What does /diy/ think of 3D printers?

We have a general

>>1034363
toys for children

>>1034363
they are good for niche prototyping applications and one-off components, and then only when the geometry of the part makes it prohibitively expensive to do with subtractive methods.

>>1034363
Could it be a forger's best friend?

Embossed logos, etc?

>>1034375
You'd be surprised at how many workplaces now use these.

File: Fake-Diploma-Seal-Sample-03-1200x900.jpg (192KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 1200x900px

>>1034386
pic related. Are they detailed enough for this kind of tomfoolery?

>>1034394
nah, you'd want a laser engraver or 3 axis CNC mill for that. like maaaybe if you got a really good 3D printer.

>>1034363
Not really to viable at the consumer level, can make basic shit but not completely worth it.

File: IJcjKfi[1].jpg (683KB, 3456x1542px) Image search: [Google]

683KB, 3456x1542px

>>1034394
>>1034396
check out this link for a comparison that might help

http://imgur.com/a/dz9Qs

>>1034392
For real. Check these guys out:
http://carbon3d.com/
dat resolution and dem isotropic mechanical properties

>>1034475
I've had some components printed on one of these:
https://markforged.com/
I couldn't use carbon fibre because it's too thermally conductive but the kevlar-nylon prints were jaw droppingly tough.

3D printing has its place, I worked a stint at a jewelers who did lost wax casting and would start the mould off with a 3D wax printed item.

I don't know the name of the machine but it was a really fucking high resolution printer which would take all night to do a range of rings, print outs were generally brittle and cartridges expensive so they go a guy in to build a bespoke molten wax delivery system.

Ran a side business a well for custom prints for medical and personal, some dude printed some baller 40k space marine parts.

Shitter makerbot garbage can fuck off though

>>1034363
We have/had a /general/

I think they are cool. I have a simple one.
Printing out key-chains and game memorabilia has made me some money (not much...some...).

>>1034363
A shitty meme that will never replace other methods of fabrication. Useful for people who ACTUALLY have to prototype stuff being made iteratively, or people who make lots of one-off parts, but nothing more than a meme to most hobbyists.

I could see them being useful for making cosplay bits and the like quickly, but not much else.

>>1034363
Meme manufacturing.

Don't listen to the doubters, this shit is the future of manufacturing. On demand printing of exactly what you need. When it was just abs with crappy results it was a joke but since they can do almost any medium with layers as thin as 15 microns it's real. They are building bridges and modular homes. Bet your ass this is the next phase.

File: 3dp_shapeways_hidefacrylate_train-e1459583844874.jpg (36KB, 800x418px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 800x418px

>>1034394
Is that wax? If it is, hell fucking yes. With service bureau stereolithography machines you can make stuff that's glass smooth.

Thing is, you can actually get better than service bureau performance with a home DLP stereolithography machine. Patents on the tech make it worth it to build one yourself.

>>1034363
there's no market for 3d printers. Only 3d printing. People want stuff 3d printed, but they don't want to deal with the hassle of owning a printer.

the major 3d printing companies are not doing well because of this.

The average person who actually buys a 3d printer just goes for the cheapest one out there.

>>1036663
it's just another manufacturing method. We won't use it to manufacturer everything, just the stuff that makes sense to 3d print.

It's still very hard to justify using 3d printers to manufacturer cheapo mass produced plastic products because injection molding is so much cheaper, faster, and of better quality.

And this isn't likely to change any time soon. For one, the labor to remove supports and do post processing will keep the cost up.

Surface finish is still a pretty big issue. For metal parts porosity is still a big issue. Repeatability is a pretty big issue.

>>almost any medium with layers as thin as 15 microns it's real
bullshit

>>1036663

It must certainly is not the future of manufacture. It's handy for quick prototype manufacturer and even 'in a pinch' items but I can't see it ever being a common place mainstream manufacture method.

It'll probably be used to make sample tooling for injection moulding but 3D printing is a slow costly method in comparison.

Personally the idea of buying a 3D printer for home use is crazy. I'd rather buy a CNC router or mill and make things that way. More effort would be required and you'd need a broader knowledge of manufacturing but the end result would be much better.

File: 1470680442627.jpg (445KB, 1578x1917px) Image search: [Google]

445KB, 1578x1917px

>>1036646
Memes you say?

>>1036724
The technology will only get better and faster as time goes on. Less than two years ago they were pretty much plastic only now they do concrete, steel, carbon fiber. It may not replace injection molding all the way but it will be there next to it.

