Back in the saddle

Well, it has been awhile not that anyone really cares. But, I should have more free time now to finish off a few projects that I want to finish, the printable water filter and a few others. So, look for some posts here very soon.

Printable Clothes Line / General Object Hanger

Well, it is kinda of windy where I live and I have blankets that need to be air dried. I wanted a setup that would be easy to setup, take down, and wouldn't take much space. So, I designed a fully printable clothes line. The bodies/anchors are printed and the line is 3mm filament. You can also use it to hang other objects up to such as plants, etc... I will also be using it to hang outdoor Christmas lights this year over a large spans that the lights themselves could not span without sagging horribly. 

Yes, I could have used rope with some knots. However, it would have not have been so easy to remove.... and not nearly as fun to do.


Check it out on Thingiverse:
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:25859

A quick thought...

So, while looking for bunk beds for my kids, I noticed how in many of the bunk beds the bolts and/or screws are countersunk yet the caps are exposed and detract from the look of the furniture. I am not the only one who has noticed this, as read on reviews of the said furniture. I instantly thought of.... Hey, I can print a removable cover. However, that was quickly dashed by the next ensuing thought..... Hey, if it is removable my youngest is sure to try to remove it and that could be a choking hazard if it was removed.  So, that kind of answered the question about exposed countersunk bolt and screw heads in kids furniture.

This lead me to another thought. Who is responsible for 3D printed design if it becomes hazardous for someone or something(a pet)? 

You can have number of parties involved or just a single person. I will look at the aspect where you have a maximum number of individuals interacting together.  A designer to create the design. A operator to print the design. A end-user that uses the printed part. However, the end-user may be more than one single person, it can be anyone that comes in contact with the physical design and may not use the design as intended. So, who is ultimately responsible if a printed part causes harm?  A very interesting conundrum that will surely be addressed in the courts in the coming decade.

Well, last Friday I started designing a water filter to be used possibly for emergnecy relief that is made using an inexpensive home 3D printer. This is only an alpha but here are some pictures more details to follow in the next couple of days. Enjoy.

Figure 1. Solid model of prototype water filter

Figure 2. Solid model cross-section of prototype water filter

Figure 3. 3D printed  water filter case prototype

Figure 4. Water filter case split

Figure 5.  Separate water filter case pieces

Distributed Rapid Manufacturing Using 3D Printers For Disaster Relief (Part3)

This will be just an overview of the main points of quality control for distributed rapid manufacturing using 3D printers that I have identified. I am sure that there are plenty more aspects to this subject, since this subject has never really been discussed.

The main points that aid in maintaining quality.

• Device Design
• Simplicity
• Ease of assembly 
• Intutitive to manufacture
• Use of standard materials
• Documentation of Manufacturing Process Parameters Used
• Printing process setup, general specs.
• Program printing parameters posted.
• Inspection(Duh!)
• Assure that the device or any of it's components is not out of spec
• Documented inspection procedures(SOPs)
• Operator
• Registered users akin to how HAM radio operators are licensed 
• Motivation

Design

1. Simplicity - Making  a device simplistic is a must for maintaining quality in distributed manufacturing It allows for more give in the system as whole. The system encompasses not only the actual device but manufacturing processes that must create the part and the operator that must assemble the device. This facet has a trickle down affect to other main points such as inspection, etc... Such as if the device is designed to be inspected with simple calipers,etc.. Also minimizing interfaces whether they are mechanical, electrical, fluid,etc.. or any combination of these. Interfaces are a point were failure can be introduced. For example, instead of using two pieces and joining them together, spend a little more time and make a design where a single piece can be used instead. Never settle on a design and constantly innovate to make that design more simple. 
2. Ease of assembly - By making the device easy or intuitive to assemble, errors can be minimized during the actual assembly process. 
3. Intuitive to manufacture -  If the device components impute the way they should be manufactured then errors can be reduced by an even experienced operator, since the system software(RepG, UP! V.1, etc...) often allow for 6 degrees of freedom(x, y, z, theta_x, theta_y, theta_z) set by the operator.
4. Use of standard materials - In order to create a more standardized version of device the materials must be readily available and fairly common. The most prominent material in the hobbyist, DIY 3D printing world is PLA, and ABS plastic. Preferably this material would be sourced from a single vendor if possible but other vendors could be used if needed. Also, if a design uses other materials the designer/operator must be conscientious of how operators in other parts of the world must obtain the materials.

Documentation of Manufacturing Process Parameters Used  

1. Printing process setup, general specs - This must be documented to help "standardize" setups between different machines and operators. This is needed because of the wide amount of differing hardware that exists today in the DIY, and hobby markets that may print "slightly" differently than another machine.  The biggest factor is that these machines are often assembled by the operators and can vary widely machine to machine. So, the more we know about a general setup the faster configurations from the setup can be shared to other operators
2. Program printing parameters posted -  This goes for any process, especially in the DIY and hobbyist since there is a wide variety of program tweaks that can be made in Slicer, SkienForge, etc... in order to repeat the process the settings(infills, feedrates, nozzle temp, etc..) must be documented and shared

Inspection(Duh!)

1. Assure that the device or any of it's components is not out of spec - Well, this is a given. However, it does tie in nicely with other main points such as simplicity and motivation.  If the device is made as simple as possible only the minimum amount a measuring equipment(hopefully the easiest, most available, and most intuitive to use) is needed. Motivation to do a good job is a must especially when dealing with inspection. The operator must want to put out a quality part, since after all they are doing this pro-bono, there is no wage involved.
2. Documented inspection procedures(SOPs) - Inspection SOPs are needed so that each operator is inspecting the device and device components in a consistent manner with proper inspection equipment.

Operator

1. Registered operators akin to how HAM radio operators are licensed - While I hate to register operators that make the devices, I think it is a necessary evil. To be registered, a operator would need to passing a test that encompasses the print, inspection, and assembly of a sample device. This would ensure that the operator is competent and the test would be given by an authorized registered operator.
2. Motivation - The operator must have the proper personal motivation to design, print, inspect, and assemble a device for emergency relief. After all, all of this work is being donated. This ensures that the operator does his or her best in each of those categories to make sure that a quality device is manufactured.  Because, the goal of this device is help  individuals or families in need, and may even save their lives.

Whoa, that was longer than expected. Again, like I said in the beginning of the post there are probably plenty of more. I am sure that in the very near future that this problem, maintaining quality in distributed rapid manufacturing 3D printing environments will rise to the general discussion in the DIY and hobbyist communities.

Distributed Rapid Manufacturing Using 3D Printers For Disaster Relief (Part2)

So, now that I have discussed crowd sourcing of devices for disaster relief. I will discuss very broadly logistics of distribution.

The distribution of such devices during times of emergency a a fluid and complex process, not every disaster is the same and in many cases nor is the location optimal. I will be simplifying a lot of this process during this post.

Utilizing an existing Non-Governmental Organization(NGO) to aid in the distribution would be the easiest traditional step with all of the accompanying bureaucracy. However, perhaps in certain disasters the distribution networks of small to medium businesses could be utilized.

For example, my employers distributor in Japan after the earthquake and tsunami was going door to door checking on his customers, which were doctors and dentists. So, we could use the distributor to allot the rapidly manufactured devices to the doctors and dentists which in turn distribute the devices to their patients. Again that wouldn't work in all cases; however, during a disaster of that scale every little bit matters.

Tomorrow or the next day, I will post on maintaining quality control on rapidly manufactured devices for disaster relief.

Distributed Rapid Manufacturing Using 3D Printers For Disaster Relief (Part1)

I have been thinking about the distributed rapid manufacturing abilities of low-cost, or homebuilt, or open source, etc... 3D printers and how that could be leveraged  react to natural or man made disasters in manner that has never been seen before.

To be honest this idea has been going around in my head for sometime, ever since the massive 2011 earthquake off the coast of Japan and the ensuing tsunami that followed it.  My employer sent out daily updates to the employees keeping us updated about the current status of our facilities in Japan and the conditions of our distributors in country.

I was amazed to hear the stories from the distributors, hours after the disasters struck they were checking on the well being of their customers and bring them supplies if needed.

So, that got me thinking. What if you could create a object that could be rapidly manufactured with 3D printing that could be deployed hours after a disaster hit, from nothing to something, in a hour.  For example, lets say I create design for a water filter that requires a 3D printer, some gravel, sand, and activated charcoal. I post the needed digital files, bill of materials(BOM), instructions, etc... on thingiverse where now anyone that has the needed equipment and material can make that same water filter.  So, let's a disaster  hits somewhere in the world. I have the 3D printer, the gravel, sand, and activated charcoal, and I start producing water filters on demand for the disaster relief.  

Now, lets scale this up by 10X, 100X, 1000X, etc... It would be not unlike how amateur HAM radio operators are tapped during emergencies. These "rapid factories" are geographical independent. They could be where the disaster has happened, 1000 miles away, across the ocean, etc.... But, do to the digital design files, BOM, and instructions, the device would be nearly the same. Imagine the impact that would have. Crowd sourcing devices to aid in disaster relief. However, a couple of MAJOR things still need to be ironed out, the distribution and quality control of said devices.

I will touch on the distribution and quality control issues in a post in the next couple of days. But, for now digest the post, I welcome any comments or suggestions too.

Well, this is my first post. I may end up changing a few formatting objects, so please be patient. Not that anybody really reads this anyways.....