Slashdot Mirror
Domain: fabathome.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to fabathome.org.
Comments · 44
-
Re:fab at home
Are you sure it wouldn't have more to do w/ things like: http://www.fabathome.org/index.php?q=node/10 having a link to: http://fabathome.org/wiki2/wiki.html which is 404.
The website rendering unbelievably hideously in Safari.
The link for ``get a printer'' going to: http://www.fabathome.org/wiki/index.php/Fab@Home:Choose_Your_Fabber which is also 404.
I was interested in it, despite the low resolution, but that's more energy / irritation than I'm willing to deal with.
-
Re:fab at home
Are you sure it wouldn't have more to do w/ things like: http://www.fabathome.org/index.php?q=node/10 having a link to: http://fabathome.org/wiki2/wiki.html which is 404.
The website rendering unbelievably hideously in Safari.
The link for ``get a printer'' going to: http://www.fabathome.org/wiki/index.php/Fab@Home:Choose_Your_Fabber which is also 404.
I was interested in it, despite the low resolution, but that's more energy / irritation than I'm willing to deal with.
-
Re:fab at home
Are you sure it wouldn't have more to do w/ things like: http://www.fabathome.org/index.php?q=node/10 having a link to: http://fabathome.org/wiki2/wiki.html which is 404.
The website rendering unbelievably hideously in Safari.
The link for ``get a printer'' going to: http://www.fabathome.org/wiki/index.php/Fab@Home:Choose_Your_Fabber which is also 404.
I was interested in it, despite the low resolution, but that's more energy / irritation than I'm willing to deal with.
-
Re:Too Late
Not sure what your link had to do with anything, but it
-
Re:OK, I'll Say It
They exist, they just don't make chips yet, but that is being worked on. http://www.fabathome.org/ http://www.makerbot.com/ http://www.thingiverse.com/
-
3D printers
A coming technology that is still in very early days is a desktop fabber, also called a 3D printer.
There is an open source project to make useful fabbers. Current fabbers are designed to use easily-acquired parts. I look forward to the day when someone makes a fabber that can fabricate all the parts needed to build another fabber, but that day is distant.
P.S. A commercial 3D printer was used to make props for Iron Man 2, including the gloves for the suit.
http://www.ecouterre.com/static/17545_iron_man.php
steveha
-
Doesn't everyone getting a BSEE do this?Seriously, in a microcontrollers class, whether its a stamp, HC12, 8051, whatever, isn't the final project at this level of neato? Not sure why this story is noteworthy, especially because it's not really identifiable as SMB other than the first few blocky shapes might be identifiable as the terrain of level 1-1. Most iPhone apps are more impressive.
About the only thing that is slashdotty is that the electronics platform is open source electronics, but I'd rather see an article about an open source rapid prototyper like http://fabathome.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page than someone's EE311 project.
-
Depends on what "printer" means...
If you could build a printer yourself, it would be more than ten times slower than a commercial printer, probably have ten times poorer resolution, and cost more than ten times as much.
The DIY crowd has wisely skipped over 2D printers, and moved directly to 3D fabricators.
-
Re:You missed the point of your own story
what software do you use to design a part for RepRap? I've always been disappointed at FOSS options for solid modeling and part design. BRL-CAD is very well developed, but it wasn't made to be an intuitive part modeler like a SolidWorks or ProEngineer.
Also, I seem to recall the Fab@Home project having a parts/materials price tag of about $2500 (or that's what someone will sell you a kit for, not surel . That seems on par with what my parents probably spent on our first computer or two. (too young to know what the C-128 went for, but our first PC was about $2k).
Ok, finally found where RepRap claims a target of ~$400 for parts. not bad.
-
Re:Laws and stuff
Hope you didn't illegally download that 2x4.
You jest, but the day is coming...
-
Re:Wait, what?
As an engineer, I can selfishly say that at that age you don't was to teach them science, you want to teach them engineering. You want them to take a small piece of science and do something physical and visual. Something they can touch. something they can make or change, and then see how they're changes affect it. But the key difference between that and a lab exercise, is that you have to let them play.
Another suggestion, let them make things. I recommend checking out something like RepRap. For $500 have the kids build a rapid prototyping machine, let them make parts, try different build materials, show them how it ticks. Here's a 1-page description of the RepRap concept (fully GPL i believe) http://reprap.org/pub/Main/WebHome/one-page.pdf Another similar project is Fab@Home, but that will run you $2-3000.
