The one question I would like to know is: where can I get my hands on this kind of ink and what kind of printer does it require? Unfortunately, journalists don't think to delve into this kind of information.
Just google "conductive ink". I don't know of any printers that use conductive ink, but there is a variety of available pens with conductive ink that you can use to draw the circuits.
I guess I'm just feeling weary of grad-school tropes, but think about this statement with me:
"I hope that we will find an effective way of solving the problem of electronic waste, which is growing quickly."
If the "designer" really feels this way, then why did they do this project???
Speakers actually recycle very well. They're steel, paper, glue and copper.
This project doesn't take steps toward the problem of electronic waste. It doesn't matter that the speaker was made on their own workbench instead of in a factory. (except that "factories are bad.")
AND it appears to recklessly waste a slab of (toxic, difficult-to-recycle) acrylic for NO REASON. Wood would have been fine there.
I'll identify what is really going on here: Grad schools are filllled with people alienated from the products they consume. That's a serious phenomenon that we can do something about. This project is an attempt to understand the electromagnetic phenomenon and thereby reduce alienation.
But _please_, don't construe this as anything environmental, or a statement on the future. It's a personal project the designer needed to do to understand a natural phenomenon, not anything that's going to help the rest of us.
If you want to be taken seriously, practice what you preach. Don't mumble platitudes about toxic waste while parading your own contributions to it.
I'll only mention the fact that paper-processing is one of the more well-known toxic activities (although some steps have been to reduce it) out there... contrasted with organic stains and varnishes used in the wood of "bad" speaker design.
Plus, by building inferior versions of mass-produced items, you're sending the message that "homemade stuff is shitty." I mean, listen to that speaker! Is that really something you want playing at your house?
How are we supposed to take seriously someone's ideas about the future when their perception is so clearly compromised they somehow feel that this an acceptable substitute for anything I would actually use to listen to music in my home?
Or are you going to tell me that this is just a hint, a suggestion, of how things _could_ be? If that's the case, then you haven't done anything, and you're trying to trick me into imagining how it could be better. If the designer has any idea how to make a GOOD speaker that's environmentally friendly, then stop being a jerk and keeping it a secret. Fucking demo it, not some weak-sauce illustration of the principles of electromagnetism.
DIY doesn't have to mean shitty quality and we shouldn't let anyone control the future who tells us we have to accept shitty quality and toxic materials where they're not needed.
I voted for this story as it's such a lovely idea - this is a prototype, an educational hack, and not a consumer product. It is clearly not expected to be compared to mass-produced products or to somehow solve the world's recycling issues. Printed, lightweight electronics may well help address recycling in the future, and that was one off-hand comment at the end of the article.
I was really sad to see this nasty, entirely negative and mostly irrelevant comment at the top in response. From the article pic captions:
The goal is to demystify the gadgets people use every day.
I'd say it succeeds admirably, particularly the annotated circuit diagram with the actual components spread out within it. What a wonderful idea for an educational tool that could be used in schools for example to demonstrate simple electronic circuits.
Clearly it's not some high end speaker replacement, a solution for recycling issues, world hunger, your demand for quality music in your home (!), or intended to trick you into thinking anything. It's a little demo, a hack, and I think it's a good one.
> that was one off-hand comment at the end of the article.
Kennedy's assassination was one bad action at the end of an otherwise lovely day, yet we still have to take it as part of the whole. So, when the designer says, "I want less electronic waste" and then makes electronic waste, I am calling them out on it.
I'm blaming the writer for a bad article, too and if you think this is somehow news, you should have linked to a better source of this info.
For example, here are two other articles on the same design from over a week ago without the fake environmental rhetoric:
Now, since you are so excited about home-made speakers, I'm sure you'll lead us in another round of healthy enthusiasm for another home-made speaker from 5 years ago by a _2nd_grader_?
Oh yeah, here's another home-made speaker and audio circuit like OP's with half a million views that was two years ago. I used to be friends with this girl and her husband, I should look them up:
And if you are not completely exhausted and can't understand why I think presenting this as news is silly, here's a 4-part video series on how to make a decent, 20 watt speaker and that teaches you how to calculate and measure basic electrical terms like impedance:
Here's ANOTHER little school kid who made something sounding about as good as OPs article last week. Why isn't this "news"??? It only has 3 views so far. Go post him a nice comment, too:
The practice of making and teaching how to make speakers from every day objects and from scratch is and has been an ongoing practice for decades and decades. So why is this article suddenly considered news? I'm sorry if you're really sad, but I disagree with this newsworthiness of this article.
Also, there's been an instructable on how to do make speakers from scratch, how can OP be news?
When you look around, you'll see people have been making educational paper speakers with and without soldering for years and years. And none of them are waving the "less electronic waste" flag. Article is a hack, but not news.
I think you've taken one sentence out of context, and then blown up that up, way out of proportion.
Taken in the context of the last paragraph of the article, which is where the sentence is, it's a little more insightful, and certainly not limited to speakers -- or anything, for that matter.
