Talk:3D printing/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Is this subtractive?

It something subtractive like this considered 3D printing? --Nabumetone 16:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no. Some might call it rapid prototyping, but generally that is strictly not subtractive. This link just shows a regular CNC machine. —Ben FrantzDale 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think terminology varies. We have a fused deposition modeling machine here and it's called a "3d printer" around the lab. --Delirium 07:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see my detailed comment under "Controversies." 3D printing should not be used as the name for this topic---3D printing is one sub-technology of a much larger area. Our company uses FDM because it works best for our needs; however, we would NEVER call it 3D printing. It is NOT. Many shops and labs have machines from several different rapid manufacturing genres so are very careful to keep them straight. Each approach has some value in its own way and for some applications but not in others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clementsll (talk • contribs) 03:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC) I apologize for failing to sign this previously. Clementsll (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Printing process

HI

I want to know how printer print colour as well as black & white.How c is use full to move print head , is there is any free source code to understand whole process / about printer drivers. please inform me if u have ! ...... at nandwana.s@gmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.89.113.140 (talk • contribs) 09:45, October 11, 2006.

"3D Printing" is very generic, so there is no single "print head" or piece of hardware that the term refers to. There are also no "print drivers" - each rapid prototyping machine has its own software that you feed 3D geometry to, from which it creates a series of commands that actually run the machine. Maybe someday there will be "3D printer drivers", but that day is pretty far off. --GargoyleMT 15:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is 3dPrinting really different from Rapid prototyping?

IMHO there is no need of keeping Rapid Prototyping distinct from 3D printing. The incipit saying that printers are generally faster, more affordable and easier to use than other rapid prototyping technologies seems to me quite weasel. Moreover ALL existing 3D printers around are marketed in the rapid prototyping industrial segment. It seems to me how trying to have a computer entry and another easy to use computer entry. Technologies, firms and sw are all the same. I am going to propose a merge. ALoopingIcon 14:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

3D Printing doesn't refer to a specific technology, so you have a point there. It is a sub-category of technologies that encompass the machines made by ObJet and ZCorp (and perhaps Stratasys) (those machines are lower cost and easier to use than the (more traditional) stereolithography or selective laser sintering machines). I'm a bit too close to know how people in need of rapid prototyping services use the term, but it seems like a useful distinction. --GargoyleMT 18:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being repetitive, but I think that being easier to be used is not a sufficient reason for making two distinct entries. On the other hand, the rapid prototyping (RP) entry could deserve to exists because RP is part of an industrial process while 3DP is a technology: e.g. IMHO RP is the industrial design process that make use of 3D printing technologies or to other fast traditional maquette producing methods for testing the designed object in a rapid development cycle. So all the tech aspects are in the 3D printing entry, while its use in industry could stay in the RP entry. ALoopingIcon 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned there's a fundamental difference between rapid prototyping and 3D printing in that rapid prototyping produces working parts for testing while 3D printing produces mockups for visulaization. This seems to be the coneptual difference to me (and should be made clear in the article), but as a novice I'm ready to be corrected if I'm wrong! • TheBendster (talk) 11 May 2007, 04:54 (UTC)

Almost all of the existing technology descriptions are in the Solid Freeform Fabrication article, so I'm not sure I understand your proposed breakdown between content that belongs on the Rapid Prototyping and 3D Printing pages. Again, I may be too close to the matter at hand, but the 3D Printing article makes sense to me, even though it is a category. To me, 3D printers focus on lower cost cost, ease of use, and usability in an office environment which is a significant difference from other technologies (like SLA and SLS). TheBendster, I think there's truth to what you're saying. The ZCorp machines do focus on visualization, with support for coloring sections of the prototype (I think they now even support color ink cartridges from off the shelf printers!). The others do well for visualization, not necessarily in terms of "presentation" prototypes, but something that allows the part designers to hold something in their hands quickly and cheaply (and perhaps with a trade-off of dimensional accuracy). --GargoyleMT 17:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more with ALoopingIcon. Please see my detailed comment under "Controversies." 3D printing should not be used as the name for this topic---3D printing is one sub-technology of a much larger area. However, it is a great benefit to the few companies who make 3D printing devices to have all rapid manufacturing under the specific name of their technology. Clementsll (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Definition

article was lacking a definition of the concept behind 3D printing; I added "3D printers work by 'printing' a series of thin layers each on top of the previous to build up a 3 dimensional object."

