Talk:3D printing

RepRap

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).

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)

Comment 1

It something subtractive like this considered 3D printing? --Nabumetone 16:37, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no. Some might call it rapid prototyping, but generally that is strictly not subtractive. This link just shows a regular CNC machine. —Ben FrantzDale 18:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think terminology varies. We have a fused deposition modeling machine here and it's called a "3d printer" around the lab. --Delirium 07:08, 31 August 2006 (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. Our company uses FDM because it works best for our needs; however, we would NEVER call it 3D printing. It is NOT. Many shops and labs have machines from several different rapid manufacturing genres so are very careful to keep them straight. Each approach has some value in its own way and for some applications but not in others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clementsll (talk • contribs) 03:37, 4 October 2012 (UTC) I apologize for failing to sign this previously. Clementsll (talk) 03:44, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Printing process

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.

"3D Printing" is very generic, so there is no single "print head" or piece of hardware that the term refers to. There are also no "print drivers" - each rapid prototyping machine has its own software that you feed 3D geometry to, from which it creates a series of commands that actually run the machine. Maybe someday there will be "3D printer drivers", but that day is pretty far off. --GargoyleMT 15:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is 3dPrinting really different from Rapid prototyping?

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)

3D Printing doesn't refer to a specific technology, so you have a point there. It is a sub-category of technologies that encompass the machines made by ObJet and ZCorp (and perhaps Stratasys) (those machines are lower cost and easier to use than the (more traditional) stereolithography or selective laser sintering machines). I'm a bit too close to know how people in need of rapid prototyping services use the term, but it seems like a useful distinction. --GargoyleMT 18:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being repetitive, but I think that being easier to be used is not a sufficient reason for making two distinct entries. On the other hand, the rapid prototyping (RP) entry could deserve to exists because RP is part of an industrial process while 3DP is a technology: e.g. IMHO RP is the industrial design process that make use of 3D printing technologies or to other fast traditional maquette producing methods for testing the designed object in a rapid development cycle. So all the tech aspects are in the 3D printing entry, while its use in industry could stay in the RP entry. ALoopingIcon 20:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned there's a fundamental difference between rapid prototyping and 3D printing in that rapid prototyping produces working parts for testing while 3D printing produces mockups for visulaization. This seems to be the coneptual difference to me (and should be made clear in the article), but as a novice I'm ready to be corrected if I'm wrong! • TheBendster (talk) 11 May 2007, 04:54 (UTC)

Almost all of the existing technology descriptions are in the Solid Freeform Fabrication article, so I'm not sure I understand your proposed breakdown between content that belongs on the Rapid Prototyping and 3D Printing pages. Again, I may be too close to the matter at hand, but the 3D Printing article makes sense to me, even though it is a category. To me, 3D printers focus on lower cost cost, ease of use, and usability in an office environment which is a significant difference from other technologies (like SLA and SLS). TheBendster, I think there's truth to what you're saying. The ZCorp machines do focus on visualization, with support for coloring sections of the prototype (I think they now even support color ink cartridges from off the shelf printers!). The others do well for visualization, not necessarily in terms of "presentation" prototypes, but something that allows the part designers to hold something in their hands quickly and cheaply (and perhaps with a trade-off of dimensional accuracy). --GargoyleMT 17:12, 11 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)

Definition

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

PolyJet Matrix Technologies Advertisements

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)

That user is currently blocked for persistent spamming and puffery after repeated warnings. Feel free to insert information from impartial third-party sources which can be duly verified. Concentrate on the technologies and the materials, not the brand names. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

He's still at it (also by IP), also on other pages including rapid prototyping and rapid manufacturing. • TheBendster (talk) 28 November 2007, 13:05 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I'll watch those pages as well - Nicholas SL Smith^chatter 02:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed AFAIK the only remaining reference to it, along with all other commercial links I could see. Under the circumstances removing all competing commercial tradenames and so forth seems appropriate, in case this is a joe-job.WolfKeeper (talk) 04:44, 29 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)

It is only natural that you want to spread the word about your new product. Why not do it in the correct and accepted way, e.g. by issuing press releases, attending trade shows, and buying advertising space? Subverting Wikipedia might seem like a free route to a large audience, but it will not be allowed to happen. • TheBendster (talk) 14 January 2008, 13:04 (UTC)

Limited scarcity economy?

