> I had heard tell of the 20 Micron print on the Makergear but never
> bothered to look around for images of the resulting print. I checked out
> the Makergear site and found these

> http://www.makergear.com/blogs/frontpage/6591695-20-microns-i-am

> https://makergear.googlegroups.com/attach/385a4f99583b6afe/yoda%20fac...

> There also is a discussion of layer thickness in this thread that you may
> find interesting.
> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/makergear/DgSeUTc...

> From my perspective, I think that there is probably a point of diminishing
> return for layer thinness when it comes to practical proto-typing. For
> artistic/aesthetic endeavours the thinner the better however.  I don't know
> what the layer thickness is that represents practical for most of my work
> but I am reasonably sure that I don't need 20 micron layers.

> If you are at all considering the M2, I recommend hopping on IRC at irc://
> irc.freenode.net/makergearv2  and asking any questions you may have on
> there.  Rick (Owner of MakerGear) is generally on IRC and is really helpful.

> Hope this helps!

> Jeff

> On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 7:37 AM, L C <trigger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Thanks Bill, I had to reread the material a couple times on the PLA.

>> Just a guess but it must make it vastly easier to make a "consumer"
>> machine.

>> Still the layer thickness spec of 100 microns (.0039") has me drooling. I did read on the the makergear site that they did a Yoda build at 20
>> microns.  I am inferring that the slicing program will slice however
>> thin a layer that you want, and that on the computer side the current tools
>> will generate machine paths for whatever you want, but that on the machine
>> side it may or may not perform?

>> I really like the idea of a 100 micron machine.  Could it be that this is
>> a advantageous characteristic of the PLA material?

>> Lee

>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 9:01 PM, William Saturno <wsatu...@gmail.com>wrote:

>>> I didn't even think about that possibility. Good catch, Lee.

>>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:54 PM, Jeff Myer <jm...@myermountain.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Lee,

>>> > You are correct, Pla only.  They are offering the following for abs:

>>> >  http://store.makerbot.com/replicator2x.html

>>> > This is a bit tough to get past for serious prototyping especially
>>> seeing
>>> > that pla doest glue up well.

>>> > I had not taken notice of that previously. Guess they have been
>>> keeping word
>>> > of this this limitation low key.

>>> > Jeff

>>> > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:36 PM, L C <trigger...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> >> Looking at the Makerbot Replicator 2 specs but it is a PLA machine.
>>>  Not
>>> >> for ABS?

>>> >> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Jeff Myer <jm...@myermountain.com>
>>> wrote:

>>> >>> An interesting couple of posts.  The more recent of the posts
>>> incited me
>>> >>> to chime in differently than I originally intended to Specifically,
>>> I was
>>> >>> intending on simply putting out some quick thoughts on Make versus
>>> Buy. The
>>> >>> linked article regarding DRM on printable items got me a bit more
>>> fired up
>>> >>> on 3d printing from more of a philosophical standpoint.

>>> >>> For the simple answer of make versus buy, I do think that the price
>>> and
>>> >>> availability of assembled, ready to go 3d printers on the market
>>> today
>>> >>> really drive the need to ask the make versus buy question. At one
>>> end of the
>>> >>> spectrum, you have the SolidDoodle and some of the PrintRBot
>>> offerings
>>> >>> available in a ready to go configuration for under $500. On the
>>> other end
>>> >>> (of the consumer targeted machines) you have Makerbot Replicator,
>>> MakerGear
>>> >>> M2 and others in the $1800-$2500 range ready to go.  It appears that
>>> the
>>> >>> higher end of the spectrum will get you dual head extrusion and
>>> speed over
>>> >>> the lower end machines. The higher end machines also seem to be
>>> comparable
>>> >>> to commercial machines with resolution and print quality.

