First Factory Use Of 'Replicator' For Spare Parts 239
maddogsparky writes: "Over at Spacedaily, there is an article about how a 3D printer was used to fabricate a replacement part in a production environment--the first known case. They've also done some tests in NASA's vomit comet and are planning on a shuttle test for applications on the ISS or Mars trip."
Stratasys (Score:2, Interesting)
It was a pretty cool place, their engineers were constantly making things out of plastics w/ their "3D Printer". Somewhere around here I have a small 4" high godzilla that was printed out.
If you ever get a chance to see one of these machines in person printing out "something" it is fascinating.
Scale? (Score:4, Interesting)
production situations (Score:4, Interesting)
"Now if anyone asks me about the durability of the rapid prototype parts that come off the Titan, I take them over to the sanding station and tell them the story. You can see the sparks flying off the sander and hear it grinding away - it really opens some eyes. I have an aluminum replacement pulley now, but I'm in no hurry to install it. With the way this one has performed, I want to see how long it lasts!"
This is a bit of a hype situation for several reasons.
First of all, a production situation is rife with bureacracy and regulation. A polycarbonate part cannot always replace a metal or ceramic part, and to alter the machines in a way that would impart agility and flexibility -- the very purpose of the "3-d printer" - would take a mountain of paperwork.
This leads into a second critique. Globalization confers both interdependence and indepdendence.
Right now, production facilities are dependent on parts from distant places.
If facilities can design and fabricate new parts, and put them into use, at various backwaters all over the place, this will place many office workers -- and, perhaps, the entire concept of a centralized "headquarters" -- into obsolescence.
Re:Next Step... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but you still need to take the raw material (ABS) to the ISS... once matter itself becomes zero-cost-copy then things will change...
repliclator? (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean it's not like this thing scanned in the broken pulley and made a replica based on the scan.
Now I know they can do this (someone mentioned a Godzirra) and I saw on Beyond 2000 (10 years ago) how this thing was used in surgery. A guy had his skull smashed to bits in an accident. They did an MRI and built a model of his skull including the broken bits. This enabled the surgeons to examine the fragments and figure the best way to put them back together (of course this was before they operated).
I thought that was a way cooler implementation and closer to a true replicator.
Re:Replace lego parts =) (Score:1, Interesting)
If it's anything like our Stereo Litho kit, you won't get much colour selection.
Next Great Use: Adult Toys (Score:1, Interesting)
You think I'm kidding, right? Just wait till the right person reads this....
Re:Probably a temporary replacement... (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:production situations (Score:3, Interesting)
>confers both interdependence and indepdendence.
>Right now, production facilities are dependent
>on parts from distant places.
I don't see this, you are just changing who you are dependent upon. You still need the raw materials to make the things out of- they still need to be shipped, and they may well turn out to be more expensive materials than getting someone to mass produce the item for you.
In fact, even if the 3D items were completely free, it wouldn't destroy the global economy- most businesses are a result of the ideas, and knowledge of the people in the company- the objects they make would still be protected by copyright, patents and licensing.
Re:I'm really worried about replicatiors in our wo (Score:3, Interesting)
You're repeating something that's also been said elsewhere in the thread, as well as being a standard doctrine of nanotechnology, which is that this kind of fabrication would be cheaper than current mass production techniques. What is the basis for that assertion? The equipment itself is currently quite expensive even in the limited forms which are now available, and there is a floor to the cost (unless you know somewhere I can buy a good refrigerator for $10?) Then there is energy, time, and waste, as well as distribution of raw materials and raw materials cost itself.
I haven't seen any basis for the assumption that all of these can be driven to near zero. If they can be driven way down, then so can the costs of mass production, which could be driven down even further due to economies of scale. A machine that only builds one thing is going to produce that one thing faster and cheaper than a machine that can build anything. That's true even of theoretical nanoassembly systems.
