RepRap Wedge


Generation 2.0 of RepRap, the self replicating 3d printer, is approaching realization. Code named “Mendel”, the new design will be wedge shaped rather than a box which offers a few benefits. The overall design is smaller than the original RepRap but the printable area is larger. This means more functionality with less building material. With each new generation of this project the assembly gets easier and total parts price drops making the RepRap available to a much wider audience.

The RepRap blog has put forth some design specs, a picture of the assembled prototype, and has links for general assembly information (ZIP). We won’t see a finished version of this released for a few months but so far it looks like a big leap forward.

36 thoughts on “RepRap Wedge

  1. its not supposed to be impressive; that’s the point. its supposed to be cheap and, eventually, revolutionize the way prototyping is done, but they haven’t gotten there yet.

  2. @spacecoyote

    The reason we aren’t impressed is that it isn’t going to revolutionize prototyping anymore than rehashing the flintlock is going to revolutionize firearms.
    Revolutionizing prototyping >is< happening, it just happens to have left the reprap people far behind stuck on dead dev paths. They can optimize and refine the flintlock all they want. The rest of the world has moved on.

  3. I think the RepRap and the Makerbot are a really cool idea. I have been working on a CNC router for a while now and as soon as it is finished I am building a RepRap. I think the idea of being able to prototype parts is amazing. Why are people putting them down though? I have not heard any actual reasons? If you have some real reason I am interested in what they are.

  4. @ nave.notnilc

    Interesting question, but not a relevant one. The answer to the trick question is, of course, none have all three. what they do have, however, is progress.

    Unfortunately none of your three metrics speak to the relevancy of the underlying idea (desperately obsolete) or its chance of success (close to zero).
    I can open source cold fusion to eight year olds with paper cups and scissors, too. It would meet all three of your criterion, and therefore be ideologically sound to the reprap crowd. doesn’t mean it will work.

  5. the ink quill is outdated by your standards, yet we use paper and ink for more things then we ever have before. just because you think something is desperately obsolete doesn’t mean it is useless for its intended purpose. face it, anything you get is obsolete the minute you get it. that’s just things are.

  6. Lots of rabid anti arduino trolls in here. The anti arduino statements are getting really old and tiring. The arduino is a great little piece of hacking, and inspires and enables many other and new great hacks. So anti arduino troll go and crawl back to your caves and let the rest of us explore in peace.

  7. extrusion-type machines have a number of very serious hard limitations and problems that are inherent to that process, limitations that do not exist with newer methods. that is why it has been abandoned by all credible researchers for years.
    it would take a book to explain the technical details, but thats it in a nutshell.

    extrusion types have already been explored to their physical limits. an affordable RP revolution is indeed coming, and needed, but extrusion-based modeling isn’t it.

  8. if you think the purpose of this thing is to ‘revolutionize prototyping’, you’re an idiot and are completely missing the point, probably for extraordinarily vain and abhorrent reasons.

    the point of this thing is to revolutionize the way folks make things. such an engineering project, open to anyone who can read the materials, make things, and end up with something that can /further enable them to make things/ is: the point.

    hooray if you’ve already got a shed full of tinker toys. good for you, spoiled little brat that you are, that you’ve already got ‘more bleeding edge’ stuff than anyone else. yay.

    what this is good for is those who don’t have nearly 1/10th of what you have, in terms of life competence, and capabilities. this is the volkswagen of production-plants and manufacturing capabilities, the Common Mans factory line.

    i say, keep it coming, reprap folks. i’ll take two .. and use them to build, eventually, 30 more. i know 30 folks who haven’t a clue how to make these things that will, nevertheless, do something truly revolutionary with the tool, once it gets in their hands…

  9. when i said it would revolutionize prototyping, i *meant* it would revolutionize the way people build things (in fact that was what i was going to type but was too lazy). in other words, revolutionize prototyping *for the common man*. jeez.

  10. You keep saying that new methods beat extrusion etc – but have yet to actually tell us anything useful.

    What, EXACTLY, makes this ‘obsolete’? What are these new methods?

  11. @stunmonkey

    Your argument is vapid. You can’t define why the reprap line of inquiry is flawed, other than to say, in a rather deflecting manner, that there are reasons. Even then you say you would need a book to describe the technical reasons, but that isn’t any better an argument.

    Try listing some reasons. Bullet points would suit in a situation where a number of us are perhaps not fully aware of current developments in the field and would like to know perhaps why our efforts are misdirected.

    Arguments and criticism are useful when you build a framework that supports your point of view using hard facts, rather than brushing off our questions with more non-answers, leading us to think you are just a troll.

  12. it’s stupid to discount extrusion prototyping for everything. it has it’s uses. yes, it has it’s limitations too. instead of making the claim that it’s dead, point out the good and the bad.

    i could see it being extremely useful in metal casting. it would be great to print patterns and cores using prototyping material, then cast the final product in your material of choice (aluminum, etc.).

    that doesn’t seem like too stupid an idea, now does it?

  13. @riazap some folks think differently than you. Calling them a troll doesn’t make you right. Is there no room for democracy? Some of us think the Arduino nutballs need to take a step back. We already hashed this out earlier before 2.0 and as much as the POS Arduino makes me sick I am willing to compromise with fewer posts about it. Thanks to Caleb for keeping it a bit lighter on the Arduino mania that was here for a while. I am still keeping my fingers crossed that HAD keeps up the good work. For the time being though, it is nice to have tear-downs again which you probably don’t like lol.

  14. “it would take a book to explain the technical details, but thats it in a nutshell.”

    Or, you know, a couple of actual useful links that illustrated your point. That would work too.

    I’m aware of the limitations of extrusion technology (painfully so, in fact), but I have yet to read anything in this entire thread that actually discusses an alternative. Not only are there no links (and I refuse to believe they do not exist), but I haven’t read anything other than “I know of something better, but I can’t be bothered to explain. I can, however, make the effort to piss on your cornflakes, coz that’s easy”

    And that, not the difference of opinion, is what makes you a troll.

  15. I think that for the newer folk, extrusion-type machines are the best thing since sliced bread. If I want to make a few customized LEGO parts (Or a few more of ones that I have), for example, I just start up my Maker bot and poof: it starts extruding parts. OR, I could build a vacuform machine (eeek!) and make molds of them and then fill them with something and let them cool and have a part so low-res that it won’t work. Hmmm, I think I’ll go with the Makerbot. I mean, so many times, you just want to make a few individual and unique parts, and that’s what this type of device is for (imo).

    Another use is times when perfectly symmetrical parts are required. Let’s say I’m making a bipedal humanoid, and I want a cool plastic shell to cover up the servos. I could somehow carve/form/cast one side no problem, but when I needed to mirror it, I would have to start from scratch. OR, I could do one side with a makerbot, mirror the file, and then run it again: boom. Perfect parts, perfectly mirrored.

    If I needed something mass-produced, then sure, I might prefer a vacuform machine to make casts and fill them repeatedly. But for unique (or oddly-shaped) projects/pieces, MakerBots and RepRaps are the way to go. IMHO, of course.

    – Jordan

    P.S. I’m not a troll for saying that, am I?

Leave a Reply

Please be kind and respectful to help make the comments section excellent. (Comment Policy)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.