Assembling Your Own 3D Printer

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Assembling Your Own 3D Printer

Posted by Soulskill on Monday January 30, 2012 @10:28AM from the build-to-build dept.

adeelarshad82 writes "Following a tour of a 3D printer factory, analysts at PCMag wanted to explore the option of building a 3D printer themselves. With the help of a 3D printer manufacturer, Buildatron, they were able to compile a step-by-step guide on how to build a 3D printer."

129 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

!EarlyAdopter by bughunter · 2012-01-30 10:31 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think I'll wait until 3D printers can 3D print other 3D printers.

--
I can see the fnords!
1. Re:!EarlyAdopter by bennomatic · 2012-01-30 10:33 · Score: 0
  
  How original!
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
2. Re:!EarlyAdopter by tripleevenfall · 2012-01-30 10:33 · Score: 2
  
  Not me. If 2D toner is more expensive by the ounce than imported Russian caviar, 3D toner will be more expensive than highly enriched uranium.
3. Re:!EarlyAdopter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 10:35 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I think I'll wait until 3D printers can 3D print other 3D printers.
  Actually a RepRap can print 50% of a new RepRap. You just need the metal bits and circuit boards.
4. Re:!EarlyAdopter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  Nah, it will be easier for a 3D printer to split into two smaller 3D printers. That way we don't have to worry about accidentally destroying all of the resources of the Universe.
5. Re:!EarlyAdopter by vlm · 2012-01-30 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  I think I'll wait until 3D printers can 3D print other 3D printers.
  Actually a RepRap can print 50% of a new RepRap. You just need the metal bits and circuit boards.
  There is also a hack for the original makerbot involving many little printed bolt together pieces. So makerbots can more or less replicate themselves too.
  If you allow "subtractive machining" as a 3d printer in addition to your "additive machining" then metal lathes and milling machines have been replicating themselves for well over a century...
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
6. Re:!EarlyAdopter by daid303 · 2012-01-30 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Which is the silly part, as the metal bits are the most expensive part of the machine (happy Ultimaker 3D printer owner here)
7. Re:!EarlyAdopter by AngryDeuce · 2012-01-30 10:42 · Score: 1
  
  That's why you wait until 3rd party vendors swoop in to sell their own replacement toner for a less insane price...
  Until they get hit with DMCA lawsuits and other legal bullshit, that is...
  Either way, stay far the fuck away from any 3D printer made by HP, Epson, or any other major manufacturer...
8. Re:!EarlyAdopter by vlm · 2012-01-30 10:47 · Score: 0
  
  Either way, stay far the fuck away from any 3D printer made by HP, Epson, or any other major manufacturer...
  The main problem with the HP 3-d printer driver, is its 12315 gigabytes, and is bundled with the yahoo toolbar.
  (I'm 99% sure its HP that has 350 meg printer drivers, but aren't they also the yahoo toolbar people?)
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
9. Re:!EarlyAdopter by Niedi · 2012-01-30 10:48 · Score: 1
  
  Not as long as the open printers still exist - and I think they are here to stay.
  
  With the current system it's just large rolls of plastic filament in either 1.75mm or 3mm diameter. And 1kg of ABS filament is around 45$ :)
10. Re:!EarlyAdopter by SomePgmr · 2012-01-30 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  50%? I think you might be seriously underestimating the importance of "the metal bits and circuit boards". ;)
11. Re:!EarlyAdopter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 11:53 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, metal lathes and milling machines can *only* reproduce with their own help. This always made me curious what the process is for creating a lathe / milling machine with finer tolerances than the present state of the art.
12. Re:!EarlyAdopter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 11:57 · Score: 0
  
  They measure the percentage of "replication" by weight, not by "value". It's hard to measure, because the parts that you can print have extremely low cost (i.e. raw plastic and printing time) while the other parts have to be bought from a supplier, with shipping, distribution, marketing, etc.
  In terms of "value", of course the controller and motors and rods are important, but so are all of the brackets, extruder, etc. The reprap project's goal (http://reprap.org/) is to eventually make a printer that can self-replicate 100% of its parts, but for now the best way to appreciate the reprap is that they self-replicate analogously to flowers. That is, flowers form an ecosystem with dirt, rain, sunlight, bees, etc., such that flowers can make more flowers. Similarly to how bees eat nectar from flowers, makers make 3D printers in order to be able to make stuff, and then print the parts for more 3D printers, and more makers take those parts, add in the "metal bits" and make more printers.
  Of course, in the long run they're working on making the printers fully able to print more printers, but realistically that's pretty far away, because it'd be nearly impossible to print a CPU, for example. But they're making good progress on making printable replacements for the metal rods, which would increase the percentage that's printable by quite a bit.
13. Re:!EarlyAdopter by SomePgmr · 2012-01-30 13:52 · Score: 2
  
  I'm 99% sure its HP that has 350 meg printer drivers...
  They're one of them. Sometimes you can avoid that by skipping the crap that comes with the machine and downloading the "basic" version of the driver. The bundled one is 349.5 MB of UI designed to sell you HP's ink, derived from genuine unicorn tears.
14. Re:!EarlyAdopter by djh101010 · 2012-01-30 15:45 · Score: 1
  
  google "ronthomp mendel", it's at about 80% now.
15. Re:!EarlyAdopter by durrr · 2012-01-30 16:41 · Score: 2
  
  Amusingly, the Buildatron in the opening article IS THE FUCKING REPRAP!
  
  They took an opensource project, added some shoe polish to some parts, then put a huge metal box around it and cut their name into the box.(also, price markup).
16. Re:!EarlyAdopter by benthurston27 · 2012-01-30 17:03 · Score: 2
  
  Maybe the tolerances are normally distributed around too tight and too loose so every now and then you "accidentally" make one with tighter tolerances than you started off with.
17. Re:!EarlyAdopter by Whiteox · 2012-01-30 17:30 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. Makerbot also sell their Replicator for around $200. I think this is a 2 colour version (dual print heads) and $48 for the spools.
  http://www.makerbot.com/
  Interesting stuff to make too!
  http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:13101
  More pics:
  http://www.pcauthority.com.au/Gallery/288483,in-pictures-why-the-makerbot-replicator-is-one-of-the-best-toys-ever.aspx/1
  from CES
  
  --
  Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
18. Re:!EarlyAdopter by Whiteox · 2012-01-30 17:47 · Score: 1
  
  :( Ignore the price.... It's more like $1,800 and not $200.
  
