3-D Printing Enables UVA Student-Built Unmanned Plane

The engine... by drosboro · 2012-10-21 04:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

Am I reading correctly that even the engine (a turbofan) was built entirely from 3d-printed parts? Now THAT's cool.

Re:The engine... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 05:17 · Score: 5, Informative

A scale model of a turbofan was an entirely different project, unrelated to the UAV.
Re:The engine... by Tough+Love · 2012-10-21 07:05 · Score: 3, Funny

I wonder who modded this +1 interesting, informative when it really deserves -1, melts.

--
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Re:The engine... by EmagGeek · 2012-10-21 08:18 · Score: 1

A NON-WORKING scale model of a turbofan... can't forget that $2M was spent on a non-working scale model of an engine that doesn't cost much more than that to buy off-the-shelf.

No, they didn't print an engine by Animats · 2012-10-21 04:57 · Score: 4, Informative

The press release is deceptive. They did not build a working turbofan engine with a 3D printer. They built a plastic scale model of a Rolls Royce turbofan engine with a Stratasys 3D printer. It will rotate if powered with compressed air. Rolls Royce gave U of VA a $2 million dollar grant which supported that effort.

The plane itself wasn't printed as one piece. It was more like printing the parts of a plane kit. Very slowly. 80 hour weeks are mentioned. Not sure where the $2000 cost figure comes from, but it doesn't include labor or 3D printer time. Maybe that's just the plastic cost.

Re:No, they didn't print an engine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 05:26 · Score: 1

It sounds like the scale model turbofan was where the $2000 number came from, and they say that would have cost $250k to do normally. I assume that means if they'd had the whole thing machined.
It seems they did the (relatively unimpressive) plane as part of an internship program they got because of that previous project. Yeah. Great. You made a big rc plane in your internship program. That's amazing.
I agree... crap summary and press release.
Re:No, they didn't print an engine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 05:44 · Score: 0

laser cutting it from plywood and snapping it together would be too fast, too cheap, too boring...
Re:No, they didn't print an engine by iamhassi · 2012-10-21 05:49 · Score: 1

The press release is deceptive.
They didn't build a plane either. They built a radio controlled airplane.
If someone says I built a plane or car or house, I don't think they mean a scale model. The rc plane the spent 80 hours and $2,000+ building could have been bought for a few hundred bucks.

This press release is complete garbage and I'm disappointed this is on /.

--
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
Re:No, they didn't print an engine by alphatel · 2012-10-21 05:52 · Score: 1

"printable products" soon to be everywhere, everything.

--
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
Re:No, they didn't print an engine by cellocgw · 2012-10-21 06:08 · Score: 2

80 hour weeks are mentioned. Not sure where the $2000 cost figure comes from, but it doesn't include labor or 3D printer time.
They are grad students. labor is free. :-(

--
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
Re:No, they didn't print an engine by Jmc23 · 2012-10-21 06:23 · Score: 2

To be fair, the article isn't deceptive. The headline is inaccurate and sensationalist, but have you ever met a headline that wasn't? The only thing that's ambiguous is To make a plastic turbofan engine for those who aren't in the airplane business, engine here not referring to the 'motor' but to the type of plane.

--
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Re:No, they didn't print an engine by topham · 2012-10-21 06:53 · Score: 2

As an engineering study of the applicability of printing 3D objects it's somewhat interesting. As to the importance of being able to build an airplane like that for under $2k it's entirely underwhelming. It's pretty easy to make one by hand with a very small collection of components and materials, and it would have taken less time. (So much so that even building a prototype, then dies to pre-cut material to produce the plane more traditionally would have taken less effort).
Re:No, they didn't print an engine by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 08:15 · Score: 0

On top of that, it's not even a particularly large or nice RC plane. You can buy a bigger, nicer, lighter RC airframe for less than $200.
Re:No, they didn't print an engine by delt0r · 2012-10-21 20:48 · Score: 1

My first RC plane was a similar size. Mostly made by hand from balsa wood and foam, with a plywood firewall for the gas engine and fiberglass matt for the wing root. It took me about 3 months to first flight to build. But then i was working, at school and had parties to go to. I would estimate perhaps 100 to 200 hours build time total.

