Jump to content

Talk:3D printing/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Conflict of interest editing

This article has been heavily edited by Fklatt who has a COI as clear as the day is long. The tag needs to stay on until independent reviewers check the article for NPOV and sourcing; if you remove the tag please leave a note here. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"I would like to add the following to 3D Printing-> Electric motors and generators section (only between quotation marks - please don't add any other part of this talk to this section):

"Best Electric Machine has invented, developed and patented MotorPrinter, which is a LOM 3D Printer of axial-flux magnetic cores with integral frame assembly and pre-processed high performance magnetic metal ribbon, such as amorphous metal ribbon, for SYNCHRO-SYM, induction, reluctance, field wound, and permanent magnet electric motors and generators[1]."

References

  1. ^ Patent US8505351
As suggested by Wikipedia's COI (e.g., I am a principle of Best Electric Machine) in accordance with Jytdog, I want to provide evidence with the previous quoted addition that there are other 3d Printing programs of electric machines beside United Technologies in order to make the article equitable in accordance to Wikipedia's policy. I apologize for trying this in the past without providing COI evidence and now understand the past COI problem. Although I have the utmost respect for Wikipedia and I would never provide information that was driven by marketing; but as always, I try to provide state of art information or corrections. I graciously hope United Technologies provided the same COI request. Fklatt (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's rules (Click on this link: WP:CONSENSUS), "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution."
In your case, other editors have been trying and trying to get you to engage in a discussion at the following two locations:
The Administrators' noticeboard Incidents (ANI) discussion is the the one you really need to participate in -- it was opened because you repeatedly failed to respond on your talk page,
Because of the above, I am putting your edit request above ON HOLD while you prove to us that you are willing to be a productive member member of the Wikipedia community by engaging in a discussion on both of the above pages. I am going to suggest that the editors on this page wait and give you three days to respond on those two pages, at which time we will evaluate your edit request. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
sorry for not responding here sooner. I started reading this article carefully and it is in bad shape There is a lot of blatantly COI editing in this article. I understand why FKlatt wants to add yet more badly sourced PROMO content but that is not what we are about here - we are not including content based on a patent which is about the most crappy, SPS, PROMO source imaginable. I will say that If there are independent, secondary sources that discuss BEM's motor we can consider adding content about it. but not this content, based on this source.
 Not done Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the section on printed electric motors entirely; it's, by the standards of Wikipedia, completely unreferenced, and was additionally added by someone with a COI. It also had issues with WP:UNDUE, this isn't something that is being commonly done right now, nor has it been written about in the literature that much (so far as I am aware) so probably shouldn't even have its own section.GliderMaven (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have little interest in this article (too broken to fix, too many tubs being thumped). As to FKlatt's edits though, I see the COI problem as being overshadowed by a greater problem: 3D printing just doesn't seem to be important for the motor-related purposes he's describing, and v.v. If this stuff was significant, I'd have much less trouble with the COI. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Lede Edit

-The fact that 3d printing doesn't use any molds, specialised dies or machining needs to be in the lede. Without these points you could argue that casting or extrusion is 3d printing.

-Obviously not all 3d printing techniques can make "virtually any shape or geometry". As per my reverted edit this should be written "often virtually any shape..".

-If we're going to say printers are industrial robots, then it can't hurt to say they range from consumer level machines to larger instruments.

