Het grote 3D-printer topic

quote:

Op donderdag 10 mei 2012 10:56 schreef ATuin-hek het volgende:
Ik wil nog steeds een keer een print maken van mijn eigen schedel Ik heb al een gedetailleerde MRI scan, en een script die daar soort van de schedel uit kan vissen. Ik vond het voorheen alleen wat te duur. Misschien binnenkort nog eens kijken wat het tegenwoordig kost om dat te laten doen.

quote:

Op donderdag 10 mei 2012 19:47 schreef Khadgar het volgende:

[..]

Als ie binnen 125 cm3 te passen is (5x5x5 maar alle andere maten mogen ook) kun je voor 12 euro ex btw klaar zijn bij i.materialise.com.

quote:

Op donderdag 19 april 2012 02:54 schreef Probably_on_pcp het volgende:

[..]

Ja echt niet normaal zo'n scanner! Hij scant een object tot een nauwkeurigheid van minder dan een mensenhaar. En hij lijkt ook de bewegende objecten binnenin de sleutel gewoon mee te scannen en te identificeren als losse objecten.

Die sleutel die ze uitprinten is gewoon in een keer geprint, echt vet!

3D Printer - High Resolution - Homemade - DIY

quote:

Op dinsdag 29 mei 2012 23:27 schreef Mister1977 het volgende:
Mooi spul!
Hoe sterk is dat materiaal eigenlijk. Ik kan me niet voorstellen dat het geschikt is voor ieder soort onderdeel. Temperatuurbestendigheid, elasticiteitsmodulus, kerfweerstand.

quote:

Op woensdag 30 mei 2012 00:55 schreef Gray het volgende:

[..]

Volgens mij is het plastic, en dat kan je in principe zo hard maken als je zelf wil. Zelfs harder dan vele metalen.

quote:

Op woensdag 30 mei 2012 21:29 schreef Mister1977 het volgende:

[..]

Ja, maar het ene plastic is het andere niet. En de manier waarop je plastic verwerkt tot product is ook van grote invloed op de uiteindelijke prestaties/sterkte. Volgens mij is het 3d printen vooral beperkt tot sinteren door verhoogde temperaturen en het aanelkaar binden met andere materialen.

quote:

3-D Printing’s Legal Morass

Last winter, Thomas Valenty bought a MakerBot — an inexpensive 3-D printer that lets you quickly create plastic objects. His brother had some Imperial Guards from the tabletop game Warhammer, so Valenty decided to design a couple of his own Warhammer-style figurines: a two-legged war mecha and a tank.

He tweaked the designs for a week until he was happy. “I put a lot of work into them,” he says. Then he posted the files for free downloading on Thingiverse, a site that lets you share instructions for printing 3-D objects. Soon other fans were outputting their own copies.

Until the lawyers showed up.

Games Workshop, the UK-based firm that makes Warhammer, noticed Valenty’s work and sent Thingiverse a takedown notice, citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Thingiverse removed the files, and Valenty suddenly became an unwilling combatant in the next digital war: the fight over copying physical objects.

“The DMCA knocked the wind out of me,” he wrote in an e-mail to me. “I haven’t uploaded many of my printable models since it happened.”

When I first heard about 3-D printers, I figured the trend wouldn’t go mainstream for decades, if ever. Oops. Companies now offer 3-D printers for just over $1,000, and prices are dropping rapidly.

Observers predict that in a few years we’ll see printers that integrate scanning capability — so your kid can toss in a Warhammer figurine, hit Copy, and get a new one. The machine will become a photocopier of stuff.

This has all the makings of an epic and surreal legal battle. You thought Hollywood and record labels were powerful lobbyists, crushing Napster and suing file-sharers? Wait until you see what the manufacturing industry can do. The American Chamber of Commerce is the single largest lobbyist on Capitol Hill, spending $60 million a year.

“Printing in 3-D is a disruptive technology that raises a lot of intellectual property issues,” says Michael Weinberg, a senior staff attorney with Public Knowledge, a group that advocates for consumers’ digital rights.

But there’s one big difference in this clash: The legal situation might actually favor the amateurs.

That’s because, as Weinberg points out, disputes over copies of physical objects are often fought using patent law, which is far less strict than copyright. For example, patents last only 20 years, which means many cool everyday objects (Lego bricks!) are long out of patent. What’s more, patent law generally governs only a complete assembled product, so creating replacement parts — a thriving pastime among hobbyists — is probably legal.

What 3-D printing hobbyists mostly have to watch out for, Weinberg argues, is copying artistic patterns or designs on an object. That violates copyright. But if you stick to reproducing or modeling the basic physical nature of something — particularly if you’re rejiggering a physical concept into a new form — you’re probably safe. (Indeed, Weinberg isn’t even sure Valenty infringed on Warhammer’s copyrighted designs, because Games Workshop is accusing him of creating figurines in the style of the game, and you can’t copyright style.)

So really, the longer-term danger here is that manufacturers will decide the laws aren’t powerful enough. Once kids start merrily copying toys, manufacturers will push to hobble 3-D printing with laws similar to the Stop Online Piracy Act. “You’ll have people going to Washington and saying we need new rights,” Weinberg frets. Imagine laws that keep 3-D printers from outputting anything but objects “authorized” by megacorporations — DRM for the physical world. To stave this off, Weinberg is trying to educate legislators now.

I hope he’s successful. After all, 3-D printers aren’t just about copying. They’re a powerful new tool for experimenting with the design of the physical world, for thinking, for generating new culture, for stretching our imaginations.

quote:

Knew that would happen.

There will be a similar ongoing battle now to try to introduce the same kind of controls on 3D printing that exist on file sharing. DRM. Always-online internet-connection-required printers. Etc, etc, etc.

There will be a time when we are going to have to start questioning whether the current concept of intellectual property even works anymore, in a world where movies can be copied instantly, or physical objects can be replicated. Which will modern man choose; to heavily protect intellectual property and criminalise people for something that can be done instantly with a button click, or to bite the bullet and come up with some new form of economics that acknolwedges we don't have control over a piece of intellectual property once it has been released (i.e. the death of albums in favour of smaller-scale live-music). It's obvious that only one of these two options is possible without large collapses in the current system.

quote:

Op donderdag 14 juni 2012 17:22 schreef Probably_on_pcp het volgende:

[..]

Ach, als fabrikanten zich zo opstellen, delven ze vanzelf het onderspit.

Dan creeeren we toch lekker met z'n allen een open-source Warhammer-achtig concept en laten we de fabrikanten gewoon links liggen