These days the electric engines look a lot easier to deal with while still having nice performance. The Gas engine was messy with methanol+ 20% oil mix. But then it did give 1HP!

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Re:No, they didn't print an engine by SharpFang · 2012-10-22 00:39 · Score: 1

Yep, the primary advance was LiPo batteries. They weight little enough and can provide enough power, that you can make a lawn mower fly. In essence, acrobatic model planes don't need -any- lift from their wings, the hull contributing just room for parts and steering, the planes essentially acting as fancy helicopters with vastly overpowered, small rotors.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

Different headline by similar_name · 2012-10-21 05:00 · Score: 4, Funny

3-D Printing Enables UVA student-built UAV

Re:Different headline by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 05:42 · Score: 0

Thank you. I came in specifically looking to see if someone caught this title.
Re:Different headline by jovius · 2012-10-21 05:51 · Score: 2

Coming up: UVA destroyed UVA's UAV.

So let me see by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 05:02 · Score: 1, Informative

Instead of going to a hobby shop to buy a RTF (ready to fly) RC plane kit with remote for about 500$, they spent several times that amount? OK, and where did that 250K$ figure come from? Is this another one of those masturbatory 3D printing stories where a few parts were made by some rapid prototyping technology, all the other parts were bought off the shelf made the nasty old way, but we are led to believe you can 3D print the whole thing?

And of course, there's never a follow up about how well it performs or how long it lasts.

And now I predict a bunch of nerds that will honestly believe we are less than ten years away from Star Trek replicators.

Re:So let me see by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 05:30 · Score: 4, Insightful

Baby steps, baby steps. To use a car analogy, we are at the horse and buggy stage of 3D printing. In computers, that would be the i4004 stage. Give it time and personal 3D printers -will- become common and useful.
I imagine it will be similar to photo printing. Not everyone has a photo printer, some people still upload their images to a photo-finishing place and let them do the printing. But many people can justify owning a photo printer for various reasons (cost, volume, control, etc.).
Re:So let me see by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 05:32 · Score: 0

Comparing information processing technology to material processing technology is ridiculous.
Re:So let me see by Hognoxious · 2012-10-21 05:35 · Score: 1

Some singularitard will no doubt point out that people in Victorian times thought it was impossible to travel on a railway locomotive at more than 10 mph without suffocating[1], or some other retarded shit. Which apparently proves that anything that was ever thought impossible is not only possible but inevitable.
[1] This is clearly bollocks anyway, a horse can go much faster than that. Plus winds reach over a hundred mph and people can still breathe.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:So let me see by JWSmythe · 2012-10-21 05:36 · Score: 2

I was surprised that they went with the typical high wing trainer. On the other hand, going with something well known and very reliable was a good idea to verify that they method works.
Spending $2k on a $500 project does seem silly. Skimming the article, they are mechanical engineering students. It would be more applicable to aeronautical engineering students, to prototype new types of aircraft.
Judging by the picture, they may have gone a little heavy on the wings and fuselage. Mechanically, it was probably stronger than the need, which is a good idea. For aeronautical purposes, it was probably overkill. But hey, it flies, and that's what counts. :)
I would love to see more on the project than the article. It's kind of light on details.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:So let me see by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 05:39 · Score: 0

Is that the only bit of info that you acquired from the OP? Seriously? Your only take-away?
Re:So let me see by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 06:38 · Score: 0

Which apparently proves that anything that was ever thought impossible is not only possible but inevitable.
Well, if you can prove otherwise, we would love to hear it. What you are saying that if some 'scientific' authority claims something is impossible, we would be insane to make the attempt. Well, I say, thank goodness for the 'crazy' people who tell the authorities to stuff it. The naysayers are the retarded ones.
Re:So let me see by Slugster · 2012-10-21 07:44 · Score: 1

Yea I don't get it either....?

Military contractors would spend $250K because there would be $250K to spend. (-I am not in that industry, but know something of how it works-)

There's cheap RC planes already from normal methods, but the best (lightest, strongest) ones are still fiber-oriented composites,,,, that 3D printing still can't do.

