Jump to content

Talk:Fused deposition modeling

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redirect from Stratasys

[edit]

Stratasys sells machines that work on principles other than FDM, namely the Eden line which are re-branded Objet machines. I'm not sure the redirect from Stratasys makes much sense given that fact. (Of course, they are phasing out the Eden machines...) --GargoyleMT 16:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made the redirect into a two-line stub based off their corporate website. No need to figure out what to redirect it to now. :) Bryan 23:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm still getting used to this "be bold" thing. --GargoyleMT 16:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Since you seem to know some stuff about the company, perhaps you could practice boldness on the stub and expand it a bit? S. Scott Crump implies that Stratasys was an important company in the development of the fused deposition modeling process so it's probably worth more detailed treatment than the five minutes' work I gave it. :) Bryan 23:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced assertion

[edit]

The article makes the claim that...

As of 2002 it has been the best-selling Rapid Prototyping technology, while simpler, cut-down versions of the system have been introduced in recent years, released under the Prodigy and Dimension trademarks.

This claim may well be true, but no reference is given to support it. As well, it talks about the state of the industry five years ago. Much as I like and work with FDM I see a lot more sales bumf coming out of outfits like ZCorp than Stratasys these days. Does anybody know?

Plaasjaapie 12:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Wohlers Report may be the best source on the subject, but it is unfree. Some of the (copies of) media articles on the Stratasys site also provide a little support for that statement. This one says: "Today, no other company in the small but fiercely competitive rapid-prototyping industry has sold more units than Stratasys." (That skirts the issue of units per year by talking about total units.) I don't see much of the Z-Corp machines, but I do know of others with PolyJet and Dimension machines. And of course 3D Systems is hoping to shake things up with the V-Flash... But that's neither here nor there. --GargoyleMT 00:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody named ValByrne came in and upgraded the section on FDM market domination and AGAIN there is no reference pointing to where the information might have come from. Now instead of 2002 it's up to 2005. Mind, I don't mind if Stratasys is the big dog in the business, I'd just like to know who's saying it. Also, the addition asserts that "Resin systems offer much better detail than FDM." Does anybody know what a "resin system" is?  :-( Plaasjaapie 20:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the change in year, so it's a good time to stick in the {{fact|date=month year}} template. As for the other statement, I think it is a reference to stereolithography machines, though some of the "3D printers" made by Objet or 3D Systems should have pretty fine detail too. The 0.010" laser beam and the liquid resin on the SLA machines reproduce detail pretty well, depending on the scale of the parts you work with. --GargoyleMT 17:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

[edit]

Looks like the history of this article is riddled with posts from companies trying to spam wikipedia about how much better their product is, at this point the article is still needing a major overhaul. I removed a ton of trash talk about how one company was better than everyone else, but this thing still needs a major re-write 64.207.236.42 (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New sections needed?

[edit]

I have being looking into to this tech in the last while. Most sites think that the filaments are costing too much at this point. There is a $40,000 contest to make a cheap personal/home unit: http://desktopfactory2012.istart.org/ . When I worked in PVC extrusion, I think we only paid $1USD per kg of raw resin powder, although we did buy it by the rail car load. Should we add section(s) about this issue and the plans to recycle plastics/create filaments on a smaller scale?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What relevance does this have for WP?
Filament costs money. Fused filament fabrication requires filament, not powder (for obvious etymological reasons and less obvious mechanical reasons). Reducing the price of hobbyist 3D printing could be achieved by either making extruded filament cheaper, or by finding a cheap extruder tech that worked with powder (such a thing would also make Rostock-style printers a lot more practical). However WP is not a research organisation. WP can report dissatisfaction with current prices, or any published results in achieving either of these improvements, but in the meantime it's outside project scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rename?

[edit]

I am looking at this as an outsider that just heard the term FDM in a video of Cody Wilson. I then read this ...

The term fused deposition modeling and its abbreviation to FDM are trademarked by Stratasys Inc. The exactly equivalent term, fused filament fabrication (FFF), was coined by the members of the RepRap project to give a phrase that would be legally unconstrained in its use.

If that is the case, surely the whole article should be called Fused Filament Fabrication, and maybe a small FDM article should refer to it. If people want to understand the technology, then a manufacturer independent Wikipedia is the place to find information. If they want to discuss the pros and cons of manufacturers and techniques, a bulletin board is the place, and if they want to know the capabilities of a manufacturer's machine, the manufacturer's website is the place.