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)

Query: How do they do hollow spaces? I assumed they were laying down material in successive layers, bottom-to-top... this is what the 'Inkjet printing' section of the article is talking about, correct? but wouldn't that require that each layer is a subset of the next layer down? --87.194.241.226 (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It depends on the technology. In stereolithography, you have to build a support structure that breaks away from the model. Similarly in fused deposition modeling, you build up a support structure (although it can be water-soluble). In powder-based approaches, there is no need for support material because the holes are filled with the powder at build time. This should all be added to the article if it isn't. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Medical

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)

Controversies

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)

Yes the government should certainly control ANYTHING that might be used for a bad purpose. wouldn't want the poor little public hurting themselves! Wouldn't want people making their own decisions, or having a free market. Michael1115 (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

To Bdas25, you probably should google "Grey-Goo" (there might be an entry here on wikipedia for all I know).
To Michael1115: Additionally the government cannot always be trusted to act in our interest. AVKent882 (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2011 (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)

Pictures?

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)

Reorientation

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)

Response

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)

That is certainly not true. The Objet products (for example) also create their models by use of a inkjet-type print head that builds up the object by making repeated passes. In fact, to my knowledge, the Objet technology resembles classical "2D" printing more closely than the Z-corp technology. • TheBendster (talk) 7 June 2009, 14:03 (UTC)

In fact, looking at the article as it stands, I'm a little concerned that it seems to present the Z-corp "powder bed" embodiment of the technology as the definition of 3D printing. There is much in the article that is true of this particular system, but not true of 3D printing in general. • TheBendster (talk) 7 June 2009, 14:10 (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)

Language

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)

Sorry about that. I think I reverted you first, and then looked at it, and then made the above comment. Wizard191 (talk) 21:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Too much jargon

"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)

Food printer

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)

Definition of 3d printer

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)

I generally consider layer-additive technologies to be "3D printing" since those are the only ones that can really do fully arbitrary shapes including overhangs and interlocking pieces. I think the fact that "printing" is generally additive (ink/toner) is consistent with this semantically. Most 2D imaging technologies that don't add are not called printing. It is a photographic print but it seems more like lithography to me and you don't use a printer to make it. Likewise vinyl signs are cut not printed, other things are die-cut, etc. I think some companies try to make a distinction based on color abilities versus physical properties. If I make that distinction, I would say ZCorp specializes in "3D printer" where as Stratasys and 3D Systems specialize in rapid prototyping machines. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 18:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the terminology difference is driven by the additive-versus-subtractive distinction. In a sense, Dondegroovily has identified an etic truth trying to shine forth, in search of the right emic terminology mask. This actually dovetails nicely with a comment that I just made at Talk:Direct digital manufacturing#Merging. Basically, if you wanted an emic term that meets Dondegroovily's definition (i.e., the etic superset meaning), it would have to be one of various terms such as "direct manufacturing", "on-demand manufacturing", or "instant manufacturing". Those refer to the superset ("any method that allows people to send information over the internet and have a desired physical product created quickly on the other end"). The meaning that the term "3D printing" is conventionally used for is a subset of that—the additive technologies only. — ¾-10 00:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Table of Printers

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)

What about the other type of "3D printing"?