Just a school blowing smoke I suppose.
Re:So let me see by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 13:44 · Score: 0

Since that was the only information offered, yes. It was a monumentally moronic comparison.
Re:So let me see by SharpFang · 2012-10-22 00:43 · Score: 1

Yeah, a detailed printout of a photo on a fancy glossy paper, all with less than $50 in hardware costs is definitely just result of information processing. No material processing technology here, none, nada.

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Re:So let me see by Shotgun · 2012-10-22 04:41 · Score: 1

As further support, I still remember the first computer printer I ever saw. It was as large as an armoir, and shook the building when it printed. The print head looked like it was taken straight from and IBM Selectric typewriter. It took several minutes to print a page, and it ONLY did text.
That was less than thirty years ago, when very few people even realized that other people had computers in their homes.
3D printers everywhere are inevitable.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba

Oops by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 05:28 · Score: 0

Guess who just made their way onto a whole bunch of goverment watch lists!

Doesn't look too special by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 05:30 · Score: 1

Looks fairly conventional for an R/C airplane, like you could probably build the same design from mostly balsa and light ply. I would have thought the benefit of 3d printing would have allowed more complex shapes and a bit more optimized structural design. I wonder how the physical characteristics of the material compares to balsa or even fiberglass, and how much time it actually takes to print out and assemble another one now that they have everything worked out.

Re:Doesn't look too special by hot+soldering+iron · 2012-10-21 07:00 · Score: 2

I think that this is more a "proof of concept" for the METHOD, more than it was for making experimental UAVs. Just because it's old hat for you doesn't mean the sponsoring corporation doesn't need testing and trial runs made. This is fantastic for people that need to deal with "empirical data and experience", not theoretical. Theoretical extrapolation of technology won't convince the FAA to let you put your parts on a type-certified aircraft. FAA are mostly old engineers that don't trust new technology until it's been tested for about 20 years.

--
When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
Re:Doesn't look too special by MrKaos · 2012-10-22 00:48 · Score: 1

I think that this is more a "proof of concept" for the METHOD, more than it was for making experimental UAVs.
Absolutely. They will build thousands of devices using this method, especially being able to transmit parts digitally to the field.

When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
If you would like something built, then you can come and see me. If you would like correct grammar and, spelling then get a fucking liberal arts student.
Censorship is almost as offensive as political correctness, besides you shouldn't capitalise the F in fucking cause it looks fucking stupid, unless of course you meant 'get Fucking a liberal arts student' in which case it's probably ok.

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.

RC Airplanes are cheap by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 05:45 · Score: 1

So, they spent months and hundreds (thousands?) of manhours to 3-D print an RC airplane that I can buy in kit form made out of balsa wood for $50. No doubt a good project for the students, but nothing groundbreaking. I guess it's fun to use a 3-D printer, but my guess is that this model is heavier and under-performs one made with traditional RC airplane materiel. They would have been a lot more productive using hot wire cutters on EPP with carbon fiber wrap, or regular old balsa wood and Xacto knifes.

Re:RC Airplanes are cheap by SharpFang · 2012-10-22 01:14 · Score: 1

Actually, I believe the man-hours projecting the thing were *less* than projecting and making the first prototype of a buyable kit that sells for $50.
And then the production itself not only took minimal man-hours (pour more powder, dust off printed parts, assemble them like LEGO, run more printing overnight). The effort replicating the plane - building a second one - would be VASTLY less than assembly of the $50 kit or toying with hot wire cutters and Xacto knives. Not to mention cost far less than $2k, with all the prototype stage mistakes ironed out. Probably more than $50 but that's a matter of raw materials price dropping and projecting models that are economically viable, as opposed to proof-of-concept that flies and doesn't break.
Yes, it's not ground-breaking. We knew it's possible and someone making it was only a matter of time. It's kinda cool that it was done. Though I'm still waiting for a really affordable and truly self-replicating rep-rap...

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

Interesting as demo of 3D printing, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 05:46 · Score: 1

...you can build similiar plane with CNC hot wire cutting over weekend for about $100 (including design)....

Re:Interesting as demo of 3D printing, but... by SuperMooCow · 2012-10-21 06:45 · Score: 1

Probably including the hot wire cutting machine too, if you shop around the used motors and controllers.

