Stories with Tag Additive Manufacturing

• The Iconic 3DBenchy Enters the Public Domain

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-02-14 21:39:29

  Verbose tl;dr

  The popular 3D printer benchmark and test model, #3DBenchy, designed by Creative Tools, is now in the public domain. After ten years of copyright protection, anyone can freely use, modify, and distribute the Benchy model without restriction. This change opens up new possibilities for its use in education, research, and commercial projects. Creative Tools encourages continued community involvement and development around the Benchy model.

  The renowned and ubiquitously recognized 3D printing benchmark model, affectionately known as #3DBenchy, has transitioned into the public domain, signifying a momentous occasion for the additive manufacturing community. Originally conceived in 2015 by Creative Tools, a subsidiary of the Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), 3DBenchy has served as an invaluable tool for evaluating and calibrating 3D printers worldwide. Its intricate design, incorporating a multitude of challenging geometric features such as overhangs, curved surfaces, and fine details, provides a comprehensive assessment of a printer's capabilities across various parameters.

  This shift to the public domain, after a period of being freely available under a Creative Commons license, effectively eliminates all previous licensing restrictions, granting unrestricted freedom to users for modification, distribution, and commercial exploitation of the 3DBenchy design. This newfound liberation empowers users to not only utilize the model for its original purpose of printer calibration but also to adapt and incorporate it into derivative works without any legal encumbrances or attribution requirements. The transition underscores Creative Tools' commitment to fostering open innovation and promoting the widespread adoption of 3D printing technology. The company views the move as a catalyst for further development within the 3D printing ecosystem, envisioning a future where the iconic little tugboat continues to play a pivotal role in advancing the state-of-the-art. Essentially, 3DBenchy, once a proprietary design, now belongs to the community as a whole, free for all to utilize and build upon. This act of releasing the design underscores the maturation of the 3D printing industry and solidifies 3DBenchy's legacy as a cornerstone of the technology's advancement.

  • 3D printing
  • 3DBenchy
  • Benchmark
  • calibration
  • public domain
  • Copyright
  • Creative Commons
  • Open Source
  • 3D Model
  • Digital Design
  • Additive Manufacturing

  Summary of Comments ( 15 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43053350

  Verbose tl;dr

  Hacker News users discussed the implications of 3DBenchy entering the public domain, mostly focusing on its continued relevance. Some questioned its usefulness as a benchmark given advancements in 3D printing technology, suggesting it's more of a nostalgic icon than a practical tool. Others argued it remains a valuable quick print for testing new filaments or printer tweaks due to its familiarity and readily available troubleshooting information. A few comments highlighted the smart move by the original creators to release it publicly, ensuring its longevity and preventing others from profiting off of slightly modified versions. Several users expressed their appreciation for its simple yet effective design and its contribution to the 3D printing community.

  The Hacker News post "The Iconic 3DBenchy Enters the Public Domain" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43053350) has generated several comments discussing the implications of 3DBenchy's move to the public domain and its significance within the 3D printing community.

  Several commenters express positive sentiment about Creative Tools' decision. One user describes it as "a class act" and highlights the benefit to the community now that anyone can freely modify and distribute derivatives of the Benchy. This sentiment is echoed by another who emphasizes the freedom it grants for creating and selling modified Benchys without legal concerns.

  The discussion also touches upon the practical aspects of the public domain dedication. One commenter asks about the specific license used to ensure clarity and avoid potential misunderstandings regarding permitted usage. Another user responds, explaining that Creative Tools used CC0, which effectively relinquishes all copyright and related rights, placing the work firmly in the public domain. This exchange clarifies the legal ramifications of the decision.

  Furthermore, the conversation delves into the history and cultural impact of 3DBenchy. A commenter recalls its ubiquitous presence in the 3D printing world, highlighting its utility as a benchmarking and calibration tool. They also mention seeing various iterations and modifications, demonstrating its influence on the community's creativity. Another user recounts its role as a "torture test" for new printers and filaments, illustrating its practical value beyond just calibration.

  Some comments explore potential future uses of 3DBenchy now that it's in the public domain. One commenter suggests it could be incorporated into 3D modeling software as a standard test object. Another envisions its use in educational settings to teach 3D modeling principles. These comments highlight the potential for wider adoption and integration of Benchy across different applications.

