Has anyone used a 3D printer before?

Hi Dan,

The subject was brought up on the Letpress list, and one member shared his experience with an inexpensive 3D setup:

http://armina79.blogspot.com/2011/04/3d-printer.html

I very much look forward to what you will do at RIT. My printerly hope for these machines is that they will be able to make parts for our aging presses. I can’t see why they won’t be able to produce type, too. They’re precise to 0.1mm. For those who are not familiar with the technology, here’s a video that’s hard to believe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw

Barbara

Thank you for the helpful links. My concern is the pressure from the handpress cracking and breaking the 3D printed type. We will see…

Dan H.

Please follow through with this and document the process! I would love to see how it unfolds!

You may be interested to see the post Nick Sherman did about his Intercut type project. This was a subtractive rather than an additive process, but it did start with 3D rendered models.
http://nicksherman.com/design/Intercut/

Daniel Morris
The Arm Letterpress
Brooklyn, NY

dhorowitz, for the life of me I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around “3D printing” Who are your instructors? Is this the age where we make up words
about words that already exist? I’m flabergasted.
best james

Dan- thanks for that link about Nick’s experiments. What most excited me though was an idea he mentions at the end, an electromagnetic bed. After spending time printing with a bunting base and having trouble making small/subtle adjustments, I thought of something similar for that context. Place your metal-backed plates on a base, move them around, flip a switch to turn on the magnet and it’s locked down!

Test text block printing as we speak…takes about 1:45 to create at 1”x1” at type high. Will be out rest of day, results forthcoming.

IMAG0264.jpg

dhorowitz, An offset press,a letterpress is a 3D printer.
I can’t imagine the work and genius it woruld take to create
a machine that replicates something in 3D and then to have such a loose grip of the english language to call it a
3D printer. What is it printing? So you use rocket science to reinvent wood type? The inventor should have called it a 3D doughnut, because it has nothing to do with doughnuts, as this machine has nothing to do with print or printing. best james

Watched the videos Barbara’s link, i can not believe what i’m seeing, i expected to see David Copperfield there somewhere. Dick G.

James, it is called a 3D printer because it lays down a powder substance much like how an ink-jet lays down ink droplets. Watch the video Barbara posted.

Dan H.

Here is the test text block (without reverse text).

side

top

can’t wait to see it in action - please keep us all posted!

dhorowitz, look up the word print or printing in the dictionary.Its a replicator period and has nothing at all to do with print or printing. When I make a peanutbutter and jelly sanwhich and I spread the peanutbutter I am therefore printing the peanutbutter? I am going to invent a machine that makes these PB&Js and call it a PB&J sandwich printer.The inventor at best has a poor understanding of the word print,printer, and printing.

dhorowitz is not making any of this up, the technical term for the process is stereolithography (aka 3d printing by just about everyone that’s ever run one):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereolithography

the latest machines can actually direct print in metal (this process is called Selective Laser Sintering, for those who are curious) rather than just ABS plastic, for those thinking press parts…

dhorowitz, you are doing interesting research. Please keep us informed with your progress.

My humble suggestion would be to use a shim plate behind the pieces you make so you do not have to print them to type high. I think this would help you save some time in the machine.

James, why bring down the conversation with gripe about the term “3d printer”? dhorowitz neither invented or propagated the term but it is the industry standard name for this technology.

James-
I am rather hungry. Can you email me your .pbj file so I can print it out here?

Dan

I’m very interested in this as well. I’m taking classes at a school that has similar 3D printing equipment as well and will be taking their fabrication course in the fall. Then I can use the 3D scanners and modelers. I’ve been toying with the idea for making plates for my wife this way for a while.

I’ve handled items made by these printers before and as long as you don’t apply an excessive amount of force for the impression they will probably hold up fine. That is my untested opinion of course. The machines I have seen running are very sssslllloooowww but I’m sure newer ones are better. Shimming the bottom may save on both machine time and material costs. Good luck with that though, I’ve had a difficult time finding a place that will precision mill metal plates or hardwood for me for a reasonable price.

