Fwd: RepLab tool chains WAS Re: [RepLab] FabLab inventory and Beyond
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Bryan Bishop
Nov 24, 2009, 10:33:22 AM11/24/09
to Open Manufacturing, kan...@gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Vitaly Mankevich <alban...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: RepLab tool chains WAS Re: [RepLab] FabLab inventory and Beyond
To: rep...@googlegroups.com
Hey Sam, all,
Since Contraptor is mostly intended for rapid design/prototyping, we
don't know the reliability of linear motion mechanisms yet. I think
that with appropriate choice of components, tuning, vibration damping,
protection from dirt and perhaps electronics upgrade, it should be
possible to get long term operation.
Speaking on the general topic of economic significance, I think it's
the new breed of desktop tools that, like Reprap->Makerbot, will be
changing the landscape and occupying various market niches. There is a
number of active 3D printing projects (e.g. Alvaro Fogassa). Not sure
what the patent situation around 3DP is (expires soon?).
Contraptor grew out of trying to build a hobby-scale LOM prototyping
machine, and there are probably people working on something similar
now. There is Purple Crayon which has been developing ~$1K subtractive
fabber. There is a number of 3D scanners out there already. Add a CMM
machine and now you can rapidly reverse engineer stuff.
Some of these projects are commercial but it seems to me that a
hardware open source project should get very high visibility and
special treatment in just about any "cutting edge" area. I think
desktop metal fabrication is a very interesting topic with a lot of
opportunities, from casting in microwave to hexapod milling.
Inexpensive pick and place and PCB production inspired by shan zhai is
another interesting area (James/Cubespawn.com).
-Vitaly
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Sam Putman <atman...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Marcin Jakubowski
> <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Sam Putman <atman...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I do think that the existing FabLab components are a great point of
>>> reference. I don't think the GNU approach of cloning the FabLab setup
>>> is going to aid us here.
>>
>> What do you mean by GNU approach?
>>
>
> I mean that Richard Stallman started with an OS, UNIX, that in the end
> he ended up substantially reproducing. He (they really) improved it in
> the process, but GNU's Not Unix is one o' them hacker jokes, b/c it
> actually is.
>
> I think we have an opportunity to evolve our thinking enough past what
> a FabLab is good for that we're dealing with a different class of
> creature. An open source mid-scale flexible automated factory, capable
> of enough recursion to make an economic and practical difference in
> the deployment of RepLabs worldwide.
>
>
>>>
>>> Example: arbitrary shapes in plastic. For this we need that
>>> support-assisted two-headed RepRap everyone has been hacking on.
>>
>> Please pass on a link about support-assisted two-headed RepRap
>>
>
> Here's the discussion of support materials:
>
> http://dev.forums.reprap.org/read.php?1,29187
>
> This is a problem everyone wants solved, so I assume it will be solved
> soon. Erik de Bruijn did some good work on bonding PLA with ABS, and
> PLA can be dissolved in lye, so a two-headed open FDM could be built
> now.
>
>
>>>
>>> I
>>> would suggest that we fork away from RepRap, since we'll have
>>> additional tools for recursive construction and that means that we
>>> don't personally have to make a precision extruder out of plastic.
>>
>> What do you suggest instead?
>>
>
> I'm suggesting using the RepRap electronics, control software, and
> probably extruder design, but build the chassis on the assumption that
> we have a plasma cutter and routing table which can drill and cut
> angle bracket.
>
> That way we can build a burly machine, with a conveyor belt, that can
> continuously print a full 5 pound roll of ABS, again and again, while
> dumping the completed parts into a hopper.
>
> There is no a priori reason why printed plastic should be a major part
> of a plastic printing machine; we can use it when it's the right
> material, and use other approaches where they fit.
>
> Again, I think Contraptor is a great platform; Vitaly may have more to
> say on this, I hope.
>
>>>
>>> I would say that extending the work on the CandyFab into printing with
>>> ceramics and glass has tremendous potential.
>>
>> Is ceramic and glass printing developed already?