I found this while trying to find a reference to explain the concept to a friend, there are lots of discussions of #d printing, but most assume that the reader already knows the basic concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.124.152.38 (talk • contribs) 18:42, June 30, 2007

PolyJet Matrix Technologies Advertisements

I've noticed a number of edits made by Michael751 about PolyJet Matrix Technologies. Text and links added appear to be un objective and pose a problem to this article. I removed the PolyJet Matrix Technologies section as it was all puffery. I am not against adding information about PolyJet Matrix Technologies into the article if it is done objectively; whoever adds it needs to be careful about this. Nicholas SL Smith (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That user is currently blocked for persistent spamming and puffery after repeated warnings. Feel free to insert information from impartial third-party sources which can be duly verified. Concentrate on the technologies and the materials, not the brand names. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

He's still at it (also by IP), also on other pages including rapid prototyping and rapid manufacturing. • TheBendster (talk) 28 November 2007, 13:05 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I'll watch those pages as well - Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 02:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed AFAIK the only remaining reference to it, along with all other commercial links I could see. Under the circumstances removing all competing commercial tradenames and so forth seems appropriate, in case this is a joe-job.WolfKeeper (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Its important to share new information - in particular when it comes to new technologies such as the Digital Materials printed with a multi material printer using the polyjet matrix technology. Yet - when such a new technology emerges, there is no external reference except a few select websites ... and its blocked by this encyclopedic site. This technology; polyjet matrix won the EuroMold 2007 innovation award in Germany and ingnoring it is ingnorance and driving technologists backwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.44.34 (talk) 12:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It is only natural that you want to spread the word about your new product. Why not do it in the correct and accepted way, e.g. by issuing press releases, attending trade shows, and buying advertising space? Subverting Wikipedia might seem like a free route to a large audience, but it will not be allowed to happen. • TheBendster (talk) 14 January 2008, 13:04 (UTC)

Limited scarcity economy?

Just how good are these printers? Will there ever be a point where someone will be able to print a perfect forgery of a dollar bill in any currency, no matter what security measures they take? The snare (talk) 03:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously by the time 3D printers can print current currency (if ever--most materials can't be effectively printed, short of some type of nanotechnology, which would be a different topic altogether), security measures for currency will have become more advanced, or we might not even use hard currency anymore. --74.46.213.148 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Would they be able to print something with hollow space and wires in it, layer by layer, maybe not with current printers, but eventually. Imagine what will happen when anyone can download not just digital media, but programming to make physical objects with these printers.

Yes, current printers can do hollow spaces, and I think they can make electrical paths. Although to my knowledge, most printed parts still need to be assembled before they are a complete product--that's how they're usually designed. --74.46.213.148 (talk) 15:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Query: How do they do hollow spaces? I assumed they were laying down material in successive layers, bottom-to-top... this is what the 'Inkjet printing' section of the article is talking about, correct? but wouldn't that require that each layer is a subset of the next layer down? --87.194.241.226 (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the technology. In stereolithography, you have to build a support structure that breaks away from the model. Similarly in fused deposition modeling, you build up a support structure (although it can be water-soluble). In powder-based approaches, there is no need for support material because the holes are filled with the powder at build time. This should all be added to the article if it isn't. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Medical

I saw a program on the Discovery Channel (I think) about medicinal 3D printing, which showed current technologies producing working heart valves from the patient's own cells. I can't find a source now though. --170.215.130.226 (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

Am I the only one who sees this? Is it me or are they trying to make 'robots'... that can make 'robots'...? A robot being able to make another robot just seems like a slightly bad idea at the time but who knows how far this technology might go. We don't wanna get to the point where 'robots' make other 'robots' without telling anyone. Also, once it gets to the public, you know it's some super computer/techno-head that is just waitin to program and hack and reprogram it to do his bidding. Then, you got someone out there making everything from lock-picks to PS3's and selling them on the black market for ridiculous profit. The possibilities are endless. I just think that at first..., for a little while, the government or military should hang on to this and test find all of the different applications for it, good and bad, and come up with some counters or failsafes. Two good ones would be: 1. Never to build another robot unless a human tells you to. 2. Apply limits and restrictions on what can be built(no weapons, copywrighted objects, etc). Anyway, I just thought about this and wanted to see if anyone else thought about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdas25 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes the government should certainly control ANYTHING that might be used for a bad purpose. wouldn't want the poor little public hurting themselves! Wouldn't want people making their own decisions, or having a free market. Michael1115 (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

