Talk:3D printing/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Printing speed? Voxels/s?

How fast is the printing? Are there good objects to test it? (80.186.148.147 (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2012 (UTC))

There's no real metric in terms of voxels. Printing techniques, especially fused filament, are heavily dependent on their nozzle behaviour and avoidance of 'blobbing' at the stop and start. So a printer that can resolve to one dimension in terms of its motion control is often restricted to coarser results by its deposition. Where, in that case, do we measure voxels?

Fused filament is certainly slow. One metric might be to find a popular benchmark like the Thingverse octopus and time that on various machines. Even a small piece like that can take 20 minutes on the hobbyist machines. The differential gear, again a popular Thingiverse demo, takes a whole 8 hour day to do all the pieces. These machines are also running slower in recent years (in volume terms) as their "deposition voxel" shrinks with more precise nozzles. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

A bunch more terms, many missing from article

Reading some press releases from today, it's clear this article isn't keeping pace with the market.

Aerosol Jet Systems, Digital Light Processing (DLP), Direct Metal Deposition (DMD), Direct Metal Laser Sintering (DMLS), Electron Beam Melting (EBM), Film Transfer Imaging (FTI), Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM), Laminated Object Manufacturing (LOM), Laser Consolidation (LC), Laser Deposition Technology (LDT), Laser Engineered Net Shaping (LENS), Metal Printing Process (MPP), Micro Light Build (MLB), Polyjet, Selective Laser Melting (SLM), Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), Selective Mask Sintering (SMS), Semi-solid Freeform Fabrication, Stereolithography, Ultrasonic Additive Manufacturing (UAM), Ultrasonic Consolidation (UC) 120.151.160.158 (talk) 05:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That's because Wikipedia is not a WP:LINKFARM, nor is it a place for WP:ADVERTISING a press release. We only cover things that are notable and covered by reliable third party sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

3D printed firearms

Re this addition, can someone please explain why this doesn't fall foul of WP:CRYSTAL?

"...a group emerged ... in 2012 that is attempting to design a firearm"

No-one has yet made a firearm. No-one knows how to make a firearm. No one has any credible idea how to, certainly not with hobbyist-grade fused deposition. The refs added here have just as much coverage of the refutation along these same lines, yet the addition presents this as if every Hackspace was now an armoury. This is alarmist and POV, giving credence to one tiny group's admitted future claims, out of all proportion to their credibility, to the idea's technical credibility and to the balance with other arms-manufacturing techniques. I have a lathe here too - if I wished to manufacture firearms, I'd have far more success using a lathe than a 3D printer.Andy Dingley (talk) 13:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This situation has now changed, given the recent controversy over Defense Distributed. There should be a section about the controversy. Jodayagi (talk) 02:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The controversy has always been a good topic for inclusion, what we have to guard against is simplistic statements of, "print guns at home, OMG!!!"

DD still haven't produced anything credible that I'd regard as a handgun:

• You can't make a credible barrel and chamber by the printing techniques being used at present. The Liberator design is structurally barely more than a wrapper around a cartridge case. Low-use flare guns, injection-moulded in plastics, have used much the same design for years.
• It's not all plastic. There's a slug of metal in there to make it detectable (and legal). Some political commentary has ignored this deliberately to make scare stories.

So all in all, this is still more hype and political posturing (on both sides) than anything else. The engineering position still hasn't changed. Like all 3D print manufacture, a technique that's amazing for making a handful of items that are just difficult by other means, becomes vaguely ridiculous when used to make things that don't work well in ABS and that are also harder (and very much slower) to make by 3D printing. The all-too-common idea that 3D printing is a replacement for an entire production process, rather than just one specialist manufacturing technique of quite narrow applicability, gives badly-made items made very slowly. If I had the .STL files for the Liberator and a desperate need for firearms, I'd get a better gun made more quickly by putting those designs through my CNC mill and then turning a barrel on my lathe than I would do by printing them. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The political posturing is only spreading confusion about what the technology is actually capable of doing. Jodayagi (talk) 03:02, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. The only piece of metal inside the gun is a common nail. It is used as the firing pin. When the gun is disassembled it can be transported through security scanners undetected and reassembled with a few common tools in a very short time. Several journalists around the world have tested this ability and smuggled the gun passed airport and court of justice security. Though it is designed to use metal cartridges these can be replaced by non-metal ones with short range plastic or glass bullets. Your CNC mill might be capable of producing the barrel but certainly not some of the more intricate parts. You would also need a lot more expert knowledge using traditional manufacturing techniques than when 3D printing the file. Only 3D printing will get you a difficult to detect deadly weapon this easily. Nanobliss (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Molten metal 3D printer