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)

Good suggestion. I implemented it with a hatnote augmentation, because I agree that it makes sense to help the readers who may be looking for that topic and end up here. — ¾-10 21:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Types of 3D printing

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))

I don't know of any 2d 'printing' technology that is subtractive. The nearest I can think of is the sort of thing that will cut letters out of sheet material to make a sign, but I've never heard that referred to as 'printing' and it bears no resemblance to any other sort of printing. The subtractive techniques can certainly qualify as rapid prototyping, which is a major flaw in the WP article under that title, and to my mind that is where they belong.

Having said that, the article reads as if powder binding is the only 3d printing technique. The 3d printers that build up an object by laying down layers of material are every bit as much 'printers' and the article should have separate descriptions for these two methods. treesmill (talk) 19:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Ceramicprinting.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Ceramicprinting.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?
	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)

File:MakerBot ThingOMatic Bre Pettis.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

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 What should I do? 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. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review 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)

potential resource

• Researchers at Washington State University develop an artificial bone "scaffold" which can be produced using 3D printers, potentially allowing doctors to quickly print replacement bone tissue for injured patients. (BBC)

from Portal:Current events/2011 November 30 99.181.136.135 (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Link Farm?

Is this page turning into a WP:LINKFARM? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned myself over the entries under 'Vendors and Services'. I've recently removed a company listed there which doesn't even exist, and the others probably shouldn't be there either tbh; it boils down to free advertising for the companies listed there.

In particular if you look at the edits that 'Phaneza' has made, a lot seem to be touting a company called 'i.materialise'... Note that their user page says their job is 'writing about 3d printing, which sets of all manner of alarms for me... I'm not well versed in the procedure here, but take a look for yourself; https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:Contributions/Phaneza

-Joey- (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC).

I'm unsure if this article is legitimate. As a concept, 3D printing sounds interesting and brings to my mind images put together via lasers inside of chunks of plastic. There appears to be a lack of concensus on what 3d printing actually is.

I am taking out the Vendors and Services section per WP:LINKFARM. If anyone wants to retain it, please discuss it here. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

Rapid prototyping is mentioned several times here, which leads me to believe that article should be looked at. The two ideas seem conceptually similar enough and from reading previous comments it sounds like the machinery is similar enough. This could be a case of two names for the same idea. Cjripper (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Does anyone else have an opinion as to whether this page and Rapid Prototyping should be merged? If so, which name should be retained? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be three articles: 3D printing, additive manufacturing and rapid prototyping which all seem to be the same thing. I think they should all be merged.GliderMaven (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Rapid prototyping is very different, although additive manufacturing is much closer. It's a mistake to take your definitions of anything from Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It depends what it is you're defining. If you're defining what a Wikipedia article is about, then it's a very good idea to take the definition from Wikipedia. Although I agree that, for example, rapid prototyping could be about something other than, or bigger than, 3D printing during prototyping, it's not actually about anything other than that.GliderMaven (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ It's even worse than that. Not only do we have multiple articles that are about 3D printing, we have a bunch of articles that are about specific kinds or aspects of 3D printing (some compete, some stubs, some non-notable) and even two categories that list articles about 3D printing.

• 3D printing
• Additive manufacturing
• Artifacturing
• Digital materialization
• Direct metal laser sintering
• Electron beam freeform fabrication
• Electron beam melting
• Fused deposition modeling
• Laminated object manufacturing
• Laser engineered net shaping
• Powder bed and inkjet head 3d printing
• rapid prototyping
• Selective laser melting
• Selective laser sintering
• Stereolithography (medicine)
• Stereolithography
• Ultrasonic consolidation
• Category:3D printing
• Category:Solid freeform fabrication

IMO, what we need is one top article about this topic. Some of these other articles should be merged into the top article, some should be mentioned in the top article with a "Main article:" link, and some should be left as is with a "See also" link from the top article. The question is, what title should that top article have? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that title is that important, you can move the article around and use multiple redirects fairly easily. My question is more what is the scope of the top level article?GliderMaven (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Most of the detail articles are fairly obviously distinct. The two top level articles are Additive machining (I see this as a clearer title than Additive manufacturing) and Rapid prototyping. These are clearly distinct, as rapid prototyping is a broader topic both vertically and horizontally: it includes integrated design processes as well as the machining, and it also includes subtractive machining processes, both traditional like CNC milling and also more modern ones like laser cutting or water-jet cutting.

