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

[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.

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.

With a sophisticated enough printer, you could make complex objects. The printer just needs to be capable of inserting minute gaps between moving parts. Inserting some neutral aerogel or something in the minute space between gears, for example, allowing them to spin when the machine is completed. Circuitry and wires could be extruded from molten metal into wire traces, components could be printed directly into the object. I mean if we're talking about some mysterious future technology here apparently, since we're talking post-scarcity stuff, then nothing is impossible.

[Starver]

With a sophisticated enough printer, you could make complex objects. The printer just needs to be capable of inserting minute gaps between moving parts. Inserting some neutral aerogel or something in the minute space between gears, for example, allowing them to spin when the machine is completed.

You rather ninjaed me, here, what with forum and/or browser lag delaying my own response.

What I was going to say was 'just leave gaps'[1] or, with any deposition mechanism capable of multi-material layering, a special buffering layer, e.g. a volatile/soluble polymer occupying the gaps, to be brought to a slightly higher temperature or washed out later.


(But this already considered when I was mentioning the 'ivory balls', etc...)



[1] As seen with nanoscale 'machinery' with gears made with photo-lithographic processes as per IC laying.

[forsaken1111]

You borked up the quote there. I said that, no ebbor.

[10ebbor10]

You borked up the quote there. I said that, no ebbor.

It confused me as well.

Most 3d printers uses some kind of dust already to support the thing while it's being build, the problem is that for the printer to operate perfectly, an object shouldn't move at all, so leaving gaps is kinda dangerous. Leaving gaps by having removeable stuff is problematic, but not overcomeable. You'd just need to have the printer print multiple substances at once.

[TheBronzePickle]

Don't they already have 3D printers that can make objects with multiple, independently moving but connected parts?

I might be wrong, of course, but there's a few videos that claim to have used a 3D printer to make complex, movable models.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=h6ozSqo3lfw for example.

[10ebbor10]

They are not exactly very fine gears, are they.  And it doesn't exactly run very smooth. Also, according to the  comments that was made using a printer from between 15000 - 60 000 dollars.

 So yes you can do it, but to make complex things with an actual use needs some more research. Also, the materials used are quite limited.

[Rose]

Just posting to watch.

I have a 3d printer, and while it's great for one-off things, it will never replace mass production.

[ed boy]

Just posting to watch.

I have a 3d printer, and while it's great for one-off things, it will never replace mass production.

What sort of stuff do you print with it? How much does the printing material cost?

[Rose]

still calibrating it, tbh, but the printing material is about $25/kg, and I can print out pretty much most shapes, as long as they're supported nicely.

[Starver]

You borked up the quote there. I said that, no ebbor.

Yeah, sorry, been suffering on-again-off-again non-responsive browser (I think another site was sending it doolally-tap) and I probably rushed the edit-down.

As to quality of gears being made, right now, compare how they solved a more historic problem...

Spoiler: A basic solution (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: More complex (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: New materials (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Several design-changes later (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Even more interesting designs (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: One that they had to tweak a bit (click to show/hide)

Or if you wanted something more dynamic... I could have taken us from (though there are earlier examples)...

Spoiler: this (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: ...to this (click to show/hide)

Spoiler: Oh, and I didn't know how to fit this in the first chronology, either. (click to show/hide)

TLDR; It's early days.  And what better time to work out how to do it better!

[kaijyuu]

Re: Post scarcity stuff.

This will hold weight when necessities like food, shelter, etc are "post scarcity" as well. In the meantime, if we deem things like music to be not worth money, then we're telling these artists their art is literally worthless.

I mean, I can get porn for free, but that doesn't mean it's worth less than the can of soda I'm drinking right now. If I had to choose between the two, bye bye soda. Yet the soda is what I actually shove out money for. Something is very, very messed up with how we determine economic value.

Once we're in a Star Trek esque utopia where necessities are provided for everyone, I'll accept handing stuff out for free because it's post scarcity. In the meantime, I'm very much opposed to deeming people's labor useless simply because after they finish it, it can be copied forever. These producers deserve monetary compensation for their work, for no other reason than their work being more valuable than whatever menial job they can obtain in the service or production industries. Our random production garbage like paper plates and novelty mugs are not worth more than the art people produce, and our economy needs to reflect that so long as we're forcing everyone to get a job of some sort.

[Eagleon]

Re: Post scarcity stuff.

This will hold weight when necessities like food, shelter, etc are "post scarcity" as well. In the meantime, if we deem things like music to be not worth money, then we're telling these artists their art is literally worthless.

I mean, I can get porn for free, but that doesn't mean it's worth less than the can of soda I'm drinking right now. If I had to choose between the two, bye bye soda. Yet the soda is what I actually shove out money for. Something is very, very messed up with how we determine economic value.

Once we're in a Star Trek esque utopia where necessities are provided for everyone, I'll accept handing stuff out for free because it's post scarcity. In the meantime, I'm very much opposed to deeming people's labor useless simply because after they finish it, it can be copied forever. These producers deserve monetary compensation for their work, for no other reason than their work being more valuable than whatever menial job they can obtain in the service or production industries. Our random production garbage like paper plates and novelty mugs are not worth more than the art people produce, and our economy needs to reflect that so long as we're forcing everyone to get a job of some sort.

If we got rid of the retail overhead of the massive amount of junk we produce (either by just not choosing to buy 'disposable' objects, or making them ourselves), where else is the money going to go? A large proportion of Walmart's merchandise would be easily made by a commercialized and mass-produced 3D printer with one or two materials in its repertoire. Once they're out of business, are we really going to want to produce for ourselves the surplus they can afford to display? Food, electricity, and shelter isn't terribly expensive compared to the resources the middle and upper class are throwing at things like iphones, cars, and McDonalds (I don't count anything you could 3D-print as food =P), so what are we going to want to spend that extra money on?

It's at least worth thinking about how this might benefit artists, or engineers/scientists for that matter. Actually, they're quite similar, really - most engineers don't make their money on their own inventions, rather they work for a company for a salary, or as a consultant on commission. On the side, they do their own projects, and that's where the new ideas come from. It's the same for artists. Music and art is in demand for much more than just concerts and landscapes. But commercial musicians will do their own work on the side, because they love music.

[Aklyon]

This post (and the list of related links at the end of the article) are relevant here, though more for the music/scarcity debate than the 3D printing.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We can print blood vessels now!

[kaijyuu]

Wait, we can print organic tissue now?

I really wonder how close we are to star trek replicators. Except our replicated stuff will have to be pulled out of a powder, but hey.