This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
UBS On The Importance Of 3D Printing
Over a year ago we discussed the "next Industrial Revolution" and where it might appear from. 3D printers were envisioned among Goldman's top disruptive themes earlier this year and as UBS notes, 3D printing – or additive manufacturing – has been catching investors’ imaginations in recent months. Some commentators have suggested the technology has the potential to literally transform the world economy and dismantle global supply chains; while UBS points out that, others have suggested the technology is hyped and has little promise beyond a few niche product areas in manufacturing. The truth, Andrew Cates believes, probably lies somewhere in between but he is nevertheless more sympathetic to those who champion the technology’s disruptive – even revolutionary - qualities.
Via UBS' Andrew Cates,
For those readers who are not yet aficionados on this technology we start with a brief explanation. Additive manufacturing (AM) techniques (a.k.a. 3D printing) create 3D objects directly from a computer model by depositing material where required and by building products up layer by layer using a range of different materials (e.g. polymers, ceramics, glass and even metals).
This stands in contrast to conventional subtractive manufacturing techniques which involve taking blocks of material, cutting them down into the right shape, and assembling them into more complex products. The technology is admittedly still in its infancy and it suffers from a range of limitations at present. However, we think the optimists who argue that this technology will be revolutionary have a strong case. As one author has quipped:
“This is not the third (industrial revolution), nor the second, but rather the first real revolution in how we make things since a pre-historic man picked up two rocks and started banging them against one another, trying to shape them into something useful” (Dr Alexander Elder)
The technology has not yet generated a major impact on the world economy. A recent report from UBS analysts, for example, noted that the AM market (USD 2.2 billion) amounted to just 0.02% of the global manufacturing sector. Still, as the analysts equally noted, the technology is starting to spread more broadly both at a sector-specific and at a country-specific level. A recent report from Wohlers Associates, for example, reveals that AM is now used in a number of different economic sectors with consumer products/electronics the leading industrial area. The motor vehicle and aerospace sectors are also keen users while the medical/dental profession has additionally established itself as a strong sector for AM over the last few years (see chart 1 below).
The technology is - at present - particularly advantageous in low-to-moderate volume markets (e.g. aerospace) that regularly operate without economies of scale.
At a country-specific level the data from that same report from Wohlers reveals that the US is the lead user by a large margin. Japan, Germany and China have the second, third and fourth largest installed bases, respectively, of systems worldwide (see chart 2 below).
There are a number of reasons why the technology has not yet had a bigger impact. Challenges include production speed, materials availability, precision and control. Issues concerning legal responsibility are also problematic. Still, as we explore below, incentives to overcome these challenges clearly exist because of the potential advantages that the technology affords. And matters at present may already be moving more rapidly than many of the pessimists might contend. The use of nanotechnology, for instance, could mean that plastics in 3D printing soon rival the strength of metals in more conventional manufacturing.
Meanwhile the printing of human kidneys, of houses, of hamburgers (and other food products) and even – in the distant future - of an aeroplane are being actively researched and in some of those cases (e.g. houses and hamburgers) even printed.
The reasons why the technology has so much potential are as follows:
It lowers energy intensity by saving energy, by eliminating production steps, by enabling the reuse of by-products by producing lighter products and by cutting the need for transportation. It is in these respects obviously environmentally-friendly as well.
AM techniques yield less waste. The US Department of Energy estimates that by building objects layer by layer instead of traditional machining processes that cut away material AM processes could reduce material needs and costs by up to 90%.
It heightens incentives to innovate by eliminating traditional design restrictions. It makes it possible, for example, to create items previously considered too intricate and accelerates final product design. The ability to improve performance and functionality – literally customizing products to meet individual customer needs – should open new markets and improve profitability.
It yields greater flexibility in the production process by enabling rapid response to markets and new production options outside of the manufacturing factory. Spare parts can be produced on demand, for example, reducing the need for inventory and complex supply chains.
In short the technology enriches the capital base and enhances the scope for an economy to achieve faster capital- and total factor productivity growth. Its disruptive qualities emerge from the ongoing fall in its relative costs and the increasingly broad reach of its potential. Arguably of most significance from the vantage point of potential global economic benefits the technology lowers the barriers to entry in manufacturing and allows almost anyone to become an entrepreneur.
