Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

3D Printers 207

Posted by CmdrTaco from the but-can-it-print-me-up-a-pizza? dept.
kkelly writes: "This weeks New Scientist has an interesting article on 3-D Printers: 'THINK OF AN OBJECT and watch it appear before your eyes. All it takes is a click of a mouse, a flick of a switch and you can have almost anything, made to order. Researchers are on the point of creating a magic box that can bring the stuff of your imagination into the hard-edged material world.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

3D Printers More

3D Printers

Comments Filter:
  • Is it just me, or is New Scientist really good at blowing things out of proportion? They seemed to be pretty good with this article, but sometimes they take a tiny little concept and blow it out of proportion. (If you subscribe to the magazine, like me, you know what I mean.) At least, they're really good at attention-getting headlines. How respectable of a magazine is this? It seems to be sort of the TIME of science magazines. I enjoy reading it, but sometimes it's like they've taken the tiniest bit of evidence or new research and blown it in to a screaming magazine cover. Just a thought.
  • Greetings , I am new to this board but have been following it for about a month. This topic inspired me to register. There are currently about 4 major players in the " 3D " printing industry. I have researched these as I feel they will become a good investment eventually and have purchased a meager 10 shares in one of these called " TDSC " They have a good website that gives further information for anyone wanting to research this topic and can be found at: http://www.3dsystems.com/ Cheers ...
  • It's called steriolithography. It's used in the patternmaking business. The "goop" costs about $100 per gallon.

  • You can already buy... (Score:3)

    by warmcat ( 3545 ) on Thursday September 28, 2000 @08:27AM (#746929)
    ... a Roland MDX-15 [rolanddga.com] for $3000, which is capable of similar feats, although on a smaller (6" x 4") scale.
  • Like PCs, pagers, cell phones, etc, are useless for the common Joe.

    Isn't it up to the market, and the common Joe to decide what is useful and not useful?

    Just because *you* can't imagine how this can be used into your life, doesn't mean it's useless.

    Say that the process is refined to the point that you can make your own circuit boards(!). That's just... aluminum tracings, plastic boards, copper contacts, etc. Perhaps you can also print onto this your own LEDs, which is more plastic and some silicon substrates... and then print your own resistors, which are just carbon particles... inductors, capacitors, hey, maybe even some simple transistors and microprocessors!

    Want an MP3 player? Download the description file from Rio3k.com, print it out, pop in some batteries, print out a 128mb flashdisk, and play!

    Or what if you wanted to modify the design? Or had the software to tie the MP3 player to a wireless transmitter? Why not roll out your own? Download the open source MP3 player and hack away!

    There are things that can be done with this technology...

    The nick is a joke! Really!
  • So your saying that just because 10% of the readership was arround when this was last posted, that the other 90% that have never heard of it should be deprived? That doesn't make sense.

    The /. readership isn't more in tune with the archives, the /. editorship just realizes that most of the people wern't arround that long, and wouldn't search for it(you dont go looking for things like this, you just see them and say "wow, cool")
  • Aren't there certain shapes that these printers couldn't manufacture? Since it prints from the "bottom up" so to speak, how would it create somthing that has a piece hanging from the top. In other words, how do you start printing an item that essentially "appears" when sliced from the bottom? Yes, I know you could print it upside-down, but what if there is something sticking out of top and bottom? All sides? Imagine printing a hollow sphere that had spikes sticking into the center (but not quite reaching it)...

    How is this accomplished using this process?

    Thanks,
    JoeK
  • What can we build with no moving parts?

    Hmmm.

    How about a 128mb flash card?
    How about a mp3 player?
    How about a NIC?
    How about a disposable digital camera?
    How about a portable radio?

    How about an mp3 player with ethernet port, a wireless headphone interface, with 128mb memory?

    Think creatively. You don't need moving parts to be cool

    The nick is a joke! Really!
  • I once saw a "3D printer" for sale in an electronics magazine a few months back. Instead of creating the model out of a polymer/powder/etc. it would etch the design out of an aluminum/plastic block. It had its own scanner that would scan the model and send it to the PC in Truespace 4 format (it even included a copy of TS4). You could then alter the model and send it back to the "printer". Very cool indeed, and it had a price tag in the $2000 range. Anyone have any experience with one of these things?

  • Ok its neat that you get to print 3D objects. But there really isn't a use. For instance, lets say I want to print out a keyboard. All you would get is a stupid solid plastic keyboard. Its not like its going to print out the circuitry inside, or the screws holding it together, or anything making your printed copy remotley useful.

    And if you can't use what you print out, what the heck is the point of an average person using this? Novelty?

    "Hey guys check this out, I just printed out a solid plastic Porche! Nobody will tell that its fake!!"
  • The "printing up your own gun" thing is something that I've discussed with various information security people.

    The conversation usually goes something like "what if people could download guns as easily as they could script-kiddie tools."

    There was a Clint Eastwood movie where the uberbadguy made a compact plastic gun for the purpose of getting through a metal detector to shoot the president. I'm sure this is the wrong kind of plastic and all for gun-making (and heck, true plastic guns are complete science fiction for all I know) but the idea is intriging.

    I don't think home-gun-printing would cause the level of trouble that we have with script kiddies, due mainly to the need to still shoot people in person. However, the FUD factor for people being able to print their own unlicensed, non-trackable guns would beat organized crime, child porgography, and terrorists hands-down.

  • Legos!! (Score:1)

    by Anm ( 18575 )
    This is great!! Al those lego pieces I'm missing, and now I canget them in any color I want!!

    Anm
  • Nortel here in Calgary, AB uses this to create models of new products -- I've seen a plastic phone face for a Meridian (those pay phones with screens) that was done this way .. it lets them check out things like packaging and handling before the product is in production without giving everyone the more expensive working prototype -- yes it's actually cheaper too.

