I'd have to agree with you on affordability at this point. I actually considered purchasing my own when both Z-Corp ( http://www.zcorp.com/Products/3D-Printers/ZPrinter-310-Plus/spage.aspx ) and Dimension ( http://www.dimensionprinting.com/printers/printing-bst.shtml ) announced sub $20k models. I'm still in the market but after hearing about the Desktop Factory for $5k ( http://www.idealab.com/frame.php?referer=/press_room/&url=http://www.desktopfactory.com/ ), I decided it's best to wait a little longer. Like you said though, intent to bring a product to market is a driving factor. If you consider that maybe 5 years ago the entry point for machines like these was $100k or greater, I think you could agree that the current rate of cost reduction is at least encouraging for the DIYer. (Sidenote: The trend for machines to become cheaper has been marked by the observation that the materials to produce prototypes/parts has increased. I think this is a result of corporate purchases which often only consider the capital expense. But the end result I believe will be both cheaper machines and cheaper build materials.)
I'd also have to agree that *most* of the proposals for personal manufacturing don't adequetely cater to the production of miniatures. There is hope however. 3D-Micromac ( http://www.3d-micromac.com/home.html ) is currently marketing a machine capable of producing feature sizes less than 100 nanometers! Of course that's beyond the scope of the overwhelming majority of at-home-manufactureres, but the ability to produce something, anything at that scale and in your home is at least possible if you've got the cash. I'm obviously less optimistic that the price of such a machine will become affordable for the average Joe based on the fact that Joe currently has no need for that capability. I would argue that it's at least reasonable, however, that your desire to produce detailed miniatures is on the horizon. I used to design for Johnson & Johnson where we constantly concepted parts for medical instruments utilizing "lost wax" prototyping techniques for extremely small parts. Utilizing InVision "wax printers" ( http://www.3dsystems.com/products/projet/library.asp - gallery ), we could produce amazing molds which were then used to cast functional parts for validation. The process is not at all dissimilar to the creation of detailed miniatures and figurines. Typically in your application, an artist will carve an original which is cast in urethane (or some other compliant material). From that cast, a mold is made to produce multiple copies. Even if the production is extremely limited, this is the standard method because no other technique is as feasible. Essentially your application is highly specialized but I have no doubt that one day your desire to produce miniatures will be posssible and affordable @ home given the current rate of technological advancement and market demand.
Tolerance and feature size are completely separate things. Tolerance refers to the accuracy of a part, where feature size refers to actual dimensions of a feature. Basically, this particular machine cannot produce parts/features below.01 inch but anything above that will be accurate to within.001 inch which is the claim you asked me to find a link for.
Secondly, it is exactly an example of something suitable for on-demand fabrication that could be done in anybody's home. There are different technologies in rapid prototyping like fused deposition modeling (FDM), Stereo Lithography Apparatus (SLA), and Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) which are all likely candidates for personal fabrication. I linked to to the Solidscape machines because they are some of the smallest machines available and are used in dental offices for on-demand fabrication. They're a computer peripheral no larger than a printer (in some cases) that run off electricity. So why couldn't this be used in anybody's home?
And your original comment simply said you don't believe the resolution is great enough for your purposes. You haven't said what your making, but if it's anything similar to an injection molded part the technology is readily available in resolutions at least as good as many mass produced parts, and is getting cheaper and better by the day.
(Sorry about the long post, but I just want to relate a personal example. In college I owned a 98 VW Jetta which was known for a particular failure in a small plastic clip in window regulator assemblies. Basically, the plastic used in the clip did not respond well to temperature changes. When it eventually failed, the window would drop into the door panel and could not be operated. I took the vehicle in for service and could not purchase the plastic piece alone. Instead I was told I would have to buy the whole regulator assembly which I think was around $450. I couldn't afford it at the time, but had access to a rapid prototyping facility. I modeled the part up in solidworks in less than an hour, had it built in less than an hour out of ABS, and installed again in less than an hour. Part cost - $12. The part never failed and 3 years later I sold it like that to a friend who has never had a problem. There are numerous other examples - I've been asked on several occasions to model up fixes for Roomba vacuums and the problem is always solved cheaper and faster than traditional routes. My point is that most of what people may need to personally manufacture can easily be done today.)
