Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Worthless: 3D printing is nothing but a nerd fad that won't leave hobbyist workshops.

6 (3%)

Unimportant: 3D printing will become common but won't be useful for much other than tiny full plastic objects.

8 (4%)

Minor Importance: 3D printing will function as a light industry that will coexist with existing manufacturing methodologies.

43 (21.4%)

Moderate Importance: 3D printing will challenge and slowly replace a large number of existing manufacturing businesses.

104 (51.7%)

Major Importance: 3D printing will completely flip the table on conventional manufacturing and quickly destroy existing business for anything you can make with them.

20 (10%)

Critical: 3D printing will disrupt conventional ideals of work and money so much that they collapse and are replaced in a paradigm shift.

20 (10%)

Total Members Voted: 199

[10ebbor10]

Quick question: Can you print a floppy disk? All sorts of meta if so.

You should be able to print floppy disks, though they can't contain any information, as the 3d printer can't do magnetism yet. (Also it will print all the individual parts and you'll need to assemble them later on)

[Loud Whispers]

Does this mean we might be able to pirate Games Workshop miniatures in the future? That's... beautiful.

I hate to break this to you, but people are already pirating Game Workshop miniatures with them. Or so I've heard, anyway, not a tabletop gamer myself.

Printed. Warhound Titan. Twice. This'll change hobbies at the very least.

[Starver]

Only just seeing this thread, several pages into its life (and yet to check whether the following is an oft-repeated meme that I oughtn't to bother with), I envisage 3D printing as providing things for which there are no easy 'conventional' manufacturing techniques.

It'll still be easier to create a bolt out of a bar of metal, cut to length and the screw-thread carved out in the current mechanical way, because 3D printing one (even with suitable 'metallic overlaying' tech, which isn't exactly in the pipeline) makes about as much sense as casting one in a mould through the lost-wax process.  You could do it (with the caveat about the difficulty of making it out of metal), but there's a number of (other) reasons why it wouldn't be as good as a properly machine one.

However, there are doubtless countless uses for shaped items for which casting, extruding, vacuum-forming and other generally-used processes are lacking in easy and cheap (or even possible) production capability.

You can make one of those "balls within a ball" things[1] out of plastic by making hemispheres and sealing each around their smaller counterpart, but that way lies imperfections and still some manufacturing difficulties...  The ivory ones get carved out of solid material, but that's wasteful of all the material (taken from the holes in each shell, and that was between each remaining shell).  But you could 3D print one very easily.

Extending that to something practical, even though it might have ostensibly one-way locking tabs, every container/shell for electrical goods can be prised apart (with care) and put back together.  Though it might not please the hardware-hacking (or repair) communities, imagine 3D printing a case around a product, like a much more complex version of injection-moulded plugs, so that there are no seams in the casing.

If we ever do get to do significant metallic 3D printing, on a suitable scale, think of a safe.  The weak-points of the hinges are no longer as weak as in a traditional one if they've been "printed" as part of the whole safe with a perfect same-crystal join between the door and the door-hinge, and the similarly between the body and the body-hinge, both cast in place so that it cannot even be lifted off (perhaps, although the closed door might be sufficient) and the mechanism within the safe door is not behind a panel (even an internally accessible one) but just within the mass of the door.  Printed in situ, possibly even in a randomly generated orientation (beyond that necessary to align with the keyhole) and surrounded by randomly-generated 'spoiler' bits and/or deadlocking triggers.  That could be set up to happen on manufacturer of each item, in a fashion only truly understood by the CAD/CAM-equivalent controlling machine in order to make safes of a complexity to satisfy the most paranoid of users who would rather that even the manufacturer does not hold the full details.

I'm not sure I'd 3D Print a lot of things.  Bricks and windows and glass bottles and the aforementioned bolt (plus nuts, screws, etc) all have perfectly good manufacturing processes...  The cardboard box of breakfast bars (correction: previously a container of breakfast bars) that's sitting within all-too-easy-reach is likewise not so easy to see being replaced.

