Talk:3D printing/Archive 7

More "advice"
Re: this edit and comment, Policy WP:NOTADVICE #1 ---> "Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not." We need to describe what some document said (and hopefully not quote just one countries or one organizations policies), not give advice such as "emission hazard can be achieved by avoiding the use of materials", "Another possible way to eliminate the hazard", "Exposure to emissions can be reduced", "which should be used to add further protection in combination with approved emissions protection", "The use of respirators by workers can provide further protection from emissions". We also do not need a description of Hierarchy of hazard controls, wrong article for that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTADVICE #1 refers only to point-by-point how-to guides of the kind found in owner's manuals or cookbooks. Making a concise statement that a specific procedure can be used to reduce risk does not make it a how-to guide.  If you want the prose to be less imperative we can work on that, but it's not a reason to remove the entire section.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * And also, none of the phrases you mentioned are technically in the imperative mood, they are in the indicative mood (often using the passive voice). The imperative equivalents would be "Achieve emission hazard by avoiding the use of materials", "Eliminate the hazard by...", "Reduce exposure to emissions by...", "Use... to add further protection in combination with approved emissions protection", "Provide further protection from emissions through the use of respirators by workers".  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * , Single wording in a policy is not the limit of a policy (please read the whole thing, including "(legal, medical or otherwise)". Please don't "push the river" because you think this is sound advice that should be distributed, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for Advocacy. Since there seems to be more than one account involved I will note a problem here: User:Asfyris, User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), and User:James Hare (NIOSH) are related accounts: interlocking edits, back to back supporting reverts, , similar user pages. This activity is pretty transparent (and maybe intentionally so... as in an agency wide project?). The problem is WP:MEAT is similarly sanctioned as WP:SOCK so a bit more transparency may be needed re: this and WP:COI policies. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Accounts are similarly named enough to prevent confusion. This looks like mainstream public health information. Not seeing an issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

I've actually seen accounts INDEF'ed for less. "Mainstream" advice is still advice, long considered not encyclopedic. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Our goal here is to neutrally reflect the positions of the best avaliable sources. If you read WP:MEDRS it clearly describes what those sources are and NIOSH / CDC is included among there number.
 * The further summarizing you have done, however, is not unreasonable. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to have said that twice (at least) and, missed the point both times?. Its not a question of presenting the source, its a question of how its presented. It has been decided (as in policy) that Wikipedia is not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. We report what NIOSH said, as (hopefully) noted in secondary sources who take an overview, we do not directly copy and paste their report into Wikipedia in Wikipedia's voice in the form of advice. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On that we agree :-) Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 07:18, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

3D Printing does not equal Additive Manufacturing
The first sentence of this article is incorrect. "3D printing, also known as additive manufacturing (AM), refers to processes used to create a three-dimensional object in which layers of material are formed under computer control to create an object." The "Terminology" and "History" sections do a better job of explaining AM. Additive Manufacturing is any process where a part is manufactured by adding material together instread of taking material away. 3D printing is one type of additive manufacturing, but there are many other types, like sintering. Here are some references that I've found supporting this point: I propose changing the first sentence, and creating a AM article that links to the various AM processes. Currently AM redirects to 3D Printing. Jean15paul (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.lboro.ac.uk/research/amrg/about/the7categoriesofadditivemanufacturing/
 * http://additivemanufacturing.com/basics/
 * https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/3dhubs-knowledgebase/classification-am-processes/visual1.png
 * Agreed, please do so!

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 3D printing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131028064336/http://www.cfr.org/technology-and-science/3d-printing-challenges-opportunities-international-relations/p31709 to http://www.cfr.org/technology-and-science/3d-printing-challenges-opportunities-international-relations/p31709
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120310074452/http://www.todaysmachiningworld.com/origins-a-3d-vision-spawns-stratasys-inc/ to http://www.todaysmachiningworld.com/origins-a-3d-vision-spawns-stratasys-inc/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

This is one of the most awfully out of date pages on Wikipedia
Seriously! It is weighed down by examples of various commercial applications, many of which are now well within the capabilities of hobbyists. The current 'state of play'for consumer 3D printing is given as of 2012 - six years after Reprap, it's now 2018 and 3D rpinters are cheaps and sold in volumes 100 or more times as great as in 2012. They are also increasingly amenable to use by general consumers, rather than hobbyists and enthusiasts and MUCH cheaper. I've made a few changes but this article is painfully out of date and hopelessly inadequate at illustrating the range of practical applications for domestic 3D printing. I personally rpint items on more than a weekly basis, and I'm far from unique. Stub Mandrel (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Not Printing but Manufacturing
In the article, the sidebar lists 3d Printing associated with "printing" i.e. producing text for reading, or art (2d Representations). This process, while capable of such things, fits much more closely with manufacturing processes and should be switched to a different grouping of articles. --Jfaurbo (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's massive sidebar for such a tenuous link. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Arguably it's both. But I agree there's more commonality with manufacturing. However there's no similar sidebar for manufacturing processes that I can find.GliderMaven (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

One of those things is not like the other
This page includes several examples of 3d printed structures: sculpture, pottery, a jet engine, cockring with perineum massager and and Audi RSQ.

