![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
It something subtractive like this considered 3D printing? -- Nabumetone 16:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
HI
I want to know how printer print colour as well as black & white.How c is use full to move print head , is there is any free source code to understand whole process / about printer drivers. please inform me if u have ! ...... at nandwana.s@gmail.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.89.113.140 ( talk • contribs) 09:45, October 11, 2006.
IMHO there is no need of keeping Rapid Prototyping distinct from 3D printing. The incipit saying that printers are generally faster, more affordable and easier to use than other rapid prototyping technologies seems to me quite weasel. Moreover ALL existing 3D printers around are marketed in the rapid prototyping industrial segment. It seems to me how trying to have a computer entry and another easy to use computer entry. Technologies, firms and sw are all the same. I am going to propose a merge. ALoopingIcon 14:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more with ALoopingIcon. Please see my detailed comment under "Controversies." 3D printing should not be used as the name for this topic---3D printing is one sub-technology of a much larger area. However, it is a great benefit to the few companies who make 3D printing devices to have all rapid manufacturing under the specific name of their technology. Clementsll ( talk) 03:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
article was lacking a definition of the concept behind 3D printing; I added "3D printers work by 'printing' a series of thin layers each on top of the previous to build up a 3 dimensional object."
I found this while trying to find a reference to explain the concept to a friend, there are lots of discussions of #d printing, but most assume that the reader already knows the basic concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.124.152.38 ( talk • contribs) 18:42, June 30, 2007
I've noticed a number of edits made by Michael751 about PolyJet Matrix Technologies. Text and links added appear to be un objective and pose a problem to this article. I removed the PolyJet Matrix Technologies section as it was all puffery. I am not against adding information about PolyJet Matrix Technologies into the article if it is done objectively; whoever adds it needs to be careful about this. Nicholas SL Smith ( talk) 00:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Its important to share new information - in particular when it comes to new technologies such as the Digital Materials printed with a multi material printer using the polyjet matrix technology. Yet - when such a new technology emerges, there is no external reference except a few select websites ... and its blocked by this encyclopedic site. This technology; polyjet matrix won the EuroMold 2007 innovation award in Germany and ingnoring it is ingnorance and driving technologists backwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.44.34 ( talk) 12:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Just how good are these printers? Will there ever be a point where someone will be able to print a perfect forgery of a dollar bill in any currency, no matter what security measures they take? The snare ( talk) 03:43, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Obviously by the time 3D printers can print current currency (if ever--most materials can't be effectively printed, short of some type of nanotechnology, which would be a different topic altogether), security measures for currency will have become more advanced, or we might not even use hard currency anymore. -- 74.46.213.148 ( talk) 15:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Would they be able to print something with hollow space and wires in it, layer by layer, maybe not with current printers, but eventually. Imagine what will happen when anyone can download not just digital media, but programming to make physical objects with these printers.
Yes, current printers can do hollow spaces, and I think they can make electrical paths. Although to my knowledge, most printed parts still need to be assembled before they are a complete product--that's how they're usually designed. -- 74.46.213.148 ( talk) 15:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I saw a program on the Discovery Channel (I think) about medicinal 3D printing, which showed current technologies producing working heart valves from the patient's own cells. I can't find a source now though. -- 170.215.130.226 ( talk) 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Am I the only one who sees this? Is it me or are they trying to make 'robots'... that can make 'robots'...? A robot being able to make another robot just seems like a slightly bad idea at the time but who knows how far this technology might go. We don't wanna get to the point where 'robots' make other 'robots' without telling anyone. Also, once it gets to the public, you know it's some super computer/techno-head that is just waitin to program and hack and reprogram it to do his bidding. Then, you got someone out there making everything from lock-picks to PS3's and selling them on the black market for ridiculous profit. The possibilities are endless. I just think that at first..., for a little while, the government or military should hang on to this and test find all of the different applications for it, good and bad, and come up with some counters or failsafes. Two good ones would be: 1. Never to build another robot unless a human tells you to. 2. Apply limits and restrictions on what can be built(no weapons, copywrighted objects, etc). Anyway, I just thought about this and wanted to see if anyone else thought about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdas25 ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I STRONGLY object to other, more general names for such technology being redirected to the single specific rapid prototyping/manufacturing technology of 3D printing. This is a disservice to the overall technology but a great boon to companies involved in 3D printing. I am involved professionally in this field, though far from the most expert, and this excludes---or renames with "someone else's name"---the technologically very important technologies of fused deposition modeling (FDM), stereolithography (SLA), etc., etc. are NOT 3D printing, even if Wikipedia tries to cram them into that topic.
I suggest you retain specific articles on various rapid prototyping/manufacturing techniques, with and a more general article with a far more general topic name. Rapid Manufacturing would be one possible name with other broadly used and important names being "Direct Digital Manufacturing" (DDM) and "Additive Manufacturing". There are nuances of each of these names, with none of these names being truly all-inclusive---not all rapid manufacturing is DDM or additive, etc. But any one of these is a lot closer to all-inclusive and excludes less of the industry than the subset name "3D printing".
I'm not sure if comments need to be referenced. Numerous references are available if needed. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Clementsll (
talk •
contribs) 03:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC) I apologize for failing to sign this post previously.