  --
  Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
19. Re:!EarlyAdopter by DrXym · 2012-01-30 22:03 · Score: 1
  
  Open printers still cost a lot of money to buy and the results are generally awful, being glorified coil pots made from extruded monotone plastic. That may be fine for printing plastic widgets, but it's not so good for producing artwork, or anything decorative. I think it would be a good idea for someone to produce an inkjet / powder based printer which qualifies as open because if they don't then one of the bigname printer manufacturers is bound to.
20. Re:!EarlyAdopter by Niedi · 2012-01-30 22:22 · Score: 1
  
  The results are often awful but that's because the printers are/have been quite a pain to set up and tweak. However that seems to have improved a lot with newer models. Multiple colors/materials are possible with the new multiple-extruder models, so that might become interesting. We'll soon have a dual struder makerbot replicator here in the lab to print custom parts, so I'm looking forward to seeing what they can do. However I must admit I'm far less interested in artwork, my focus lies on quick cheap solutions for technical problems.
  
  The problem with powder/spray based layers is that printing will take forever since the layers will most likely be only a few microns each.
21. Re:!EarlyAdopter by AmiMoJo · 2012-01-31 00:57 · Score: 1
  
  I wish someone would come up with a nice easy and clean way of making PCBs at home. Etching with chemicals and/or UV light is not much fun, and it is tricky to get good tolerances and consistent quality from cheap equipment. Then you have to drill it, deal with vias somehow and assemble without a silkscreen.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
22. Re:!EarlyAdopter by SpinningCone · 2012-01-31 01:44 · Score: 1
  
  Like RedHat? Or Apple?
23. Re:!EarlyAdopter by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2012-01-31 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  This is where I exist on my current desire for one of these. Having just spent a few hours hacksawing a plastic gizmo apart then trying to figure out how to mount some more securely fitted batteries to it, I'm struck by the notion that it would've been really nice to just 3D print a slightly more snug battery compartment.
24. Re:!EarlyAdopter by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2012-01-31 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  I've always wondered this too - and I suspect your conclusion is in fact the reality, judging from the number of scientific processes which depend on exactly this idea (or are absurdly reproducible by it - such as how STM tips for atomic resolution can be made with wire cutters and platinum-iridium wire - because one atom will always be slightly closer then the others).
25. Re:!EarlyAdopter by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2012-01-31 02:30 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about that. You couldn't go to 45 nm, but 1 um is a pretty accessible feature size by UV light based processes, and more then enough to produce basic microcontrollers. The real problem is finding sufficiently pure semiconductor material - but on the other hand, at 1um you're far less susceptible to having your chip wiped out by an imperfection.
26. Re:!EarlyAdopter by Electricity+Likes+Me · 2012-01-31 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  CNC is the answer to this really (though don't take my word for it, since I have a small CNC currently non-functional while I try to rig up a better spindle for exactly this type of task).
27. Re:!EarlyAdopter by jamiesan · 2012-01-31 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  What will they call it?
  The HP Protosmart 3810 e-All-in-One. It will Print, scan and Copy!
28. Re:!EarlyAdopter by BattleApple · 2012-01-31 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  you'll be able to get a printrbot for $499. I'm not sure when they're going into full production. Right now they're producing units for the kickstarter backers. I ordered the plastic parts only, and will try to build one for less.
29. Re:!EarlyAdopter by Defenestrar · 2012-01-31 04:36 · Score: 1
  
  You're forgetting about mechanical scaling. You don't need something that moves 0.1mm to get 0.1mm tolerance, you could instead make a screw with threads set such that a certain number of tick-mark revolutions will give you 0.1mm motion of your tool/piece. This lets you scale up your tolerance fairly quickly until you reach the limits of your materials (e.g. teflon vs. aluminum).
Can't they self replicate? by hawguy · 2012-01-30 10:32 · Score: 0

Can't I just have someone with a 3D printer print me out a 3D printer of my own? If it takes 24 hours to print one out, it would only take a few weeks to print out a million of them.
1. Re:Can't they self replicate? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 12:00 · Score: 0
  
  Well they can print parts... you still need to assemble them. Good luck doing that with millions of them in only a few weeks.
2. Re:Can't they self replicate? by jamesh · 2012-01-30 18:19 · Score: 2
  
  Well they can print parts... you still need to assemble them. Good luck doing that with millions of them in only a few weeks.
  So it's an assembler bot you need? They're a bit harder to assemble and it normally takes a woman 9 months to produce one and then lots of further work until it can actually assemble things itself, but with enough women you should be able to produce your assembler bot army in a few weeks.
3. Re:Can't they self replicate? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-02-02 22:33 · Score: 0
  
  lots of further work until it can actually assemble things itself
  The problem is that they're naturally optimized for disassembling things. Sometimes I think it's better to design things from scratch rather than trying to repurpose a hammer into a screwdriver.
Complicated by Rik+Sweeney · 2012-01-30 10:32 · Score: 0

Looks very complicated, but I suppose that once you've built your first you can simply use it to build all future printers for nothing.
Suckers :)

--
Summation 2
1. Re:Complicated by maxwell+demon · 2012-01-30 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  How original!!!
  Yeah, your comment is very original. It's only the third time you make it in the discussion of this story. :-)
  
  --
  The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
2. Re:Complicated by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 10:39 · Score: 0
  
  How original!!!
3. Re:Complicated by vlm · 2012-01-30 10:52 · Score: 2
  
  Sorry guys my 3d printer made three copies of bennomatic, now look what happens.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
4. Re:Complicated by bennomatic · 2012-01-30 11:55 · Score: 2
  
  I couldn't resist, with the first three comments being about how people wanted 3d printers that could print 3d printers, which accomplishment has already been achieved some time back.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
5. Re:Complicated by bennomatic · 2012-01-30 11:56 · Score: 1
  
  :) Suddenly I'm thinking of the Simpsons episode where Homer duplicates himself with the cursed hammock.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
6. Re:Complicated by bennomatic · 2012-01-30 11:57 · Score: 1
  
  Plus, didn't you notice? I used one exclamation point the first time, two the second, and three the third. It was meta-commentary.
  
