Talk:3D printing/Archive 4

I've seen a machine on TV, a Strandbeest this was printed out by a 3D printer but your articles does not explain how a printer prints out machines with floating parts. 91.125.80.217 (talk) 09:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.designbuild-network.com/features/featureprinting-houses-how-3-d-printers-are-transforming-construction-4143744/

  Triggered by \bdesignbuild-network\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can mention the LulzBot (and/or add an image) ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.130.180.222 (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

This article desperately needs a section on the health risks of burning plastics. The topic is rarely discussed and is important, considering that the installation of these machines is being promoted for home use and by children.

The untested environmental (living environment degradation) and health consequences of using toxic plastics is being neglected; chemical styrenes are classified as hazardous.

http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/go/roc12

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Styrene — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.1.112 (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you posted links to reliable sources about a problem in the 3-d printing world. Wikipedia generally describes subjects, it does not include "how-to" advice, or advice of any sort for that matter (see: WP:NOT). If there was a general "controversy", that may be part of the subject. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you the same guy with the WP:CRUSADE about supposed ABS hazards? Learn something about 3D print operating temperatures first, then find some WP:RS. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

How's the 83 year-old woman, now, I presume, 85 years old, doing with her 3D printed jaw? Is she still alive? Is it still functioning? How are 3D printed kidneys doing? Will we soon no longer have to sign our organ donation cards? Huh?Civic Cat (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks go to User:Mkmori for prompting the article to address the rather relevant fact that "3D printing" and "additive manufacturing" have not always had synonymous senses. I have worked on developing how the article handles this. As of this writing (AOTW) there are a lede and a "Terminology" section. It's clear when you read this lede, ATOW, that it is cluttered from the point of view of a general reader and that those two sections would better be reconfigured into an uncluttered lede and a "History and terminology" section. Regarding the latter, one can consider the idea of two sections, "Terminology" and "History", but separating the two could be cumbersome and involve overlap of content (saying the same thing twice, in two sections, regarding certain concepts). That can be worked out over time (one vs two sections; I lean toward one AOTW), but at least we have broached the subjects and are on the way toward better development and organization. — ¾-10 17:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the mention, ¾-10! While "3D Printing" is not a very felicitous term technically--and it confuses the "genealogy" of, uh, "additive fabrication processes"--it has certainly caught on.

Now, I remember when most of these processes fell under the heading "rapid prototyping" ("3D RP"), which is, of course, a specific application...which also employs CNC machining/routing and various other materials and techniques. "Additive fabrication"--or even better, "layered fabrication", (covering most "3D printing" plus closely associated LOM and metal consolidation techniques)--would probably be the better term for most of the material presented here...and some presented elsewhere.

I do think this article is kind of a mess--a lot of good material, but a big mess--and complicated enough without drawing the obvious, (and in cases misleading), contrast between "additive" and "subtractive" technologies. "And BTW, isn't welding/electroplating/felting an 'additive technology'?" Hence, my preference for "layered fabrication"....

Maybe "Layered Fabrication" could be the "gateway article", with a nod to "3D Printing" as the popular term and links to articles about specific technologies and applications...?

While I'm here, pardon my curmudgeonly narrow-mindedness, but why and how is "3D Printing" part of a series on the "History of Printing"??? Are plastic bottle openers and fancy lampshades and contour-crafted houses the future of publication? No wonder newspapers are going under! Mkmori (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

You touched on several good points that I and others have thought about, too. Thoughts below ...

(1) The thing about metal fabrication (welding and others) being "additive"—quite a natural line of thought to pursue ... although once you do, in the end, there's "a language thing" going on there that amounts to "it's just idiomatic". Not all idiomatic usage makes perfect sense from a controlled vocabulary perspective, but it's part of how natural language develops, including by retronymy. For example, some people complain that the United States should never be called "America" because "America" should be reserved for referring only to the Americas, that is, (more or less) the entire Western Hemisphere. The point is entirely understandable, but there's no "ultimate nomenclatural authority" to retroactively change and enforce the nomenclature throughout "English as she is spoken". The thing that makes "additive manufacturing" additive manufacturing is this entire implicit concept of "a tool or head moving through a 3D work envelope under automated control transforming a mass of raw material into a desired shape layer by layer"—with "mass of raw material" conveying some essential notion of 'not-yet-differentiated stuff', which makes it cognitively distinct from, say, robot welding on an auto unit body assembly line—which can be viewed as halfway close to that conceptual neighborhood—but that's putting spot welds on already-stamped shapes that are already fixtured into position—it isn't "transforming a mass of raw material", such as powder or welding wire, layer by layer ... Meanwhile, true that the term "3D printing" originally referred exclusively to the polymer technologies, but I suspect that that era is now over for good, because you can't get the general public to stop including the metal sintering and melting technologies (eg, DLMS, SLS, SLM, EBM) under "3D printing" as an umbrella term, with "additive manufacturing" being a synonym. I think it's too late for that to change, but who knows ... Thus trying to get anyone to call welding "additive" (that is, to shape natural nomenclature) will be like trying to get people to start calling beef "cowmeat" and pork "pigmeat"—everyone can certainly understand the logic—but they may not follow the lead, nonetheless. Idiomaticness in action ...

(2) The thing about 3D printing perhaps being dubious to include in the "history of printing" sidebar—in an important way, you're totally right (and not alone) in thinking that, because in some essential way, the brain says, hey, 3D printing is "something else entirely" from [2D] printing, which was only ever about printing words on (more or less) flat backgrounds—not about printing stuff—objects—hardware—food—whatever. And yet, despite that entirely valid point ... I suspect that no one will ever eradicate the connection, because hey, there's some fundamental connection (analogy) between what an inkjet [word] printer does and what a stereolithographic printer does (something like "a tool or head moving through a work envelope under automated control depositing raw material into desired places, location by location")—which is of course why they came up with the term "3D printing" in the first place.

(3) The contrast between additive and subtractive can't be gotten away from, even if it's only covered within one section, simply because it was formative in how people in the metalworking industries (even if not everyone else; but nonetheless many of the people who constituted "who and what manufacturing 'was' before additive methods") gradually "found out about" and "made sense of" the various technologies that they would eventually widely label "additive manufacturing". It really is like the "Terminology" section says as of this writing—"the paradigm of a tool or head moving through a 3D work envelope transforming a mass of raw material into a desired shape layer by layer was the sole domain of processes that removed metal (rather than adding it), such as CNC milling, CNC EDM, and many others." It's why they came up with the "additive" name in the first place—it's what made "additive" manufacturing new and different from (what was) "regular" manufacturing. It's why they never coined the "subtractive manufacturing" term before that ... just like people didn't say "acoustic guitar" or "analog watch" before there were electric guitars or digital watches. However, once electric guitars exist, you can't necessarily entirely avoid mentioning acoustic guitars in the electric guitar article on the basis that "that's not what this article is about". Yeah, true, but each article doesn't exist in an ontological vacuum. Of course, regarding welding and the "tool or head moving through a 3D work envelope" concept, one can point out (pardon the GOTO loop) that robot welding on an auto unit body assembly line gets halfway close to that conceptual neighborhood—but that's putting spot welds on already-stamped shapes that are already fixtured into position—it isn't "transforming a mass of raw material", such as powder or welding wire, layer by layer.

(4) The point about "rapid prototyping" is also a good example of the natural language/idiomaticness/retronymy-or-lack-thereof topic ... back when additive technologies weren't "really" (I mean "substantially" and "widely") being used for production, prototyping was what they were first applied to ... and in displacing older toolroom methods, especially diesinking, they were able to be rapid by comparison, hence "rapid prototyping" ... then when those technologies pushed more and more into production, some people said, hey, this should be called "rapid manufacturing" now instead ... of course, there's a language issue there—any sufficiently quick way of making a production widget could fairly be called "rapid manufacturing", regardless of whether additive, subtractive, or some of both (which is where a lot of manufacturing is now truly headed—"some of both")—all it means at root is "making stuff quickly" [and what does "quickly" mean, speed being relative, except "more quickly than the speed that's considered 'normal'"; but of course, "what's considered 'normal'" ('conventional', 'standard') changes over decades as technology changes].

Anyhow, Catch you later, — ¾-10 00:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

• 3D printed castle story. FYI.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• In the Bioprinting section, you should include a definition for Poly(ethylene glycol)-diacrylate (PEGDA) so that all audience members will have a better understanding of what you are referring to. For example, maybe include a more in depth description of PEGDA like including that it is a blank slate hydrogel and what exactly it does. This is important so that your article can appeal to all backgrounds, not just those with a background in medicine or a higher education.
• We aren't really sure what relevant content you were referring to, so we were unable to give you all any feedback on those edits specifically.
• We did not notice any grammatical errors so far for the sections that you all have edited and each section is clear and concise.
• The first sentence of Bioprinting has some awkward wording that you all might want to look into. Using "such as" twice sort of threw off the flow of the sentence. Also, when you all used "and are thus..." the wording here could also be improved, especially since this is your first sentence of the section.
• All of your in-line citations and links to other Wikipedia pages were formatted correctly and linked to a functioning page. As far as we can tell, all of your sources that you have included so far seem reliable. When you go more in depth with terms, like the one that we have mentioned above, be sure to also use a reliable source and to link it into your article.
• There are a ton of cite errors at the bottom of your Wikipedia page, so we would suggest that you all look into them and edit those as well. Alh272 (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Gk252 (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)