Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Creative Destruction? Why That's Just Fab!
On the Fast Company site, Jamais Cascio reviews the rapid progress being made in desktop manufacturing:
Take a design for a simple product--an engine part, for example, or a piece of silverware, and feed it into a computer. Press "print." Out pops (for a sufficiently wide definition of "pops") a physical duplicate, made out of materials plastic, ceramic, metal -- even sugar. Press "print" again, and out comes another copy--or feed in a new design, for the next necessary object.
It may sound like a scene from a low-rent version of Star Trek, but it's real, and it's happening with increasing frequency. This process goes by a few names, but it's most commonly known as "3D Printing" (the older name, "rapid prototyping," no longer captures the range of uses, while the other alternative name, "fabbing," is a little too cyberpunk for the moment). While the process has been around since the mid-1980s, the cost of 3D printers has been dropping quickly, and now range to well under $10,000. If that still sounds like a lot of money, you're right--but don't forget, it was when laser printers dropped to this price range in the mid-1980s that the desktop publishing revolution kicked off.
Right now, most 3D printing is limited to single-material objects (as designer Sven Johnson noted on Twitter, we're now starting to see two-material 3D printers). Most systems use (often proprietary) plastics, but a few use metal "toner." The latter is turned solid by a variety of high-tech means, from sintering with lasers (for simple objects) to using high-energy electron beams to melt the metal into dense, high-strength parts.
On the near horizon, however, are systems that would allow for multiple material inputs, and those that allow the use of electroactive and electronic polymers. Although plastic electronics fall way behind traditional silicon processors when it comes to speed, they're moving into the "just good enough" category, raising the tantalizing possibility of being able to print out basic electronic products--sensors, RFID-type tags, even simple communication devices--by the middle of the next decade.
As the technology improves and prices fall, Cascio forsees a world in which "the kinds of personalized products now available to those with the right money and know-how may soon be available to everyday people." Needless to say, this could bring the same sort of disruption to manufacturing that we've already seen in the news and entertainment industries. But it also "offers the potential for the ultimate 'maker' culture, where commercial products are bought off of iTunes-like online stores and printed at home, while eager hardware hackers play with design tools and open-source hardware systems to make entirely new material goods."
Caveat: My knowledge of this subject is limited to what I've read in Cascio's article and in Neil Gershenfeld's equally enthusiastic book Fab. If you've got a more skeptical take on the tech's prospects, please share it in the comments.
|7.21.09 @ 11:35AM|#
Jay Leno has one to re-make parts that are currently only made
of unobtainium:
http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/video_player.shtml?vid=944641
|7.21.09 @ 11:43AM|#
Damned kids. Always messing about with their techno whazitdoo,
and yacking on the tubes. I'm still trying to work out how to play
my albums on the iPod (any of you punks ever wanna sit still for
ten minutes and really listen to some Andy Williams, you
just might learn something). Now you expect me to figure out how to
use some can't-live-without-it widget every other day? Gagh!
I use to be with it, but then they changed what it was. And now what I'm with, isn't it anymore. And what's it seems strange and peculiar to me.
Geotpf|7.21.09 @ 11:47AM|#
If/when an actual Star Trek-style replicator is invented and
mass produced, the fall of capitalism will follow quickly
thereafter. You will have RIAA-type organizations running around
trying (and failing) to prevent people from replicating a Big Mac
or a Ford Mustang at home.
This isn't a bad thing. If everything is available for free, money
will cease to useful-or needed. The result, best case scenerio,
will be a Star Trek-like political system, minus the starships and
green aliens.
Of course, it's unlikely this will happen during our lifetimes.
|7.21.09 @ 11:49AM|#
Soon there will be one in every squad car, set to
"evidence".
Sorry, I accidentally brought my anger to the "Neat-o!" thread.
|7.21.09 @ 11:53AM|#
Episiarch | July 21, 2009, 11:36am | #
Janeway? Really?
Why not? Best Starfleet captain ever.
|7.21.09 @ 11:54AM|#
My wife got me a Figure Print of my WoW main character. I was impressed by the look and quality.
Mustafa Jones|7.21.09 @ 11:57AM|#
I'm ready to buy one of these devices and see if I can't print my own real doll....
Michael|7.21.09 @ 11:57AM|#
My lifelong dream of making knock-off My Little Ponies entirely out of lead is finally nearing fruition.
Jeff P|7.21.09 @ 11:58AM|#
Geotpf: except you can't fab the new Guster album or a flight to
Manila or a day at six flags.
Someone will be wise enough to gather waste and repackage it as
Maker Matter, or release "sewing patterns" fo electronic parts
etc.
|7.21.09 @ 12:11PM|#
Why not? Best Starfleet captain ever.
Warren, you should go to the doctor. Right away.
Geotpf|7.21.09 @ 12:11PM|#
Jeff P-But at some point, the designs of most things will be
created because people like designing things. Open-source software
proves this. That is, many/most jobs will become overgrown
hobbies.