  --
  The CB App. What's your 20?
Hmm by lisaparratt · 2012-01-30 10:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

Looks a lot like someone put a RepRap Prusa Mendel in a box, and pretended it was a new product.
1. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 10:39 · Score: 1
  
  Funny how a Kit ends up looking like the product isn't it.
2. Re:Hmm by ehntoo · 2012-01-30 10:44 · Score: 1
  
  From their website's store:
  FEATURES:
  *Based off of the Prusa Mendel architecture
  
  So yes, they put a Prusa in a box.
3. Re:Hmm by vlm · 2012-01-30 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  Looks a lot like someone put a RepRap Prusa Mendel in a box, and pretended it was a new product.
  Hilariously, that's how they self describe themselves, more or less
  http://buildatron.com/about-buildatron
  If you know the relationship of Ubuntu to Debian, then buildatron to reprap is a pretty close analogy. Not exact, but close enough. I like them. I'm still building my own Mendel by myself instead of getting an assembled model from buildatron, but not being one of their customers doesn't mean I can't think they're good people. (Am I too negative?)
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
4. Re:Hmm by daid303 · 2012-01-30 10:49 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Indeed. And the worst part is, it's silly expensive!
  If you want a 3D printer DO NOT GET THIS. Get something from Makerbot or Ultimaker, they sell easier to build kits that give higher quality prints for less money. RepRap is a fun project, but it takes quite a while to get usable results (lots and lots of tweaking). I have an Ultimaker myself, and took me 8 hours to build and get my first print working.
  As for people wondering about the quality of these kinds of machines: http://daid.mine.nu/~daid/IMG_20120125_211716.small.jpeg this is printed on mine.
5. Re:Hmm by EdZ · 2012-01-30 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Yep. And not only that, this guide could easily be titled "an incredibly abbreviated guide to assembling somebodies partially customised Mendel variant".
6. Re:Hmm by GenP · 2012-01-30 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  PLA I'm guessing. What kind of layer height? 0.2mm?
7. Re:Hmm by durrr · 2012-01-30 16:45 · Score: 1
  
  "Buildatron is the new definition of made in America manufacturing. "
  
  Making cash from someone elses product,call it your own by slapping a catchy logo onto it.
  Good going America, you're doing it the chinese way, only a shitton more expensive.
8. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 02:07 · Score: 0
  
  Woah, $1500 for a Buildatron KIT. You can get a Techzone Mendel kit for $800. As far as I know, Makerbot is easier to build, but its price is $1099. For $1500, it should either be pre-assembled or they ship you an intern for a day to assist.
9. Re:Hmm by fifedrum · 2012-01-31 03:31 · Score: 1
  
  The utilimaker kit is €1194, $1500 in today's trade. If the quality is that much higher, seems like a wise choice, but it's not cheaper than the other kits out there.
10. Re:Hmm by jpiratefish · 2012-01-31 04:35 · Score: 1
  
  Sure does look just like my Prusa. I guess the funny reel in the back made it more tech - that and the laser cut wooden box. For those really wanting to build these, go hit reprap.org - I built mine entire from parts found at lulzbot and ultimachine - and I got the Arduino from Hong Kong for $25. See mine in action on my Piratefish blog - the future is here - and Buildatron doesn't have the lock on it! Oh, yeah, and for the wise guys saying I want one that prints other ones - well, they almost do. I want to build a Mendlemax in the worst way now...
How Original! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 10:38 · Score: 0

Oh look! A reprap in a BOX!
HOW ORIGINAL
http://www.reprap.org
3D printers suck by Charliemopps · 2012-01-30 10:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Sorry, but these things suck. Every non-mechanically inclined "geek" I know wants one... then I point out that a Combo Lathe/Mill is far far far more useful, can do metal, plastic, wood, whatever you want... and they still tell me this is better somehow... when there's only a single material medium it can work in, and that medium has an ultra low melting point for obvious reasons, isn't very durable and the damned printer costs as much as some of the nicer mills out there. Granted you can blow $100k on a mill if you really wanted to, but you could do everything you can do with a 3D printer with a mill thats under $1k and spend another $500 making it CNC... and the objects you build with it could be made out of nearly any material you can think of short of solid rock...
1. Re:3D printers suck by vlm · 2012-01-30 11:03 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  To some extent you can bolt an extruder onto your existing CNC mill. That is my "rep-strapping" plan. Lots of details at this link.
  Most of the time and money is in the 3-d robot part that does all the positioning. An extruder is actually pretty cheap.
  http://reprap.org/wiki/EMCRepStrap
  The other issue, as a machinist, I can verify that accessories that a mill requires are about twice the cost of the mill, and the accessories a lathe requires are about the cost of a lathe. So, I bolt my $350 rotary table to my $500 mill, stick the $50 7/8 inch gearcutting arbor in the spindle, clamp a $50 expanding arbor into my $125 chuck attached to the rotab, supported on the other side by my semi-homemade tailstock that cost about $100, then stick a $25 involute gear cutter in the arbor, I'm not gonna add it up, but just to cut a simple gear out of a blank machined on my lathe, is gonna cost almost as much in accessories as the mill itself. Then add a bunch of clamps, a decent vise, a much of endmill holders unless you're one of those collet people, it adds up, man.
  At least theoretically a "utilimaker" thing only requires the additional purchase of a power cord.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
2. Re:3D printers suck by Tumbleweed · 2012-01-30 11:08 · Score: 1
  
  Do you have some recommendations for a combo late/mill in the $1.5k category? I was unaware they had gotten so cheap.
3. Re:3D printers suck by MatthewEarley · 2012-01-30 11:10 · Score: 0
  
  This is a compelling argument, can you expand on it and provide some of the details? I have always thought of CNC milling machines to be unapproachable expensive once they are more than 3 axis, and have parts that need to be replaced and calibrated frequently.
4. Re:3D printers suck by Bodhammer · 2012-01-30 11:16 · Score: 2
  
  http://www.harborfreight.com/garage-shop/stationary-milling-drilling.html
  
  --
  "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
5. Re:3D printers suck by smellsofbikes · 2012-01-30 11:20 · Score: 2
  
  *I* certainly have never seen a mill/drill under $1500 that's useful for anything other than a boat anchor. A coworker got a Smithy Granite 1224 that he thought was fairly useful, but it sure wasn't $1500. (And of course that's a pure manual machine, so you still have to add at *least* $500 of electronics to get CNC -- and for that same $500 you can buy a complete 3D printer kit and be printing stuff in two hours, they claim, whereas it took me about 20 hours to convert my manual mill to CNC.)
  
