Talk:3D printing/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Additive vs. Subtractive

Given the recent development of small, low-cost 3D printers that subtract material vs. adding it, are we justified in implying that only additive technologies are 3D printing? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting question—I am not aware of which specific printers you referred to above and exactly how they combine subtraction with addition, but I do know that machine tool builders are already building machine tools in which machining and SLS or DMLS coexist. It is hard to say how the retronymy and neologism are going to play out; one thing is certain, though: we are on our way to such thorough integrations of additive and subtractive methods that the way we use the terminology today is going to change further. The terminology in this article still reflects the speech of today (so I don't think it's time yet to change it); but how long will it be before they both change? An analogy (another instance of rapid technological change fueling rapid terminological change) is PDAs and cell phones. Now we just have smartphones that combine the two, and the term "PDA" is no longer used. I can envision a time when commonly used terminology no longer routinely treats 3D printers and multitasking machine tools as two separate topics. We are going to have to have one term that means "a machine that makes a wide variety of things by any number of gee-whiz methods working in concert". Cognitively similar to what "replicator" meant on Star Trek, although we are many decades away from having anything as amazingly magical-seeming as the Star Trek version. But just as people in the 1920s needed a word for a robot (even though it was long before any amazingly magical-seeming robots were a reality and even though the word "automaton" already existed for things like mechanical Turks and mechanical ducks), so will people of the 2030s (2020s?) need a word, I suspect, for "making machines" ("maker machines"?) that no longer implicitly or explicitly classifies by additive-only or subtractive-only (even though it will be long before any Star Trek replicators are a reality and even though words like "machine tool" and "maker" already exist for things like MTMs and breadmakers and icemakers). Given how retronymy usually works, existing words may develop new default senses, rather than new words being coined. For example, iPhones and iPads are called "phones" and "tablets" even though those words long predate those senses. And the word "maker" is ancient, and we already had the word "manufacturer", but just within the past decade, we've developed a new connotation of "maker", and it's not a synonym of "manufacturer", even though another sense of "maker" is synonymous with "manufacturer" (e.g., "automaker" is a synonym of "car manufacturer", and a news article can call Dell a "PC maker"). Interesting how natural language deals with taxonomic and ontologic change, how IT deals with them, and how the two interact. — ¾-10 00:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Laminated manufacturing

I am aware that, in the past, there were machines developed for additive laminate manufacturing of metal - and not using the "de-blocking" (substractive) technology that LOM or MCOR has to use after the (paper) lamination. However I would like to follow up and find the reference in the main article that refers to lamination machines for plastic and metal - as there is no reference given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.220.246.84 (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Does "STL" stand for "Stereolithography"?

This article says that Chuck Hull "developed the STL (STereoLithography) file format" and links to the STL (file format) page, but over there it says that "the acronym is often mistakenly believed to stand for 'Stereolithography'". If that's true we should delete the parenthetical here, and if it's false we should get the claim removed from that page. (I honestly don't know.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, the claim about "mistakenly believed" has been reverted[1]. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Article Split: 3D printing and Additive manufacturing

I'm proposing a split of this article into two separate articles: 3D printing and Additive manufacturing. The articles were originally separate up until March of 2012, when User:GliderMaven merged the additive manufacturing article into this one. However, I believe that merge was in error, as the ASTM standard definition for additive manufacturing is not interchangeable with 3D printing (in fact, 3D printing is defined as a subset of additive manufacturing). Thus the two articles should be re-separated, especially as the bulk of the current 3D printing article refers to technologies and processes which are technically only additive manufacturing. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 02:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

We may need more info on this. What are examples of 3D printing that does not use additive manufacturing process? What are examples of AM that cannot be called 3D printing? Are there references that clearly describe the differences between the two? Z22 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Support I can attest that in the scientific literature 3d Printing and Additive Manufacturing (AM) are certainly not synonymous. As mentioned 3d Printing is the subset of AM. Here are a few examples of recent papers where 3DP is explicitly referred to as a separate technique; [[2]][[3]][[4]]Ezrado (talk) 17:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment The problem with a split is that although the original sense of "3D printing" is a subset of additive manufacturing, there is now a widely used sense that is synonymous with AM. This is not rare in natural language, where one sense of a word is a hyponym of its other main sense. It is hard to think of examples off the top of one's head, but they are not remarkably rare. Other examples are "diabetes" (one sense is a hypernym of "diabetes mellitus"; another widely used sense is a synonym of it) and "myeloma" (one sense is a hypernym of "multiple myeloma"; another widely used sense is a synonym of it) [thought of another important example later; added below]. As for Z22's questions: (1) "What are examples of 3D printing that does not use additive manufacturing process?" Answer: none, using currently common definitions of those terms. (2) "What are examples of AM that cannot be called 3D printing?" Answer: People trying to fight against the adoption of the newer sense can argue that metal sintering processes such as DMLS and SLS 'cannot' be called "3D printing" because that term only refers to polymer-depositing processes, but that no longer reflects how the term is widely used. Doesn't mean that any particular person can't refuse to use it that way; but Wikipedia trying to refuse is another, more awkward thing. (3) "Are there references that clearly describe the differences between the two?" I very much doubt it, but I'd be happy to be proved wrong. — ¾-10 22:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC) [Added example: There is a usage preference about the word acronym that divides acronyms, in a narrow sense of that word (pronounced as words, eg, NATO), from initialisms (pronounces as letter strings, eg, DNA); but there is also a common and important broad sense of the word acronym that is a hypernym of both the aforementioned narrower sense and initialism, and Wikipedia covers them both (and explains all this) in an article titled acronym (which initialism redirects to), even though the article title was once acronym and initialism (stable consensus moved it to the broader sense). An analogy here would be that just as this article is not titled 3D printing and additive manufacturing but rather is titled 3D printing (reflecting the widespread broad sense) and explains the usage variations in the Terminology and methods section, that article is not titled acronym and initialism but rather is titled acronym (reflecting the widespread broad sense) and explains the usage variations in the nomenclature section. — ¾-10 22:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)]

In lacking of any references that can clearly differentiate the two, I think we have no supportive reasons to split. Also, I have seen a lot of references to metal 3D printing like [5]. Manufacturer also use both terms [6][7]. So I guess the terms have been used interchangeably nowadays even in the case of non-polymer. Z22 (talk) 23:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

See my references. above Ezrado (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

oppose the article's bad enough already, no point making it even worse. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Yup, 3D printing may (or may not) be considered a subset of additive manufacturing depending on who you ask, but this isn't particularly a problem. The article is actually about (what is commonly referred to as) additive manufacturing in all its many forms, it's only called '3D printing' because that's the most WP:common name that users search for. That's just the way the policies of Wikipedia work. The principle is that Wikipedia is not an English usage guide, Wikipedia is not defining the term '3D printing' or even 'additive manufacturing' it's about covering some topic, in this case the different methods for making 3D stuff from a computer file with special purpose robots.GliderMaven (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Right now, 3D printing is the WP:common name for smallish, cheapish machines that make stuff at home or in a lab in small quantities using all sorts of additive and subtractive technologies, as opposed to the older, larger, more expensive machines that make stuff in large quantities on factory floors, typically using Machine tools, which we cover in our article on Numerical control -- the WP:common name for that technology. We can revisit this question in a year or so and see if common usage has evolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Name: 3D printing vs Additive Manufacturing

ASTM and ISO both refer to these technologies as additive manufacturing and not 3D-printing. Therefore, the article header should be Additive Manufacturing. 109.247.186.164 (talk) 12:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:COMMONNAME and WP:OFFICIALNAMES. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The word "printing" is a bit of a gimmick word in this context. It's being widely used by the dimwitted media alright (and pushed by entrepreneurs) but it's unhelpful for describing the technology - we're not talking about anything close to the kind of printing you'll do on paper or cloth, or even circuitry printing on silicon. Even if the process gets extended to 3-D by analogy, "printing" a machine, a pair of shoes or food is simply a muddy branding metaphor. The vast majority of people, educated people too, associate the concept of printing with having a surface that's wholly or mostly made of a single material - paper, wood, cloth, plastic - and some set of signs, grooves, letters or indentions being pressed, inked or coloured onto that surface. Making a new object out of several different raw materials isn't really what we understand as printing, it's more like modelling, additive architecture or the like. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural. This is often referred to using the Wikipedia short cut term: "COMMONNAME".

Sorry, but that's our policy. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be easy to set "3D printing" as a redirect to "Additive Manufacturing"; that way people looking for the moniker or using the word in hyperlinks from other articles would still get taken to the right place. I agree with the OP that "additive manufacturing" is a better description, and also preferred by ISO and (most likely) by many scientific academic journals. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it would be easy, but that's not how the COMMONNAME policy works. It wouldn't make a lot of difference anyway, it's such a common term we'd still have to cover it.

And I don't agree that it's the wrong term. The principles of laser and ink jet printing are virtually the same as metal powder binding and extrusion deposition. A 3D printer is mostly just a vector plotter-style printer that uses much thicker 'ink' and prints multiple times, the basic printing processes are virtually the same.GliderMaven (talk) 15:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This is absolutely not true, there are some similarities between powder bed additive manufacturing (known as 3D printing in the literature) and inkjet "2D" printing, but the majority of additive manufacturing methods bear no resemblance to this. Take selective laser sintering, fused deposition modelling and LOM to name a few. This is why any reputable scientific journal uses the term "additive manufacturing" for the group of methods and "3D Printing" for inkjet powder bed methods exclusively. Ezrado (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It really is true. Selective laser sintering is one form of laser printing. Fused deposition modelling is very similar to ink jet printing; but they're both a form of deposition printing. Plotters for example, are a type of printer, and many 3D printers are glorified plotters. It turns out, who knew, that the concept of printing is extremely fluid and extremely wide, it's not just putting things onto paper, you can print onto walls, tiles, silicon, windows, metal, plastic, plastic multiple times, in its full glory it includes things like manufacturing silicon chips (photolithography), and yes, 3D printing/additive manufacturing is considered to be a printing process.GliderMaven (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Common names are preferred but not explicitly required, as you know Guy. I think a strong case can be made here for using the technically correct name, given how misleading "3D Printing" is. Besides, "additive manufacturing" is not exactly an uncommon name. Ezrado (talk) 14:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, who is being mislead into doing what?GliderMaven (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The reader is being mislead as to how most additive manufacturing processes work, see my response above. Ezrado (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, they're really not; and neither term is incorrect.

If '3D printer' meant something else, then yes. But it absolutely doesn't, it's being used completely correctly, in the way that it is used.

For sound reasons, Wikipedia avoids technical language in article names, particularly on high visibility articles like this one.GliderMaven (talk) 18:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I get the feeling that some of those who want to get rid of the current name failed to follow my advice ("Please read Wikipedia:Article titles and Wikipedia:Official names"). Any name change must follow those policies. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Guy, from WP:COMMONNAME it says "the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred". In this case, wouldn't the reliable sources be all the scientific journals, ISO, ASTM and members of academia (favouring Additive Manufacturing), rather than tabloids and general media? In my opinion, the article should change title, and start with "Additive manufacturing, or commonly known as 3D-printing, is...". This way, the general public may start to understand that AM is a range of technologies, and not just printing (which usually involves depositing material, quite different from photopolymerization or sterolithography). (OP) 37.191.192.122 (talk) 12:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The general media are reliable sources. We use the common name as used in the general media, not the name used in scientific journals. That's why we have an article on Walking instead of an article on Ambulation, even though ambulation is the term used in most medical journals. Your suggestion that "this way, the general public may start to understand..." would be a violation of our WP:NPOV policy. It isn't Wikipedia's place to attempt to influence what the common name is. It is our job to accurately report what the common name is, whether we agree with it or not. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

But in that case they mean the same thing -- in this case 3DP is AM but all AM is not 3DP!--Fdm11 (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Wrong. You're assuming that there's a single definition for 3DP where 3DP is a subset of AM; but there isn't, there's multiple definitions. One of the definitions of 3DP is simply AM. It turns out that it's best for an encyclopedia to always pick the more general definition in these kinds of situations otherwise there's massive duplication of material. Don't forget wikipedia is not primarily defining the terms "additive manufacturing" or "3D printing", it is not primarily concerned with terminology.GliderMaven (talk) 15:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is additive manufacturing redirecting here?

There are other forms of additive manufacturing besides 3D printing. See the TOC for example in: Gibson, I., Rosen, D. W., & Stucker, B. (2010). Additive manufacturing technologies. New York: Springer. I think this was caused by over eager editing to condense concepts. AM is well defined in the literature -- and should have its own page. --Fdm11 (talk) 12:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We have a problem here in that a bad article was made worse by some poor merging, than staunchly defended in that state by one editor. Of course you're right - AM is a superset of 3DP. But are you prepared to fix the articles and make them worthwhile, and can you do it from mere sources when it already has an omniscient WP:OWNer? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You mean the book that titles itself: "Additive Manufacturing Technologies, 3D Printing, Rapid Prototyping, and Direct Digital Manufacturing, Additive Manufacturing Technologies", that book?. In other words the book that is on the same topic as this article? Just because the article has a different title at the top doesn't mean it's not on additive manufacturing. The most common definition of "3D printing" (now) means "additive manufacturing" and most of the readers of Wikipedia expect to find this particular article being called 3D printing. We could rename the article to Additive manufacturing if everyone agrees, but there seems to be little point to have a separate "3D printing" article. That would in effect just be an article on the term "3D printing".GliderMaven (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

See what I mean 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

In no sense am I owning the article, and I refer you to the poll at the top of the page right now, which is voting against splitting the article.GliderMaven (talk) 15:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said in that poll, right now, 3D printing is the WP:common name for smallish, cheapish machines that make stuff at home or in a lab in small quantities using all sorts of additive and subtractive technologies, as opposed to the older, larger, more expensive machines that make stuff in large quantities on factory floors, typically using Machine tools, which we cover in our article on Numerical control -- the WP:common name for that technology. That's the way the language is used today, as opposed to how it was used several years ago. We can revisit this question in a year or so and see if common usage has evolved. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

That Belgian lady is at least 84, maybe 85 years, old now

The report link is dated "Sunday, August 18, 2013 8:58 PM." That's almost 19 months ago. If she was 83 then, she's at least 84, likely 85. If she was 83 at the time of her operation in June 2011, that'd make her at least 86, maybe 87. Is she even still alive? Unsure? Then why the "The woman is now able to chew, speak and breathe normally again after a machine printed her a new jawbone."? I'm editing that out. Indeed, this story sounds a bit promotional to me. Any names, videos, demonstrations--such as eating a bag of chips? Maybe the whole thing should be deleted.

Next, that child with recent heart surgery: MRI was likely a far greater factor to that operation's success than 3D printing. Indeed, children's cited regenerative abilities might have also played a greater role. I wonder if it would be possible if she were, say 12.24.36.54.238 (talk) 10:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"3D printed junk" only gets me 101 hits on Google

https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=wtz6VOebJsKC8QePkoAY#q=%223D+printed+junk%22 24.36.54.238 (talk) 11:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh, now it's up to 133.24.36.54.238 (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Counting number of hits on Google is a notoriously bad way to research things. For example, the slight variation "3D printer junk" gets About 27,300 results. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Uh-oh, there went the era when all 3D printing was layer-by-layer

Will have to rewrite the textbooks a bit. 3d-printing-just-got-100-times-faster — ¾-10 01:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a nice advance for 3D printers that use UV-curing resin, but it is hardly the game-changer that the Atlantic claims. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This technology is a major game changer for 3D print, over fused filament. However this new press release (which has been everywhere in the Popular Mechanics level coverage this week) covers a topic that just isn't new. This is how 3D print has been working for some years. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly so. They claim to have a clever way of pulling the object out of the resin faster, which is nice, but in the end you still get a part that is made of ultraviolet energy-cured resin, which is one of the older 3D printing technologies. I still want a star-trek replicator... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

3-D printed cars and houses: but are they?

Fortunately, terms such as "3D printed houses" and "3D printed cars" aren't used in the article, still people seem to be using the expression "3D printed [whatever]" a bit.

I remember hearing an interview on CBC radio of Don Tapscott by an Anna Marie Tremonti last May about whether the youth should go into trades or university. Tapscott preffered the latter as according to him, we'll be 3D printing houses in 2 years. I tried searching for the podcast where he said it, but so far nothing in the search. If he's right, we'll be having 3D printed houses—implicitly lots of them, and maybe even the majority—in 14 months, though in a latter interview he seem to have backtracked.

What do they mean by "3D printed" houses and cars? Let's say somebody made a "wooden car." He/she made a mostly wooden body—wooden roof, hood, trunk/boot door, steering wheel, pedals, seats, dash, hub-caps, maybe gas tank, et al. Most of the block, transmission, axles, tailpipe, et al would be made of standard materials, but let's say a decent fraction of the car was wood by volume, expense, and even mass. Would it be legitimately considered a "wooden car." So why would we call cars with 3-D printed parts, maybe bodies and like, "3-D printed cars?"

Ditto houses. Okay, we can have some machine extrude concrete, plastic, wood pulp, whatever, and make a frame—gee, I wonder how fire, water, and earthquake resistant, insulated, and non-toxic it would be; and where would the piping, wiring, windows, roofing, and paint come from? One might say that 3D printing was used, or that it’s mostly 3D printed, but is it accurately referred to as a "3D printed house?"

Thought I'd toss this to ya'll.
Civic Cat (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes.Ezrado (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

3D printed houses go back to the late 1960s (maybe early 1970s) - look in Papanek's Design for the Real World. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

There are already several 3-D printed houses planned or finished:

And we speak of stick-built houses or poured concrete factories without pedanticly pointing out that the plumbing and wiring are made of different materials. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Those links are about stuff going on in Red China, and I'm not sure they can be trusted coming from a country that has yet to 'fess up about 4 June, and the other two links are in the hopeful class. They have lots of ads, seem to have little info, and are a bit difficult to download--news sources generating revenue in the 21st century, huh. Presumably there are many stick and concrete houses built with and without such additional things. Further both stick houses and poured concrete houses have been with us for millennia and decades and if a lack of the other things were issues, they would have been long noted. Given the hucksterism of much of the emerging technology talk, I don't think it's being too pedantic to describe if they have these other things or not.24.36.54.238 (talk) 23:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

#Space , #Construction , #Aircraft and 3D-printed spacecraft

We're having a discussion at Talk:3D-printed spacecraft whether to move this article (which is currently one of main articles for #Space) to 3D printing in the aerospace industry and increase its scope. There are also some questions about notability, etc. We could really use some additional opinions on a subject, so if you are interested, please, head to → Talk:3D-printed spacecraft#Requested move 4 June 2015 and share your thoughts. SkywalkerPL (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)