week 4:3D scanning and printing

3d scanning

This week’s assignment introduced us to 3D scanning, and I approached it as an opportunity to explore the capabilities and limitations of the process rather than focusing on a single object. I decided to scan a range of objects with very different material qualities, textures, and visual characteristics in order to observe how the scanner responds to variation.

The objects I selected included an transparent fidget spinner, a banana peel, a bird indigenous to South Africa with a black body and white spots, and a pile of resistors sourced from the MIT Tech Market. Each object was chosen specifically to challenge a different aspect of the scanning workflow, such as transparency, organic deformation, high-contrast patterns, and small repetitive components. Interestingly, the banana peel produced the most successful scan, resulting in a surprisingly clear and coherent model. Its matte surface and visible texture allowed the scanner to capture form and depth effectively. The other objects revealed more limitations and inconsistencies, which helped frame my understanding of what conditions support successful scanning.

4.1 — here are the objects that I selected to 3d scan

4.2 — I started with the transparent fidget spinner

4.4 — the software was unable to identify the transparent fidget spinner. it was showing just a shadow of something that was on the rotating base

4.5 — next attempt was the native south african bird

4.6 — the interesting thing here is that I knew that the Revopoint software had a dificulty to scan black objects.This one had white dots on it so I was hoping that the dots would be able to help the software.

4.7 — again the software failed to capture the bird properly, showing only a shadow of the object on the rotating base with the only exception being the blue head of the bird.

4.9 — it was the first object that Revopoint was able to scan properly and with a good result

4.10 — even the texture of the peel was captured well

4.11 — the last one was the pile of resistors. the software struggled with this object because it could clearly read the red stripe on top of it but the thin resistors were unable to be captured

This week’s 3D scanning assignment produced mixed results, with only the banana peel yielding a clear and accurate scan. The other scans were much more difficult and resulted in incomplete or distorted models. Despite these challenges, the assignment was a valuable test of the software’s capabilities and limitations. It highlighted how certain surfaces and materials affect scan quality and emphasized the importance of understanding the constraints of the technology. However even if some scans failed, they provide useful insights into the process.

3d printing

For this week’s 3D printing assignment, I wanted to create an object that could be printed in a single piece but still include a mechanical movement. I was inspired by the gyroscope, a device that demonstrates rotational motion and stability. A gyroscope typically consists of a spinning wheel or rotor mounted in a set of rings, which allows it to rotate freely in multiple directions. Its unique property is that once spinning, it resists changes to its orientation, which is why gyroscopes are often used in navigation and balance systems.

My goal was to translate this concept into a small 3D-printed model that could move mechanically without requiring assembly. This meant designing parts that would be interlocked but still free to rotate or pivot after printing. The challenge was to ensure that the clearances between moving parts were precise enough to allow smooth motion, while still being printable in a single piece.

4.14 — i 3d printed my model and it came out pretty well

4.15 — however I wanted to try another more complicated iteration with many rotational axis

4.16 — the fact that I added a sphere in the center of the gyroscope made the 3d printer to generate supports that were difficult to remove

4.17 — I ended up damaging some of the parts during removal of the supports

4.18 — also I realized that the print failed and some parts were not printed correctly

4.19 — with the next try the connections between the axis of the gyroscope were not printed at all

4.20 — the final version of the gyroscope was printed successfully and I also printed separately the sphere to avoid the potential issues with supports

4.21 — those are the final 3d printed parts of the gyroscope

gyroscope spinning

it rotates