reverse engineering or copying?


Bill Lane
 

John

 

Last fall I was given the use of a $150,000 3D scanner for 4 hours scanning specific areas of a boxcar. It was a massive clunky “THAT is $150K” looking thing. In spite of getting the scan files, it might be a while if ever that I learn how to convert them into something useful. The scanner could only create a STL file which at least for me is not a usable file that can be edited. Yes there are STL file editors I don’t have yet. The STL is my output file when I am done designing. It is likely more useful to just create my own new files for those items. I was told by the dealer that scanned for me that MOST of the 3D scanners are currently designed for and used as quality control confirmation of complex shapes not reverse engineering.

 

While the copying items like brake wheel, trucks and other model railroad items is not illegal there is a moral issue. Reverse engineering can be a polished term for copying! Knocking off a long gone company’s item is one thing but if the company is still in business it might get them upset.

 

Thank You,
Bill Lane

Modeling the Mighty Pennsy & PRSL in 1957 in S Scale since 1987

See my finished models at:
http://www.lanestrains.com
Look at what has been made in PRR in S Scale!

 

See my layout progress at:

http://www.lanestrains.com/My_Layout.htm

Custom Train Parts Design
http://www.lanestrains.com/SolidWorks_Modeling.htm

PRR Builders Photos Bought, Sold & Traded
(Trading is MUCH preferred)
http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRphotos.xls 

***Join the PRR T&HS***
The other members are not ALL like me!
http://www.prrths.com
http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRTHS_Application.pdf

Join the Pennsylvania Reading Seashore Lines Historical Society
It's FREE to join! http://www.prslhs.com 
Preserving The Memory Of The PRSL

 


Scaler164@...
 

I fail to see why a manufacturer SHOULD (as opposed to could) care if his item is copied as long as the new product was not produced in his same scale.  I mean, why would an HO manufacturer who flat-out refuses to venture into S care if we duplicate his HO model in S since it will not in any way be competing for his market?!?  Yes, I understand the issue of design investment, but to that end, a small gratuity COULD be paid... if necessary... like most 1:1 scale railroads now charge for use of their logos/names/etc.
 
John Dgnan
 


From: "Bill Lane"
To: "Steam Era Freight cars"
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 4:33:42 AM
Subject: [STMFC] reverse engineering or copying?
 

Last fall I was given the use of a $150,000 3D scanner for 4 hours scanning specific areas of a boxcar. It was a massive clunky “THAT is $150K” looking thing. In spite of getting the scan files, it might be a while if ever that I learn how to convert them into something useful. The scanner could only create a STL file which at least for me is not a usable file that can be edited. Yes there are STL file editors I don’t have yet. The STL is my output file when I am done designing. It is likely more useful to just create my own new files for those items. I was told by the dealer that scanned for me that MOST of the 3D scanners are currently designed for and used as quality control confirmation of complex shapes not reverse engineering.

While the copying items like brake wheel, trucks and other model railroad items is not illegal there is a moral issue. Reverse engineering can be a polished term for copying! Knocking off a long gone company’s item is one thing but if the company is still in business it might get them upset.

Bill Lane


 

Don¹t know if it cost $150K or not, but ³This Old House² last week featured
a hand held 3D scanner hooked to a laptop. An old plaster light fixture
escutcheon was scanned, from which a replacement could be produced. Surely,
this was a 12²:1¹ to 12²:1¹ copy, but I don¹t see why the scan couldn¹t be
scaled down (or up, if scanning, say, an HO model to make an S scale one).
And Weathertech (makers of car floor mats) shows in their ads the use of the
same technology to make form fitting plastic floor mats. Neither of these is
for QC only use!

Thanks!
--

Brian Ehni

From: <Scaler164@comcast.net>
Reply-To: STMFC List <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Thursday, March 13, 2014 at 5:31 AM
To: STMFC List <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] reverse engineering or copying?







I fail to see why a manufacturer SHOULD (as opposed to could) care if his
item is copied as long as the new product was not produced in his same
scale. I mean, why would an HO manufacturer who flat-out refuses to venture
into S care if we duplicate his HO model in S since it will not in any way
be competing for his market?!? Yes, I understand the issue of design
investment, but to that end, a small gratuity COULD be paid... if
necessary... like most 1:1 scale railroads now charge for use of their
logos/names/etc.