Travel and a few other services will be rather messy for awhile,
although eventually you have "communism that works". Communism
fell, in large part, due to shortages of consumer goods. (Plus, you
can have communism without the totalitarianism, especially if
there's the internet and all physical goods are free.)
But this is all mainly a thought experiment, since it's unlikely
for 3D printers to turn into actual inexpensive Star Trek-style
replicators any time soon. It will be cheaper and less expensive
for some factory in China to mass produce most consumer goods the
traditional way for the foreseeable future.
Geotpf|7.21.09 @ 12:13PM|#
Cheaper and less expensive. I meant to say easier and less expensive and not be all at the department of redundancy department.
Spoonman|7.21.09 @ 12:13PM|#
Advanced enough, this could completely destroy electronics companies, as people would just trade improvements online or, if the technology were too expensive, some guy in a shop down the street would make them to order.
|7.21.09 @ 12:23PM|#
Geotpf,
Sorry, you will still have scarcity in the amount of "feed" base
materials, energy, and space.
Some people will only want to buld iPods, others will want to build
skyscrapers. How will the space, energy, and feed issues be
resolved? It ain't technocratic/Star-Trek planning that's for
sure...
Add Jeff P's comment to mine, and I still see capitalism still
having a role to play in allocating limited resources to unlimited
wants.
|7.21.09 @ 12:24PM|#
"Advanced enough, this could completely destroy electronics
companies, as people would just trade improvements online or, if
the technology were too expensive, some guy in a shop down the
street would make them to order."
And the intelligent ones would figure out how to sell the
design.
T|7.21.09 @ 12:26PM|#
This isn't a bad thing. If everything is available for free,
money will cease to useful-or needed. The result, best case
scenerio, will be a Star Trek-like political system, minus the
starships and green aliens.
Read Iain M. Banks Culture stories.
My naysaying comments now follow.
Design is hard. It's one thing to make a pretty 3-D model and print
it out. It's another thing entirely to build a functioning device.
How many prototypes do you have to build before you get it right?
At what point do you say screw it, and go buy one?
The difference between good enough for me as a single use item,
good enough for multiple uses, and something someone else will use
is vast. People have come to expect a certain level of fit, finish
and functionality out of pretty much everything these days. You
have to get past this as well.
Most people do not want the hassle. There's a reason Ikea sells 40
scrillion cheap bookcases every year. They're good enough compared
to the hassle of making one yourself. A bookcase is about the
simplest piece of furniture there is. If people aren't going to
invest the minimal time and energy to build a book case, what makes
you think they're gonna bother doing this?
There's always going to be a place for mass-produced, because the
price per item is going to be less than it is to fab a one-off.
Economies of scale and all that rot.
Having said all this, more power to the fab community. I just don't
see Neil Gershenfield's overly optimistic predictions coming true
anytime soon.
Full disclosure: I'm a design engineer, so making stuff is what I
do for a living and for fun.
|7.21.09 @ 12:29PM|#
"I wonder if there's a sort of Kinko's for 3D printing"
www.quickparts.com
much of this technology has been aimed at improved resolution in
the past few years. It's fairly common to be able to get resolution
down to .0006", as good as or better than many CNC machines.
However, the price is still fairly high, the parts often need some
finishing work, and are not as durable as molded or cast
parts.
That said, the whole concept has fascinated me for as long as I've
worked with it. I agree it's only a matter of time until this is
commonplace stuff.
Sean W. Malone|7.21.09 @ 12:37PM|#
Geotpf;
I agree about 90%, free enterprise capitalism is by far the most
effective solution to the problem of allocating scarce resources -
when resources stop being scarce, then (for those goods) allocation
is no longer a problem, everyone gets/takes as much as they want,
no problem.
However..... you're sort of omitting the myriad resources
replicators can't produce and the important ones like services
& as Jeff P noted, a day at 6 flags.
Additionally - Star Trek repeatedly made it clear that replicated
goods weren't as good as the real thing and people used money to
trade for those (see: Captain Sisko's father's restaurant in
DS9)
Anyway, you wouldn't have "communism" as a result, since that
implies lack of ownership and i'm pretty sure theft is still
frowned upon in the ST universe.
|7.21.09 @ 12:37PM|#
If/when an actual Star Trek-style replicator is invented and
mass produced, the fall of capitalism will follow quickly
thereafter.
Quite the opposite. It would lead to far greater material wealth,
which people would use to satisfy more and more elaborate desires,
which would require talented people to make mutually beneficial
trades.
Intellectual talent and pussy aren't going to become suddenly free
because you have a widget maker.
Now, if you can churn out fembots on these machines, that would
break the current monopoly on pussy ...
!</a></|7.21.09 @ 12:37PM|#
Lamar,
I wonder if there's a sort of Kinko's for 3D
printing.
Currently they are called factories.
Frank_A,
Beat me to it. First thing that came to my mind was feeder
materials, or raw materials. Not gonna be free.
mantooth,
Jay Leno has one to re-make parts that are currently only made
of unobtainium:
First time I saw unobtainium used in a while! I like the old
unobtainium.org website better than what I saw last. The one that
just said "Go away you can't have any!"
