Disruptive technologies for the future (1 Viewer)

[msommer]

3d printing is not the wonder tech it has been hyped to be. It has its applications and has been a game changer for me personally, but I'm in a specialized industry. The average Joe will have limited use.

I've ranted on this in the past; I'll expand on it further tomorrow if I get some time. For now, I'll say this: I've had free, unlimited access to a 3d printer for the last decade and have never made a part for personal use.

3D printing is in its infancy like the internet in 1995. If you asked most people back then they would have asked you what they need the internet for because there are so few websites. 3D printing needs designs to make it worthwhile but eventually there will be millions of designs you can print off.

I don't know. There's not that much stuff the average person will need to print. I don't see it bringing costs down for manufacturers over using a mold.

All I can see it really doing is putting Lego out of business. Outside of that, I don't find myself going to the store for some plastic doohickey that often.

I get there will be millions of things one can print, but, of those, what are some that I may want to print? And I'm a guy who's at Home Depot and AutoZone and whatever all the time, too... but rarely am I there for some all-plastic part that can be 3D printed.

Just wait until the 3D printers that come out that use just about any kind of material.

It's coming.

Oh sure, let's just reinvent chemistry while we're at it. Are you suggesting some world where we 3D print metal at home? 3D print glass? That's going to be safe to do at home at room temperature? Next up is cold fusion I guess.

Oops

http://matterfab.com/

Double Oops

http://3dprintingindustry.com/2014/09/23/sub-4000-metal-3d-printer/

Oopsy

https://www.google.com/search?q=3d+printing+metal&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0CFcQsARqFQoTCLyX9YWG-8YCFQK8cgodcqUGGAbiw=1366&bih=657

Getting embarassing now

http://3dprintingindustry.com/2015/04/14/form-futuras-new-hd-glass-3d-printing-filament/

A bit more on glass

http://makezine.com/2015/06/26/new-3d-printer-uses-molten-glass/

Doesn't this just take the cake?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQni3wb0tyM

 

[SWC]

listen all that i really know is that if they can apply the three d printing to the yoga pants thread all bets are off and the future is going to be one hell of a place bromigos

 

[the moops]

For now, I'll say this: I've had free, unlimited access to a 3d printer for the last decade and have never made a part for personal use.

Yep. Same here.

 

[Quez]

3D pr0n is gonna be great.

 

[Super King]

3D pr0n is gonna be great.

#### that. My 3D printed sex bot is going to be sweeeeeet...

 

[Politician Spock]

One of the things many people don't realize is that Uber's sky high valuation is about driverless cars. They are trying to build a brand where the idea of clicking a button, entering a destination, and getting in whatever car shows up is ubiquitous. Introduce self driving cars and there are no driver costs, only maintenance and logistics costs. Thats the 40 billion dollar company.

The only problem is they don't own a fleet of cars, have Google's self driving tech, or the infrastructure or logistics (they rely on their drivers to figure it all out).

All they have is the brand.

The bidding for Nokia maps business has been insane for this reason.

Also. Don't underestimate the brand. Most tech companies own very little "stuff" . AirBNB, Dropbox. Facebook, spotify, Netflix, Twitter, Amazon. These companies own very little of what they make money from

Those are vastly different types of business than what the driverless cars world is going to be. Don't get me wrong, I'm eagerly awaiting the future world that it's going to bring, but, the realities of it are going to be really tough. There are some high barriers and I don't see how Uber gets around it the way you're talking. They're going to need physical cars somehow, they can't just be a middle-man business in this space. And it's not going to be quick, we're still far away from making it a reality, much farther than people realize.

Sometimes I think people are looking at the driverless cars problem the way Marvin Minsky thought about computer vision, just give it a summer and it'll be solved. It's a really tough problem, computationally and logistically.

I think Google, owning at least part of the puzzle, stands a bit better in this space. I mean, it's just my opinion, I don't have a crystal ball, but I've been following the driverless cars world for years now, from before Stanley won the race, and the vision I have of how it works doesn't seem to fit with where Uber is positioning.

I think my basic issue is this:

The legislation can go one of two ways. What they're talking about now, is that driverless cars will be permitted on highways only, but once you get on surface streets, you need a human behind the wheel operating the vehicle fully and making all decisions. Now, it may start that way and it may run that way for a decade or so, but maybe someday the tech gets far enough along that they change the law and you can go driverless on surface streets as well... a fully driverless experience door-to-door. Or maybe the tech gets there sooner and the driverless world starts out that way. Either one is problematic...

1) Driverless on highways only... a person behind the wheel can operate their Uber-car, sure, but how does Uber get the car to them at the start without their network of human drivers? What's really different in this world? Not much. It's a driverless car but you have to carry an extra driver? Seems impractical.

2) the fully driverless world... this would seemingly be the dream scenario if it ever happens (decades from today, if ever, it seems), but, it's got some pitfalls. First, driverless tech is expensive to install. Not many people will be upgrading their old-school car to driverless due to the prohibitive cost. So it'll be lots of cars built from the start to run fully driverless. Great, but, then where does Uber get these cars? The whole thing about driverless tech is that once it's in place, the individual does not need to own the vehicle himself. So the Uber Drivers out there disappear, the individual car owners that Uber builds on vanishes. Right now the average car sits idle 95% of the time. Once "fully driverless" comes into being, there's no point to owning your own car. You'll call upon some service and have the car sent to you, use it for however long, and then it goes away to serve someone else. That's the Uber scenario in general... but the car has to come from somewhere, and it's not going to be a network of Uber Drivers with their own individual cars renting them out to Uber on the side. The cost to enter is too high. Instead I envision some kind of fleet ownership operation. Some company with a lot of self driving cars specially built. The individual owner scenario I don't see happening. Is Uber's valuation high enough they can just buy fleets of vehicles to cover entire states and still turn a profit? That's the part I'm not seeing. It's like "What would happen to Uber if everyone got rid of their car, and used Uber instead?" Well, they'd have no drivers, right? If Google & Ford teamed up to put out a fleet of fully driverless golf carts, then that world I can see happening. Something about Uber's model I don't quite get, today, as a reason to value them so highly in a future that's so far away. Paying for that, now, seems an ill-advised investment.

And, yeah, there's a "brand" there, but their name isn't that good right now. I could see them sliding down farther as more negative stories come out.

Anyway, the current valuation may be more to do with laws being changed and taxi consortiums challenged than by a vision of the driverless world of 2050 or beyond.

There's also the issue of the Uber brand taking a hit with the development of their UberX offering. Their UberBlack offering is what established the Uber brand. Uber was a black car only offering before it started offering different tiers. All the livery companies Uber was using were branded as UberBlack, and UberX was introduced so that anyone and their cousin could just sign up and start giving people rides. After a couple years of this, Uber is now becoming a joke due to the declining quality. For example, late night shows having been making Uber the butt of many jokes. And Bloomberg even outed an Uber Executive on a live interview over the issue of the declining quality. I wouldn't assume Uber has established itself as a great brand yet. A year from now it may have the same reputation as check cashing services. It could end up being transportation for the desperate. Perhaps one step up from taking he bus. After the rates dropped in January I stopped driving, one of the reasons being some of the people who a started picking up were not people I wanted in my car, nor did I want to take my car into the neighborhoods those requests were coming from.

 

[moleculo]

3D printing is a re-branding of a fairly old technology, as well as lumping together lots of new technologies. A more proper term is additive manufacturing. traditional manufacturing is starting with a fairly large block of material and removing parts to get to what you want - milling, drilling, turning, grinding, etc. Additive manufacturing builds the parts up layer by layer, all precisely controlled with a computer.

Today, when people talk about 3D printing, they typically refer to a process called FDM (fused deposition modeling), where layers of semi-liquid plastic are extruded next to each other where they almost melt. FDM parts are good for checking form, fit, and function, but they do not have good appearance nor do they have adequate material properties.

Here's the thing about plastics - their properties depend greatly on the condition they are molded in. That's part of how it works. You heat up the resin, mix it together, and squeeze it into the cavity, where it hardens. Think of the molecular structure like spaghetti - when you do it this way, the spaghetti all mixes together and you (ideally) have an isotropic material (i.e. uniform material properties in all directions). Any process that doesn't allow the spaghetti to mix prevents good properties...extruding lays all of the spaghetti in one direction, and sintering prevents the spaghetti from mixing at all.

Bottom line - a 3D printed plastic will always have worse material properties than a molded part. It's physics, and there isn't much that can be improved on that technology wise.

metals are a little different. That is a process known as SLS (selective laser sintering). In this process, there is a vat of powder metal that a computer controlled laser heats up to melting temp, where it bonds to adjoining bits of metal. This is a cool process, but requires the machine to have a laser powerful enough to melt metal. There are obvious limitations here - do we really want average folks to have lasers that powerful? Also, the metal will not be 100% dense - not like a cast metal will be, as you can never guarantee a 100% bond. There will inevitably be cracks and voids within the part.

This leads me to my next point - it's unlikely that the part will be properly inspected, unless it is made by someone qualified. Think about this - assuming you could, would you install a brake pad on your car you built yourself? would you trust it to not have any cracks, voids, or contamination? are you qualified to detect any internal issues in the part? I would hope the answer is no, but lets assume you use it anyways. That void (small air pocket) in the part that you didn't see failed, causing your brake rotor to disintegrate, causing a massive crash. Who is liable here? Was it a bad design you downloaded? Did the printer have a "hiccup" when printing, and missed a spot? Was the incoming metal powder 100% pure, or maybe there was a mouse dropping in there?

IMO, 3D printing for commercial purposes is limited to pre-production prototyping (what I use it for today), novelty, and manufacturing of difficult geometries done by qualified shops. All of that exists today.

I'm not saying there isn't room for growth. There more certainly will be improvements to materials and processes. However, the fact remains that additive manufacturing cannot guarantee isotropic finished products which limits its commercial utility.

Another impediment is the IP world. Say I design a remote control. You buy the remote control, and lose the battery door. You want to 3D print a replacement for it, but there's really no incentive for me to give you my 3D design of the door. You didn't pay for that IP and I won't sell it to you - because if I do, I have no way to prevent you from selling it to anyone else - it would no longer be in my control. You know how manufacturers don't like their products being knocked off in China? What you are asking for is the ability for everyone to knock off my work... not something I'm keen on. So, I will not allow anyone else to make my parts.

I know that 3D printing is cool and neat and has been touted as revolutionary. I don't see it.

 

[the moops]

nice writeup. I agree

 

[TripItUp]

3D printing = overhyped

driverless cars = underhyped

 

[cstu]

This leads me to my next point - it's unlikely that the part will be properly inspected, unless it is made by someone qualified. Think about this - assuming you could, would you install a brake pad on your car you built yourself?

We're talking in two different languages. No one is saying that 3D printing is going to eliminate the need for manufacturing.

 

[the moops]

No one is saying that 3D printing is going to eliminate the need for manufacturing.

Actually there are people that are saying that. Maybe not in this thread, but that sentiment exists

 

[cstu]

I know that 3D printing is cool and neat and has been touted as revolutionary. I don't see it.

I've noticed that no one who has used 3D printing at work thinks of it as revolutionary. It's passe to you guys because you aren't looking at the potential.

 

[Quez]

I posted this recently in a Google thread, but I'm really looking forward to the advancements in 3D technology. I don't think we are very far off from being able to have a headset that lets us fly through Google Street view in 3D.

Eventually the 3D cameras they have might be doing real time, or very close to real time.

If there was a way to mimic a locations temperature and smell it would really be like being there. Like on the Soarin ride at Epcot when you fly over the orange groves & smell the blossoms.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I want a machine that will teleport my poop to any address.

 

[cstu]

No one is saying that 3D printing is going to eliminate the need for manufacturing.

Actually there are people that are saying that. Maybe not in this thread, but that sentiment exists

They're right for some things but they'll never be able to match the economies of scale of a factory.

 

[moleculo]

This leads me to my next point - it's unlikely that the part will be properly inspected, unless it is made by someone qualified. Think about this - assuming you could, would you install a brake pad on your car you built yourself?

We're talking in two different languages. No one is saying that 3D printing is going to eliminate the need for manufacturing.

well then, it's not very disruptive then, is it?

 

[moleculo]

I know that 3D printing is cool and neat and has been touted as revolutionary. I don't see it.

I've noticed that no one who has used 3D printing at work thinks of it as revolutionary. It's passe to you guys because you aren't looking at the potential.

it's more like we are intimately familiar with the limitations.

 

[the moops]

I know that 3D printing is cool and neat and has been touted as revolutionary. I don't see it.

I've noticed that no one who has used 3D printing at work thinks of it as revolutionary. It's passe to you guys because you aren't looking at the potential.

Us guys are probably more familiar with the potential than most. I am inundated with sales pitches for the next best thing daily and have access to nearly every type of printer there currently is

 

[Sand]

My assumption is that polymers would be replacing many of the other materials now being used. (IE: Plastic polymers used where concrete or brick might have been before.) I'm fairly certain that those polymers are already as strong and in some ways better than many traditional materials, but without on the spot local 3D printing aren't a very efficient method right now. That's the part that could/likely will change, making local and on the spot production viable and supposedly more efficient overall. But if we are suddenly using polymers where we would have used brick, concrete, steel or aluminum, etc., I would think this would NOT offset the reduction in oil used for transportation. (Which in itself is probably being overstated since the raw materials and the printers/printing equipment would still require shipping)

Plastic will not replace concrete or steel or aluminum. There is a reason materials are used in the places that they are. Once you really need to get decent materials performance out of plastics they get fiber reinforced (and that isn't a 3D print job anymore). And while it may be eventually possible to print an aluminum part it would still have to be heated to make the part - i.e. a specialized machine to do so. (And right now the quality of metal 3D printed parts isn't all that great).

All I can see it really doing is putting Lego out of business. Outside of that, I don't find myself going to the store for some plastic doohickey that often.

Funny enough Lego should be fairly immune to this. The surface condition of a 3D printed part is nowhere near the smoothness needed for Legos.

 

[Judge Smails]

genomics - personalized medicine.

 

[Sand]

Next up is cold fusion I guess.

This is coming or at least still out there. I believe we'll see more come out of some of the hot fusion concepts though. Some of the concepts out there (Bussard among others) look really cool.

Things I'm rooting for on the horizon are:

Thorium power

Male contraception (vasalgel)

Gut bacteria analysis & replacement technology

And, of course, the cure for male pattern baldness

Thorium - sadly no political support for anything in the radioactive space. Imagine what the political landscape would be like if teh US could have offered Iran power based on the thorium cycle rather than uranium cycle? Completely different ballgame than we're in now. I just don't see the drive to implement this here, though. We'll see what the Indians do as they have said they're making a reactor.

The rest are a big thumbs up. The recent stories about gut bacteria are amazing.

 

[Quez]

I think they will be able to do more with 3D printing with some of these new concrete like materials.

 

[moleculo]

I think they will be able to do more with 3D printing with some of these new concrete like materials.

like what?

 

[Politician Spock]

I want a machine that will teleport my poop to any address.

You won't get one until Washington DC's patent on it expires.

 

[Thunderlips]

All I can see it really doing is putting Lego out of business. Outside of that, I don't find myself going to the store for some plastic doohickey that often.

Funny enough Lego should be fairly immune to this. The surface condition of a 3D printed part is nowhere near the smoothness needed for Legos.

If they can't make basic Lego blocks, then I don't see 3D printing being that disruptive a tech. People are talking about them as if you can print car parts or replace broken gears in a dishwasher or something, but if Legos aren't doable, then there's a pretty big limit on the technology.

Basic Legos aren't as basic as one would think. They're held to a pretty darned high standard in regards to manufacturing. I'd imagine it'd be way easier to successfully 3D print a number of everyday household items (gears, simple hand tools, dildos) and fool someone that they've been bulk manufactured than to fool a LEGO advocate with a 3D printed piece..

 

[(HULK)]

Does a significant improvement in technology and efficiency move this country(and the world) on a more accepted socialist path? If improved technology is even moreso taking humans out of the "work" loop....what will be the political/societal results of that?

This is what I wonder about.

We'll have the tools to remove most scarcity. Yet, economics is the science of allocating resources when they are scarce. When things stop being scarce, our current set up stops functioning.

 

[(HULK)]

3d printing is not the wonder tech it has been hyped to be. It has its applications and has been a game changer for me personally, but I'm in a specialized industry. The average Joe will have limited use.

I've ranted on this in the past; I'll expand on it further tomorrow if I get some time. For now, I'll say this: I've had free, unlimited access to a 3d printer for the last decade and have never made a part for personal use.

3D printing is in its infancy like the internet in 1995. If you asked most people back then they would have asked you what they need the internet for because there are so few websites. 3D printing needs designs to make it worthwhile but eventually there will be millions of designs you can print off.

I don't know. There's not that much stuff the average person will need to print. I don't see it bringing costs down for manufacturers over using a mold.

All I can see it really doing is putting Lego out of business. Outside of that, I don't find myself going to the store for some plastic doohickey that often.

I get there will be millions of things one can print, but, of those, what are some that I may want to print? And I'm a guy who's at Home Depot and AutoZone and whatever all the time, too... but rarely am I there for some all-plastic part that can be 3D printed.

Just wait until the 3D printers that come out that use just about any kind of material.

It's coming.

You can already 3d print beef hamburgers. It just costs like $10K a patty right now. In a few years it will be cheaper than raising cattle though.

 

[(HULK)]

I think they will be able to do more with 3D printing with some of these new concrete like materials.

like what?

Homes for one.

 

[AAABatteries]

Next up is cold fusion I guess.

This is coming or at least still out there. I believe we'll see more come out of some of the hot fusion concepts though. Some of the concepts out there (Bussard among others) look really cool.

Things I'm rooting for on the horizon are:

Thorium power

Male contraception (vasalgel)

Gut bacteria analysis & replacement technology

And, of course, the cure for male pattern baldness

Thorium - sadly no political support for anything in the radioactive space. Imagine what the political landscape would be like if teh US could have offered Iran power based on the thorium cycle rather than uranium cycle? Completely different ballgame than we're in now. I just don't see the drive to implement this here, though. We'll see what the Indians do as they have said they're making a reactor.

The rest are a big thumbs up. The recent stories about gut bacteria are amazing.

Link?

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I don't think anything posted so far is nearly as scary or disruptive as artificial super intelligence.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

Basically will lead to human immortality or extinction in the next 100 years or so.

Seriously freaky.

That article and especially its follow-up are friggin fascinating. Thanks for the link.

 

[cstu]

I don't think anything posted so far is nearly as scary or disruptive as artificial super intelligence.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

Basically will lead to human immortality or extinction in the next 100 years or so.

Seriously freaky.

That article and especially its follow-up are friggin fascinating. Thanks for the link.

Don't know if I buy that an "entire 20th Century worth of Progress" occurred between 2000 and 2014. There was an inordinate amount of progress in the 20th Century. We went from prototype cars and the Wright Brothers to supersonic speeds and landing on the moon. That's a lot of progress.

This is a classic article: "Slouching Towards Utopia"

There's a great line in it I'll paraphrase - people living in 1900 were closer to living in the 1600's than 2000.

I don't think people realize the amount of incredible amount of progress we've made in 100 years.

The last 20 years have been particularly amazing - the internet alone has been a game-changer as big as any in the 20th century.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I don't think anything posted so far is nearly as scary or disruptive as artificial super intelligence.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

Basically will lead to human immortality or extinction in the next 100 years or so.

Seriously freaky.

That article and especially its follow-up are friggin fascinating. Thanks for the link.

Don't know if I buy that an "entire 20th Century worth of Progress" occurred between 2000 and 2014. There was an inordinate amount of progress in the 20th Century. We went from prototype cars and the Wright Brothers to supersonic speeds and landing on the moon. That's a lot of progress.

I don't think anything posted so far is nearly as scary or disruptive as artificial super intelligence.

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/01/artificial-intelligence-revolution-1.html

Basically will lead to human immortality or extinction in the next 100 years or so.

Seriously freaky.

That article and especially its follow-up are friggin fascinating. Thanks for the link.

Don't know if I buy that an "entire 20th Century worth of Progress" occurred between 2000 and 2014. There was an inordinate amount of progress in the 20th Century. We went from prototype cars and the Wright Brothers to supersonic speeds and landing on the moon. That's a lot of progress.

I'd change his numbers a bit, but the overall point regarding the acceleration of advancement is solid.

 

[Quez]

I think they will be able to do more with 3D printing with some of these new concrete like materials.

like what?

Maybe they could manufacture pots, furniture, siding materials, fake rocks, bird baths, pavers, bricks. I don't think individuals would own them, but I could see them used more commercially.Eta

http://www.gizmag.com/berkeley-researchers-pioneer-powder-based-concrete-3d-printing/36515/

 

[msommer]

This leads me to my next point - it's unlikely that the part will be properly inspected, unless it is made by someone qualified. Think about this - assuming you could, would you install a brake pad on your car you built yourself? would you trust it to not have any cracks, voids, or contamination? are you qualified to detect any internal issues in the part? I would hope the answer is no, but lets assume you use it anyways. That void (small air pocket) in the part that you didn't see failed, causing your brake rotor to disintegrate, causing a massive crash. Who is liable here? Was it a bad design you downloaded? Did the printer have a "hiccup" when printing, and missed a spot? Was the incoming metal powder 100% pure, or maybe there was a mouse dropping in there?

IMO, 3D printing for commercial purposes is limited to pre-production prototyping (what I use it for today), novelty, and manufacturing of difficult geometries done by qualified shops. All of that exists today.

I'm not saying there isn't room for growth. There more certainly will be improvements to materials and processes. However, the fact remains that additive manufacturing cannot guarantee isotropic finished products which limits its commercial utility.

Another impediment is the IP world. Say I design a remote control. You buy the remote control, and lose the battery door. You want to 3D print a replacement for it, but there's really no incentive for me to give you my 3D design of the door. You didn't pay for that IP and I won't sell it to you - because if I do, I have no way to prevent you from selling it to anyone else - it would no longer be in my control. You know how manufacturers don't like their products being knocked off in China? What you are asking for is the ability for everyone to knock off my work... not something I'm keen on. So, I will not allow anyone else to make my parts.

I know that 3D printing is cool and neat and has been touted as revolutionary. I don't see it.

Well Boeing and Airbus already use 3d printed parts of plastic, so I guess we are only waiting for the inevitable crash now...

http://3dprint.com/63169/airbus-a350-xwb-3d-print/

And Boeing has filed patents for metal printing - to be used for aircraft

http://www.geekwire.com/2015/boeing-files-patent-for-3d-printing-of-aircraft-parts-and-yes-its-already-using-them/

As for IP this is clearly a DRM issue, which might be solved by self-decaying files or similar in that you only rent the IP and only for a specific number of applications (possible to hack? Time will tell)

 

[msommer]

All I can see it really doing is putting Lego out of business. Outside of that, I don't find myself going to the store for some plastic doohickey that often.

Funny enough Lego should be fairly immune to this. The surface condition of a 3D printed part is nowhere near the smoothness needed for Legos.

If they can't make basic Lego blocks, then I don't see 3D printing being that disruptive a tech. People are talking about them as if you can print car parts or replace broken gears in a dishwasher or something, but if Legos aren't doable, then there's a pretty big limit on the technology.

As per the links in my previousl posts Boeing and Airbus are already using them - must be able to get to within their tolerances consistently then.

That aside doubt that they are using the home printing kits - and similar to what happened with computers things will likely accelerate from here.

An iPhone 5 has ridiculously more computer power in its graphics card than the fastest computer on earth did in 1975 - and takes up a lot less space.

http://www.phonearena.com/news/A-modern-smartphone-or-a-vintage-supercomputer-which-is-more-powerful_id57149

 

[Quez]

Femtophography

http://www.ted.com/talks/ramesh_raskar_a_camera_that_takes_one_trillion_frames_per_second/transcript?language=en

 

[Quez]

LiFi

http://www.gizmag.com/li-fi-wireless-technology/32968/

 

[RC94]

 

[moleculo]

This leads me to my next point - it's unlikely that the part will be properly inspected, unless it is made by someone qualified. Think about this - assuming you could, would you install a brake pad on your car you built yourself? would you trust it to not have any cracks, voids, or contamination? are you qualified to detect any internal issues in the part? I would hope the answer is no, but lets assume you use it anyways. That void (small air pocket) in the part that you didn't see failed, causing your brake rotor to disintegrate, causing a massive crash. Who is liable here? Was it a bad design you downloaded? Did the printer have a "hiccup" when printing, and missed a spot? Was the incoming metal powder 100% pure, or maybe there was a mouse dropping in there?

IMO, 3D printing for commercial purposes is limited to pre-production prototyping (what I use it for today), novelty, and manufacturing of difficult geometries done by qualified shops. All of that exists today.

I'm not saying there isn't room for growth. There more certainly will be improvements to materials and processes. However, the fact remains that additive manufacturing cannot guarantee isotropic finished products which limits its commercial utility.

Another impediment is the IP world. Say I design a remote control. You buy the remote control, and lose the battery door. You want to 3D print a replacement for it, but there's really no incentive for me to give you my 3D design of the door. You didn't pay for that IP and I won't sell it to you - because if I do, I have no way to prevent you from selling it to anyone else - it would no longer be in my control. You know how manufacturers don't like their products being knocked off in China? What you are asking for is the ability for everyone to knock off my work... not something I'm keen on. So, I will not allow anyone else to make my parts.

I know that 3D printing is cool and neat and has been touted as revolutionary. I don't see it.

Well Boeing and Airbus already use 3d printed parts of plastic, so I guess we are only waiting for the inevitable crash now...

http://3dprint.com/63169/airbus-a350-xwb-3d-print/

And Boeing has filed patents for metal printing - to be used for aircraft

http://www.geekwire.com/2015/boeing-files-patent-for-3d-printing-of-aircraft-parts-and-yes-its-already-using-them/

As for IP this is clearly a DRM issue, which might be solved by self-decaying files or similar in that you only rent the IP and only for a specific number of applications (possible to hack? Time will tell)

that's interesting, but I would put those parts in the specialty/niche category. Boeing/airbus yearly product volumes aren't very high - these guys make less than a thousand planes a year. If each plane has a handful of parts that are needed once per plane, that's a fairly low number of parts needed per year - too few to justify investing in injection molding, to many to want to machine.

Also, aerospace is a specialized industry where weight is paramount. The fuel savings they can get is pretty significant if they can completely optimize each part. complete optimization is not all that important for everyone - especially consumer grade stuff.

I would also note that Boeng/Airbus are purchasing their 3D printed parts from specialty shops (or making in-house) - I promise you the parts are completely inspected and validated before being used on a plane.

 

[Sand]

This leads me to my next point - it's unlikely that the part will be properly inspected, unless it is made by someone qualified. Think about this - assuming you could, would you install a brake pad on your car you built yourself? would you trust it to not have any cracks, voids, or contamination? are you qualified to detect any internal issues in the part? I would hope the answer is no, but lets assume you use it anyways. That void (small air pocket) in the part that you didn't see failed, causing your brake rotor to disintegrate, causing a massive crash. Who is liable here? Was it a bad design you downloaded? Did the printer have a "hiccup" when printing, and missed a spot? Was the incoming metal powder 100% pure, or maybe there was a mouse dropping in there?

IMO, 3D printing for commercial purposes is limited to pre-production prototyping (what I use it for today), novelty, and manufacturing of difficult geometries done by qualified shops. All of that exists today.

I'm not saying there isn't room for growth. There more certainly will be improvements to materials and processes. However, the fact remains that additive manufacturing cannot guarantee isotropic finished products which limits its commercial utility.

Another impediment is the IP world. Say I design a remote control. You buy the remote control, and lose the battery door. You want to 3D print a replacement for it, but there's really no incentive for me to give you my 3D design of the door. You didn't pay for that IP and I won't sell it to you - because if I do, I have no way to prevent you from selling it to anyone else - it would no longer be in my control. You know how manufacturers don't like their products being knocked off in China? What you are asking for is the ability for everyone to knock off my work... not something I'm keen on. So, I will not allow anyone else to make my parts.

I know that 3D printing is cool and neat and has been touted as revolutionary. I don't see it.

Well Boeing and Airbus already use 3d printed parts of plastic, so I guess we are only waiting for the inevitable crash now...

http://3dprint.com/63169/airbus-a350-xwb-3d-print/

And Boeing has filed patents for metal printing - to be used for aircraft

http://www.geekwire.com/2015/boeing-files-patent-for-3d-printing-of-aircraft-parts-and-yes-its-already-using-them/

Certainly you'll see the Lockheeds, Boeings, and NASAs of the world use this technology. These parts tend to be high dollar parts in which 3D makes lots of sense. That doesn't mean that it will filter down to make sense for a living room. There is something to be said for economies of scale in making things.

 

[msommer]

This leads me to my next point - it's unlikely that the part will be properly inspected, unless it is made by someone qualified. Think about this - assuming you could, would you install a brake pad on your car you built yourself? would you trust it to not have any cracks, voids, or contamination? are you qualified to detect any internal issues in the part? I would hope the answer is no, but lets assume you use it anyways. That void (small air pocket) in the part that you didn't see failed, causing your brake rotor to disintegrate, causing a massive crash. Who is liable here? Was it a bad design you downloaded? Did the printer have a "hiccup" when printing, and missed a spot? Was the incoming metal powder 100% pure, or maybe there was a mouse dropping in there?

IMO, 3D printing for commercial purposes is limited to pre-production prototyping (what I use it for today), novelty, and manufacturing of difficult geometries done by qualified shops. All of that exists today.

I'm not saying there isn't room for growth. There more certainly will be improvements to materials and processes. However, the fact remains that additive manufacturing cannot guarantee isotropic finished products which limits its commercial utility.

Another impediment is the IP world. Say I design a remote control. You buy the remote control, and lose the battery door. You want to 3D print a replacement for it, but there's really no incentive for me to give you my 3D design of the door. You didn't pay for that IP and I won't sell it to you - because if I do, I have no way to prevent you from selling it to anyone else - it would no longer be in my control. You know how manufacturers don't like their products being knocked off in China? What you are asking for is the ability for everyone to knock off my work... not something I'm keen on. So, I will not allow anyone else to make my parts.

I know that 3D printing is cool and neat and has been touted as revolutionary. I don't see it.

Well Boeing and Airbus already use 3d printed parts of plastic, so I guess we are only waiting for the inevitable crash now...

http://3dprint.com/63169/airbus-a350-xwb-3d-print/

And Boeing has filed patents for metal printing - to be used for aircraft

http://www.geekwire.com/2015/boeing-files-patent-for-3d-printing-of-aircraft-parts-and-yes-its-already-using-them/

As for IP this is clearly a DRM issue, which might be solved by self-decaying files or similar in that you only rent the IP and only for a specific number of applications (possible to hack? Time will tell)

that's interesting, but I would put those parts in the specialty/niche category. Boeing/airbus yearly product volumes aren't very high - these guys make less than a thousand planes a year. If each plane has a handful of parts that are needed once per plane, that's a fairly low number of parts needed per year - too few to justify investing in injection molding, to many to want to machine.