>>> >>> Compare these machines to kit and diy options that are currently out
>>> >>> there, and it is no longer as simple as a dollar to dollar
>>> comparison.  For
>>> >>> example, one can easily spend over $500 in parts for a Reprap Mendel
>>> and
>>> >>> still need to spend significant time assembling, adjusting, breaking
>>> and
>>> >>> fixing before an acceptable print comes out. Why not just fork over
>>> the cash
>>> >>> for a SolidDoodle which runs out of the box.  Without getting into a
>>> >>> discussion of pros and cons of each machine, I think that a big part
>>> of the
>>> >>> question is whether you are more interested in the journey or the
>>> >>> destination.

>>> >>> For myself, the time spent getting the CT Hackerspace Mcwire
>>> repstrap up
>>> >>> and going was invaluable in teaching me about 3D printing. In the
>>> end the
>>> >>> speed of the machine made it practically useless however I know far
>>> more
>>> >>> than I would have learned just following along on the internet.
>>> >>> Incidentally, I really want to belt drive the X&Y axes on the CT
>>> Hackerspace
>>> >>> machine and make the thing worthwhile.

>>> >>> Flash forward to about 2 weeks ago when I purchased a fully assembled
>>> >>> Printrbot Jr at the Maker Faire.  This machine was $399 (Special
>>> price for
>>> >>> MakerFaire) fully assembled. The fully assembled part was a bit of
>>> >>> mis-information as I still needed to instal the control board after
>>> >>> unpacking the machine. After some simple set-up and calibration, I am
>>> >>> printing some fairly decent objects. Overall, I am very happy to be
>>> able to
>>> >>> go from a need or idea to physical item very quickly with this
>>> machine. It
>>> >>> is, in my mind, a utilitarian machine. It is not an art piece
>>> machine. Could
>>> >>> I tweak and tweak to get better resolution and speed? I sure could.
>>> For now
>>> >>> however, I intend to take it for what it is and put it to work making
>>> >>> functional pieces upon need or whim.  If I print something that I
>>> absolutely
>>> >>> need to be of higher quality, I can always send it off to somebody
>>> else with
>>> >>> a higher quality machine or a printing service.  The truth is that
>>> most of
>>> >>> what I am interested in is more functional than aesthetic.  Don't
>>> get me
>>> >>> wrong, I am happy with the quality of the prints, they are just not
>>> >>> currently on par with commercial machines or the upper end of the
>>> consumer
>>> >>> machine world.

>>> >>> If you are still reading, I will delve briefly into the
>>> philosophical end
>>> >>> of things. Amidst all of the discussion that ensued after it became
>>> clear
>>> >>> that Makerbot was going closed source with aspects of the Replicator
>>> 2, I
>>> >>> thought a lot about Open Source and what it meant to 3D printing
>>> becoming
>>> >>> accessible to the hobbyist and consumer.

>>> >>> My conclusion is that the community behind the reprap project,
>>> coupled
>>> >>> with an open source mentality did something really incredible with 3D
>>> >>> printing. The community collaboratively engineered a low cost
>>> version of a
>>> >>> device/technology that was otherwise quite expensive and very
>>> "closed". I
>>> >>> also believe that it still the open source community that is driving
>>>  the
>>> >>> state of the art for low cost 3d printing forward; Not the producers
>>> of
>>> >>> ready to print machines. With that in mind, I sincerely do hope that
>>> the
>>> >>> availability of ready to print,  closed technology, solutions does
>>> not, too
>>> >>> severely, dilute the pool of talent and the wealth of innovation
>>> that has
>>> >>> allowed low cost 3d printing to evolve so quickly.

>>> >>> On the other hand, perhaps what has happened with 3d printing
>>> represents
>>> >>> a new evolutionary model for innovation and the breaking down of the
>>> >>> barriers previously imposed by the capital based model for
>>> development of
>>> >>> new technologies. Perhaps the consumer grade 3D printer has passed
>>> the point
>>> >>> of diminishing returns for community development. Perhaps it is time
>>> to look
>>> >>> for the Next Big Closed Technology to make Open via community based
>>> open
>>> >>> source development.