I really love this topic. For the "world" of my book series I dump
the 3D printer idea into the general idea of tools becoming
cheaper, allowing most anybody to make whatever they are interested
in making. That is just the backdrop. I don't get into much of that
detail in the actual books, just a little bit.
!</a></|7.21.09 @ 12:39PM|#
prolefeed,
If/when an actual Star Trek-style replicator is invented and mass produced, the fall of capitalism will follow quickly thereafter.
Quite the opposite. It would lead to far greater material
wealth, which people would use to satisfy more and more elaborate
desires, which would require talented people to make mutually
beneficial trades.
Same thoughts I had.
Sean W. Malone|7.21.09 @ 12:59PM|#
You gotta admit though, it would make living in dirty hippie
communes less work though - I mean... Consider: There are now
"Freegans" who, as a point of philosophical integrity, eat nothing
but trash! Replicators would allow those people to
continue living like bums indefinitely and possibly not even die of
malnourishment or really disgusting disease. We might be over-run
with non-productive people.
Ironically, I'm sure that - even with 100% of their basic needs
covered for "free" or nearly free - they would still bitch about
inequality.
|7.21.09 @ 1:00PM|#
This tech is the future. It also happens to be an "STC" from
Warhammer 40k. A "Standard Template Construct" which is essentially
a large 3D Printer with saved blueprints for every material good
one could need. It really is only a matter of time, as it only
requires incremental improvements of existing technology.
What is really interesting is what effect this will have on
society. We could become the ultimate 'creator' society; We could
also become slothful luddites who no longer need technical
knowledge, as is the case in Warhammer 40k.
Space Fiend|7.21.09 @ 1:13PM|#
But Cthorm, ignorance is a virtue!
Do not worry, friend, so far from the light of the Throne, it is
easy to get lost in the darkness.
|7.21.09 @ 1:18PM|#
We've got what is referred to as a "rapid prototyping" machine at my workplace that the mechanical designers use. They give it a 3D drawing and it builds the part. I haven't personally used it, as I do 2D electrical design work (where "prototyping" involves wiring something up in a lab). It is a lot quicker and cheaper to throw a small mechanical part together with this than it is to send it out to a shop to have it fabricated. You do that when you're satisfied with the prototype.
|7.21.09 @ 1:19PM|#
Call me when one of these thing-a-ma jigs can make an Audi V10 R8 and a noise free, low maintenance vagina transportation device.
|7.21.09 @ 1:26PM|#
I don't believe in desktop 3D printing/fabbing. Because, here's
the thing: why?
When was the last time that you had a driving need for something
that could realistically be "printed"? That means:
1. Something small enough to be printed on your desktop. No cars or
anything: best case, you could print 100 components and then
assemble them yourself, presuming that you're competent to do that,
which you probably aren't.
2. Something simple enough to be printed on your desktop. For the
forseeable future, we aren't going to be able to "print" a custom
computer hardware -- so, you can't print an iPod or a mobile phone,
or any of the other little electronic gadgets that you buy. At
best, you'll be able to print a new plastic case to hold the guts
and stuff.
3. It means something that's not primarily for display. It's always
going to be hardest to get something that's beautiful as well as
functional. Until the technology is mature, you aren't going to get
art pieces out of it.
So, what does that leave? What in your life fits that bill?
Honestly, there's just not a lot. Tableware, maybe. Maybe a custom
case for my cell phone (but I'll still have to buy the actual phone
part). Um... lawn furniture?
Now, are you unhappy enough with your present options in regards to
all of those that you want to shell out $10,000 for a desktop
printer that, for right now, produces worse versions of those than
you can get at the store?
I think that the answer for the vast, overwhelming majority of
people is "no." And so, there won't be this market that there was
for desktop paper printing that provides a monetary reward which,
in turn, drives innovation and improvement and drives the price
down from $10,000.
Everyone wants a Star Trek replicator. But the problem is that
nobody wants Star Trek replicator generation 0, where the one we
see on the TV show is generation 1000.
Tricky Prickears |7.21.09 @ 1:26PM|#
Computer Integrated Prototyping (CIP)? It's like a simplified version of Computer Integrated Manufacturing (CIM).
Ebeneezer Scrooge|7.21.09 @ 1:30PM|#
This process goes by a few names, but it's most commonly
known as "3D Printing"
I made one of this just yesterday afternoon. This is old hat. The
bleeding edge is SLS's and SLA's, which I've also been doing for
years.
nd those that allow the use of electroactive and electronic
polymers
And shape memory polymers too, from what I hear.
These technologies have already saved the world tons of money in
prototyping. You can quickly and often -- but not always -- build a
prototype of a complex device and do your first "prove in" on
plastic parts. Materials you get out of these process are still a
ways from being "ready to use" though.
Material costs for SLS and SLA remain high, 3D printing is much
cheaper. But SLS and SLA materials are improving all the time. I
expect prices will drop as well.