Crazy side note, there are a couple interns from RIT at the software company I work for this summer. Small world.

joelanich, its not a gripe it is an affront. Just because you can invent a machine that electronically/digitally ejaculates
a polymer and you excite those polymers with light,sound
or electricity and replicate an object does not constitute printing. Sure you can call it printing but it isn’t.We live in a country that guarantees freedom of speech but not necessarly freedom from ignorance. Evidently a guy named Chuck Hull coined the term stereolithography, without any explanation at all. The word he coined translates to three dimensional stone writing?, and that corelates to replicating something out of plastic?. Without a doubt Chuck Hull is a smart man,clearly he has no sense of etymology. It does matter what we call/name things otherwise I could call you a bad word and you wouldn’t mind. dhorowitz asked for thoughts on this subject and I have a few more. In the youtube video this company shows all this plactic stuff on the table,does any of it do anything other that sit on the table. I also did not see this company make a 22oz framing hammer and drive a 16 p nail into a 2x4. I don’t understand why you would invent a maching that makes stuff thats already invented. When Megenthaler invented the linotype he invented something new, he didn’t reinvent
the hand mold out of plastic.We have tons of floating plastic in our oceans why don’t we invent a machine
reduces it, and then hire an english major to help us come up with a name. best james

It probably is a mistake to let a linguistic issue overtake this thread, when its real direction is a very interesting application of a new technology, but…

If one does in fact consult a dictionary, as suggested, one discovers that the origins of the word “print” go back to Greek and Roman antiquity (with the first attested use in English in 1300, well before Gutenberg). The word means, at its heart, an impression with a stamp or punch - as in an impression into wax for a seal or an impression into metal in coining. It signifies, in its linguistic roots, a three-dimensional process.

From these origins of course such a basic and useful word spread to metaphorical and suggestive uses (e.g., an imprint of an image in the mind, first attested in English in 1315, or indeed “an image or likeness of anything” (OED, 2b), with an example in this sense from 1388). Many of these senses remain today; a footprint in the sand is a good example of this original, three-dimensional sense of the word.

The use of “print” in the sense in which it is generally used on Briar Press is actually a significant change from the basic sense of the word as three-dimensional object or process, as it reduces it (more or less, depending on depth of impression of course) to two dimensions. It is not attested in English until 1482, nearly two centuries after its first appearance in this language.

Someone (else!) probably ought to investigate the history of both the terms “stereolithography” and “3-D printing,” but I would guess that each probably came about by direct analog to earlier technologies: lithography from chip fabrication and printing with reference to the motions of many computer printers.

Regardless of the origins, though, the term “3-D printer” is beautifully appropriate for this type of machine because it returns, after a lapse of some centuries, to the origins of “print” as a process of creating three-dimensional items. It is a far smaller jump than the that done in the 15th century when the word “print” was borrowed from three dimensional processes and applied to two-dimensional work on paper. It is one of the better modern coinages I’ve seen: both suggestive of the processes and respectful of the language and its deep roots.

As to the novelty of the products of 3-D printing… I’ve seen examples of complex three-dimensional castings with voids, investment-cast from models made by 3-D printing. I’ve done casting and machining, and can assure you that the making of these would have been somewhere between prohibitively expensive and impossible using previous technologies. This is indeed innovative technology that is going to start changing the world rather soon. (What is even more exciting is that it is a technology which has been embraced by the new “maker” community. There are both home-brew 3-D printers, and public-access 3-D printers. This is the home shop / tinkerer’s ethic at its best.)

My thanks to dhorowitz and the others exploring this. Metaphors be with you :-)

Regards,
Dr. David M. MacMillan
www.CircuitousRoot.com

Oh, and a tiny item for the overly picky:

The root “stereo-” means “solid, ” not “3-D.” The term “stereotype” signifies a single (therefore solid) plate as opposed to the form of type from which it was made. The printing surfaces of the form of type and of the stereotype have the same dimensionality.

Who cares what you call it. If you want to get picky, who was the idiot that named the tooth brush, i brush my teeth, shouldn’t it be called a teeth brush??? I wonder if you could make a sigwalt with this machine?? Dick G.

We have to smile at the discussion …!
I’m amazed at the technology, really wonderful, such incredible potential.
The use the letterpress printer person will want it for is to produce printing plates. That’s all for the good, after all we started with wood cuts from the ancients, then moveable type, cast lines of type, then wood cuts again for “pictures”, then various printing blocks in metal and plastics, even vegetable matter, wooden type then film and photographic processes, then digital and so we continue to innovate for pre-press including this 3D method of making plates..
My only concern is the possibility of a push to make another Discussion Category on Briar Press called 3DPrinting Letterpress, like Digital Letterpress, when it, along with Digital Letterpress should come under the Discussion of Pre-Press. [That’s another discussion.]
Back to the 3D under discussion, if its not a “con”, any “limitations” being experienced now will eventually be overcome.
Finally, This “modern” letterpress some are involved with on this website will go the same way as letterpress of my generation, which is, people will innovate and look for better technology; who knows someone will discovernew Lithography and heavens something Digital, which will yet again mean the demise of letterpress, again!!!
That’s human nature, and long live innovation, I wouldn’t be on my computer if some one hadn’t given up on the tom toms and smoke pyres. [Who just said “what a pity”?]
William Amer, Rockley NSW
PS And the cast iron and type will still be here.

