<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>TheSpiceIsLife</author><text>&lt;i&gt;The &amp;quot;maker revolution&amp;quot;, such as it is, is driven by laser cutters. They&amp;#x27;re accurate, fast, reliable, work on large sheets, and have no consumables.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;We&amp;#x27;re pushing 14 bar of 99.8% purity nitrogen through our 4kW fibre laser cutter to cut up to 12mm thick stainless steel.&lt;p&gt;Regular mild steel is reactive cut with 0.4 bar of oxygen and a trickle of nitrogen for lense cooling.&lt;p&gt;We go through 110 cubic meters of nitrogen on a slow week. We&amp;#x27;ve got a 1400 litre liquid nitrogen bulk tank and 3500 litre liquid oxygen bulk tank.&lt;p&gt;If you bought a laser cutter earlier you probably have a CO2 laser so there&amp;#x27;s another consumable.&lt;p&gt;And we&amp;#x27;re getting slogged on lenses and protective glass windows. That&amp;#x27;s how they get you, the long tail of proprietary parts. I need to find a cheaper supplier of parts, but do you really want to put aftermarket lenses in your bosses one million dollar laser cutter?</text><parent_chain><item><author>Animats</author><text>Makerbot&amp;#x27;s big problem was that their machine sucks.  Low-end 3D printers just aren&amp;#x27;t very good. The weld bonds between layers of ABS filaments are too weak, and the objects break easily. They often break during building, just due to thermal expansion. 3D printing requires better temperature control of the process than Makerbot ever achieved.&lt;p&gt;TechShop used to have some MakerBots, but they&amp;#x27;ve been replaced by better machines.  Materials costs are too high, though; the Form I and Form II use a working fluid that costs $130&amp;#x2F;liter.  (This is a bit like the inkjet printer ink problem.)  They also go through build tanks fairly fast; the working fluid in its solid form builds up at the bottom. But the build quality is excellent.&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;maker revolution&amp;quot;, such as it is, is driven by laser cutters. They&amp;#x27;re accurate, fast, reliable, work on large sheets, and have no consumables.&lt;p&gt;The Next Big Thing is supposed to be desktop waterjet cutters. The Wazer, though, is apparently very slow, and may use more garnet per cut than the big waterjets. Wazer also glosses over the problem that waterjets generate a sludge composed of water, shattered garnet, and whatever you&amp;#x27;re cutting.  You have to pay to get rid of that stuff.  Waterjet cutting is a good industrial process, but not office-ready.&lt;p&gt;(On a vaguely related note for maker types: does anyone know of a good low-cost surface mount reflow oven?   The common low-end T962 has a big hot spot in the middle of the heating area and will scorch boards when used at lead-free solder temperatures.  Yes, there are fixes, but I want something that works out of the box.)</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>MakerBot&apos;s bold bet that 3D printers would become common</title><url>https://backchannel.com/the-3d-printing-revolution-that-wasnt-60b000c3a3ed#.chdpvs3bi</url></story>
<instructions>Your goal is to analyze the following comment and estimate how highly it will be upvoted by the Hacker News community.</instructions><comment><author>mindcrime</author><text>&lt;i&gt;On a vaguely related note for maker types: does anyone know of a good low-cost surface mount reflow oven? The common low-end T962 has a big hot spot in the middle of the heating area and will scorch boards when used at lead-free solder temperatures. Yes, there are fixes, but I want something that works out of the box.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Out of the box? No, sadly not.  But you may find this interesting nonetheless: a friend of mine took a Black and Decker convection oven, replaced the control electronics with his own PID setup, and created a reflow oven that works better than the T962 he had.  If you&amp;#x27;re willing to put in some elbow grease, you may find the DIY route appealing.</text><parent_chain><item><author>Animats</author><text>Makerbot&amp;#x27;s big problem was that their machine sucks.  Low-end 3D printers just aren&amp;#x27;t very good. The weld bonds between layers of ABS filaments are too weak, and the objects break easily. They often break during building, just due to thermal expansion. 3D printing requires better temperature control of the process than Makerbot ever achieved.&lt;p&gt;TechShop used to have some MakerBots, but they&amp;#x27;ve been replaced by better machines.  Materials costs are too high, though; the Form I and Form II use a working fluid that costs $130&amp;#x2F;liter.  (This is a bit like the inkjet printer ink problem.)  They also go through build tanks fairly fast; the working fluid in its solid form builds up at the bottom. But the build quality is excellent.&lt;p&gt;The &amp;quot;maker revolution&amp;quot;, such as it is, is driven by laser cutters. They&amp;#x27;re accurate, fast, reliable, work on large sheets, and have no consumables.&lt;p&gt;The Next Big Thing is supposed to be desktop waterjet cutters. The Wazer, though, is apparently very slow, and may use more garnet per cut than the big waterjets. Wazer also glosses over the problem that waterjets generate a sludge composed of water, shattered garnet, and whatever you&amp;#x27;re cutting.  You have to pay to get rid of that stuff.  Waterjet cutting is a good industrial process, but not office-ready.&lt;p&gt;(On a vaguely related note for maker types: does anyone know of a good low-cost surface mount reflow oven?   The common low-end T962 has a big hot spot in the middle of the heating area and will scorch boards when used at lead-free solder temperatures.  Yes, there are fixes, but I want something that works out of the box.)</text></item></parent_chain></comment><story><title>MakerBot&apos;s bold bet that 3D printers would become common</title><url>https://backchannel.com/the-3d-printing-revolution-that-wasnt-60b000c3a3ed#.chdpvs3bi</url></story>