John Dgnan
Scaler164@comcast.net
Scaler187@comcast.net


From: "Bill Lane" <bill@lanestrains.com>
To: "Steam Era Freight cars" <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 4:33:42 AM
Subject: [STMFC] reverse engineering or copying?

Last fall I was given the use of a $150,000 3D scanner for 4 hours scanning
specific areas of a boxcar. It was a massive clunky ³THAT is $150K² looking
thing. In spite of getting the scan files, it might be a while if ever that
I learn how to convert them into something useful. The scanner could only
create a STL file which at least for me is not a usable file that can be
edited. Yes there are STL file editors I don¹t have yet. The STL is my
output file when I am done designing. It is likely more useful to just
create my own new files for those items. I was told by the dealer that
scanned for me that MOST of the 3D scanners are currently designed for and
used as quality control confirmation of complex shapes not reverse
engineering.
While the copying items like brake wheel, trucks and other model railroad
items is not illegal there is a moral issue. Reverse engineering can be a
polished term for copying! Knocking off a long gone company¹s item is one
thing but if the company is still in business it might get them upset.
Bill Lane









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Pierre Oliver <pierre.oliver@...>
 

As a kit manufacturer, let me tell you I would be very unhappy if my product was scanned and copied regardless of scale, without permission.
A lot of hard work goes into creating product and effort should be rewarded not pillaged.
And a little consideration and good will goes a long way.
This is starting to sound like the whole online stealing of music debate again.
Pierre Oliver
www.elgincarshops.com
www.yarmouthmodelworks.com
On 3/13/2014 6:31 AM, Scaler164@... wrote:

 
I fail to see why a manufacturer SHOULD (as opposed to could) care if his item is copied as long as the new product was not produced in his same scale.  I mean, why would an HO manufacturer who flat-out refuses to venture into S care if we duplicate his HO model in S since it will not in any way be competing for his market?!?  Yes, I understand the issue of design investment, but to that end, a small gratuity COULD be paid... if necessary... like most 1:1 scale railroads now charge for use of their logos/names/etc.
 
John Dgnan
 

From: "Bill Lane"
To: "Steam Era Freight cars"
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 4:33:42 AM
Subject: [STMFC] reverse engineering or copying?
 

Last fall I was given the use of a $150,000 3D scanner for 4 hours scanning specific areas of a boxcar. It was a massive clunky “THAT is $150K” looking thing. In spite of getting the scan files, it might be a while if ever that I learn how to convert them into something useful. The scanner could only create a STL file which at least for me is not a usable file that can be edited. Yes there are STL file editors I don’t have yet. The STL is my output file when I am done designing. It is likely more useful to just create my own new files for those items. I was told by the dealer that scanned for me that MOST of the 3D scanners are currently designed for and used as quality control confirmation of complex shapes not reverse engineering.

While the copying items like brake wheel, trucks and other model railroad items is not illegal there is a moral issue. Reverse engineering can be a polished term for copying! Knocking off a long gone company’s item is one thing but if the company is still in business it might get them upset.

Bill Lane

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4336 / Virus Database: 3722/7186 - Release Date: 03/12/14



John Barry
 

Bill,

I am not advocating copying parts.  My post was to point out that many on this list have the scratchbuilding skills to fabricate original models in wood/plastic/metal but are nigh on illiterate when it comes to the digital realm.  Those on the list are a step ahead of the modelers who don't use computers at all, but there is a world of difference between reading e-mail messages and digitally designing a part.  Modeling skills do not necessarily translate into CAD skills.  One only has to look at the frustrations of those trying to navigate the archives now that Neo is the Yahoo standard.  Your response vis-a-vis the scanner tells all, CNC die making is not yet ready for modelers, at least not those who haven't made the commitment to also become CAD drafters.  My gratitude and best wishes to those who are leading the charge, for by your efforts, that elusive goal of I can make a bunch of these comes a few steps closer to those who can make one.
 
John Barry


ATSF North Bay Lines
Golden Gates & Fast Freights


707-490-9696


3450 Palmer Drive, Suite 4224
Cameron Park, CA 95682



From: Bill Lane
To: Steam Era Freight cars
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:33 AM
Subject: [STMFC] reverse engineering or copying?

