The RepRapMicron (also µRepRap) is pretty much the microscopic take on what RepRap did for more macroscale manufacturing, with the most recent innovation being a UV print head, called the PIKA UV Head. What this does is use off-the-shelf optical fiber and UV LED modules to create 3D structures in-situ in a UV resin, allowing for pretty small structures to be printed, down to a resolution of about 9 µm.

More photos of prints can be found on the blog page with links to YouTube videos. It’s naturally somewhat tricky to get clean photographs of a 3D print that’s small enough to lose forever if you so much as sneeze or breathe too loudly.

For the UV head assembly a single mode fiber optical cable was used in the form of a regular patch cord that got trimmed a bit with a hacksaw. This was used in combination with a “3W” UV LED module, which may or may not be its true rating, but it was definitely able to cure the SLA resin. The used resin was regular eSun Standard Resin.

Afterwards you have to do the typical SLA post-processing, including cleaning off of liquid resin – both the part and fiber – and curing the part. So far results are pretty decent, with overhangs still being a weak spot that will be addressed in future revisions.

We don’t generally think of 3D printing and knitting in the same sentence. One uses threads and fine motor control, while the other requires great knowledge of pressing buttons and plastics. That said, they both entail stacking material over and over until a finished product emerges. So why not blend the two crafts together? [Joram de Haas] decided to work on just that in the form of FilaLoom.

This isn’t the first time we have seen additional elements embedded into 3D printed parts here on Hackaday. However, this particular implementation has some extra features which allow the embedded structures to grow larger than most examples prior. Instead of placing any implements directly into a structure by hand, all thread is placed by a tool head not so different from tool-changer printers. Using both the 3D printing tool head and the thread tool, some truly interesting properties can emerge from the finished product. If you aren’t interested in the weird webbing properties themselves, you surely could appreciate the possibilities demonstrated by the 3D knits.

You might not have a specific use case for thread printing, but why not check out some other fancy 3D printing techniques? Here’s a group of various design techniques that will certainly make you think twice in your next design!

View this post on Instagram

Thanks [Sam Smith] for the tip!

The ‘biofriendly’ nature of poly(lactic acid) (PLA) filament often gets touted as one of its main advantages over alternatives like PETG, but even a modicum of research ought to inform a person that the biodegrading feature of PLA is only true for pure PLA without additives and at temperatures at or above its glass transition temperature (Tg). Thus the results of a year-long experiment by [I built a thing] shouldn’t be too surprising.

After burying said PLA in the garden like any self-respecting person does who tries to dispose of some evidence, the PLA suffered through a European winter and very hot, dry summer, before being dug up again recently for inspection and testing. Although not the first time that someone has tested this, it’s a good reminder considering just how much PLA filament is used each year.

In total three sample sets were used, one being the control, the other two buried in soil and compost respectively. A visual inspection showed no major difference, and a tensile strength test also showed no statistically significant change among all three sample sets. The experiment could have been concluded here, but instead calorimetry was used in a laboratory setting to see whether exposure to microbes as commonly found in soil does anything significant.

This isothermal microcalorimetry test was performed at the University of Basel, effectively to answer the question whether there’s anything in the PLA samples that can feed said microbes. As it turns out, the answer is a resounding ‘no’, with microbial activity within the presence of PLA dropping off even quicker presumably due to there being less volume available for nutrients.

When [I built a thing] contacted a large number of commercial biodegrading facilities in Switzerland, Germany and the USA, many would happily take PLA, but none of them would accepted 3D-printed PLA parts, which says a lot. The primary reason for this appears to be that even under industrial composting conditions it simply takes too long for these facilities to consider these to be economical to compost.

With PLA primarily degrading via hydrolysis, it needs to be exposed to the right conditions for this process to not take an eternity. You can of course use something like PHA instead, which doesn’t require this hydrolysis step to be biodegradable. Overall PLA is quite a crummy material, with it also suffering from embrittlement due to crystallization that will happily turn a spool of PLA into lots of sad fragments. This makes PETG into a very common and very attractive alternative to PLA.