-
Entire model is broken
Yah, wealth is created by making stuff , and not by just pulling ideas out of one's arse. If the ideas can be used to make something, then they might be worth a bit, but an idea alone is worth exactly bupkus.
I would have agreed with you, except for the existence of, and rapid improvement of, Fabbers. Give it a decade or two, and kids/techies will be downloading designs to build what they need, and only ordering raw materials from amazon. Since some fabbers are self-replicating, not even making fabbers will be a safe job/revenue stream. Given that mining and other resource harvesting is becoming more and more automated too, ideas are soon going to be all that's left.
Essentially, we're moving towards the society the (fictional) Krell had. They were smarter than us, and their own tech wiped them out. Let's see how we do. One thing's for sure: if we stick to the RIAA model, we're all screwed.
-
Re:RepRap
How does the quality on the RepRap compare to Fab@Home?
-
Re:What the hell?
In this universe, in this galaxy, in this timeline and on this planet, smartass. Mere mortals can order online right? Heard of 3d Printing services? I'm guessing not. I'm also guessing you did not even bother to search, but just shoot your mouth off insead. Fine, I will spoon feed you, if only for the benefit of other readers. For those reading this, here are the OpenMoko CAD Files Here is info on getting started with 3d printing: Fab@home Finally, here are locations where you can order your plans printed: Fabbers of the World or map of fabbers of the world Next time, do a little homework and maybe you won't look like an idiot.
-
Re:What the hell?
In this universe, in this galaxy, in this timeline and on this planet, smartass. Mere mortals can order online right? Heard of 3d Printing services? I'm guessing not. I'm also guessing you did not even bother to search, but just shoot your mouth off insead. Fine, I will spoon feed you, if only for the benefit of other readers. For those reading this, here are the OpenMoko CAD Files Here is info on getting started with 3d printing: Fab@home Finally, here are locations where you can order your plans printed: Fabbers of the World or map of fabbers of the world Next time, do a little homework and maybe you won't look like an idiot.
-
Re:We Already Have a Moon Rocket
I don't think that's a problem. It probably wasn't mass-production anyway. Besides with projects like http://fabathome.org/ they can just print the parts
-
That's sound a nice project...
for the RepRap I'm trying to put together in the near future.
I mean seriously : although there are very few of them, there are geeks here around who are into all this rapid prototyping. Be it with reprap or fab@home, or bigger facilities available in their universities (Z-Corp...)
These are the perfect audience for all the recently released CAD files (OpenMoko's Neo Freerunner, ASUS' EEE PC, etc.)
-
What is new here?
I don't get it. I simply don't get what is groundbreaking about this project at all.
Open Source?
3D printing?
Self-replication?
None of this is unique, or even original. If you want a high-quality 3D printer that can self-replicate a great many of its parts, and is open-source with some fantastic documentation currently available, see Fab@Home where some progress is being made and has been happening for a couple of years now.
I've seen suggestions of printable ICs and other sorts of digital circuits that might be used in such a device, and it should be noted that the ultimate goal of the Fab@Home project is a fully replicatable device with some sort of basic supply of "source materials" like resin and copper.
While the RepRap looks interesting, it doesn't look like they've done a "survey of available literature" to really prove they've done something new or original... and certainly not something worthy of a
3D printers have been around for decades now in one form or another. If that is what is so ground breaking, these folks need to learn what is standard engineering practice among mechanical engineers. Prototyping machines like this are not only commonly used, but considered essential for any decent engineering shop. All the RepRap looks like to me is a cheap 3D printer. -
Re:CAD Files (It's a ProE part)
-
Methods for homebrew circuit board already existHow does it copy its circuit boards and metallic components? Until the heads to "print" metal are ready on the RepRap machine (which is their longterm plan), the boards will have to be supplied separately (think of it as "vitamins" for the reprap).
*BUT* currently other methods already exist to build your very own circuit board in your kitchen using common household items (laser printer, paper, ironing) and not too difficult to obtain chemicals (etchant).
The plans of the circuit board are open anyway (either the first generation that was done using custom designs for the RepRap, or the Arduino which would probably be used in future versions).
As of the metallic components, they're just plain metal rods and standard screws. Available in most hardware stores. The mechanical complexity is in the plastic parts, which the current machines can already reproduce.
So the net result is that, given a small budget to buy raw materials and electronic components (that you can find locally - nothing special that must be ordered at an official RepRap distributor), given another machine to build the parts, and some patience (to make your homebrew boards, solder the components on them and assemble the stuff), you end up with your own machine. The only thing you need from them are the plans and instructions.
