[deleted]
3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
41–50 of 73 posts
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#42[deleted]
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
The biggest thing that people forget when dreaming about 3D printers is that it doesn't making something from nothing: the materials have to come from somewhere. Even once we get a printer that's easy enough for 'normal' people to use (hard) and a way for them to design the prints that go in the machine (hard) and we make them small and reliable enough that it's acceptable for normal people (hard) you _still_ have to…
I think we are moving away from ownership and towards a more utility/service-oriented society, so I don't think a 3D printer in every home will ever become a reality.
Why do you say this? I haven't seen anything that leads to believe that it's the case.
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
They come a lot cheaper than that. The biggest cost is the proprietary materials they use, I'm guessing it would easily add up to more than the cost of the printer over time. Servicing costs should also be pretty high. I've compiled a list of most cheap printers (slightly out of date, I am going to add more soon): http://punkmanufacturing.com/wiki/ As far as usefulness, the open-source printers are not that different…
Most of those materials are reverse engineer-able, though. This has a significant impact on the big manufacturer's bottom lines... they derive most of their profit from materials, just like regular printers. I'll just leave this here: http://open3dp.me.washington.edu/ Specifically: http://open3dp.me.washington.edu/2009/10/plaster-based-powde... See how cheap that is? Crazy...
You can probably get a spec-sheet for their proprietary materials if you ask. You might have to reverse-engineer cartridges with security features though.
The Fab@Home guys are trying out various different materials, since their syringe-based extruder allows more flexibility than the RepRap.
http://fabathome.org/wiki/index.php/Fab%40Home:Materials
As far as cheap materials go, it doesn't get much cheaper than garbage plastic.
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of those materials are reverse engineer-able, though. This has a significant impact on the big manufacturer's bottom lines... they derive most of their profit from materials, just like regular printers. I'll just leave this here: http://open3dp.me.washington.edu/ Specifically: http://open3dp.me.washington.edu/2009/10/plaster-based-powde... See how cheap that is? Crazy...
You can probably get a spec-sheet for their proprietary materials if you ask. You might have to reverse-engineer cartridges with security features though. The Fab@Home guys are trying out various different materials, since their syringe-based extruder allows more flexibility than the RepRap. http://fabathome.org/wiki/index.php/Fab%40Home:Materials As far as cheap materials go, it doesn't get much cheaper than garbage…
> You can probably get a spec-sheet for their proprietary materials if you ask.
Or you could just go here (this is my old startup): http://marketplace.cloudfab.com/fab_facts (click through for every datasheet on every machine and material)
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#46This claim seem about as believeable as the claim that computers would create the paperless society.
The biggest thing that people forget when dreaming about 3D printers is that it doesn't making something from nothing: the materials have to come from somewhere. Even once we get a printer that's easy enough for 'normal' people to use (hard) and a way for them to design the prints that go in the machine (hard) and we make them small and reliable enough that it's acceptable for normal people (hard) you _still_ have to…
Even once we get a printer that's easy enough for 'normal' people to use (hard) and a way for them to design the prints that go in the machine (hard)
People won't be designing things themselves, they'll be downloading files and then pressing 'print' on their computer. It's like how people share funny pictures, links get sent around and viewed.
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh totally. It's like the state of the art in the 80s, or something. And they're rapidly improving. I'm excited to see what happens as the patents in this space expire. I'm expecting it to be similar to what happened with steam engines.
I expect it to be similar to what happened with the printing press and computers in that you'll be able to download (/pirate) actual objects. The revolution will be huge.
The best machine gun in Mass Effect 2 has "Fabrication Rights Management" technology which prevents you from printing one for each member of your team. I doubt real-world engineers for companies whose products would be most affected by downloadability are too far behind.
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#48Good to see the Economist covering 3D printing - it's still amazing to me how much most people, even close to manufacturing, aren't familiar with it at all. FWIW though - the 90% they're referring to is the delta between machining solid parts and printing them. It should be added that this is a rare use-case for 3D printing. Usually it competes more directly with injection molding technologies that often have better…
As far as recycling goes, it's very exciting that you can recycle plastic bottles into plastic granules/filament and use them for printing. I think we are not that far away from a self contained fabricator that turns garbage into everyday plastic parts you need.
It's probably going to take a little more than that, but I've always held that landfills are probably going to be very valuable property in 50 years or so. I assume there are going to be "dis-assemblers" to consume and separate "junk" for repurposing in manufacturing.
It's a little dream I have. :-)
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we are moving away from ownership and towards a more utility/service-oriented society, so I don't think a 3D printer in every home will ever become a reality.
That's what IBM once thought about computers too.
I don't think this is comparable. There is a large difference in dynamics between the utilization of a computer and that of a 3D printer. I would argue that IBM was largely right -- the vast majority of consumers do not use their computer in the way in which IBM intentioned to speak, as a calculator or database. Most of this work is performed as a utility and consumed over the Internet. The modern home computer provides something in functionality more resembling the telephone than a calculator.
The ONLY purpose of a 3D printer is to produce durable goods. Will there ever be a point at which an average consumer will need such a steady stream of durable goods that a dedicated 3D printer will become a necessity?
I don't need even need a home printer or copier really. The few times a year I actually need one, I can walk around the corner to a Kinko's or use the one at work. This also doesn't compare because a printed document is essentially a custom product designed by myself. And despite the prevalence of home printers, it's still vastly cheaper to print documents using mass production techniques. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see this changing, as durable goods are designed by domain experts and the mechanics behind economies of scale would apply even in the 3D printing realm.
Continued product convergence and ultimately nano-tech will further obsolete the necessity to have the large number of specialized, one-off durable goods required for the average household.
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#50For me, the point of interest comes from locking down a blueprint distribution model. Everyone can print certain items depending on their access to raw materials/power/specification of fab, but depending on how much they pay for the 'blueprints' will be the difference between generic and premium branding with every tiny difference in between.
Why would someone pay more for "premium branding" on something they print on their own machine? Granted I don't understand why people pay more for branded clothes either.
The point of premium branding is in fact to prove that you can afford to pay more. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good