  --
  Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
6. Re:3D printers suck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 11:20 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know what the other poster had in mind, but I've seen a chinese manual 3 axis mill locally for around 800$. Another several hundred dollars for a CNC kit and 1.5k$ sounds reasonable.
7. Re:3D printers suck by tchuladdiass · 2012-01-30 11:26 · Score: 1
  
  The problem with a mill is that you are starting out with a large block and taking off pieces until you have your shape. So you end up with a lot of wasted material (of course you could probably re-cast the scrap shavings into a new block but...). Whereas the 3d printer uses only enough material to make your shape, and it can include hollow parts inside. Some of them can even make fully assembled movable parts (like say a crescent wrench).
  As for the material, it would seem that eventually one would come up with a system that pulls from two different spools, which when combined has a greater hardness (similar to mixing epoxy). Not sure what is holding that up though.
8. Re:3D printers suck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 11:26 · Score: 0
  
  They haven't at all gotten that cheap, especially when you consider basic (e.q. required) accessories. GP is a troll or uninformed
9. Re:3D printers suck by Zelig · 2012-01-30 11:30 · Score: 1
  
  1) You can't get something CNC for that.
  2) Harbor freight (1.5K mill linked to below) doesn't sell tools, they sell tool _kits_. If you're not prepared to disassemble, align, and otherwise fix all the stuff they busted, you're screwed. I'm a half-owner of one, I know.
  3) Tool pathing is still expensive / highly skilled. At your price point, you can't just turn a 3D model into a path that a mill can make.
  4) Design constraints are different for the two. You can't mill internal voids.
  None of which is to say I think the current batch of filament deposition printers are adequate... I've got one of them too, at our Hackerspace in Gainesville. Once they get the plastic printers sufficiently precise that they can turn out e.g. kitchen appliance replacement parts, we'll have gotten somewhere serious.
  But your combo requires a bunch of skill to operate, and skill-less object production is kind of the point.
10. Re:3D printers suck by somersault · 2012-01-30 11:33 · Score: 2
  
  Okay.. so how do you create a single-piece hollow sphere on your combo lathe/mill? It seems to me that there are absolutely things that you can do with a 3D printer that you couldn't do with a lathe/mill..
  It doesn't necessarily mean that it's "better", but it is different. And as one of those "non-mechanically minded" folks you mention, it does seem simpler to me from both a hardware and software perspective.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
11. Re:3D printers suck by Fallon · 2012-01-30 11:35 · Score: 2
  
  http://www.mini-lathe.com/
  
  All the info you need to get you started. All those 7x10, 7x12, 7x16, etc. lathes come out of the Sieg factory in China then resold as Harbor Freight, Grizzle, Jet, and many other brand names. Slightly different motors & trim levels, but the same basic machine. Great starter machines that are pretty capable. Not as robust as industrial machines, but very capable none the less.
  
  Sieg also makes some mills and lathe mill combo units. Good little starter equipment with a robust community around them.
  
  Personally I'm restoring a Atlas/Craftsman 6x18 lathe that is older than I am... Half the fun is getting the machine restored as actually using it. You can get some pretty nice old lathes & mills for under $1k that work great after a little TLC.
12. Re:3D printers suck by smellsofbikes · 2012-01-30 11:39 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  A friend who has done this tells me it's somewhat of a waste of time because the 3D printer wants to move an order of magnitude faster than the max speeds most mills are capable of driving. (Since it's adding toothpaste, rather than cutting away metal, maybe that's not so surprising.) He ended up buying a Thing-o-Matic (and doing a *lot* of re-engineering to get it working reliably) but now he's thrilled with it. It doesn't replace his mills and lathes, but it sure is a convenient addition. He's all oh the thumbwheel broke off my micrometer: I'll print a new thumbwheel bracket. The windshield mount on my recumbent broke, so I'll print a new one. He's printed plumbing parts, cookie cutters, centering adapters for optics, replacement bar handle clamps, you name it, and there's no setup or clamping or accessories or anything like that -- not even alignment. He just emails the completed gcode to the machine and goes in twenty minutes later and takes his new item off the stage. I'm dead envious.
  That might be different if you're using a servo-based mill with fast ballscrews, but for steppers with fine-pitch threads, well, my CNC is pretty rattly and jiggly when it's driving around at 10ipm and his Thing-o-Matic can run at 500ipm.
  
  --
  Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
13. Re:3D printers suck by cpotoso · 2012-01-30 11:46 · Score: 1
  
  And I read "suck" and then later on "Granted you can blow $100k on a mill if you really wanted to"... Somehow I read MILF :)
14. Re:3D printers suck by Brietech · 2012-01-30 11:58 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I have a Makerbot Thing-o-Matic, and have also used smaller CNC milling machines before. There really are some crucial differences:
  1) There's an actual fundamental difference in the types of objects that can be created with an additive process like the ToM uses, and a reductive process like a CNC milling machine uses. Creating lightweight, hollow objects is basically impossible with a mill but trivial with my ToM (I frequently print out multi-layer gear objects for mechanical widgets I'm building).
  2) I can operate a small 3D printer in my apartment. It's roughly as loud as my laser printer, and doesn't produce any mess/dust-clouds/bad smells. I would never use a CNC mill in my living room. At best it is way louder, produces way more mess, and basically requires a shop-vac to be running the whole time.
  3) Finally - having used a range of both cheap 3D printers and cheap (and not-so-cheap) CNC milling machines - I can get a low-end 3D printer like a makerbot that actually produces useful parts for under $2000. Ever CNC mill I've seen for under $3000 has been crap. If you can spend $5000 (and have at least some background in machining) you can get a pretty good small CNC milling machine and maintain it.
  
  --
  I'm perfect in every way, except for my humility.
15. Re:3D printers suck by dbc · 2012-01-30 12:02 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Well, I see you have been modded +5 insightful. Yet, you don't seem to have any experience wither either mills or 3D printers, at least you don't claim to have any.
  I own one of each, and have access to other CNC mills and 3D printers.
  Guess what? They both have their place. They both have their limits. Use a machine tool within it's limits, and you will be happy. Try to push beyond its maximum work envelope, and you will be frustrated. I have done a lot of good stuff with both. My clunky Makerbot Cupcake has printed a lot of robot parts and other stuff. It is quick to draw something up and bang it out. And it lives in my living room. Guess what, my mill doesn't live in my living room. So I'm very happy with the clunky state of at-home 3D printing. Do I want more resolution and a bigger work envelope? Yup. But I've still done a lot of good stuff with it.
  CNC mills are great, but it also is a whole heck of a lot more work to go from a drawing to a part. And more expensive, too, by a lot. I could buy several Cupcakes for what I have invested in cutters, collets, measuring tools, vises, clamps, etc, etc., not counting the mill itself. And there is no comparison between the learning curve. You will be a 3D printing expert long before you have mastered creating G-code for CNC milling.
  As to your cost comparison, there is no $1500 CNC mill worth having. I've seen the output. I've talked with owners. I've done the math and understand the work envelope. $1500 spent on a RepRap style machine can do a lot of good stuff. $1500 spent on a CNC mill.... is a sloppy, weak columned, backlash-plagued wimp with a work envelope so small you can't produce parts as big as you can on a cupcake, and you *still* haven't bought any tools. The $1500 CNC mill can work in aluminum and free-machining brass. The RepRap can work in ABS and PLA. Well designed ABS or PLA parts can be pretty strong, and can be glued up into strong large parts.
  Face it, all you have said is: "Grapes are awful, they don't taste like chicken."
  PS. In case anyone is wondering "Well, what *is* the cheapest CNC mill worth owning?" I would say choose between a Tormach PCNC 1100 or a Mikini 1610L. This is what Sherline owners move up to after they have figured out that the Sherline can't do what they wanted to do. This is not because Sherline is bad, or that Sherline lies in their spec sheet. It is because beginners don't understand what the Sherline spec sheet is trying to tell them, and so they don't realize it can't come close to doing what they think it will. The other thing to remember is that when you go to buy a dial indicator or a carbide cutter or some other widget, it costs you exactly the same amount of money whether you are going to use it on a Sherline or an Akira-Sieki. CNC machining is a spendy hobby, that's just life.
16. Re:3D printers suck by asdf7890 · 2012-01-30 12:04 · Score: 2
  