 
John
 
Last fall I was given the use of a $150,000 3D scanner for 4 hours scanning specific areas of a boxcar. It was a massive clunky “THAT is $150K” looking thing. In spite of getting the scan files, it might be a while if ever that I learn how to convert them into something useful. The scanner could only create a STL file which at least for me is not a usable file that can be edited. Yes there are STL file editors I don’t have yet. The STL is my output file when I am done designing. It is likely more useful to just create my own new files for those items. I was told by the dealer that scanned for me that MOST of the 3D scanners are currently designed for and used as quality control confirmation of complex shapes not reverse engineering.
 
While the copying items like brake wheel, trucks and other model railroad items is not illegal there is a moral issue. Reverse engineering can be a polished term for copying! Knocking off a long gone company’s item is one thing but if the company is still in business it might get them upset.
 
Thank You,
Bill Lane

Modeling the Mighty Pennsy & PRSL in 1957 in S Scale since 1987

See my finished models at:
http://www.lanestrains.com
Look at what has been made in PRR in S Scale!
 
See my layout progress at:
http://www.lanestrains.com/My_Layout.htm

Custom Train Parts Design
http://www.lanestrains.com/SolidWorks_Modeling.htm

PRR Builders Photos Bought, Sold & Traded
(Trading is MUCH preferred)
http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRphotos.xls 

***Join the PRR T&HS***
The other members are not ALL like me!
http://www.prrths.com
http://www.lanestrains.com/PRRTHS_Application.pdf

Join the Pennsylvania Reading Seashore Lines Historical Society
It's FREE to join! http://www.prslhs.com 
Preserving The Memory Of The PRSL
 



Dennis Storzek
 

I have to admit I agree completely with Pierre's comments. In addition, those of us who design tooling know that there is no such thing as a completely scale model, there are many, many tweaks required to render a detail so it can be molded, but still appear correct. How these tweaks are accomplished is what sets each company's product line apart.

I'm sure 3-D scanning will have a place, but it is hardly a panacea; nowhere in the foreseeable future are you going to be able to point your "Instamatic Scanner" at a prototype and send the file out to Shapeways to get a model back, and certainly not anywhere near a price modelers will feel is reasonable.

I'm reminded of a comment I just read on a machining forum; the poster felt that management had the idea that since they had CNC machines, all they had to do on the shop floor was show the drawing to the machine, and the part got made. He said that one day the first parts came out of the machine with the surface wavy from cutter chatter, and his buddy accused him of shaking when he showed the machine the print. :-)

Dennis Storzek


Dave Nelson
 

It might sound like the copying music debate but in fact it is very, very different.

 

There is no legal protection whatsoever for the shape of a model made with high fidelity to a real world object.  Period.  Skill, effort, time, investment… it doesn’t matter, it is not protected.  Add artwork and the artwork – and only the artwork – might be protected by copyright… but only if it is creative.  Whether there is or is not a moral issue is, IMO, a somewhat different conversation and one I’ll skip for now.

 

It might not sound fair but that’s the way it is.  See “Meshworks v. Toyota” for a full ruling on why cad files – or any other representation  made with high fidelity to a real world object  are not subject to copyright protection.

 

Dave Nelson

 

 

 

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Pierre Oliver
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 6:28 AM



As a kit manufacturer, let me tell you I would be very unhappy if my product was scanned and copied regardless of scale, without permission.
A lot of hard work goes into creating product and effort should be rewarded not pillaged.
And a little consideration and good will goes a long way.
This is starting to sound like the whole online stealing of music debate again.

 


Eric Neubauer <eaneubauer@...>
 


As a former provider of scale drawings, I can empathize with that unhappiness. Payment for publication hardly covered the amount of effort and expense that went into reducing an actual car into a good scale drawing or a well researched book.
 
That being said, all of us do this because we enjoy it and few if any are getting a large financial reward for their efforts. With that in mind, my main concern is having enough to keep me busy for the rest of my life, and that is hardly a concern. Many of you have a pile of unbuilt kits: I have a pile of freight car production data to compile. I also find that you get more than you give when dealing with like-minded individuals. It's the ones who always want someone else to do all the work that annoy me.
 
I'm am also very aware that what I do is built on a foundation left by others in both the prototypical and historical worlds. The only true value I provide is in collecting and organizing scattered data.
 