Jesse, the article might be on the optimistic side, but I think not
by too much. The performance you'll get out of such "grown"
electronic devices is going to be much less than what we get out of
factories for probably a long time to come. For example I can see
them making electronic and electrical components by "growing" wire
traces into SLS parts, where the traces are electrically conductive
polymers.
But electrically conductive polymers just don't give you the same
range of possibilities that metals do. At least today. Give it time
though, all this prototyping has already brought big changes to the
world of design and it's really just getting started.
T has nailed it though.
Design is hard. It's one thing to make a pretty 3-D model and
print it out. It's another thing entirely to build a functioning
device. How many prototypes do you have to build before you get it
right? At what point do you say screw it, and go buy
one?
Making a working device with this approach is not as easy as it
might sound. Most people for example have no idea how to tolerance
parts so that a mechanism will actually work.
OTOH, it's a hell of lot easier, and more in-reach for the average
person, than having to go get something machined out of aluminum
for example.
|7.21.09 @ 1:30PM|#
Call me when one of these thing-a-ma jigs can make an Audi
V10 R8 and a noise free, low maintenance vagina transportation
device.
I'm gonna make the call: threadwinner!
NeonCat|7.21.09 @ 1:37PM|#
You're right that currently it is cheaper to make it (whatever
it is) in a factory in China and then ship it over here. However,
the tech is about at the same point as computers were at in the
early 70s - smaller than it used to be, but still big and bulky.
Sooner or later someone will come out with the Apple II/IBM PC
equivalent, and then things will start to get interesting.
Of course, given how much of China's economy is devoted to making
stuff, when the world starts going to the Maker Factory store in
the mall to get their stuff on site (custom or downloaded pattern),
what will happen to their economy? They will not have the money or
interest in propping up the US economy any longer. I could see not
just luddites but our government expressing concern/hostility to
this if it threatened to overturn the economic applecart.
|7.21.09 @ 1:47PM|#
OTOH, it's a hell of lot easier, and more in-reach for the average person, than having to go get something machined out of aluminum for example.
True, and yet... when was the last time you said to yourself, "I'd
really like to get something machined out of aluminum"? Or even,
"if it were really cheap and really easy and I could have it right
now, I'd like to get something machined out of aluminum"?
If the answer is "never," or "once, I guess, but it was a couple of
years ago," then why would you ever put down money for a desktop
printer.
Another thought experiment: suppose that somebody gave you, totally
free of charge, the best desktop printer that currently exists in
the world, and taught you how to use it (in a casual way -- you
don't go out and get a mechanical engineering degree). What would
you do with it?
|7.21.09 @ 1:50PM|#
SLS is interesting alright, but for functioning parts we still
use CNC milling for our prototypes/molds. ~ 1 micron tolerances,
and useful materials. None of which matters when you get an air
bubble trapped under your dissolved oxygen sensor spot ...
@Ebeneezer Scrooge:
You are in aerospace engineering? Is fluorescent lifetime imaging
of air pressure on surfaces a useful technology now?
Ebeneezer Scrooge|7.21.09 @ 2:20PM|#
MB Sullivan,
Yes but, if the cost got low enough, there's a lot of technicians
out there who would suddenly become low end mechanical
designers.
And I suspect that at this same price point, a lot of people who
don't think about things that require machining (because the cost
is just out of reach) would suddenly get interested.
Turning technicians into designers would have an added benefit. I'm
an ME and work in aerospace btw. There are things that technicians
are not capable of designing. But there are a whole host of
mechanism problems that I believe, technicians often do solve
better than trained mechanical engineers. It's just that
technicians often can't get their ideas "out there" because the
cost to build prototypes is high and the trained MEs get center
stage.
We'd benefit much economically by allowing the technicians to make
their contributions in a fast and economical manner.
I agree, it still wouldn't be a technology for everyone. Just like
computers. But get the cost down and the quality up for SLS and SLA
type parts, and the market would get way bigger than it is now.
T|7.21.09 @ 2:26PM|#
There are things that technicians are not capable of
designing. But there are a whole host of mechanism problems that I
believe, technicians often do solve better than trained mechanical
engineers. It's just that technicians often can't get their ideas
"out there" because the cost to build prototypes is high and the
trained MEs get center stage.
Two jobs ago, the company I worked for had a career path for
drafters where they could end up as designers. A lot of cookbook
math was involved, but the solutions they came up with were usually
more elegant than new engineer solutions. I'm still convinced if
the company could have gotten rid of all the degreed engineers,
they would have.
|7.21.09 @ 2:45PM|#
Yes but, if the cost got low enough, there's a lot of technicians out there who would suddenly become low end mechanical designers.
And I suspect that at this same price point, a lot of people who don't think about things that require machining (because the cost is just out of reach) would suddenly get interested.
Both of these things may be true. I'm not entirely convinced, but
they certainly seem reasonable to believe.
But they put the cart before the horse. What would drive the
technology to be cheaper? Mass adoption. What would drive mass
adoption? Desktop printers being even remotely useful to the
masses. There's no entry point, here.