Parts Spec by chuckymonkey · 2012-10-21 05:49 · Score: 4, Interesting

I think it would be interesting for the Maker community to come out with some part specs for this. Think a standard body and motor mounting structure that have interfaces to take different wing configurations, tail configurations, even wheels and whatnot. Kinda like an API for a plane model where you have a few basic standardized parts and you can then print out all manner of different things to try that just basically bolt onto those standards. They could probably do much the same for the quatro/hexa copters as well. Hell, there's probably a ton of applications that would benefit from a library of standard parts that you can build on.

--
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho

Re:Parts Spec by delt0r · 2012-10-21 20:52 · Score: 1

Unfortunately it mostly wouldn't work. For the inside and perhaps engine it could kinda work. But even then they would have to have the same weight and weight distribution. Airframes need to be fairly well balanced for decent performance. That means the wings need to provide lift at the same place as all the weight is effectively distributed. Thus there is not much you could change without needing to change everything.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?

Once it was new ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 05:54 · Score: 0

if it involved 'a computer', then it was new it it involved 'the internet', now it is new if it involves a '3d printer'

Next up.. by pouar · 2012-10-21 05:56 · Score: 1

copyright trolls from commercial airports demand that DRM be placed on 3D printers to prevent people from making these, claiming lost profits

--
while :;do if windows sucks;then mv windows /dev/null;pacman -Sy linux;fi;done

Re:Next up.. by PPH · 2012-10-21 07:11 · Score: 3, Interesting

No. Next up will be a report from MITRE showing how a UAV can be built cheaply and what its capabilities for combat or surveillance are. As a result, 3-D printers and related technology will be placed on lists of export restricted equipment. And lists of people who own or attempt to purchase listed equipment will be turned over to the FBI for further scrutiny.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:Next up.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 10:04 · Score: 0

How do you figure? Commercial airports make their money from landing fees and mooring fees. If anything they'd encourage people to print their own planes so that they can increase their profits.
Re:Next up.. by MrKaos · 2012-10-22 00:51 · Score: 1

dammit, I posted before moderating... MOD PARENT UP

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.

Great start by __aazsst3756 · 2012-10-21 06:04 · Score: 1

The shape of many of today's planes has a lot to do with buildability. This is a great start, but I hope once they a happy with the printing, they move on to more creative plane designs. To those asking "why", the correct answer is to learn. Baby steps.

MakerBot? Seriously? by sirwired · 2012-10-21 06:29 · Score: 2

To be blunt, the MakerBot is a "toy" 3D printer, capable of producing nothing more than small, low-quality, toys. It's imprecise and produces rather crude pieces. It's not bad for a build-it-yourself kit, and the price isn't bad at all, but as far as 3D printers go overall... well, you get what you pay for. The build platform is small, the tolerances poor, and the finished pieces rather rough.

You can make some REALLY nice stuff with 3D printing. You can't with the MakerBot. To see what's really possible, check out shapeways.com The stuff there (user-submitted designs printed on professional printers) is light-years ahead of the MakerBot. I, myself, got the world's best D&D dice there, printed with Stainless Steel and a bronze finish.

Sponsored by MITRE? by PPH · 2012-10-21 07:00 · Score: 1

So, for $2000 did they include weapons hardpoints?

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Help Me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 07:03 · Score: 1

Alright, somebody help me here. Please?

Other than the involvement of a very expensive 3D printer, what's the big deal? At $2000 this thing is hugely expensive. Especially when you consider that the $2000 does not seem to include labor hours or printer time.

Meanwhile, Hobby King has almost ready to fly trainers of similar size and design for $210.

So, what is the point? What is so great about this, other than personal accomplishment and a 3D printer?

Re:Help Me by WillHirsch · 2012-10-21 07:40 · Score: 2

Simple... it's because just like powered flight in the early 20th century meant we would eventually all be driving flying cars everywhere, the development of a hands-free, any-geometry manufacturing process means we will soon be 3D printing all our material needs at home faster than they can be distributed to us from centres of mass manufacture.
Re:Help Me by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 08:33 · Score: 0

Don't you realize what this means?
I'll be able to print my own flying car. At last!
Captcha says "ravings". How doe sit know?