Eric N.
 

As a kit manufacturer, let me tell you I would be very unhappy if my product was scanned and copied regardless of scale, without permission.
A lot of hard work goes into creating product and effort should be rewarded not pillaged.
And a little consideration and good will goes a long way.
This is starting to sound like the whole online stealing of music debate again.
Pierre Oliver
www.elgincarshops.com
www.yarmouthmodelworks.com
On 3/13/2014 6:31 AM, Scaler164@... wrote:
 
I fail to see why a manufacturer SHOULD (as opposed to could) care if his item is copied as long as the new product was not produced in his same scale.  I mean, why would an HO manufacturer who flat-out refuses to venture into S care if we duplicate his HO model in S since it will not in any way be competing for his market?!?  Yes, I understand the issue of design investment, but to that end, a small gratuity COULD be paid... if necessary... like most 1:1 scale railroads now charge for use of their logos/names/etc.
 
John Dgnan
 

From: "Bill Lane"
To: "Steam Era Freight cars"
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 4:33:42 AM
Subject: [STMFC] reverse engineering or copying?
 

Last fall I was given the use of a $150,000 3D scanner for 4 hours scanning specific areas of a boxcar. It was a massive clunky “THAT is $150K” looking thing. In spite of getting the scan files, it might be a while if ever that I learn how to convert them into something useful. The scanner could only create a STL file which at least for me is not a usable file that can be edited. Yes there are STL file editors I don’t have yet. The STL is my output file when I am done designing. It is likely more useful to just create my own new files for those items. I was told by the dealer that scanned for me that MOST of the 3D scanners are currently designed for and used as quality control confirmation of complex shapes not reverse engineering.

While the copying items like brake wheel, trucks and other model railroad items is not illegal there is a moral issue. Reverse engineering can be a polished term for copying! Knocking off a long gone company’s item is one thing but if the company is still in business it might get them upset.

Bill Lane

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4336 / Virus Database: 3722/7186 - Release Date: 03/12/14



thecitrusbelt@...
 

The comment was made: “…nowhere in the foreseeable future are you going to be able to point your "Instamatic Scanner" at a prototype and send the file out to Shapeways to get a model back, and certainly not anywhere near a price modelers will feel is reasonable.”

 

I agree with this but wonder how long the “foreseeable future” will be?

 

I recall in 1969 I was working with a health inspector and we were in a Burger King.  I saw my first microwave oven in the kitchen and when the health inspector explained to me what it was and what it did, I asked him if he ever though we would see these in the average home.  He said, “No way.  The magnetron in this oven alone costs $600.00 [1969 dollars, folks] so that factor will keep these from becoming a common household appliance.”  And for the foreseeable future he was right.

 

The future ability of scanners used to produce tooling at some point will involve a degree of machine intelligence that will make the “many tweaks required to render a detail so it can be molded, but still appear correct.”  This is inevitable…but who knows when.

 

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Jon Miller <atsfus@...>
 

On 3/13/2014 9:22 AM, thecitrusbelt@... wrote:
I agree with this but wonder how long the “foreseeable future” will be?

    So sometime in the future we will take our $100 (then dollars) 3D scanner and load the output into our $100 (then dollars) 3D printer and have all the parts/etc. we want.
    That is assuming there are any model railroaders left (grin)!

-- 
Jon Miller
For me time stopped in 1941
Digitrax--Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI User
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


Gene Deimling
 

Bill
I am not sure why one would scan an old model to produce new tooling unless it is for reproduction of Flyer or Lionel parts.
Older models are more likely to suffer from inaccuracies .   You will need documentation to verify accuracy.   At that point, you might as well just do it.
As a pattern maker, I have a real problem with people knocking off the work of others.   It is unethical to copy work.   I realize that ethics is in short supply these days.  

Gene Deimling
El Dorado Hills, CA


Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
 


Hi List Members,
 
Dave makes an excellent point. every single one of our models is - by definition - already a copy. It is a copy of the prototype. Music has what is called "original content".  Our models have little original content, since they simply copy an existing (prototype) object.
 
That having been said, it seems silly for us to be making 'models of models' when what we really want is models of the prototype.
 
Morally it is more than tacky and cadish to copy someone else's work. Some folks have mentioned the notion of copying long out-of-production items which have no (or almost no) prospects of ever being re-run by the current owners (if such an owner even exists today), so certainly there are gray areas to this topic.
 