>>
>
> Yes, and it's university-supported open source research.
>
> http://open3dp.me.washington.edu/
>
> They are using a commercial dredge-bed printer. But the CandyFab is an
> open source dredge-bed printer, and all that's needed, really, is an
> appropriate print head.
>
> I'll ask Windell and Lenore about this soon.
>
>
>>>
>>> These 3-d ceramics, in conjunction with a metal casting station, can
>>> be used to make some really intricate stuff. Think lost wax except the
>>> mold is printed in a ready-to-pour state.
>>
>> Molds for aluminum and steel?
>>
>
> Absolutely. As well as ready-for-use refractory 3-d materials, with
> good properties for heat and electrical insulation.
>
>>
>>
>> Laser sintering is readily doable?
>>
>
> Well it isn't easy, since powdered aluminum and powdered steel are the
> two ingredients of thermite, which one can definitely ignite with a
> laser. So we're talking neutral atmosphere here. I don't know about
> open-source lasers or the patent situation with this.
>
> It's a great eventual goal though because the promise of
> high-precision arbitrary metal parts with no subtractive milling. The
> good news is we can derive a lot of practical benefit just from
> ceramics printing. The RebLab can print everything AND the kitchen
> sink! :-D
>
>
>>
>> RepRap evolved, RepTab evolved, and ceramic printing for casting would be
>> your choices?
>>
>
> And the PCB toolchain. I think they're all doable, more or less first
> thing, but the first three are all demonstrated technologies, as well
> as one-stage tools. The PCB toolchain has at least three distinct
> stages; it's more complex.
>
>>>
>>> I think this could be done in a year, in multiple
>>> locations.
>>>
>>> The PCB toolchain is more ambitious, since it consists of three
>>> conceptually distinct tools: a PCB generator (mill or print-and-etch),
>>> a pick-and-place, and a soldering oven, which must be linked by
>>> conveyor or in some other fashion. It is entirely doable in pieces,
>>> however.
>>
>> It seems PCB toolchain is much easier than an option like ceramic printing.
>> For PCB - a RepRap-like machine can do milling and pick-and-place, then it's
>> conveyor to oven. This sounds quite doable as a priority.
>>
>
> Milling a PCB takes forever. While one could make a device that would
> mill and pick-and-place and even solder a few PCBs, it would be quite
> boutique. We don't need high throughput, but something faster than
> milling almost all the copper off a board, one teeeny trace at a time,
> is probably a must. That's resist and etch, which is a similar problem
> to the printer head for powder-bed printing.
>
>>>
>>> A robot arm which uses the same quick-change toolhead as the RepTab
>>> would be incredibly useful. Ideally I'd want it to have a base that
>>> meets ISO standards for a shipping pallet and have 9 axes of motion.
>>
>> Show me an example of a 9 degrees of freedom robotic arm.
>>
>> Marcin
>>
>
> Two degrees of freedom for a mobile base, one for orientation, and
> three linkages with two degrees of freedom each, both rotational (one
> around the axis and one normal to it) would be a nine-degree robot
> arm. It's not necessary, but it does avoid solving problems one sees
> with fewer degrees of freedom, like not bumping the arm into things
> when going under a large object.
>
> If it had a helping hand, that's what, another nine or more degrees of
> freedom? :-)
>
> The robot arm is heavy-duty armchair stuff, though. I don't even know
> where to start. It's nice to have one or two of those on the wishlist,
> but we wouldn't want to spend a bunch of time on it, not right now.
>
> -Sam.
>
--
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
From: Vitaly Mankevich <alban...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 3:29 AM
Subject: Re: RepLab tool chains WAS Re: [RepLab] FabLab inventory and Beyond
To: rep...@googlegroups.com
Hey Sam, all,
Since Contraptor is mostly intended for rapid design/prototyping, we
don't know the reliability of linear motion mechanisms yet. I think
that with appropriate choice of components, tuning, vibration damping,
protection from dirt and perhaps electronics upgrade, it should be
possible to get long term operation.
Speaking on the general topic of economic significance, I think it's
the new breed of desktop tools that, like Reprap->Makerbot, will be
changing the landscape and occupying various market niches. There is a
number of active 3D printing projects (e.g. Alvaro Fogassa). Not sure
what the patent situation around 3DP is (expires soon?).
Contraptor grew out of trying to build a hobby-scale LOM prototyping
machine, and there are probably people working on something similar
now. There is Purple Crayon which has been developing ~$1K subtractive
fabber. There is a number of 3D scanners out there already. Add a CMM
machine and now you can rapidly reverse engineer stuff.
Some of these projects are commercial but it seems to me that a
hardware open source project should get very high visibility and
special treatment in just about any "cutting edge" area. I think
desktop metal fabrication is a very interesting topic with a lot of
opportunities, from casting in microwave to hexapod milling.
Inexpensive pick and place and PCB production inspired by shan zhai is
another interesting area (James/Cubespawn.com).
-Vitaly
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:24 PM, Sam Putman <atman...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Marcin Jakubowski
> <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Sam Putman <atman...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I do think that the existing FabLab components are a great point of
>>> reference. I don't think the GNU approach of cloning the FabLab setup
>>> is going to aid us here.
>>
>> What do you mean by GNU approach?
>>
>
> I mean that Richard Stallman started with an OS, UNIX, that in the end
> he ended up substantially reproducing. He (they really) improved it in
> the process, but GNU's Not Unix is one o' them hacker jokes, b/c it
> actually is.
>
> I think we have an opportunity to evolve our thinking enough past what
> a FabLab is good for that we're dealing with a different class of
> creature. An open source mid-scale flexible automated factory, capable
> of enough recursion to make an economic and practical difference in
> the deployment of RepLabs worldwide.
>
>
>>>
>>> Example: arbitrary shapes in plastic. For this we need that
>>> support-assisted two-headed RepRap everyone has been hacking on.
>>
>> Please pass on a link about support-assisted two-headed RepRap
>>
>
> Here's the discussion of support materials:
>
> http://dev.forums.reprap.org/read.php?1,29187
>
> This is a problem everyone wants solved, so I assume it will be solved
> soon. Erik de Bruijn did some good work on bonding PLA with ABS, and
> PLA can be dissolved in lye, so a two-headed open FDM could be built
> now.
>
>
>>>
>>> I
>>> would suggest that we fork away from RepRap, since we'll have
>>> additional tools for recursive construction and that means that we
>>> don't personally have to make a precision extruder out of plastic.
>>
>> What do you suggest instead?
>>
>
> I'm suggesting using the RepRap electronics, control software, and
> probably extruder design, but build the chassis on the assumption that
> we have a plasma cutter and routing table which can drill and cut
> angle bracket.
>
> That way we can build a burly machine, with a conveyor belt, that can
> continuously print a full 5 pound roll of ABS, again and again, while
> dumping the completed parts into a hopper.
>
> There is no a priori reason why printed plastic should be a major part
> of a plastic printing machine; we can use it when it's the right
> material, and use other approaches where they fit.
>
> Again, I think Contraptor is a great platform; Vitaly may have more to
> say on this, I hope.
>
>>>
>>> I would say that extending the work on the CandyFab into printing with
>>> ceramics and glass has tremendous potential.
>>
>> Is ceramic and glass printing developed already?
>>
>
> Yes, and it's university-supported open source research.
>
> http://open3dp.me.washington.edu/
>
> They are using a commercial dredge-bed printer. But the CandyFab is an
> open source dredge-bed printer, and all that's needed, really, is an
> appropriate print head.
>
> I'll ask Windell and Lenore about this soon.
>
>
>>>
>>> These 3-d ceramics, in conjunction with a metal casting station, can
>>> be used to make some really intricate stuff. Think lost wax except the
>>> mold is printed in a ready-to-pour state.
>>
>> Molds for aluminum and steel?
>>
>
> Absolutely. As well as ready-for-use refractory 3-d materials, with
> good properties for heat and electrical insulation.