3D printing should be on 3D printing: the additive construction of a workpiece, by some controlled deposition method. This isn't the only additive process around, and I wouldn't merge it with Additive machining. Nor should it be too narrow, it isn't just Fused filament fabrication, it covers the laser sintering and polymerisation processes too.

Fused deposition modeling should be an article that's far bigger and not named for one brand's trademark, and this should be the article for Fused filament fabrication that covers all of the RepRap / MakerBot / 3DTouch processes and machines.

WP's coverage of all of these modern manufacturing topics is poor. Personally I'd delete the lot, as being outside the remit of what WP's culture is capable of doing justice to (see also Semantic web). Anyone who knows the subject, or even worse is a researcher or innovator in the field, is hounded off the project for not observing some trivial policy and the broad field is too new to have the sort of hidebound references easily available that allow robust articles to be written without them being dismantled by the teenage admin wannabees. The only way this can really be done is through hefty legwork in a university library and citing conference papers, and there aren't many people who have both the subscription access needed, the technical nous and the spare time to waste it in the WP swamp. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

In the list above, rapid prototyping isn't like most of the other articles. It covers a specific use rather than a specific technology. It's akin to computer printers not existing and Wikipedia having an article about fast-turnaround printing of galley proofs.

It seems to me that the top article, whatever it is called, should be about the basic idea of having some sort of data in a computer and turning it - no matter what the method - into a physical object.

This would be akin to the difference between printing and computer printers. A printing press and a printer hooked to a computer both put text and images on paper, but each had a distinct and different effect on society. In this respect an old dot-matrix printer hooked to an Apple II has a lot more in common with the latest 1800 dpi color laser printer than either has in common with an offset printer.

As Andy points out above, this broad field is new. When it comes to printed material, I mostly no longer store it in my file cabinet. I store it as data and print copies as required. A bunch of folks are working on making that true of (some) physical objects. We should have an overview article on that, with short paragraphs and a "Main article:" link to specific technologies. Look at how Printer (computing) has sections on Dot matrix printer and Dye-sublimation printer. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to make sensible decisions, I don't like deleting all the articles, I'm sure that they'll improve over time, and I think that combining articles along easily-defined lines is a really good one; I think that 3D printing and additive fabrication is the same thing, at least right now. For example, I've never seen computer controlled milling machines described as 3D printers for example, since they're not additive. But even if they did start to become described as such, or radical new 3D printing was invented that didn't use layering, we could just subarticle them from here. So I think it's a defensible step.GliderMaven (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The 3D printing article seems to be in the best shape, it also seems to be the most general idea, it's slightly wider than additive manufacturing, so I propose we merge rapid prototyping and additive manufacturing here and add redirects, and add definitions for the those specific terms here also.GliderMaven (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Protoyping isn't manufacture. Nor are all rapid machining processes additive. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Andy makes a good point. GliderMaven, could you address what I wrote above, starting with "In the list above, rapid prototyping isn't like most of the other articles..."? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No, the term 'rapid prototyping' isn't used literally. In my experience it's essentially always used specifically to refer to additive fabrication techniques/3D printing, within prototyping scenarios, but not other CAM or other prototyping techniques not involving CAM. It's specifically a use of 3D printing, not a discipline in its own right.GliderMaven (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I mean it might seem logical that there could be such a discipline, but the main point of prototyping is that it's supposed to be faster anyway, otherwise you wouldn't do it(!) It's sort of redundant when you think about it.GliderMaven (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of prototyping was to create a model to test before making the final product. Cjripper (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but prototyping can be done with anything, you could use lego or wood, or milling machines or chisel it out of stone or mould it in clay or anything, or you could literally prototype with the first few things off the production line as you fine tune the production process. On the other hand, rapid prototyping essentially always (at the very least historically) specifically refers to one of the additive fabrication techniques, it's a very specific subset of prototyping; it's not prototyping done rapidly.GliderMaven (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

And I think the article says that anyway.GliderMaven (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

" In my experience ", which isn't how WP works.