The inclusion of the cockring is gratuitous, unnecessary and overall distracts from the story.

I've gone ahead and removed it, but it's pending review. Please approve. Thinkpoetry (talk) 14:19, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contribution and posting here to explain it. Unfortunately it goes against one of the policies of Wikipedia, that Wikipedia is not censored. and so removing something as you find it objectionable is not appropriate. Absent another reason I have restored it.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 14:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I get that it's good to have examples of what can be done with 3d printing, but does having a picture of a sex toy actually add anything of substance? 2600:8804:1E08:BE00:71A6:3225:4C7A:5682 (talk) 04:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps illustrating that it can produce products that are safe for human use? Honestly, though, if that was the intention, it might be more use to have something like a heart valve. — Sasuke Sarutobi (push to talk) 09:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

DVD copying added to Applications Section
I haven't been able to find a source on DVD copying using a 3D printer. If this is possible, I think it should be added to the Applications section. (PeacePeace (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2018 (UTC))

Lead issue
Would it be possible for us to compile a list of all the things in the lead that aren’t later in the article? That seems to be the big problem right now... The Time to Llama is Now (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Split proposed
It seems that the Health and safety has grown long enough to consider splitting it into a new article, tenatively suggested as Health and safety hazards of 3D printing. Peaceray (talk) 20:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose  "3D printing" is only a single coherent topic at the highest level. Anything in more depth than this shows how much variation there is between the different 3D printing processes. Certainly any H&S aspects would do. There's no coherence if we split horizontally like this at the top level, and with a vertical split to fused filament, vs. powder sinter, vs. resin cure would keep each small enough to not need such a further split. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support I'm planning to refine and expand this section in the near future, which will make it too long to fit in this article anyway.  There are similarities and differences between hazards of different types of 3D printing; inhalation of emissions is a pretty common one, and others like burns or laser exposure are relevant for some but not all types.  The best approach is to have the broad-scope hazards article specify what hazards are relevant to what types of 3D printer, and have a short section in the article for each type that points back to the broad article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Not enough into on DIY industry
The 3D printing DIY side of it is huge and barely mentioned in this mile long article. This is totally unrepresentative of reality. There's a huge industry making and selling 3d printers to diy hobbyist people. Where's all that info ? The number of affordable 3D printers must outnumber expensive commercial 3d printers by 10 or 20 to 1 or something like that. NO mention of Arduino and such yet the commercial stuff is mentioned ? This article is biased towards corporations producing state of the art 5k-50k etc 3D printers and nothing else...Audi this and GE that...nothing but multibillion names left right and centre..i smell advertising based article which is surely against Wikipedia rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.248.210.159 (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hobbyist 3D print is almost entirely fused filament. Although a significant aspect of that market, there's very little for hobbyists in the powder sintering machines. So the hobbyist proportion isn't as big as it might appear.
 * Also, 50k is fairly cheap for a commercial 3D printer, using one of the powder processes and producing metallic or ceramic prints. The machine I use is about 250k, because it's easier for me to print through a commercial bureau on a machine at that level than it is for me to try and get any similar results from a machine I might afford. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Analog
Daniel de Bruin built analog or mechanical 3D printer in 2014. It's said it's the first of it's kind. Even though it may not be practical it would be good to include. short video of it working Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

3d pens
No mention of 3d pens? They are kind of miniature 3d printers. Developed / Inspired by the technology. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

3D printer tests
Huge problem, especially in crowdfunding and online shopping, is that you never know for sure what print quality you could expect from a given machine. There are numerous standard 3D printer tests, the most common being #3DBenchy. Now Autodesk also entered the market. It a major thing that is misssing in the article. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Lead section
Hello - I rewrote the lead section today and removed the "multiple issues" tag - if anyone has any feedback or complaints please let me know. I tried to make the lead more accessible to a general audience, shortening it and breaking it up a little bit. Paradox society  03:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

3D printing during COVID-19
Hi, I just wanted to suggest that the use of 3D printing during COVID-19 would be a worthy addition to this page to help provide recent context and an example of the technology being used to produce millions of products. This really is an unprecedented use of the technology, and a great example that readers may want to be aware of. Good links to topics of COVID-19, healthcare, medical products, FDA regulations, distributed manufacturing, supply chain, etc.

