3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
economist.com
3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
1–10 of 73 posts
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#2Good 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 material usage because there is no need for support material - which goes to waste holding up the hollow areas for the types of material-saving lattice structures they're talking about.
Sometimes you can get great savings, but 3D printing isn't a production materials panacea. Let's not even get into how to recycle composite materials (very energy intensive) and photopolymers (you can't).
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#3Good 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.
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#4Good 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…
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 can form hollow areas of any shape since the raw material itself acts as support. To get the material out they need to be open on one side, but that is hardly an issue with a design that airy. No additional material is needed. The only case where you need support is for FDM based printing with sharp overhangs. Even this can be mitigated with clever design, such as making overhanging parts with bridges (connecting walls with a stretched layer of material that spans a gap) or teardrops (closing gaps using low overhang structures, like the buttresses on gothic buildings). The main advantage of 3d printing is that it can produce structures internal to the object that cannot be made by any subtractive method, and that it makes production costs linear and design-independent. This is very cool, since it literally costs the same to make two identical or two different objects (with the same build time) and it separates cost from volume. The costs per unit are still high compared to injection or casting, but the tooling costs are essentially zero. And the costs per unit are dropping rapidly, particularly given that the FDM printers themselves are now partially self-replicating
It's a very exciting time to be living in. I have three printers. The first printed the second. The second printed the third. I've made a number of things which turned from idea to design to prototype within hours to days. Then I tweak, hit print again and I've got production. No tooling, no waiting.
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#5For 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.
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#6The cheapest professional machines run into $50K unit prices. A RepRap will set you back under $1K, but it's not very useful at the moment.
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#7Good 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…
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…
How much work did it take to create a printer when you already had one, and how many custom parts?
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#8The cheapest professional machines run into $50K unit prices. A RepRap will set you back under $1K, but it's not very useful at the moment.
Why not? What are the differences?
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#9The cheapest professional machines run into $50K unit prices. A RepRap will set you back under $1K, but it's not very useful at the moment.
Why not? What are the differences?
Generally, those from the engineering community sneer at the MakerBot and the RepRap. Just listen for the word "tolerances."
Now, they're totally right: the home printers have a significantly lower resolution than the professional ones. But unless you're making professional grade parts, you probably don't care, and they use the same materials. (I'm assuming you're making the comparison to other FDM machines.)
Re: 3D printing could reduce raw material needs by 90%
#10The cheapest professional machines run into $50K unit prices. A RepRap will set you back under $1K, but it's not very useful at the moment.
This isn't true, by the way. The uPrints start at $14,900 now: http://www.dimensionprinting.com/3d-printers/3d-printing-upr...
I'm also assuming that you're talking about FDM, like the MakerBot/RepRap. If you're talking about a different process, well, then it's different.