    --
  • Oh my goodness! You mean there's no such thing as a free lunch? Are you telling me everything in life has consequences? I can't believe it!

    Does this mean there's no way to turn lead into gold? Is there no panacea? Is there no utopia?

    Just don't tell me there are no absolutes! I couldn't stand it!
  • If we can make a star trek replicator, putting together organic molecules to create, say, a nice cup of earl gray, then why not a star trek transporter as well? have yourself scanned and your plans beamed far away, where you are reassembled. what do you do with the old copy? destroy it? keep it? if replication is a possibility, the philosophers of social ethics will have a heyday.

  • The local Oaks school has one of these (you go there the last 2 years of H-school if you want on the job training) for their Cad department.
    It works basically by using a chunk of Plastic and melting it with a laser where it wants to shave of.
    I also heard ( on Slashdot, I forget when)they wanted to put one of these in the space shuttle so they could make replacement parts in orbit.
  • I'd like a sawed-off Remington.

    The napster of the future - kids swapping CAD files of Glocks. :)

    Ok, so there might be some technical limitations. But I think this technology could result in some major changes in society.

    -lx
  • I would like a glass of Bajoran Tea with a slice of lemon. And Natalie Portman.


    Dracos
    "Time flies when you're procrastinating."

  • Re:Nothing New (Score:5)

    by dmccarty ( 152630 ) on Thursday September 28, 2000 @09:40AM (#746944)
    Your L connector break? Go to www.maytag.com, download the instructions for your 3D printer to construct a new part! Manufacturer's construction costs are eliminated!

    You know, I used to read glowing reports like this in Popular Science of new technologies and get really excited. Not anymore. Call me a tech cynic.

    Every new technology may solve a few of today's problems, but inevitably brings with it a host of new problems. Now we can get cash at an ATM whenever we want (instead of waiting for weekdays like our parents did) but it costs $1.50 to access our own money. We can use cell phones to call our friends any time of the day, but it costs $30 per month and the phone could also be used to betray our location to someone else (or possibly give us brain tumors at the same time). Computers let us do many things--like write comments such as this one--but require maintenance that the average user doesn't have a clue about.

    This 3D printer sounds great. But in conflict with the above comment, when the first consumer version is available I expect to pay $2,000 for the printer, $200 or more for a materials cartridge, $9.95 to Maytag for the "rights" to print an 85 cent part and two hours of my life to print it, not to mention software and hardware issues. So for a while, it just won't be worth it. When a new technology like this appears, count on a few things:

    • It's always more expensive (new Pentium 4, anyone?)
    • Hollywood always makes at least one worst-case scenario movie about it (The Net [imdb.com]--thanks, Sandra)
    • People always treat it differently from something which already exists but is the same concept (why is email privacy treated differently than snail mail privacy?)
    • People assume that "this will change everything!" only to find that "everything" slowly incorporates the new into the old (e-commerce...is anyone actually making money or are they just burning through venture capital and announcing acquisitions through stock deals)
    • New laws are drafted to deal with this new thing, when old laws could easily be expanded to incorporate it into them (was the DMCA actually necessary in the first place?--or could existing copyright laws have been reworked)
    So call me jaded, but I've stopped living in the near future. Yes, the next kernel version is almost here. Yes, flat screen monitors are almost affordable. Yes, Bluetooth-enabled products are almost on the market.

    But almost doesn't count. It's not here yet. I'll live in today.
    --

  • Just imagine: this technology has the potential to completely destroy capitalism! The whole supply/demand paradigm will be meaningless in a situation of infinite supply

    Of course, it might destroy the demand for physical objects. Yes, services might still be worth money (entertainers, prostitutes, etc.), but other than that, the only thing you'll have to spend your money on will be... ENERGY! Because it's still needed to make all this "free" stuff. And even energy will probably be cheap as the Sahara is covered with mass-produced photovoltaic cells.

    Oh wait. Are you an actor, musician or prostitute? No? What will you do all day, now that you don't have to work? Hmm, I know, PLAY WITH UNLIMITED LEGO! (see my previous post)

  • If anything is going to push these to market, its going to be the Internet porn business. "Now available for download, $50.99, Sylvia Saint's Pelvis in Postscript-3D"

    Talk about netsex.

    Heh
  • here [canoe.ca] is a link from slashdot where the same thing is used to make robots.
  • I can just see it now. The old sit on the copier, or bare your chest over the Xerox machine is going to add a whole new dimension to office pranks!
  • Never mind the huge implications for high-tech industry, 3D printing is being hailed by many as the "Santa Claus machine". "Toy manufacturers will put their file of Mickey Mouse on the Internet and people will simply pay to download it," says Chris Ryall of Warwick University.
    I can see it all now:

    Today the AFAA (Action Figure Association of America) applied for a court injunction against the new 3-D printers that have become so popular. 'Until these printers can be prevented from creating copyrighted designs, they need to be kept out of consumer's hands,' said an AFAA spokesperson. Congress reacting quickly, after being handed huge bags with $ signs on them, quickly enacted, the Save the Children Act, which made it illegal for anyone outside of a corporation to own one of these printers. When asked why, a congressman said, "Um... Oh, I saw this movie once where this guy made a plastic gun, we have to think of the children!" This reporter is suspicious as it is well known that congressmen don't watch movies...

  • Nothing New (Score:4)

    by Accipiter ( 8228 ) on Thursday September 28, 2000 @08:28AM (#746950)
    This technology is nothing new, but amazing nonetheless.

