Talk:3D printing

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)

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)

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 (UTC)

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)

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)

Contraversies

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)

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)

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.

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?