A few peer reviewed, open access references that provide context and data:


 * https://doi.org/10.35241/emeraldopenres.13697.1
 * https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/3dp.2020.0106
 * https://threedmedprint.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41205-020-00064-7

Thanks for considering. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.69.156.152 (talk) 01:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits.
For my edit I focused on adding more of the hobby side of 3D printing. There wasn't much in there about how people not in the industry use it, so I added a few facts about when the cost of printer costs started to drop in the history section. I also added a section to the applications part of the page. I added that more and more people are buying printers to the point now that they out number the users in industry usage. I used these sources for my edits to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeybiss (talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45852.pdf
 * https://medium.com/@erinwinick/3d-printings-30-year-history-and-why-it-is-popular-now-5200ab21a7ed

Add new 3D printing file format

 * What I think should be changed: Under the Modeling section, include 3MF as a newer file format alternative to STL. In paragraph two of the section, suggest the following sentence: Another file format growing in popularity is 3MF, which is an XML-based data format designed specifically for additive manufacturing. It includes information about materials, colors, and other information that cannot be represented in the STL format.
 * Why it should be changed: Leading companies like Stratasys, which is the largest 3D printing vendor (disclosure: my employer), are now supporting 3MF for their multicolor multimaterial 3D printers, due to the limitations of the older STL format, and leading 3D CAD software applications like KeyShot are now also natively supporting the format.
 * References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

Aaronmnprinter (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

❌ Request is not supported by reliable, secondary sources. The website of a business that profits from this technology is not a reliable source. Z1720 (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Blakenyguen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 August 2019 and 20 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Steven Emers.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SamGauthier.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2022
Proposed changes to 3rd paragraph in Social Change Section:

As 3D printers became more accessible to consumers, online social platforms have developed to support the community.[213] This includes websites that allow users to access information such as how to build a 3D printer, as well as social forums that discuss how to improve 3D print quality and discuss 3D printing news, as well as social media websites that are dedicated to share 3D models.[214][215][216] RepRap is a wiki based website that was created to hold all information on 3d printing, and has developed into a community that aims to bring 3D printing to everyone. Furthermore, there are other sites such as Pinshape, Thingiverse, MyMiniFactory, and Makersverse3D which were created initially to allow users to post 3D files for anyone to print, allowing for decreased transaction cost of sharing 3D files. These websites have allowed greater social interaction between users, creating communities dedicated to 3D printing.

Detailed description of change: added Makersverse3D after MyMiniFactory, my apologies if I did not insert the link quite correctly. Je870 (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No, we're not going to add an external link or mention a nonnotable website. - MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2022
Proposed changes to 3rd paragraph in Social Change Section:

As 3D printers became more accessible to consumers, online social platforms have developed to support the community.[213] This includes websites that allow users to access information such as how to build a 3D printer, as well as social forums that discuss how to improve 3D print quality and discuss 3D printing news, as well as social media websites that are dedicated to share 3D models.[214][215][216] RepRap is a wiki based website that was created to hold all information on 3d printing, and has developed into a community that aims to bring 3D printing to everyone. Furthermore, there are other sites such as Pinshape, Thingiverse, MyMiniFactory, and Makersverse3D which were created initially to allow users to post 3D files for anyone to print, allowing for decreased transaction cost of sharing 3D files. These websites have allowed greater social interaction between users, creating communities dedicated to 3D printing.

Detailed description of change: added Makersverse3D after MyMiniFactory, my apologies if I did not insert the link quite correctly. Je870 (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No, we're not going to add an external link or mention a nonnotable website. - MrOllie (talk) 16:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2022
Add a link to the "Slicer (3D printing)" article in the General Principles - Printing part of the article. Adam Baines (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ (diff). – NJD-DE (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

US4323756A patent by Clyde O. Brown, Edward M. Breinan and Bernard H. Kear
I think since the patent was filed by them in 1979 it should take precedence, it would look nicer too since the metallic nature of the invenotion feels more "primitive" than the plastic-based Hideo Kodama one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirad1000 (talk • contribs) 23:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Impacts on minority and marginalized communities.
Is there a reason this article makes no mention of the impact of additive manufacturing on minority and marginalized communities? Traditionally additive manufacturing has been popular among white and Asian communities but almost unknown to communities of Color. To ignore this highlights the systemic racism within the community. 65.190.186.126 (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

[REPLY] This is nonsense. No one is obligated to go door to door educating people about technological advances. If POC are interested in technological advances they can go to web sites that present them, buy magazines like Popular Mechanics that discuss them or a myriad of other ways. What is systemic is the lack of motivation that leaves people behind because they can't be bothered to keep up. 3D printers are dirt cheap for base models.

That said, last drone LIDAR survey we did was done by a young black male who had bought his own drone equipmemt and travels in an RV doing contract survey work. Somehow he figured out how to access new technologies. From his work I'd say it's because he's motivated, bright and resourceful.

Stop blaming others, get off 'yer backside and do the work to get what you want instead of mewling for it to be handed to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100E:B060:CEEE:2013:51A1:BF32:E352 (talk) 08:44, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Simplifying the wording in the introduction
The wording in the introduction seems at times unnecessarily complicated. When I checked the introductory paragraph in a reading level test, it said that it requires a college graduate reading level. I think the introduction should be re-written to be readable with max. a 12th grade reading level. 185.47.135.199 (talk) 13:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)