Tuesday, December 2, 2014

3D Printing Typography

When we think of printing typography our thoughts naturally wander to posters, signs, billboards, newspapers and other manifestations of words in print. With the advent of 3D printing we can breathe a third dimension into this historically flat form of communication. With 3D typography we can make things like cake toppers, name plates, word sculptures and more!

While there are many ways to make 3D printable type this is an easy 10 step method using a basic vector program to layout our design and a browser-based 3D modeling program to make it 3D.

Software:
- Adobe Illustrator (CS5 or later)
- TinkerCAD Account

Hardware:
- 3D Printer or 3D Printer Service Bureau (Shapeways, Sculpteo, etc..)


3D Printable Type in 10 Easy Steps


1. Open up Adobe Illustrator and create a new document.



2. Using the Type Tool (the one with the little T) type out your message and pick your fonts.



3. Right click on the letters you just typed out and from the pop up menu choose "Create Outlines". After this step you wont be able change your font choice because the "Create Outlines" functions this turns the words you just typed out into vector shapes rather than type tool addressable letters.



4. Make all of the letters overlap. You can do this by moving the whole letter to overlap with another or using the newly created points on the letter outlines we can drag just certain pieces over.



5. Making sure all of your letters are overlapping in at least one spot use the Shape Builder Tool to combine all of the letters into one word shape.


6. Save your file as an .SVG

7. Open a new TinkerCAD Project.




8. Navigate to the "Import" menu on the right side of the TinkerCAD workspace and import the .SVG file you just created.



9. When TinkerCAD finishes importing your .SVG file scale it to the appropriate size and under the "File" menu download the .STL for 3D printing.



10. Send your .STL to your 3D Printer and enjoy your 3D printed type!



Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Understanding Shells, Layer Height and Infill

Getting great products out of a 3D printer requires an understanding of the settings that will ultimately dictate how the object feels in your hand. Those settings are the number of shells, infill percentage and layer height which directly control the density, surface finish and durability of the final print.

Shells and Parameters

Examples ranging from 0% to 100% of 3d printed infillIf we think about each printed layer of an object as a two- dimensional drawing laid out on the X and Y axes, then the number of shells on the object refers to the number of times the outline of the drawing is retraced. If the printer only traces the outline once, it is said to have one shell, if it retraces the outline a second time then it is said to have two shells. They are called shells because they are the outer most layer of the object and ultimately the part of the object we see and interact with.

The more shells on an object, the stronger it is. However, adding shells will also increase the print time significantly. Shells are also referred to as perimeters in some software and documentation.

Rule-of-thumb: Use fewer shells when prototyping or printing decorative objects, use more shells when printing items that will be put under more stress.

Layer Height

The number of layers in a print, or the object’s resolution, is determined by the layer height setting. Layer height is measured in microns (one millionth of a meter).

High-res objects use many very thin layers to create a smooth object. With high-resolution printing it becomes difficult to see individual layers in the object because layers are printed as thin as a sheet of paper at a thickness of just 100 microns (0.1mm).

Low-res objects are made of fewer, thicker layers. These objects feel rough to the touch and contain layers that are more visible to the eye, like sediment or the rings of a tree.

Items intended for display purposes are typically printed in high resolution, while prototypes and everyday objects can usually be printed at lower resolutions and at faster speeds.

High-resolution objects take longer to produce than low resolution ones. This is because for every one layer of a low-resolution object, there could be 5 times as many layers in a high resolution object. Each of those layers is extra time spent printing, but they can make a substantial difference in visual quality.

Rule-of-thumb: Use a bigger layer height for prototyping and rapid production, use a smaller layer height for display objects and more-accurate tolerances

Infill

Infill is the material used to fill the empty space inside the shell of an object, it refers to the density. Infill is measured by percentage, so an object printed at 100% infill will be 100% solid. More infill will make an object stronger, heavier, and slower to build. Likewise, less infill is lighter and quicker to build.

A 3D printer can extrude infill in several patterns. Some slicing engines create a grid pattern while others will use hexagonal or other geometric patterns. Items printed for display purposes rarely need more than 10%-20% infill, but functioning mechanical parts and pieces that will take more abuse will need 75%-100% infill.