Your CAD software generally has some rudimentary tools for rending images of your parts, from simply-textured models to more photo-realistic options. However, those renders are of the geometry you created—not how that geometry would look after it was sent to a 3D printer. Extrudio is a tool that aims to create more realistic renders for 3D printed parts.

Rather than rendering from the geometry of your model, such as by using an STL file, Extrudio uses G-Code instead. It creates its render based on the instructions your 3D printer uses to produce your part, sweeping a virtual bead of plastic along the toolpaths in the code. In doing so, it can realistically display layer lines in a 3D print and other artifacts of the printing process, like stair-stepping on spheres and curves. It can display the render in various contexts, from blank studio backgrounds to a number of “sets” like a bench or kitchen.

The tool’s website notes that this could be useful for generating images for those selling 3D printed parts online, though obviously the realism of actually printing and photographing a part would still be superior. Still, it could prove a useful tool for quickly pitching realistic images of a 3D printed part, particularly if it’s desirable to model different colors or print techniques without putting in the hours to actually produce them.

We’ve featured some other great 3D printing hacks lately, like this nifty trick for doing overhangs without supports.

In countries where PET bottles do not get slapped with an additional fee that induces you to return it for recycling and said fee back, the resulting piles of discarded bottles have led many enterprising individuals to consider using them to make their own PETG filament. One big question of course is just how much work it is to create even a single 1 kg spool of PETG, which is a question that [PETCraft] was only too happy to answer in a recent video.

With the channel owner clearly living in a country without a bottle deposit, it’s very easy to see PET bottles strewn about as trash, including multi-liter water bottles. As a very recycling-focused channel, this provides an excellent opportunity to show how they go about recycling these into filament.

The detailed process is covered in previous videos in the channel, but essentially they are first heat-smoothed to make them much easier to cut into thin strips. This is done with a very DIY cutter – also constructed from mostly salvaged and other common parts – before the strips are passed through the heated extruder nozzle of the DIY filament extruder before being wound onto spools.

Ultimately it took thirteen 5 liter bottles, a 10 L, two 8 L and a single 1.5 L bottle to hit the 1 kg target, which is quite an impressive amount of work. The next challenge will be to actually print with it, which will – naturally – be done with a DIY 3D printer made from salvaged parts and an Arduino board.

The good news about recycling bottles like this into filament is that basically all PET bottles will actually be PETG anyway, as the glycol adds the flexibility that’s essential in water bottles so that they do not shatter or rip easily. The real question you have to ask yourself is whether cleaning, cutting and spooling dozens of bottles is worth saving perhaps 10-20 bucks on a commercial spool of 1 kg PETG filament.

The variant of origami called kirigami (‘cut paper’ in Japanese) also starts off with a sheet of paper, but it allows for cutting the paper to increase the number of shapes that you can create. It is this technique that [Matthew Lim] used to create a number of three-dimensional designs that can convert between a flat configuration and some kind of functional object without any bolts, glue or similar. These include everything from a phone grip to a pretty sizeable side table.

The video starts with an interesting demonstration of how to fold an origami crane that has a smaller crane on its back. This is documented in a 1797 book on the many ways to fold a crane, with one of the first known instances where cuts are made in the single sheet of paper, which becomes the second, much smaller crane.

The same book extends that idea into making an origami grid that can fold into a grid of cranes after making a series of cuts. Later this form of origami got the name ‘kirigami’, with the video demonstrating how a few strategic cuts in an original flat shape can make it much more functional, based on scientific papers like this 2024 one by [Liu] et al. on cylindrical origami with tunable mechanical behavior.

For these functional mechanisms a laser cutter and FDM printer are used to prototype and test increasingly more advanced versions of the pop-up mechanism, before moving on to make full-sized furniture using plywood panels and 3D printed hinges. The coolest part about the resulting table is that it can be changed into different configurations, with the mechanism locking into its new position to make a relatively stable new shape.

Even if not immediately practical, these mechanisms provide interesting options for robotics and flat-pack furniture alike, as well as in applications like space exploration where every gram and cubic millimeter of space counts.

The Prusa Core One+ INDX is an interesting upgrade to the base FDM printer by Prusa, featuring eight independent extruders – hence the INDX – that in theory should allow for multi-material and multi-color printing with very little purge waste. As [Thomas Sanladerer] found out during his experiences with this printer, there are a lot of issues with this machine, including the ability – or lack thereof – to print with non-Prusa filament.

Although the premise is solid, with a claimed 0.013 grams of purge waste per color or material change along with pretty nice dual-gear Bondtech extruders, the first major hurdle that [Thomas] encountered was that the mandatory calibration sequence on starting a print is designed to only work with Prusa’s own filament and its specific material properties. This resulted in an inability to print with Voxel PLA until [Thomas] removed this sequence manually from the g-code.

This is when [Thomas] found out that the entire print sequence uses the material presets for Prusa’s filament, resulting in a failed print. The results from the manual calibration are also not saved despite the display claiming it does, making this calibration on starting a print absolutely mandatory.

Other issues found are the useless position of the camera as it’s now blocked-off by the INDX hardware, with even manual peeking into the print chamber being heavily obscured by the contraption that holds the extruders. This makes even checking that filament has loaded correctly is borderline impossible, never mind ogling the printing process.

Although there’s a lot to like about this INDX upgrade to the Core One+, the above and other issues discussed in the video make it look somewhat shaky next to competitors like the Bambu Lab H2C and Snapmaker U1, as well as Prusa’s own XL toolchanger printers. During [Thomas]’s print test comparison between the XL and the Core One+ INDX there was no contest that the XL simply works, whereas the INDX even struggles with some Prusa filaments.

Recently [Riley] got his paws on an old Prusa i3 FDM printer that had clearly seen better days, with a hot-end that had suffered an explosive blow-out. For the project he had in mind this was of course perfect, as his intention was to replace the hot-end with a syringe system for embedded 3D printing (E3DP), which uses a supportive medium to allow for the printing of materials and structures that would be impossible with just air.

Generally in additive manufacturing (AM) methods like fused deposition modelling (FDM) the material is extruded onto a build plate or a previous layer where it solidifies. This works great for materials like thermoplastics, but for other materials having only the surrounding air as support is just a recipe for a big mess. With E3DP the liquid is instead extruded into a supportive material at a selectable depth and volume, opening up a whole range of possibilities.

In a 2026 review article by [Rongji Tang] et al. in Frontiers in Materials provide an overview of the state-of-the-art in E3DP, including many ongoing research questions pertaining to print quality, the types of supportive material and their potential reuse, as well as extrusion control. Applications for E3DP are many, with it seeing use in flexible- and soft robotics, printing biological tissues and microfluidics.

While some types of fluids are easier to print than others, Newtonian fluids like silicone oil pose issues with reliable printing, as detailed by [Hejoon Jun] et al. in a 2025 paper in Applied Materials & Interfaces, while a 2026 paper by [Min Ye] et al. in International Journal of Extreme Manufacturing covers the challenges of printing living tissues this way, with a self-healing supporting medium described, creating a method called EPICS.

In the video by [Riley] the fundamentals are explained in a comprehensive manner, before building an E3DP setup, with an open source Allstruder syringe pump and a Caribou Duet 3 motherboard replacing the Prusa parts. Following this a test print is made using cream cheese as it’s apparently an ideal test material.

After a successful cream cheese test, a print is started involving two-part epoxy, with the supporting material being hair gel. The epoxy, once mixed, has only a time window of about forty minutes before it hardens, so that’s all the time you have to empty the syringe. As it turns out, hair gel and epoxy aren’t friends, so for a final print the printing material was switched to silicone, specifically Sylgard 184.

