An industrial RepRap

rep

It may just be another 3D printer, but [Jonas] and [Simon]‘s Kühling & Kühling RepRap Industrial is a cross between a work of art and a beautiful machine tool. It also looks to be a pretty nice 3D printer, to boot.

The Kühling RepRap is built out of 20mm t-slot aluminum with plastic sides that keep the machine’s internals at a toasty 70° C, just about the optimal temperature for making large, complex prints. The machine has two extruders with all the cables tucked away in 3D printed cable carriers. One really interesting bit of innovation is the tool less belt t tensioning system.

On the list of upcoming features, [Jonas] and [Simon] say they want to add a touch screen controller powered by a Raspberry Pi, and a controller that’s even more capable than RAMPS electronics boards. No word on how much a Kühling & Kühling RepRap will cost, but like any quality-looking tool, we don’t expect it to be cheap.

Comments

  1. geekmaster says:

    They do realize that putting a 3D printer into a temperature controlled box is patented, right?

    Heck, even a MakerBot guys got a patent for putting a convey belt into a 3D printer.

    What next? A patent for powering a 3D printer from an automotive cigarette lighter plug? Or a patent for a rechargeable battery-operated 3D printer?

    These patents on OBVIOUS small improvements are ridiculous at best, and dangerous to innovation and the maker community. They must stop. What’s up with that MakerBot patent, when they WERE originally open source?

    • Frank says:

      They can patent it all they want, it still isn’t illegal to make for your own private use.

      • Frank says:

        Well… it isn’t around here at least. I guess you Americans might not be so lucky.

      • edw says:

        IANAL, but if I remember correctly from my engineering-oriented patent law class, it is technically illegal even for private use. It would just be very hard for the patent owner to claim harm done by private use, thus, not worth their time to pursue in court. The whole purpose of a patent suit is to end infringement, but if no damages are going to be awarded, nobody is going to spend for lawyers…

        I took this class almost 2 years ago, so I could be mistaken or remembering incorrectly. Just trying to contribute to the discussion!

        • Blue Footed Booby says:

          As it stands, the difference is academic. If you’ve got deeper pockets than the guy you’re suing you can sue for things that aren’t illegal, and use procedural bullshit to draw the process out enough that your opponent goes broke before the case can get thrown out. If you’re being sued and have deeper pockets than the guy who’s suing you, you can infringe all over the place laws and usually get away with it (until you catch the attention of bigger fish).

          Ultimately, patent abuse is just one more symptom of the larger problems that come down to disparity of wealth. Raising torches and pitchforks against the patent system only serves to direct attention away from the people who engineered the system to their benefit in the first place. Even if you fix patents, they’ll either break the new system or break something else, over and over until the larger problem is addressed…if it ever is.

      • JB says:

        +1

    • HomelyPoet says:

      You, of course, realise that all crops are patented as well, food and otherwise.

    • andar_b says:

      The OBVIOUS is the key. IIRC in the USA, if an improvement can be shown to be ‘common sense’, the patent cannot be defended. The problem is in the acceptance of so many common sense patents.

      • Greenaum says:

        I think the idea is, let the patent through, then rely on future court cases to test if it’s valid or not. Maybe the patent examiners want an easy life. Is it possible to sue the Patent Office if they don’t grant a patent you think they should? Does it happen much?

        Maybe it’s a case of Big Industry vs Poorly-Funded Government Agency, and as is common these days, the government backs down without a fight.

        Could be wrong tho.

    • shawn says:

      I would be interested to see the patent you are referring to. Unfortunately I can’t find it now but I seem to recall that the reprap wiki was talking about it at one point which might be prior art.

    • geekmaster says:

      There is even a patent for 3D printing multiple objects at the same time. So if you want to efficiently use the space inside your printer (commercially), good luck with that…

      How can you patent making stuff in batches, instead of one at a time? The patent system has gone off the deep end.