It's instructive to compare to paper printing. Even back when
printers were slow, noisy, and ugly, there were obvious reasons why
people bought them:
1. People have lots of obvious uses for printed material (even more
back then when electronic media were much less useful). Large
segments of the population can think of tons of daily uses for
printed material.
2. There was an obvious reason to use printers instead of
typewriters, because it was so much less onerous to edit and delete
on a computer than a typewriter.
That didn't mean that 100% of all people saw a need for a printer
in their early stages, of course, but 10% or 1% of people did, and
they saw enough of a convenience that they'd pay for it. That's
what drove the technology to improve.
I assert that, presently, 99.99% of the population would simply
not use a desktop printer, even if you gave it to them for
free. Certainly they wouldn't use it daily or weekly. Maybe a
couple of times a year.
Now, I agree, people might find a use for them if they got a lot
better than they are (though, honestly, I struggle a bit to think
of what that use would be). But they aren't going to get that much
better if there's no market for them right now.
In other words, our current fancy-schmancy laser and inkjet
printers that can print colors and graphics, and on photo-paper,
and with professional-quality resolution would not exist if there
hadn't been demand for the old daisy-wheel, loud, slow, ugly
printers of 1980. And there's just no demand for the equivalent 3D
printers today.
Unless that demand is business demand -- ie, continuing along their
original path as rapid prototyping machines, not consumer-oriented
"printers." But I suspect that the needs of rapid prototyping are
sufficiently different from the needs of consumer 3D printing that
improvements in rapid prototyping devices won't really address the
demand for home devices.
Fluffy|7.21.09 @ 2:45PM|#
I have to add my name to the list of skeptics of this here. I
honestly don't really see the demand for this.
I am trying to think of all of my purchases for the last, say,
three years, and not a lot of them could be produced by this
machine, even a multiple-material version of this machine.
I just don't buy that many "small objects", I guess. Some
replacement water glasses? A coffee mug? Some picture frames? Baby
toys? Chain link garden fencing?
Unless it could make clothes, or a flat-panel computer monitor, or
breakfast sausages, I don't what I would use it for.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|7.21.09 @ 3:01PM|#
Michael B Sullivan and Fluffy,
Maybe you're right. But there's lots of things I know I'd make if
it got cheap enough.
The size limit is slowly going away, btw. They get bigger all the
time.
I suspect a lot of people would never use these devices. But I
still think that as size goes up, cost comes down, and the
materials they can build with get better, a whole lot more people
will be using them. Maybe just not Joe the Average Consumer.
T|7.21.09 @ 3:12PM|#
I suspect a lot of people would never use these devices. But
I still think that as size goes up, cost comes down, and the
materials they can build with get better, a whole lot more people
will be using them. Maybe just not Joe the Average
Consumer.
I suspect the market is going to be similar to the one for the $500
desktop milling machines. They're out there in garages and small
workshops everywhere, but they're invisible to the average
consumer.
Randy Bottoms|7.21.09 @ 3:14PM|#
"I have to add my name to the list of skeptics of this here. I
honestly don't really see the demand for this."
I used to work for Barry Rand when he was President and CEO of
Xerox USA. He told me that when copiers first came out there was
nearly zero demand. People just couldn't imagine the need to copy
anything. They found the idea laughable.
True story.
Randy Bottoms|7.21.09 @ 3:15PM|#
"I just don't buy that many "small objects", I guess. Some
replacement water glasses? A coffee mug? Some picture frames? Baby
toys? Chain link garden fencing?"
What does it cost to buy prescription eye glasses for everyone in a
family of four?
A.G. Pym|7.21.09 @ 3:20PM|#
For a look at what ubiquitous fabbing might look like under certain circumstances, read Neal Stephenson's "The Diamond Age."
Sid Meier|7.21.09 @ 3:31PM|#
What would drive mass adoption? Desktop printers being even
remotely useful to the masses. There's no entry point,
here.
"You would have a ship sail against the wind and currents by
lighting a bonfire under her deck? I have no time for such
nonsense." Napoleon Bonaparte
|7.21.09 @ 3:39PM|#
Sid: That's an entirely unrelated objection. I'm not suggesting
that desktop printing machines are technically unviable -- clearly
they are viable. I'm suggesting that there's no demand for
them.
There was obvious demand for ships that could sail against the wind
and currents -- Napolean just didn't believe that it was
possible.
And it's not like this is crazy talk. Look at, say, flying cars.
They're basically possible. People have made working prototypes for
decades. And we all think that they're cool, conceptually. But
there's no adoption of them because they're impractical in a
million ways, and so the only people making them are soloist
enthusiasts, and they just never get all that good.
It's the same with virtual reality. We've had the basic technology
for VR for about 15 years, now. Nobody uses it because, basically,
it's not useful. We can imagine uses for the perfect VR in our
minds, but the stuff that actually exists isn't useful, and so
nobody buys it, and so nobody improves it.
Seriously, here's the challenge for everyone:
Somebody gives you (and only you) a desktop 3D printer. The top of
the line as it currently exists in the world. What would you make
with it? You, right now, not vague thoughts about some people
somewhere.
