I’m sad that even though this unique design was done and put online for anyone to print by Prusa, he is hardly mentioned now. On top of that, the design is already commercialized.
EDIT: I see now that the design is different, you’re right
EDIT: I see now that the design is different, you’re right
The main difference is that it doesn't require 3D printing which is obviously a deal-breaker for the quantity needed. By incorporating the clear plastic as a structural element, they eliminated a piece from the design. The bottom piece is also eliminated.
Altogether more elegant and more useful than the Prusa design.
For anyone who has worked in product design and manufacturing, it is one thing to be able to make a few prototypes (which is where 3D printing shines), and another challenge to make 5 million of those prototypes per week. It is monumentally difficult to produce anything in high volume.
I wish the media would talk about many other amazing manufacturing technologies - injection molding (20 seconds a part!), die cast aluminium, water jet cutting, laser cutting, metal stamping, and machining. These are equally amazing technologies that make the world tick...yet 3D printing gets disproportionately amount of attention. Mold making alone is a topic of insane complexity and engineering challenges.
It's good for various sorts of low-volume production, particularly prototyping. But yes, the hype about 3d printing putting factories out of business is very silly.
Here are a few articles:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/04/07/health/librarian-3d-printing-...
https://www.foxnews.com/science/coronavirus-3d-printing-vent...
https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/coronavirus/art...
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-3d-pri...
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/03/27/950240/3d-printi...
And NYTimes: https://www.google.com/search?q=nytimes+3d+printing+coronavi...
It's cool but I am cynical that media loves talking about 3D printing because it generates more viewership; no one wants to read an article "Decades old technology of injection molding is still the best way to make high volume parts during this pandemic".
Their longer term planes are much more grandiose, with a system that connect multiple factories with many machines each. You woul upload your project files and the system will assign manufacturing to the most suitable machines in the factories and handle all the part transfer between the factories and assembling, with the resulting product arriving to you all complete and packaged.
In this structure a 3D rpinter makes a lot of sense, you can use it to print parts for smaller orders & for bigger orders let the machine build a mold for injection molding. Also, you can use 3D printers to print parts to enhance the machines you already have to make fulfilling the order more efficient, like some special packaging tools or assembly jigs.
So 3D printing is not likely to replace factory mass production, but has the potential to enahnce it signifficantly & make it much more flexible.
Agree with everything else you said, though.
https://www.harborfreight.com/power-tools/routers-cutout-too...
https://www.uscutter.com/USCutter-MH-Series-Vinyl-Cutter-w-V...
Face shields are useful and can be printed in under 3 hours (for the Prusa design). Some people have knocked the time down to about one hour.
For something that costs cents and can be made at home, that's pretty useful.
> it is a poor way to do anything besides home hobby projects
Tell that to SpaceX.
"3D Printing" encompasses a whole lot of technologies which all fall under the additive manufacturing umbrella. FDM is the most common, but it's not the only one. Multi jet fusion, laser sintering and others are "3d printing" just the same. Not all of them will take hours to build a part.
> injection molding (20 seconds a part!), die cast aluminium, water jet cutting, laser cutting, metal stamping, and machining.
And none of this, except for laser cutting, can be done outside dedicated manufacturing facilities. All these technologies have been around for decades now. Why would they get any attention? But they actually do... "company X builds a new factory at Y location". Boom. Attention. They won't care about the specific technologies... because why would they?
Take injection molding. It may take 20 seconds, but that's _ after the manufacturing facilities and the mold are setup _ . This is unlike essentially pressing a print button, which is where we want to go.
> and another challenge to make 5 million of those prototypes per week
5 million units a week... these are not prototypes. Call them production samples or what have you, but this is an assembly line.
The only reason we are even talking about 3D printing is because we are having shortages. All those tried and proven technologies are unable to keep up with the demand. So people are trying to supplement them with other, less time-efficient, technologies.
> Face shields are useful and can be printed in under 3 hours (for the Prusa design). Some people have knocked the time down to about one hour. For something that costs cents and can be made at home, that's pretty useful.
3 hours is still too long and that's not the central point I am arguing about. It is mostly about media coverage. If you have a 3D printer, by all means use it.
> Tell that to SpaceX.
I've worked on 3D printers before it was cool. Way back in 2005, I designed and built turbine blade prototypes on Stratasys 3D printers that cost upwards of $250k. Can we get past this narrative of 3D printing usefulness to its narrow application? It is not going to revolutionize manufacturing anytime soon. Tell that to GE, Lockheed Martin, Apple, Intel, Boeing, etc. Every company has invested in 3D printing primarily for prototyping and occasionally for medium-volume production. You're not going to see 3D printed Nike soles on $40 shoe anytime soon.
If you look at the amount of manufacturing that takes place on 3D printers vs. other technologies, you would not even see the slice of the pie that is for "3D printing".
Additive manufacturing has niche applications.
> All these technologies have been around for decades now. Why would they get any attention?
Because in the time of war, when the nation is mobilizing to making millions of something, you want the press to talk about things that work?
> Take injection molding. It may take 20 seconds, but that's _ after the manufacturing facilities and the mold are setup _ . This is unlike essentially pressing a print button, which is where we want to go.
No shit, you need mold that takes time to make and validate. Usually 3-4 weeks, sometimes 8 weeks. But when there is a national emergency, you can turn it around within 48 hours. That's including the entire NRE process, design, validation and tooling. After 48 hours, you would have printed a few dozen parts in your beloved 3D printers. I would be churning out a part every 20 seconds after the initial 48 hours. Even if it is 100+ hours, it is still worth it when the quantity you want to make is 5 million.
> 5 million units a week... these are not prototypes. Call them production samples or what have you, but this is an assembly line.
Hey! why would you point that out? Isn't that obvious that by definition you cannot make 5 million prototypes? "These prototypes" - I was referring to the aforementioned reference to the prototypes in the previous sentence. Jeez.
It's awesome that Prusa designed and open sourced face shields. Apple seems to have improved on those designs - to me, that's exactly the point of open source.
I'm not sure the Apple design was influenced by Prusa at all. The curved plastic is basically universal, and was present in face shields long before the coronavirus crisis. Some face shields used a rigid molded plastic shield, but that's obviously much harder to manufacture. If the shield is made of flexible plastic, something is clearly needed to tension it; the Prusa design used a rigid printed component, and Apple used another flexible component.
Prusa: https://manual.prusa3d.com/Guide/How+to+assemble+the+Prusa+F...
KSU: https://www.ajc.com/news/local/kennesaw-state-staff-members-...
A lot of people were prototyping shields to satisfy a sudden and overwhelming demand, and with 3D printers it seemed like dozens of variations appeared overnight. I don't think attribution is a big concern.
You're right though that they're not the same, beyond what similarity the function brings.
This design is entirely die cut, which is incredibly fast. A machine could probably stamp out 10 of these in the time it takes to print one layer in a typical FDM printer.
You can – depending on the material. The problem is keeping them sterile because, as you point out, there's gaps between layers. And there's wear on the material with most sterilization processes. Which doesn't really help with the end goal. Ideally these would be quickly discarded.
> A machine could probably stamp out 10 of these in the time it takes to print one layer in a typical FDM printer
An Apple machine, right? Have they shared their designs so that other manufacturing facilities can build them? If they did not... then you'll get the obsession with 3d printing.
I agree that Apple should share the design as well as the tooling designs. I have a friend that started mass producing masks and open-sourced the design: https://whitelabelfaceshields.com
> On top of that, the design is already commercialized.
It's not like you can print out that Apple page on your ink jet printer and wear it.