I can't believe that guy made that at home! It sounds like it is very accurate, but it also seems (by the looks) small. I bet he can scale it up. You can't get a cell phone worth it's own for 100 bucks....great deal! I want one!
Well, it's not technologically imposible, although that price point is one heck of a hurdle to get over. On the other hand, the huge funding response might make it easier to achieve economies of scale.
The galvo motors are similar to what hard drives use to position their read/write heads. And as odd as it may sound, the sound card is a very good digital-to-analog converter. So in theory, this can work. It's quite a clever set of hacks, relying mostly on proven technologies, albeit being used in very nonconventional ways.
The hard parts will be the tuning. Getting the laser sweep distances to match the desired print dimensions will be tricky; the laser mount will need to be perfectly level *and* at exactly the correct height above the surface of the liquid. And getting a solid measurement of the actual liquid depth will be very finicky, and probably dangerously vulnerable to temperature changes, just to name one variable. To really make this work, some kind of easy and very robust method for setting and checking these calibrations will be absolutely required. Any collimation spread of the laser over distance would also play havoc with print accuracy as the print size increased.
That said, I signed up. For $100, it's a reasonable risk. If nothing else, it should push the state of the art in this part of the 3D-printing space.
This reminds me of the genius of Steve Wozniak when he made a floppy disk controller for the Apple II that used only 5 chips while the rest of the industry was using 125.
He realized the Apple II computer wasn't doing anything else, why not use it as part of the controller?
This 3D printer is using the microphone and speaker ports on the computer as the active portion of the controller. This way the printer does not have to be as smart as the other 3D printers on the market. You've already purchased the expensive parts of the printer when you bought you computer that is going to control it.
Of course the problem now will be keeping the computer on task, who hasn't experienced stutter on music playback. That could be killer for your print.
Yes, Chuck, I hate to be skeptical, and the video looks impressive, but I just wouldn't believe this is high-quality until I saw evidence of it myself. But you're right, it's good that inventors are working on the affordability angle for 3D printers and for sure some day one will be in nearly every home just like 2D ones are now.
@Charles: Yes if you consider the process of a product lifecycle that is a possibility but Im not sure that it will happen soon. Still the technology is new and it will take some good slot of time for it to reach the dying stage
"Rylan Grayston set out to make the 3D printer a realistic product for the average household. In doing so, he was successful enough to invent his own efficient design that did not sacrifice quality of parts. The Peachy Printer is marketed to be a $100 3D printer with its own unique method of printing."
Cabe, $100 is the cost of the printer or cost per printing item. If it's the cost of a printer, it's very affordable.
I agree, Liz. You get what you pay for. But I do view this as a small step in the affordability improvements in 3D printing. At some point, I believe reliable, useful 3D printers will be affordable for the average household.
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.