Quick update:

Finally got a test text block made up using a sans-serif typeface instead of a serifed one. Did this to ensure minimal cracking on the surface, if any at all.

Printed the block using a Vandercook model press and a rubber based black ink. The surface of the 3D block was rough but still held a decent print.

For future reference, sanding the surface of the block may improve the quality, but evenness throughout may be sacrificed.

Any Questions?

Pictures to come soon.

Dan:

Can you change the resolution of the passes to make the last few passes of greater fineness to provide a more uniform printing surface?

How accurate is the height of the block? Does if vary from side to side?

This is certainly a fine experiment with some potential uses in letterpress to eliminate the negative in the plate processing, and potentially lower costs for the user in the long run.

Do you think you could keep a plate as thin as .064” flat enough to print from if held on a base with adhesive?

We will look forward to seeing your photos.

John Henry
Cedar Creek Press

John,
-Unfortunately we cannot change the resolution, it is the same powder-like substance that is laid down.
-The block is fairly accurate, actually. The middle seems to be more accurate than the sides.
-Not quite sure about how thin we can get it, but it is pretty expensive, so maybe a Boxcar plate is still the way to go for that purpose.

Dan

A few others have mentioned this, but I also would be much more excited at the prospect of being able to cheaply replicate single parts without having to go through the inefficient process of recasting something.

The thing that I’ve heard other industries get excited over is the ability to make a single prototype much easier and less cost prohibitive. Eventually the technology may catch up to make it useful in full scale production, but it’s use for prototypes makes it a win no matter what.

The thought of using this to create something more shallow and shimming it doesn’t have me sold—it doesn’t seem to really improve much on subtractive photo processes available (time & resolution for starters). I’d think that this sort of technology would be more suited for creating new movable type and blocks than replacing photopolymer plates. The one advantage being able to go straight from the computer to a finished product without needing to create film.

To take the discussion in a slightly different direction, is there any existing way/idea/attempt to go directly from a computer file to a finished photopolymer plate? I’m thinking along the lines of a transparent LCD screen that creates a negative of the input digital image via polarization to block the exposing light. The reverse could be used to do photo etching instead as well. Just a thought…

Seems like a likely method for direct-to-plate for photopolymer would be to draw the image with a high-res laser or other point light generator directly on the polymer and then develop it. The biggest problem would be maintaining a decent shoulder.

Bob

The laser technology in filmsetters works with light sensitive paper as well as film, used to print high-res artwork on Lino 330s. Maybe someone just needs to convert filmsetters to be able to handle the ticker media. Expose the polymer plate directly with the laser, then wash out.

Widmark, that exists already- It’s called direct laser engraving.

http://www.andvre.com/direct_laser_engraving.html

Stork is the brand, Anderson and Vreeland distribute them in the US. They’re really for flexo and the like, not letterpress, but as I understand it you can put plates on them.

“Agrios is the fastest laser engraver of flexo printing forms on the market. Specially suited for engraving flexo material like rubber and polymer, this unit makes no compromise in delivering top engraving quality.”

What I really think is interesting about the application of 3-d printing, or stereo-lithography, is the use of the medium to make forms for typecasting.

For example, with relatively little effort, we can almost completely remove the human hand from the process of building forms to print from- and several steps between the ink getting on paper, which usually result in image degredation. IE: Normal procedure is Image in computer>output to film>expose to plate>image washout/etch?>put in press and ink>offset to paper.

With RTP, it is Image in computer>output to plate>offset onto paper.

Or, even further, the use of this tech to make parts to be cast as sorts to be made into handset type, whether larger display type or smaller book and page type…. Well, if it were high res enough, this would be a really great function within the production chain if someone wanted to TOTALLY modernize, digitize, and make typecasting efficient again, and had both the funding and technological wherewithal to make it happen.