  Finally, there's a discussion regarding the enduring legacy of 3DBenchy. One commenter expresses the belief that it will continue to be widely used and recognized within the 3D printing community, solidifying its status as an iconic design. Another user remarks on the infrequent occurrence of objects achieving this level of recognition in the digital realm, underscoring the significance of Benchy's public domain status.

  In summary, the comments on Hacker News reflect a generally positive response to 3DBenchy entering the public domain. They discuss the legal aspects of the decision, the practical implications for users, the historical context of Benchy's development, and its potential future uses. Overall, the comments paint a picture of a community that appreciates Creative Tools' generosity and anticipates the continued impact of this iconic 3D model.

• LMD: A new, less wasteful metal 3D printing technique

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-29 01:00:03

  Verbose tl;dr

  Laser Metal Deposition (LMD), a metal 3D printing technique, offers a less wasteful alternative to traditional powder bed fusion methods. Instead of using a powder bed, LMD precisely deposits metal powder directly into the laser's focal point, melting it onto the build platform layer by layer. This targeted approach significantly reduces material waste, particularly beneficial for expensive metals like titanium. Additionally, LMD allows for building onto existing structures, enabling repairs and hybrid manufacturing processes. While potentially slower than powder bed fusion for some geometries, its reduced material consumption and repair capabilities make it a promising technique for various applications.

  A novel metal 3D printing technique known as Laser Metal Deposition (LMD), also sometimes referred to as Directed Energy Deposition (DED), is gaining traction as a potentially more efficient and less wasteful alternative to traditional powder bed fusion methods like Selective Laser Melting (SLM). Core77's article details how LMD functions by precisely depositing metal powder directly onto a substrate via a focused laser beam, creating a molten pool that solidifies and builds up the desired three-dimensional structure layer by layer. This targeted deposition process stands in contrast to SLM, which uses a laser to melt a thin layer of pre-spread powder across an entire build platform.

  The key advantage of LMD lies in its significantly reduced material waste. Because the metal powder is applied only where it is needed, excess powder, a common byproduct of SLM, is minimized. This targeted application makes LMD especially attractive for producing large or complex parts, where the cost savings from reduced powder consumption can be substantial. Furthermore, the localized heating inherent in the LMD process leads to a smaller heat-affected zone, potentially resulting in improved material properties and less distortion in the finished product.

  The article highlights several potential applications of LMD, including repair and refurbishment of existing metal components, which is particularly difficult or impossible with powder bed fusion techniques. The ability to add material to existing parts opens up new possibilities for extending the lifespan of valuable components and reducing reliance on complete replacements. Additionally, LMD facilitates the creation of functionally graded materials – materials with varying composition and properties throughout their structure. This can be achieved by altering the composition of the deposited powder during the printing process, enabling the fabrication of parts with tailored performance characteristics.

  While LMD offers promising advantages, it's important to acknowledge that it is not without limitations. The surface finish achieved with LMD is generally rougher than that achieved with SLM, often requiring post-processing steps like machining or polishing. Additionally, the resolution of LMD, while continually improving, is typically not as fine as that of SLM. However, for applications where material efficiency and the ability to work with large components or repair existing parts are paramount, LMD presents a compelling and increasingly viable alternative to traditional metal 3D printing methods. The continued development and refinement of LMD technology promise to further expand its applicability and unlock new possibilities in the realm of additive manufacturing.

  • 3D printing
  • Additive Manufacturing
  • Metal 3D Printing
  • LMD
  • Laser Metal Deposition
  • manufacturing
  • sustainability
  • Waste Reduction
  • Material Efficiency
  • Metal Fabrication
  • Engineering
  • Technology
  • Innovation

  Summary of Comments ( 25 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42860172

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters generally express interest in LMD (Laser Metal Deposition), particularly its potential for repair and hybrid manufacturing. Several highlight the advantages over powder bed fusion methods, like reduced material waste and the ability to create larger parts. Some question the "new" claim, pointing to existing directed energy deposition (DED) techniques. Others discuss specific aspects, such as the challenges of controlling the melt pool and achieving precise geometries, the need for skilled operators, and the potential impact on different industries. A few users note the lack of specifics in the original article, like deposition rates and materials used, and desire more technical detail. Finally, comparisons are made to other additive manufacturing processes like WAAM (Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing).