Re:MakerBot? Seriously? by WillHirsch · 2012-10-21 07:33 · Score: 1

I, myself, got the world's best D&D dice there, printed with Stainless Steel and a bronze finish.

Sums up the scope for mass-market applications of 3D printing really... upgrade to professional equipment and get small, HIGH-quality toys!

Eheh by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-10-21 07:45 · Score: 1

Welcome to the past, can I introduce you to a machine that allows you to manufacture at home at a greatly reduced price items we all need everyday (expect perverts)? Yes, it is the SOWING MACHINE!!! Tada!

No more reliance on the clothing industry and their child labour practices and outrageous markups, you design your own pattern or use one of the countless free ones available, experiment as much as you want and have your own clothes as you want them, when you want them for a fraction of the price.

And this AMAZING tech is SO amazing, that it is slowly dying out as the general population says "what, make my own and spend all that time when I can just spend 10 times as much and get crappy made clothes that everyone else has?".

3d printing seems to have it uses but those looking for a revolution better ask themselves, "do I make my own clothes"?

no? Then why would you make your own... stuff that is entirely made out of plastic or easily available tiny parts?

Did you know there used to be stores that sold nothing buttons?

An industry catering to makers did once exist. And it is dying out or dead already.

Why?

Sowing machines are now used for prototyping and repairs. Gosh, could this be the market for 3d printing as well? Nah, surely people ain't that lazy! Nothing like coming home at the end of the day, noticing you ran out of sporks and printing out a new batch. How much stuff do you own that can actually be printed completely from scratch where color or type of plastic don't matter and time between need and finished printing is acceptable?

even this plane shows the weakness, I seen people make model boats completely from scratch by hand do it faster.And that includes the metal and rope work. Yes, I know some sad people. I am one of them.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:Eheh by Hognoxious · 2012-10-21 08:16 · Score: 1

Yes, it is the SOWING MACHINE!!!

Invented by Jethro Tull. Bet you didn't know that.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:Eheh by Stoutlimb · 2012-10-21 09:59 · Score: 1

When a SEWING machine can take 10 hours to make an outfit without much skill or interaction in the process, expect to see a resurgence in SEWING machines.
Re:Eheh by MrKaos · 2012-10-22 00:30 · Score: 1

Yes, it is the SOWING MACHINE!!!
Invented by Jethro Tull. Bet you didn't know that.
His flute teacher told him to put his foot down, again and again and again...

--
My ism, it's full of beliefs.

only the third time by Cyko_01 · 2012-10-21 08:11 · Score: 1

From TFA:

It achieved a cruising speed of 45 mph and is only the third 3-D printed plane known to have been built and flown.

So.....not really news then is it

What? by hduff · 2012-10-21 08:56 · Score: 0

I though UVA was supposed to be a party school. They do actual science there? Who knew?

--
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert

Re:SEWING no SOWING by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 09:08 · Score: 0

SEWING - that's about stitching things together with thread
SOWING - that's about planting seed in the ground.

So where is the big news here? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 10:35 · Score: 0

This is not a UAV, it is a model airplane. It may not sound as sexy as UAV however...

RC model airplanes are NC cut from wood and carbon fiber parts for quite some time. Replacing those parts by elements printed by a 3D printer is rather straightforward. No quantum leap in thinking required.

Similar planes can be constructed in a few weeks on spare time. Been there, done that.

Re:So where is the big news here? by nedlohs · 2012-10-21 12:15 · Score: 1

An RC model airplane is a UAV. Unless you squeeze a person into it of course...
Re:So where is the big news here? by aXis100 · 2012-10-21 13:18 · Score: 1

The "A" part of "UAV" only work for about 30 seconds when you take your hands of the sticks. Shortly afterwards, it will be "re-kitted" as it ploughs into a tree at 45mph.
Re:So where is the big news here? by nedlohs · 2012-10-21 15:23 · Score: 1

So what? Nothing about a UAV requires any sort of autonomous operation.
Re:So where is the big news here? by aXis100 · 2012-10-21 16:11 · Score: 1