  It doesn't replace his mills and lathes, but it sure is a convenient addition.
  Ah, the sign of someone who knows their trade, rather than a boy playing with toys: knowing the right tool for the job.
17. Re:3D printers suck by djlemma · 2012-01-30 12:26 · Score: 1
  
  Ack!! Have you actually USED any benchtop tools from Harbor Freight? Or any power tools at all? That place is terrible. Also, none of those mills are CNC, so comparing them to 3D printers is not particularly telling.
18. Re:3D printers suck by Charliemopps · 2012-01-30 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  http://www.grizzly.com/products/Combo-Lathe-w-Milling-Attachment/G0516
19. Re:3D printers suck by smellsofbikes · 2012-01-30 13:59 · Score: 2
  
  I've used 7x10's. I've used my Atlas -- same model as yours. I'm sticking with the Atlas, and my coworkers who have 7x10's come over and look at the finishes I can get and sigh with envy. I consider most of the 7xwhatevers to be parts kits that could be turned into a reasonable lathe if you replace all the plastic changegears with steel ones (at $40 each) and likewise the plastic gibs and don't mind that you still can't get the compound to feel solid, and spend a bunch of time scraping away at little bits that the ways hang up on when traversing.
  With that said, it is a drag that I can't order a new leadscrew from Harbor Freight and have it delivered a few days later, like the 7x10 guys can: I have to scour ebay for that damned acme stub thread leadscrew Atlas saw fit to use, since Clausing has run out of them. Equipment that hasn't been in production for 40 years means some serious scrounging for parts, so there's a big plus side to new-ish.
  (also by the way join the atlas618 group on yahoo -- a wealth of info.)
  Basically, the way I see it is: people who want to learn machining don't want an old machine that they have to fix, because they have to understand machining to figure out what's wrong. I don't think they do much better with Chinese imports for pretty much exactly the same reasons. I learned on one of those crap AA/Sears 612's, and beat the daylights out of it learning; I'd feel terrible if I abused my Atlas that way.
  And all that gets you a decent manual machine, and you still have to wade through turning that into a CNC, which is, as I could talk your ear off about, its own huge complicated set of problems to wade through, where there are even fewer people who know enough about what you're doing to offer relevant advice.
  I dunno. All the options are bad. But you should totally take a look at that yahoo group.
  
  --
  Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
20. Re:3D printers suck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 14:07 · Score: 0
  
  You can get a toy CNC mill kit for $600. They're fun to build and fun to use, but the spindle they provided is pretty weak. Though it is possible to mount a flexible shaft grinder in place of the wimpy spindle to get higher cutting speeds.
21. Re:3D printers suck by Charliemopps · 2012-01-30 14:10 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The beauty of a Mill is that it's a self improving tool. One of a machinists favorite things to work on is his mill. There are entire forums dedicated to buying these cheap harbor freight mills and then using them to make new, better quality parts to improve them with. The real trouble is finding the material relatively cheaply to make the parts with. Buying new steel or aluminum is expensive. If you work somewhere that has scrap, or know someone that can get it, you can do it pretty cheaply. A buddy of mine built his own smelter and melts down aluminum rims and engine blocks to pour his own ingots.
  
  If you are REALLY hardcore, you can 'almost' build a mill entirely from scratch. First you need to build a smelter, which is not very difficult, then make some parts out of wood... cast them, pour them, sand... sand... sand... then there are tricks for making parts that are totally smooth that again involve a lot of sanding. In the end you have to buy bearings, the chuck, some other odds and ends. You can make the motor, but you're really trying to do it the hard way if you do. Once you have all of that done, you have a mostly aluminum mill. Which you quickly use to make steel parts for your next mill, because it sucks. But it can be done. The point is, once you have a mill, you can make nearly anything given enough time.
22. Re:3D printers suck by somersault · 2012-01-30 15:21 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have a 3D printer myself, but I did get some stuff printed last week. I just sent them the model, and 2 days later I had my first ever 3D prints. Awesome.
  When our CEO saw one of my prints, he was really interested. He asked if we could perhaps use the process to do faster and cheaper creation of future prototype models, and the answer is yes. I guess his little engineering hobby is just for kids though, it's not like it's made him a millionaire or anything.. oh, wait..
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
23. Re:3D printers suck by axlr8or · 2012-01-30 15:22 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, avoid HF for that stuff. Instead, look up Grizzly. I have one. Fun toy and everyone comes to your back door to use it.
24. Re:3D printers suck by axlr8or · 2012-01-30 15:28 · Score: 1
  
  Nope. Not good. It doesn't mention anything about the drill taper that I saw. Furthermore how they mount to the lathe bed isn't so hot. Grizzly has a few good cheap machines but look for the z series
25. Re:3D printers suck by somersault · 2012-01-30 15:33 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and the hollow sphere thing was what we call an "example". Ping pong balls are made in two halves, and have a significant weakness across the seam. If you can't think of any uses for being able to print objects within other objects with no assembly required (fully assembled ball bearings being a cool example), or being able to print a single piece item with a single piece external skin and an internal lattice structure, etc, that is entirely your own lack of imagination at fault. Feel free to never utilise 3D printing.
  You may now continue to waste your life with your highly productive trolling.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
26. Re:3D printers suck by dbc · 2012-01-30 16:24 · Score: 2
  