  2. I am glad that i am not living in USA ;)

  3. technodream says:

    so many patents are granted which have been done before and published in one way or another. putting 3d printers in a heated box was most certainly done early on in the 80’s. so either it was patented then, and thereby expired by now, or it was “wrongly” patented 5 years ago by some troll.

    • JB says:

      Exactly. The open source movement should start making a wiki (if not done already, I’m new to 3d printing) with all the “prior art” and patents issued back in the ’80s or before. Then start throwing that at all the trolls trying to re-patent that. Keep it open if it is already expired.

  4. Justin Case says:

    I wonder if I can Patent my sperm, so if some girl molests me when I’m drunk, then tries to sue me for child support, I could counter sue for damages, intellectual property theft, copyright infringement, etc.
    In light of the fact that recently a lesbian couple successfully sued a sperm bank donor for child support, and a deuce-bag judge agreed:
    If you set it up right, you could end career welfare mom’s by making it too liabely risky to get pregnant. The “donor” may give you the seed, but that does not authorize the use of the seed, any more than Monsantos seeds my blow onto your feilds, but that doesn’t allow you to grow crops from those seeds.
    The seeds may be used for “other purposes” than conception, so therefore, the leaving of a same does not imply consent for use of conception.

    Have I got a case???
    Just asking, Justin Case ;)

    • Greenaum says:

      Well in the case of plant seeds, you can eat them. Not sure about the “other purposes” of human seeds.

      How could a judge possibly grant child-support? Do you have a URL about it? Surely it’s covered in the contracts the donor and customer both sign. If it’s not, maybe the donor needs to sue the clinic for not protecting him properly.

      Still, goes to show, try to do someone a favour. Some people are just ungrateful. Give 2 lesbians a baby and they have the damn cheek to blame you for it. Gives lesbians a bad name, and women in general.

      • Justin Case says:

        Google: Lesbians sue for child support

        Also:

        http://www.examiner.com/article/lesbian-ks-mother-suing-sperm-donor-for-child-support

        The state Department for Children and Families, which is seeking $6,000 in reimbursements, cites a Kansas statute that assigns paternity to a sperm donor in cases where his donation was not inseminated under a doctor’s supervision. The two parents-to-be in this case, Angela Bauer and Jennifer Schreiner, handled the transfer of genetic material themselves, using a syringe.

        • Greenaum says:

          Ah wait… it wasn’t the lesbians, they all signed a contract freeing him of responsibility. They asked the state for help, since the mother became too ill to work, and the state came after the donor for money.

          Since it wasn’t done through a proper doctor, he wasn’t protected by law, and the stupid douche judge punished him for helping out a couple. Tho it does say the three of them lived together in some sort of relationship until it broke up just before this case occurred.

          So nobody was at fault except the state law and the judge.

          • static says:

            The couple split up. Only if Kansas would allowed homosexuals to marry, that way the Sate could have garnished to wages of the mother’s former partner. Don’t blame me I didn’t vote to prohibit homosexual marriage or civil unions.

      • Justin Case says:

        “Well in the case of plant seeds, you can eat them. Not sure about the “other purposes” of human seeds.”

        … I could supply URL links but nobody really needs HELP finding that, just turn off your blockers and filters !!
        :)

    • Greenaum says:

      Actually, from reading New Scientist, I think it’s possible to patent naturally-occuring genes. I think you need to have a specific purpose in mind for them though, you can’t just patent any old plant for any possible uses that might crop up.

      But yep, some naturally-occurring human genes have been patented. You could patent yours but you’d have to come up with a good use for them. Tho technically in case of unwanted pregnancy, you might have to sue her reproductive system.

    • 0c says:

      go back to /r/mensrights, idiot

  5. Hack Man says:

    Industrial and RepRap don’t belong together in the same sentence.

  6. nelson says:

    what do you call the plastic cable managment used?

  7. rue_mohr says:

    you can see why its important to include the statement in your copyright that if ANY part of your design is used in something that the remaining parts must be open source.

  8. Max Planck says:

    give it a year or so, and APPLE is going to sue everybody for the patents on 3D printers ;P

    (yes, it is a joke.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 96,699 other followers