NeonCat|7.21.09 @ 3:43PM|#
Now, it may or may not come to pass that we all have fabricators
sitting in our homes, but I would be very surprised if we didn't
have big ones sitting in a store somewhere. Currently if you want a
gizmo it has to be made in China (for instance), put in store
display packaging, which then goes into a cardboard box which then
goes on a palette which goes in a 40 foot steel container which
gets taken by rail or by truck to a port where it is put onto a
giant container ship (which burns diesel) and sailed across the
ocean to another port where it is unloaded on to a train or truck
and taken to a warehouse and then a store. It adds up. At some
point, I suspect, it is going to be economically more viable to
have feed materials and some standardized chips and wires sitting
in the back of Target or wherever and when you want an iPod (for
instance) you make your selections as to color, shape, capacity,
etc. and the machines in the back crank one out in about half an
hour.
You would have huge savings in terms of fuel/transportation and
storage costs.
|7.21.09 @ 3:48PM|#
If they could get these things to make ammo, I could see some widespread adoption.
T|7.21.09 @ 4:00PM|#
Somebody gives you (and only you) a desktop 3D printer. The
top of the line as it currently exists in the world. What would you
make with it? You, right now, not vague thoughts about some people
somewhere.
Depends entirely on what material it cranks out. Right off the bat
and material independent, scale models of some ideas I've had
kicking around but that are too big to try otherwise. 3D modeling
only gets you so far.
Depending on material, I half-assed some custom terminal blocks out
of PVC and brass lately. They work, but they're rough looking. If I
could get them to look a little more finished I'd be happy as a
clam. I also need some enclosures for some other stuff I'm working
on, and that should be doable with the right material. There's also
some fab work I have to finish on my wife's DRD model to fit the RC
chassis underneath that one of these would be fantastic for.
Space Fiend|7.21.09 @ 4:15PM|#
Um, I don't want to be manufacturing ammo on my desk using ultra-hot lasers...call me crazy...
Ebeneezer Scrooge|7.21.09 @ 4:17PM|#
Somebody gives you (and only you) a desktop 3D printer. The
top of the line as it currently exists in the world. What would you
make with it? You, right now
Composite layup forms (as in polymer matrix composites).
Investment casting patterns.
Vacuum forming patterns for plastic parts.
Mechanism prototypes.
Give me a few minutes and I'll come up with something else.
But I'd far, far prefer a good SLA machine to a 3D printer. The
material you get out of a 3D printer is brittle, tolerates little
of no tensile load, and doesn't deal with liquid exposure well at
all.
Sadly, neither of them will make bullets for you today. But when
these things evolve to the point of laser sintering metals we'll
almost be there.
|7.21.09 @ 4:21PM|#
Depends entirely on what material it cranks out. Right off the bat and material independent, scale models of some ideas I've had kicking around but that are too big to try otherwise. 3D modeling only gets you so far.
Well, somebody more familiar with the technology would have to tell
you what's available. I don't spend a ton of time keeping
up-to-date on industries that I think are doomed.
But here's the spec sheet for the Connex350, which is mentioned in
the article, and can print two materials at once:
http://www.objet.com/Docs/connex350_a4.pdf
It appears to support transparent plastic, opaque plastic,
polypropylene-like material, and rubber-like material.
It prints at 600x600x1600 dpi, and can build parts of up to
13.4x13.4x7.9 inches in size (the machine itself is 55.9x44.1x44.5
inches in size and weighs half a ton).
Ebeneezer Scrooge|7.21.09 @ 4:28PM|#
I don't spend a ton of time keeping up-to-date on industries
that I think are doomed.
I can assure you this industry is not doomed. It may never reach
the market penetration of something like paper towels, but rapid
prototyping isn't going away.
|7.21.09 @ 4:29PM|#
I can assure you this industry is not doomed. It may never reach the market penetration of something like paper towels, but rapid prototyping isn't going away.
That's fair. I think that the consumer side of it is doomed, but
certainly you're right that the business side is here to stay.
Fluffy|7.21.09 @ 4:29PM|#
Ebenezer and T:
It's already been acknowledged that engineers have a use for this
technology. That wasn't the question, really.
How would a housewife use this technology?
Maybe she could act like the Who at dinner every night and bust up
all my tableware, and then throw the pieces into the machine and
make new tableware every morning. But beyond that, what does she
do?
And isn't there a materials limit based on the availability of the
materials themselves, even if you can have a multiple material
machine? In order to get to the point where the thing could spit
out a working laptop computer, it would need to have all sorts of
heavy metals available. You couldn't even make yourself so much as
one free legal light bulb [a few years from now] without having
access to mercury as one of the "ingredients".
Ebeneezer Scrooge|7.21.09 @ 4:36PM|#
Turning these things into a house hold appliance is a long ways
off.
Turning them into something that people who like to tinker, can
afford to have out in their garages, is not so far off at
all.
Mrs. Who may not see how to produce useful things with these
machines, but her husband very well could in the not too distant
future. The only thing stopping him right now is the cost.