Rule-of-thumb: Use less infill on test objects and prototypes that wont be subjected much stress, use more infill on functional mechanical parts and objects that need to be durable.

Monday, September 9, 2013

Steps to clear a clogged 3D-printer nozzle

Most popular 3D printers on the market -- Makerbot, Ultimaker, Cube, etc -- use a process called Fused Filament Fabrication (FFF), where objects are made by the gradual depositing of melted plastic, one on top of the next. As any plumber will tell you, where there is liquid moving through a tube, there is bound to be the occasional clog. Since 3D printers work just like this, if you own or operate one, then chances are you will eventually run into a clogged nozzle.

Nozzle clogs happen for any number of reasons, but they are always frustrating. Some degraded filament may have gummed up the extruder, or a bit of a dust bunny could have wedged inside. This will cause all sorts of issues, from poor flow, to jamming or no flow at all. Regardless of the reason or resulting issue,  you've got to get your nozzle clean. Chances are, if you are like me, you have scoured the internet looking for information and found suggestions like jamming utensils into your nozzles hole, or creating an insane inferno with a blow torch in an attempt to remove the offending clog. Well here's what I have discovered to be the best way to remove a clog.

So your nozzle is clogged, now what?

The best way to clean a clog from a 3D printer nozzle is to soak it up using molten filament, and then pulling it out once it begins to harden. To do this, you will need Nylon Filament (which can be purchased at Taulman3D). It makes the ideal filament for cleaning because of it's slippery nature and viscosity, which helps in removing more of the clogged matter than PLA.

Nozzle Cleaning Steps:

1. Heat the nozzle to 200C

2. Run Nylon filament through the extruder

3. With Nylon in the nozzle, reduce the temperature to 135C,  and once there let it sit for a minute

4. Slowly but firmly work the filament out of the top of the extruder

The key is to slowly work the filament out, millimeter by millimeter. You will know that you got the whole thing back out when you can see the narrow plastic that made it into the tip of the extruder.

If you pull too hard, or yank the filament too violently, it will break off inside the nozzle and you will have to repeat.

5. Repeat steps 1-4 until the filament you remove from the nozzle comes out clean

Steps to a cleared nozzle






Saturday, May 18, 2013

"This is Automation" by General Electric, 1955


What is Automation?? Find out that and more in this 1955 educational video from General Electric

Tuesday, April 16, 2013

SLIDE | Printable iPhone Slider


SLIDE, a 3D printable set of iPhone camera sliders for cinematic video. Learn more here - thing:74307

Thursday, April 11, 2013

Living with the Atom - 1957


In "Living With The Atom" the viewer learns about the discovery of the atom, its structure, its energy, and tests with atomic and hydrogen bombs.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

The Steam Locomotive


Promotional film from 1938, made by the New York Central RailRoad, explaining the in's and out's of the steam engine locomotive. Features the "Hudson" locomotive.

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Arteries of NYC 1940


A Video from the 1940's explaining the transportation routes leading into New York City and the details of future transportation and infrastructure planning. Roads, railways, subways, trolleys and waterways are examined with many scenes of downtown New York interspersed.

Tuesday, April 2, 2013

Say Hello to the Avanti


"The 1963 Avanti was the last ditch effort of Sherwood Egbert to rescue the faltering Studebaker. Once again, the company turned to its ace in the hole, stylist Raymond Loewy, to conceive a car that would miraculously turn things around. He rented a house in Palm Springs and there with three young designers and with missionary zeal embarked on creating something new and revolutionary. The result -- the Avanti, got attention but didn't save the company. Studebaker was gone three years later."

Friday, March 22, 2013

What is 3D Printing and How Does it Work?

The phrase 3D Printing has popped up in the media everywhere from Jay Leno's garage to the cover of multiple tech magazines. Many people are curious to learn more, but given the adolescent stage of the technology there isn't much information to be found. Here I try to address that lack of information.
Q: What is 3D Printing?
A: The process of making a three-dimensional object from a digital model.
I've broken everything down into three main sections. In the first section I outline and explain the most popular types of 3D printing. The second section addresses the characteristics of 3D printed objects. Finally, the last part discusses current desktop 3D printer software.