  I presume you mean manual mill, not CNC mill. Even so, I'm not sure it exists at $1500. Smithy makes some combo machines. I'm not sure I'd want a combo machine. I'd rather have a separate mill and lathe. For mills, IF (big if) you can find a well taken care of 50 year old Bridgeport or clone thereof, that is the way to go if you have room for it. But you need to know what you are buying, because if the spindle bearings are shot you are looking at an expensive repair. That largely depends on how well it was maintained and how hard it was run. Sometimes you can get a Bridgeport for "haul it away, it's yours." You need to hire a mover, but machine tool movers can easily plop a Bridgeport knee mill in your garage and they are well worth the price.
  Many sellers import Chinese made bench-top mills. Harbor Freight, Grizzly, MicroMark to name a few. In most cases, they are metric machines with a wierdo conversion so that one turn of the hand wheel gives you 0.0625 inches. Umm... yeah. Carry that around in your head all day long. MicroMark does what they call "True Inch" conversion so that one turn of the hand wheel gives you 0.050 inches. I can live with that much more easily. Frankly, I'd be OK if they left it in a metric round number. But the wacko conversion is annoying. One of the MicroMark benchtop mills has an R8 spindle. That is a winner -- not that the motor has enough torque and the column enough stiffness to use all the R8 tools out there, but because Bridgeports and their clones have R8 spindles you can pick up mountains of used tooling cheaply.
  Benchtop lathes are sort of limited in what they can do. Just not big enough. Every time I've looked at one, I've decided any machine I have room for is too small to do what I want. In any case, a CNC mill allows you to mill a lot of things that you might at first think of doing on a lathe. Maybe it isn't optimal, but at least a CNC mill can do a nice interpolated arc. On a manual mill, it's like trying to draw a circle with an Etch-a-Sketch. Except that it's harder to hold a Bridgeport over your head and shake it, and even if you do, it doesn't put any of the metal back.
  Oh... also check out Little Machine Shop -- very good place for machine tools of interest to the hobbyist.
27. Re:3D printers suck by benthurston27 · 2012-01-30 17:28 · Score: 1
  
  I keep wondering, doesn't abs plastic melt in acetone? Why don't people just melt it down that way and then cast it, or doesn't it go back to it's original strength?
28. Re:3D printers suck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 18:18 · Score: 0
  
  *I* certainly have never seen a mill/drill under $1500 that's useful for anything other than a boat anchor
  Just ask Hunter Cressall... XD
29. Re:3D printers suck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 23:18 · Score: 0
  
  So, you spend money to buy a badly made Chinese mill and then you spend more money and time rebuilding it? Why not just buy a superior mill in the first place? The cost will work out to be about the same and you save a lot of time.
30. Re:3D printers suck by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 23:31 · Score: 0
  
  Why do you need a single-piece hollow sphere? Just go to the dollar store and buy ping pong balls. You idiots and your pathetic defense of the 3D toys is sad to watch. You're KIDS, you've been HAD, your hobby is PATHETIC.
  Your lack of imagination is what's pathetic.
31. Re:3D printers suck by priceslasher · 2012-01-30 23:42 · Score: 2
  
  Why not just buy a superior mill in the first place? The cost will work out to be about the same and you save a lot of time.
  My guess would be - for the experience.
32. Re:3D printers suck by somersault · 2012-01-31 00:02 · Score: 1
  
  WTF are you talking about? The context of this thread is 3D printing vs CNC/lathing, and pointing out that both have their pros and cons, and can in fact complement each other quite well. Who cares if it's home or "professional"? We're talking about fundamentally different methods of creating parts.
  The home kits will get better over time, just as 2D printers have. At this point in time I don't think the cost of home printers are worth it personally, hence I sent my designs elsewhere to be printed.
  I don't see the point in your vitriol here.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
33. Re:3D printers suck by vlm · 2012-01-31 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  He's all oh the thumbwheel broke off my micrometer: I'll print a new thumbwheel bracket. The windshield mount on my recumbent broke, so I'll print a new one. He's printed plumbing parts, cookie cutters, centering adapters for optics, replacement bar handle clamps, you name it
  Has he printed any foundry patterns yet? That's the idea that I'm hot for, but no one else seems to like or try that idea, as far as I know.
  I want to print a pattern, cast it in Aluminum or maybe advanced zinc alloy (or maybe someday I'll afford the fancier safety gear to cast brass) and then machine my new "whatever" casting on the mill to get a finished part.
  I can already do that with lost foam, by making a foam pattern on the cnc mill, but my god the pillar of smoke from burning styrofoam is an instant EPA superfund site, and having to make a new pattern for each casting is a drag.
  
  --
  "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
34. Re:3D printers suck by Whibla · 2012-01-31 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  In most cases, they are metric machines with a wierdo conversion so that one turn of the hand wheel gives you 0.0625 inches. Umm... yeah. Carry that around in your head all day long.
  Or carry around 1/16th in your head. Four turns is a quarter of an inch, eight turns, half an inch, and so on. Sometimes keeping the number as a decimal fraction is not as intuitive as convertng back to a 'pure' fraction.
  However, as suprised as I am regarding your binary blindspot (/jk), another informative post, thanks!
35. Re:3D printers suck by tlhIngan · 2012-01-31 04:17 · Score: 1
  
  Oh, and the hollow sphere thing was what we call an "example". Ping pong balls are made in two halves, and have a significant weakness across the seam. If you can't think of any uses for being able to print objects within other objects with no assembly required (fully assembled ball bearings being a cool example), or being able to print a single piece item with a single piece external skin and an internal lattice structure, etc, that is entirely your own lack of imagination at fault. Feel free to never utilise 3D printing.
  You do realize that not all 3D printers can do your fully-realized ping-pong ball, right? In fact, there's two major methods of additive manufacturing - sintering and extrusion.
  Sintering is one of two methods - a laser can scan across the surface, bonding the powder together with the beam, or using what amounts to an inkjet printer squirting bonding agent to bind the powder together. The latter method may also have dyes available to color the bonding agent allowing for colored parts to be produced right from the printer. The parts these produce tend to be very nice - practically molded parts. Also expensive - you're looking at the low-to-mid 5 digits for such a machine.
  The other method is extrusion, where a plastic is heated and squirted out a nozzle. The nozzle is moved around the platform layering down the plastic. It's cheaper (it's how the Thing-o-matic and RepRap operate), but the final output can have the tell-tale marks of the process since it was basically formed with a thin strip of plastic. These machines are very cheap because there's nothing to them - just an X/Y/Z platform (3 linear actuators, which can be trivially built at home), a heated nozzle and the ability to control it all.
  The sintering method cannot produce a hollow object - the powder serves two purposes of being the bulk material as well as the supports, so hollows cannot exist as there's no way to "blow out" the powder from the middle. The extrusion process can, but cannot produce round parts due to the lack of supports to keep it from rolling around during printing (unless supports are designed into the object, or the platform incorporates its own supports). It can certainly try though.
  End result though is each tool has its purpose and there's no way a 3D printer can do everything a CNC mill can (it can come close, but there are tasks the CNC mill is just more efficient at), just like a CNC mill can't replace an additive process like a 3D printer. And even amongst 3D printers you need both as there are tasks better suited for one or the other.
36. Re:3D printers suck by smellsofbikes · 2012-01-31 04:22 · Score: 1
  
