«
»

Open Source 3D-printer do what others say they are going to do.

Fluid Forms is interested in cheap rapid prototyping and 3D-printing solutions to test new ideas and to experiment with. That’s why we’ve been looking forward to the launch of the Desktop Factory. But I still don’t even know what kind of material it’s going to use. (Do you know?)  Quite a while ago the announcement of the “world 1st 3D-printer under USD 5.000,-” was such a big shout out in the media – and we’re still waiting. Another machine I’m very interested in buying would be the LOM-machine by Mcor Technologies. I signed up for their newsletter, but I didn’t get any information so far. Today I dropped an email so they know that I really want to buy such a machine. Hope I’ll get some information soon.

Out there are many other creative coding and open design communities like processing, generatorX, many universities and artist waiting for cheap solutions to bring their ideas to physical life. They don’t need a perfect or flashy 3D-printer and neither do we. Much more important is that the solution is (a) cheap to buy / make and (b) cheap to operate and maintain. If it can (c) be hacked / improved easily and there’s (d) a community behind to ask for help, it’s even better.

The open source 3D-printing solutions makerbot, reprap or fab@home are obviously following Paul Graham’s famous six principles for making new things: Find (a) simple solutions (b) to overlooked problems (c) that actually need to be solved, and (d) deliver them as informally as possible, (e) starting with a very crude version 1, then (f) iterating rapidly.

And I think that’s absolutely the right way, because we are going to order either a makerbot or a reprap machine. Does anyone have experience with both machines and knows about advantages and can recommend one of them? (Even though the Makerbot isn’t officialy launched yet)

If the Desktop Factory is launched or I can get hold of a Mcor fine, but meanwhile we’ll be happyly using the open source versions.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 31st, 2009 at 5:02 pm and is filed under Generative Production, Production Technology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

  • I can't wait for these machines to come close to the detail and size of 3d models our ZCorp machine produces for our architectural models. When that happens we will be on board!
    http://www.3dventures.com
  • Ian
    There is an alternative the Bits from Bytes Version 3 3D printer again based on the RepRap project of which I'm also a core member this differs considerably from the Makerbot in that it follows more closely the mechanical aspects of the RepRap yet is much simpler to build mainly due to having linear bearings on the X & Y axis and bearings on the leadscrews it also has larger (12mm) diameter X & Y bars to give a stiffer structure (suitable for light milling).

    A complete build takes 1 day for 2 unskilled people.

    This is a one stop shop for all the parts so i find some of the comments posted a little misleading. The Bits from Bytes Version 3 and the MakerbBot both have their advantages and disadvantages with respect to each other.

    To help the original question the key difference as I see them are (I may be biased):

    the RapMan has more than 8 times the build volume X:250mm x Y:200mm x Z:200mm of the MakerBot.

    They have different extruder technologies (pinch wheel & Screw drive) on this one you take your choice the pinch wheel is simpler but the screw drive has greater force & grip.

    The Bits From Bytes Version 3 has fully assembled single board electronics and is driven from a SD card with the G code file on it so no need for a computer connection it also has an OLED screen for file selction and machine control etc.

    The MakerBot is cheaper depending where in the world you are but approx 70% the price of the Bits from Bytes Version 3.

    I hope this helps. Ian



  • Hi Ian

    The larger build volume is certainly an advantage. Talking about light milling, it would be great to swap the extruder for a power drill to do some milling.

    One question we still have is how limited the geometries are given that the machines don't have support material. I guess we can create the support structure in software but I'm not sure how easy it is to break it away.

    The Dimension(http://www.dimensionprinting.com/3d-printers/3d-printing-bst.aspx) machines have a different material for the support structure which you can even wash away. Having two materials raises the complexity of a machine and therein the cost. So I assume this is not an option for either machine.

    What I would really love to do is print wax for casting objects in metal. Hint, hint, hint ;-)





  • Ian
    Well both machines use skeinforge to do the conversion from STL file to G Code and this will generate support structures which i have been testing. They are not 100% yet but do work just a little difficult to remove but it can be done, this is an area Enrique (the genius behind skeinforge) is going to work on and I think it's very clsoe to sorted. The Bits from Bytes Version 3 will comfortable do a 60° overhang sometimes even up to 45° but a bit of luck is needed for that but I'm sure the MakerBot would do the same.

    Multiple heads is something we are activly working on as I'm sure is Zach and MakerBot.

    Well wax would be good but if its for metal casting then ABS works the same as wax and can be used for investment casting :-)
  • Bre
    Wanna send me an STL and I'll print something out for you with a MakerBot? - Bre
  • Thanks for the offer Bre! We'll send you an STL during the next week. I'm very curious to see the result. Actually we would like to get an 3D-printer (or maybe even more than one) as centre point for our upcoming Creative Coding workshops. Goal is to combine 3D-printing with generative design in an meaningful way. The results will be presented during the Ars Electronica in Linz. Are you interested in some kind of cooperation?
  • Zach, I'm glad to here you say the RepRap is hard to build. For the C.STEM last year the lads from www.todo.to.it tried to build at RepRap, but after four days they had not succeeded even with some help from Adrian. The electronics were not the problem as they are Arduino afficianados. The problem was the millimeter precision required in the construction.

    We would really like to build a machine but don't really want to spend a week doing so. I think ease of assembly would be a beneficial goal in bringing such a machine to the masses.
  • Hey Guys,

    I'm one of the three founders of MakerBot. Thanks for the nice writeup. You pretty much nailed it. I especially liked the Paul Graham guidelines. Anyway, I figured I could answer a few of your questions:

    MakerBot is actually an offshoot project of RepRap. I've been a core developer of RepRap for about 3 years, and Adrian Bowyer (the founder of RepRap) is an investor. The goal of MakerBot is to get cheap, open source 3D printing into the hands of, well, everyone!

    Currently, the easiest way for us to do that is to use the cheapest digital fabrication method available to us: laser cutting. We're a small shop, so this allows us to rapidly iterate our designs, as well as do small manufacturing runs as well.

    RepRap is an extremely ambitious project to build a 3D printer that can print itself. Since 3D printing is not widespread at all, it is very much a chicken/egg type of problem. Its extremely hard to iterate rapidly if you don't have the technology to do so. We decided to take a step back and try to make a really nice bootstrap machine to take us there.

    Basically, a RepRap machine is fairly hard to build, and there is no one-stop-shop to buy one. We wanted to solve that problem and make it dead simple to build one of these machines.

    Also, MakerBot builds on the achievements of the RepRap project by using the same electronics, software, and extruder. We've just come up with a nice, reliable 3D positioning system and packaged it up in a nice, user-friendly package. Of course it's all 100% open source. We love open source and the community it brings.

    In the future, I would very much like to be using our MakerBots to build the next generation of MakerBots. We plan on releasing a few designs that MakerBot operators can download from our site, print out, and then attach to their machine to improve it. It will be small things at first, like feet, handles, and other utility/beautification parts, but its a good first step. Pretty rad, huh?
blog comments powered by Disqus