Hmm, sorry, I was convinced that the A stood for "autonomous", in order to differntiate themselves from RC aircraft.
Apparantly I was wrong and some sales jerk/researcher just wanted to make fancy new acronym without adding any value.
Re:So where is the big news here? by nedlohs · 2012-10-21 16:32 · Score: 1

To be fair "How about a $2 billion program to build some remote control planes" might have been a harder sell :)
Re:So where is the big news here? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 19:33 · Score: 0

The "A" part of "UAV" only work for about 30 seconds when you take your hands of the sticks. Shortly afterwards, it will be "re-kitted" as it ploughs into a tree at 45mph.
Unless it has an autopilot. Get with the times dude. Autonomous flying vehicles are already here.

Re:copyright trolls by TaoPhoenix · 2012-10-21 10:48 · Score: 1

They just had that article about a week or so ago, where something nice from a 3d printer got locked up by the car companies.

--
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine

Re:MakerBot? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-21 14:07 · Score: 0

the problem is patents. As soon as one of these "toy" 3D Printers advertises itself as "pro" and don fancy "controlled environment" 3d-printing like a heated chamber, Stratapro or any other big boys will sue them into oblivion. Happened once (can't find who it was.. anyone can help?) and will happen again.

BAT3DP by Baldrson · 2012-10-21 14:30 · Score: 1

Someone should immediately notify the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 3D Printing.

--
Seastead this.

Like 3D printers? by SmallFurryCreature · 2012-10-21 19:16 · Score: 1

Show me a 3d printer that can create anything remote useful at the press of a button.

And at the end, you had near robotic sewing machines, capable of being programmed to do all kinds of stuff.

If you didn't look down on "women's work", you could see some amazing similarities between the idea of 3d printing and making clothes from scratch. But that would mean acknowledging that its appeal is limited. And designer clothes are expensive, an egg holder cup isn't.

Outside prototyping and repear, I can't see a future for 3d printing. I can't see anything worth more then a few cents that isn't make out of more then just plastic and screws where just buying it isn't far far easier. But hey, keep dreaming, maybe you can come up with a reason every household should own a 3d printer.

--

MMO Quests are like orgasms:

You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

Re:Like 3D printers? by jaymemaurice · 2012-10-21 20:05 · Score: 1

Never under-estimate the stupidity of consumers... I mean, we will probably end up with tassimo style 3d printers that you put in a pod of plastic and end up with forks/straws etc... not because it was a good idea or that tassimo machines make better/easier/cheaper coffees then a real espresso maker... but because consumers are stupid.

--
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
Re:Like 3D printers? by Shotgun · 2012-10-22 04:47 · Score: 1

Cost isn't the issue.
Buying it isn't the issue.
Finding it, purchasing it, and then waiting on it is the issue.
You used to have to go downtown to the theater and take a whole evening to watch a movie.
The we progressed to going to a video store and browsing for half an hour to find a movie to watch for the evening.
Now, we sit in our jammies and pick something from the Netflix menu, or maybe choose something from RedBox and pick it up when we make a beer run.
Being able to download a 3D file, make some adjustments/enhancements/personalizations and then print the birthday gift when your late to the party already will sell a tone of 3D printers.

--
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba

i want a clothes printer by cheekyboy · 2012-10-21 22:43 · Score: 1

I wouldnt mind a clothes printer, even if it has to tell me by voice, to place each cloth in manually.

Example for 3d printers would be better if there were a larger library of 3d objects. Like printing a missing jigsaw piece to a puzzle, or printing iphone cases.
or keys from photos. or ??

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.

Touche by sirwired · 2012-10-21 22:49 · Score: 1

Touche...

In all seriousness, you have it about right. 3D printing is still only good for things that can exist in isolation. Once one thing has to fit with another to tight tolerances, it's rough going... At best, 3D printed tolerances are a couple centuries behind modern tooling. That said, things are advancing rapidly.

However, the output of a MakerBot is so poor, it'd make the most ham-handed 18th century mold-maker hang his head in shame... although he'd be green with envy at how fast it can produce what it is capable of making. Pro-quality printers can produce pieces that are about even with what you can make with even modern sandcasting; maybe a little better... they require extensive file-work to fit together in a precision assembly, but can serve as an acceptable starting point for that re-work. Of course, we won't discuss how well such parts would hold together...