  I think that'd work great except that the surface texture of his patterns is rough and that's going to be hell for drawing the pattern from the sand. I've done a *lot* of green sand pattern casting. You need A: draft and B: good surface finish. (How good? The castings I do, if I put a piece of scotch tape over a lathe center hole in a turned form, the finished casting has the zigzag end where the tape dispenser cut off the tape clearly visible in the metal. Any surface imperfections will be finishing issues.) For draft you need a slope of about 2%-ish. So you'd have to print out a slightly tapered form -- which isn't a huge problem, especially if the large side of the taper is down -- but both the end and side texture of cheaper 3d printers is rough enough it'll hold sand. (If you dip the form in hot wax you get a nice waterproof coating that's also fairly smooth, and you can also make your form to exactly the right size, and dip it twice or three times, and account for cooling shrinkage so your casting comes out the size you want, rather than having to build your form too large.)
  I totally agree on the pillar-of-smoke thing, but the sheer frustration of having to design around a cope-and-drag and doing split molds, figuring out how to get stuff out of the sand, and most of all the stress of having the crucible full of hot metal and having to oh-so-carefully split the mold, desperately hoping it doesn't collapse, draw the parts, and then rapidly patch any errors, sometimes makes my stomach turn. There are a lot of benefits to lost-foam casting, and personally I think unless you need to cast multiple copies, in which case having a wood or printed master makes sense, the quickness and trouble-free nature of lost-foam is just outstanding.
  
  --
  Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
37. Re:3D printers suck by dbc · 2012-01-31 05:43 · Score: 1
  
  Acetone makes a reasonable cement for joining pieces. I suspect melting the whole works would degrade the material properties, and besides you need a mold so you might as well start with a molding process. 3D printing works by heating the feedstock until it is in its "plastic" phase and will stick to itself, allowing you to build up structures. They end up reasonably strong, but not as strong as an injection molded part where all of the melt is packed into the mold under pressure, and freezes at roughly the same time. Any casting process is going to require a mold, so you have to get the mold from some place. It is possible to make rubber molds with RTV silicones, and cast epoxy resin. This is a reasonable way to duplicate something if you have a master. I've done short-run injection molding using aluminum molds, which requires a significant amount of machining time in order to make a mold. Good way to get a few hundred parts, though.
38. Re:3D printers suck by dbc · 2012-01-31 05:45 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if every feature fell on a 1/16 inch location, sure. But if features tend to fall on a 0.010 or 0.100 grid it gets annoying.
39. Re:3D printers suck by smellsofbikes · 2012-01-31 13:34 · Score: 1
  
  Oh hey someone's doing it: http://hackaday.com/2012/01/31/3d-print-in-wax-cast-in-metal/
  Printing powdered wax into a wax form, and doing lost wax casting.
  (All the advantages of lost foam, with much less smoke. This does limit you to castable refractory, which gets expensive, but they have castable refractory that can handle platinum, so you could do steel with this.)
  
  --
  Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Why are these so damn expensive? by shaitand · 2012-01-30 10:57 · Score: 1

I know it's a cool idea to 3d print the parts but can someone please finally mass produce fully assembled units so we can have $200 3d printers already?
Assembling the machine is the easy part by emorning · 2012-01-30 11:04 · Score: 3, Informative

I assembled a RepRap Prusa in a weekend but it took me 8 weekends to figure out... ...what software to use to drive the machine (RepSnapper). ...what driver to use on the electronics (Sprinter), and how to configure and recompile it for my machine ...what slicing software to use (Skeinforge), and how to configure it (properly configuring Skeinforge can be a fulltime job). ...what 3d design software to use (current using OPENscad)
1. Re:Assembling the machine is the easy part by What+the+Frag · 2012-01-30 11:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'd suggest #reprap on Freenode for being the easiest way to get information like this. In fact, you should try out Printrun and Slic3r.
2. Re:Assembling the machine is the easy part by emorning · 2012-01-30 11:41 · Score: 1
  
  Thanks for the tips, I will do all that...
3. Re:Assembling the machine is the easy part by djh101010 · 2012-01-30 15:53 · Score: 1
  
  ReplicatorG (from replicat.org) integrates the current Skeinforge, and does a great job of combining the visualiser, slicer, and gcode generator. Worth a look, works great with my Makerbot.
Assembling Your Own 3D Printer by ve3oat · 2012-01-30 11:09 · Score: 1

out of Leggo. Now that would be something!
1. Re:Assembling Your Own 3D Printer by jeffb+(2.718) · 2012-01-30 11:33 · Score: 2
  
  Here's a good start:
  Mindstorms Autofabrik
Print Escher stairs? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 11:13 · Score: 1

Give that this device basically lets you print 3D objects you can draw on the computer screen, should I expect to be able to finally have a real life Escher stairs and the such?
1. Re:Print Escher stairs? by yurtinus · 2012-01-30 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well sure, but I don't know why you'd bother using a 3d printer to etch a 2d object when it's cheaper and easier to just use a regular printer...
  
  --
  +1 Disagree
2. Re:Print Escher stairs? by Osgeld · 2012-01-30 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  sure can, you just have to model it in 3D first
3. Re:Print Escher stairs? by benthurston27 · 2012-01-30 17:31 · Score: 2
  
  You can but they only look right from a certain perspective. One part where they look like they connect is actually forced perspective of two parts farther apart.
Am I missing something by viperidaenz · 2012-01-30 11:20 · Score: 1

Don't these 3D printer kits already come with step-by-step guides, usually referred to as instruction manuals or assembly instructions?
1. Re:Am I missing something by djh101010 · 2012-01-30 15:58 · Score: 1
  
  Not so much, the makerbot "kits" at least, 6 months ago, are infested with guess gaps. If you're not pretty hardcore geeky, and persistent, expect to be frustrated. Makerbot has gone from kits to pre-assembled systems now, with the spoken goal being less support call overhead (paraphrased) so they can focus on development rather than support. If you're not a pretty hardcore geek, it might overwhelm you. In 1981, I got my first printer. It was a 7-pin, dot matrix printer that printed on 2.5" wide aluminized paper, and made the characters by arcing from the printhead to the "paper". Ozone fumes and shitty print quality, big time. 10 years later, you could buy a decent 9 pin printer for $400. I'm pretty sure that my Makerbot in the first 3,000 or so units, is the equivalent of that aluminized paper printer of decades ago. Just like then, I'm having fun being on the bleeding edge and I'm perfectly content with 1 out of 10 prints failing in a dramatic but informative manner. In 10 years, these things will be somewhat common, and in 20 years, they'll be everywhere.
2. Re:Am I missing something by gnapster · 2012-01-30 16:03 · Score: 1
  
