I did an interview last year for EE Times Japan with former Wired editor Chris Anderson who arguably did more than anyone to hype up 3-D printing.
Perhaps I caught him on an off day but he noted:
--There are still big limitations on what kinds of materials can be used by 3-D printers
--Volume manufacturing is still very much the game of big companies because it involves many kinds of machines and processes that are not networked and not available to the average person with a desktop 3-D printer.
3D printing is perhaps a misnomer, but I don't think we should let that limit our thinking.
Hasn't everyone wondered why you can send only certain types of "product" over the Internet? Used to be just text, then it became graphics and essentially finished documents (minus the paper), then sound and motion pictures. So why the limitation? Why do I need to depend on parcel post to have a vacuum cleaner sent to me from a web site? Why can't the web site e-mail me the vacuum cleaner as it sends me a finished document that I can print out at home?
Conceptually, it's because we have technology that feeds paper in to a printer, but we don't yet have the next step that feeds ANY raw materials into a "printer," to manufacture any product, based on instructions received from anywhere else. So while I can order a book from Amazon, I can also, at least in principle, "manufacture" that book at home, by feeding raw material (paper) and instructions (say, an Acrobat file) into a printer, and create the entire product that way.
For now, the "raw material" is limited to paper (2D printing) and plastic (3D printing). Conceptually, it doesn't need to be so limited. Computer aided manufacturing is used to build all manner of products, and I think of 3D printing as merely the first step to doing CAM in the home. For Star Trek fans, 3D printing is another step toward that "replicator" device, where you place your order and out comes the product.
I agree we should not limit our imagination and the emailable machine/object is a great idea.
But does it differ conceptually from an emailable text file that tells you which lego bricks to put where...or an emailable map which shows the shop on your local high street to go buy a conventionally-made machine/object from.
The point of my article I guess was that everyone seems to think because the CONCEPT is extremely fascinating - be it self-replicating or emailable machines -- they also think that 3D printed manufacturing is juat around the corner and that the self-replicating or emailable machine delivered by 3D printing will be just as good as one made using conventional manufacturing.
There are a lot of engineering challenges between the concept and the reality
For example would you want a 3D printed part made today to be used as a replacement part inside your bicycle gears or automobile engine? Even if it met the dimensional specification perfectly it would not have been approved for use and would expect that its plastic construction would not be mechanically strong enough.
I think it is different from e-mailed instructions on how to assemble Lego blocks, in the sense that 3D printing lets you manufacture your own Lego blocks. So 3D printing is really a logical "next step."
As to the material, again, why limit ourselves to plastic? Plastic is merely the "next step," beyond paper. Plastic happens to be easier to mold that other raw materials are, but there's no conceptual reason to think that 3D printing can't produce steel gearsets.
Ultimately, one shouldn't even be dissuaded by the idea that feeding iron to a 3D printer is ridiculous. No reason to assume the 3D printer has to be at home. We can also take our instruction file to a 3D printing facility at the closest shopping mall and have it spit out the finished product. Just as we might do to get professional quality photographic prints made, by taking of JPEG files to a photofinisher.
These are all interesting points. 3-D printer is a bit of a mystery for me for long time.
For one, as one of my friends pointed out, it is very good to reproduce "one of a kind" thing. Think about an antique table that you just bought, but a leg is missing. 3-D printer would come in handy.
For another, I believe that it could work in a larger production scenario, too. I used to work for a consumer electronics company. I seem to recall that one of the big investments for those manufacturers was always in making a "mold" for their next product that needs to be mass produced. 3-D printer could take some pressure off of that mold cost.
Thanks for the article Peter and I agree with your points, but thought I'd add this recent example.
Whether the average Joe can expect to buy the system AR uses is anyone's guess, but it already makes significant improvements in cost and schedule, so it will certainly stick around. Imagine what only a few generations of improvements to the system will do for reducing the system's cost and complexity.
I agree 100 percent. The idea that 3D printing is going to displace a lot of the current manufacturing technology is misguided. But that said, I think we can all agree that it will be used for many applications and has tremendous potential. Plus, it's pretty cool too.
"Specifically, GE is developing a metal nozzle for its LEAP jet engine. They will use 3D metal printers to produce the nozzles, which will be lighter in weight due to an advanced design producible only on 3D printers."
What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Are the design challenges the same as with embedded systems, but with a little developer- and IT-skills added in? What do engineers need to know? Rick Merritt talks with two experts about the tools and best options for designing IoT devices in 2016. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.