As we have explored in more detailed research in recent weeks there are a large number of technologies that are rising to the surface of the world economy at present which offer a great deal of promise. AM in isolation would arguably not be so potent were it not for these other innovations that are acting alongside it. The marriage of nanotechnology and AM techniques is perhaps the bestillustration of this. But the increasingly connected world economy via the increasing use of mobile and cloud technology and the ease with which digital designs can now be transported around the planet are notably also helping to foster the take-up and deployment of AM techniques.
We have tentatively estimated that the efficient deployment of new technologies in the information and communications sector, in manufacturing (including AM) and in energy could lift the potential growth rate of the world economy by as much as 0.5 percentage points in the coming years. The winners from this potential transformation, however, are more likely to be those economies, sectors, companies and consumers that are active users of these new technologies and not necessarily its active producers.
»
- 27018 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
They are.... 6 years ago. They call it "rapid prototyping". It's what it was first used for. Nobody ever imagined manufacturing with them. Now, they've gotten to the point you could maybe do some short-run stuff with them, if the break even point makes sense from a financial perspective and the materials they can print the parts with is acceptable for the final application. Otherwise its just a prototype piece that you make a mold from to produce the part in more traditional ways.
And when it comes to making it right for those runs you won't if you refuse to use 3d printing for many applications for the prototypes to ensure they are properly designed.
This is and has been my top pick for this year :)
LOL, I read so much doom and gloom on here that I got bearish... I sold 1/2 last week and the other 1/2 today.
Hope all you doomers douchez are right about how bad things are.
In fairness, I am now net short -- wish me luck! I believe that we correct 15 - 20% on the ES. Interest rates are going up, it's just a matter of people realizing that the Fed's magic has just about run out.
I know Rick santelli fancies himself but Fama is one smart dude. The effect on 10 Year and under treasuries is more of a perception deception than anything. Hard to know what the catalyst will be but i've got a massive gain already this year so just looking to lock it in.
I have rotated into some Miners with NEM as largest.
I am taking a completely random walk down the back alley behind wall street until year end...
Hey fellow ZH Doom and Gloomers, WE GOT ANOTHER ONE TO GO SHORT !!!
hahahhhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahhahahaha...
So, you're betting that people are going to suddenly get smart and realize "the Fed's magic has just about run out." Good luck with that!
I'd rather find a way to bet on people remaining ignorant.
3D Printing... Additive Manufacturing... heck, I was running one of these machines back in '92.
For those of us to truly USE the technology, we call it "rapid prototyping". Because that's what you use it for. You rapidly cruise through iterations before you commit to hard tooling.
I commend those dreamers looking to what it could possibly become in the future and to those hungry investors seeking emerging opportunities but this tech' is not new. It's quite mature and there are well established manufacturers of the machinery and service providers (for those industries/manufacturers who can't afford their own machine).
The new waves of low cost "desktop" printers are interesting - they've reduced the size and cost of entry but in doing so have somewhat sacrificed accuracy and speed. Still, they could be very effective to produce earlier stage prototypes in a product development process.
Let's just say there could be a nice black market for ammo clips in certain communities and these tools are perfect for the job. I can think of about 20 applications this particular tool can be utilized quite effectively and not just for one offs. If there is a dollar to be made someone will step up to the plate. Don't underestimate hungry people looking to hustle a dollar. If they actually make a go at it the big boys eventually notice, muscle in and take it main stream.
Do you think it will evolve to use, for instance, molten aluminum?
http://www.vadersystems.com/
Thx. Very cool. Good luck to them and The Do'er.
Over.
We have become obsessed with printing everything.
3D is hype. That's all.
I have to agree with the post, and the general consensus here: It should be awesome...SOMEDAY.
I'm a CAD guy. I can draw anything, and it would be great to be able to just make the drawings appear in real life. After checking out the quality, speed and limitations of the stuff out there, it's just not something I'd be willing to spend the money on yet. As others have said, they're toys for hobbyists right now. But I can't think of anything with more potential right now.
My experience with CAD was that I was a lot faster with a pencil--for the first draft. The hours saved in doing revisions, however, made it all worth the screwing around with CAD. Since then I've gotten a lot handier with it. Would you say 3D printing is similar in comparison to making things with machines? That the set up and screwing around is significant, but revisions are a snap, and then once you've got it dialed in you might go to a more high-speed manufacturing process, as you wouldn't hit "print" over and over off a CAD workstation but go to a print shop at that point?