However, the mouse lying (largely unused) by the side of my computer might 'benefit' from being given a shape and construction-method that current processes couldn't as cheaply reproduce.  This keyboard could also benefit, and there may be 'better' ways of doing it (hard plastic case and hard plastic keys being seamlessly melded together by a softer plastic skirting that is just a minor adjustment of the same continuous polymer to mean that there's no gap for crumbs, hairs, sloughed epidermal cells, the crystaline remnants of finger-sweat and dog-knows what else to fall through.  And pretty much waterproof, for when you decide to wash the keytops under a tap.  Which you can do with fully "rubber-top" keyboards or "grommited" buttons, but not quite with the same advantages.  Whether such a construct would ever break out from (say) space-station or oil-rig locations of use, where a degree of inherent cleanliness (and also capability for in-situ manufacturing!) or resilience against general muck would be considered important, and become a mass-market item... I don't know.

I'm going to re-examine the poll choices before making my final decision (nothing seemed to be quite what I thought, when I first read the list), but doubtless I'll find myself ninjaed, and much more succinctly.


[1]

Spoiler: Image (click to show/hide)

[forsaken1111]

You know, I really wouldn't mind buying licenses for products people developed so that I can print them. For example if someone designed a set of dinnerware with nice designs and you could buy a license for it to print them as needed, I would do that. I could print plates, cups, etc as I needed them (and even recycle them back into feedstock if I wanted to).

[LordBucket]

I really wouldn't mind buying licenses for products people developed so that I can print them

I would.

I would much prefer simply downloading the designs and printing them. And the "starving artists" who made them would have no need to be paid because they too would simply download designs and print what they want.

There's no need for money to exist in a system without scarcity. The moment we can scan/disassemble/replicate with impunity the entire concept of "economy" becomes pointless.

[Criptfeind]

Then comes dystopia.

[forsaken1111]

I really wouldn't mind buying licenses for products people developed so that I can print them

I would.

I would much prefer simply downloading the designs and printing them. And the "starving artists" who made them would have no need to be paid because they too would simply download designs and print what they want.

There's no need for money to exist in a system without scarcity. The moment we can scan/disassemble/replicate with impunity the entire concept of "economy" becomes pointless.

That's the problem. We're not in a post-scarcity economy. This 3D printer cuts out some of the manual labor attached to manufacturing an item, but that is all it does. It crowdsources manufacturing and brings it into your home, but that doesn't change the fact that such things need to be designed. Simple items like cups and bowls and things could be gotten for free, but those 'starving artists' are simply going to stop producing things when they realize you'll just keep ripping them off.

You can get music for free right now. Do you think every musician would start releasing their music for free because they could then download anyone else's music for free? What a silly notion. Many of them would just stop producing music as their main job and go do something which makes money to pay their very real bills.

[10ebbor10]

Also, isolating and preparing materials for 3d printing useage is not the most energy efficient process. 3d production will not outdate the economy. The most it can do would be changing the economy from a point where much different stuff is sold to a point where the only things on the market are designs, resources and energy.

Even then, it's much more efficient to buy your bolts from a factory where they can make hundreds a second than wait for your 3d printer, because that thing will certainly need an hour to do it.

I don't see recycling happening either, unless printers are restricted to a few substances that can be easily brought back to their liquid form and then separated.

[LordBucket]

We're not in a post-scarcity economy.

Nor are we in an economy where we're printing buildings. This entire thread is a hypothetical discussion of the future, and I gave a specific list here of a 3d printing scenario that would create a post-scarcity society.

Do you think every musician would start releasing their music for free
because they could then download anyone else's music for free?

YES musicians will continue producing music even if they don't get paid for it.

Musicians will make music for free, just like fanfiction authors produce fanfiction for free, just like programmers produce things like Linux for free, just like street performers will juggle for free, just like hundreds of thousands of people produce youtube videos for free, just like every game made in the past 10 years has hundreds of people making mods for them for free...

...yes. Musicians will continue to produce music even if there's no possibility of them being paid for it. And you know what? They'll be thrilled that people are listening to their music.

Many of them would just stop producing music as their main job and
go do something which makes money to pay their very real bills.

And every one that does will be replaced by others who do it because they want to.

[Frumple]

Simple items like cups and bowls and things could be gotten for free, but those 'starving artists' are simply going to stop producing things when they realize you'll just keep ripping them off.