To Bdas25, you probably should google "Grey-Goo" (there might be an entry here on wikipedia for all I know).
To Michael1115: Additionally the government cannot always be trusted to act in our interest. AVKent882 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I STRONGLY object to other, more general names for such technology being redirected to the single specific rapid prototyping/manufacturing technology of 3D printing. This is a disservice to the overall technology but a great boon to companies involved in 3D printing. I am involved professionally in this field, though far from the most expert, and this excludes---or renames with "someone else's name"---the technologically very important technologies of fused deposition modeling (FDM), stereolithography (SLA), etc., etc. are NOT 3D printing, even if Wikipedia tries to cram them into that topic. I suggest you retain specific articles on various rapid prototyping/manufacturing techniques, with and a more general article with a far more general topic name. Rapid Manufacturing would be one possible name with other broadly used and important names being "Direct Digital Manufacturing" (DDM) and "Additive Manufacturing". There are nuances of each of these names, with none of these names being truly all-inclusive---not all rapid manufacturing is DDM or additive, etc. But any one of these is a lot closer to all-inclusive and excludes less of the industry than the subset name "3D printing". I'm not sure if comments need to be referenced. Numerous references are available if needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clementsll (talk • contribs) 03:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC) I apologize for failing to sign this post previously. Clementsll (talk) 03:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Pictures?

The article is really confusing right now, in part because there aren't any pictures of a 3d-printed object. Shouldn't there be at least one so that people will know what the article is talking about? I've tried to make sense of this, but honestly, I have no idea what exactly 3d-printing ends up with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapphire Flame (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree!! Please help me visualize this process. --Moly 20:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moly (talk • contribs)

Reorientation

Hi Folks. This Article needs a definite subject for everyone to agree on. It seems to start out as some vague idea of every thing 3D, then nicely defines the process known to engineers as 3D-Printing, an then drifts off into a collection of all kinds of other rapid prototyping processes. I would suggest to concentrate on that one RP-Process (binding corn starch with resin using a bubble-jet, and closely related processes), and to merge all other stuff into their respective articles (i.e. Rapid prototyping, STL, FDM, and so forth, and I'll bet there's already something on self-replication also) My idea was to start by throwing out "computer graphics" related stuff (which really had no relation to anything else in the article), and by turning the "printing 3d-pictures on 2d-surfaces" reference into a disambiguation. --BjKa (talk) 10:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree!! Please help me visualize this process. --Moly 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see my detailed comment under "Controversies." 3D printing should not be used as the name for this topic---3D printing is one sub-technology of a much larger area. Clementsll (talk) 03:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Response

I agree with lots of comments here regarding the correct definition of 3D printing, technically there is only one manufacturer that makes 3D printers in the true sense of the word, I.e. building a 3d object using a "print head". Zcorp make the first and only 3d colour printers using HP inkjet heads. all other methods are but either sintering, slicing or otherwise laying down layers of material and binding them together via various methods.

you say you need help to visualise it. what do you want? I have made a few videos of the zcorp 3d printing they are on youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/Rapido3d, feel free to use them although they have our company logo on them, anything specific I may be able to help you with leave me a message. Rapidlaser (talk) 10:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)PS I have lots of pics of many 3d Printed objects ubt not sure how to upload them so would prefer to send them to someone with more expertise in uploading them. Rapidlaser (talk) 11:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

That is certainly not true. The Objet products (for example) also create their models by use of a inkjet-type print head that builds up the object by making repeated passes. In fact, to my knowledge, the Objet technology resembles classical "2D" printing more closely than the Z-corp technology. • TheBendster (talk) 7 June 2009, 14:03 (UTC)

In fact, looking at the article as it stands, I'm a little concerned that it seems to present the Z-corp "powder bed" embodiment of the technology as the definition of 3D printing. There is much in the article that is true of this particular system, but not true of 3D printing in general. • TheBendster (talk) 7 June 2009, 14:10 (UTC)

well that's not actually the case, as far as I know the object is a wax printer using thermal technology, I will email them to get more information. the Zcorp actually uses HP standard print heads,

U guess it again comes down to what is termed 3D printing, is laser sintering 3D Printing? I think it is rapid prototyping, I think that 3D printing has become a general term for any type of fast 3D layering technology.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidlaser (talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Good comments here. Please see my detailed comment under "Controversies." 3D printing should not be used as the name for this topic---3D printing is one sub-technology of a much larger area. And I agree, I know of a handful of 3D printing companies -- but they only represent a subset of the overall RP/RM industry. Clementsll (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Language

Per WP:RETAIN the language should be whatever the first major contributor used. In the first edit of the article, the editor used British English, as seen here. I'm American so I'm not sure exactly all that needs to be changed. I'll leave that up to those more qualified. Wizard191 (talk) 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

which is why I changed it to British English, so why are you sending me a message deriding me for doing so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidlaser (talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I think I reverted you first, and then looked at it, and then made the above comment. Wizard191 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I just saw the instruction to leave the BRITISH ENGLISH in place! Reading the article, it was jarring to encounter "moulds" alternating with "molds", and, seeking consistency, I went with the majority (mold). I would go back and convert them all to "mould", but it's not that simple. This is a hot topic. Although the first entry was from the British side, the majority of entries are going to be in American English. We'll have to keep turning "molds" into "moulds". The First Industrial Revolution came from the British Isles. This one is mainly from the USA. Can we get a "broad consensus" on this, one way or the other? Zipzip50 (talk) 05:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Well, now it's been reverted (Andy?), so we're back to a mix of mold and mould. OK. Not half as important as finding the right stocks to buy! Zipzip50 (talk) 07:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Too much jargon

"the 3D microfabrication technique of 2-photon photopolymerization"

How many people walking in off the street are really going to understand what that means? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Readers_First

Yellowlarakin (talk) 03:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

RepRap

Perhaps this should become a more general topic regarding home 3D printing/fabrication. There are other projects such as Fab@Home and MakerBot. --67.241.40.118 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC).