Sure thing - Solidscape. The stated tolerance of these machines is.001 inch, or 25.4 microns. And these aren't even the best out there, just one that I have used. SLA machines are typically the most accurate as fas as I know.
(And no I don't work for any manufacturer of any rapid prototyping system, but I do use them very frequently.)
Agreed, however I believe your original comment was to the point that the resolution of current rapid prototyping systems is too low to be useful. I am arguing that is is not, and sometimes is in fact better than what is mass produced.
That depends on what you're making. In most injection molding applications you can expect a difference of 35 microns which is well within the tolerance of many plastic parts. In fact, in some rapid prototyping systems I've used it's not uncommon to have a tighter tolerance than that which can be achieved with mass production.
Interesting take, albeit overstated. "Dozens of warez webmasters" made photoshop popular? I imagine there were quite a few hacks making "cool graphics" as you say, but to claim an entire industry absolutely dominated by Adobe developed because a few kids knowing html and a couple of photoshop filters is a bit off the mark.
The bottom line reason is color space. I use several image editing/creation packages but photoshop is the standard for print. The industry is entrenched in CMYK which no other package fully supports. Without photoshop, you have no newspapers, magazines, posters, mailers, catalogues, banners, billboards etc. etc. etc...
Of course Adobe cares about piracy, but they hunt corporations rather then individuals. Talented individuals who use illegitimate copies of Adobe's products end up working for corporations who cannot risk not owning a legitimate copy. Corporate sales of the industry standard software package thus are key to Adobe's success.
"I can't imagine that a serious Photoshopper would want to use an LCD screen and draw on it with a stylus, it's just not accurate enough."
I'm about as serious as they come in regards to Photoshop and completely disagree with you. I use a Cintiq (Wacom) daily which is a LCD screen controlled by a stylus. And sketching on screen with a stylus is unequivocally superior to sketching with a mouse (and on a separate tablet IMHO). It is simply natural to look at what your drawing.
In regards to TFA, pressure sensitivity is the key aspect in art/design applications. I saw resolution mentioned, but nothing on pressure sensitivity. If this device has no, or little pressure sensitivity it will certainly remain a non-artisan tool for the majority of users. Personally, I would not be interested in this product because most laptop screens are 'soft' and susceptible to damage, and the keyboard is in the way.
Slashdot Mirror
I'd also have to agree that *most* of the proposals for personal manufacturing don't adequetely cater to the production of miniatures. There is hope however. 3D-Micromac ( http://www.3d-micromac.com/home.html ) is currently marketing a machine capable of producing feature sizes less than 100 nanometers! Of course that's beyond the scope of the overwhelming majority of at-home-manufactureres, but the ability to produce something, anything at that scale and in your home is at least possible if you've got the cash. I'm obviously less optimistic that the price of such a machine will become affordable for the average Joe based on the fact that Joe currently has no need for that capability. I would argue that it's at least reasonable, however, that your desire to produce detailed miniatures is on the horizon. I used to design for Johnson & Johnson where we constantly concepted parts for medical instruments utilizing "lost wax" prototyping techniques for extremely small parts. Utilizing InVision "wax printers" ( http://www.3dsystems.com/products/projet/library.asp - gallery ), we could produce amazing molds which were then used to cast functional parts for validation. The process is not at all dissimilar to the creation of detailed miniatures and figurines. Typically in your application, an artist will carve an original which is cast in urethane (or some other compliant material). From that cast, a mold is made to produce multiple copies. Even if the production is extremely limited, this is the standard method because no other technique is as feasible. Essentially your application is highly specialized but I have no doubt that one day your desire to produce miniatures will be posssible and affordable @ home given the current rate of technological advancement and market demand.