The thing I found most interesting about 3D printing is you can (at least potentially) make complex, custom shapes in one piece that would be pretty much impossible with traditional methods, but it's probably going to be a long, long time before they're ready to replace the machines we use now for mass production.
I guess you'd probably send it to a print shop. It's not even cost effective to own a large format paper printer unless you plan to do a whole lot of printing.
I can't draw with a pencil to save my life, but I tell you, once you get your chops down in CAD, I think you'll find it very fast and easy. The best advice I can offer is "Learn your key commands!" The systems I learned on were DOS-based and key commands were your only option. The GUI-interface with all the tiles and pull-downs just slow you down. I keep my right hand on my mouse and my left hand hovering above the keyboard..."REC" space for a Rectangle "M" space to move etc. keying in actual dimensions as I go. And it's a whole lot less eye strain than all those buttons and pull-downs will give you to boot.
Thanks for the insight! That's what I thought I was understanding about 3D printing but you sounded like you had a closer perspective.
"Learn your key commands!"
true that! i never liked autocad as there is better software for architects but one thing that i adopted from it is the command input as i saw the speed gain it provided. i got myself third party keyboard simulation software that could use abbreviations mapped to gui, traditional shortcuts (that no human could remember) or even to chain of commands.
When I was in the shop I usually started with a pencil sketch and then went to the computer if the math was hairy. I once had to figure some dimensions on a 3 dimensional taper (X,Y and Z); couldn't have done it with out cad.
For my home stuff I use Sketch-Up. The free version is a bit clunky, but I don't do much precision stuff.
Free Sketch-up is clunky, but you can still do some pretty neat things with it. Some of the stuff in the model library is out of this world!
Ever get completely lost with the "orbit" feature and feel like you're on a looping roller coaster?
I'm a CAD guy. I can draw anything
I'm not a CAD guy. Just started tinkering with Inventor 2014. Have never used any CAD til now. Had only used 2D Visio at work, which isn't really CAD. Currently struggling trying to model a Ruger 10/22 buttplate. Don't want to spend the money to have it scanned.
I'm afraid I can't be any help to you with Inventor, because I've never gotten a chance to use it. So you've inadvertently stepped on a nerve. I temped at a place fixing their AutoCAD drawings (and let me tell you, they were a fucking mess!). All the nimrods who created these masterpieces had "graduated" to Inventor, bitching about how hard it was and how I lucky I was that I didn't have to learn it, etc. I just nodded, but inside I wanted to scream, "YEAH BUT YOU OBVIOUSLY NEVER LEARNED AUTOCAD EITHER!!!"
Anyway about two weeks ago, I got a call from a headhunter wanting to know if I had any Inventor experience. I said, "No, just 15+ years of AutoCAD, a year or so of Microstation and some Visio." He said, "Sorry they only want people with Inventor experience," which I am apparently destined to never get. Ugh!
The tech is crap, it's for people who can't read a print.
After everyone made a demo model, it sits unused.
just imagine if you can print your own lego bricks ... ummm ...
LOL. I was thinking the same thing. And then I realized the redundancy in the idea.
:)
Personally, I find my 3D printer useful. The company I work for finds them useful, as well. I think production AM is still young and not cost effective. But, for prototyping, it gets the job done at low cost. Anyone who says send your drawing to a machine shop first hasn't priced low quantity machine work lately or they've never had an error in a design. Don't get hung up on the bracelets kids are printing.
Last night, I printed a hooded rear aperture for my Danish target rifle. Works great.
I used to a shop rat, using mills, lathes and EDM machines. I don't know what the going rate is now, but I'm going to guess that if CAD is invloved about $250.00 per hour. For complex shapes a cnc mill, lathe and/or edm machine would be required.
Hey UBS, fuck 3D printing! I'd settle for a 2D FRN Printer.
That's where the real currency is to be made.
I've been hearing about how 3D printing is going to end the need for manufacturing....but always from someone who knows absolutely nothing about the process. I saw a video that give the impression that it is possible to wave a scanner over an object and print out a working duplicate...bullshit.
I've been using 3D printing in product development for about 15 years. It is expensive, labor intensive and yields parts that have very limited uses. The part files needed as input for the printer can easily take 10 to 40 hours to prepare by someone trained in the use of 3D CAD.
