Sindrian Arts

A while ago my mother sent me a link to the above video.  Apparently it was making the rounds as an example of an amazing new technology, even though this tech has been around for years.  Still, if my mother, who last time I checked does not regularly look into rapid prototyping technologies, saw this, it must be fairly popular, so I decided to give it a look.

It shows a guy going to Z Corporation to demo the capabilities of 3D printers.  A rep from the company shows him around, explains how the machines work, and shows him some objects that came out of their printers.  So far, so good.

Then he asks them to reproduce a crescent wrench.  They take a wrench, scan it using a high-precision 3D scanner, and then print a copy of it.

Except they don’t really.

Here’s the thing: I’m very familiar with the technologies used in this video.  I know what they can and cannot do.  They can indeed scan a wrench into a 3D model with incredible accuracy.  They can also print a wrench with moving parts that works well.  However, what they cannot do is print the scanned model and expect it to work like the original.

3D scanners, accurate though they might be, cannot see inside a multi-part assembly and discern where the gaps between the parts are.  This means that while they did print a fully functional crescent wrench, the model they printed was not the one they scanned in.

Many people noticed this.  To his credit, David Kaplan, they guy in the video, posted a response in which he admits to this, explains what happened, takes responsibility, and apologizes.  Personally, I suspect that while he does take responsibility, this slight deception was not David’s idea, but rather came out of someone else’s desire for a simple, easy to understand narrative.

Still, it really bugs me when this happens.  Both 3D scanning and printing are amazing technologies; one does not need to employ sleight-of-hand to show this.  However, when deception is used, even one as minimal as this, it causes people to call into question all the other claims made in the video.  Put simply, if they’ll lie about one small thing, they might lie about anything, and their credibility as educators is shot.

This is a continuation of my last post on digital designs and patents.

One thing I’ve put a lot of though into is how I should protect the intellectual property of my product designs.  After much soul-searching, I finally came to a simple decision: I won’t protect them at all.

A while ago I watched this TED talk by Johanna Blakely on the fashion industry and how it copes with the lack of patent or copyright protection.  As it turns out, this lack of IP protection actually stimulates creativity in the industry, spurring designers to either constantly innovate or fall behind.  As a result, there is a constant stream of fresh new design.  What if this paradigm was implemented in the realm of product design?

I’ve had first-hand experience with the headaches caused by patents while working for a local toy inventor, Sean Mullaney.  I was amazed by how restricted we were when it came to new toy ideas: we had to be abandon an idea if it was even vaguely similar to something that already came to market for fear that it could not be patented.  This was very frustrating, not just because of the wasted time, but because our idea was often a dramatic improvement on the existing idea.  And that right there is one of the great advantages of open-source design: incremental improvement.

There are many other advantages, but those will have to wait for another time; today I start on the construction of my CNC machine!

Image by Scott Beale / Laughing Squid | CC 2.0

Knowing that I’m interested in digital fabrication, my good friend George over at Social Gumbo recently sent me a link to this story on 3D printing and copyright over at ars technica.  It starts by discussing the recent Penrose Triangle debacle, and then goes onto discuss how copyrights, patents, and trademarks might impact the future of 3D printing.  My personal take on all this is as follows: given how easy it is for digital designs to proliferate, why fight against it?  I’d prefer instead to find ways to take advantage of this new reality, and make it work for me rather than against me.  I’ve got a lot of thoughts on this, so stay tuned; there’s more to come.

>Poor blog, I’ve really been neglecting you, haven’t I? Well, fear not, for I now have a reason to post to you on a regular basis for the next three months!

>Simon Sinek is one clever monkey. I just watched this amazing TED talk by him describing his very simple explanation for why some businesses and movements succeed while others fail. In short, you’re selling what you believe, not what you do. As Sinek put it, Martin Luthor’s speach was “I have a dream,” not “I have a plan.” I love it. It just feels right.

>So I was going through my backlog of RSS feeds, and I stumbled across this article on Engadget about a new type of solar cell being developed by Caltech. These new cells have several advantages, from using fifty times less semiconductor material than conventional cells to being able to convert 90 to 100 percent of photons absorbed into electrons. Oh yeah, and they’re flexible as well. Here’s a link to the original article on Caltech’s site.

>Remember the computer from Star Trek: The Next Generation? While there were touch screens in every room and corridor, most people interacted with it by talking. “Computer, where is the captain?” “Computer, increase lighting by twenty percent.” “Computer, who won the 1989 world series?” What a cool idea, right? We use speech to communicate with other people, so as computers get more and more sophisticated (read: more like people), we’d eventually start talking to them as well.

>While catching up on my RSS feeds, I stumbled across an article about a technology that could turn any surface (even curved or transparent ones) into a multi-touch interface simply by applying a very thin film. You can even put the film under the surface, as long as it isn’t deeper than 15 mm. Read about it here.

>My uncle, who sometimes sends me random bits of interesting stuff, just sent me a link to this interview with the CEO of Zappos.com about developing an internal culture to maintain people’s passion for what they do. It’s a great read for anyone who’s interested in running their own business.

>So it occurs to me that I should explain the title of this blog. Why creator? Why not designer, since I’m going to school for design? To add to this confusion, I’ll answer the second question first. The thing about calling one’s self a designer is that it’s horribly vague. Graphic designers, fashion designers, and interior designers all use the word ‘design’ as if it only refers to what they do. Their are lots of business called [name here] Design, and there’s no way to know which kind they do without visiting their website. I want a word that will either let people know exactly what I do, or at least force them to ask. I don’t want to just be another ‘designer.’