>
>>
>>
>> Laser sintering is readily doable?
>>
>
> Well it isn't easy, since powdered aluminum and powdered steel are the
> two ingredients of thermite, which one can definitely ignite with a
> laser. So we're talking neutral atmosphere here. I don't know about
> open-source lasers or the patent situation with this.
>
> It's a great eventual goal though because the promise of
> high-precision arbitrary metal parts with no subtractive milling. The
> good news is we can derive a lot of practical benefit just from
> ceramics printing. The RebLab can print everything AND the kitchen
> sink! :-D
>
>
>>
>> RepRap evolved, RepTab evolved, and ceramic printing for casting would be
>> your choices?
>>
>
> And the PCB toolchain. I think they're all doable, more or less first
> thing, but the first three are all demonstrated technologies, as well
> as one-stage tools. The PCB toolchain has at least three distinct
> stages; it's more complex.
>
>>>
>>> I think this could be done in a year, in multiple
>>> locations.
>>>
>>> The PCB toolchain is more ambitious, since it consists of three
>>> conceptually distinct tools: a PCB generator (mill or print-and-etch),
>>> a pick-and-place, and a soldering oven, which must be linked by
>>> conveyor or in some other fashion. It is entirely doable in pieces,
>>> however.
>>
>> It seems PCB toolchain is much easier than an option like ceramic printing.
>> For PCB - a RepRap-like machine can do milling and pick-and-place, then it's
>> conveyor to oven. This sounds quite doable as a priority.
>>
>
> Milling a PCB takes forever. While one could make a device that would
> mill and pick-and-place and even solder a few PCBs, it would be quite
> boutique. We don't need high throughput, but something faster than
> milling almost all the copper off a board, one teeeny trace at a time,
> is probably a must. That's resist and etch, which is a similar problem
> to the printer head for powder-bed printing.
>
>>>
>>> A robot arm which uses the same quick-change toolhead as the RepTab
>>> would be incredibly useful. Ideally I'd want it to have a base that
>>> meets ISO standards for a shipping pallet and have 9 axes of motion.
>>
>> Show me an example of a 9 degrees of freedom robotic arm.
>>
>> Marcin
>>
>
> Two degrees of freedom for a mobile base, one for orientation, and
> three linkages with two degrees of freedom each, both rotational (one
> around the axis and one normal to it) would be a nine-degree robot
> arm. It's not necessary, but it does avoid solving problems one sees
> with fewer degrees of freedom, like not bumping the arm into things
> when going under a large object.
>
> If it had a helping hand, that's what, another nine or more degrees of
> freedom? :-)
>
> The robot arm is heavy-duty armchair stuff, though. I don't even know
> where to start. It's nice to have one or two of those on the wishlist,
> but we wouldn't want to spend a bunch of time on it, not right now.
>
> -Sam.
>
--
- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Bryan Bishop
Nov 24, 2009, 9:05:05 PM11/24/09
to Open Manufacturing, kan...@gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marcin Jakubowski <joseph....@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: RepLab tool chains WAS Re: [RepLab] FabLab inventory and Beyond
To: rep...@googlegroups.com
From: Marcin Jakubowski <joseph....@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 8:03 PM
Subject: Re: RepLab tool chains WAS Re: [RepLab] FabLab inventory and Beyond
To: rep...@googlegroups.com
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 8:24 PM, Sam Putman <atman...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Marcin Jakubowski
> <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Sam Putman <atman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I do think that the existing FabLab components are a great point of
> >> reference. I don't think the GNU approach of cloning the FabLab setup
> >> is going to aid us here.
> >
> > What do you mean by GNU approach?
> >
>
> I mean that Richard Stallman started with an OS, UNIX, that in the end
> he ended up substantially reproducing. He (they really) improved it in
> the process, but GNU's Not Unix is one o' them hacker jokes, b/c it
> actually is.
>
> I think we have an opportunity to evolve our thinking enough past what
> a FabLab is good for that we're dealing with a different class of
> creature. An open source mid-scale flexible automated factory, capable
> of enough recursion to make an economic and practical difference in
> the deployment of RepLabs worldwide.