-As for any spelling errors, it's probably quicker for you to correct them than for us to revert all of an edit based on one or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrado (talk • contribs) 14:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your improvement has already been reverted per WP:OWN. Apparently "most 3D printers use dies", which must come as a surprise to them Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
You are, as has become your routine here, insulting and incorrect. The relevant edit included at least two spelling errors, and additionally stated that 3D printers cannot use dies (hint: extrusion 3D printers extrude through... a die), and cannot use machining (hint: laminating 3D printers cut their laminates using... machining).
Exactly how many different obviously wrong things am I allowed before I revert an edit, without being accused of WP:OWN because sorry, that particular one did *not* make the article better.GliderMaven (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
A nozzle still isn't a die. A die, as a device in extrusion, defines the form of the finished product. This is not the case for 3D printing, the shape is defined by the path in which the nozzle moves. Now you can argue semantics as much as you like, but your version of the article is now highly misleading because it implies the shapes comes from the shape of a die. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
[citation needed] I am aware of no such definition of 'die'. A die is defined by what it immediately does to an extrusion, and that extruded material can be subject to arbitrary further manufacturing processes, they can be stamped, punched, welded, stretched, coiled etc. etc. etc.
And even if, for the sake of argument, we accepted your, in my opinion, completely incorrect definition, the edit still had all the other problems I already mentioned. I completely stand by my revert.GliderMaven (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The die semantics aside, can we agree that a defining feature of additive manufacturing is the fact that it makes 3d objects without machining a block of material, casting, forging or extruding a set shape? Perhaps a compromise would simply so replace "dies" with "specialised dies". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrado (talk • contribs) 16:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you should stay away from mentioning dies or even specialised dies. I could certainly imagine a 3D printer could be equipped with multiple specialised dies. The word 'specialised' is too vague.GliderMaven (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, 'casting' is at best, borderline. One use of 3D printers to make an object involves printing a mould and then casting in that. You could argue that the casting is a separate step, and it may be, but that becomes harder to argue since conceivably the printer itself may well do the pour, particularly when doing construction of buildings.GliderMaven (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, you make some fair points, but try reading the lede replacing "3d Printing" with "die casting". The only distinguishing feature which doesn't apply is the "additive processes are used, in which successive layers of material are laid down under computer control", and I would argue that this isn't even true. Some 3d printing techniques don't rely on layers (eg: continuous liquid interface production), while some casting processes do add material in layers (functionally graded parts). To me it is clear that one very important characteristic of 3d printing is that you're never machining down a block of material to get a part out, and you never add material to a premade die/mold to make a part, and that this information needs to be in the lede.Ezrado (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I should also add that at present the lede to this article is inadequately short in my opinion.Ezrado (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I do think that additive processes are the defining feature of 3D printing, and the references seem to agree with that. Whether additive processes necessarily involve 'layering' depends on what you mean by 'layer'; a continuous flow process still has temporarily deposited layers IMO. Just because you can't see the layers doesn't mean they aren't there; if the fed polymer were to change color over time, the layers would become visible.GliderMaven (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
But I do agree with you about the lead length, it used to be a lot longer. It was shortened by this GF edit.
p.s. it's a lead, not a lede, wikipedia leads are not written in news style.GliderMaven (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Lewihe

Sugget include info about Lewihe. [1].--Lagoset (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

  • No. There are an incalculable number of new fused filament 3D printers out there with new ones every day. Unless it has some novel and distinctive feature, no new printers should be included. We shouldn't even have an article at List of 3D printers, for much the same reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

"Anybody into 3D printing?"

The question "Anybody into 3D printing?" was recently asked at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Sciaky, Inc.. We could use somebody who knows a bit about the subject to help us to unravel a mess of advertisements mixed with legitimate articles and figure out which to delete or merge. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Added commas after resolution and expensive Blakenyguen (talk) 22:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Citation Under General Principles

I added a citation in the Modelling section under General Principles. It appeared fine in the sandbox, however, does not appear correctly in the page. Any help in fixing this error would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C10H16N5O13P3 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

3D printing : STL errors

Hello,

I informed you that I've done an edit of your section about STL files errors on 3D printing page. I add references, and I precised the possibles errors.

Sincerely,

R3sJAP155M (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

3D or 3-D?

The two (3D and 3-D) seem to be used almost interchangeably, and a cursory glance at the references below suggests the same. Which spelling is correct? Or rather, which should be preferred in this article? 24.211.154.54 (talk) 03:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

printing tissue

The content below was added in this dif, and I reverted it. My rationale is below. Happy to discuss.

3D bioprinting technology has recently trialled the production of human-scale tissue constructs.[1] The Integrated Tissue and Organ Printing System (Itop) uses a biodegradable plastic to provide the structure when combined with a water-based gel, which contains the cells and encourages them to grow. Lead researcher on the project, Prof Anthony Atala, said that tissues could now be printed on a human scale.[2]

  1. ^ Kang, Hyun-Wook; Lee, Sang Jin; Ko, In Kap; Kengla, Carlos; Yoo, James J.; Atala, Anthony (2016-02-15). "A 3D bioprinting system to produce human-scale tissue constructs with structural integrity". Nature Biotechnology. advance online publication. doi:10.1038/nbt.3413. ISSN 1546-1696.
  2. ^ editor, James Gallagher Health; website, BBC News. "Doctors 3D-print 'living' body parts". BBC News. Retrieved 2016-02-18. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)

Can we please wait until this work is discussed in a review? Folks have been working on 3D printing of tissue for a long time, and claims of what is first" in the popular media are notoriously wrong and hype-y.

Knowing that people are keenly interested in health-related matters, the media loves to grab science news and pump it up — this sells newspapers and pulls eyes to TV shows and websites. This is something that has been happening more and more over the past thirty years or so, and is driven in part by the 24-hour news cycle and its hunger for stories. But the popular press is really, really unreliable for health news. For example, the BBC—very respected! —reported in 2011 that some Swedish surgeons had "carried out the world's first synthetic organ transplant". They put that in bold print at the top of their article. The problem is that this was dead wrong. Another team published an article in 2006 on their work with artificial bladders—work they started in 2001.

