61–70 of 73 posts
Earlier 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.
These guys are working on it: http://reprap.org An open source 3d printer design with the goal being to use it to print all the parts for then next printer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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. :-)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 provi…
The lesson being that this technology, like computers, holds nearly unlimited potential and yet it's still too early for us to predict quite how its going to be used.
If you ask someone thoroughly steeped in the status quo what it's good for, he's very likely to think of it as an extension of current economic properties. (faster, cheaper, sooner, more custom, etc.) He might even realize its potential to be "disruptive". That's where the Economist article is.
Once you start publicly speculating where the post-disruptive state might settle, then you become a science fiction author.
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?
Hang out outside a busy WalMart or Target some Saturday afternoon. There's your steady stream.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 provi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that's not entirely true. The lattice structures are internal to the object, and substitute for solid infill. Commercial FDM 3d printers use a crosshatch instead of solid fill, and the reprap toolchain has that as well as a number of cool ones like hexagonal infill. So you have lattices instead of solid walls in the microstructure. With powder printers, such as the metal printers described in the article, you c…
Did you design your printers or buy them? You should write this up and submit to HN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that's not entirely true. The lattice structures are internal to the object, and substitute for solid infill. Commercial FDM 3d printers use a crosshatch instead of solid fill, and the reprap toolchain has that as well as a number of cool ones like hexagonal infill. So you have lattices instead of solid walls in the microstructure. With powder printers, such as the metal printers described in the article, you c…
Actually, FDM, Objet, ProJet, SLA, EnvisionTec, SolidScape, an many more use support material that is consumed during the build / post-processing. Many lattice structures can still be made using injection molding equipment (far cheaper) or starting with a raw material with such a structure: think of aluminum honeycomb. I agree 3DP is exciting, but we need to get real about what we're trying to achieve - traditional m…
I fully agree that you can get lattice structures in a number of processes, but printing is the only reasonable way to get internal, closed lattice structures. And I believe the article was meant to create awareness of a reasonably unknown process, rather than claim that everything else should step aside. Milling, routing, turning and molding aren't going anywhere. But that doesn't make printing any less impressive in the areas it's good at.
FDM scales linearly, which is a good thing and a bad thing. It means you have no cost savings when you make large quantities of the same object, but it also means you have no additional cost to make a different object every time. That's what I think is most exciting about it.
Earlier 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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Actually, FDM, Objet, ProJet, SLA, EnvisionTec, SolidScape, an many more use support material that is consumed during the build / post-processing. Many lattice structures can still be made using injection molding equipment (far cheaper) or starting with a raw material with such a structure: think of aluminum honeycomb. I agree 3DP is exciting, but we need to get real about what we're trying to achieve - traditional m…
Indeed, but with clever design you can avoid support material during builds and still get adequate results. I fully agree that you can get lattice structures in a number of processes, but printing is the only reasonable way to get internal, closed lattice structures. And I believe the article was meant to create awareness of a reasonably unknown process, rather than claim that everything else should step aside. Milli…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you design your printers or buy them? You should write this up and submit to HN.
Bought the first from makerbot, was a huge pain and disappointment, but it got me as far as printing the parts for the second one, a Reprap Mendel. That one in turn printed me (and a number of other people) the more streamlined Prusa Mendel. I'm a contributor to the Prusa variant (I wrote the build documentation and the makefiles, and contributed to some of the parts), but did not design it. So yes, as others said be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bought the first from makerbot, was a huge pain and disappointment, but it got me as far as printing the parts for the second one, a Reprap Mendel. That one in turn printed me (and a number of other people) the more streamlined Prusa Mendel. I'm a contributor to the Prusa variant (I wrote the build documentation and the makefiles, and contributed to some of the parts), but did not design it. So yes, as others said be…
Thanks. I was thinking about getting a Makerbot. I'll look into these others.