You can get music for free right now. Do you think every musician would start releasing their music for free because they could then download anyone else's music for free? What a silly notion. Many of them would just stop producing music as their main job and go do something which makes money to pay their very real bills.

But, uh. A lot wouldn't? A... very large amount, honestly. There is a pretty huge body of musicians who produce music strictly as a hobby and release it for nothing. Because people love music, above and beyond revenue potential.

Yeah, they wouldn't be making music as a primary occupation anymore, but, again, that doesn't stop a pretty tremendous body of people from continuing to produce music. Or... pretty much any source of entertainment, really. Creation is very much its own reward for quite a large number of folks.

I mean... yeah, we probably wouldn't have the commercial base for it anymore, sure. Not a primary revenue. The whole "won't do it unless paid" thing, along with the "do much less if not paid" thing... I just kinda' wave vaguely toward fanfiction and other amateur writing venues. There is a shitload of that stuff, growing faster than any one human can keep up with, and very, very few people involved with it are getting anything monetary out of it. At most, they might be using it as practice for getting into professional writing, or as a method of experimentation outside of normal literary standards, but... a lot aren't. A lot are just writing to write.

Same goes with music, animation, etc., so forth, so on. At most, we'd see a small dip in an output that's already utterly beyond any single person's capability of keeping up with.

Ninja'd like buggery, ha.

[LordBucket]

it's much more efficient to buy your bolts from a factory where they can make hundreds
a second than wait for your 3d printer, because that thing will certainly need an hour to do it.

What do you need bolts for if you can replicate whole objects as one solid shape?


(This is a rhetorical question. Yes, I realize there may be legitimate answers. However, the purpose of this question was not to generate a response about bolts, but rather...to inspire readers to think about the implications of such technology and how it may affect their lives. Thank you for listening.)

[forsaken1111]

it's much more efficient to buy your bolts from a factory where they can make hundreds
a second than wait for your 3d printer, because that thing will certainly need an hour to do it.

What do you need bolts for if you can replicate whole objects as one solid shape?


(This is a rhetorical question. Yes, I realize there may be legitimate answers. However, the purpose of this question was not to generate a response about bolts, but rather...to inspire readers to think about the implications of such technology and how it may affect their lives. Thank you for listening.)

To fasten those whole objects to other whole objects to make a new object larger than the printer can print in one go? -shrug-

[10ebbor10]

it's much more efficient to buy your bolts from a factory where they can make hundreds
a second than wait for your 3d printer, because that thing will certainly need an hour to do it.

What do you need bolts for if you can replicate whole objects as one solid shape?

(This is a rhetorical question. Yes, I realize there may be legitimate answers. However, the purpose of this question was not to generate a response about bolts, but rather...to inspire readers to think about the implications of such technology and how it may affect their lives. Thank you for listening.)

To make something that isn't made out of one piece, and can recieve maintenance rather then being scrapped completely every time it breaks? You can't print everything out of one shape and expect it to function.

3d printers will have their effect on economy but it won't be any more than moderate till they get efficient recylcing protocols and near infinitive energy. Then again, there are some nice things that can be done with them, as there are lots of things that can take advantage of being made out of one shape.

To fasten those whole objects to other whole objects to make a new object larger than the printer can print in one go? -shrug-
You just need a bigger printer then.

[forsaken1111]

What if you need to print bolts so you can fasten two printer frames together to print a larger item though? At some point something will need to be built by hand, you cannot print an item larger than the printer (at least not using the current methods we use, anyway).

So you either build a bigger printer or you print pieces of the object and fasten them together.

[10ebbor10]

What if you need to print bolts so you can fasten two printer frames together to print a larger item though? At some point something will need to be built by hand, you cannot print an item larger than the printer (at least not using the current methods we use, anyway).

So you either build a bigger printer or you print pieces of the object and fasten them together.

You can print object larget then the printer. You just need to give it the ability to move around the object in question. Often this is done with a frame, but giving legs is possible too.

The main problem with 3d printing is that it can't make anything complex. Everything it prints has to be made out of one single piece, or printed in pieces and assembeled later.