I do this on a regular basis for work and can make this stuff today but can't think of a single household item that would be worth the time, effort and expense to 3D print.
It is being pimped as the new Magic Snake Oil to lure investors.
I know of someone who has a low end 3D printer and has made replacement parts for household repairs. It may not be possible to make anything you want, but you can make useful plastic parts that don't require too much mechanical stress capacity.
Have to wonder how many iterations it takes before one gets something usable.
Just printing in 2-D I often end up wasting a bunch of "ink" and paper trying to make images (text or whatever) fit on the page correctly! Compound this with millions of other low-level operators doing the same and we'll find that in the long-run we'll have chewed up more energy and materials than had we just utlized factory-produced stuff. NOTE: I'm not advocating factory-produced stuff, just wanting to put in resource utilization in context.
Amazing stuff going on in AM. Example...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsXuOzXSBLc
Although I hold GE in contempt, I have to say, that was pretty fucking awesome!
I am teaching a college level physical computing class this semester and based upon what I see, Additive Manufacturing meets and exceeds the criterion for revolutionary. It surpasses the Internet Information revolution and probably the Personal Computer revolution. The key points in my mind are no start-up cost, no complexity cost, and apparently linear cost for scalability. In other words a prototype and product run are the same per-item cost, but each item in the production run can be customized. What this also means is that cheap labor is not the overriding factor in the manufacturing process. This type of manufacturing can be done just as inexpensively here as overseas.
Just like the PC, I see a future with 3D printing in every home and business. Need a part to repair? Want add to a collection? Just as MIT's "Center for Bits and Atoms" suggests, the world is a now a product of your computer. From a legal perspective, copyright and patents seem obsolete when one can make most anything for personal use.
Nevertheless, this is not a process for uninitiated. 3D objects arise from 3D models that begin as primitive object(s) through solid modelling and/or surface modelling, scanned from the environment as a surface model, or created from algorithms. These models deal with the exterior surface while interior surfaces and the space between interior and exterior surfaces are undefined in many cases. To me, 3D modelling is unlike any other human activity and, as a result, it has a steep learning curve. At present, 3D modelling is more of a craft than principles/theory meaning that two or more designers may arrive at the same end point from different paths with vastly different amounts of effort.
Regardless, I am not optimistic on the overall effect this new technology will have on the economy. What has happened with productivity gains of the Personal Computer Revolution? The Internet Revolution? I believe they have been skimmed off by monetary policy of higher powers. Meanwhile the average Joe works harder for less money. So great, we will become a super-efficient manufacturing society, but have to work longer and harder for less reward than before the 3D printing era.
I somehow doubt 3d printing will deliver this awful human race out of it's post dark ages lameness.
Wake me up when we have found a cure for cancer and the Fed is abolished the NSA is sued by Germany, the ECB is disbanded etc etc etc.
3d printing is a plastic pipe dream.
allegedly cannabis and apricot seeds already are that cure.
A lot of things sound good in the academic world, but fall flat in the real world. You are thinking and talking about academic potential, not real world application.
I don't teach a class, I build 3D models for production every single day. I have hundreds of prototypes 3D printed for me every year.
The 3D printed prototypes are not production quality products, and may never be. Sure it may be possible to 3D print a part of a larger product, or print parts for repair. But you would never use 3D printing for a full scale production run. For things like spacecraft, or structural engineering, there may be a huge place for 3D printing, but not in products with style and design. Some of the simplest objects you touch every day can not be produced with any current or near future 3D printing technology.
A prototype and product run are no where near the same item cost. Not even in the same universe. 3D printing can have a lower cost for the prototyping phase, because you don't have mold costs, and changes are much easier to make. But, once you have a production design and pay for a mold, individual parts are incredibly cheap and require almost no post processing.
Say you needed to run 50k parts. If you make a production mold, you can run 50k parts in the time it would take to 3D print ten. Every single 3D printed part will also require post processing work to match the traditional produced parts. 3D printers can not produce smooth curved surfaces. They are getting better but they are still produced using a layered system which works like a step pyramid.
If designing a product was so easy, anyone could do it.
I challenge you to design a good set of tableware. A spoon, fork, and knife should be easy. Then get a 3D printing company to make you some samples and try to eat with them.