    I was watching the Discovery Channel one night, and they had a show about this stuff. Basically, you have a tank of clear polymer. Computer controlled lasers are used to fire beams at the polymer. When the laser beam hits the liquid, it solidifies. They construct items millimeter by millimeter. As one layer is solidified, the bottom of the vat drops down slightly, and the next layer is constructed.

    I watched them build a little mini-model of the Space Shuttle using this. (They sped up the photography, and it was facinating to watch.)

    Imagine having this hooked up to a computer. You can "print out" physical objects! Use their example, say, a spare part for your dishwasher. An 'L' pipe connector for instance. Your L connector break? Go to www.maytag.com, download the instructions for your 3D printer to construct a new part! Manufacturer's construction costs are eliminated!

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • I've seen two different types: the really expensive ones and the really rough ones. Both are extremely cool geek toys.

    I took a tour of Lockheed Martin's missile plant once, and they had a $500k stereolithography machine that produced high-quality 3D resin models by repeatedly tracing over a pool of liquid with a powerful laser. The liquid it used was $300 per gallon (or something ridiculous like that), but it produced excellent results. It could turn a CAD model into a very high precision plastic model in a few hours. This box looks roughly like a big popcorn machine. I wonder if it goes "Ding!" when the model is finished...

    Georgia Tech's mechanical engineering department has a couple of much cheaper machines that use a special powder instead of a liquid. I think the basic principle is the same, but it's cheap enough to allow students free run of the lab (a couple of MechE's across the hall were geeking out with this machine a while back, and I saw some of their models). Unfortunately, the quality was not very good at all, and the models would crumble fairly easily. Fine for simple prototypes though, just probably not good for testing tightly interlocking parts. I think the cheaper machines are much faster as well.

    -John
  • especially in that, given the different types of thes printers, some use metal, some use plastic, you could feasably use these to build induvidual parts of a more complex item, and then assemble said Item. Granted, you are going to be building any high end electronice with it, but look how these would affect the manufacturing sector. Use your High Impact Plastic printer to make lawn funiture, use the ceramic one to make your own fine china or just everyday cookware, ditto to the metal one. You could concievably use a large metal printer to build cars, although assembly woul be by hand and they would lack sophisticated electronics. Some of these things could easily be designed from scratch by the average user and wreack havoc on a lot of industries, where other industries that use more specialized componants, can sell said components along with the patterns needed to make the rest of the object. This,c oncievably, could be the next industrial revolution, but benefiting the consumer more and more, or it could be used by you average money hungry corporations to corner markets. Either way, it will be interesting to watch.

  • Napster 3000 (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This could take napster and hotline to a new level. Why trade music and software when you can trade computers and instruments if this ever actually works it could really, really, change the world.
  • At the very least, you'd think that a computer of the 24th century could handle "hot Earl Grey tea." Sheesh.
  • 2000 - (now)
    2020 - Software can make replicate hardware.
    2030 - Software gets artificial intelligence.
    2050 - [KABOOM]
    2199 - You get to meet Morphious
  • Now I can use this to print my very own Natalie Portman :)

    (Moderate me down but if I hadn't said it someone else would have).

    kc.
  • This'll be great!!!. We'll be able to send all sorts of stuff around places, starting with oranges, until the MCP gets his hooks into it. Just hope that Flynn and TRON are up to the challenge again.

  • Dammit! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Don't do that!
    The last time Arthur asked the nutrimat for tea, it bogged down all the computers on the "Heart of Gold".
  • The army might be able to print a tank trak or cylinder head, but could they print a piston? The point being that the metallurgy of a piston is VERY different than a cylinder head or tank track.

    Reproducing the shape and size of an object is not the same as reproducing the object (as Arthur Dent soon discovered about replicated tea). Things are made out of expensive/cheap/hard/soft/strong/weak materials, because it is a critical part of the design. Of course things could be redesigned to use the 128 materials that your printer contains.

    On second thought, maybe I'm in the wrong industry...

  • There is a darker side of this device. I could personally fabricate a gun with this. When I was 12, I had designed a machine gun, and had full plans for it layed out in my head, and if I had access to such a thing, I would have made it at the bat of an eye. Not to shoot anybody, just to make it, and be proud that I had designed something that worked. Just like kids writing virii, I designed weapons. And I wrote a trojan horse.
    Unlike me, some people like to USE these weapons on people, and some kid will eventually make a gun, or worse, and use it on somebody. Then the printers will be recalled, and will have government-written proprietary drivers that will scan for possible gun pieces, bomb pieces, etc. Using your own drivers will be illegal. Worse, the printer might send everything you print to the government... say goodbye to printing your 3d kiddie porn... (mmm... ceramic and steel 8 yr. old...)
    Will be nice, though, to be able to fabricate stuff easily when I'm designing something... Translucent plastics will be fun... *rolls eyes*
  • Let me be the first to say, 'Holodeck, here we come!'
  • I used to use Painter a lot (back when 2.0 was the cutting edge, and it was still "Fractal Design"), and about three years ago, I started on a project to create a 3D analog of the liquid media tools, using special input devices (paired gloves, using knuckle sensors, which I eventually plan to replace with some sort of positional sensor product) and a 3D "printer" that uses sugar and a seriously canibalized hp inkjet (approx. 300 dpi) to produce a layered approximation of 3D blocks. I've been playing with methods of layering doped silicon for a while, hoping to get a quartz block version of this medium, preferably at much higher resolutions. When I saw this article, that was my first thought. Unfortunately, on closer inspection, I doubt it would be feasible. Does anyone know of any technologies that might? I have a background in solid state physics and materials, but it hasn't ever led me to a solution...
  • Well I suppose I could have worded it better but I didn't think anyone would care exactly how I worded it. I guess I could have said "As the article said this is an advanced step in a long process towards the goal of home fabrication of 3D objects from a descriptor file. As I remember the last time I heard about this was several years ago when Newsweek had an article on the process of printing 3D objects in plastics." Whew.. that's sort of spammy. ;>
  • /*
    Hey, wait a second, shouldn't it be "Wine, Red, Cold," why in the heck does our "French" Captain Jean-Luc Picard seem so
    British???
    */

