Anyone curious?
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dglass3d/the-3d-printing-extruder-reinvented-the-dual-and-q
Yeah - story is light, and I think they are very, very close to infringing on http://www.google.com/patents/US20070228590.
I’m in - and I hope they actually show something printing in dual mode before the end of funding or I’ll bail…
That they’re being so opaque about precisely how they will interact with the open-source hardware (as well as software) communities with regards to the use of these particular extruder designs (dual and quad) is just a little bit north of worrisome for me.
They want the community’s money to ‘help’ their patented invention.
What’s in it for the community?
A keychain? T-Shirts? Are you kidding me?
How about an open-source license?
The only mechanical flaw I could potentially see is loss of retraction (it should at least allow you to relieve the extrusion pressure though) and/or it retracting the current filament when it should switch to the next. Or maybe retracting the current filament while switching between filaments thereby losing count of steps. If these were issues they could possibly be overcome by a ratchet device. It seems they want to emphasize beta testing on their Kickstarter.
I’m not crazy about someone with an “open culture” going after a patent and as @Joe_Hacobian said, what’s in it for the community?
All that said I think it’s the a good solution that’s available to the average person for simplifying dual extrusion and I want one. However, I think I’m going to hang back for a while and see if they release a video of it actually printing and how things pan out.
yeah, it does seem that they are skillfully avoiding mentioning open source. I’ll pass…
It is a clever idea but I don’t see it as an improvement. A much better approach is the Bowden system in that hardly any weight is added to the carriage at all.
Seems this extruder is only capable of a tiny bit of retraction. Doesn’t seem enough.
T0ny, I’m all for a working dual extrusion bowden - so far I’ve not managed it pull it off - retraction again comes to bite.
I’m in, and will stayin until the last minute - if they have a decent story on their patent - and actually show it working - I’m game to play.
Color me skeptical.
I’ve only played with 3d printers, not an owner yet. But was intrigued me was the dual hobbed bolt on both sides of the filament.
FWIW: There’s been a big discussion of all these points (re: patents and stuff) after one of the guys behind it posted details on the reprap-dev list. Seems that a few Reprap people may have prior art on this sort of design.
Already discussed here, deemed scam-ish / shitty
They could patent then go open source to stop people making a living of the design. Thus if you want a living you buy a licence, its been done with software.
They’re clearly obsessed with patents, not helping themselves by helping the 3D printing community. They’ll spend all their money on filing and defending a worthless, flawed, patent with clear prior art - it’s been discussed and modelled in the RepRap world already - when they could have spent that money and effort creating something useful instead. I really have no more time for them, unless it is to help file prior art against them.
I agree, hardly ground breaking ideas, I’ve seen similar and possibly better examples, mostly about 2-3 years ago! They’d be better off providing an open source design and then benefit from some hard learned feedback to help improve it.
@Vik_Olliver
Would be time well spent, then! 
Seriously - “patenting” something is not a bad thing, not being clear an what you do with the patent is.
@John_Driggers exactly!
There’s nothing wrong with patents, but they are creatures [sic] ill suited to the efforts of the OSS community. Patents are great for world domination, they’re not so great for distributed multi-industry and multi-disciplinary cooperation, which is exactly what the world actually needs more of, not this empire building crap.
Just like Red Hat has done before with patenting their software IP portfolio if for no other reason than to prevent other players in the field from patenting similar IP and then suing OSS projects in order to stifle competition (Red Hat is thereby protecting the open-source community by using the mechanism of patents).
That is Red Hat, a completely different company in a completely different industry, I’ve not seen any similar intent nor wording regarding inclusion of the open-source community from this effort.
Vagueness does not win them any points here.
Vagueness breeds mistrust.
A clear concrete roadmap (with regards to their IP intentions) could earn them a lot of points here.
I see no such roadmap, nor statement of intent with regards to open source projects. So in the absence of such decisive clarity, the only responsible thing to do is withhold [funding] support.