The problem with 3D printers say for industrial, is they will need to massively print to upscale modeling using polyphenylsulfone - industrial grade plastics, the costs will be huge thus it being no more than what it is now, a novelty. I remember very well when biotech was the market rage and biofuels, also OLED tech well...history dictates.
UBS is just distracting the market with hype and ironically with the word "printing"
Well-rounded observation/comment!
"Meanwhile the average Joe works harder for less money. So great, we will become a super-efficient manufacturing society, but have to work longer and harder for less reward than before the 3D printing era."
And this raises the question for how raw materials could be made readily available at low enough cost-points for the"average Joe" to obtain them to do his/her "printing."* Geez, there's like 750 million people in India living on $0.50/day! As we go forward in time we will find that more of our energies will be devoted to obtaining food (which is why I did a 180 [turn] from tech toward farming- I saw things not for what I wanted them to be, but for what they WILL be).
* I'd made this point above, about materials costs. I'd recently had about 13 yards of drain rock delivered for under $200 (I think it was $180 or so). Home Depot wants $4.54 for 80lbs! (http://www.homedepot.com/p/Oldcastle-0-8-cu-ft-7-8-in-Drainage-Rock-4020...) So, if I had to go through 13 yards via 80lb bags (I'll leave out tax calcs here, but I'm guessing that it's safe to say that they'd be at least 5%) that 13 yards would cost me (also leaving out the costs to transport)- $2,065.70. Yeah, sure, this is heavy stuff, but what about stuff that might be classified as hazzardous materials?, I'd figure that such materials would carry an increased price tag for packaging (and shipping/transport).
This is not the CB radio, but rather the Heathkit computer kit one could buy in 1981. Thirty years from now, or most likely less, we'll see the full impact. I beat this to death, but virtually every problem we all bitch and moan about each and every day in these pages (debt, printing, outsourcing, UE, etc.) stems from the same thing: society is moving beyond the need for human input, except as buyers. The trouble is that all of this increased efficiency provides supply while destroying demand, at least demand as in the ability to afford. Debt was the short term "solution" to creating buying power for humanity's increasingly efficient means of production, though that solution came with its own problems. Even if we solve the debt problem (unlikely) the larger problem remains.
3D printing is just the latest in the long line of human obviators and quantum leaps in efficiency. It is the McCormick Combine, albeit coming online at a time when the "revolution" isn't industrial, but only social. It is another step toward the Singularity. We're trying like heck in the meantime to absorb all the superfluous humans, and so far we're addressing it via a combination of entitlements (SNAP, etc.) and social networking (a fairly useless entity that creates "meaning" for redundant people, and also provides jobs). Social networking is some combination of the factories of the Industrial Revolution, and the Soma of Huxley's Brave New World. It's all we've got.
I'm happy to see that you have a handful of green arrows and no read arrows (gives me hope that there's more people running around that understand reality).
"The trouble is that all of this increased efficiency provides supply while destroying demand, at least demand as in the ability to afford."
I've been harping about "affordability" for quite some time now as being an important metric to judge against (rather than meaningless cost/prices).
Also, I'm not thinking that things will be more efficient due to the need to fragment up raw materials in such small scales as necessary to deliver door-to-door. Eventually the energy demands will weigh very heavily, as well as the management of raw materials (how well is the "Average Joe" going to be able to read MSDS?). It is for these reasons why I actually see all of this as being (cummulatively) less efficient.
3D printing is more nonsense, like flying cars. Nothing useful will come from it anytime soon.
Are there really any flying cars other than prototypes/"experimentals" (still)?
I'd mentioned flying cars in a post above. Imagine all those shitty drivers flying above your house as you sleep! Now imagine all those folks who don't have a clue about managing raw materials fucking up big time right next door to you- a little Bopal in every neighborhood! Insurance rates, not to mention medical rates, are going to get astronomical*.
* I'd pondered this long and hard when thinking about energy and there being decentralized power. I have enough space around me that any meltdown (figurative- if nuclear power then it's literal and all such bets are off) by one of my neighbors wouldn't affect me. Where I've lived in the past I couldn't have felt so secure.
3D Systems (NYSE: DDD) is the leader in this field....although the stock is expensive there is a good chance that HP or DELL will buy them out sometime the next two years
Theodore Maiman, having invented the first working laser on May 16, 1960, described it as "a solution looking for a problem" because so few appreciated its manifold possibilities
In its current form it is too in-efficient... but as time goes on... i'm sure they will print faster and faster for less and less money
Garbage in, garbage out...
