Talk:3D printing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


WikiProject Technology (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Technology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 

3-D printed cars and houses: but are they?[edit]

Fortunately, terms such as "3D printed houses" and "3D printed cars" aren't used in the article, still people seem to be using the expression "3D printed [whatever]" a bit.

I remember hearing an interview on CBC radio of Don Tapscott by an Anna Marie Tremonti last May about whether the youth should go into trades or university. Tapscott preffered the latter as according to him, we'll be 3D printing houses in 2 years. I tried searching for the podcast where he said it, but so far nothing in the search. If he's right, we'll be having 3D printed houses—implicitly lots of them, and maybe even the majority—in 14 months, though in a latter interview he seem to have backtracked.


What do they mean by "3D printed" houses and cars? Let's say somebody made a "wooden car." He/she made a mostly wooden body—wooden roof, hood, trunk/boot door, steering wheel, pedals, seats, dash, hub-caps, maybe gas tank, et al. Most of the block, transmission, axles, tailpipe, et al would be made of standard materials, but let's say a decent fraction of the car was wood by volume, expense, and even mass. Would it be legitimately considered a "wooden car." So why would we call cars with 3-D printed parts, maybe bodies and like, "3-D printed cars?"

Ditto houses. Okay, we can have some machine extrude concrete, plastic, wood pulp, whatever, and make a frame—gee, I wonder how fire, water, and earthquake resistant, insulated, and non-toxic it would be; and where would the piping, wiring, windows, roofing, and paint come from? One might say that 3D printing was used, or that it’s mostly 3D printed, but is it accurately referred to as a "3D printed house?"

Thought I'd toss this to ya'll.
Civic Cat (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes.Ezrado (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
3D printed houses go back to the late 1960s (maybe early 1970s) - look in Papanek's Design for the Real World. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

There are already several 3-D printed houses planned or finished:

And we speak of stick-built houses or poured concrete factories without pedanticly pointing out that the plumbing and wiring are made of different materials. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


Those links are about stuff going on in Red China, and I'm not sure they can be trusted coming from a country that has yet to 'fess up about 4 June, and the other two links are in the hopeful class. They have lots of ads, seem to have little info, and are a bit difficult to download--news sources generating revenue in the 21st century, huh. Presumably there are many stick and concrete houses built with and without such additional things. Further both stick houses and poured concrete houses have been with us for millennia and decades and if a lack of the other things were issues, they would have been long noted. Given the hucksterism of much of the emerging technology talk, I don't think it's being too pedantic to describe if they have these other things or not.24.36.54.238 (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

#Space , #Construction , #Aircraft and 3D-printed spacecraft[edit]

We're having a discussion at Talk:3D-printed spacecraft whether to move this article (which is currently one of main articles for #Space) to 3D printing in the aerospace industry and increase its scope. There are also some questions about notability, etc. We could really use some additional opinions on a subject, so if you are interested, please, head to → Talk:3D-printed spacecraft#Requested move 4 June 2015 and share your thoughts. SkywalkerPL (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest editing[edit]

This article has been heavily edited by Fklatt who has a COI as clear as the day is long. The tag needs to stay on until independent reviewers check the article for NPOV and sourcing; if you remove the tag please leave a note here. Thanks Jytdog (talk) 04:29, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"I would like to add the following to 3D Printing-> Electric motors and generators section (only between quotation marks - please don't add any other part of this talk to this section):

"Best Electric Machine has invented, developed and patented MotorPrinter, which is a LOM 3D Printer of axial-flux magnetic cores with integral frame assembly and pre-processed high performance magnetic metal ribbon, such as amorphous metal ribbon, for SYNCHRO-SYM, induction, reluctance, field wound, and permanent magnet electric motors and generators[1]."

References

  1. ^ Patent US8505351
As suggested by Wikipedia's COI (e.g., I am a principle of Best Electric Machine) in accordance with Jytdog, I want to provide evidence with the previous quoted addition that there are other 3d Printing programs of electric machines beside United Technologies in order to make the article equitable in accordance to Wikipedia's policy. I apologize for trying this in the past without providing COI evidence and now understand the past COI problem. Although I have the utmost respect for Wikipedia and I would never provide information that was driven by marketing; but as always, I try to provide state of art information or corrections. I graciously hope United Technologies provided the same COI request. Fklatt (talk) 12:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's rules (Click on this link: WP:CONSENSUS), "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution."
In your case, other editors have been trying and trying to get you to engage in a discussion at the following two locations:
The Administrators' noticeboard Incidents (ANI) discussion is the the one you really need to participate in -- it was opened because you repeatedly failed to respond on your talk page,
Because of the above, I am putting your edit request above ON HOLD while you prove to us that you are willing to be a productive member member of the Wikipedia community by engaging in a discussion on both of the above pages. I am going to suggest that the editors on this page wait and give you three days to respond on those two pages, at which time we will evaluate your edit request. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
sorry for not responding here sooner. I started reading this article carefully and it is in bad shape There is a lot of blatantly COI editing in this article. I understand why FKlatt wants to add yet more badly sourced PROMO content but that is not what we are about here - we are not including content based on a patent which is about the most crappy, SPS, PROMO source imaginable. I will say that If there are independent, secondary sources that discuss BEM's motor we can consider adding content about it. but not this content, based on this source.
X mark.svg Not done Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I've removed the section on printed electric motors entirely; it's, by the standards of Wikipedia, completely unreferenced, and was additionally added by someone with a COI. It also had issues with WP:UNDUE, this isn't something that is being commonly done right now, nor has it been written about in the literature that much (so far as I am aware) so probably shouldn't even have its own section.GliderMaven (talk) 22:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I have little interest in this article (too broken to fix, too many tubs being thumped). As to FKlatt's edits though, I see the COI problem as being overshadowed by a greater problem: 3D printing just doesn't seem to be important for the motor-related purposes he's describing, and v.v. If this stuff was significant, I'd have much less trouble with the COI. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


