Additive Manufacturing of SiC and other ceramics
3dcarbide.com
Additive Manufacturing of SiC and other ceramics
1–9 of 9 posts
Re: Additive Manufacturing of SiC and other ceramics
#2huh, now i wonder if we could make a 3d printer heat brake out of zirconium oxide
I hope these peeps expand into diamond as well, there's barely anyone doing work with fused or solid polycrystalline diamond anywhere near the consumer market
Re: Additive Manufacturing of SiC and other ceramics
#3Sad that it's proprietary, especially as it looks like the research was government funded, according to their "about" page.
Re: Additive Manufacturing of SiC and other ceramics
#4Yttrium hydride?
Err… these aren’t products for mere civilians like you and me.
Re: Additive Manufacturing of SiC and other ceramics
#5Sad that it's proprietary, especially as it looks like the research was government funded, according to their "about" page.
Some government-funded research is intended to spin off new businesses. I think it's good that they can choose between different models like proprietary and open information to best match the situation and their goals.
Why do you think that an open information model would have been better in this case?
Re: Additive Manufacturing of SiC and other ceramics
#6Sad that it's proprietary, especially as it looks like the research was government funded, according to their "about" page.
Some government-funded research is intended to spin off new businesses. I think it's good that they can choose between different models like proprietary and open information to best match the situation and their goals. Why do you think that an open information model would have been better in this case?
>Why do you think that an open information model would have been better in this case?
Look at the revolution the reprap project produced, imagine that with carbide.
Re: Additive Manufacturing of SiC and other ceramics
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some government-funded research is intended to spin off new businesses. I think it's good that they can choose between different models like proprietary and open information to best match the situation and their goals. Why do you think that an open information model would have been better in this case?
>Why do you think that an open information model would have been better in this case? Look at the revolution the reprap project produced, imagine that with carbide.
Fused filament had already been commercialized more than a decade before reprap. Maybe check back in ten years.
Re: Additive Manufacturing of SiC and other ceramics
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why do you think that an open information model would have been better in this case? Look at the revolution the reprap project produced, imagine that with carbide.
Fused filament had already been commercialized more than a decade before reprap. Maybe check back in ten years.
Reprap launched when the first FFF patents were expiring, and kicked off a huge burst of creativity and innovation in 3D printing that continues to this day.
Re: Additive Manufacturing of SiC and other ceramics
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fused filament had already been commercialized more than a decade before reprap. Maybe check back in ten years.
Reprap launched when the first FFF patents were expiring, and kicked off a huge burst of creativity and innovation in 3D printing that continues to this day.
Right, so the reprap came well after the invention of fused filament, following the typical technology lifecycle of invention, then commercialization, then democratization.