The D.I. Wire Bender by PENSA llc is an arduino-controlled CNC machine that bends metal wire to produce 2D and 3D shapes - an interesting take on a 3D printer. The D.I. Wire Bender can read vector files, OBJ files, text commands, and coordinates.
This is one of very few low-cost machines I've seen that can do rapid prototyping in metal - and it is open source! The Google Code project page is here. You will need tougher motors if you want to use tougher materials than 1/8" aluminum wire/rod.
I find the D.I. Wire Bender exciting for the following reasons:
Rapid Prototyping in Metal is typically expensive; this could be a lot cheaper.
CNC Rapid Prototyping is even better, because it removes a few chances for human error
If we can do this, we can make a CNC pipe bender - Which would open up doors for rapidly prototyping and manufacturing new vehicle designs. For example, a CNC pipe bender would make it easy for the MakerPlane team to print out structural components for future non-composite aircraft designs.
While I absolutely love the DIY accessibility of home wind power generation projects like the Chispito Wind Power Generator, The DIY aviation nut in me is screaming that we could all get significantly more power out of rigs like this if we had an optimization tool that would ask us our motor specs and what the wind is like where we're mounting our generators, then spit out .stl files of the right shape airfoils to get the most power out of the wind. I don't know what percent difference the average builder could expect to see from optimized blades...but based on the research paper linked at the very bottom of this post, I think it would have to be huge. The difference between an aircraft-optimized airfoil and a wind turbine optimized airfoil can be as much as 50% in normal wind conditions, and neither of those airfoils seem to have much in common with the simple blades we DIY types make out of cut up PVC pipe.
CNC hot wire foam cutting technology is a good start for rapid prototyping custom airfoils based on .stl files. With this technology in play, I could see the production of custom wind generator blades becomming a great little microfactory business.
This time, the closest I have found to an airfoil optimization tool for DIY wind power generation are these research papers:
Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of Vertical Axis Wind Turbine Using Differential Evolution: Summarizes the preliminary results of a UT Arlington Aerospace Engineering group's efforts to create an automated airfoil optimization code. Bonus: if you want to learn the basics of wind power theory, read the introduction to this paper. It'll be a great vocab lesson even if math isn't your thing. The group published this paper under the creative commons attribution license...cross your fingers that they will be just as generous with the source code they're working so hard to create.
Study of the Performance and Robustness of NREL and NACA Blade for Wind Turbine Applications: This study predicts that major power gains (~10-50% over the wind speed range of 3-9mph) would result from building small home-use wind turbines using the airfoils designed for horizontal axis wind turbines by the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) as opposed to the currently common practice of using airfoils NASA designed for aircraft back when the agency was still called NACA. As you can see in table 1 and in figure 3 (click here, scroll down), the NREL and NACA airfoils look almost identical. I suspect that using either type would yield a vast improvement over the current DIY standard of cut up PVC pipe.
The top one looks like a great start...but I'd like to see the open source community run with it and start making better wind turbines.
The B9Creator is an open hardware project brought to us by Michael Joyce.
This Wikipedia article claims that stereolithography machines typically cost in the range of $100,000 to $500,000, and use resin that costs between $80 to $210 per liter. The B9Creator delivers this functionality (rapid prototyping using light to solidify resin) for <3% of the price, conservatively, using resin that costs about ten cents a gram. For $2,375, backers on Kickstarter can get a complete kit that can theoretically be assembled in an afternoon. For $3,375, backers get a fully assembled and calibrated machine.
As you can see in the video below, Michael Joyce, the B9Creator's inventor, is committed to the development of open source software and hardware, and is looking forward to the innovations that will be inspired by his creation.
The B9Creator is offers unusually high resolution for a low cost 3D printer (0.05 - 0.1 mm for the B9 vs. 0.2-0.3 for the Makerbot Replicator). The B9Creator starts by slicing a 3D object data file into a stack of 2D images, and projecting the first 2D image onto a thin layer of photo-initiated polymer resin long enough to cure a .05 - 0.1mm layer, which attaches to the build platform behind it. The B9Creator then moves the build platform to break the bond between the cured resin and the projector window, re-positions the build platform above the projector, and projects the next 2D image. The B9Creator repeats this process until the 2D images have been stacked up to produce the finished 3D object.
The B9Creator can build 3D objects at 12-20 mm/hr independent of the object's density. RepRap project and Makerbot 3D printers use fused deposition methods, wherein plastic is melted, extruded through a small nozzle, and 3D objects are built by fusing melted plastic from the nozzle onto the layer below. Because this method (called Fused Deposition Modeling, FDM) relies on the relatively fixed rate at which plastic is melted and extruded through the nozzle, denser objects take significantly longer to build using FDM than more fluffy ones. The build speed of the B-9 creator is dependent on the layer thickness set by the user, but does not depend on the density of each layer.
This video is from the B9Creator's kickstarter pitch, which as of this writing has more than quadrupled its funding goal and still has over a week to go:
Also via the kickstarter pitch, here is a video showing the B9Creator prototype in action, printing the Metatron:
Have you seen the B9Creator in action?
Tell me about it in the comments! I am especially curious how sturdy the resin objects produced by the B9Creator are, and what, if any, surface prep is required to clean the models of any un-cured resin film.
Although the cost of the WhiteAnt kit strikes me as similar to other open source 3D printer kits, and I already have a Makerbot thing-o-matic in the house, there are a few things that catch my interest about the idea of building a WhiteAnt:
I am a proponent of versatile, low cost manufacturing equipment, and the WhiteAnt looks like a 2 for 1 deal since the user can quickly swap the extruder for a Dremel and have a CNC mill without taking up extra space, or investing the time to build another frame and set up a second set of electronics and software
The WhiteAnt frame looks a lot sturdier than the Makerbot
Building a WhiteAnt is essentially a practical, guided lab exercise for this textbook on 3D printing in plastic, and I am old school enough to like textbooks and formal labs.
BuildYourCNC.com produces good videos about how to assemble their various kits. (To see what I mean, you can watch an instructional video on the WhiteAnt Dremel mount assembly here, or the video instructions for connecting the WhiteAnt electronics.)
The WhiteAnt is built using the arduino, a single-board open source microcontroller, replicatorG, an open source 3D printing program, and the generation4 electronics and tool-head available from Makerbot.com.
If the ability to do 3D printing via fused deposition modeling in extruded plastic is unimportant to you, and you need to use a mill more than you want the experience of building your own, you may be better off to sacrifice the cool factor and buy a low-cost mini-mill like this one from LittleMachineShop.com. It comes fully assembled, has enough torque to mill steel, and has a similar price and x/y/z travel to the White Ant kit.
If you're into science or design engineering, you should probably check out Elmer. Among a host of other great applications, this free, Finland-born software can help you design airplanes, predict the temperature distribution of a heat exchanger, and do your quantum mechanics homework.
At its core, Elmer is an open source finite element solver of partial differential equations. Development of Elmer began in 1995 as a collaboration between Finnish universities, research institutes and private industry, and was primarily developed by Finland's CSC IT Center for Science. Elmer was released as open source in 2005. According to the Elmer FAQ page, Elmer has hundreds of regular users worldwide and thousands of Elmer test users annually.
Elmer processes partial differential equations in a descrete form, and handles coupled systems, non-linearities, and time-dependencies. The Elmer GUI allows the user to either import meshes or create simple ones in a variety of file types, and generates output in .grd, .mesh, and .ep files. The source code of Elmer is written in Fortran 90, C, and C++, and is distributed under the GNU Public License (GPL). The Elmer source code is here on sourceforge.
I hereby retract any complaints I may have recently made about paying taxes.
The heroes at NASA just gave us some open source aircraft design software called Open VSP (vehicle sketch pad). This open source software is designed to let the user rapidly create high-fidelity parametric design/structural layout for conceptual aircraft designs, resulting in models that can be processed into formats suitable for engineering analysis. According to the wiki, it's been under development since the early 90's, and J. R. Gloudemans, P.C. Davis, and P.A. Gelhausen presented a publication on the development of VSP at the 34th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit in January 1996.
I'm guessing VSP has come a long way since then.
This ten-minute video introduces some of the features of Open VSP, by building and analysing an SR-71 Blackbird-like model:
The above video was created by Bill Fredericks, and stolen from the Open VSP Video Tutorial Page, which also contains a handful of more in-depth video tutorial videos created by Ami Patel.
Low-Cost rapid Prototyping with metals for high-strength applications is possible with Andreas Bastian's open source laser sintering 3D printer. This is a big step for expanding the functionality of open source microfactories, which have been largely limited to ABS and PLA plastics, and photosensitive resins. Andreas Bastian's 3D Printer makes high-fidelity wax models from 3D CAD files, allowing the user to leverage the precise and rapid prototyping capabilities of CNC systems for lost wax casting applications.
Metal parts created via lost wax casting of printed wax models can be suitable for high strength applications, which strikes me as a first for the DIY microfactory scene. This new design allows the user to draft a part in AutoCAD, then use the resulting .stl file and ReplicatorG to create a GCode file for the printer. The GCode files are sent to the printer's arduino, which has been loaded with custom firmware based on the ultimaker firmware. The arduino transmits instructions to stepper motors and a laser which work together to fuse layers of powdered wax print medium which compose the wax model. Wax models can then be used as the positive for lost wax casting in metal.
This video is from Andreas Bastian's video page for this project...check out the rest of his videos here.
In addition to all the great industrial applications, I would be in no way surprised to see this technology adopted by jewelry designers in the very near future. Who could resist using 3D scans of a customer's hand to print up perfect rings and bangles?
I admit that crowd sourcing science experiments sounds a little risky. Since it's difficult to be fired from a job you do for free,
contributors to crowd-sourced science experiments would have less
incentive to do precise work or to keep their paradigms and biases from influencing the
results they observe and report. Crowd sourcing science could certainly introduce unexpected and undocumented variables. On the other hand, large data sets are valuable. And there may be a side benefit to gathering large data sets from an un-characterized group of real people living real lives in real homes - the data may lead to conclusions that are more directly applicable to the populations we are trying to learn about.
We can test the viability of crowd-sourced
data collection by comparing conclusions drawn by crowd-sourced experimentation to the conclusions drawn from traditionally collected data. One example of crowd-sourced data collection is fuelly.com, where people report actual gas mileage for their vehicles. I did a quick spot check for the V6 Toyota Camry sedan. It would be an interesting exercise to repeat this check for a large group of vehicles.
In this case, the results are pretty close, but Camry drivers on fuelly.com got slightly better mileage than expected based on EPA regulated test data. I saw lots of tips on fuelly.com for getting better gas mileage...I suppose it's possible that users of fuelly.com more frequently exhibit a bias toward maximizing fuel economy than the EPA testing procedures account for.
Much in the spirit of the open source software movement, the Open Hardware Repository is a place on the web for electronics designers to collaborate on open source hardware designs.
The creators of the OHR see peer review, design re-use, improved industry collaboration, better hardware, and a more fun design process as the primary benefits of their collaborative approach. I could not agree more.
I am impressed by the organization and functionality of the OHR collaboration tools. Each project has its own main hub page with tabs for project overview, wiki, activity, mailing list, issues, news, documents, files, and repository. Each project has a project manager, and a list of developers. OHR requires the sharing of anything it would take to duplicate each design, and encourages the sharing of all related files.
While I really liked what I saw at the OHR, there is one small catch: To use the OHR tools for collaborating on hardware
designs, the designs must "present an interest to the community of
electronics designers for experimental physics facilities." As the OHR manifesto
points out, the target community is broad and diverse enough that the
"of interest to the community" constraint is unlikely to be excessively
constraining.
According to their website, an Albany NY based company called AWS True Power has released open source wind farm design software that is free to download and use. The free software is called AWS Openwind, and anyone is free to join the community of users and make improvements to the software. You can download the software, watch instructional videos and view tutorials on the AWS Openwind website. You can also see screen shots of the software here.
If you need advanced features like deep array wake models, grid layout, or optimization for cost of energy, AWS has an enterprise version of the software available for sale...but I'm thinking that for my first backyard windmill, the free version will do the trick.
If you have used the openwind software and have any comments about it, I'd love to hear them.
I want to develop a free tool with a friendly user interface that will allow casual users to optimize windmill airfoils, siting, and generator parts for construction and use at their homes. I have used CNC rapid prototyping technology for custom airfoils. If you are interested in any aspect of optimizing home wind power generation I would love to hear from you.
The Open Source Tech Revolution wind power resource page is here.
The purpose of the Open Source Tech Revolution is to make freedom and autonomy more accessible to those who want it.
The purpose of the Open Source Tech Revolution Blog is to help get the OSTR rolling!
Lots of us have great ideas for new technology and new products that have a lot of potential to improve lives or make money. Often, we lack the time, expertise, or skill set to make many of these ideas a reality. I am a proponent of the idea that just about anyone can learn just about anything, given some time and access to the right information. Thanks to brick and mortar libraries and great sites like Wikipedia and YouTube, we have a lot freer access to a lot more information than ever before. Simply having the time to learn what we need to know in order to proceed, and in many cases having the money for the proper tools, equipment and raw materials are still major road blocks to achieving the innovations we envision. Through networking, and collaborative design efforts, we can bypass those road blocks to an unprecedented extent.
Why would People give good ideas away for free?
We want awesome stuff to exist. Sometimes people have awesome ideas that they have neither the time nor the expertise to bring to fruition alone. One way to increase your chances of actually using something awesome that you dream up but don't plan to create is to make the idea public and let others attempt to create it.
Philanthropy: Giving away empowering knowledge and technology is a way to give people who need it a chance to improve their quality of life.
Lots of us have ideas we're not using anyway: Given the choice between sharing our good ideas, holding onto them in hopes of future for-profit development, or waiting for others to independently come up with and act on the same idea, some people may benefit most from sharing.
Why would anyone want to work on open-source design projects for free?
Doing things that really matter makes people happy.
Being productive makes people happy.
Taking on challenges makes people happy.
If you want something to exist, and it doesn't exist yet, you can fix your problem by helping to create it.
By collaborating on ground-breaking engineering projects, you will probably get to know fascinating people with whom you share exciting interests.
If you want to learn some useful skills, collaborating on a project where those skills are needed is likely to provide you with added motivation, priceless practice with your new skills, and a network of mentors who already possess the skills you are looking to acquire.
If you are looking for a career in engineering, science or technology, gaining the experience of collaborating on successful, useful and innovative designs will show prospective employers that you have what it takes.
If your skills and creativity are underutilized in your current career, collaborating with cutting edge projects as a hobbyist could be a thrilling opportunity to be yourself.
If you think you might have engineering chops but you are not certain, collaborating on an engineering project would be a useful way to test the waters.
How is posting a bunch of ideas on the internet going to help anyone in any way?
It's probably not going to. I am researching the efforts of others to crowd-source the development of technical projects and working to develop a web-based collaborative design application that solves as many as possible of the logistical problems with collaborating from a distance.
Posts