The nearest competitor is the Fab@Home which still needs $2300 worth of parts that must be ordered at various vendors who sell the special parts.
That's the difference, the "self-building" that is already being achieved by the RepRap : everything inside the machine that is custom can be build using the machine itself (plastic), or by the user (boards), the rest are common items. -
Methods for homebrew circuit board already existHow does it copy its circuit boards and metallic components? Until the heads to "print" metal are ready on the RepRap machine (which is their longterm plan), the boards will have to be supplied separately (think of it as "vitamins" for the reprap).
*BUT* currently other methods already exist to build your very own circuit board in your kitchen using common household items (laser printer, paper, ironing) and not too difficult to obtain chemicals (etchant).
The plans of the circuit board are open anyway (either the first generation that was done using custom designs for the RepRap, or the Arduino which would probably be used in future versions).
As of the metallic components, they're just plain metal rods and standard screws. Available in most hardware stores. The mechanical complexity is in the plastic parts, which the current machines can already reproduce.
So the net result is that, given a small budget to buy raw materials and electronic components (that you can find locally - nothing special that must be ordered at an official RepRap distributor), given another machine to build the parts, and some patience (to make your homebrew boards, solder the components on them and assemble the stuff), you end up with your own machine. The only thing you need from them are the plans and instructions.
The nearest competitor is the Fab@Home which still needs $2300 worth of parts that must be ordered at various vendors who sell the special parts.
That's the difference, the "self-building" that is already being achieved by the RepRap : everything inside the machine that is custom can be build using the machine itself (plastic), or by the user (boards), the rest are common items. -
Been done.
So at this point they've made a really bad Fab@Home. Cheap, publicly available, open source, rapid prototyper? been done.
http://fabathome.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
self replicating? Ok, I'll see it to believe it. Its not hard to replicate the plastic parts of any machine with any rapid prototyper, but there are certain parts that just can't be done. Question one: how do you build a machine that can melt plastic out of meltable plastic? -
Re:Missing the forest
Also, what about Fab@Home? How does RepRap fare in comparison? Other than featuring potential for self-replication, is one version of the concept any better than the other?
-
Hmmm...
http://fabathome.org/ anybody?
-
Fab@Home
I'm curious if these guys are actively collaborating with another 3d printing project, Fab@Home. I have no idea how they've licensed the Fab@Home project.
-
Re:so last year
The Fab@Home project is headed up by Prof. Hod Lipson at Cornell University. It's a completely open-source project, with its own Wiki (found here: http://www.fabathome.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page). To quote the Fab@Home FAQ:
"How does Fab@Home differ from RepRap?
There are two main differences. The first is that the RepRap is oriented toward self-replication - trying to make a machine that can make many of its own parts, while Fab@Home is aiming to get as many people as possible to play with/hack/improve fabbers. The second is that RepRap has a screw extrusion deposition tool that is designed for use with polycaprolactone plastic as the intended building material, while Fab@Home uses a syringe tool that allows you to use a wider variety of materials.
The RepRap requires a bit more technical proficiency and quite a bit more in terms of the tools you need. For instance, with RepRap, you need need to build the circuit boards and need metalworking machinery to make some of the parts, while Fab@Home is a snap-and-screw-together kit, with bit of soldering as the most challenging part. Of course the RepRap is cheaper for this same reason."
The main upside of the Fab@Home machine? It can extrude chocolate. -
Democratic acces to manufacture...Sorry to interrupt your political diatribe.
We need a lot of industrial equipment (compilers, if you will) that take an idea and instructions to a real tangible object. How much does an injection molder cost? How much does metal presses cost? How much do chip fabs cost?
Hmmm.... You haven't payed much attention to that little thing called FPGA, have you ?
FPGA have brought the cost of chip design and experimenting within the reach of mere mortals. Several
You could almost lose your Geek card for failing to take account of them !
There are even website for exchanging designes like OpenCores.
Also, Rapid prototyping is another technology that is featured a lot on
You don't necessarily need a several-thousands-of-dollars worth 3D printer from Z-corp. There are small cheap machine like the commercial Fab@home and the completely free and self boot-straping Reprap.
These brings the possibility of home made hardware much closer.
And that is without mentioning techniques that have already been available at home for ages like soldering or programming embed microcontrollers like PICs.
With all these possibility of making one's own hardware at home, the question of using open licenses and encouraging collaborative development by individual hardware hacker (vs. the classical big-corp approach) becomes perfectly valid. The barrier of entry has lowered and you don't anymore necessarily to be a huge company that only plays a tiny role along a big chain to be able to design and improve hardware. -
Re:Decompiler
Yes.... it is called a sequencer. Only good ones aren't so cheap.
I'm sure that eventually somebody will offer some open source designs that will eventually work for sequencing a genome, but we are still at the stage of designing the tools that will make the tools that will do the job.
Some "hackers" have also done a fairly good job of adding some comments to the source code as well, but you are free to try and add your own if you think you can make some headway in trying to figure out some of the functions as well. -
Re:What I don't understand
Add ten years to your scenario, and then re-evaluate your question. The costs and challenges involved in manufacturing are continuing to decrease. Automation and Adaptability in the Manufacturing industries are increasing. Right now there are Open Source fabs which can take your CAD instructions and produce tangible objects. Automation is the cutting edge of manufacturing.
It's not too far-fetched to believe that very soon there will be strong "on-demand" production facilities that have a completely automated start-to-finish process. I put together CAD designs, send them to a Mfg, who produces a run at a 'fair' price and then ships it to me. Open Source Hardware Hacking is merely a step on this path.
Think of all the amazingly cool products we could open up to the world if producing your "dream product" was a simple as learning to use Autodesk Inventor!
- DaftShadow -
Where are the open source people?
Just wondering? I think it wouldn't be very hard to shake up things for companies that aren't playing too nice with their customers right now. An open source solution might be the wake up call.
Perhaps take something such as the Fab @ Home project and rework the machine to simply put ink on paper. It seems half the problems related to printing would be worked out already looking at the existing project. -
Re:3D Printer option: chocolate?
I agree it would be quite fun to "print" your own chocolate bar. As already mentioned chocolate is quite a popular material. Check it out: http://fabathome.org/wiki/index.php?title=Materials:Chocolate
-
Re:material
Kraftmark Company created a two-part epoxy-like substance especially for the project. See the page in the wiki. I'm not qualified to discuss the material's properties, but the pics show nice results.
-
Re:Any shape?
Yes, but what about hollow objects, like an egg?
Squeeze bulb? -
CNC cutter?
Parent is absolutely right, period.
Now, do you think 245 mw is enough to burn through balsa wood?
I so desire to make a CNC(as in x-y table), non contact cutter to make the wing section ribs for my planes, and now that the laser for that is just one busted DVD burner away from me . . .
With this device, and a personal fabricator like the one in fab @ home We can be frickin' Leo DaVincis
. . . If we don't end blind in the process of making the first one, that is. -
Re:hmm...: answered
The open source rapid prototyper: http://www.fabathome.org/wiki/index.php?title=Mai
n _Page -
Home circuit fabs?
When I read this, I was thinking of Fab@Home with the idea that perhaps you could use this process to help build crude home-built ICs out of simple and cheap materials.
Unfortunately, it seems as though the process is a bit more complicated, and I don't know how you can get a nozzle heated to 1100 degrees C in a reduced oxygen environment (presumably why it is in a sealed glass tube to work) that would also be something you would want on your kitchen table.
While of interest to a materials science guy, this really isn't that spectacular of a deal here. It does have the potential of improving LCD screen luminance values, reducing power requirements for laptops (the screen sucks quite a bit of power in the overall system), and helping in other ways. But it isn't something that simply can be poured out of a nozzle. -
Re:Implications are obviousDefinitely true. Sintered metal machines (SLS, see here: http://www.3dsystems.com/products/sls/index.asp ) I believe currently run about $500k to $1M. 'Functional' plastic systems (FDM, see here: http://www.stratasys.com/fdm_products.aspx?id=127 ) are $200k or more. I see few people currently, or in the near term, willing to put an 'as expensive as their house' tool in their house.
That said, there are likely a lot of things you could do with room temperature epoxies and investment casting, and cheaper modelers for those casts. Cheaper, though, still means typically $10k or more. And even then, the raw materials aren't cheap.
So, how to bring things down? How about the Fab@home project? Nothing like open source 3D fab. I think the current cost estimate to build the tool is about $2500. I'm surprised every engineering school hasn't set their undergrads to work to make something like that (as a useful project, a teaching tool, and a development platform). The material set is a bit limited at present, but really guys, they've demonstrated Chocolate!! what more could you want?
-
Get your own one
Dolls-house size! See Fab@Home or see the New Scientist report.
-
The Future Is Fabricated
* "PERSONAL FABRICATION: A Talk with Neil Gershenfeld"
* Democratizing Innovation
Bring on the future, where things like fab@home are in every home, where people no longer have to wait for companies to develop products, the people as a community develop them together, with the same spirit/philosophy of FOSS.