I therefore suggest that this becomes an article on fused filament fabrication, with a small link from FDM so that people can find it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crysta1c1ear (talk • contribs) 14:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

This article should be merged with 3D printing. Aside from the fact that its a trademarked phrase, it seems to differ little from what is extensively described in the 3D article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 02:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what I understand, FDM is a type of 3D printing. However, there are other implementations, like stereolithography, that work in a very different fashion. Therefore, this article should not be merged into the broader topic if there is sufficient content to justify having a separate page (which there appears to be). « Aaron Rotenberg « Talk « 21:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you compare the section of 3D printing to this article, there is little difference nor is there substantially more information presented. It looks like an editor simply took the section from 3D printing and created a separate article. This gives undue emphasis on this admittedly commercial variant. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the question. It's only start class at the moment. The question is whether the FDM article will have more information than the 3D printing article on FDM. The answer is obviously yes.
Therefore I'm opposed to the merge.GliderMaven (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dated Info

[edit]

This article uses terminology specific to the deposition of plastics and metal wire, and does not account for the deposition of clays, silicone, rubber or other material. HyDavo (talk) 19:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First Source is Unavailable

[edit]

The first source for this article is no longer available. I couldn't figure out where the page was moved or if it still exists but you can see the content using wayback machine. 05:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1122:400F:150E:D4F4:97DE:6523 (talk)

Redirect to FFF

[edit]

FDM is a proprietary term for a single company - Stratasys -- should this entire article be forwarded to Fused filament fabrication, which is a more generic term? Or should it only be limited to talking about Stratasys' technology? --Fdm11 (talk) 11:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Currently none of the images for this article are even Stratasys machines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdm11 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly agree. Whatever we decide, it should observe two things:
  • There are several processes for "deposition by fusing" Only some are doing that with filament, others are from powder.
  • There are trademarks around, which we should generally avoid (unless describing that named process alone).
  • Thirdly, MOS would anyway favour Fff rather than FFF.
I can see an immediate need for articles on "3D printing" and one on "filament fusing", with others on powder fusing and photopolymerisation if anyone feels the urge to write them. I don't think that fused deposition modelling is needed as an article: it's neither the whole scope of 3D print, nor is it a useful subset within it. Filament and powder processes have too little in common. Fortunately this article, despite its title, isn't about fused deposition, it's solely about filament. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of its origins, but FDM is used generically in scientific journals (sometimes alongside FFF), so I would oppose the forward. Ezrado (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merger

[edit]
There is a clear consensus for merging the two articles. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The title of this article (Fused deposition modeling, or FDM), and each subsequent use in the article, needs to be changed to fused filament fabrication (FFF). FDM is a marketing term trademarked by Stratasys. The current state of this article is as if there was an article for tissue paper that was called "Kleenex" or an article for sildenafil called "Viagra" or if the page for adhesive bandage redirected to the page for Band-Aid.

Information about the invention of the technology, and reference to "FDM," can be a subsection within the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkpr (talk • contribs) 21:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since as far as I can tell from reading the two articles, FDM and FFF are synonyms for exactly the same process, I agree that fused deposition modeling and fused filament fabrication should be merged into one article, leaving behind redirect(s) so people searching for either term can easily find the merged article. I agree that both terms need to be mentioned in the merged article. --70.177.124.19 (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
** Umm... if you read the article (and I work for a competitor of Stratasys, so I can confirm it), FFF and FDM are exactly the same process. There are other powder-based printers on the market that use powders. FFF and FDM use spool fed filaments or pellets. Schbrownie 03:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed — we don’t need two articles for basically the same process, especially if one of them has trademark issues. Andy Dingley, do you have sources to prove that they are not the same? — NickTheRed37 (0x54 · 0x43) 15:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • A powder is not a filament. There is a vast corpus of hobbyist-grade filament printers out there. Commercial printing is still largely based on powders, sintered in situ. These two processes are different by material, process and the results achieved. This is not an issue about trademarks, it's an issue about different processes altogether. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for specifying reliable sources for your opinion, not for just clarifying it. — NickTheRed37 (0x54 · 0x43) 16:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Partially Agree - (Full disclaimer, I work for a competitor of Stratasys in the FFF/FDM industry) It's not fair that certain other companies are listed on the FDM page. Stratasys deserves credit for inventing and being the first to commercialize the FDM process. Removing FDM would mean that "Kleenex" and other recognizable brands also do not deserve their own page. I see benefit to merging information about the process and support merging most of the content - but only if FDM is left as its own page and explains the history of FDM. Schbrownie (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree - Here is the history: We used the term "Fused Deposition Modelling" and the abbreviation "FDM" on the RepRap website when the project started without knowing that they were Stratasys trademarks. In March 2008 Stratasys sent me a polite e-mail pointing out their trademarks and asking us not to use them (I will supply a copy on request, but will not post it as it is Stratasys's copyright - contact me). I then invented the term "Fused Filament Fabrication" and its abbreviation "FFF" as direct free and open equivalents (see the RepRap Licence), and we did a global edit on the RepRap website to substitute my newly invented terms. - Adrianreprap (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree per nom. Mais oui! (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- one article for one essential physical proscess should be enough. Then will need a good copyedit to read well and ensure the "History" of the process is well-written to Wiki-policy and standards. N2e (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Performed agreed merge, although there remains some duplication. Klbrain (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling error

[edit]

Modelling is spelt with double L, please change the title of this page

Actually, it can be spelled both ways ShaiKaminka (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fused deposition modeling. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fused deposition modeling. 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) 01:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fused_deposition_modeling&oldid=1202177460"