Appearantly, a 3D printer that uses molten metal exist. It has been designed by the Cranfield University. I saw it in a documentary by Stephen Hawking, see http://www.channel4.com/programmes/brave-new-world-with-stephen-hawking/articles/technology, add to article 109.130.155.103 (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

They also seem to be produced by EOS GMBH and Arcam AB, see http://3dprinting.com/materials/metal/3d-printing-metal/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.250.124 (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

New Printing Material Suppliers section

Thanks to Needle Mush for adding this new section. However per WP:NOTDIR and WP:UNDUE, I don't think it's suitable for this article. Can we move it to a list, or does that fail WP:NOTDIR too? Is this list (valuable though it is) ever going to fit within the WP encyclopedia remit? Or does it belong off-site altogether? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't even read the article with that plonked down in the middle, so I reverted it. Perhaps it could be placed in an entirely different article? It only seems to apply to FDM anyway; it might (or might not) be more appropriate there.Teapeat (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

History

It may not be a very pertinent point but I thought in necessary to point out that in the 1972 film, known as 'Tintin and the Lake of Sharks' based on Herge's character and pals, 3D printing in clearly referenced and visually displayed as a concept. Should this not be referred to within this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.188.253.206 (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia usually only includes that kind of thing if a third party reference mentions it in context.Teapeat (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

New sections needed?

I have being looking into to this tech in the last while. Most sites think that the filaments are costing too much at this point. There is a $40,000 contest to make a cheap personal/home unit: http://desktopfactory2012.istart.org/ . When I worked in PVC extrusion, I think we only paid $1USD per kg of raw resin powder, although we did buy it by the rail car load. Should we add section(s) about this issue and the plans to recycle plastics/create filaments on a smaller scale?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure that needs to go in the fused deposition modeling page, this is only an overview article covering many different technologies.Teapeat (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok.  Done here and moving to there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone know the cheapest 3D printing company to invest in right now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massivity (talk • contribs) 00:19, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Biofabrication

http://phys.org/news/2013-02-3d-breakthrough-human-embryonic-stem.html Worthy material to add?--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Big ones exist

Contour crafting on youtube and D-Shape--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Naming

Tim Anderson just told me that Ely Sachs first coined the phrase, "3D printing", and everyone told him it was stupid.

Also, Tim Anderson was never a graduate student at MIT, but a visiting artist.

You can tag unsourced material with {{cn}} (citation needed), or remove it altogether. If it is reverted then the next step is to bring it to this talk page for consensus of wording. I added two tags. We can see where that leads next.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...I'd like to get to the bottom of this. this source seems to support the IPs assertion, but I'm not sure how reliable it is, since the at least one sentence quotes the Wikipedia article verbatim. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

We may have copyviolated their article. I think our sentence is newer and should be paraphrased to avoid copyright problems and cite that article as the source.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we're guilty... the article was published 18 Jan, 2013, but the sentence was added to our article on 10 Oct, 2012. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

They may have paraphrased us but since then we have copyviolated their paraphrase of our article. I will ask at help desk for opinions.Their about us page makes me believe they are RS but we may wish to state them or their writer making the claims.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The help desk thinks we shouldn't trust the source. Should we just remove the whole sentence until another source actually states that they interviewed those involved on the matter? Joanne Taylor may have made an error and I wouldn't want that reflected here. The coining of the term should have more than one source as it may be historically important and should be well referenced.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I was the one who added the potentially copyviolating sentence after reading that article. I was just trying to figure out the best way to say it without changing the article too much.