Lede Edit[edit]

-The fact that 3d printing doesn't use any molds, specialised dies or machining needs to be in the lede. Without these points you could argue that casting or extrusion is 3d printing.

-Obviously not all 3d printing techniques can make "virtually any shape or geometry". As per my reverted edit this should be written "often virtually any shape..".

-If we're going to say printers are industrial robots, then it can't hurt to say they range from consumer level machines to larger instruments.

-As for any spelling errors, it's probably quicker for you to correct them than for us to revert all of an edit based on one or two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrado (talkcontribs) 14:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Your improvement has already been reverted per WP:OWN. Apparently "most 3D printers use dies", which must come as a surprise to them Andy Dingley (talk) 15:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
You are, as has become your routine here, insulting and incorrect. The relevant edit included at least two spelling errors, and additionally stated that 3D printers cannot use dies (hint: extrusion 3D printers extrude through... a die), and cannot use machining (hint: laminating 3D printers cut their laminates using... machining).
Exactly how many different obviously wrong things am I allowed before I revert an edit, without being accused of WP:OWN because sorry, that particular one did *not* make the article better.GliderMaven (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
A nozzle still isn't a die. A die, as a device in extrusion, defines the form of the finished product. This is not the case for 3D printing, the shape is defined by the path in which the nozzle moves. Now you can argue semantics as much as you like, but your version of the article is now highly misleading because it implies the shapes comes from the shape of a die. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
[citation needed] I am aware of no such definition of 'die'. A die is defined by what it immediately does to an extrusion, and that extruded material can be subject to arbitrary further manufacturing processes, they can be stamped, punched, welded, stretched, coiled etc. etc. etc.
And even if, for the sake of argument, we accepted your, in my opinion, completely incorrect definition, the edit still had all the other problems I already mentioned. I completely stand by my revert.GliderMaven (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The die semantics aside, can we agree that a defining feature of additive manufacturing is the fact that it makes 3d objects without machining a block of material, casting, forging or extruding a set shape? Perhaps a compromise would simply so replace "dies" with "specialised dies". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrado (talkcontribs) 16:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I think you should stay away from mentioning dies or even specialised dies. I could certainly imagine a 3D printer could be equipped with multiple specialised dies. The word 'specialised' is too vague.GliderMaven (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Also, 'casting' is at best, borderline. One use of 3D printers to make an object involves printing a mould and then casting in that. You could argue that the casting is a separate step, and it may be, but that becomes harder to argue since conceivably the printer itself may well do the pour, particularly when doing construction of buildings.GliderMaven (talk) 18:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Ok, you make some fair points, but try reading the lede replacing "3d Printing" with "die casting". The only distinguishing feature which doesn't apply is the "additive processes are used, in which successive layers of material are laid down under computer control", and I would argue that this isn't even true. Some 3d printing techniques don't rely on layers (eg: continuous liquid interface production), while some casting processes do add material in layers (functionally graded parts). To me it is clear that one very important characteristic of 3d printing is that you're never machining down a block of material to get a part out, and you never add material to a premade die/mold to make a part, and that this information needs to be in the lede.Ezrado (talk) 20:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I should also add that at present the lede to this article is inadequately short in my opinion.Ezrado (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I do think that additive processes are the defining feature of 3D printing, and the references seem to agree with that. Whether additive processes necessarily involve 'layering' depends on what you mean by 'layer'; a continuous flow process still has temporarily deposited layers IMO. Just because you can't see the layers doesn't mean they aren't there; if the fed polymer were to change color over time, the layers would become visible.GliderMaven (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
But I do agree with you about the lead length, it used to be a lot longer. It was shortened by this GF edit.
p.s. it's a lead, not a lede, wikipedia leads are not written in news style.GliderMaven (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)