Also rapid prototyping very often includes subtractive techniques, where these can be made rapid. Laser / water-jet cutting is one and even traditional milling too. The only consistent factor would seem to be a close integration of CAD/CAM/CNC Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The fairly recently formed ASTM committee F42, created to produce standards in this area, spent their first meetings discussing what to call themselves, and decided that "Additive Manufacturing" was the best choice of those suggested. Given this I would suggest that the main page for this field in Wikipedia should be the same - rather than that topic not even existing apart from as a redirect to this page. (http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/COMMITTEE/F42.htm). They are also a good source of terminology, as anything agreed by them has had substantial discussion within the industry before acceptance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.91.31.51 (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If we accept that the two topics are the same, then judging by the number of hits, the term '3D printing' is enormously more popular than 'additive manufacturing'. Also the use of the term 'manufacturing' tends to imply something that isn't true, namely that it's used during manufacturing, rather than it just being a fabrication process that can be used at different stages. But given that the article name is supposed to be one that is most familiar to the reader, I personally think that 3D printing is the best choice right now.GliderMaven (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a section for terminology, and I would think that anything they produce on that could be linked from there.GliderMaven (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"If we accept that the two topics are the same, " "We" don't. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Engineer article says that they're the same thing.GliderMaven (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It says "Additive manufacturing is often referred to as 3D printing,", which is far less dogmatic.

Additive techniques don't have to be 3D. There are plenty of niches where 2D, or 2.5D, is all that you need. There are also techniques for achieving 3D parts by making 2D layers and semi-manually stacking or egg-crating them - yet there is no "3D printer" involved. For some of these, they're not even additive (laser-cut egg-crate foamcore). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Exactly, so the article name should be what people most often refer to the topic by, but it's not what the article is about.GliderMaven (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The article name is just a name (which is just a string of letters), but the topic here is additive manufacturing, and the layering/stacking example you give is still a type of additive manufacturing.GliderMaven (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Regarding ASTM committee F42, I think we may be missing an important distinction here. ASTM International is a standards organization that primarily develops manufacturing standards. Using ASTM's definition for all of 3D Printing would be a bit like taking a definition from the ISO 12467-2 standard for offset printing and using it to define "printing" in Wikipedia's laser printer or block letters article. It's not that ISO 12467-2 is wrong, it just doesn't apply. Likewise, ASTM International's use of the term "additive manufacturing" isn't wrong, it just doesn't apply to a home 3D printer or to a self-replicator like the reprap. Yes, the topic here is 3D Printing, not Additive Manufacturing, but no, they are not the same thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, ASTM seem to disagree with you and they are at least a reliable source. They seem to use the term very generally indeed. I think the term 'manufacturing' in its most general usage just means 'making something', and so you can manufacture things at home.GliderMaven (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead diagram

I think whatever the lead diagram is, it should be radically easy to understand. People need to understand things to properly absorb information. You should just be able to look at it, and have a high chance of getting it straightaway. A lot of the makerbot and reprap images we have at commons just aren't very clear, but the one on the right is at least fairly transparent as to how it works.GliderMaven (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've no intention of edit warring on this, but this reprap image isn't very high quality as an image, it's very badly shot, and you can't see what's supposed to be happening. This article is getting a lot of hits, and I don't see that the quality is being maintained by using this image here.GliderMaven (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, the picture on the right above is clearly superior - higher quality, better lit, less cluttered. On the other hand, this article tends to be a collector of marketing information from various people who sell different 3D printers, and I hate to have one of them as the lead picture - not fair to the others. The ideal solution would be a better picture of an open source 3D printer.

