Close



Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 15 of 15

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Technician 3D OZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    54
    The whole concept is fundamentally flawed, flawed to the point where it is obvious that not only is a workable solution not possible, even if it were possible, there is no need for it.
    These guys are failing to solve a problem that doesn't exist and they've spent 13 months doing it.
    In 13 months all they have done is mount an extruder to a commercial copter!
    Technical breakthroughs achieved = 0. Progress towards workable solution = 0.

    The footage of extrusion occurring while the copter is totally STATIONARY shows that the gimbal cannot even handle the wobble caused by the extrusion gear turning, how can it hope to compensate for a copter in the breeze.
    The gimbal sort of compensates for some movement in two dimensions but the copter is unstable in 3 dimensions.

    All of the fundamental failures aside, I defy anyone to identify a single item that this waste of neurons could create that would be of any possible use that could not be better created in a more conventional way.

    Total rubbish

  2. #2
    Staff Engineer
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by 3D OZ View Post
    The whole concept is fundamentally flawed, flawed to the point where it is obvious that not only is a workable solution not possible, even if it were possible, there is no need for it.
    This, while they've concevably come up with a problem this could be a solution to (making a printer with no build size limit), anyone who has both flown a quadcopter and calibrated a 3D printer could tell that this was not the way to solve that problem.

    This was taking two popular toys, smashing them together and coming up with a problem that they can claim to have solved.

    I really hope nobody got money for this.

  3. #3
    Student
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15
    Extruder on a cat, not new, but I hate the smell of burning pelt.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator curious aardvark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    8,816
    it does seem weird.
    Given that you'd need a large nozzle and fast feed of material for itto be of any practical use. How's it going to carry all the material such a printer would need.
    As far as stability and precision goes. yeah it can be done. just look at the 2 axis gimbals on the new DJI drones. Stable as anything.
    Its not that it couldn't be done, these idiots just haven't used the right kit. It's simply that there's bugger all point to doing it.

    The solution to the unlimited size 3d printer is much simpler - extendible crane on a mobile platform.

  5. #5
    Engineer-in-Training
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    349
    The printer will need to be free-floating and controlled separately. But once in optical distance of a surface, a control system similar to an optical mouse can keep the hot end still with great precision.

    As for power, some high-efficiency solar cells on top can power the hot end.

    As for need, one might be: Printing a camera mount on top of a crashed plane, to survey the area, or printing a mount for a radio beacon on an un-climbable part of a cliff.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •