It's already taken off in industry, but I dont think the ones you can get in your home for a thousand bucks are capable of printing figures yet

Post edited on 13th Dec 2011, 3:17pm

Oh man I want one so bad.
Think of this:
People have been able to DIY a working cell phone before, in the past.
Before 3D printers there were working yet experimental circuit boards (read motherboards) that could be printed from normal inkjet printers.
And *with* 3D printers people have been able to print solar panels.

If and when I get my hands on this shit I am going to be printing fucking solar powered MIDs and cell phones, meaning no Gov' or corporate based hardware level monitoring or interference crap.

>>11879
I'm just going to print Figs, but yeah good luck with your thing too I guess.

>one-time investment of a thousand bucks
you're forgetting the cost of materials.

>>11879
you know you can only print plastic shapes, not the actual electronics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reprap

then replicate more and send me one ;)

>>11878
>It's already taken off in industry
I know, I meant in the sense of most people having one of those at home, like inkjet printers or DVD burners.
>but I dont think the ones you can get in your home for a thousand bucks are capable of printing figures yet
They can do some impressive stuff, I think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NueRhgISweE&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5QxvlylxUQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8XJUqHXgls

>>11883
I figured some plastic dust wouldn't cost much, but on makerbot.com 1kg of ABS does cost 50 bucks... I wonder how much you can effectively make from it? I don't know how efficient these machines are, or even how much a typical figure weighs for that matter.

>>11886
I think you need at least 10 times the resolution shown in those videos to print a decent figure

>>11887
I agree with your skepticism (as I read it), but I'll say there's good grounds for the opposite:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrqcApXr_Dc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZ0ONAZrg6M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2zwyFB-VxI

Personally the trend excites me more on a meta-level than anything else.

>>11888
im not skeptical, its been around for a long time and is used successfully, probably for actual figs but I dont think printing decent figs in your home is feasible yet

.

3D printers are very cool. I've seen a violin printed and it played just as well as a real one before. But for consumer use they're not at all feasible.

>>11890
yeah the concept is awesome, but the quality of those $1000 printers kind of sucks.
the way it makes layers, only pixel art could look good coming out of them.
unless of course you have no problem spending hours to sand the object down.

The cheaper models are also incapable of very complex objects that have hanging parts, like the arms of a fig, since they're only able to do what's essecualy stacking lays on layers, and you can't start a layer in midair for what would be the finger tips.
but i believe the higher end models can build layers in different directions, not just up, so they could build the arm of a fig with the shoulder as a base and work down or sideways or whatever.
then again, you can just make the parts separately and put em together like a GK, but that doesn't change the matter of quality.
I'd love to be able to make my own figs (or solar panels as the guy was pointing out)
but the cheap (1k) printers don't seem capable of much more than simple shapes, and as such not really worth it, at least until they improve in quality.

Relevant
http://reprap.org

>>11912

I love how they promote it as being able to build most of it's own parts and replicate itself, when in fact it can only build 20% of it's own parts, and not things like nuts, bolts, motors and the Electronics which make up the bulk of a 3d printer.

Also, at the top of that page:
>RepRap is about making self-replicating machines, and making them freely available for the benefit of everyone.
yet when you follow the links on how to get one, it takes you to forums with people selling ones they made for $800+ or the useless 20% parts they printed themselves.
Kind of ironic how many disclaimers and warnings there are about ripoofs an cons.

the only thing repraps can make are coathangers and shitty mugs

Pirate bay adds 3d objects, immediately used to pirate warhammer

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/01/25/filesharing-website-pirate-website_n_1231061.html

>In a blog post The Pirate Bay said that physical objects ("physibles") represent "the next step in copying".

>"We believe that things like three dimensional printers, scanners and such are just the first step," the website said. "We believe that in the nearby future you will print your spare sparts for your vehicles. You will download your sneakers within 20 years.

>"The benefit to society is huge. No more shipping huge amount of products around the world. No more shipping the broken products back. No more child labour.