Food printer

Stumbled over this one, if it can be sourced you might want it in the article. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 10:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Botmill

Should botmill really be listed as a DIY 3D printer? Botmill, to my knowledge, is only a vendor who sells RepRaps and materials for them. --WERETIGER (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Definition of 3d printer

There seems to be a lot of confusion over what exactly is the definition of a 3d printer. Hopefully someone knowledgeable about this can help us out here. For example, I don't see why CNC machine tools shouldn't be considered 3d printers. Whether you create a plastic or metal parts seems totally irrelevant to me. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I generally consider layer-additive technologies to be "3D printing" since those are the only ones that can really do fully arbitrary shapes including overhangs and interlocking pieces. I think the fact that "printing" is generally additive (ink/toner) is consistent with this semantically. Most 2D imaging technologies that don't add are not called printing. It is a photographic print but it seems more like lithography to me and you don't use a printer to make it. Likewise vinyl signs are cut not printed, other things are die-cut, etc. I think some companies try to make a distinction based on color abilities versus physical properties. If I make that distinction, I would say ZCorp specializes in "3D printer" where as Stratasys and 3D Systems specialize in rapid prototyping machines. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the terminology difference is driven by the additive-versus-subtractive distinction. In a sense, Dondegroovily has identified an etic truth trying to shine forth, in search of the right emic terminology mask. This actually dovetails nicely with a comment that I just made at Talk:Direct digital manufacturing#Merging. Basically, if you wanted an emic term that meets Dondegroovily's definition (i.e., the etic superset meaning), it would have to be one of various terms such as "direct manufacturing", "on-demand manufacturing", or "instant manufacturing". Those refer to the superset ("any method that allows people to send information over the internet and have a desired physical product created quickly on the other end"). The meaning that the term "3D printing" is conventionally used for is a subset of that—the additive technologies only. — ¾-10 00:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Table of Printers

The table of printer types is not valuable IMHO. Wikipedia isn't a catalogue. Also because of the wide variation in home 3D printers I don't think this table can ever be said to be accurate and complete. If people feel that this should stay it should at least be given it's own article. In the mean time I have removed it. Lotu (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What about the other type of "3D printing"?

I came here looking for information on Xographs, a printing technique developed in the 1950s (?) to make "three-dimensional" postcards and such. I don't know how to do it, but I think there should be some disambiguation here, even if it just points to a an apparently non-existent page on Xographs (a type of parallax stereogram). Edit: It looks like the topic is under Lenticular Printing, so that's where the disambiguation should point. PapayaSF (talk) 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. I implemented it with a hatnote augmentation, because I agree that it makes sense to help the readers who may be looking for that topic and end up here. — ¾-10 21:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Types of 3D printing

I believe that there should be a section of types of 3D printing. These types should be "3D additive printing" and "3D subtractive printing." Why does the term "3D printing" only include adding layers and not taking layers away? If a machine 'prints' or makes a 3D model, I think it should be called a 3D printer.

And yes, I do understand that subtractive manufacturing is a CNC machine but it is also a rapid prototyping machine as well.(Beckyc24 (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC))

I don't know of any 2d 'printing' technology that is subtractive. The nearest I can think of is the sort of thing that will cut letters out of sheet material to make a sign, but I've never heard that referred to as 'printing' and it bears no resemblance to any other sort of printing. The subtractive techniques can certainly qualify as rapid prototyping, which is a major flaw in the WP article under that title, and to my mind that is where they belong.

Having said that, the article reads as if powder binding is the only 3d printing technique. The 3d printers that build up an object by laying down layers of material are every bit as much 'printers' and the article should have separate descriptions for these two methods. treesmill (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Ceramicprinting.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Ceramicprinting.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

File:MakerBot ThingOMatic Bre Pettis.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:MakerBot ThingOMatic Bre Pettis.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I want to contest this speedy deletion; everything MakerBot does is open source - GPL or CC. I am confident that I will be able to obtain explicit permission, but I may need more time. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, the image is out of date. Makerbot has newer technology on the market. 99.191.75.127 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)