File: photosculpture.png (157KB, 552x813px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 552x813px

>>1036764
>>Less than two years ago they were pretty much plastic only
Bullshit. Two years ago SpaceX flight qualified an additively manufactured metal rocket engine.

http://www.spacex.com/press/2014/05/27/spacex-completes-qualification-testing-superdraco-thruster

Concrete we could do back in 2007:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ty2KHBUNKk

steel we could do in 1995:
http://www.i3dmfg.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/History-of-DMLS.pdf

carbon fiber we could do in 1998:
http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/access-control.cgi/1998/980358.pdf

Yes, things are better now, but much of this technology has been around for a lot longer than two years.

Things are progressing, just not as fast as you would think. Things that were problems 5 years ago are still problems today.

I think it's funny when people talk about "3d printers" in a way that definitely includes a hot glue gun in a plotter, a welder on a pile of shavings, and a laser light show on UV-set resin, but absolutely excludes a dremel tool on a robot arm.

When I say "3d printer", I usually mean a device where you put a design for a thing into a computer, and it builds you the thing, with a wide freedom of shapes, because there isn't a better word for that.

Whether it's additive or subtractive, or a multistep system involving both, is an implementation detail, not a functional description.

Most of the enthusiasm for 3d printers I hear has nothing to do with the implementation details. It's all about being able to tell a robot, "make me the thing", and have it obey.

>>1037171

"Printing" is an inherently additive process. At its most primitive, adding ink to paper, either by hand or via machine. And at the other end, building up material into a complex, 3-dimensional geometry.

Therefore, it doesn't make sense to call any subtractive process "printing". A device that combines additive and subtractive manufacturing wouldn't really be a "printer", by popular or conventional terms.

Of course, I have no doubt that's what such a device would be called, simply because marketing is a thing.

>>1037187
>"Printing" is an inherently additive process. At its most primitive, adding ink to paper, either by hand or via machine.
Not true. Thermal printing, for instance, simply applies heat to treated paper to cause it to darken.

There's nothing inherently additive about the term "printing". It derives from Latin through French, originally meaning pressing (applying pressure), which was commonly done to extract oils or juices.

>>1037171
That's because a "Dremel on a robot arm" is a CNC machine and nobody but you would consider that 3d printing.

>>1037171
That's because you call it a X-Axis CNC Mill. Where X is the number of axies your mill can work in.

>>1037189
>adding heat
>adding pressure

wow sure is subtractive

File: alien.jpg (788KB, 2592x1936px) Image search: [Google]

788KB, 2592x1936px

>>1037171
Semantics. Call it 3D manufacturing if you prefer, but 3D printing is generally accepted as being additive. Sorry duder.

File: Rostock-MAX-v2-DIY-3D-Printer-Kit-Black-0.jpg (27KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 333x500px

Thinking about buying a Rostock Max V2 kit. Any thoughts about the printer? The primary reason why I'm leaning towards this one is the price and the fact that I can assemble it myself.

>>1037342
The 3D general might be a better place to ask (>>1034354).

I prefer catesians to deltas, but that's just me. That said, I think yours would be a fine choice.

>>1037293
Acetone bath for abs?
I'm really liking the finish on that.

>>1037362
oops had both threads opened and mixed them up.

>>1037363
Yeah ABS and acetone. It cracked in weird ways though, but that was my fault for not using an enclosure.

>>1036739
3D printing is the future. We've got a shitty little makerbot at work and I can't understate how useful that stupid fucking glue gun is. We use it to make jigs for full production and prototypes on a daily basis.

For less than 1/4 the cost of getting some idiot middle manager a new laptop you can have a machine that literally increases the productivity of your entire factory overnight.

>>1037572
I think 90% of the 3d printer negativity comes from comparing specifically additive devices to other options where you tell a robot to build you something, like laser cutters and CNC milling machines.

>>1037581
The "home printing" scene, and public ignorance bundled together can cause some negativity.

People hear and see badass industrial sintering machines on the news building metal gun frames, then hear that some random guy made gun plans for home printers.

Then you see on big bang theory making beautiful color figurines of themselves.

It doesnt help that I and other home 3d printer owners have to kind of convince ourselves and others that it wasnt just a big expensive toy. So we talk up the usefulness of making a small plastic part.
And then the kickstarters making millions and shit.

It creates this image in peoples minds (people who dont give a shit about them that they are replicators off of star trek. Revolutionary crazy things.

I was talked down by a guy whose job was sandcasting, just because I brought up the fact I owned one.

>>1037189
>Thermal printing, for instance, simply applies heat to treated paper to cause it to darken.


But hat's a chemical process, not a subtractive one; "quasi-subtractive", at best.