Also, aerospace is a specialized industry where weight is paramount. The fuel savings they can get is pretty significant if they can completely optimize each part. complete optimization is not all that important for everyone - especially consumer grade stuff.

I would also note that Boeng/Airbus are purchasing their 3D printed parts from specialty shops (or making in-house) - I promise you the parts are completely inspected and validated before being used on a plane.

Oh, absolutely. QC is king - and will necessarily be part of any such industrial use, and indeed will probably drive the technology further. That being said, all things start small. The shipping industry is also a strong possibility over time (for spare parts for vessels) and why not cars - it'll start with custom parts for vintage models, and could move further into mainstream. Etc.

3D printing has been around for about 20 odd years - I believe even Gordon Moore did not forsee the ubiquitousness of computers we see today when he (after about 20 years of digital computers) framed his famous law.

So we may still be limited in our ability to predict what effect 3D printing could have for society in 50 years time.

 

[msommer]

This leads me to my next point - it's unlikely that the part will be properly inspected, unless it is made by someone qualified. Think about this - assuming you could, would you install a brake pad on your car you built yourself? would you trust it to not have any cracks, voids, or contamination? are you qualified to detect any internal issues in the part? I would hope the answer is no, but lets assume you use it anyways. That void (small air pocket) in the part that you didn't see failed, causing your brake rotor to disintegrate, causing a massive crash. Who is liable here? Was it a bad design you downloaded? Did the printer have a "hiccup" when printing, and missed a spot? Was the incoming metal powder 100% pure, or maybe there was a mouse dropping in there?

IMO, 3D printing for commercial purposes is limited to pre-production prototyping (what I use it for today), novelty, and manufacturing of difficult geometries done by qualified shops. All of that exists today.

I'm not saying there isn't room for growth. There more certainly will be improvements to materials and processes. However, the fact remains that additive manufacturing cannot guarantee isotropic finished products which limits its commercial utility.

Another impediment is the IP world. Say I design a remote control. You buy the remote control, and lose the battery door. You want to 3D print a replacement for it, but there's really no incentive for me to give you my 3D design of the door. You didn't pay for that IP and I won't sell it to you - because if I do, I have no way to prevent you from selling it to anyone else - it would no longer be in my control. You know how manufacturers don't like their products being knocked off in China? What you are asking for is the ability for everyone to knock off my work... not something I'm keen on. So, I will not allow anyone else to make my parts.

I know that 3D printing is cool and neat and has been touted as revolutionary. I don't see it.

Well Boeing and Airbus already use 3d printed parts of plastic, so I guess we are only waiting for the inevitable crash now...

http://3dprint.com/63169/airbus-a350-xwb-3d-print/

And Boeing has filed patents for metal printing - to be used for aircraft

http://www.geekwire.com/2015/boeing-files-patent-for-3d-printing-of-aircraft-parts-and-yes-its-already-using-them/

Certainly you'll see the Lockheeds, Boeings, and NASAs of the world use this technology. These parts tend to be high dollar parts in which 3D makes lots of sense. That doesn't mean that it will filter down to make sense for a living room. There is something to be said for economies of scale in making things.

That's what IBM used to think about personal computing.

ETA: Granted, they were not alone in that...

"There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home."

Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation, 1977

 

[moleculo]

This leads me to my next point - it's unlikely that the part will be properly inspected, unless it is made by someone qualified. Think about this - assuming you could, would you install a brake pad on your car you built yourself? would you trust it to not have any cracks, voids, or contamination? are you qualified to detect any internal issues in the part? I would hope the answer is no, but lets assume you use it anyways. That void (small air pocket) in the part that you didn't see failed, causing your brake rotor to disintegrate, causing a massive crash. Who is liable here? Was it a bad design you downloaded? Did the printer have a "hiccup" when printing, and missed a spot? Was the incoming metal powder 100% pure, or maybe there was a mouse dropping in there?

IMO, 3D printing for commercial purposes is limited to pre-production prototyping (what I use it for today), novelty, and manufacturing of difficult geometries done by qualified shops. All of that exists today.

I'm not saying there isn't room for growth. There more certainly will be improvements to materials and processes. However, the fact remains that additive manufacturing cannot guarantee isotropic finished products which limits its commercial utility.

Another impediment is the IP world. Say I design a remote control. You buy the remote control, and lose the battery door. You want to 3D print a replacement for it, but there's really no incentive for me to give you my 3D design of the door. You didn't pay for that IP and I won't sell it to you - because if I do, I have no way to prevent you from selling it to anyone else - it would no longer be in my control. You know how manufacturers don't like their products being knocked off in China? What you are asking for is the ability for everyone to knock off my work... not something I'm keen on. So, I will not allow anyone else to make my parts.

I know that 3D printing is cool and neat and has been touted as revolutionary. I don't see it.