Anyway, the original article doesn't actually claim that Tim and Jim coined the phrase, it just says the the phrase was coined when they worked for MIT.

Tim is not very hard to get a hold of directly. I'd assume that the MIT press office could help you contact Ely Sachs, or give you a statement regardng this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.193.63 (talk) 08:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphan merge

I found Electron beam freeform fabrication orphaned and lonely. Can we add the poor child to another article?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be the same as Electron beam melting. Probably should be merged.Teapeat (talk) 01:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Patent battles

• http://3dprintingindustry.com/2013/03/26/eff-fight-for-open-3d-printing/ It seems the Electronic Frontier Foundation wants to prevent patent applications from choking development. Should we include a 'legal' section in this and the EFF article? We must avoid wp:coatrack and wp:soapbox I assume.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Obama praises them

Obama praised them at the state-of-the-union-address. Worthy of an add in an article? Also Finland tryng them in schools.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Coined"?

"In manufacturing, and machining in particular, subtractive methods are typically coined [sic] as traditional methods." What is "coined", in this context, supposed to mean? As a transitive verb, it makes no sense at all. Autodidact1 (talk) 09:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably: "In manufacturing, and machining in particular, subtractive methods are now typically referred to by the newly coined phrase 'traditional methods'." Zipzip50 (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Bioprinter - where should it redirect

Bioprinter currently redirects to this article. I think it would better point specifically to this article's "Research into new applications" section or Tissue engineering#Assembly methods, but I'm not sure which. Should I tag it as {{r with possibilities}} in the meantime? Any suggestions? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:52, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Either of the sections is probably a better target than the status quo... I figure eventually it will become an article by itself, but until then... ~Adjwilley (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Clothing

@Fountains of Bryn Mawr: removed the following passage with the edit summary "No reliable sources describing this aspect (2010s?), Some sources are refspam":

3D printed clothing became available at the high end of the market in the 2010s. Designer Iris van Herpen started showing 3D printed pieces as early as 2010 Amsterdam Fashion week. In 2012, Continuum Fashions launched printed shoes. In 2013, burlesque performer Dita Von Teese wore a gown printed into rigid nylon, specifically designed for her body.

I added the section back without the first sentence (and with more content I turned up with more research), since FoBM correctly points out that it's not supported by the references. I intended it as a summary, but it does imply that 3D-printed clothing was not available before the 2010s. So far I can't find any evidence that's wrong...

• This claims to be the first ready-to-wear item of clothing
• This article thinks the first 3D shoe may have been printed in 2012.
• This 2013 article mentions jewelry and sunglasses and supports the fact that Iris Van Herpen started showing 3D printed clothes in 2010.
• I can't find any references to 3D clothes made in 2009.

Maybe someone will soon write or find a more definitive history?

I don't know why the citations are considered refspam; they are the most authoritative sources I could find with a quick web search for the facts I thought were noteworthy. I don't work in the industry; I just think this stuff is interesting. -- Beland (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Please forgive any accusation that may read as you being a spammer. The problem is your "quick web search for the facts" and trying to "find" the start date of a usage strays into WP:OR. Also you are sourcing Iris van Herpen to a self source and a source about the designer without providing reliable sources as to whether this person is notable (an overall source on the "state of the art"). Iris van Herpen website being presented directly is beyond WP:RS and comes off as refspam, whether you intended it or not. The other sources presented are similarly problematic, i.e. they are instances of, and not reliable sources on, the topic Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Add a list of companies making commercial 3D printers

I came to Wikipedia expecting that I might find a list of commercial firms making 3D printers. Elsewhere I have found references to these firms:

3D Print

Stratasys

3D Systems

Optomec

Shapeways

I have no reason to believe this list is complete. And it is likely to change often as new suppliers appear, and industry consolidation occurs. I am not an expert in this area. Might someone take this on? Frankatca (talk) 12:32, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTDIR This is an impossible list for an industry trade mag to keep track of. Here on WP, it would be stale in minutes and no-one is paid to maintain it. In the absence of a workable list, I think we're better without a list and at most a category for Category:3D printer manufacturers, containing those for which we have articles.