This image is copyrighted, but it wouldn't be hard for someone here who is good at mechanical CAD to create a version for Wikipedia that is even clearer. (Double check which is X-axis and which is Y-axis). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Point of order: both the ORDbot designs are GPLed. The CAD files are linked on the front page of the wiki. It's only commercial in the sense that the creator sells kits.

Now, I'm not going to embroil myself in an edit war here, but both the design and the photo are completely free and open.Sbierwagen (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally missed that. Thanks! Does anyone have a compelling reason why I shouldn't put the ORDbot picture back in the lead? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that GliderMaven made the change. Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

History Section Needs Rewrite

The first paragraph in the history section describes the difference between subtractive and additive manufacturing, and lists a lot of methods other than 3d printing. The second paragraph is a qualitative description of the advantages of 3d printing.

What is lacking is any sort of timeline: the years different technologies were developed or adopted. A quantitative description of the timeline should replace what is there right now.

The lack of dates in the history section leads to other problems, such as the 'History of Printing' wikipedia series box listing 3d printing as from 2003. That is wrong, and is contradicted by this article with statements such as "Industrial 3D printers have existed since the early 1980s". But, you need to find that info distributed in other sections instead of described in the history section. IBrow1000 (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Fab@Home

I've added brief reference to Fab@Home, without having any particular expertise (or any axe to grind), after hearing about how it can print reaction vessels, print reactants, and create chemical compounds (a particular application of the printer). It prints using anything you can squirt through nozzles. I'm not sure which of the listed additive technologies it uses, or is it a technology that hasn't been named and described? Somebody more knowledgeable could say a bit more. Pol098 (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Political spam?

A brief well-sourced noting of President Obama's proposed public-private institute/initiative in 3D and the basic campaign context of the proposal was removed as "transparent politics spam" here. I will note also that the editor has a record of some other complaints about removals, from a quick review of his/r talk page. I think the removal represents a loss for the article and for the political dialogue proceeding in the country. Swliv (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that your edit was intended to be 'for the political dialogue proceeding in the country', after pressing 'submit' I had been worried that I had miss-characterised your edit as political spam, but looks like I needn't had worried.Teapeat (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see how the article has suffered loss in any way with its removal, but it's up to the consensus of other editors if they want to reinsert it or not.Teapeat (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Two issues. First "Thank you for admitting..." is hostile and sarcastic. You can make the same point (and it is a valid point) while being WP:CIVIL. Second, the edit in question was definitely transparent politics spam. This is an engineering / technology page. Speeches by Barack Obama don't belong here, and in particular pointing out that the speech by Obama was two hours before a campaign speech by Paul Ryan doesn't even come close to belonging here. That would be like mentioning a campaign speech about a new highway in the Interstate Highway System article. Also, this particular transparent politics spam isn't even from a reliable source -- blogs are are not reliable sources. See WP:RS. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally I see "spam" as "hostile and sarcastic", too, but I appreciate the nod toward civility. As to my "admitting" to "spam" -- or to conceding this is somehow an engineering / technology realm pristine from politics -- .... Well, you all can live in your bubble if you wish. For the record, the Republican campaign (and the probable role of it in the timing of Obama's proposal (no speech, you dreamers and posturers, may I say that civilly (fondly; teasingly; not meanly)?), for which I hold no brief one way or the other; just a campaign artifact, for me (on which merit others will hold sway, from my point of view)) was also mentioned in my contribution. Did PRyan respond in his speech? Would be interesting to know, doncha think? Maybe if the basic report were in the article somebody'd be moved to research it, or contribute it. Would we then have ... a beginning of insight into this arena of technology / industry / engineering as it relates to the array of national policy? Golly. (Yes, that last was (a touch) sarcastic.) As to the Interstates ...: Do I really have to answer that one? (That's a serious question.) Cheerio :-)`. Swliv (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was infected too much by the sarcasm bug, in my recent comments. I'm sorry. Hope my points come through, for what they're worth. As to the "unreliable" blog: It's bylined. He's a regular on-staff journalist. It's ongoing. It's part of a major (News Corp.) news group. I don't think blogs of such standing are dismissed automatically. As to my sense of "spam", one can consult Spam (electronic). I think it's an insult to use the term for my serious contribution. (Yes. The heat returns. Yes, the heat led to the sarcasm. Not this time.) Finally, I do also, on this my third pass tonight, note the Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology header up top of this Talk page. Would I really find no politics in this project if I were to look? Do we really want technology to seem like it's not part of the national dialogue. How about Mars and Curiosity? I really am curious. Bubble? Poor choice of word, in heat. Some kind of firewall? Serious question. (And I can talk about the Interstates and the role of politics in them. If DDEisenhower isn't mentioned there I'll eat my hat metaphorically.) Cheers. Swliv (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: blogs, they do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. See WP:USERG. You are entitled to your opinion that they should be acceptable, but until you get our policy changed you cannot use them as sources.