Agreed. I was thinking that individual FabLab components are useful
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Marcin Jakubowski
> <joseph....@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Sam Putman <atman...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I do think that the existing FabLab components are a great point of
> >> reference. I don't think the GNU approach of cloning the FabLab setup
> >> is going to aid us here.
> >
> > What do you mean by GNU approach?
> >
>
> I mean that Richard Stallman started with an OS, UNIX, that in the end
> he ended up substantially reproducing. He (they really) improved it in
> the process, but GNU's Not Unix is one o' them hacker jokes, b/c it
> actually is.
>
> I think we have an opportunity to evolve our thinking enough past what
> a FabLab is good for that we're dealing with a different class of
> creature. An open source mid-scale flexible automated factory, capable
> of enough recursion to make an economic and practical difference in
> the deployment of RepLabs worldwide.
already, because we can tap existing FabLab markets by substituting
with our product. I think that the RepLab will include most of FabLab
anyway, so that's not an issue.
same head be used for glass and clay, and refractories? Is this a
realistic route to glassware recycling?
>
>
> >>
> >> These 3-d ceramics, in conjunction with a metal casting station, can
> >> be used to make some really intricate stuff. Think lost wax except the
> >> mold is printed in a ready-to-pour state.
> >
> > Molds for aluminum and steel?
> >
>
> Absolutely. As well as ready-for-use refractory 3-d materials, with
> good properties for heat and electrical insulation.
>
> >
> >
> > Laser sintering is readily doable?
> >
>
> Well it isn't easy, since powdered aluminum and powdered steel are the
> two ingredients of thermite, which one can definitely ignite with a
> laser. So we're talking neutral atmosphere here. I don't know about
> open-source lasers or the patent situation with this.
On lasers, we should contact these people, who have built their own
>
> >>
> >> These 3-d ceramics, in conjunction with a metal casting station, can
> >> be used to make some really intricate stuff. Think lost wax except the
> >> mold is printed in a ready-to-pour state.
> >
> > Molds for aluminum and steel?
> >
>
> Absolutely. As well as ready-for-use refractory 3-d materials, with
> good properties for heat and electrical insulation.
>
> >
> >
> > Laser sintering is readily doable?
> >
>
> Well it isn't easy, since powdered aluminum and powdered steel are the
> two ingredients of thermite, which one can definitely ignite with a
> laser. So we're talking neutral atmosphere here. I don't know about
> open-source lasers or the patent situation with this.
tubes. I think getting an 80 Watt commercial bulb should be enough for
now.
http://www.repairfaq.org/sam/laserco2.htm
>
> It's a great eventual goal though because the promise of
> high-precision arbitrary metal parts with no subtractive milling. The
> good news is we can derive a lot of practical benefit just from
> ceramics printing. The RebLab can print everything AND the kitchen
> sink! :-D
For glassware, various insulators for electricity are important. That
could get me free goat fencing, after wire drawing, of course.
(https://www.surpluscenter.com/Item.asp?UID=2009110410251896&catname=hydraulic&item=9-7735)
for 10,000 in lb. My experience shows me that you can control such
motors well enough.
Marcin
>
> -Sam.
--
--------------------------------------------------
Marcin Jakubowski, Ph.D.
Open Source Ecology
http://openfarmtech.org/weblog
http://www.replab.org
marcin at replap dot org
Skype: marcin_ose
--------------------------------------------------
Nobody said that building the world's first open source village would be easy.
-- Anonymous, 2009
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
NOTICE: All discussion in this communication is in the public domain,
unless otherwise noted. If you are sharing proprietary, confidential,
or otherwise privileged information, you must make that explicit.
Otherwise, this discussion may be copied, republished, and otherwise
used in the public domain - respectfully and with proper attribution.
Furthermore, please consider that we are not interested in discussion
as much as action. Therefore, we are particularly interested in
discussion of ideas that both parties can commit to by acting on them.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages