The Crowd Loves 3D Printing(hackthings.com)
hackthings.com
The Crowd Loves 3D Printing
http://www.hackthings.com/the-crowd-loves-3d-printing/
2 comments
Do you sincerely think those advancements are lost on common 3D printing enthusiasts?
It's not that it's some magical piece of tech, it's that the freedom to make things is now in a form palatable to lifestyles of non machinists and 3D CAD enthusiasts.
A mid grade consumer 3D printer may cost the same as a used Bridgeport with a CNC retrofit, but what good is that for the hobbyist in the city with no dedicated workshop space?
The point is 3D printing is relatively clean, relatively inexpensive way to do fun, plastic prototypes designed on a computer. It's also very non-intrusive to the casual hobbyist's life, to the point it can be done in a 400sqft studio without pissing off a landlord.
It's not that it's some magical piece of tech, it's that the freedom to make things is now in a form palatable to lifestyles of non machinists and 3D CAD enthusiasts.
A mid grade consumer 3D printer may cost the same as a used Bridgeport with a CNC retrofit, but what good is that for the hobbyist in the city with no dedicated workshop space?
The point is 3D printing is relatively clean, relatively inexpensive way to do fun, plastic prototypes designed on a computer. It's also very non-intrusive to the casual hobbyist's life, to the point it can be done in a 400sqft studio without pissing off a landlord.
You could be right but it sounds to me like you're back fitting a story.
3d printing has a much more convoluted history than that. It's not trumpeted as something for hobbyists to make fun plastic prototypes. It is being heralded as the future of manufacturing. There once was, and still is, hope for making actual useful components.
3d printed prosthetics. 3d printed casting moulds. 3d printed blood vessels and kidneys. 3d printed jaws. 3d printed mass customizations. 3d printed drones. 3d printed RepRaps. Clearly the tech press has been going mad for the stuff.
But one shouldn't believe the hype: your makerbot cannot do any of that, and even the nifty flexing Objet printed business card I received (which must have cost $4 to make) broke after a few months -- I have a shard on my desk.
3d printing has a much more convoluted history than that. It's not trumpeted as something for hobbyists to make fun plastic prototypes. It is being heralded as the future of manufacturing. There once was, and still is, hope for making actual useful components.
3d printed prosthetics. 3d printed casting moulds. 3d printed blood vessels and kidneys. 3d printed jaws. 3d printed mass customizations. 3d printed drones. 3d printed RepRaps. Clearly the tech press has been going mad for the stuff.
But one shouldn't believe the hype: your makerbot cannot do any of that, and even the nifty flexing Objet printed business card I received (which must have cost $4 to make) broke after a few months -- I have a shard on my desk.
I know the guys behind the original Makerbot, and if you think that they had no clue about CNC mills, lathes, grinders, cast makers and mould makers, industrial robots and so on: you're very, very definitely mistaken.
What is this generalization that "things that are not new are not good"? The point of the entire 3d-printer movement is that its no longer in the hands of industrial masters: its in the hands of the users.
In some ways, your argument is kind of like saying "you know, I wish those Linux guys would learn about operating systems .. didn't they know there were already VMS and DOS and bigger OS's and stuff out there, made by bigger and better people than them, sheesh.."
What is this generalization that "things that are not new are not good"? The point of the entire 3d-printer movement is that its no longer in the hands of industrial masters: its in the hands of the users.
In some ways, your argument is kind of like saying "you know, I wish those Linux guys would learn about operating systems .. didn't they know there were already VMS and DOS and bigger OS's and stuff out there, made by bigger and better people than them, sheesh.."
Two things:
1) Awareness is not knowledge
2) The inventors of the technology are not who I meant by the enthusiasts.
I am not trying to reproach the technologies developers. I am simply trying to warn off the over-impressionable, and calm the hype artists.
Surely you are aware of the plethora of 3D printing enthusiasts and the great dearth of useful things to do with it?
I particularly hold those hype artists responsible who have not tried to 3D print anything. This obviously doesn't hold for the 3d printer inventors. But one tends to have one's enthusiasm muted when the jet clogs, the material spills out on the edges, the refills cost enough to bail out a small european island, the software barfs, the whole process takes HOURS and the eng product is a liney, smooshy, oozy, breaky catastrophe.
This technology is NOT READY FOR THE HYPE and in the glories of rapid commercialization there are going to be damnable, industry draining, momentum churning, radical to conservative turning, uber-disappointment, and public opinion will again overshoot, and we will again be forced back into enterprise software, and it will all be preventable and all our fault.
---
Check this stuff out, instead, to get a broader view of new construction:
Pop-up machine assembly. Mass producible, high quality materials. Machine components are possible -- things you could never otherwise have.
http://vibrantresearch.com/
Pneumatic robots. Moving. Human compatible. Flexible. Packable. Lightweight. Strong.
These are simple sown and braised (sometimes unbraised!) polyurethane. Way faster than 3D printing. Actually does things. Super cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqP3IpEqkk4
Computer sciences should have by new realized the great advantage in the methods here outlined.
A linear element cutting or sewing a surface which then pops out works much faster than a linear element zigging and zagging building up layer by layer. This is a fundamental characteristic of the technology. Also you can use less material, and stronger.
---
A friend of mine, Tim Anderson, founded ZCorp, one of the first useful 3D printers. The basic advance played to strengths, and worked fast, you could build up layers quickly, cheaply, and even use color, thanks to printing liquid onto a powder on each layer.
The material kind of sucked for material properties, but you'd have color, so you could show something in 3d, (stress concentrations in 3d, for example) and you could do art with it. Awesome.
But that's about what you can do with it. Show things. Make art.
That's cool. But that's not why people are getting into it. They're trying to take magic from their minds, to the computer, out to the real world. But you're stuck in a lame version of the real world when it takes 14 hours to make something out of expensive by cheap seeming plastic. And it sucks because people already can make such amazing things.
1) Awareness is not knowledge
2) The inventors of the technology are not who I meant by the enthusiasts.
I am not trying to reproach the technologies developers. I am simply trying to warn off the over-impressionable, and calm the hype artists.
Surely you are aware of the plethora of 3D printing enthusiasts and the great dearth of useful things to do with it?
I particularly hold those hype artists responsible who have not tried to 3D print anything. This obviously doesn't hold for the 3d printer inventors. But one tends to have one's enthusiasm muted when the jet clogs, the material spills out on the edges, the refills cost enough to bail out a small european island, the software barfs, the whole process takes HOURS and the eng product is a liney, smooshy, oozy, breaky catastrophe.
This technology is NOT READY FOR THE HYPE and in the glories of rapid commercialization there are going to be damnable, industry draining, momentum churning, radical to conservative turning, uber-disappointment, and public opinion will again overshoot, and we will again be forced back into enterprise software, and it will all be preventable and all our fault.
---
Check this stuff out, instead, to get a broader view of new construction:
Pop-up machine assembly. Mass producible, high quality materials. Machine components are possible -- things you could never otherwise have.
http://vibrantresearch.com/
Pneumatic robots. Moving. Human compatible. Flexible. Packable. Lightweight. Strong.
These are simple sown and braised (sometimes unbraised!) polyurethane. Way faster than 3D printing. Actually does things. Super cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqP3IpEqkk4
Computer sciences should have by new realized the great advantage in the methods here outlined.
A linear element cutting or sewing a surface which then pops out works much faster than a linear element zigging and zagging building up layer by layer. This is a fundamental characteristic of the technology. Also you can use less material, and stronger.
---
A friend of mine, Tim Anderson, founded ZCorp, one of the first useful 3D printers. The basic advance played to strengths, and worked fast, you could build up layers quickly, cheaply, and even use color, thanks to printing liquid onto a powder on each layer.
The material kind of sucked for material properties, but you'd have color, so you could show something in 3d, (stress concentrations in 3d, for example) and you could do art with it. Awesome.
But that's about what you can do with it. Show things. Make art.
That's cool. But that's not why people are getting into it. They're trying to take magic from their minds, to the computer, out to the real world. But you're stuck in a lame version of the real world when it takes 14 hours to make something out of expensive by cheap seeming plastic. And it sucks because people already can make such amazing things.
While the technology is coming and I can't wait when they're commonplace, I think it says something when the models shown next to printers aren't practical objects. Many people like these trinkets, but I'm waiting to see stuff which is more useful. This means right now the cost of a 3d printer is only really justified if you have an interest in them. They still need to prove their function before they become something like cars, where even those who have little interest and knowledge in them use them because they provide so much value.
Spend some time here and get yourself enlightened: http://thingiverse.com
Its NOT just trinkets, but a lot of very, very useful stuff. What you're seeing is just the thin marketing veneer - a picture of Yoda makes a lot more sense to a newcomer than a picture of a planetary gear or some such thing ..
Its NOT just trinkets, but a lot of very, very useful stuff. What you're seeing is just the thin marketing veneer - a picture of Yoda makes a lot more sense to a newcomer than a picture of a planetary gear or some such thing ..
I agree, there are way too many tchotchkes on sites like Shapeways and Thingiverse, and way too few useful products. I wonder what the first "killer app" for 3D printers will be. That said, I think they are already practical for prototyping or DIY tinkering projects.
I think digital-to-physical manufacturing is so much bigger than 3D printing. http://fabsie.com/blog/3d-printing-vs-3d-cutting/ and that CNC routing (3D cutting) is likely to find killer apps far faster than 3D printing is capable.
Not in the eye of the mere mortals. Those 3D-cutters are just something that exist somewhere in a factory, could just as well be a black box. Most couldn't care less, you can't own a 3D cutter, unless you are really dedicated. Anyone can own and tinker with a 3D-printer.
Even the difference of being able to play or rent a 3D cutter at work or through some service, or iterating something at home that you've made yourself, where the only real cost to it is your time spent having fun, is game changing.
Even the difference of being able to play or rent a 3D cutter at work or through some service, or iterating something at home that you've made yourself, where the only real cost to it is your time spent having fun, is game changing.
If you restrict the debate to the maker movement and people at home owning machines, I completely agree that the average joe can't own a large 8x4 3D cutter and never will, yet they can own a basic small format 3D printer.
But the average joe is unlikely to own a kiln either and unlikely to own any form of industrial pre+post-process. Disruptive manufacturing is my main interest as well as the new models of digital distribution. I believe the home will be an extremely limited means of production, but indeed a computer controlled plastic extruder (3D printer) will be an accessible technology many can own.
But the average joe is unlikely to own a kiln either and unlikely to own any form of industrial pre+post-process. Disruptive manufacturing is my main interest as well as the new models of digital distribution. I believe the home will be an extremely limited means of production, but indeed a computer controlled plastic extruder (3D printer) will be an accessible technology many can own.
Anything useful to a wide audience simply gets manufactured in a more economical fashion.
3d printing is firmly about the long tail. I don't see how a "killer app" could make much sense.
3d printing is firmly about the long tail. I don't see how a "killer app" could make much sense.
The killer app could be 'parametric' thereby needing digital-to-physical manufacturing such as 3D printing. For standard static items made in plastic, there are no signs what so ever that injection moulding will become redundant any time soon.
In the case of normal printing, the desktop printer didn't kill the rotary printing press, (althought the internet digital press may). Desktop printers and rotary printing presses exist for different use cases. Printing notes to red mark or travel tickets vs. a glossy magazine/newspaer. The relationship is akin to 3D printing plastic / injection moulded plastic and will likely have different use cases.
In the case of normal printing, the desktop printer didn't kill the rotary printing press, (althought the internet digital press may). Desktop printers and rotary printing presses exist for different use cases. Printing notes to red mark or travel tickets vs. a glossy magazine/newspaer. The relationship is akin to 3D printing plastic / injection moulded plastic and will likely have different use cases.
3D printing isn't the first, and it still can't make good machine parts.
I realize well enough that what some dismiss as toys may in decades to come be foundational to how we do things, but the point is that future isn't really here yet. To those who believe they can bring it faster, good luck and godspeed.