  No kidding. From the summary, I thought this would be a guide to sourcing parts. Once I started reading, I quickly started losing interest since I didn't already have the kit to assemble. Next week: "Applying toothpaste to your own toothbrush."
  Oops, sorry. Car analogy: "Refueling your own hatchback."
3. Re:Am I missing something by viperidaenz · 2012-01-30 19:47 · Score: 1
  
  You got shafted with your printer, 7 pin dot matrix printers with ink ribbons have been around since 1970, the technology was invented in 1964. in 1990 9 pin printers wouldn't have been very popular as 24pin was common by then. Makerbot moving to pre-assembled systems isn't just to save money supporting it, they will also save money producing it in a ready-made state.
Costs still seem to high... by zAPPzAPP · 2012-01-30 11:22 · Score: 1

I'll get me one, as soon as it gets cheaper to print out a WH40k army, than to buy it. Bonus points if it comes out sufficiently coloured.
At that point, I'm all set to jump on this new piracy train WOOOOP WOOOOP
1. Re:Costs still seem to high... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 18:04 · Score: 0
  
  It already is, bro.
  If you don't count the cost of the printer, it's many times cheaper.
  If you do count the cost of the printer, before you print your WH40K stuff, print another printer, and sell it, to make back your cash. Then it still is many times cheaper.
3D printers suck FOR THE MOMENT... by jeffb+(2.718) · 2012-01-30 11:27 · Score: 2

I see your point, but I think your argument is a little bit like saying (circa 1990) "why would anybody shell out hundreds of dollars for an ink-jet printer, when for the same price you could get a really nice set of drafting tools? And you could choose whatever paper and ink you like, instead of producing a fuzzy mess that runs when you get a drop of water on it."
1. Re:3D printers suck FOR THE MOMENT... by Osgeld · 2012-01-30 13:17 · Score: 1
  
  except when inexpensive (for the time) inkjet printers did hit the market full force in the early 90's they where a godsend, cheap color, near laser quality, fast, and most importantly didnt sound like an industrial machine raping the transmission in your car
Re:3D printers suck (NOT) by emorning · 2012-01-30 11:27 · Score: 2

two comments....
I have built both a CNC router and a 3D printer. It is *much* harder to build a milling machine because of the mechanical stiffness that the machine requires.
Take a look at the printed parts used to build a reprap - the parts have very sophisticated shapes that are *impossible* to make on the typical sub-$1000 2.5D CNC machine.
I own a 3D printer by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 11:36 · Score: 0

I bought the RapMan 3.1. Similar to this printer, it came flat in a box and everything had to be put together. It took about 24 hours to do it, but with help it might have been faster (depends on the help). Had I another printer to use, I could have printed 75% of the parts I was putting together and shaved a TON of time.
I couldn't be happier with it. If you have 100 ideas for what you could do with one, you will discover 1000 more once you own one. Prices are dropping on them, but put a little perspective on it. They cost about as much as a low end laptop or a decent desktop computer. They are, without a doubt, worth the investment. Even if you don't have a practical use for it, they are fun as hell to play with until you do find a use.
3D printers Aren't (Yet) For Noobs by cmholm · 2012-01-30 13:05 · Score: 1

You make good points. However, neither a 3D printer nor a lathe/mill is really geared for someone who isn't prepped to put in a lot of time learning the tool. Then, there's the issue of right-tool-for-the-job. I think 3D printers are still best suited as a prototyping tool, although once tuned up they can also work well for creating plastic parts that would be a wee bit of a challenge on a mill (eg. gears). I've seen print tests with porcelain mix that put out complex shapes ready to fire... a niche I doubt you'd see handled by a mill.
Finally, we're starting to see complete printing kits below the US$500 mark. If they prove out their promises to assemble and print (decently) within a weekend or a day, it may prove the tipping point that leads to mass marketed $200 printers from - hell, pick a name - HP, Samsung, Lenovo, or currently-unknown-Chinese brand. At that point, 3D printers and low end mills wouldn't be an either-or choice... buy both.

--
Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
Beam epitaxy? by tlambert · 2012-01-30 13:36 · Score: 2

You can pretty much get any tolerance you want.
-- Terry
Space Nutter vs 3D printing Nutter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 14:15 · Score: 0

If 3D printers will let us manufacture to atomic tolerances in less than 10 years (an actual 3D Nutter comment on slash), why do we need zero-g orbital manufacturing?
Whose (so-called) brain will blow up first from the cognitive dissonance?
1. Re:Space Nutter vs 3D printing Nutter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 15:47 · Score: 0
  
  What machine do you think they are manufacturing with?
2. Re:Space Nutter vs 3D printing Nutter by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-30 22:50 · Score: 0
  
  They aren't, and that's my point. It's hype, it's delusional and it's insane. I was just wondering which delusion is stronger among the software geeks, that we'll have replicators (bahahahaha) or orbital manufacturing (Aahahahaaahahahahah), since either is delusional.
Blog about building a RepRap by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 02:35 · Score: 0

6brueder.wordpress.com
1. Re:Blog about building a RepRap by Anonymous Coward · 2012-01-31 03:59 · Score: 0
  
  Cool! Thanks for sharing. It also speaks about the required software/firmware Marlin and Slic3r. And offers solutions about common problems when building 3D Printers.
Is Buildatron violating the GPL license? by jpiratefish · 2012-01-31 04:59 · Score: 1

In the 3D printer world, how you feed your plastic and how you melt (extrude) your plastic are the LARGEST problems - period - free software does the rest of the work, and the circuitry and such are all open sourced as well. This Buildatron group seems to be holding on real tight to their X-Carriage design, as well as their feeder mechanism and their extruder design - plus, I don't see any public distribution of the document anywhere - and basically put - this is a derivative work of the Prusa - and all of that stuff is licensed under the GPL Free Documentation License - so I gotta ask, who goes after them for this potential violation? And short of paying them for one of their (way overpriced) kits, has anyone gotten one and can show pictures of how they're actually extruding?
Some Built it yourself links by 3seas · 2012-01-31 05:16 · Score: 1

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/printrbot/printrbot-your-first-3d-printer?ref=live
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/relativedesign/reprap-self-replicating-3d-printer-fuel-the-moveme?ref=live
I use my 3D printer to print itself -"SkyNet' by peter303 · 2012-01-31 06:00 · Score: 1

Would this be the start of self-reproducing robots? A major problem is printing certain types of materials like metals. But there some metal printers now according to IEEE Spectrum. They print with some powder that is post-annealed with a laser.