To be practical though, WP really can't handle this type of content because too many of the teenadmins are against policy (and how much of this sort of directory is permitted by policy), so they have a habit of steamrollering it. It becomes a popularity contest with everyone plugging their own machine and the actually important makers (whose machines are too expensive for most WP editors to own and advocate) get missed out. WP still insists that even Kraftwurx doesn't exist. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, this article is just about 3D printing, not an advertisement or a resource guide. There are plenty of promotional sites and articles that do exactly that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

firearms redux

The firearms thing is making the waves again, due to the bust in Manchester. Although the initial spin is now shown wrong (not actually gun parts that were being printed), I think the story is still relevant due to the actions, and furthermore statements by the police who now say that the printer itself was dangerous, because it has the capability of printing gun parts, even though there is no evidence gun parts were actually printed.

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-seize-uks-first-3d-printed-gun-parts-8902514.html
• http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/25/world/europe/uk-police-3d-printer-gun/
• http://news.yahoo.com/uk-police-seize-parts-3d-printed-gun-093313332.html
• probably more if I bothered to look

Gaijin42 (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

There's almost certainly reader demand for a competent and credible article on 3D printed firearms. However WP is bad at such things generally, the way the 3D print article has already gone isn't encouraging and the adminkiddies would jump all over it as WP:OR anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Merge

I'm inclined to remove the Merge template simply because it makes no sense to have it. The information is relevant, especially since a separate article now exists, so I'm in favor or reducing or streamlining the firearm related content in this article assuming that its intact at the Main article. But it makes no sense to just remove what's here. Thoughts anyone? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Are these reverts in good faith?

User:Fountains of Bryn Mawr (FoBM) has four reverts in the past three days:

1. 21:32, 9 November 2013‎ Fountains of Bryn Mawr (Undid revision 580947214 by 14.201.0.69 (talk) rm unreferenced and reads like a product plug)
2. 15:31, 8 November 2013‎ Fountains of Bryn Mawr (Partial revert and edit. Reads like promotion/spam. Company links as reference are WP:CITESPAM. Some moved to)
3. 21:31, 6 November 2013‎ Fountains of Bryn Mawr (→‎Domestic and hobbyist uses: rm unreferenced comment)
4. 15:22, 6 November 2013‎ Fountains of Bryn Mawr (Undid revision 580363681 by Rebstei (talk) WP:SPAM)

I have reviewed each:

1. The removed content doesn't seem to be out of sync with the tone of the rest of the article. Product narratives almost always discuss features, and the short sketches for this and many others are uncritical. While the material was unsourced as FoBM claims, WP:UNSOURCED does not call for immediate removal of any unsourced material outside of WP:BLP, and even specifically 1) suggests leaving material time to become sourced, and 2) prefers fixing rather than removing where possible.
2. I think FoBM's characterization as spam is unfounded. The article text merely summarizes the WP:RS nothing more. If it reads as promotional, go fight with the reporter who did the original article this way. The claim of WP:CITESPAM is simply untrue; it is either a misreading of the policy in this case, or a blatant attempt to misuse a policy to support an edit. Full disclosure: it was my edit reverted here (the other reverts were against other editor's changes).
3. I find this one funny. In a stretch of unsourced text, he takes one phrase out, and that phrase is an apt balance for the unsourced negative statement before it. Selective removal of unsourced material can be seen as violating a number of policies, such as WP:NPOV.
4. Does not provide a reason for a revert. There should always be a reason.