Tolerance and feature size are completely separate things. Tolerance refers to the accuracy of a part, where feature size refers to actual dimensions of a feature. Basically, this particular machine cannot produce parts/features below .01 inch but anything above that will be accurate to within .001 inch which is the claim you asked me to find a link for.
Secondly, it is exactly an example of something suitable for on-demand fabrication that could be done in anybody's home. There are different technologies in rapid prototyping like fused deposition modeling (FDM), Stereo Lithography Apparatus (SLA), and Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) which are all likely candidates for personal fabrication. I linked to to the Solidscape machines because they are some of the smallest machines available and are used in dental offices for on-demand fabrication. They're a computer peripheral no larger than a printer (in some cases) that run off electricity. So why couldn't this be used in anybody's home?
And your original comment simply said you don't believe the resolution is great enough for your purposes. You haven't said what your making, but if it's anything similar to an injection molded part the technology is readily available in resolutions at least as good as many mass produced parts, and is getting cheaper and better by the day.
(Sorry about the long post, but I just want to relate a personal example. In college I owned a 98 VW Jetta which was known for a particular failure in a small plastic clip in window regulator assemblies. Basically, the plastic used in the clip did not respond well to temperature changes. When it eventually failed, the window would drop into the door panel and could not be operated. I took the vehicle in for service and could not purchase the plastic piece alone. Instead I was told I would have to buy the whole regulator assembly which I think was around $450. I couldn't afford it at the time, but had access to a rapid prototyping facility. I modeled the part up in solidworks in less than an hour, had it built in less than an hour out of ABS, and installed again in less than an hour. Part cost - $12. The part never failed and 3 years later I sold it like that to a friend who has never had a problem. There are numerous other examples - I've been asked on several occasions to model up fixes for Roomba vacuums and the problem is always solved cheaper and faster than traditional routes. My point is that most of what people may need to personally manufacture can easily be done today.)
Sorry - http://www.solid-scape.com/faqs.html
Sure thing - Solidscape. The stated tolerance of these machines is .001 inch, or 25.4 microns. And these aren't even the best out there, just one that I have used. SLA machines are typically the most accurate as fas as I know.
(And no I don't work for any manufacturer of any rapid prototyping system, but I do use them very frequently.)
Agreed, however I believe your original comment was to the point that the resolution of current rapid prototyping systems is too low to be useful. I am arguing that is is not, and sometimes is in fact better than what is mass produced.
That depends on what you're making. In most injection molding applications you can expect a difference of 35 microns which is well within the tolerance of many plastic parts. In fact, in some rapid prototyping systems I've used it's not uncommon to have a tighter tolerance than that which can be achieved with mass production.
Interesting take, albeit overstated. "Dozens of warez webmasters" made photoshop popular? I imagine there were quite a few hacks making "cool graphics" as you say, but to claim an entire industry absolutely dominated by Adobe developed because a few kids knowing html and a couple of photoshop filters is a bit off the mark. The bottom line reason is color space. I use several image editing/creation packages but photoshop is the standard for print. The industry is entrenched in CMYK which no other package fully supports. Without photoshop, you have no newspapers, magazines, posters, mailers, catalogues, banners, billboards etc. etc. etc... Of course Adobe cares about piracy, but they hunt corporations rather then individuals. Talented individuals who use illegitimate copies of Adobe's products end up working for corporations who cannot risk not owning a legitimate copy. Corporate sales of the industry standard software package thus are key to Adobe's success.
I'm about as serious as they come in regards to Photoshop and completely disagree with you. I use a Cintiq (Wacom) daily which is a LCD screen controlled by a stylus. And sketching on screen with a stylus is unequivocally superior to sketching with a mouse (and on a separate tablet IMHO). It is simply natural to look at what your drawing.
In regards to TFA, pressure sensitivity is the key aspect in art/design applications. I saw resolution mentioned, but nothing on pressure sensitivity. If this device has no, or little pressure sensitivity it will certainly remain a non-artisan tool for the majority of users. Personally, I would not be interested in this product because most laptop screens are 'soft' and susceptible to damage, and the keyboard is in the way.