Types of 3D Printing

Just like there isn't one way to print on paper (ie. laser vs inkjet), there are multiple ways of 3D printing an object. The types of 3D printing most popularly used in the industry are Fused Deposition Modeling, Selective Laser Sintering and Stereolithography.

Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is the most popular type of 3D printing on the market. If we pull apart the name...
  • Fused: to join or blend to form a single entity
  • Deposition: to put or set down in a specific place
  • Modeling: the activity of making a three-dimensional representation of a thing
... it becomes much less intimidating. FDM is a fancy way of saying it attaches layers of plastic on top of one another in order to make a thing. I typically refer to this type of printing as a "glorified hot glue gun" because it works the exact same way: The extruder pulls in plastic filament (or string) and pushes it through a very hot piece of metal which then 'extrudes' (or spits) it out in a specific pattern.

The other two industry popular types are called Sterolithography (SLA) and Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), and both refer to a process where a laser or other focused light source is pointed into a bath of liquid plastic or resin that when hit with the light source will harden. The machine will draw layer by layer precise images in the liquid which will harden as it goes. When it is finished, you are left with a solid model. The biggest hurdles for SLS and SLA to overcome are the objects they produce are still very brittle, in addition to the high cost of this resin and technology relative to FDM machines.

Characteristics of 3D Printed Objects

A photograph can have high-resolution or low-resolution, where high-res is a lot of pixels very densely packed together so our eyes see one smooth picture, and low-res has fewer pixels and therefore the picture looks more blocky and less smooth.

High-Resolution Photo
Low-Resolution Photo













In 3D printing there are also high-resolution objects and low-resolution objects. A high-res object is one that has very very thin layers (some can be thinner then a slice of paper) so that you end up with a very smooth object where it's tough to see each individual layer. Whereas a low-res object has fewer and thicker layers, where you end up with a rougher object where you can very visibly see each layer.

High-Resolution - Beethoven Bust 
Low-Resolution - "Wells" The Robot





















High-resolution objects take longer to produce than low resolution. This is because for every one layer of a low resolution object there could be 5x as many layers in a high resolution object. Each one of those layers is extra time spent printing but can make a substancial difference in visual quality.

3D Printable Materials

As FDM machines are the most popular on the market, the materials those machines use are also the most popular right now. The material, called filament, is packaged much like spools of thread but are much larger and have plastic instead of cotton "string".

Spools of PLA Filament
Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), is one of the most popular plastics. It is traditionally used to make all sorts of plastic home goods and is the material of choice for LEGO. It's high performance in impact resistance and durability make it a versatile plastic. ABS is petroleum based and gives off a toxic fume when heated, this is not an issue with proper ventilation to the machine. ABS plastic slightly shrinks when it hardens which can cause an object to curl off of the build platform. To combat this machines incorporate a heated build platform; the equivalent of making your object on a hotplate.

The other most popular polymer is Polylactic Acid (PLA), a bio-degradable plastic made from corn. PLA is very strong and rigid; ABS is softer and more flexible. It's a popular choice for filament because as the plastic hardens it stays very true to its original size and does not require a heated build plate.

Experiments are being done with bleeding-edge materials like nylon, wood fiber, and polycarbonates by hobbyists in an effort to expand the library of materials for 3D printers.

SLS and SLA machines do not use plastic filament. Instead, they use a liquid resin (in this case an un-hardened plastic) that, when hit with the light source, hardens into a solid.

Although still in it's adolescence, 3D printing is quickly maturing and with it will come untold wonders.

Modeling Software - If you want to take a foray into 3D Printing, modeling is your first step. Historically, 3D modeling has been a challenging thing to do. The software has often been unwieldy and infuriating to navigate. Here is a list of programs that are helping to change that.

123D Design - http://123dapp.com/
Part of a suite of modeling software by Autodesk aimed at beginners to 3d modeling. The whole suite is provided for free and has companion iPhone apps that allow you to make 3D models of real things with your phone's camera. 