There simply is no subtractive process widely called "printing". The closest you could get would probably be some form of engraving, which (surprise, surprise) is simply and commonly called "engraving".

In any event, the layperson bandying about the phrase gets to decide what it means. Language being what it is, the majority rules; as long as the masses interpret "3D printing" as some sort of purely additive process, that's what it means.

did someone say
>dremel tool on a robot arm.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFui2OMDqeM

6 asses of goodness

>>1037599
>as long as the masses interpret "3D printing" as some sort of purely additive process, that's what it means.
But they don't. The masses are barely aware of 3d printing, and what awareness there is, is functional: it's a machine that takes a computer design and some supplies and makes you a thing.

If someone built a (paper) printer that came with sheets soaked with ink, and the printer sucked the ink out of the spots that ought to be white, people would still just call it a printer.

If someone builds a device that casts material into blocks, then mills them to shape and melts the turnings to reuse, "the masses" are still just going to call it a 3d printer. And there will be a few shits in the wings saying, "Hey! 3d printing only means additive manufacturing! And the proper term is gibibytes!"

"3d printing" got its name from using inkjet printing methods to lay down "ink" that would build up in layers rather than soak into a substrate. Then, because the name was so catchy, people applied it to unrelated tools which achieve a similar end.

You're looking at the current usage. Most people currently saying "3d printing" are hobbyists and industry wonks, who are highly interested in how it works. I'm looking at the trend, which is to extend it to apply to more things.

>>1037572
>3D printing is the future

It's not. Firms who are big on production pay people to go out and look for the most productive, cost effective production processes that will make them money, that's why 3D printing is still in peoples basements. It's not the future in multi million dollar production industries.

>>1037830
Nigger, 3D printing has long been utilized in the industrial world.
Has been a mainstay since the 80s

The "future" people are talking about is small businesses being able to rapid prototype instead of only gigantic companies with $100k machines

>>1037832
>Has been a mainstay since the 80s
That's quite an exaggeration. It didn't start being invented until the 80s. It started to show promise in the 90s. It saw limited industrial use in 00s. It's becoming an industrial mainstay in the 10s.

>>1037832
>The "future" people are talking about is small businesses being able to rapid prototype instead of only gigantic companies with $100k machines

I'm sure I said this somewhere else in the thread. Being able to make a prototype of something is not the same as mainstream production process. To make a prototype to put into production using other methods only bolsters that point.

>>1037834
>>1037832
The thing is, if you can afford maintenance-intensive, tended $100,000+ machines, you can also afford skilled craftsmen.

Until very recently, 3d printing has had this awkward combination of "too expensive" with "not good enough", which has meant that it almost always made more sense to do it some other way.

>>1037843
"not good enough"
Are you sure you understand the different printing processes?
Sintering machines which make up the majority of high end machines put out very very good quality and accuracy prints.

>>1037851
>>Until very recently, 3d printing has had this awkward combination of "too expensive" with "not good enough"
>"not good enough"
Jesus. Acknowledge that I said "until very recently".

Anyway, by "combination of 'too expensive' with 'not good enough'" I meant that the cost-quality curve, as well as the maximums and minimums, produced very few cases where 3d printing was the best choice.

>Sintering machines which make up the majority of high end machines put out very very good quality and accuracy prints.
...and still not nearly the variety of materials or precision of other methods.

>>1037859
>Jesus. Acknowledge that I said "until very recently".

I acknowledged it, and its fucking wrong.
Sintering has been around 30 years
The technology stagnanted over 20 years ago. You are acting like the raw material is expensive (its not) and that its quality was shit until only recently (it wasnt)
Thats just not true no matter how many times you say it.

I dont think you quite understand what fast prototyping is.

Its not an end all in prototyping, but its the first building block where the speed and price is an enormous plus for these companies.

>>1037878
>Sintering has been around 30 years
Sintering has been around since prehistoric times.

>The technology stagnanted over 20 years ago.
"stagnanted" isn't a word, and your thinking is as poor as your spelling. Commercial products for laser sintering first came on the market 24 years ago (originally in wax and plastic, with the first commercial installation of a direct metal sintering machine barely 20 years ago), and rapid progress continues to this day, with improving print speed, resolution, material options, and cost.

>You are acting like the raw material is expensive
You are making shit up.

>and that its quality was shit until only recently
Again, this is making shit up. The problem was that it wasn't good enough at the cost, compared to other options.

So far, 3d printing has never been the best, most precise option. So it's only practical (as opposed to being used by researchers and enthusiasts, or as a method of bullshitting investors or customers) when the speed and cost are preferable to all other options, for jobs where the quality is good enough.

