doctorow at September 25th, 2013 15:42 — #1
tofagerl at September 25th, 2013 16:11 — #2
Is it just me, or are they trying to fix a problem NO ONE has ever had? What the hell is wrong with USB?
tyroney at September 25th, 2013 16:26 — #3
Once upon a time I bought a printrbot, and the dodgy USB serial interface (in windows) is one I'd gladly never touch again. Plus using the sound card is a really convenient way to wiggle mirrors. And just think - you don't even have to check which side of the plug goes up.
Also - the interface is an afterthought compared to a $100 photo/liquid printer.
I wonder if you could use the drip sensor as a midi click track and just save objects as really long midi files.
If I didn't already own a 3d printing doorstop I would totally order one of these. (also I swear one day I'll finish updating and tweaking that thing so that I can fix that coffee grinder)
abucior at September 25th, 2013 16:46 — #4
I expect adding a USB decoder would greatly increase the price and complexity of the system. It looks like everything outside of the computer is completely analog and very simple. There's no digital circuitry at all there. It's pretty genius, in my opinion.
incarnedine_v at September 25th, 2013 16:56 — #5
Brilliant! I'll take three.
hans at September 25th, 2013 17:42 — #6
I am curious about the usage and cost of the photosensitive plastic. $100 printer does very little good if each print is $50.
steampunkbanana at September 25th, 2013 17:48 — #7
A liter of resin is $60 on the kickstarter, so it's pretty cheap. The unused portion can apparently be strained and poured back into the container for later use.
samsam at September 25th, 2013 18:30 — #8
I was wondering when you'd post this. I backed it a few days ago. One thing I find interesting is the difference in mindset of the makers and the people buying it: the makers feel like they're creating a great hackable project, but the backers, it seem, want a finished product.
Specifically, the basic $100 kit does not buy you a container for the water/resin. You provide that yourself. The maker's argument is "look! You get to pick anything! Make a project as large or small as you want!" The unhappy buyers on the forums are saying "But we have to find our own jar???"
I find the difference between hacker mentality and those who want to just buy something like they're on Amazon interesting.
prettyboytim at September 25th, 2013 19:14 — #9
I like the way they're trying to put all of the intelligence of the printer into the software, making the printer itself incredibly simple.
steampunkbanana at September 25th, 2013 21:45 — #10
Interestingly they've posted it both on Kickstarter and Indiegogo. The latter still has Early Bird kids that will save you ten percent. Of course, now I'm going to need that ten bucks to buy some tupperware and a tube.
This just turned into work. Ugh. Thanks Obama.
tofagerl at September 26th, 2013 08:07 — #11
Ok, I guess I just assumed that the USB interface would be a very tiny part of the project - I mean, you can't find a gadget these days that doesn't have it.
chipandre at September 26th, 2013 12:06 — #12
It may seem counterintuitive, but the elimination of a digital interface in this device is actually better in addition to being cheaper.
The mirrors are actuated by electromagnetic coils - just like a speaker cone. To make it work, you need to feed an analog waveform to those coils. You could stick a microcontroller in the printer, feed it a digital file over USB, let it extract the data, send it along to a DAC, amplify it, and then pass the waveform to the coils. Or you could cut out several middlemen and just use the DAC and amplifier in your PC's sound card and send the waveform directly over an audio cable. Even a cheap built-in soundcard DAC is going to be better than what you'd get from a low-end microcontroller, so this really is the best method.
dragonfrog at September 26th, 2013 13:41 — #13
As @chipandre points out - USB is great for things that remain digital thoughout their lifecycle. Granted, you can get USB sound cards (of perhaps dubious quality) for a few bucks - but why bother when every PC has a sound card already?
jenwike at September 26th, 2013 16:49 — #14
Even if you don't need a $100 3D printer, you need the song in this video. Anyone know it?
mydnight at September 26th, 2013 17:06 — #15
Most computers have AC-coupled sound cards, while this project requires a DC-coupled card to drive it; luckily, they are including a DC-coupled USB sound card to use if your computer isn't compatible.
dragonfrog at September 26th, 2013 17:46 — #16
That part I hadn't thought of - of course you'd need to maintain an offset to only one side of center, and why would a standard sound card need to do that?
At that point, a bad USB sound card might actually be better than a good sound card, whether internal or USB - if it has no digital high pass filter, relying purely on a capacitor, you could just short the output capacitor with a bit of wire.
brian_krassenst at September 26th, 2013 20:35 — #17
The price is nice, quality not so much. Still though this is an awesome way to make in home 3d printing mainstream. By the way the creators of the printer are posting at this forum: http://3dprintboard.com/forumdisplay.php?14-Peachy-Printer
doctorow at September 30th, 2013 15:42 — #18
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.