I don't want a Win/Mac box, I don't care how easy either of them appear, I want a free and open source box and neither Win/Mac provide me with that freedom. Here's a brief article I recommend everyone read:
The Land of "Nothing for free" by Jeremy Allison .
The fact that our society today is filled with people who would rather consume than fiddle is one of the reasons why gas guzzling cars with proprietary internals are still used by the majority. Eventually this will all change as people will more easily be able to develop their own hardware themselves (think something like fab@home in every home) with free/open hardware designs shared and improved upon.
The question is: do you want to support the FOSS movement or do you want to support companies who provide closed source software? I don't care if hardware from Microsoft or Apple can run Linux, I don't want my money going to either company, period. If other people enjoy tinkering with said hardware, cool. I believe we all should (and will, eventually) be developing hardware on our own. Those who would respond with, "I don't care about all that, I just want X,Y,Z" are the focal point of blame. Unwind the philosophy from the person and the soul is nothing but another bag of peas to scan at the check stand for Company A,B,C. -
The Future Is Fabricated
* "PERSONAL FABRICATION: A Talk with Neil Gershenfeld"
* Democratizing Innovation
Bring on the future, where things like fab@home are in every home, where people no longer have to wait for companies to develop products, the people as a community develop them together, with the same spirit/philosophy of FOSS.
I don't want a Win/Mac box, I don't care how easy either of them appear, I want a free and open source box and neither Win/Mac provide me with that freedom. Here's a brief article I recommend everyone read:
The Land of "Nothing for free" by Jeremy Allison .
The fact that our society today is filled with people who would rather consume than fiddle is one of the reasons why gas guzzling cars with proprietary internals are still used by the majority. Eventually this will all change as people will more easily be able to develop their own hardware themselves (think something like fab@home in every home) with free/open hardware designs shared and improved upon.
The question is: do you want to support the FOSS movement or do you want to support companies who provide closed source software? I don't care if hardware from Microsoft or Apple can run Linux, I don't want my money going to either company, period. If other people enjoy tinkering with said hardware, cool. I believe we all should (and will, eventually) be developing hardware on our own. Those who would respond with, "I don't care about all that, I just want X,Y,Z" are the focal point of blame. Unwind the philosophy from the person and the soul is nothing but another bag of peas to scan at the check stand for Company A,B,C. -
Re:Looks more like science fair project
-
Re:Looks more like science fair project
Can it spin anything more complex than a circle as it builds? What good is a printer that can only make balls, cylinders, and bulbs?
It didn't spin anything.
Here's a hi-res pic showing off the complete chassis
Like most rapid prototyping machines, it has an X, Y, & Z axis.
The picture makes this very clear.
From the rest of your post, it seems kinda obvious that you didn't RTFAReally useful auto manufacturing will require serious breakthroughs in AI and robotics to assembling a variety of fabricated parts into something useful, only then will manufacturing prices plummet.
And it also seems you know little about industrial robotics with respect to auto manufacturing. 'Dumb' robotics have already caused mfg prices to plummet.
Probably the biggest reason, in the U.S. at least, that there aren't more robotics involved in auto manufacturing (and a variety of other areas) are the unions. It's been an ongoing battle since at least the 1980's. -
Re:What's the precision on these things?
Amen. It would be simply awesome if there was a cheap way to print custom parts out of ABS plastic. It may not look the greatest because you'd be able to see the "steps" from the printing process. Because of this I doubt it would be practical to print Lego bricks or such things as that because the layers created during printing are where the part is weakest. When exposed to stress the part would be more likely to break on the layer lines. But even so, for hobbyists it would beat the hell out of having to commission a custom injection mold which usually costs at least $10,000.
Unfortunately, the materials page is absent of things like plastic, but there are some interesting ones: Gypsum (same stuff the Z-Corp 3D printers use), silicone, conductive paste and ink (prototype circuit boards), and even some metals. At this stage, I don't see these machines replacing traditional CNC/forging/casting/injection processes, but cheap desktop prototyping will certainly bring about a revolution in manufacturing. -
Re:Heard of Youtube?
Definately the better video above. Thanks, so much better than a 16MB WMV.
Ok, Flash is still proprietary but name me a better streaming system thats as easy?
Fab@Home Wiki Pictures of the Bulb
Its a SQUEEZE bulb, not a light bulb if you hadn't realised!
DugUK
