from the does-it-help-with-text-formatting? dept.
Virginia Tech researchers have discovered a novel process to 3-D print latex rubber, unlocking the ability to print a variety of elastic materials with complex geometric shapes.
[...] 3-D printed latex has been documented only a handful of times in scientific literature. None of the previous examples come close to the mechanical properties of the latex printed by an interdisciplinary team affiliated with the Macromolecules Innovation Institute (MII), the College of Science, and the College of Engineering.
[...] Even with the custom printer, the fluid latex particles caused scattering outside of the projected UV light on the latex resin surface, which resulted in printing inaccurate parts, so Meenakshisundaram devised a second novel idea. He embedded a camera onto the printer to capture an image of each vat of latex resin. With his custom algorithm, the machine is able to "see" the UV light's interaction on the resin surface and then automatically adjust the printing parameters to correct for the resin scattering to cure just the intended shape.
Now you can print your own complex objects out of latex.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2020, @02:22PM (7 children)
The 3d-printing sexual revolution wins again, or for the first time. Dildos for everyone.
(Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Thursday July 16 2020, @02:57PM (6 children)
Just remember that you can't have more than six dildos in Texas. [politifact.com]
I am reminded of:
640 GB, that ought to be enough for anybody.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2020, @03:33PM (1 child)
Shirley there's more than that just in the Texas Legislature.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 16 2020, @05:34PM
I don't believe that being a dildo is technically a formal requirement to become a member of the legislature.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 2) by looorg on Thursday July 16 2020, @06:44PM (3 children)
Seems like a bit of an odd law, but then the books tend to be filled with old crud like that. Things put in for one reason or another then never just scratched when clearly they are pointless or doesn't fill a purpose anymore. Obscene devices could be almost anything tho, not necessarily dildos -- you can't own more then six fleshlights then either or a combination of the two. Is it per person or per couple? I guess if you a luddite then some other machines or devices might be obscene.
Isn't a gun technically a device? Could be a fun thing to try and get anyone banned from owning six or more of them if you could somehow convince a court of their obscenity. But then it's Texas so I guess that is just out of the question.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 16 2020, @07:39PM (1 child)
I strongly suspect that no limit would be placed on Fleshlights or similar devices, while there would definitely be limits on dildos. Legislators wouldn't see any irony. None at all.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Thursday July 16 2020, @07:49PM
"A person who possesses six or more obscene devices or identical or similar obscene articles is presumed to possess them with intent to promote the same"
And I just figured out a few seconds ago why its six. I am young enough to have almost forgotten pr0n magazines existed, so six item limit would ban bimonthly or monthly subscriptions to pr0n mags. Curiously quarterly pr0n mag subscriptions would be technically legal. This was all before my time so I don't know the distinction between banned heteronormative monthly Playboy vs whatever was shipped quarterly and would thus still be permitted.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Thursday July 16 2020, @07:45PM
I was bored enough to look into it; I guess they were trying to legislate pr0n shops selling sex toys out of existence while not making very weird yard/garage sales illegal.
How they determined six was the magic number is a mystery that needs solving. My gut level guess is the standard dildo shipping crate in 1950 contained precisely 12 dongs so "more than six" should handily prevent retail sales.
Possibly someone at SN works at a sex shop and can verify the standard shipping crate quantities for dildos in 2020.
(Score: 2) by riT-k0MA on Thursday July 16 2020, @02:23PM (1 child)
3D printed latex you say? I can see the anti-piracy ads already.
"You wouldn't download a dildo..."
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 16 2020, @05:35PM
This dildo has been removed due to a copyright infringement claim on its shape.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 2, Troll) by DannyB on Thursday July 16 2020, @03:04PM (5 children)
It seems like this new 3D development is potentially more dangerous than the possibility of 3D printed guns.
While we don't control guns, something must be done to control what shapes can be legally printed in latex.
Just imagine if someone were to custom print latex parts for the exterior covering of a robot. Alexa, tell me what to do! Next it will be robots that don't wear masks outside.
Even worse, what if someone starts researching 3D printed "tele presence" suits to be worn by two geographically distant people -- without face masks!
What is the world coming to.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2020, @03:19PM (2 children)
This is where SJW are taking us. Still like it?
(Score: 3, Funny) by nitehawk214 on Thursday July 16 2020, @03:33PM
If they're taking us to 3D printed sexbots... then yeah, I kinda do.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday July 16 2020, @04:08PM
So, it has come to this...
Quite boring and predictable later, I must say
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 16 2020, @05:32PM (1 child)
Someone must disagree with something, based on the mod.
1st paragraph
Maybe someone thinks that guns are more dangerous than latex, where I expressed latex being more dangerous of the two.
2nd paragraph
Maybe we should control guns?
Maybe someone thinks that controlling what shapes can be printed in latex was not sarcastic.
3rd paragraph
Would it be such a bad thing if someone experimented with latex exterior parts for robots?
Did someone take seriously that robots should wear masks?
Or that we should not all be looking to Alexa for direction in our lives?
4th paragraph
Someone must not have much imagination about tele presence suits.
Or doesn't get the joke about two isolated remote people wearing face masks.
It's a sad sad world.
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 26 2020, @02:15AM
I see you're also getting undeserved downmods.
(Score: 2) by richtopia on Thursday July 16 2020, @03:24PM (2 children)
The picture shows a 2cm part. I imagine this is proof-of-concept, but I'm unsure if this will scale as it requires a live-image of the printing to make corrections for optical defraction (my understanding).
Even at 2cm, I can imagine use cases like custom gasketing or medical applications. It will be tough to compete with RTV molds for these types of materials though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 16 2020, @03:35PM (1 child)
2cm part? So it is enough to print a realistic mold of my penis.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 16 2020, @05:36PM
Dear Mr. President, I don't think most people want to know.
Or were you asking for a friend?
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.