It's STILL a matter of materials and energy. And, really, isn't the point about having something at the retail level that the average person can use for small production runs (like a single thing)? That it could crank out another widget in a fast cycle time isn't as important as it being able to crank out ONE widget in a reasonable amount of time (faster than I could have something delivered).
To be revolutionary 3D printing has to either go beyond plastic - offer small scale metal printing. Portable CNC machines have existed for a long time and they are not revolutionary, in fact, may still run via command line interface and do the job just fine. It's old tech.
The other option for 3D is to be recycling machines - able to process household plastics, instead of PBS sold at a premium making any mass production non-economically viable.
3D printing currently has huge advantages for prototyping engineers that used to rely on $50K+ machines that do the same job a $1K desktop device does nowdays, but that's a tiny portion of people involved in production.
Those that used to 3D print enjoy the benefits. Those that haven't got into it already are likely to see no benefit at all.
Lots of people drive cars. Most simply waste gas doing pretend jobs that don't equate to the amount of oil burned in the process of getting them from A to B. Same thing with 3D printers. Many can use them in theory, very few will actually justify the cost of wasted plastic and electricity.
This is how I look at 3D printing.
Just about everyone knows how to drive a car. Almost none of them know how to fix one.
Just because you have a 3D printer doesn't mean you can do anything with it.
The majority of people can't install a RAM module in a computer if they tried, and they are going to figure out CAD software for making 3D models, and have the knowledge to prepare and assemble 3D printed parts. Not a chance in hell.
Ah, but come on man, other than that don't ya think that it'll be revolutionary? </sarc>
Anyone look up MSDSs (or know them off the tops of their heads) what we'd be looking at with regards to handling the typical material inputs?
Just about everyone knows how to drive a car. Almost none of them know how to fix one.
Just because you have a 3D printer doesn't mean you can do anything with it.
This is your argument? Never mind that it's logically incorrect (the correct form would be "Just about everyone has a car. Almost none of them know how to drive it", which is patently absurd). It assumes a perpetual state of ignorance. I'm an EE, so I know how a laser printer (paper) works; I can't fix one, though. I know how the intertubes work, but, never having actually worked with a Cisco router, if you put me in front of a failed node, and said "Make it work", I'd be better than you, but still pretty hopeless. Still, if I had to learn something (like I've had to learn SQL and HTML in my present position), I'll learn it.
I don't know how to design a gun either, but someone helpfully loaded the plans onto the intertubes, and there is/will be youtube type videos that show you how to download a plan, and create an actual object with your 3D printer. Doubtless someone else will design software that lets you, e.g. take a picture of an object from several angles, and generate the plans to 'print it'. You had to be pretty tech-savvy to drive a car in 1906, but by 2006, even teenagers could fly down highways at 95 mph.
Artec 3D scanner. Done. Has a youtube channel
http://www.youtube.com/user/artecgroupinc
Thanks to Genetic Programming & related tools we'll only need to point & click to specify tolerances & the software will design the cad/cam stuff without human aid.
http://www.genetic-programming.com
http://www.genetic-programming.org
"very few will actually justify the cost of wasted plastic and electricity."
Finally! Someone who sees that it's MORE than the cost of the machine!
I could see it now, "look, honey, I was able to create a new part for that broken thingy, and it only cost me $300 in materials and $50 in electricity!" And the factory cost? $3.00.
A general purpose manufacturing device will never be more viable than a special-purpose one. Presses, laser cutters, injeciton mold converyers made to spit out one specific product will always be cheaper to run than even the most sophisticated 3D printers.
The best application for a 3D printer that I see currently is with injection mold forming. You make a complex shape in CAD, print it out of crap, submerge in plaster, cut in half, drill holes, put back together and then pour real plastic and metal (not the lego grade shit).
How many people buy 3D printers for that purpose as oppose to making useless toys 1000 times more expensive than ones arriving from China?
It's called sintering metal dust.
been around for years. At least since 2005.
f*ck this printing junk, world is going to sh*t and we got printers. Dumb
This weekend, damn will they set off?
http://www.voanews.com/content/japan-china-territorial-tension-rising-ov...
yes yes, but can it print BITCOINS?!