Sketchup - http://sketchup.com/

A Google-supported product, SketchUp is also popular, free and well documented.

Autodesk Inventors Fusion - http://labs.autodesk.com/technologies/fusion

Of the four programs, this is the most dense and has the highest barrier to entry. Definitely more in the advanced category, this is free software that gives more precise control of the modeling once you get the hang of the interface.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

Friday, March 1, 2013

Thoughts on ABS as a Filament

Additive manufacturing has been a popular topic lately. It was mentioned in President Obama's State of the Union address as an economic opportunity and appeared in Big Bang Theory in one of their schemes. I wanted to share some of my thoughts on desktop manufacturing and its trajectory.

The majority of '3D printer' manufacturers consider the capability to use ABS filament with their machines the gold standard.  They declare it to be 'experimental' and 'cutting edge' compared to other materials, but in fact the opposite is true. Allow me to explain.

First, a little history on of this type of manufacturing-- invented in 1989 by S. Scott Crump as a means of rapid prototyping, Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM) is the technical term for describing a process that attaches tiny layers of plastic on top of one another in order to make a thing. I sometimes describe this type of machine as a "glorified hot glue gun" because it works the exact same way: The extruder pulls in plastic filament (or string) and spits it out through a very hot piece of metal in a specific pattern.

The first plastic filament that Crump used was Acrylonitrile Butadiene Styrene (ABS), a popular plastic that is used to make all sorts of plastic home goods and the ever popular LEGO. It's high performance in impact resistance and durability make it a versatile plastic. ABS is petroleum based and gives off a toxic fume when heated, this is not an issue with proper ventilation to the machine. Part of the appeal of using ABS for injection molding is the plastic slightly shrinks when it hardens making it easy to pop out of the mold. However, this is exactly what makes it so difficult to use with FDM technology.

Here, shrinkage causes the object to curl off of the build platform leaving you with a warped object. A couple of things have been invented to combat this, the most effective of which is the heated build platform or build chamber. Which is either the equivalent of making your object on a hotplate or inside of box that you ran your hair dryer in. Both methods have been developed and refined since Crump's first experiments.

It's most frequently compared competitor is Polylactic Acid (PLA), a bio-degradable plastic made from corn. It is extruded at slightly lower temperatures than ABS but the biggest difference is it can be used at room temperature with little to no warp. PLA is very strong and rigid; ABS is softer and more flexible. When making complex moving objects in PLA you need to have very accurate tolerances as its strength makes it less forgiving.

ABS is a great material, from which more high resolution objects are being made everyday. This isn't experimentation though, this is refinement -- real experimentation is not in trying to do more with ABS, whose limitations are familiar to us, but in exploring new materials.

If we are truly trying to reach the next level of innovation whether it be in our ability to lower the cost of machines, make them more reliable, or expand their capabilities, all of it is hinged on our progress in material science -- On machines without a heated build element we can already use PLA, nylon, and wood based filament. With nylon its possible to make things ultra flexible, thin, strong and durable. The wood filament is cutting edge and makes it possible to cut, sand, or stain the object like regular wood. All are used at room temperature. These are just three materials that expand the capabilities of FDM technology and some of the most exciting innovations since Crump started.

If we remove the materials needed for a heated build element we have already lowered the price of the machine. With exploration of new materials, like the three I've mentioned, we can increase the reliability by focusing on materials that don't warp and have fewer sensitivities. With each new material, the properties of each expand the capabilities of the machine and it's application.  If we focus on finding cheap, renewable, and diverse materials we will be well on our way to the next generation of machines;

ABS was adopted for it's familiarity and has been successful for developing FDM technology. But the future of additive technology is about accessibility, affordability and capability, all of which the limitations of ABS fail to provide for. Machines that make useful objects reliably with very few sensitivities will win in desktop manufacturing. It's time we make way for the next generation.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

間 - Ma

Ma is the Japanese word for the space between two structural parts, the gap


Thirty spokes meet in the hub,
though the space between them
is the essence of the wheel.
Pots are formed from clay,
though the space inside them
is the essence of the pot.
Walls with windows and doors form the house,
though the space within them
is the essence of the house.