A month ago I dropped my cell phone and cracked the battery cover.
First thought was "wow I could just model this thing up and go grow
an SLS to replace it". But minimum run cost for SLS is $100.
It used to cost much, much more than this.
Seriously, Mrs. Who's husband will be fixing things for her, that
he never before could have dreamed of fixing.
Your world is full of plastic things. Plastic breaks. Imagine the
day when it won't matter because you can always grow a new one (in
an hour thank you) if you drop it.
I predict that this technology will become much more pervasive than
you skeptics currently believe.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|7.21.09 @ 4:42PM|#
Another example: the keyboards you buy today are made to lay
flat on the desk top, rather than being inclined as they were in
the old days. I hate that, I want one that's inclined.
Right now I prop it up with something (that always moves around).
With cheap SLS machine, I could easily grow a little prop that was
custom made to hold the keyboard. No more hassle and much
nicer.
Ever buy a plastic thing, maybe an iPod or a cell phone or a PDA,
and somehow it just didn't fit your hand right? Well your hand and
mine are not the same size/shape.
Imagine buying the guts to your cell phone, and growing the case
around it to custom fit your hands.
That is not infeasible and could become cost effective in a very
few years from now.
Ya'll don't do next generation product development, do you? I've
done it for a living. I can see real possibilities.
Though you're right, you won't be growing light bulbs or full-up
cell phones anytime soon.
|7.21.09 @ 4:58PM|#
Your world is full of plastic things. Plastic breaks. Imagine the day when it won't matter because you can always grow a new one (in an hour thank you) if you drop it.
Is it? Like what? When was the last time you broke a plastic thing
that you wanted to replace? I'm racking my mind, and here are my
two examples:
I scratch the lenses of my sunglasses about once every year or so,
and buy new ones once every three years or so, and it'd be cool to
not have to do that, because shopping for sunglasses is a genuine
pain in the ass. But I think it'll be several years before these
machines could replace my sunglasses lenses, and in any case it's
once every three years or so.
I've broken a couple of little plastic doohickeys that attach to my
keychain (a thumbdrive in one case, the plastic bit of my car key
in another case), and that was annoying. Two cases of this
happening in my adult life. I'm not sure that even the best 3D
printer would be any more convenient than going out and getting a
new key made ($3, 15 minutes), or would be worth trying to
transition a thumbdrive into a new case.
I guess that I break or lose ballpoint pens and mechanical pencils
pretty regularly, but I doubt that waiting an hour for a new one is
a good idea (even if they could make ballpoint pens or mechanical
pencils, and my impression is that they can't).
|7.21.09 @ 7:26PM|#
Now we're on the way to making star-trek transporter devices... the machine would sense everything about you, send the info to another machine, and the other machine would build you. Only problem is the nasty matter of disposing of the original.
|7.21.09 @ 8:27PM|#
A month ago I dropped my cell phone and cracked the battery
cover. First thought was "wow I could just model this thing up and
go grow an SLS to replace it".
Sure, you could go model it, but Mrs. Who's husband is not
going to want to sit in front of the computer for a few hours
beyond the 3D printer run time, developing the correct model, when
he can go to the store to buy a new one and get away from Mrs. Who
for an hour or so. Reverse-engineering a part like that would only
be useful when you couple the printer with a 3-D laser dimensioner.
Thingy.
Hell, I have a BS in aerospace and a PhD in aeronautics, and I
don't feel like I'm really building something unless I'm
hitting the duty cycle limit on the MIG welder.
EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy|7.21.09 @ 10:25PM|#
A month ago I dropped my cell phone and cracked the battery cover. First thought was "wow I could just model this thing up and go grow an SLS to replace it".
Sure, you could go model it, but Mrs. Who's husband is not going to want to sit in front of the computer for a few hours beyond the 3D printer run time, developing the correct model, when he can go to the store to buy a new one and get away from Mrs. Who for an hour or so.
He's not going to the store if he can download the part model from
the phone manufacturer for less and with less hassle.
The thing to remember here is that while adoption will be sparse
and specialized at first two things will happen:
* a whole economic ecosystem will develop to prove services for
these things
* the device will get better and cheaper year after year
So adoption will expand steadily, driving both processes
forward.
perilisk|7.21.09 @ 11:22PM|#
Put me on the side of people that see this tech as not being too
useful right now. I can't think of many things I buy right now that
aren't either large, cheap, or fairly material-dependent. Once you
start being able to manufacture materials atom-by-atom, things
might be dramatically different.
Hmmm...
Actually, having thought a little more, one place it would really
come in handy is in letting people manage their own design -- that
is, home furnishings could be supplied as basic, functional,
terminator endoskeletal forms; users could then create their own
designs (or download them, or buy them, etc) that are completely
unique to their living space and stylistic preferences, and
specialized software would create the necessary parts to apply to
the basic structure to get the best of form and function
(presumably the manufacturer of the basic item would provide or
sell a template that the software builds the shell around). The
shells would just snap on, most likely.