BETTER: can it print the machines that make BITCOINS? Rather than counterfieting, OWN the fucking bank! </sarc>
A client of mine had a 3D printed model of one of my watch designs made. He didn't want to pay for a proper sample.
I got an angry phone call and told me my design was shit because the band didn't move or bend and the edges weren't smooth. He then said he wasn't going to pay me because the design was worthless.
I told him, you do know that a 3D printed model is made out of plastic and is to check general shape and fitment and is not indicative of a final product right? 3D printers can not print smooth curves. Call your factory and ask him if there is anything wrong with the design.
I got a phone call later telling me the factory said the same thing.
3D printers are a cool tool, but they are not cost effective and can't match the quality of a simple one cent injection molded part. Until a 3D printer can print a smooth curved object, they really are worthless for production.
http://www.youtube.com/oskarpuzzle
smooth curved slipping objects are easily printed.
You just need to find the right printer.
These working puzzles are finished products.
Smooth & curved parts or they wouldn't move at all.
Who is behind this shit? The Fed? Leave it to those assholes to think that a printer (3D or otherwise) will save this rotten economy.
Only thing this shit will be useful for is some pervs will be printing party size 10 headed dildos. I foresee a lot of cases of ABS plastic allergies. I hope Obumbocare covers that shit.
Read the book "Makers: The New Industrial Revolution" by Chris Anderson.
Impressive in every way. Full of interesting, inspirational stories, resources and HOWTOs. It's a total blueprint telling you everything you need to know and do to get into the industry. Everything.
I'd guess 3D printing is at the level PCs where at in the early/mid '70s. Hard to compare as the development of 3D printing has the added major complication of real world materials and effects (much yet to be developed) as well and the "soft/virtual" complications of software.
All you have to do is pick it up and run with it.
And then back in the REAL world... actual PHYSICAL resources with which to CREATE shit are becoming harder to obtain. Oh, and of those resoruces is energy.
Creating the thing is one thing, but creating a "thing" that creates other "things" is another. PCs and the like PROCESS INFORMATION (yes, they control things, but they don't really create anything physical [other than 2-D images which requires little in the way of resources and energy]).
Regardless: we have to try to obtain them & assuming one DOES obtain what's needed, makes what is needed.
It's a huge resource-extraction situation to mass-produce things only to find out the inventory is over-produced & can't be easily recycled.
At some point someone will figure out the break-even between 3D printing product X and mass-producing the same product. Any time inventory needed is predicted to be under that break-even line for mass-production that's when 3D would be better.
Any time a base template can be mass-manufactured & customized parts can be 3D printed for custom applications this further saves in wasting physical resources & energy to produce the needed number of parts & finished products.
Also it seems that you're forgetting that one of the key advantages in making modern circuitboards (which is 2D printing then layered) is using the prior generation OF computers. The faster the previous one runs the more advanced the error-checking & features can be to make the next generation.
One day the 3D printers will do the same thing.
Honestly I can't understand why you're complaining in this manner.
The solution to resource scarcity is to reduce the cost of obtaining & to stockpile, not to complain about what we do IF we use it UNLESS it is very wasteful, which 3D printing is not.
It seems to me there is quite a failure of both imagination, and understanding of history with respect to this technology. For those who complain about its technical failures, strength, finish, preparation of materials, speed and so on - it seems analogous to someone who encountering a 1840's computer says 'this won't amount to anything' - its easier to do the calcs by hand, you need specialist knowledge, its too slow etc etc (1840 was not a typo - I was referring to mechanical calculators).
If you can't look at a 3D printer and immediately see the similarity to a Star Trek style replicator, then you really do have a failure of imagination. There are a huge number of technical issues to be resolved, but human ingenuity is stopped only by hard limits. The question needs to be, what are the absolute limits, when does this technology encounter physical laws that prevent it from advancing?
While I do not know the answer to the question, on a very superficial inspection of the technology I fail to see any laws that would prevent significant further refinement. Perhaps this technology may take more than a century to achieve quality implementation - but I do think that great improvement is likely to take place within a few decades.
We have just opened the door on the material graphene, ongoing oil dependence only exists because of monopoly powers - so energy constraints may not be the barrier they seem today. If we can maintain a technological society during the coming period of social re-adjustment, then this technology will truly be revolutionary.