>>> >>> If that is the case, then what is to become of low cost 3d printing?
>>> >>> Will the technology state of the art migrate back to corporate
>>> interests and
>>> >>> become more closed?  I do believe that will be the case however I
>>> also
>>> >>> believe that if it does swing too far in the closed direction, there
>>> will be
>>> >>> a community that will open it back up. The most important thing is
>>> that an
>>> >>> open source community continues to thrive by pushing the boundaries
>>> of
>>> >>> technology  through leveraging the collaboration and horsepower that
>>> can
>>> >>> only be practically achieved in an open model.

>>> >>> So, Make vs Buy? I believe that the time has come where if you are
>>> most
>>> >>> interested in printing objects to support your artistic or
>>> intellectual
>>> >>> pursuits, you should buy. If you are interested in becoming a 3d
>>> printing
>>> >>> expert and/or furthering the technology, at some point you must be
>>> building
>>> >>> a printer or improving upon a purchased printer.

>>> >>> Jeff

>>> >>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Triggerdog <trigger...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:

>>> >>>> Interesting news.

>>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/12/myhrvold_patent_3d_printing/

>>> >>>> From Wikipedia a bit of info on the company "Intellectual Ventures"

>>> >>>> Intellectual Ventures is a private company notable for being one of
>>> the
>>> >>>> top-five owners of U.S. patents, as of 2011.[1] Its business model
>>> has a
>>> >>>> focus on developing a large patent portfolio and licensing these
>>> patents to
>>> >>>> companies. Publicly, it states that a major goal is to assist small
>>> >>>> inventors against corporations. In practice, much of their
>>> revenue[citation
>>> >>>> needed] comes from licensing patents from other corporations and
>>> then filing
>>> >>>> lawsuits for infringement of patents, a controversial practice
>>> known as
>>> >>>> patent trolling.

>>> >>>> On Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:01:03 AM UTC-4, Triggerdog wrote:

>>> >>>>> I just saw that the Makerbot Replicator 2 is shipping,  I was
>>> wondering
>>> >>>>> if it is time to just buy a 3D printer and make things or is all
>>> the time
>>> >>>>> building one worth it?  I did want to make things with it after
>>> all;-)

>>> >>>>> Not to long ago if you wanted one you had to build it (or buy a
>>> $20K
>>> >>>>> Dimension).

>>> >>>>> Now I am not so sure.

>>> >>>>> I need a 3D printer buyers guide but one's I've come across are not
>>> >>>>> current enough.

>>> >>>>> Anybody that has a comment or can point me to useful info would be
>>> >>>>> great.

>>> >>>>> Lee

>>> >>>> --
>>> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> >>>> Groups "CT Hackerspace" group.
>>> >>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> >>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/CTHackerspace/-/MmneBmz8YxcJ.

>>> >>>> To post to this group, send email to CTHackerspace@googlegroups.com
>>> .
>>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> >>>> CTHackerspace+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> >>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/CTHackerspace?hl=en.

>>> >>> --
>>> >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups
>>> >>> "CT Hackerspace" group.
>>> >>> To post to this group, send email to CTHackerspace@googlegroups.com.
>>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> >>> CTHackerspace+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> >>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> >>> http://groups.google.com/group/CTHackerspace?hl=en.

>>> >> --
>>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups
>>> >> "CT Hackerspace" group.
>>> >> To post to this group, send email to CTHackerspace@googlegroups.com.
>>> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> >> CTHackerspace+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> >> For more options, visit this group at
>>> >> http://groups.google.com/group/CTHackerspace?hl=en.

>>> > --
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups
>>> > "CT Hackerspace" group.
>>> > To post to this group, send email to CTHackerspace@googlegroups.com.
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> > CTHackerspace+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> > For more options, visit this group at
>>> > http://groups.google.com/group/CTHackerspace?hl=en.

>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "CT Hackerspace" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to CTHackerspace@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> CTHackerspace+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/CTHackerspace?hl=en.

>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "CT Hackerspace" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to CTHackerspace@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> CTHackerspace+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/CTHackerspace?hl=en.

>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "CT Hackerspace" group.
> To post to this group, send email to CTHackerspace@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> CTHackerspace+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/CTHackerspace?hl=en.