I also see additional reverts going back a few months, alongside a few standard edits. The pattern I see is one of quick reverts (except #3, which may have been older). The reverts do not have very good justification, given the guidance in WP:REVERT. I would still assume good faith, just overzealousness... except that the reverts themselves don't assume good faith, do they? If a user reverts one edit, I understand, that happens at times, and it can be justified. But when a user does many reverts, that's a pretty strong indication that there's either some edit warring, or the user holds others' edits to be in bad faith. I would suggest that FoBM should discuss any further issues on the talk page before reverting. Better yet, FoBM should instead be proactive and improve other editors' texts, so that they fit any rules deemed to be broken, rather than just tossing them out. -Dovid (talk) 00:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I actually take back WP:CITESPAM, sorry... looked up wrong short. The rational would be WP:SOURCES and WP:EL, namely a link to a manufacture's website is not a reliable source or even a source at all because it is not "third-party" - the process of "I, the editor, know of a company, see ---> here is their website" is actually original research. A manufacture's website could be an external link but those do not belong in the main text of an article and they have to be a reliable source about the topic. Manufacture's website are not considered reliable because they are not "third-party" and they are not usually about the topic, they tend to "sell" the topic.

The changes on Dovid's[1] addition of material about specific printers was because the edit had a promotional tone and it was in the wrong section - "Additive processes". The section on "Printers" already had material on inexpensive open-source oriented printers so i simply added it in[2] removing the promotional language.

As for the "tone of the rest of the article", we don't match the rest of the article, we match Wikipedia guidelines and policy. Just because other stuff exists is not a reason to have more of it.

"promotional content" does get removed from this article by many editors over time (check the history). If you think any of the removals are are problematic simply re-add them with a citation of a reliable source. The burden is not on me or any other editor to justify removal, its up to the restoring editor to prove encyclopedic value.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

You are fundamentally avoiding the question, which is that your hand rests too heavy on the undo button. And I was being polite about "in sync with the rest of the article." Your reading of material as promotional is overly broad. Dovid (talk) 02:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has full set of overlapping policies and guidelines on what constitute encyclopedic material. You will find editors like me who apply them. If you think that is heavy handed I don't know what to tell you. Article cleanup and making something that explains something to an average reader is the goal, without straying into WP:NOTPROMOTION, whether intended or not. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

History section

This article needs an History Section. For instance see

http://www.redorbit.com/education/reference_library/general-2/history-of/1112953506/the-history-of-3d-printing/

--AXRL (talk) 02:24, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I would hope for something rather better than that! Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not necessarily all articles need history sections. It might be better to instead, or at least first, to ensure all the subarticles covering the different methods have history sections.Teapeat (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of merge discussion

There is a discussion on the 3D printed firearms page about merging the Firearms (sub)section of this article into that main article. Lightbreather (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Printing houses

The following [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3D_printing&oldid=595801839&diff=prev note] was deleted: Besides creating customizations of small objects, 3D-printers such as those by D-Shape allow printing very large customized objects, such as houses.

I think it's of importance to mention it, and that it is used to print houses isn't "twaddle", see http://www.themanwhoprintshouses.com/ and do a search for "Enrico Dini" KVDP (talk) 14:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There's an article building printing and there's a link to it from here, although it's not very obvious.GliderMaven (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

There's also an older technology called "Contour Crafting" (USC) and recently some kind of fabric-reinforced concrete extrusion, (Google 3D "printing houses in China"). D-Shape is "true" 3D printing, (drop-on-powder, I believe). Although the contour crafting paper mentions inkjet printing, (implying drop-on-drop), I believe it's only ever been implemented as concrete extrusion. Hey, anyone remember the Xanadu houses? Concrete and foam, I think, on inflatable forms.... Mkmori (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Additive Manufacturing separate entry

I believe there is, and will be, enough information to make Additive Manufacturing a separate entry and not combined with 3-D Printing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveJones153 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

"Additive manufacturing" specifies an application, if a largely unproven one: I agree it should have its own article, discussing actual and imagined manufacturing scenarios, appropriate applications, "distributed production", "mass customization", obligatory reference to "Tea, Earl Grey, hot," etc. Although, as I discuss below, "layered manufacturing" might be the more appropriate term and even has some precedence. (And avoid trolls like me saying, "And BTW, isn't welding an 'additive process'?") Mkmori (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)