I say this from the position of a partner in a company that manufactures resin model railroad kits.
 
  -  Claus Schlund
 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:10 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] reverse engineering or copying?

It might sound like the copying music debate but in fact it is very, very different.

 

There is no legal protection whatsoever for the shape of a model made with high fidelity to a real world object.  Period.  Skill, effort, time, investment… it doesn’t matter, it is not protected.  Add artwork and the artwork – and only the artwork – might be protected by copyright… but only if it is creative.  Whether there is or is not a moral issue is, IMO, a somewhat different conversation and one I’ll skip for now.

 

It might not sound fair but that’s the way it is.  See “Meshworks v. Toyota” for a full ruling on why cad files – or any other representation  made with high fidelity to a real world object  are not subject to copyright protection.

 

Dave Nelson

 

 

 

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Pierre Oliver
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 6:28 AM



As a kit manufacturer, let me tell you I would be very unhappy if my product was scanned and copied regardless of scale, without permission.
A lot of hard work goes into creating product and effort should be rewarded not pillaged.
And a little consideration and good will goes a long way.
This is starting to sound like the whole online stealing of music debate again.

 


Tony Thompson
 

John Dgnan wrote:

I fail to see why a manufacturer SHOULD (as opposed to could) care if his item is copied as long as the new product was not produced in his same scale.  I mean, why would an HO manufacturer who flat-out refuses to venture into S care if we duplicate his HO model in S since it will not in any way be competing for his market?!?  Yes, I understand the issue of design investment, but to that end, a small gratuity COULD be paid... if necessary... like most 1:1 scale railroads now charge for use of their logos/names/etc.

   John, perhaps you've heard of copyright? Intellectual rights to created objects are pretty well established, and it's the copyright holder who gets to decide what he or she SHOULD want, not you.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Pierre Oliver <pierre.oliver@...>
 

The age old debate, intellectual property rights vs the divine right of model railroaders. :-)
Pierre Oliver
www.elgincarshops.com
www.yarmouthmodelworks.com
On 13/03/2014 12:56 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:

 
John Dgnan wrote:

I fail to see why a manufacturer SHOULD (as opposed to could) care if his item is copied as long as the new product was not produced in his same scale.  I mean, why would an HO manufacturer who flat-out refuses to venture into S care if we duplicate his HO model in S since it will not in any way be competing for his market?!?  Yes, I understand the issue of design investment, but to that end, a small gratuity COULD be paid... if necessary... like most 1:1 scale railroads now charge for use of their logos/names/etc.

   John, perhaps you've heard of copyright? Intellectual rights to created objects are pretty well established, and it's the copyright holder who gets to decide what he or she SHOULD want, not you.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history




No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4336 / Virus Database: 3722/7190 - Release Date: 03/13/14



kruegerp@...
 

I would think that a company that wants to produce a model of something made by another company in a different scale would be better off purchasing the other company's data and working from that. As far as 3d scanning and printing goes, I see Staples now sells a system - links provided below. It seems like it is only a matter of time before something useful for scale model building hits the market. Paul Krueger Seattle, WA http://m.staples.com/touch/product.html?#399204 http://m.staples.com/touch/class.html?#CL205651


Tony Thompson
 

Dave Nelson wrote:

 
There is no legal protection whatsoever for the shape of a model made with high fidelity to a real world object.  Period.  Skill, effort, time, investment… it doesn’t matter, it is not protected.  Add artwork and the artwork – and only the artwork – might be protected by copyright… but only if it is creative.  Whether there is or is not a moral issue is, IMO, a somewhat different conversation and one I’ll skip for now.

      But most railroad models are NOT exact scale replicas. Decisions on how big the rivets should be (and how many), wheel clearances, coupler boxes, and many, many details (I bet Dennis Storzek can provide a REALLY long list) have to be made for both production and appearance reasons. These kinds of decisions ARE creative and do NOT represent high fidelity to a full-size object. Of course, Dave, anyone can go ahead and see if they can prevail in court on such an issue.
       Ethically, I doubt there can be much debate. Or I hope not.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Dennis Storzek
 

Aw, heck, the microwave oven had already attained its highest use in in 1970, in the student break room at U of I Chicago Circle, where the students would load it up with ketchup packs and watch them pop. The history of cooking with microwaves is all downhill from there.