Likewise, many research articles in biology turn out to be dead ends, or unreplicable, or even withdrawn. (See Announcement: Reducing our irreproducibility from Nature, for example, which came after this and this were published). It is not that a review article somehow reaches backward in time and magically makes a research article more or less reliable; it is that you and i cannot know what research article will turn out to be replicable and/or accepted and built on by the relevant field, and which will not. Reviews tell us that. Here is an example of what we should not be doing. Remember that scientist who published work showing that if you shake cells (really!) you could turn them into stem cells? There was huge media hype around that. And yep, people rushed to add content based on the hyped primary source to WP. (Note the edit date, and the date the paper came out) only to delete it later when the paper was retracted. We should not be jerking the public around like that.

So can we wait until this is discussed in a review in the scientific literature please? Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

History of 3D printing

Hello,

In reading the article, I've realized that there was no mention of "Alain Le Méhauté" and "Jean-Claude André". They apparently were the first to file the patent on the technology of 3D printing, before Chuck Hull (Even if it is the latter who has received paternity). Should we add this detail for the part of history of 3D printing ?

For example, in an article about : http://3dprint.com/65466/reflections-alain-le-mehaute/

—Preceding undated comment added 14:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if there already is one and I missed it somehow but is it possible that a section that shows 3D-printing in popular culture can be made here? These three links I found can maybe serve as decent first examples.195.67.78.50 (talk) 10:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Anjan Contractor

3D printing expert Anjan Contractor has contributed more than anyone to 3D printing technology with just rafts of press to document it. He should be on this page, at a minimum, under the food section.3Dnasa (talk) 06:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Then there will be plenty of independent sources to support such a claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 07:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Food

"One of the problems with food printing is the nature of the texture of a food". I think that nature of food and texture of food are two different things. I don't know what "For example, foods that are not strong enough to be filed are not appropriate for 3D printing for now" means. But the nature of food is that it is perishable and generally includes numerous ingredients. Unless a machine was to "print" a 3D potato using starch, I cannot see realistically what a 3D printer can create effectively - or what the point would be. Texture is a different matter, probably many foods can be liquefied and then solidified sufficiently to be edible.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 3D printing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Safety advice

Removing this to talk here because its written like advice per WP:NOTADVICE. Needs to be rewritten. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

As I posted on my talk page I agree that we should not be writing "advice," though I still think there is a place for documenting known safety hazards. Thoughts on how to best present such information would be helpful. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 21:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
It looks like Doc James has made useful adjustments. I think that should cover the concerns? James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually Doc James really didn't address the problem so I rewrote it[2]. This is stuff that belongs more at your talk page but I will address it here. Many editors have complained about your editing tactics, you seem to be using Wikipedia as a newspaper publishing your organizations findings (see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER). This sets up a WP:COI .... explained again on your talk page. I would suggest not citing "your" organization in what sounds like a press release, you should instead cite some independent 3rd party source that has referenced your findings. Lack of 3rd party sourcing may be a reason to delete the whole section (I have not addressed that). Familiarizing yourself with what I did clean up, WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:YESPOV (clearly indicating "who said that") and WP:TONE (second person is inappropriately associated with step-by-step instructions of a how-to guide), would go a long way to fixing the problem. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Stating recommendations from a well respected medical organization is different than stating how to advice is Wikipedia's voice.
Positions of major health care organizations are deemed to be suitable sources per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
WP:MOSMED/Writing style recommends against addressing the reader directly or giving "how-to" instructions.
WP:MEDRS recommends literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources. "suitable" is a sliding scale at that guideline and a single source COI related entry below the level of a "National Guideline" is noted to be problematic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

1998 Adam Opel GmbH imaging and simulation software

Appearantly, there's a imaging and simulation software developed by Adam Opel GmbH and Professor Lothar Harzheim (in 1998) that is able to create a design that allows optimum strength, using a minimum of materials. It does this by calculating out the amounts of stress on different points in the design, and then adjusting the design based on this. It yields a very efficient design, and benefits from the merits of additive manufacturing (3D printing).

Refs=

I think the software is called "TopShape" (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/245401675_TopShape_An_attempt_to_create_design_proposals_including_manufacturing_constraints , http://www.fnb.tu-darmstadt.de/fachgebiet_fnb/fnb_mitarbeiter/fnb_mitarbeiter_details_13726.de.jsp Can someone make a wikipedia page on it, and link it from the 3D printing page ?

KVDP (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

in srilanka

only few place available — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.115.11.65 (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 3D printing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:3D_printing/Archive_6&oldid=825905899"