anyway, it's fascinating stuff.

[Dusty Gozongas]

For example some of ZCorp's models handle the 'powder removing and recycling' automatically (850) while some don't (150).

That's not being subtractive, it's just efficient handling of raw material i.e. unused powder.