There has been technology available to turn hand built pattern work into injection mold cavities for almost as long... I should know, I gave it a whirl in the eighties. The reason most of these processes are no longer available is simply that they offered NO real advantage. It's hard to build good looking and accurate patterns in HO scale, and the inherent inaccuracies run right up against the tighter tolerances required to have a functional mold that will run production.

The art of toolmaking has always been about technologies that will turn gross hand motion into precise movements of a tool; the handles on a milling machine are one way to accomplish this, a pantograph is another, and Computer Numerical Control is just another in a long line of such steps. The problem has always been the finer the resolution required, the more time (and expense) will be involved to obtain a satisfactory result. Scanning doesn't really change this. It's great, as Bill said, for large freeform shapes that are hard to define, and will see increased usage there. But for our models, which are really just a myriad of little geometric shapes, so long as there are drawings available, it's quicker and cheaper to just model it in CAD. And there are more drawings available now than ever before.

Dennis Storzek


cinderandeight@...
 

This issue extends well beyond just copying models.  What about the wide spread scanning of photos?  I feel that this has lead to photo dealers cranking up their prices because they know that once a single image is sold, it will be scanned and maybe a dozen of more people will have it, who in turn will scan it for a dozen more..., which soon makes selling additional copies difficult.
This problem was brought home to me at an RPM several years ago.  I'd loaned a set of photos to one of the model magazines, and after a couple years of no action with them I requested their return only to be told they "couldn't find them".  They were photos from my personal collection that I'd never printed for others, but fortunately I owned the negatives and was able to reprint a set for my collection.  At this RPM I attended a show on a topic involving the same cars as my missing set of photos.  It was a very informative show and I enjoyed it, but I was a bit taken aback with it because a third of the illustrations were my "lost" photos, with no credit to my collection mentioned.  I would have gladly shared the photos with the show giver if I'd known his interest.
All I am saying is that perhaps those who freely share other's photos should consider what this might mean down the road as the sources of new photos dry up because there is little reward for the work of printing (or scanning) them.  The same can be said for the copying of models.  Someone had to do the work of developing the original patterns, and if his work is "pillaged" (thanks Pierre, good word for it) what incentive does he have to do more such work for others?  It's a matter of recognizing the efforts of others more than any money involved.  In the end we all work pretty much for free for this hobby.
    Rich Burg


nvrr49@...
 

"I'm sure 3-D scanning will have a place, but it is hardly a panacea; nowhere in the foreseeable future are you going to be able to point your "Instamatic Scanner" at a prototype and send the file out to Shapeways to get a model back, and certainly not anywhere near a price modelers will feel is reasonable."

Dennis Storzek

We are a lot closer than you think.  MakerBot already has a scanner available that will scan an item, and make a file that can be sent directly to their printer.  It does not do the quality you and I would want, but I am 58, and I think I could see the day when it will do what we want.  Ten years ago I would have said, "what is a 3d printer?".  Now I own one!

Kent Hurley
nvrr49.blogspot.com


csxt5555
 

Well actually it's closer than you may think.  I am working on parts for my Clinchfield challenger and have done a few parts this way. For example I did the exhaust steam injector this way.  I have a guy who has a mobile scanner so he just went to the muesum and scanned the real one.  The scan was uploaded into solid works  and cleaned up and converted to an stl file.  I then printed it in 7 parts and bolted all the parts together just like the real one.  Very very cool stuff and now just about 
Anything can be created if your willing to pay for it.

Kevin Sprayberry


On Mar 13, 2014, at 2:51 PM, <nvrr49@...> wrote:

 

"I'm sure 3-D scanning will have a place, but it is hardly a panacea; nowhere in the foreseeable future are you going to be able to point your "Instamatic Scanner" at a prototype and send the file out to Shapeways to get a model back, and certainly not anywhere near a price modelers will feel is reasonable."

Dennis Storzek

We are a lot closer than you think.  MakerBot already has a scanner available that will scan an item, and make a file that can be sent directly to their printer.  It does not do the quality you and I would want, but I am 58, and I think I could see the day when it will do what we want.  Ten years ago I would have said, "what is a 3d printer?".  Now I own one!

Kent Hurley