"If you can't look at a 3D printer and immediately see the similarity to a Star Trek style replicator"
Look, but don't touch!
Shit out of thin air, yeah, seems that there's been MILLIONS of people seeing that and still "god" doesn't materialize...
"We have just opened the door on the material graphene, ongoing oil dependence only exists because of monopoly powers - so energy constraints may not be the barrier they seem today."
If we just had materials and energy it would all work!
Get the fuck out of the way Mother Nature, you're stopping "progress!"
If there was some kind of point buried in this rant I am unable uncover it.
While a fair stretch, Ill assume you are making a point that resource and energy constraints are a death knell for the 3D printer? If the 3D printer suffers from these contraints, so do all other manufacturing processes based on non renewable sources. Energy efficiency is likely to be increasingly important, but I don't think that a technology in its infancy can be expected to be leading edge in all aspects. Improvement of the computer from concept to modern day took over 100 years, and for most of that time they were relatively useless machines.
Additionally, biotic (produced by bacteria) liquid fuels and also cold fusion* are both available today, right now - both are renewable and extremely cheap. The reason why we aren't using them is due to the international oligarchy - not any failure of technology.
* Actually its not fusion, but a low energy state of hydrogen that was initially mistaken for fusion.
Blah, blah... if there's anything more in your blatherings than the standard "technology will save us" with the primary emphasis on how to con a huge population, well, I'm not seeing it.
Fucking piker.
BTW - Because something is do-able that doesn't mean that is should be. Further, biotic shit is NATURE, and it's at nature's pace. Yeah, it's al being suppressed for your wonderfuil experience here on earth...
For sure. It takes very little imagination to understand how to use a diffraction grating to make multiple aimable lasers so instead of sealing one dot at a time you're sealing one layer at the same speed & magically it's done.
3D printing is stupid.
C'mon, can you imagine what will happen when the lawyers get a hold of this?
Something printed from a 3D printer that choked a baby or toddler? What is the shelf life?
Never fly, never be economical; and I know never say never but I just can't see it.
Two words: Paperless Society
DUDE.
Someone got away with selling lego candy in Loblaws.
I haven't seen it in a while but just think, THINK about that one.
How about body parts?:
http://news.discovery.com/tech/biotechnology/artificial-ear-looks-acts-like-real-thing-130221.htm
very impressive. I hope to see this advance very well.
Re 3D printers:
What is the quality and strength of the finished product?
Can I use this thing to make motorcycle fairing? Replacement headlights? Mirrors? Indicators? Shoes?
If I can use this gadget to make high quality replacements for expensive parts, I want one.
If I can use it to make strong parts to replace shitty parts that break all the time, then I want one.
If I can't do either of those two things, then it is an impressive toy. I might still want one, but I won't be too excited about it.
They seem to be quite slow. I can't imagine using one to make a living, unless I could sell the finished product for a high price.
Uh, you probably wouldn't have wanted to fly from NY to Chicago on the Wright Brothers' first plane, either. But in less than 25 years, someone flew a plane solo across the Atlantic.
Sure, the technology has limitations now. I suspect it's going to improve rapidly, as the need it would fulfill is huge.
So I might desperately want one later. I can understand that. I'll keep watching.
metal-workers I asked said no.
There's caveats.
you can sinter metal dust into various shapes.
You can also 3D print a template for cutting, welding or a mold for casting. The cast metal then would likely be stronger than the sintered equivalent.
For various kinds of plastic this may also be good.
I think some kind of plastic sintering is used to make body armor & riot-shields.
In the event you'd want one then perhaps you could make the hollow shape, fill with beads, sinter the beads & have a finished strong product.
Also shapeways is making custom 3D puzzle cubes (think Rubiks but more evil). They are very expensive but people do buy them as they are unique.
you can see on youtube a number of those puzzles:
http://www.youtube.com/oskarpuzzle
One day we'll be able to use a 3D printer to make a 3D printer.
No, the "miracle" application is in making iPads! And at that point it all makes more sense to close ourselves in a room and masturbate...
... and the guy that sells the first one and realizes what he just did will be kicking himself for the rest of his life.
Before eveyone goes all negative on 3d printing, check this out;
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/05/20/25-gun-created-with-cheap-3d-printer-fires-nine-shots-video/
If it takes one job away from GM, Obama will stop it in a nanosecond