Clementsll (
talk)
03:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The article is really confusing right now, in part because there aren't any pictures of a 3d-printed object. Shouldn't there be at least one so that people will know what the article is talking about? I've tried to make sense of this, but honestly, I have no idea what exactly 3d-printing ends up with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sapphire Flame ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree!! Please help me visualize this process. --Moly 20:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moly ( talk • contribs)
Hi Folks. This Article needs a definite subject for everyone to agree on. It seems to start out as some vague idea of every thing 3D, then nicely defines the process known to engineers as 3D-Printing, an then drifts off into a collection of all kinds of other rapid prototyping processes. I would suggest to concentrate on that one RP-Process (binding corn starch with resin using a bubble-jet, and closely related processes), and to merge all other stuff into their respective articles (i.e. Rapid prototyping, STL, FDM, and so forth, and I'll bet there's already something on self-replication also) My idea was to start by throwing out "computer graphics" related stuff (which really had no relation to anything else in the article), and by turning the "printing 3d-pictures on 2d-surfaces" reference into a disambiguation. -- BjKa ( talk) 10:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree!! Please help me visualize this process. --Moly 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Please see my detailed comment under "Controversies." 3D printing should not be used as the name for this topic---3D printing is one sub-technology of a much larger area. Clementsll ( talk) 03:46, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with lots of comments here regarding the correct definition of 3D printing, technically there is only one manufacturer that makes 3D printers in the true sense of the word, I.e. building a 3d object using a "print head". Zcorp make the first and only 3d colour printers using HP inkjet heads. all other methods are but either sintering, slicing or otherwise laying down layers of material and binding them together via various methods.
you say you need help to visualise it. what do you want? I have made a few videos of the zcorp 3d printing they are on youtube http://www.youtube.com/user/Rapido3d, feel free to use them although they have our company logo on them, anything specific I may be able to help you with leave me a message. Rapidlaser ( talk) 10:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)PS I have lots of pics of many 3d Printed objects ubt not sure how to upload them so would prefer to send them to someone with more expertise in uploading them. Rapidlaser ( talk) 11:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
well that's not actually the case, as far as I know the object is a wax printer using thermal technology, I will email them to get more information. the Zcorp actually uses HP standard print heads,
U guess it again comes down to what is termed 3D printing, is laser sintering 3D Printing? I think it is rapid prototyping, I think that 3D printing has become a general term for any type of fast 3D layering technology.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidlaser ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Good comments here. Please see my detailed comment under "Controversies." 3D printing should not be used as the name for this topic---3D printing is one sub-technology of a much larger area. And I agree, I know of a handful of 3D printing companies -- but they only represent a subset of the overall RP/RM industry. Clementsll ( talk) 03:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:RETAIN the language should be whatever the first major contributor used. In the first edit of the article, the editor used British English, as seen here. I'm American so I'm not sure exactly all that needs to be changed. I'll leave that up to those more qualified. Wizard191 ( talk) 21:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
which is why I changed it to British English, so why are you sending me a message deriding me for doing so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapidlaser ( talk • contribs) 20:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I just saw the instruction to leave the BRITISH ENGLISH in place! Reading the article, it was jarring to encounter "moulds" alternating with "molds", and, seeking consistency, I went with the majority (mold). I would go back and convert them all to "mould", but it's not that simple. This is a hot topic. Although the first entry was from the British side, the majority of entries are going to be in American English. We'll have to keep turning "molds" into "moulds". The First Industrial Revolution came from the British Isles. This one is mainly from the USA. Can we get a "broad consensus" on this, one way or the other? Zipzip50 ( talk) 05:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC) Well, now it's been reverted (Andy?), so we're back to a mix of mold and mould. OK. Not half as important as finding the right stocks to buy! Zipzip50 ( talk) 07:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
"the 3D microfabrication technique of 2-photon photopolymerization"
How many people walking in off the street are really going to understand what that means? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Readers_First
Yellowlarakin ( talk) 03:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps this should become a more general topic regarding home 3D printing/fabrication. There are other projects such as Fab@Home and MakerBot. -- 67.241.40.118 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC).
Stumbled over this one, if it can be sourced you might want it in the article. Regards, Paradoctor ( talk) 10:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Should botmill really be listed as a DIY 3D printer? Botmill, to my knowledge, is only a vendor who sells RepRaps and materials for them. -- WERETIGER ( talk) 22:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of confusion over what exactly is the definition of a 3d printer. Hopefully someone knowledgeable about this can help us out here. For example, I don't see why CNC machine tools shouldn't be considered 3d printers. Whether you create a plastic or metal parts seems totally irrelevant to me. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 14:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
The table of printer types is not valuable IMHO. Wikipedia isn't a catalogue. Also because of the wide variation in home 3D printers I don't think this table can ever be said to be accurate and complete. If people feel that this should stay it should at least be given it's own article. In the mean time I have removed it. Lotu ( talk) 21:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I came here looking for information on Xographs, a printing technique developed in the 1950s (?) to make "three-dimensional" postcards and such. I don't know how to do it, but I think there should be some disambiguation here, even if it just points to a an apparently non-existent page on Xographs (a type of parallax stereogram). Edit: It looks like the topic is under Lenticular Printing, so that's where the disambiguation should point. PapayaSF ( talk) 04:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
I believe that there should be a section of types of 3D printing. These types should be "3D additive printing" and "3D subtractive printing." Why does the term "3D printing" only include adding layers and not taking layers away? If a machine 'prints' or makes a 3D model, I think it should be called a 3D printer.
And yes, I do understand that subtractive manufacturing is a CNC machine but it is also a rapid prototyping machine as well.( Beckyc24 ( talk) 17:41, 12 July 2011 (UTC))
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Ceramicprinting.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
|
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC) |
![]() |
An image used in this article, File:MakerBot ThingOMatic Bre Pettis.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 13:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC) |
I want to contest this speedy deletion; everything MakerBot does is open source - GPL or CC. I am confident that I will be able to obtain explicit permission, but I may need more time. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:15, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Anyway, the image is out of date. Makerbot has newer technology on the market. 99.191.75.127 ( talk) 20:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)