Re:Touche by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-22 08:21 · Score: 0

There is at least the formlabs' Form 1 that addresses most of the quality issue (yeah, still plastic). Home 3D printers will always be prototyping or quick repair or model/mold making for creation with traditional methods. If I were to make some pricey D&D dice and had a home 3D printer, I would print them there first, tweak the design as desired, and THEN send it to the manufacturing house.
Home 3D printers are home printers. Shapeways and others are the giant plotters and Epson canvas printers of the 2D world. Home printers are meant for low-yield or draft quality (or both). For the same reason people have home 2d printers, they will have 3d printers.
Re:Touche by WillHirsch · 2012-10-22 11:55 · Score: 1

For the same reason people have home 2d printers, they will have 3d printers.
The reason people have home 2D printers is because they generate a huge amount of 2D data, some of which sometimes needs to be copied onto paper. Most data we put to paper is generated very soon before we print it, and the time we have to wait for it matters because once it is printed we usually spend very little time consuming it before disposing of it or filing it away.
We do not generate large amounts of 3D data, especially not the kind that we need to create in a physical form, and especially not the kind that is needed at short notice.
The applications you list (prototyping, repair, modelmaking and molding) are things that 90% of people would never do at home, and those that would will find in perpetuity that (unless they have a hobby that involves high-volume manufacture of one-off objects) on the rare occasions when they do want something made, the nearest commercial 3D printing service will be a more satisfactory solution than the more expensive, poorer quality, and most likely slower, 3D printer they could have cluttering up their home.

they have high tech sewing machines these days by cheekyboy · 2012-10-21 22:50 · Score: 1

http://www.digsdigs.com/sewing-machine-for-tech-savy-grandma/

LCD screens etc.. USB, scanners etc... dude, not everyone is rich, some people even teenagers do make their own stuff. $5 of material can make a $100 dress. There is a resurgence of 'make it yourself' crowd these days.

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.

Re:SEWING no SOWING by SharpFang · 2012-10-22 00:48 · Score: 1

Yes, I suddenly boggled how a Seed Drill allows me to manufacture at home. Sure it helps manufacture food, but items we need every day?

--
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2

Not impressive, Uk did it better two years ago by Thomas+Charron · 2012-10-22 02:59 · Score: 1

Their design looks like they really just took an existing model, and sliced it up to be printable. Not really all that impresive, personally.

http://www.geekosystem.com/3d-printing-plane/

That one is from two years ago, and more interesting.

--
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..

In other words ... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-22 06:34 · Score: 0

... if you build commercial or hobby grade 3-D printers, move your production to China. Now. Or you'll lose your international markets.

You are all missing the point by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-22 07:01 · Score: 0

If the goal was to just make an RC plane cheaper, it could obviously be done cheaper out of wood. These guys are clearly not stupid, so they had a different goal in mind.

I've heard about this project locally at UVA and seen the plane in the window, and the key is that the parts snap together with little assembly, so making repeated planes is a lot quicker than the traditional RC method. Design changes are just a 5 minute CAD change away and then the designer can sit back while they print.

Also, one of their goals was to imitate a particular balsa-made RC Plane for some other software project, hence why the outside shown in the picture is not all that spectacular. Since plastic is much denser than the balsa, the internal structure is pretty creative to prevent them from ending up with an non-flying paperweight. The other printed UAVs were designed specifically to favor the technology, not the other way around and I'm not sure how much they cost. That gives it a little flavor.

Overall it was a cool project and an excellent job for just a couple of third-year undergrads over the summer.

I can make one just with foam and knife! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-22 16:04 · Score: 0

I can make one just with foam and knife! Who in the hell need 3d printer for this?!!!

Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-10-23 00:15 · Score: 0

6.5 ft wing span and 45 Mph ? You don't need a jet engine for that. Very ordinary by hobby RC standards. Big deal, we have been building them in the garage for decades. Why is 3d Printing them such a cool achievement.

Slashdot Mirror

3-D Printing Enables UVA Student-Built Unmanned Plane

87 comments