Friday, January 18, 2013

A Year After SOPA



An odium for internet culture among the general public can seem justified when headlines show the dangerously large sums of money spent acquiring businesses without profit, when its martyrs blur the line between libertarianism and terrorism, and when its largest community is described in pop culture as being “fueled by envy and lost innocence”
Standing in juxtaposition to the general public, digital natives, who were born into an online world, can also claim justification in their skepticism of traditional systems. They were forced to stand by and watch in the closing hours of 2012 as a divided House adjourned while the United States proceeded to hurl itself over the fiscal cliff, and while a known global warming skeptic and author of the SOPA bill was named the Congressional Chairmen of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee. A year ago these two worlds collided when the passing of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) came to a head on January 18, 2012.
Today marks one year since the unprecedented showing of internet activism that was the SOPA Blackout, where an astounding 75,000 registered websites, 25,000 WordPress blogs and countless other web affiliates blacked out in protest of the proposed legislation that attempted to completely overhaul the architecture of the Internet. 
This leaves us with the question: Where are we now?
As a refresher, SOPA, and it’s sister act in the Senate, PIPA (Protect Intellectual Property Act), were proposed bills that sought to address copyright infringement by enabling direct legal action against Internet Service Providers (ISPs) here in the United States. It proposed to allow the United States Attorney General, at the request of a copyright holder, to file legal action against websites that host or facilitate copyright infringing content by requiring American ISPs to block access to those webpages. Once notified, ISPs would have to act within five business days or face legal action. While copyright infringement is an issue and conversation we all need to address, the major problem with SOPA was in the largely open-ended nature of the act that would provide sweeping jurisdiction, and therefore immense power, to the US Attorney General to shut down or fundamentally alter webpages without the need for judges, juries or other due process. In essence, a complaint could become an immediate legal action without a court proceeding.
Since the blackout a year ago, there have been interesting developments on both sides of the discussion and some action around online sharing. Most notably, in 2012, we saw the U.S. Government illegally raid and shut down one of the most widely used file-hosting web services in a showing worthy of a Christopher Nolan film. Equally as deserving of place in a Nolan film, on the pro-internet side of the argument we saw the formation of the Internet Defense League with their ambiguous mission to “protect the open web” against “entrenched institutions and monopolies”. 
What is evident in these developments since SOPA is a distinct clash in culture between government and large corporations, with large and complex bureaucracies that struggle to match the pace of the rapidly growing online world, and the “Internet Community”, which has developed a fear of regulation that they see as serving antiquated systems which favor big money interests. This fear is somewhat understandable when you consider the way alleged copyright infringements are treated like acts of terror, enforced by armed FBI agents in a scene eerily reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984.  It would seem the struggle over governance of the Internet has started to resemble the streets of Gotham, riddled with fear and questionable actions on both sides, and without much hope of resolution.
Where do we go from here? Given my comparison to Gotham City, the natural train of thought would be to look for a masked vigilante to swoop in and serve swift justice to the bad guys. The problem with the current situation is, in my opinion, there aren’t “good guys” or “bad guys”. The real issue in this debate is that both parties are missing a critical piece of the equation: education. 
We as the creators, suppliers, users and natives of the Internet need to do our part to help educate others and facilitate understanding about how, why and in what ways the Internet is used. It is important that we take the time and give evidence when we claim that the repurposing of copyrighted content in the form of GIFs, YouTube videos and memes isn’t infringement or piracy but the nature of creativity and learning. We demand transparency and yet we need to be more transparent ourselves. It’s easy to get frustrated with mom or dad when trying to explain “social media”, but until we take the time and map it out in ways familiar and understandable to them, we are only perpetuating the same fears and misconceptions that threaten to repress our freedoms in the first place. 
As we open this dialogue, we need our representatives, the elected officials who are quite literally deciding the future of American growth and competitiveness, to show an equal effort. Our legislators must commit the time to learning and truly understanding what is at stake — not just monied interests, but American interests — and advocate on behalf of the Internet and their digital constituents who represent a big part of our nation’s economic future. From Congress we need transparency in lawmaking,  as well as well-defined, intelligent policies that enable and empower the enrichment of the Internet and its vast potential. All of this starts with education. 
We fear what we do not understand, and right now we sit across the table from each other confused, skeptical and fearful. This will continue as long as we lack knowledge about each other and our intentions. Very soon, the Internet will fuel the exchange of more than just media content, with movements like open hardware and desktop fabrication that will soon deliver things — digital objects and other atom-based items — we can send, copy and produce in our own homes. This is already happening globally, and from here it’s only a matter of time before we are sharing more complex files over the web like biomaterials and even DNA sequences. It’s time we have this conversation, and in order to do so we need to take the time and educate one another. 
So I challenge you in 2013, a year after SOPA, to take the time to learn and truly understand that which you do not. No matter which side of this issue you find yourself on, help others from other generations, fields, and industries to do the same. Where will be a year from now? Will we still be asking where do we go from here? Or will our education of self and others dictate a direction in which we can all proceed with confidence? You decide.

Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Reflection on Lance Armstrong


For 8 years, ever since I first fell in love with the sport of Cycling, I have proudly worn a Livestrong bracelet on my left wrist. There is a full shelf in my book collection that is chocked full of yellow spines and bold yellow letting filled with information on the ins and outs of the sport of Cycling and more specifically, Lance Armstrong.

As media outlets do so well these days, when I woke up this morning on virtually every news outlet the titles screamed of Lance Armstrong's confession to Oprah. The reporting ranged from purely factual to that reminiscent of an angry mob demanding Lance's head on a platter, and I do not begrudge anyone on either end of the discussion of their opinions or feelings. The fact of the matter is Lance Armstrong systematically lied, cheated, and ostracized others all while reaping the benefit and avoiding the consequences of his actions.

In the past when people asked me "Do you think he doped?", I often responded with "I don't know. It doesn't really matter to me, the seven wins aren't what interest me about Lance". As someone who grew up idolizing the great inventors of years past, what I admired about Lance Armstrong during the era in which he competed for the seven Tour De France titles was not his athletic ability, but rather his wherewithal to examine, engineer and improve upon the commonly accepted fundamentals of the sport and the detail and level of execution to which he was able to do so.

Before Lance Armstrong arrived on the podium in France, the world of cycling was still fairly crude. The majority of teams were still riding aluminum bikes, with descent mechanical components, and virtually no helmets. A lot of the norms for fitness, maintenance, and understanding of how to win was based on the historical status quo and traditions of a competitive sport that was well over a hundred years in age. When Lance Armstrong returned from his battle with cancer he took a detail oriented approach to examining every aspect of the sport.

With his teams at Nike and Trek they developed wind suits with dimples like a golf ball to reduce drag during time trials, they were some of the first to look at not just weight reduction with carbon fiber bikes but how the carbon fiber was laid up so it was stiffer, more compliant and allowed for a greater transfer of power then any other material on the planet. They recorded, analyzed and reproduced the most common wind scenarios for the various stages of the Tour de France within wind tunnels so they could test, refine and develop the fastest racing technology on the market. He and his team were meticulous about the power data, caloric intake and some of the first to implore the use of compression recovery techniques. The Lance Armstrong team helped launch the technology and science of cycling into the world it is today where we are measuring bike frames in grams instead of pounds, where amateur cyclists can intelligently and accurately discuss power-to-weight ratios because of affordable power meters, and where training regimens and recovery cycles are hotly debated topics on forums everywhere. Much of this being trickle-down benefits of the work that Armstrong and his support team did. This is the part of Lance Armstrong I have always admired.

The fact remains though that Lance Armstrong committed a number of wrong-doings which he did not own up to nor face the consequences for, all while perpetuating a state of fear for those who did speak the truth, and that is not a person I admire.

This leaves me with a decision: do I continue to wear the bracelet that for me has represented the ingenuity of an American mind to challenge and fundamentally change an entire industry, or do I remove it because as it turns out that same harrowing attention to detail, ability to methodically analyze circumstances and commitment to building the fastest human racing machine on the planet is the very same one that chose to dope and in the process lie to and deceive the many people who believed in him? This will take some consideration.