There's a good article in this months Journal of Petroleum Technology on its use in rigs and stuff. I'll look it out, real interesting. Think they prefer the term additive manufacturing.

They would consider it very new in that industry, especially in terms of literature - it's never been written about in JPT and journal articles relating to the material properties of "printed" items are few and far between.

>>1037887
>>1037878
>get a room

>>1037600
>If someone builds a device that casts material into blocks, then mills them to shape and melts the turnings to reuse, "the masses" are still just going to call it a 3d printer.

...and then that's the name its stuck with from that point on, with the term evolving for better or worse. That's just how language works.

But that hasn't happened. Look at the trend all you want (as I don't actually disagree, and don't really have a better term for such a device either), but, currently, "3D printing" refers quite exclusively to FDM, sintering, SLA, and similar additive methods. As things stand, yes, it "absolutely excludes a dremel tool on a robot arm", though I do not doubt that will change eventually.

The original comment was...

>I think it's funny when people talk about "3d printers" in a way that definitely includes [...]

...and my point was simply that I don't see how it's "funny" when, at this point, it's entirely correct to interpret the term that way. The rest is just sperging out.

>>1037921
How do you think the meaning of words changes? People who aren't strictly adhering to the most common current usage are just wrong, wrong, absolutely wrong and being spergy jerks, until their way becomes the most common, and then they're right?

Using new, unsettled words in a way that they have a more helpful meaning allows you to think more clearly and communicate better.

The identification of 3d printing with "additive manufacturing" is largely a marketing move, to help sell technologies that have no connection to printing in their origin and face competition from "subtractive manufacturing". By accepting that definition, you're buying into the kooky, motivated-reasoning idea that additive manufacturing is not only something new (like potters and bricklayers haven't been doing it forever), but generally superior to old and busted subtractive manufacturing, regardless of all the widely different technologies in each category.

When you identify "3d printer" with "computerized appliance that can build me a nice variety of physical objects" it's far more easy for the general public to understand you and understand why what you're talking about matters. The people in the wings complaining that it means "additive manufacturing" will sound like pedantic whiners.

Furthermore, you'll think more clearly, because you'll have a word for a relevant concept rather than an irrelevant one. Words are handles for thoughts.

>>1037921
i dont even care about the 3d printer argument going on in this thread

but if someone is gonna say 6 axis robot with a dremel, imma post dis shit

i make molds for a living, so 3dp is not really a thing for me, except in my spare time

>>1037171
nigga have you even heard of additive vs. subtractive manufacturing?

File: 3DP-Process.png (125KB, 641x482px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 641x482px

>>1037171
>>1037187
>>1037293
>>1037189
>>1037599
>>1037819
>>1037940
The term additive manufacturing is more of an academic one, us academic love to bitch at each other over naming stuff. Also trademark issues.

So here's the deal, in the bitchy academic world 3D printing refers to a specific type of additive manufacturing process where an inkjet is used to squirt binder onto powder to form parts. See pic related. Said process uses the same goddamn inkjet cartridges as regular office printers in the same goddamn way as regular office printers most of the time using slightly different ink than regular office printers.

It made sense to call this process 3 Dimensional Printing. Hell, many of the original systems were just an office inkjet printer modified to print on powder(please try this at home!). Z-corp commercialized this process and trademarked the name I think.

A bunch of "this machine will be just like your office printer, but in 3D!" marketing later, 3D printing now refers to a whole bunch of different processes. For us academics, who really like to be specific about what we talk about, this gives us a reason to bitch about things.

So we needed a new name for stuff to be more specific about stuff. Also because hey, we're not just making prototypes anymore, so 'rapid prototyping' will just not do. Also because Z-corp technically owns the trademark to the word 3D printing or something. So some academic came up with the name additive manufacturing, which now encompasses literally any process where you make something by adding material.

File: 3D-Lattice-structures.jpg (83KB, 615x367px)

83KB, 615x367px

>>1039195
>>1037940
>>(like potters and bricklayers haven't been doing it forever)
Because additive manufacturing includes any process with an additive component at all, potting and brick laying are considered additive manufacturing. Some academics acknowledge this: https://camal.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Joe-Beaman-Total-Presentation-01.pdf


Also, milling up a bunch of metal plates then stacking them up and diffusion bonding them? That's additive manufacturing.(this is a real process btw) Making a part on a lathe. Not additive manufacturing.Taking that lathe part and friction welding it onto something? Additive manufacturing!