Well Boeing and Airbus already use 3d printed parts of plastic, so I guess we are only waiting for the inevitable crash now...

http://3dprint.com/63169/airbus-a350-xwb-3d-print/

And Boeing has filed patents for metal printing - to be used for aircraft

http://www.geekwire.com/2015/boeing-files-patent-for-3d-printing-of-aircraft-parts-and-yes-its-already-using-them/

As for IP this is clearly a DRM issue, which might be solved by self-decaying files or similar in that you only rent the IP and only for a specific number of applications (possible to hack? Time will tell)

that's interesting, but I would put those parts in the specialty/niche category. Boeing/airbus yearly product volumes aren't very high - these guys make less than a thousand planes a year. If each plane has a handful of parts that are needed once per plane, that's a fairly low number of parts needed per year - too few to justify investing in injection molding, to many to want to machine.

Also, aerospace is a specialized industry where weight is paramount. The fuel savings they can get is pretty significant if they can completely optimize each part. complete optimization is not all that important for everyone - especially consumer grade stuff.

I would also note that Boeng/Airbus are purchasing their 3D printed parts from specialty shops (or making in-house) - I promise you the parts are completely inspected and validated before being used on a plane.

Oh, absolutely. QC is king - and will necessarily be part of any such industrial use, and indeed will probably drive the technology further. That being said, all things start small. The shipping industry is also a strong possibility over time (for spare parts for vessels) and why not cars - it'll start with custom parts for vintage models, and could move further into mainstream. Etc.

3D printing has been around for about 20 odd years - I believe even Gordon Moore did not forsee the ubiquitousness of computers we see today when he (after about 20 years of digital computers) framed his famous law.

So we may still be limited in our ability to predict what effect 3D printing could have for society in 50 years time.

I'm not saying 3D printing doesn't have a place - it absolutely does. I simply don't think it will be a disruptive technology. It won't change the market place of consumer goods.

I can't envision a future where your average Joe has a 3D printer...I don't believe most folks want to make things. Consider - sewing machines are readily available. Fabric can be easily purchased, patterns are available on-line. How many people make their own clothes? Certainly some people do - hobbyists, creative folk, etc., but most people won't do that. Lathes and mills are available - how many people do you know that have a lathe in their garage?

Certainly, 3D printing can be a lot simpler than making clothes as there is no skill required to download a part and hit start. However, there is skill involved in making quality designs, and there is still time required. Just as it takes time to learn how to sew, it takes time to learn how to 3D model. obviously there are plenty of software packages out there that make it easier, but it's still a skill to acquire and I don't think many folks will take the time to learn how to reverse engineer a battery door for their remote control.

After thinking about it for a bit, I suppose it is possible for 3D printing to displace injection molding. That would certainly be disruptive. It's not so much folks having a 3D printer in their garage, more like you can go to the local print shop and have your widget made. For that to happen, here is what we need to see:

• homogenous parts with nearly equivalent mechanical properties (post-printing) to injection molded equivalents
• better surface finishes
• low cost printers - they are so slow, you would need maybe a 100 - 1000 printers to provide the volume of a single mold - their cost must be 100-1000x cheaper.
• a better system for bulk material/automation
• lower energy consumption
• integrated QA
• non-toxic materials (current state of the art - FDM parts require 3 or 4 hours in a detergent bath to dissolve away parts you don't want - the bath is pretty nasty).

 

[cstu]

Certainly, 3D printing can be a lot simpler than making clothes as there is no skill required to download a part and hit start. However, there is skill involved in making quality designs, and there is still time required.

"Who is going to use a computer? No one is going to want to make their own programs."

We are in the infancy of 3D printing - the point I'm making is that there will be a design for anything you want some day. It will be like using your printer now.

 

[moleculo]

Certainly, 3D printing can be a lot simpler than making clothes as there is no skill required to download a part and hit start. However, there is skill involved in making quality designs, and there is still time required.

"Who is going to use a computer? No one is going to want to make their own programs."

We are in the infancy of 3D printing - the point I'm making is that there will be a design for anything you want some day. It will be like using your printer now.

lets talk about home printers. Would anyone consider them a disruptive technology?

What do people use printers for anyways - random forms to sign here and there, but for the most part, it's a novelty. If you have real, actual printing to do (i.e. a book, high quality color fliers, maybe photographs), don't you take it to a print shop?

Printing is actually a pretty good analogy. You can do it at home, sure. If you want anything substantial, you take it somewhere else.

3D printer is not the modern day equivalent of Gutenbergs press.

 

[Sand]

After thinking about it for a bit, I suppose it is possible for 3D printing to displace injection molding. That would certainly be disruptive. It's not so much folks having a 3D printer in their garage, more like you can go to the local print shop and have your widget made. For that to happen, here is what we need to see:

I think the question to answer here is what will win here for the kind of things that consumer 3D printers will make - Amazon same day shipments of conventionally made items or printed parts?

 

[TripItUp]

driverless cars will have 10 times the impact on how we live/economics than any other achievable technology out there.

 

[Sand]

driverless cars Fusion power will have 10 times the impact on how we live/economics than any other achievable technology out there.

Fixed that for you.

 

[TripItUp]

driverless cars Fusion power will have 10 times the impact on how we live/economics than any other achievable technology out there.

Fixed that for you.

I'll believe it when I see it...we've been talking about fusion for decades.

Driverless cars are on a much more steep trajectory due to advances in GPS and computing.

 

[roadkill1292]

driverless cars Fusion power will have 1,000,000 times the impact on how we live/economics than any other achievable technology out there.

Fixed that for you.

Tightened it up a little bit more.