  The Hacker News post discussing the Core77 article about LMD (Laser Metal Deposition) has a moderate number of comments, exploring various aspects of the technology and its potential impact.

  Several commenters discuss the existing landscape of metal 3D printing, comparing LMD to other techniques like powder bed fusion. One commenter points out that LMD isn't entirely new, having been around for a while, but acknowledges that it's becoming more accessible. They also note the benefits of LMD's ability to repair existing parts, which isn't easily achievable with powder bed fusion. This repair capability is echoed by another commenter who sees potential in using LMD for extending the lifespan of expensive components.

  Another thread of discussion revolves around the waste reduction aspects highlighted in the Core77 article. Commenters generally agree that LMD offers significant advantages in terms of material usage compared to subtractive manufacturing methods. However, some raise questions about the overall environmental impact, considering factors like the energy consumption of the laser and the potential for hazardous waste generation. One commenter specifically inquires about the types of metals compatible with LMD, wondering if it extends beyond the commonly used titanium, aluminum, and steel.

  The discussion also touches upon the potential applications of LMD. One commenter highlights the aerospace industry as a prime beneficiary, envisioning its use for creating complex, lightweight parts. Another commenter suggests that LMD could be useful in creating custom tooling for manufacturing processes.

  Finally, some commenters express skepticism about the claimed novelty of LMD, referencing existing techniques like directed energy deposition (DED). They suggest that the article might be overhyping a known process. However, others counter this by pointing out the specific advancements mentioned in the article, such as improved control over the deposition process and the integration of sensors for real-time monitoring.

• Machine learning and nano-3D printing produce nano-architected materials

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-28 19:52:39

  Verbose tl;dr

  Researchers at the University of Toronto have combined machine learning and two-photon lithography, a type of nano-3D printing, to create ultra-strong and lightweight materials. By training a machine learning algorithm on a dataset of nano-architectures and their corresponding mechanical properties, the team could predict the performance of new designs and optimize for desired characteristics like strength and density. This approach allowed them to fabricate nano-scale structures with exceptional strength-to-weight ratios, comparable to steel but as light as foam, opening up possibilities for applications in aerospace, biomedicine, and other fields.

  Researchers at the University of Toronto have achieved a groundbreaking advancement in the field of materials science by synergistically combining machine learning algorithms with sophisticated nano-3D printing techniques to fabricate novel nano-architected materials exhibiting exceptional mechanical properties. These meticulously designed materials possess a remarkable combination of high strength, comparable to steel, while simultaneously maintaining an incredibly low density, akin to lightweight foam. This achievement represents a significant leap forward in materials engineering, potentially revolutionizing various industries.

  The process begins with two-photon lithography, a high-resolution 3D printing method employed to create intricate nanoscale structures with unprecedented precision. This technique utilizes a tightly focused laser to polymerize a photosensitive resin, enabling the fabrication of complex architectures with features smaller than the wavelength of light. The researchers leveraged this capability to produce a diverse library of nano-lattices, varying the geometric parameters such as the size, shape, and connectivity of the structural elements.

  Crucially, the researchers then integrated machine learning into their workflow. By systematically characterizing the mechanical performance of each nano-lattice within the fabricated library through rigorous testing, they generated a comprehensive dataset linking structural characteristics to mechanical properties. This dataset was then used to train a machine learning model capable of predicting the performance of new, unseen nano-lattice designs. This predictive capability is transformative, allowing researchers to bypass the time-consuming and resource-intensive process of trial-and-error experimentation, and instead rapidly explore a vast design space to identify optimal configurations for specific applications.

  The outcome of this research is the development of nano-architected materials exhibiting an exceptional strength-to-weight ratio, a highly coveted characteristic in various engineering disciplines. These materials hold immense potential for applications ranging from aerospace components, where lightweight yet robust materials are critical for fuel efficiency and performance, to biomedical implants, where biocompatible and mechanically sound materials are essential. The ability to tailor the mechanical properties of these nano-architected materials through precise control over their geometry, facilitated by the predictive power of machine learning, opens up exciting new possibilities for designing next-generation materials with customized performance characteristics. This innovative approach represents a paradigm shift in materials development, moving from traditional empirical methods towards a more data-driven and computationally guided design process.

  • machine learning
  • Nano-3D Printing
  • Nanomaterials
  • Nano-architected Materials
  • Material Science
  • Additive Manufacturing
  • 3D printing
  • nanotechnology
  • High-Performance Materials
  • Mechanical Properties
  • Engineering
  • University of Toronto

  Summary of Comments ( 4 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42857091

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters express skepticism about the "strong as steel" claim, pointing out the lack of specific strength values and the likely brittleness of the material. Several discuss the challenges of scaling this type of nanomanufacturing and the high cost associated with it. Some express interest in seeing more data and rigorous testing, while others question the practical applications given the current limitations. The hype surrounding nanomaterials and 3D printing is also a recurring theme, with some commenters drawing parallels to previous over-promising technologies. Finally, there's discussion about the potential for machine learning in materials science and the novelty of the research approach.

  The Hacker News post discussing the University of Toronto's research on nano-architected materials generated several comments, mostly focusing on the potential applications and limitations of the technology.

  Several commenters expressed excitement about the possibilities of such strong yet lightweight materials. One commenter envisioned applications in aerospace, suggesting it could revolutionize aircraft and spacecraft design by significantly reducing weight while maintaining structural integrity. Another highlighted the potential for advancements in robotics, enabling stronger and more agile robots. The potential for lighter, more fuel-efficient vehicles was also mentioned.

  Some comments delved into more specific applications. One user speculated on the material's use in creating advanced prosthetics, offering amputees lighter and more durable limbs. Another suggested its potential in protective gear, envisioning lighter and more effective armor for military and law enforcement personnel. The possibility of using the material for everyday objects like bicycles and furniture was also discussed, highlighting the potential for widespread impact.

  However, some commenters also injected a dose of realism, cautioning against overhyping the technology at this early stage. Concerns were raised about the scalability and cost-effectiveness of nano-3D printing. One commenter pointed out the current limitations of 3D printing at larger scales, questioning whether this new process would be practical for producing large components. Another commenter questioned the economic viability, highlighting the potential high cost of producing these materials, which could limit their widespread adoption.

  One commenter specifically questioned the claimed strength-to-weight ratio, wondering if the comparison to steel was accurate, given the different failure modes of foam-like structures compared to solid steel. This comment sparked a discussion about the nuances of material strength and the importance of considering specific application requirements.

  Finally, a few comments focused on the role of machine learning in the research. One commenter praised the use of machine learning for optimizing the design of these complex structures, acknowledging the difficulty of designing such intricate architectures manually. Another comment inquired about the specific machine learning techniques employed, demonstrating a deeper interest in the technical aspects of the research.

• Show HN: 3D printing giant things with a Python jigsaw generator

  permalink

  Posted: 2025-01-23 13:35:04

  Verbose tl;dr

  Cal Bryant created a Python script to generate interlocking jigsaw puzzle pieces for 3D models, enabling the printing of objects larger than a printer's build volume. The script slices the model into customizable, interlocking chunks that can be individually printed and then assembled. The blog post details the process, including the Python code, demonstrating its use with a large articulated dragon model printed in PLA. The jigsaw approach simplifies large-scale 3D printing by removing the need for complex post-processing and allowing for greater design freedom.

  Cal Bryant, the author of the blog post "3D Printing Giant Things with a Python Jigsaw Generator," details their process of creating large, physically complex 3D prints by breaking them down into smaller, interlocking pieces. Motivated by the size limitations of their 3D printer and the desire to create a complex, multi-material Celtic knot, Bryant developed a Python-based tool to automate the segmentation and connection of large 3D models.

  The post begins by explaining the challenges of printing large objects, focusing on the constraints of printer build volume. It then introduces the concept of dividing the model into smaller, printable pieces analogous to jigsaw puzzle pieces. Bryant highlights the key requirements of such a system: the pieces must be manageable in size, interlock securely, and ideally, minimize the visible seams after assembly.

  The core of the post describes the Python script Bryant developed. This script takes a 3D model as input, preferably in STL format, and processes it to generate the interlocking pieces. The process involves using OpenSCAD, an open-source 3D modeling software, for creating the interlocking geometry. Specifically, the script generates OpenSCAD code that adds "positive" and "negative" connector shapes, effectively creating male and female components that fit together. The script allows for customization of the size and number of these connector pieces. After generating the OpenSCAD code, the script executes OpenSCAD to create the final segmented STL files ready for 3D printing.

  Bryant also outlines the iterative development of the connector design, experimenting with different shapes and sizes to achieve a robust and easily printable interlocking mechanism. The chosen design incorporates small cylindrical pegs and corresponding holes, enabling firm connection and accurate alignment. The post further emphasizes the advantages of using OpenSCAD's parametric modeling capabilities for adjusting the connector size and optimizing the segmentation process.

  The culmination of this process is demonstrated with the successful printing and assembly of the intricate Celtic knot, showcasing the practicality and effectiveness of Bryant’s Python-based jigsaw generator. The post concludes by mentioning future potential improvements to the script, such as incorporating automatic slicing and support generation. This, according to Bryant, would streamline the workflow from 3D model to finished print even further, making the creation of large and complex 3D printed objects more accessible.

  • 3D printing
  • Python
  • Jigsaw
  • Generator
  • Large Scale Printing
  • Additive Manufacturing
  • CAD
  • STL
  • G-Code
  • OpenSCAD
  • Digital Fabrication
  • DIY

  Summary of Comments ( 29 )
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42803822

  Verbose tl;dr

  HN commenters generally praised the project for its cleverness and potential applications. Several suggested improvements or alternative approaches, such as using dovetails for stronger joints, exploring different infill patterns for lighter prints, and considering kerf bends for curved surfaces. Some pointed out existing tools like OpenSCAD that could be leveraged. There was discussion about the practicality of printing large objects in pieces and the challenges of assembly, with suggestions like numbered pieces and alignment features. A few users expressed interest in using the tool for specific projects like building a kayak or a large enclosure. The creator responded to several comments, clarifying design choices and acknowledging the suggestions for future development.

  The Hacker News post discussing the 3D printing of large objects using a Python jigsaw generator elicited several interesting comments.

  One commenter highlighted the practicality of the approach, especially for those lacking large-format 3D printers. They pointed out that breaking down a large model into smaller, interlocking pieces allows for printing on more commonly available smaller printers, effectively expanding the range of printable object sizes. This commenter also raised the issue of seams and post-processing work required to assemble and finish the final product.

  Another commenter focused on the cleverness of the jigsaw pattern itself, praising its simplicity and effectiveness. They appreciated the balance struck between the complexity of the generated pieces and the ease of assembly. They also specifically called out the positive and negative tolerances built into the design to accommodate the slight variations inherent in the 3D printing process.

  A further comment delved into the technical aspects, inquiring about the specific algorithm used for generating the jigsaw pattern. This sparked a brief exchange with the original poster (OP), who clarified the method used and hinted at potential future improvements and explorations, including the possibility of variable connector sizes for different sections and the exploration of alternative shapes beyond simple jigsaw pieces.

  Another user expressed appreciation for the open-source nature of the project, acknowledging the value of shared knowledge and the potential for community contributions and improvements. They also suggested a possible application beyond 3D printing, envisioning its use in CNC milling or laser cutting.

  A few other commenters offered additional suggestions and perspectives, including:

  • Material considerations: A commenter mentioned the importance of material selection, particularly when scaling up. They noted that the structural integrity of the assembled piece relies heavily on the material properties and the chosen joinery method.
  • Alternative software: Another user mentioned existing commercial software with similar functionalities, providing a point of comparison for the OP's project.
  • Printing orientation: A comment briefly touched upon the importance of print orientation for individual pieces, suggesting it as a factor to consider for optimal strength and minimizing support material.

  Overall, the comments reflect a positive reception of the project, praising its ingenuity, practicality, and open-source nature. They also highlight some of the challenges and considerations involved in large-format 3D printing using this method, such as seam management, material selection, and the complexity of the generation algorithm.