Like photo printing, I'm thinking that this is capital-intensive
enough that it would initially happen in specialized shops and/or
retail outlets rather than the home -- you'd pick up your raw
electronics at Best Buy, and then have them outfitted with your
favorite theme for a small fee.
If usage picked up, prices would drop sufficiently for enthusiasts
and wealthy people to purchase home versions; with recyclable
materials, they could update their furnishings every few months, or
for special occasions, or whatever (instead of buying throwaway
"Christmas" this or "Halloween" that).
Basically, it would be breaking up the vertical integration of the
engineering and aesthetic sides of industrial design, though
ergonomics would probably still have a place on both sides. It
would also cut down on the amounts of shelf space dedicated to
models of items differentiated only by color (and the exasperation
of finding that a retailer is stocked with everything but the one
you want).
Probably didn't occur to me because I am male and would be fine
with living in a concrete bunker; it's actually probably tech
that's more useful to Mrs. Who.
[I've also heard of some very specialized uses of 3d printing
(candy printing, etc.) that may eventually aid a rebirth of cottage
industry.]
|7.21.09 @ 11:35PM|#
Actually, having thought a little more, one place it would really come in handy is in letting people manage their own design ... users could then create their own designs (or download them, or buy them, etc) that are completely unique to their living space and stylistic preferences
That'd be cool, but near-future 3D printing will print in plastic
and metal. It might be good for sculptures or whatever -- the kind
of little design touches that you might put on a table or wall --
but it won't be producing the fabrics, leathers, or woods that you
generally want for furniture or large furnishings like tables or
bookcases.
I suppose that we might move to that spaceage aesthetic that's been
visual code for "the future" for generations, but it hasn't
happened yet.
Dan M|7.22.09 @ 12:59AM|#
There's a very inexpensive version of these fab machines that
"came out" a few years back called Fab @
Home. It's nothing more than blueprints for how to build it
yourself, but if you're tech-savvy, you can do it for just a few
hundred bucks.
We had ome of the UMich guys who started Fab@Home give a talk a
while back, and the demonstrations are pretty amazing. At that
time, they were even finishing up a design that would work with
epoxies.
I\'m not signing my name to th|7.22.09 @ 8:36AM|#
Technological innovation is always led by porn.
Two words: sex toys.
They just need to get these things working with silicone.
Tim Mayer|7.22.09 @ 9:16AM|#
The epoxy for the Fab@Home machine can be found here:
http://www.kraftmark.biz/kraft.fabepoxy.html
Ed Grenda|7.25.09 @ 11:54AM|#
This is one of the more thoughtful discussions I've seen on this
subject of additive fabrication, so near and dear to my heart.
Rather than gas on about it here at length I'd like to invite you
to explore the technology, markets and prospects in-depth at our
web site, the Worldwide Guide to Rapid Prototyping. It's located
here: http://home.att.net/~castleisland/
There's a lot of interest in low-cost systems these days, so we've
made a section that discusses every choice available below $20,000.
Of particular interest are the new kit manuacturers like Makerbot
and A1 Technologies. Poised for take-off. Look here:
http://home.att.net/~castleisland/comp_lks.htm
If you'd like to know more about the wide-ranging prospects for
using additive fabrication in manufacturing applications, that
starts here: http://home.att.net/~castleisland/rm_c.htm
Who needs Kinkos? There are now more than 900 places to buy parts
using additive technologies and new ones appear weekly. These
service bureaus are listed starting here:
http://home.att.net/~castleisland/sb_ci.htm
Numerous technologies are capable of producing metal parts,
although that can be expected to remain expensive. You can get
metal parts from service bureaus, though. Comparison tables and
tutorials are located here:
http://home.att.net/~castleisland/tl_c.htm
If you really want to get an idea of what people are thinking about
doing with the technology, look at patents. They tell the future -
and if not the future, at least the aspirations. We follow the IP
very carefully and you can see highlights here:
http://home.att.net/~castleisland/rec_pat.htm
It's not likely that your mom will need a system, and maybe you
won't either. It's not likely that a consumer market will be the
next phase, either - but the technology is creeping into everyone's
life in invisible ways. Medicine and dentistry are simply permeated
with applications. Aerospace and transportation are very big growth
areas. Additively fabricated electronics will provide a profound
and fundamental change to that field - and it's on the verge of
going mainstream. Dedicated machines are now being produced for a
number of fields, such as dentistry, the hearing aid
industry.
A Repicator, it won't be that in our lifetimes - but this is
technology that should be in every technical person's bag of
tricks.
Ed
|7.30.09 @ 6:21PM|#
"Rapid Protyping" is NOT the older name for "3D Printing." 3D Printing is only ONE type of rapid prototyping. "Fabbing" is slang for "Fabrication" since many rapid protyping shops are called "Fab Labs". You don't even touch on the other methods of "fabbing." When working with metals it's with CADCAM CNC Routers, NOT 3D Printers. Even Wikipedia has it down. If you want to report the facts, it helps to do your research. There's a whole other world to rapid prototyping: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_prototyping
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245