Re the rest of your argument, see WP:OSE, WP:OTHERSPAM and WP:SEWAGE. Any political spam found in other articles is reason to remove the political spam from those articles, not reason to add political spam to this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

My '"unreliable" blog' response above specifically addressed the "Some news outlets" criteria. Those criteria are somewhat misplaced, but I think still valid, in the "Self-published sources" section of WP:USERG.

In case I'm not adequately offended by "spam" you throw in "sewage"? Kidding. But seriously, I was relating the launch and promotion of a policy proposal by a politician. It emerged (not in a speech I repeat, for the record) in a particular one-two moment of non-coincidental geographical-temporal proximity. So far I can't cite a political exchange or debate on the subject and don't know that there's been such; I don't know what if anything Ryan said in his visit in response to the proposal. But you have yet to explain how the account as it stands is spam, transparent yet, or sewage. To me it's a moment in the political process and I don't see this tech sector as somehow sealed off from the role of government. Government's there, now thanks to the president a little or a lot moreso, just as multiple corporate and individual entities are there. The latter are well-represented in the article and I don't think you're suggesting they should be removed per OSE. Yes, my bit has little context. But I think it's better there as a glimpse of an awareness in the political world rather than being banished. I'm not promoting the president, if that needs to be said. If the president and his campaign have created the proposal in pursuit of their political goals, as they obviously have, does that make it untouchable -- of no interest to someone interested in the technology? If the opposition thinks it's worthless or worse, isn't that for them to say and for us also to note, again rather than us just banishing notice of the proposal? Don't we need to note the proposal in order to keep track, so follow-up on actual actions and results can then be added? I hope you'll try to answer my questions. I'm trying to understand. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "spam" is prejudicial, (as are "vandal" and "sockpuppet) but that's the phrase everyone uses. Sorry about that. In this case I would prefer the phrase G.S.W.P., except nobody would understand what I am talking about (Good Stuff, Wrong Place).

Politicians make a lot of policy proposals. If notable, they have a place, but that place is not in an engineering article about highways, bridges, ICBMs, 3D Printing, or whatever else the politician talks about. We call that WP:COATRACKING.

The only time politics should be inserted in an engineering article is when a law or regulation (not just a proposal) has such a large effect that you need to understand the law to understand why the technology is the way it is.

An example of that would be our article on Intercontinental ballistic missile, which devotes one sentence to the the START I treaty but does not mention which politicians supported or opposed the treaty. Another example is Interstate Highway System, which mentions Dwight D. Eisenhower and Franklin D. Roosevelt (without those mentions you really can't understand why the Interstate Highway System is the way it is) but does not mention any political opposition to Eisenhower / Roosevelt, nor does it mention Lyndon B. Johnson, who had a far greater effect on the Interstate Highway System than Obama or Ryan will ever have on 3D printing. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your shift in tone, if I may call it that (you did after all come in on the civility horse), though I would note a bit of shifting sands too. For instance, you've for now dropped objection to my source and apparently moderated/demurred on spam/sewage but chosen to argue on other fronts.