Honestly we should just use the term Solid Freeform Fabrication, which is defined as "Fabrication of complex freeform solid objects
directly from a computer model of an object without part-specific tooling or human intervention." 'Complex freeform solid objects' being ones that you just can't machine. I mean shit, just try to machine pic related. But really this is just whiny academic stuff.


>>generally superior to old and busted subtractive manufacturing,
In some cases SFF can be superior to subtractive manufacturing. You can make crazy aerospace structures like pic related that are lighter. You can make crazy aerospace structures without hogging down a huge block of expensive metal. It's not universally superior though, it's just another manufacturing process.

>>1037843
>>if you can afford maintenance-intensive, tended $100,000+ machines,
then you can sell fabrication services to other companies so they don't have to hire skilled craftsmen, pay off the machines, pay the people doing the post processing, and make money. This is called a service bureau.
>>1037887
>>improving resolution
do you have any evidence for this? Laser sintering is limited by powder size.

It hasn't exactly stagnated, but progress is slow. Mainly because we need new processes to overcome the old processes limitations.

>>1039209
>Laser sintering is limited by powder size.
...and powder fineness is one of the things that has improved.

You think arbitrarily fine, consistent powders are easy to produce and handle in any and all materials?

>progress is slow
Progress has been very fast, comparable to computer technology, but getting a much later start. This is a technology that was conceptualized in the 70s, experimented with in the 80s, and first deployed in the 90s.

The improvement has been very impressive in only twenty years of practical use.

Integrated circuits were conceptualized in the 40s, experimented with in the 50s, and first deployed in the 60s.

>>1037878
>I dont think you quite understand what fast prototyping is.

It's certainly not manufacturing. It's as you said, prototyping.

They prototype something, perfect it then manufacture large scale.

And you'll never believe this, but that means it's not done on a 3D printer.

Did you blow your inheritance on one and can't make it pay?

>>1039224
>>...and powder fineness is one of the things that has improved.
not really.

>>You think arbitrarily fine, consistent powders are easy to produce and handle in any and all materials?
Exactly. Finer powders are harder to spread and work with.

>>comparable to computer technology,
absolutely not. Machine resolution is not doubling every year. There are no exponential trends in SFF like there are with computers.

>>The improvement has been very impressive in only twenty years of practical use.
for a manufacturing process, it is pretty typical. Electrical discharge machining advanced at a similar rate.

>>1039234
>>...and powder fineness is one of the things that has improved.
>not really.
Could you please stop spamming your bullshit and take a few minutes to read up on SLS history.

It did not start out in 1994 with the finest powders used today.

>>1039231
>And you'll never believe this, but that means it's not done on a 3D printer.

Where exactly did anyone say that 3d printing was used for manufacturing and not for prototyping?

Giving small businesses the ability to quickly and cheaply prototype is a huge deal.
Im not sure how you could have misinterpreted all of these posts THAT badly.

>>1039239
This entire fucking thread is an argument for how 3D printing is the future of manufacturing.

The argument is that it is not and will not be. Prototyping=/=manufacturing.

I've misinterpreted nothing.

Does anyone here have ato decent DIY for making one's own 3d printer?

File: micro laser sintering 2.jpg (48KB, 620x422px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 620x422px

>>1039236
>>take a few minutes to read up on SLS history.
Maybe you should too, luckily I already posted a short history of SLS in this post: >>1039209

Here's a more detailed version:
http://www.me.utexas.edu/news/news/selective-laser-sintering-birth-of-an-industry

There is pretty much no change in powder fineness
Powder fineness in 1994 for nylon: average particle size 50 microns
http://sffsymposium.engr.utexas.edu/Manuscripts/1995/1995-20-Nelson.pdf
Powder fineness in 2012 for nylon: average particle size 50 microns
http://sffsymposium.engr.utexas.edu/Manuscripts/2012/2012-45-Leigh.pdf

The first one above does demonstrate that galvanometer resolution improved, but it is still pretty difficult to improve resolution. Powder size isn't the only thing to be improved.

Yeah sure there are micro laser sintering machines(pic related), but they are very rare. They do have better resolution and surface finishes, but the process may be difficult to scale.

>>1039252
>>This entire fucking thread is an argument for how 3D printing is the future of manufacturing.
Solid Freeform Fabrication is not the future of manufacturing, it is the present.

It's been used to make end use parts for some time now. In fact the Boeing 787 has been flying with SLS made components for about 5 years now.

A couple months ago GE tested the largest jet engine in the world, and it had SFF'd metal components: http://qz.com/667477/ge-fires-up-worlds-largest-commercial-jet-engine-using-3d-printed-metal-parts/