Although not a perfect result, it’s pretty cool to see the silicone trifold torus take shape in what appears to be a void. Unfortunately the hair gel doesn’t appear to be a perfect material either, as some of the additives in it apparently inhibit the silicone from curing. As reported by [Riley] in a comment to the video, the silicone print was still goopy after a few days.

We hope that it’ll cure before long, and wish him luck in finding a supporting material that’s more supportive of printing materials like silicone actually curing.

I started writing this from a commuter train passing at speed through the outskirts of London, and my headset had just broken. The flexible joint that attaches one earpiece to the headband has snapped, leaving the earpiece dangling on its cable. This is annoying on its own, but what is annoying me enough to write about it is that this isn’t the first time. This is only the latest in a succession of headsets I’ve taken on the road with me has broken, not because of rough treatment, but simply due to flimsy or bad design. What on earth can I do about this?

Failure Built-In

The most recent three have been a JVC whose rotating joint allowing the earpiece to lie at a slight angle with my ear has failed, a quite expensive Logitech whose ear sponges failed closely followed by its USB cable, and now an EPOS whose ball joint has failed.

I repaired the JVC and got a bit more life out of it and I’ll have a go at repairing this EPOS, but that’s hardly the point. I’m paying not inconsequential money and I’m getting good sound quality and electronics, but I’m not getting anywhere near the mechanical quality I need. I could buy a set of tough DJ headphones such as the Sennheiser HD25, but they don’t come with a microphone, they’re not a headset.

So if I can’t buy a decent headset without spending military grade money on one from an F16 fighter, what can I do to make my own? I’m an engineer, damnit!

At its most basic, a headset is a springy band that goes over the head, with an earpiece at its end. But a human head is not a cube with vertical parallel sides, it’s a complex shape and every one is different. So those earpieces have to have some “give” in them in order to fit comfortably against the ear. In the simplest case this is achieved by giving the earpiece a soft surround that moulds itself to the ear, but most headsets incorporate some articulation. The earpiece must rotate a little around a vertical line parallel with the ear, and also with a horizontal line at right angles to the axis of the ear. The EPOS managed both axes by means of a ball joint, while the JVC had a stirrup with pins to achieve the horizontal motion, and a circular joint — the part which broke — for the vertical. In both case the weak point was a thin part of the plastic moulding which broke, on the EPOS a short stalk for the ball in the ball joint, and in the JVC a similar stalk for the circular joint. Any design I come up with must avoid this type of weak point, and spread the load of an earpiece over considerably more material than my broken headset.

So, How Do I Make This Thing?

For the headband I could re-use the ones I have from my broken headsets, find one of the many 3D printable designs online, or the choice I took, design my own. And since I can re-use the drivers, microphone, and electronics, aside from designing a physical adaptor to take them, my problem becomes one of making a tough version of that articulated joint. And there my choice is to either replicate the ball or rotating joints of the originals but in a much tougher form, or to make a one piece design with elasticity and flexibility in the planes I need. It’s time to break out OpenSCAD. I like things I can print in one go when it comes to builds like this one, as when it comes to assembly there is invariably a weak point where the different parts meet. So I’m going for the latter choice, and making my earpiece mount on a spring rather than a two-piece joint. My spring is a simple zig-zag leaf spring, which is both robust, and has some movement in X and Y rotational axes, and Z displacement. It’s an OpenSCAD library, and my little test print has all the compulsive manipulation of a fidget toy.

So with a bit more OpenSCAD bashing I have a sliding print in place headband with my springs attached. You can take a look at it in this GitHub repository, and even modify it for a broken donor headset of your own if you want.As I write this it’s not yet printed, the 3D printer gods have not smiled upon me with extra speed. Will my crafty print in place springs solve the problem? At least if they break I have only myself to blame.