I guess my biggest concern, which arose earlier but I missed addressing, is the idea that a story titled "3D printing" is somehow an "engineering article". I've had enough Wiki experience to appreciate that a well-crafted article about one aspect of a subject will seem to be "messed up" by editors from other fields who bring their worldviews (quite likely, then, "from afar") to the subject. I've encountered COATRACKING also earlier in my Wiki career and, I think, empathize some. But we're not "Engipedia" here and there's nothing to tell a reader or serious if far afield editor that politics is essentially banished from the scope of this article. (I know, in saying all this, I'm under-aware of the whole "WikiProject Technology" and the "WikiProject" series of initiatives generally. For now, I will note the designation appears only on the talk page, not on the article. And I will say I've now visited Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology/Assessment for the second time and see nothing there that talks to exclusion of, for instance, political considerations from project articles.)

Proposal v. action, and scale, are pretty fine (narrow) judgments (now) to base banishment on. Are you saying all proposals should be banned -- wait for approval, wait for history? Are you denying that large initiatives often start small and that we have no idea if this one will fizzle or blossom? I think my answers to the questions are obvious and not favorable to banishment. Another question on a different front: Are you willing to say you're not opposing the president in defending this edit? I said I was not favoring the president's proposal, above, and would feel more comfortable if you also were on the record.

Your wrong-place comment above, in the end, was perhaps the most telling. I can go and start my own or find a "Politics of public/private support of engineering" initiative, or the like, in Wikipedia, you're saying it seems. Eventually I may get around to 3D and then I'll link to the nice, pristine 3D engineering article and all will be happy. (Your willingness to continue to use nasty epithets in first defense of what turn out to be "go someplace else" comments (a) calls into question the depth of you civility commitment but mostly, well, (b) is just still unpleasant. So I've now fallen back to a little snideness. See how it goes? Sorry for my part.) For myself, I think if you want an exclusive territory you'd need a narrower titling protocol: "The engineering of 3D printing", for example. Then maybe you'd have a defensible case. But then to me, the encyclopedia would be weaker. I'd rather you just see that this addition won't inordinately mar your good article. If the institute/initiative does grow bigger it can easily be spun out into a new article of its own. If it doesn't, it's demise can be cross-linked to the Broken promises and/or Blocked by the opposition (or electorate) articles. Anything to that? I would really hope so. Swliv (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please talk about the content of the article, not about othetr editors. Re "...you've for now dropped objection to my source..." I have done nothing of the sort. Please do not put words in my mouth. Blogs are not reliable sources. See WP:BLOGS. blogs.marketwatch.com is a blog. The fact that I don't repeat this basic fact every single time I interact with you is not "dropping objection to your source." Feel free to go to WP:RSN and try to get a determination that blogs.marketwatch.com is a reliable source. Until then, it stays out. If you want to insert political spam into this article, feel free to go to WP:RFC, read the instructions, and place an RfC on the topic on this talk page. Right now nobody agrees with you on this, but only three people have expressed an opinion, so an RfC would be a good way for you to get other opinions if you believe other editors may agree with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the routes of appeal. It's pretty clear we're not convincing each other here, you're right.

And now I've addressed you again. I'm sorry. It seems right. Was my statement on blogs trying to needle you? Perhaps. But since you'd ignored my rationale and now have cited back once again a policy which provides and supports my rationale to a good degree, I was and am certainly frustrated. Your assumption that you are the authority -- "it stays out" -- with limited deigning to engage well-reasoned arguments is frustrating. But you've hung in at some level and I appreciate that. May see you again around the block. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 00:43, 28 August 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)

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)

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. Y 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)