>"We'll be able to print food for hungry people. We'll be able to share not only a recipe, but the full meal. We'll be able to actually copy that floppy, if we needed one."

>And as soon as the Pirate Bay 'physibles' section launched, at least one company appeared to have been made a target.

>A model listed by an anonymous user as a 'Tabletop Wargaming Robot Model' - but identifiable to the Huffington Post UK as the likeness of a Warhammer 40,000 Space Marine Dreadnought, which is a trademarked design of the UK-based Games Workshop Group PLC - was freely available and had already been downloaded by at least 23 people as of press time.

>The model, an official version of which costs £28 from Games Workshop, has been previously listed on a 3D printing community website, but the plans were reportedly pulled after a takedown notice was issued.

>>12609
>"We'll be able to print food for hungry people. We'll be able to share not only a recipe, but the full meal. We'll be able to actually copy that floppy, if we needed one."

I'm sorry, that's just silly.

I have a feeling one day the pirate bay people will die in "accidents"

>>12822
Yeah, I hate to say but its not like the cost of ingredients and distribution to them will change.

Still cool though.

>>12823

Julian Assange & the rest of Wikileaks got away with their shit, so they should be able to too

>>12840
some fast food chains already sort of do a variation of the food printing thing.
using cheep pink slime stuff to make burgers out of.


at the least though, a machine might be able to assemble a meal from a variety of tossed in ingredients.
That might kind of make it more of a robotic cook though...

>>12845
They are still trying to get him arrested on some sort of rape charge. Also he says he has really huge damaging information that will be released if they kill him or imprison him.

>>12847
Are you telling me that pink thing is edible?

>>12849
Going by the name, that's what they used in McDonalds hamburgers.

>>12849
its blended up chicken remains

>>12851
So, basically, it's a more liquidish chicken sausage?
I guess I'm fine with that.

>>12851
lol, we would be so lucky if that's all it was.

They essentially wash other wise inedible scrap meat (usually sold to cat/dog food manufacturers) that can contain things like salmonella and Escherichia coli, in an ammonia solution to make it 'editable'

>McDonalds has announced that the slime is off their menu, two other fast food chains, Burger King and Taco Bell, have also removed the ingredient from their food

http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/mcdonalds-will-no-longer-use-pink-slime-chemical-hamburgers-02-02-2012 and a million other news sites

not that there was anything wrong with it, people just dont like "ammonia" treated beef because they think it sounds like a chemical or something.
and do they really use the same technology as 3d printers? why not just use a mold?

>>12857
Ammonium Hydroxide isn't something you want in your body, and it's what was in that pink slime. I mean it's a step in the right direction that McDonalds and Burger King stopped using it but the entrees they serve can hardly be considered food with all the aluminum salts, neurotoxins, toxic metals, and assorted poisons they contain.

>>12858
>Ammonium Hydroxide isn't something you want in your body

why not?

"Ammonium hydroxide is naturally found in proteins such as beef, pork and chicken. What the Beef Products process does is increase the amount of ammonium hydroxide in the lean beef to elevate its overall pH and make the product inhospitable to the survival of pathogens such as E. coli O157:H7 and Salmonella."
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2012/01/cleverly-manipulated-public-opinion-trumps-real-science-again/

>Although the substance is completely legal, MSNBC reported that the chemical is frequently used in fertilizers, household cleaners and even homemade explosives.

yeah just like water
another dangerous chemical

>>12840
It starts getting really fun when you can manipulate things on an atomic level. When a machine can be fed with non-edible carbon compounds like you'd find in coal or wood and rearrange the atoms so that you get sugar, that's what he's talking about.

http://haveblue.org/?p=1041
http://haveblue.org/?p=1321
Figs, you say? How about an AR-15?

Get one of these guys. Its called a milling machine, and they use it to manufacture steel parts to close tolerances. You could make your figs and also make your own sten submachine gun (blueprints are avaliable off the net and people do this regularly)

Only problem is it costs like half a new car.

>>12860
For more information about dangerous dihydrogen monoxide, this is a good source of information:
http://www.dhmo.org/