    The English Invasion of 2263? ;^)
  • I've also seen some of the really weird stuff done with massive numbers of paper "cutouts" pasted together.
    Paul Haeberli did this - all the way back in 1977, apparently: Paper and Plotter: A 3D Surface [sgi.com]

    Pretty neat.
    ----------

  • Cut here, Insert tab A into slot B. This is not new, I remember them from when i was a kid 30 years ago.
  • Natalie Portman! But really, isn't this the same type thing that made the automated robots that walk accross desks? Remember that article? That used a similar machine i believe.
  • Perhaps you should consider reading the article before reflexively hitting the Submit button to get a low post number. The process is stereolithography, and it's mentioned in the article.

    The difference between the old fashioned stereolithography and what the article is about is this: The article is based around pushing 3d printing for use in the home, not just engineering firms.

    They talk about printing plastics, metals and ceramics, but they left out the most important two of all:

    Latex and silicon!

    (mumbling)She's my creation, is it real? Weird science, da da.....

  • They mention that in the article

    The differences are (a) they're working on "printing" things with combinations of different materials and (b) they're speculating that these "3D printers" might be able to be mass-produced for "ordinary consumers".

  • They say it over and over again in the article, but I'm still skeptical: does this technology really make parts strong enough to be used in high-stress mechanical environments, like washing-machine parts or tank bogies or treads or whatever the example was? I didn't think sintered metal was that strong.

    'Cuz if it does, sign me up!

  • The article talks about devices that are closer to a laser printer or inkjet printer, in technology, than the MDX15, which just happens to be a very nice, very advanced milling machine.

    It's still about $10k for something that can 'print' 3d objects.

    The nick is a joke! Really!
  • I'd agree. Intel, AMD, etc work on getting the resolution down and making it cheaper to produce the chips and make their profits off of it during the process and then sell the production units to others and turn into raw materials and blueprint providers. It could happen. Woo the future of Tech companies is in mining. Let me call my broker! :)

  • 3D Printers (Score:5)

    by ToyBuilders ( 237842 ) on Thursday September 28, 2000 @12:52PM (#746976)
    Hello all, I'm new to this site and I'm also President of ToyBuilders.com the website mentioned in the New Scientist article. First let me say that articles usually never get all of the fact exactly right and so it goes with this one. We were not aware of the article until last night when someone sent a email indicating it existed. We describe 5 technologies on our website that cover most of what is commercially available in the US there are several others in Japan, Israel and other countries. We talk about the 5 technologies that we have immediate access to and those technologies that meet our safety requirements regarding material safety. Onto the business of Star Trek like replicators.... These technologies have been around for roughly 11 years and I have been in the Rapid Prototyping business for nearly that long as well. The stereolithography process has been around the longest and it uses a UV curable liquid polymer as its build material. Others use nylon, metal, wax, paper, polycarbonate and sand. There are new materials being introduced every day and with the introduction of the more reasonably priced machines we decided it was time to introduce the general public to the limitless possibilities that these machines posses. While initially it seems that the material price is expensive ($380 per gallon) look at it on a part by part basis! The sample part on our website would cost the consumer about $20. Lets keep in mind that these machines will build literally anything you can imagine and yes you can build moving parts, complex shapes that can not be made using any other method. We have even take CT and MRI data and converted it a solid model that can be made on these machines. There are no limitations! We were concern if the general public would have any interest in this stuff and I must say in the 2 months the site has been up we have had well over 300,000 hits with no advertising and about a 0.5% purchase thru rate! Not bad! I'll leave it here and would love to here any comments you folks have. I was glad to hear about this site and glad to be a member. Karl R. Denton President ToyBuilders.com
  • Say that the process is refined to the point that you can make your own circuit boards(!).

    The technology to 'print' circuit boards is already around. Do a search for "Printable polymer-based semiconductor electronics" on your favourite search engine, and you should come up with a couple of links. There's a conference on this stuff in San Francisco, November 2 - 3, 2000 (according to this link [knowledgefoundation.com] I got from Google [google.com] as a result for my query [google.com] for "Printable polymer-based semiconductor electronics").

  • Link to a post commenting on printable circuit boards" [slashdot.org]

    Beyond it's *current* capabilities, certainly. Beyond it's projected capabilities? I dunno. I hope not. It'd be neat to be able to craft together your own MP3 player!


    The nick is a joke! Really!
  • So you read the article, and then posted "I remember seeing something very similar several years ago", when that "something very similar" was something that they specifically referred to in the article.

    Maybe you did read the article. It's pretty easy to see why it sounded like you didn't. [shrug] "It's only a message board ... Don't take it so seriously."

  • When I was making an effort to get into the special efects industry, I remember some places having 3D printers of sorts. They were big tanks (like taller than a person and wide... wider than arms spread), and then there were two lasers on two sides of it. They could then feed the computer that was attached to it a 3D model, it would then move the lasers around and where they converged would leave the liquid there as a hard thing. It was really expensive to use, and very few places used it b/c there was still much time required afterwards to get it perfect (when the lasers converged, they'd form a hard spot, but there was noise in the system, so instead of a point, you'd get a star and after those add up you get lots of little bumps and stuff).
    very cool to see a human being built before your eyes though - but usually it was smaller things built. slow too.
    all the benefits, slow, expensive, and not all that good. (I should add the requisite Slashdot MS bashing here - but I'll leave it up to you)
    -------------------------------------------- ------

  • uhm... (Score:3)

    by Clay Mitchell ( 43630 ) on Thursday September 28, 2000 @08:34AM (#746995) Homepage
    they already have these. they are called "replicators". they are used to make "tea. early grey. hot."

    all joking aside, this would actually be pretty much useless for the common joe. why? say you need a... light bulb. "polymer goop" is neither glass nor metal, two substances you need to make a light bulb. it can't be auto magically transformed into it either. so unless you're a mega rich guy or a corporation, and can have big vats of polymer gooped aluminum" i don't see where this will help anybody...
  • This is actually a good look at what people may face, and how insane some recent legal acrobatics are.

    If we have 3D printers that can print most things (let's say something like an .OBJ file with a UV texture map, simple), then people could in theory make anything. Then, what is to stop them from making their own versions of copyrighted toys and other elements? Nothing, though you can bet some comapnies will try.

    Worse, for the comapnies, people can make their own versions - maybe you've got a programmable voice chip system you can toss inside your 3D-printed doll. Custom toy, totally unique. Or maybe you want to duplicate that neat weapon that isn't included with the figure.

    The Information Age gave us ways to share and copy information. Now that it's physical objects, what limits are there?

    This could just make Napster look like nothing. I eagerly await the future just to see what happens.
  • I've actually seen a machine in action that can produce models of CAD-designed objects in a very cost-effective manner. I can't remember the name of the thing, but it was actually called a printer. You would put a grainy sort of substance in it and it would basically go through and add layers based on the CAD design. IIRC it was accurate to around 1/64 inch. At the time we were doing models of a CAD-designed PDA, and a model could be produced for just a couple of dollars.

    Of course they also had the machine over in the manufacturing building that they wouldn't let the undergrads near... it used lasers and was exponentially more expensive.
  • > What's needed for this to happen is a "killer
    > application"--one that will turn 3D printers
    > into something that everyone wants to buy.

    Uhh, what's the same "killer app" for everything else computer related in the past?

    Pr0n!

    That's right... print out your own model of Laetitia Casta or your own John Holmes. In the privacy of your own home, you won't even need to take those "embarassing" trips to that shady store downtown.

    These things will sell like hotcakes. :)

    -Chris
  • So, now I can duplicate my 'do not duplicate' keys without having to use a triangle file?!
    --

  • Different (Score:4)

    by 2nd Post! ( 213333 ) <gundbearNO@SPAMpacbell.net> on Thursday September 28, 2000 @08:36AM (#747011) Homepage
    This setup is slightly different than the standard 3d pringing setup.

    While basically the same, it adds the ability to color your print. The developers, if you read the article, had an epiphany-changing colors is not technologically different than changing materials, say soft plastics, hard plastics, ceramics, etc.

    It's just a function of chemistry, reactions, computation, storage, etc.

    And if, 5 years ago, people were paying 2k+ for computers, it stands to reason, due to inflation and all, that people would be willing to pay 3k+ or so for their PCs today. However, since PCs are actually cheaper, that leaves room for nifty Digicams, wide format color inkjet printers, etc.

    The nick is a joke! Really!

  • They didn't mention time (Score:3)

    by Nightbane ( 21511 ) on Thursday September 28, 2000 @08:37AM (#747012)
    At my college we have had a rapid prototyping center years, isn't anything new. Sure new advances are making it more and more useful, but the article still failed to mention two things.

    One is the time required to make the object. Sure it is faster then regular manufacturing, but it isn't anything like a few minutes, more like a few hours. Second is the strength and durability of the objects. Most Rapid Prototyping machines either use plastic which is hardened by a laser, or a powder which is glued together. The objects however aren't that strong, accidently bump it, or rub it wrong and pieces will fall off.

    Sure Rapid Prototyping makes manufacturing and design a whole heck of a lot simplier but it is still years away from being in the normal joe's office.
  • Now I can print all the multicolor Legos I want!

  • News? How about "Reminder of what's available" (Score:3)

    by mr.ska ( 208224 ) on Thursday September 28, 2000 @08:39AM (#747015) Homepage Journal
    News, indeed.

    For many years people or companies with the desire and money (and we're not talking million$ either) could go and buy a rapid prototyping machine. You can get really expensive (thermoset polymers) all the way down to really cheap (layered wax deposition) and anywhere in between (glued layers of paper) and get what you want. Heck, someone I did a job for wanted me to model a new alarm fob case for him because his old one broke, and he was going to run it on the company machine.

    Just to be sure, it's "No news is good news", not "Old news is good news", right? Hello?

  • How pricey/out there is it to have a stereolithography scanner? What if you had the printer, but wanted to make duplicates of your just-made scanner or hard-to-find toys? I remember seeing a laser that moved around Robert Patrick's head in the making of T2.
  • It's pretty interesting technology... Current stage is pretty far from what the article indicates. Most of the processes take a lot post-processing work. Stereolithography, for example, requires a 24 hour curing period after the part gets constructed with resin. Then to get the part looking like a real product, you have to sand, and sand, and sand, and buff, and paint. (it doesn't come out looking like an iMac). The grandma glasses that was mentioned in the article... heheh. No comment, maybe someday.

    I hear that one good application is on closed environments such as ships. If a part breaks while on a mission, you can use such a device to fabricate the part (that you'd grab from an already modeled 3d database) rather than having to carry a room full of spare parts.

    Another plus not mentioned in the article is that conventional manufacturing techniques limit the shape of the part - the mold has to eventually break away from the part. Rapid Prototyping techniques can create very unconventional shapes.

  • quite right... as other posts have noted, mechanical strength of rapid-prototyped parts is a big problem too. the new scientist article mentions that this kind of particle by particle assembly may lead to stronger materials than you would get by casting or forging, but controlling the size and shape of the individual crystal grains in an object is far beyond the current capabilities of any of these technologies.

    also, having handled some parts produced by relatively sophisticated 3-d inkjet printers, I can say that the results are in pressive, but the surface quality is poor; until someone comes up with a way to print smooth, hard surfaces, moving parts will be out of the question.

    a further disadvantage, at least in plastic parts, is that by printing the material from individual droplets of material or some kind of powder in a resin matrix, you lose the benifits of having long chain polymer molecules extending throughout your part... these long chains play a large part in making plastic strong and flexible.

    right now, rapid-prototyping technology is probably more useful for the rapid production of molds to cast other parts with, so then high precision machining procedures can be used to get your final result. I imagine many of the technical obstacles to producing useful objects will be circumvented with new techniques in the coming years, but it will be a long time before everyday, durable objects are made this way.

  • I need me one of those Escheresque boxes with the mucked up perspective.
  • "Where's that Lego brick... where is it? I saw it here a few seconds ago. Oh, crap! I used it already. There must be another... somewhere... Oh, forget it. I'll just print me a new one."

  • I've seen this used for years in the space industry. We used them for rapid prototyping.

    We would design a spacecraft, drawing it all up in 3D in CAD, then transmit the CATIA file over to the stereolith dept, who would process it over night to create the spacecraft.

    There were some little drawbacks and quirks. The plastic is a bit flimsy, so in order to have arms (such as the ones that deploy the solar array wings) someone needs to edit the 3D CAD file to remove those bits, and after the model is created, to put metal wires in and glue things together.

    In fact, in the hands of a good plastic model builder with a few week's time, some pretty incredible results can be achieved. One spacecraft we designed had a really tricky maneuver and deployment sequence, and our model maker took time to put in the rotational mechanics so that we could use the model to play around with how this would work. (Sometimes when you can play with a real toy you can figure stuff out in a LOT less time than if it was only in your head or a whiteboard.)

  • considering that it runs on highly refined raw materials (crude oil -> polymers, ore -> metals, etc) I seriously doubt capitalism has anything to fear from this type of device. Especially when you consider that you need to further break any items back down if the raw material is not to remain inert. If there's an oil crunch worthy of the national reserves right now, just think how scarce the stuff would be when everyone starts to demand it so they can make their own Natalie Portman dolls.

  • Re:Nothing New (Score:3)

    by fritter ( 27792 ) on Thursday September 28, 2000 @10:34AM (#747035)
    snip...
    You forgot:
    • jonkatz writes a breathless, ultraspeculative, hype-laden article about how this will demolish those "fat cats" in Washington forever, and somehow ties it in with Columbine.
  • Seriously, the availability of 3D printers, either as home models for cheap plastic crap or expensive numbers in service bureaus for metal, could create a whole counterculture of hardware. Obviously, you won't be making computer hardware with these, except maybe cool component cases, but think of the possibilities:
    • Toys are, of course, obvious. I guarantee you that there are plenty of /.'ers who could come up with much cooler action figures, dolls, and other toys than Mattel and Hasbro. And I imagine that not a few of them would make the source available for free, and the rest might sell the source cheaply. What does that do to giant toy companies? Well, it screws them into the ground. It's not that Mattel and Hasbro are that damn creative -- they just happen to be able to afford manufacturing equipment. Think how many plastic printers you could sell to the miniatures-and-modelling set.

    • Fashion. Same deal. Glasses, costume jewelry, various and sundry accessories. Include in this category things like the aforementioned component cases. You think the iMac looks cool? I can think of about a dozen people I know personally who could do better.

    • Art and Decor. This should be self-explanatory. Ever buy replicas of antique moulding or architectural details? Then you know what I mean.

    • Classic automobiles. As a proud owner of a slowly recrudescing 1977 Volkswagen bus, I have a hell of a time finding some parts, especially since '77 buses aren't as collectible as the '69-and-before set. I'm sure other vintage-auto enthusiasts are in the same boat, and ditto for people who like to restore other vintage mechanical equipment, like cameras, classic computing devices (I'm thinking adding machines here), guns, and so on. This will never compete with parts that are available via traditional manufacturing, but if the only way you can get a part is through laser sintering, well...

    • Pollution. Manufacturers, who are few and far between, have managed to fill every landfill on the planet with plastic crap. When every dip-doodle who can afford a copy of Print Shop Pro Turbo 3D Gold can churn out hideous kitsch, things will only get worse. Think of the horror of garage sales in thirty years! Ai!


    --

  • Re:No moving parts... no truly "magic" b (Score:3)

    by xtal ( 49134 ) on Thursday September 28, 2000 @08:41AM (#747041)

    While I'm not a mechanical engineer, my girlfriend is, and some of the things you can do with modern CnC equipment and injection molding gear is incredible. The costs of this equipment are coming down dramatically, especially if you just want to manufacture small items.

    While the machine can't build other machines - yet - the capability to design things and assemble them later is most definately here, although the price is currently prohibitive. We're planning to get a small CnC machine when she graduates in hopes of recovering some of the cost for the equipment by doing custom work locally for people. CAD is amazing stuff if you're artistically gifted - I'm not - but I can write code to make the machine dance, heh heh.

    Don't rule this technology out. It'll never be cheaper than good 'ol mass production techniques, but it can't be beat for custom items and prototyping. The university builds complex robots with simple parts made from equipment like this all the time.

  • So if I can download a computer and print it out that means we can swap computer plans on Techster (Napster for components you spaz) and never hafta pay some shmuck for the computer. Or even better we can make an entirely GPL'd computer. We're getting into nanotech-age issues here. How do you think laws such as the DMCA will effect us now?
  • I have had the oportunity to play with and enable one of these Printers at my place of employment. It is quite a cool toy, but that is all it really is. We have printed out many "wrenches" (3d test file that came with machine) but have yet to make any reall parts. Why you ask? Well the people who bought a $300,000 Stereolithography printer a few years back to print up these parts are upset because they are afraid of loosing funding to this newer cheaper, faster model. Hmmm sounds like so many other things discussed here at slashdot oh well ... The more things change the more they stay the same.
  • Rapid prototyping??? Been around for years, however the costs seem to be comming down.

    In school a couple years ago, we were working on a portible rapid prototyping machine that could be used in all weather conditions. The idea was that a computer was carried around with a CAD catalog of parts for tanks and other equipment. Instead of carrying several tons of spare parts for a military campeign, someone could just fill the machine with epoxy, and in a couple minuites, have whatever part needed. Other aplications were space, as you can imagine such a machine could reduce payload weights tremendously. However getting the machine to work in microgravity seemed to be a rather large block when using liquids in a gravity dependant process.

    bort

    (a million things to say, and two minuites to say it in, sorry about not proofreading this.
  • I've seen a few of these machines, and all the processes so far produce flimsy stuff. The liquid-based machines require a liquid that becomes a solid when hit by a suitable laser beam, and the plastics that do that are exotic. The powder-based machines require a powder that bonds into a solid material, and while you can do that with metals, you don't get a high-strength bond at room temperature and moderate pressures.

    Steel tank treads seem a long way off.

    If you just want to make metal parts, any good computer-controlled multi-axis milling machine can do the job. Works fine. If you have the right CAD sofware, you can mail in a file and get a part back from your local CNC machine shop. You get a much broader choice of materials, too.

  • Something worth understanding, for those of you who haven't spent much time in factories where real stuff gets made, is where parts come from. Most end-user products are made by some kind of forming process that uses a "mould" of some kind. There are about a hundred variations on this theme:
    • Casting Pour hot liquid into mould; wait for it to solidify. Most machined parts start from a casting that's close to the final part.
    • Injection moulding Force hot liquid into 3D mould. Usually used on plastics.
    • Blowing Use air to force semiliquid material into mould. Usually used on glass or plastic, but aluminum cans are blown.
    • Forging Use big hammer to force heat-softened material into die. Usually used on metals.
    • Stamping Use big hammer to force cold material into die. Usually used on sheet metals, but also works on wire. Often, a series of stamping dies are used for progressive stamping. That's how little stuff like screws and connector pins are often made.
    • Die rolling Roll round chunk of material between two dies moving in opposite directions. Used to make better screws, round parts.
    During the first half of the 20th century, processes were developed to do all of these operations at high speed in huge volume at very low cost. This is why manufactured stuff is cheap.

    You can also make just about anything those processes can make with a good multi-axis CNC milling machine. But it will cost a lot more than a part produced in volume, and will take minutes to hours per part. And the second one won't be much cheaper than the first. Machining something out of a solid block of plastic or metal is usually done only for prototypes, tooling, and the occasional urgently needed repair part.

    This is the basic problem with on-demand manufacturing. It works fine, but it's slow, tying up expensive machinery for hours to make a small part.

    These new processes have much the same problem; they're slow. It takes a long time to build up a solid object layer by layer. There are special situations when it's worth it, but it's not a production technology.

    Interestingly, the same economics applies to IC fabrication. ICs are normally fabricated by photolithography, using masks. It's possible to make ICs by directly writing the wafer with an electron beam under computer control. Works fine. Allows smaller line sizes than optical systems. Experimental ICs have been made that way since the late 1970s. But it's too slow for volume production.

  • Wouldn't it be great... (Score:4)

    by HobophobE ( 101209 ) on Thursday September 28, 2000 @08:20AM (#747058) Homepage
    ...to simply download a file off the net and print a copy of the new metallica cd?!

    -HobophobE

  • Practical Use Today (Score:3)

    by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Thursday September 28, 2000 @10:40AM (#747060)
    I've seen two of these types of "printers" in use over the last few years at NASA. The engineers rave about the ability to develop models of whatever parts they're working on quickly and for far less cost than actually machining a part. Aparently, there's nothing quite like having a physical model to look at and put up against other parts you're working with.

    One 3D printer was the polymer style. These produce some rather resiliant models but take considerably longer to produce. The group I supported used these models for parts they were expecting to travel to other centers with (presentations, comparisons, etc) or if they thought this was pretty close to "done". One of the coolest demos I saw using this was a ship in a bottle - the bottle being latticework so you could see the inside ship's details.

    A later printer I helped set up for the group was basically a wax-jet printer. A table was moved about as a jet squirted shots of a plastic-like wax; slowly building a model. Gaps in the model were filled with very thin support columns which were easily cleaned away once the model was finnished. One engineer used this to generate molds for resin heart pump test parts. This enabled him to make small changes, generate a physical part quickly, and then test the performance of the part. He was thrilled.

    Like others have pointed out, this technology has been around for awhile. But its still interesting.

  • Was it a "rapid prototyper"?

    That sounds right. I think I remember it being called a Z-CORP something or other. But maybe I'm making it up.
  • The medical community has been experimenting with laser-epoxy 3D printers to make molds for bone plates. They model the needed shape on a computer, and the printer is a plate of epoxy fluid that gets hardened by heat and rises to the surface. They trace along the edges with a laser and the thing rises slowly out of the pool. Then they use that as a mold for the real plate which will be made out of surgical steel or something like that. This is not to say that the skull plate that the average /. troll has as a result of the prerequisite brain-damaging injury is made that way, but it has been in at least limited use outside of laboratories for a little while.
  • I've seen 3D printing in comercial industry for over 5 years now. The tech is of course neat, but I question if it would reach the level of interest needed to actually hit those prices.