Tim
Previous use of a "replicated part"? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Scale? (Score:2, Interesting)
I have heard of (but not yet seen) a vendor sample that is a fully functional wind-up clock that comes out of the SLA machine all put together. Turning the wind-up crank breaks the parts free from the sprue and starts the clock working.
I can tell you from personal experience that all the SLA plastic models I have eventually soften and deform after a few months, so I wouldn't want to rely on an SLA part for anything that is mission critical.
This is an issue of distribution... (Score:1, Interesting)
With tons of nanoassembly plants (we could have them in every community of modest size), we could drastically change manufacture and shipping. And the whole issue of IP is extremely important under these circumstances - since raw materials are relatively cheap, you'd mostly be paying for the license to replication a given widget. This has dramatic patent implications.
Finally, think about the recycling applications. Just as much as you can have nanoconstruction devices which build your devices, you could also have nano-deconstruction units which strip your garbage for raw materials of value. This would allow for you to become much less dependent on stripping the earth of it's resources (just think of the impact on mining!).
This is extremely important technology. It will only get better over time, and as people use it more it will also get cheaper. Exciting times are ahead...
Re:Free beer! :) (Score:3, Interesting)
The thing is, there is no scientific reason why humans can not eventually do this
Replicator technology is really a non-destructive form of transporter technology. Many say that transporter technology will never work because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
That said, I think we could make reasonable copies as opposed to exact copies. In other words, you wouldn't have the exact alignment of each and every molecule in the beer, but you would have the exact composition of the beer which is all anybody really wants anyway.
As for the economic issue, there are some resources that will always be scarce. In particular, time and space will remain finite for the forseeable future. The economics of scarcity will play out in the supply and demand for time (labor) and space (real estate) and anything that closely relates. So, the replicated beer will be free, but you will still need replicator repairmen unless you want to bother your neighbor to replicate you a new replicator.
Of course, that takes energy which is also likely to remain in short supply. Even Mr. Fusion needs banana peels and soda cans to power it, so in regards to the economics of scarcity... reports of its death are greatly exagerated.
Re:I'm really worried about replicatiors in our wo (Score:2, Interesting)
First, a little bit of fun, paraphrasing your comments:
Okay okay, I took some liberties, but your comment basically boils down to "it seems counter intuitive, so it can't be true". Nano skeptics are becoming an increasingly endangered species, mainly because the technology looks so promising. And if you think my analogy above is flawed because processing information is qualitively different to processing materials, then I gently suggest you've not thought about nanotech enough. :-)
Your comment:
The equipment itself is currently quite expensive even in the limited forms which are now available (...)
Is like pointing to any new technology and saying "it's more expensive than the way we do things now, so it always will be more expensive, so it won't work". Do I really need to point out the flaw here?
Your comment:
A machine that only builds one thing is going to produce that one thing faster and cheaper than a machine that can build anything. That's true even of theoretical nanoassembly systems.
No it isn't. Or to use your words - what is the basis for that assertion? A nano-assembler is a nanoassembler, whether it's in a factory or a suburban nano-shop or your basement. Why would we build a nanoasembler that is only able to build one thing?
Sure, I can imagine a big assembler being able to produce goods faster than a small one (it can literally churn out more per second because it is bigger and can suck in and push out more material), but why significantly cheaper?
Besides, this misses the point - with widespread nanotech, the very concept of mass-produced identical items is redundant. Why would we do this? Why fill warehouses with product X and then try to sell it, as we do now? Heck, we're moving away from that model even with current technology, why do it that way with nanotech?
Items could be produced that are individually tailored to the user, and only when needed by the user. These items may cost a little more than an identical item that had been mass-produced, but items tailored to me are not going to be mass-produced, so the comparison is moot.
As nano-tech becomes possible, cheaper, and widespread, the advantages of just-in-time and just-for-you manufacturing will outweigh the advantages of mass-produced for-everyone, I predict. There are other things to worry about (like how to prevent abuse of cheap widespread nanotech assemblers).
Skevos