Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A house 3D printed from raw earth

itsnicethat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 261 posts

Re: A house 3D printed from raw earth

#111

Post by JAlexoid »

dagw wrote: post #11
varjag wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While am generally a 3d printing skeptic I feel it's not quite a fair take. The bulk of a house (and its major cost component) is the structure. So this could be useful even if it can't print you the bathroom and the fridge. How well it going to work in practice is another matter (and here's where am skeptical).

The bulk of a house (and its major cost component) is the structure Using current pre-fab techniques a half dozen builders can raise the core structure of a single family house in a few days. A friend of mine is in the process of building a house and raising the core structure was the fastest and easiest part of the whole process. I don't see this being either cheaper or faster. The bulk of the cost in many cases is…

That's misleading when comparing this.

There's a typical expectation of manufactured parts or prepared wood for a wood frame building. (It's not instantaneous to season wood for house building, and it's longer than this structure drying)

I have looked into building a house a few month ago, the wait time for the structural lumber components to be manufactured to the spec - 3 months. "Raising the barn" part is hardly the long part.

Re: A house 3D printed from raw earth

#112

Post by vanderZwan »

mbgerring wrote: post #110
vanderZwan wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're complaining that these first demonstrations of a novel technology are not comparable to technologies developed over decades or even centuries? There is an expression for this: "the last of the old outperforms the first of the new" . Most of us don't seem to have too much trouble applying that concept to programming and hardware related developments, so why is this different?

In what sense is a mud hut a novel technology?

Your argument is the equivalent of asking in what sense a wheel is novel technology while comparing a car to a horse drawn carriage.

It's not about the mud hut. It's about how the mud hut was made.

Re: A house 3D printed from raw earth

#113

Post by JAlexoid »

kube-system wrote: post #16
dcolkitt wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With pex plumbing and high velocity HVAC, you only need to run small, flexible tubes through the framing. It should be relatively easy to print small, flexible holes for tubing. Agree that traditional ductwork and copper pipping would be hard to accommodate.

Drainage is the hard part. The pipes are larger and require you to cooperate with gravity.

Sewage is absolutely NOT a problem for a single story houses. No large sewage pipes are installed in the walls of all single story houses.

Re: A house 3D printed from raw earth

#114

Post by JAlexoid »

burlesona wrote: post #55
cheschire wrote: post #40

I hope 3D printing homes will take off now that lumber prices are so ridiculous. The sudden cost increases in other materials will now hopefully give 3d printing space to achieve economies of scale. Imagine homes that are printed with a 20 year life expectancy. Especially in America where I don't know many families that remain in the same house for 20 years. We could start going to the Japanese model of razing the ho…

I mean, this is the same technology used to make....... bricks. We used to make homes out of bricks, and we could do that again, now that lumber is expensive.

Are you suggesting that this whole building be set on fire? Because unfired bricks are crap.

Re: A house 3D printed from raw earth

#116

Post by Thrymr »

burlesona wrote: post #55
cheschire wrote: post #40

I hope 3D printing homes will take off now that lumber prices are so ridiculous. The sudden cost increases in other materials will now hopefully give 3d printing space to achieve economies of scale. Imagine homes that are printed with a 20 year life expectancy. Especially in America where I don't know many families that remain in the same house for 20 years. We could start going to the Japanese model of razing the ho…

I mean, this is the same technology used to make....... bricks. We used to make homes out of bricks, and we could do that again, now that lumber is expensive.

> We used to make homes out of bricks, and we could do that again

Not in areas with earthquake building codes.

Re: A house 3D printed from raw earth

#117

Post by flatline »

etxm wrote: post #92
flatline wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good luck trying to get permits to build anything the slightest bit unconventional in any populated area. I looked at building a geodesic dome, and was going to end up in the boonies and likely still paying off the inspector to pull permits. You could get it done in town and it would have to be over-built, completely ruining the whole efficiency angle of the dome to begin with, and taking months or years to work thro…

Dammit. I just started looking into building a dome house. Did you call it off completely?

Yes. I talked to a builder, he thought he was going to have to do R22 insulation across the entire thing because it’s not clear whether it is a wall or ceiling. Ridiculous because the engineering for domes has been around for 70 years. Most lenders won’t help you. Appraisal for resale is problematic.

I concluded it is best done as a DIY project in a location where you know the inspector, or know he won’t care, with cash. Here are some of the stories I was going from:

http://www.domehome.com/scrapbook.html

Re: A house 3D printed from raw earth

#118

Post by kube-system »

JAlexoid wrote: post #113
kube-system wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drainage is the hard part. The pipes are larger and require you to cooperate with gravity.

Sewage is absolutely NOT a problem for a single story houses. No large sewage pipes are installed in the walls of all single story houses.

Sometimes they are. My house is single story and has sewage pipes in the walls. Regardless of whether that is a requirement, the pipes have to go through some part of the structure to get to the outside, regardless of whether that's a wall, floor, foundation, etc.

Re: A house 3D printed from raw earth

#119

Post by agotterer »

cheschire wrote: post #40

I hope 3D printing homes will take off now that lumber prices are so ridiculous. The sudden cost increases in other materials will now hopefully give 3d printing space to achieve economies of scale. Imagine homes that are printed with a 20 year life expectancy. Especially in America where I don't know many families that remain in the same house for 20 years. We could start going to the Japanese model of razing the ho…

Is anyone trying to make homes out of plastic lumber? Like the material from the Trex decks and Polywood tables. My understand is that those are 100% recycled materials, solid, and a decent alternative to wood.

Re: A house 3D printed from raw earth

#120

Post by bruiseralmighty »

bluGill wrote: post #93
bruiseralmighty wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah basically this. Trying to build an eco-structure or even a mostly earthen home in the US you are basically relegated to a sparsely populated counties or taking your chances squatting on Federal land. This was quite eye-opening to me once I had to actually attempt to find some land to build on.

For good reason - most of these things don't have good engineering behind them. Standard stick frame construction has good insulation values (dirt/clay/mud/cement does not), holds up to weather, earthquakes, and has reasonable fire protection (it burns but in known amounts). This is all backed up by a lot of engineering data that doesn't exist for most alternatives, they might be better, but nobody has actually run a…

I don't disagree with you actually. I believe that building codes generally keep us safer and create a better standard of house. Most people don't want to become test subjects for an experimental technology.

My point is just that the current building codes necessitate experimenting away from more developed areas in order to innovate and that this should not be held against examples of construction innovation.

After having had to search for land I would say that I feel that building codes are perhaps not overly restrictive, but too ubiquitous. Most experimentation and innovation can only happen on small patches of remote scrubland with poor soil, deep ground water, and limited access to the internet.

It would be nice if some of these projects could take place 15 minutes out of a mid-sized town rather than 40 minutes to an hour. I can see the value in enforcement within a city's limits, but we could get faster building innovation if counties and states were laxer with building codes on their unincorporated land.

Post reply on HN