    It's not like this is 95, and the average computer was $2000+. People are used to paying under a grand for a computer setup. It seems like buying a printer that is twice the cost of the computer itself isn't going to fly. Get it down to $500, then we'll talk.
  • BZZT!

    White wine is served cold. Red wine is served at room temperature.
  • ...but it seems like there's a reasonably simple answer for the problem the article speaks of in regard to the huge amounts of data needed to encode all of the "voxels" of a complex 3D object, at least in most cases.

    In most objects, you're not going to be using a great variety of different materials, and those you use are going to be arranged in (usually) fairly logical patterns. You've got a lump of aluminum over here, a strip of some polymer over there, etc. You usually wouldn't want a voxel of aluminum here, the next one is iron, the next one is plastic, randomly dispersed. (Unless the voxel resolution was very coarse.)

    So, like with some 2-D graphical formats, adjacent voxels of the same color, material, etc., could get encoded together. To represent a 200x200x200 cube of aluminum, you don't need to specify each of the 8 million voxels; rather, a handful of coordinates will suffice. Obviously, this is a degenerate case, but even in more "real" cases, this would provide dramatic improvements over what they seemed to be discussing in that part of the story.

    It also seems like some sort of "polyhedronal" (like polygonal, except in 3d) encoding, like is used by many video accelerators, might also provide some benefit.

    Of course, this all seems too obvious for the companies working on this not to have thought of, so I'll just go back to my corner now...

  • they left out the most important two of all:

    Latex and silicon!

    What about the (legendary) petrified hot grits (tm)? You could make your own Natalie Portman doll and carry it in your pants...

  • Uhh exactly. Duh. I was agreeing that I remember seeing it. I always wonder about people who think every post has to be brilliant. It is only a message board guys. Don't take it so seriously. Only brilliant posts earn karma but that doesn't mean I can't just be chatty in hopes that someone else remembers the same thing. I found the article interesting and in fact did read it before posting. Go spank the people typing 'First Post!!!'. :)
  • only to find that replacement material cartridges cost $3995.00. :))
    And it only runs on Windows...
  • From my experience with these (on & off over the past 4 years) basically they will only do SINGLE part simple objects. You can do joints as long as they are very loose and simple as you said.

    The surface detail has improved over the years greatly, but they are limited by many factors, complex undercuts, for example are very hard to get to turn out right. Multi angle bevels often turn to rounds or single bevels. Whatever you do dont try to show surface textures (my boss made me once...bad idea). Tolerances have improved too, but the more complex the object/shape the looser your tolerance requirements have to be.

    Having said that these are great for rapid proto of things like cases and other parts, but it's definately prototyping. Lots of up front model planning time is needed. I have often made a copy of the model in question and eliminated non-essential detail to use with the printers. Carefull trimming after print, of flash type material, and some creative assembly, and there is something useable. Usefull, coming along slowly, but A LONG LONG way from what the article is talking about.

  • New? (Score:2)

    by pb ( 1020 )
    A lot of people are saying that this is somehow new or different than the 3-D printing technology we've already heard about.

    It's not.

    I saw this years and years ago in Wired in the Fetish section, back when Wired was somewhat fun to read. Yes, it scanned, assembled, and built the parts, and colored them too.

    The difference is, now it's cheaper. Well, so is the computer on my desktop; I could have gotten the same computing power back then, but it would have cost exponentially more.

    But apparently both of these are news on slashdot: "Old tech cheaper now"=="Moore's Law Still Sorta Works", and whatnot...
    ---
    pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate [ncsu.edu].

  • Re:Humor and sanity . . . (Score:3)

    by Accipiter ( 8228 ) on Thursday September 28, 2000 @09:15AM (#747086)
    Couldn't I just scan in some copyrighted mechanical widget and then people could print it out? How many industries will be impact by the ability to print out material at home?"

    This takes piracy to a whole new level.

    "HE PIRATED MY LIGHTSWITCH PLATE."

    Or if a company used these things to make spare parts, and charged for the instructions....what's to stop you from giving those instructions to someone who needs it? We'll have a whole new DeCSS-like fiasco, but with hardware. Scary.

    -- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?

  • Where as now it is easy to rip off a friends copy of say, Microsoft Office, people will now be able to pirate anything that they can lay their hands on the digital/physical print file for.

    We could for instance, print out new Cue:Cats! Kinda puts a whole new meaning on the stealing of their IP.

    -Pete

  • No moving parts... no truly "magic" box (Score:5)

    by kabir ( 35200 ) on Thursday September 28, 2000 @08:22AM (#747097)
    Or perhaps I should say "very few moving parts". Contrary to the implication of the article, even simple machines are mostly beyond the scope of this technology. It's main application is creating solid plastic, single piece objects. While there isn't, strictly speaking, a reason that this object could construct certain varieties of joints, etc. they would have to be reasonably loose (to avoid fusing them into one object) and unlubricated. More likely, componants of simple manchines could be fabricated for later assembly.

    This technology has actually been around for some time, and, don't get me wrong, it's very cool, but this is a huge cry from arbitrary fabrication of objects.

    So we aren't quite at Star Trek Replicator level yet.
    --
  • I love these devices, though usually you can't use them for much of use being that the objects are 3D representations, not 3D tools. Things that should bounce and such won't of course... and things can break, but it is great for making new toys. We had one for making 3D models of building sites. We also took to making spheres with smaller spheres inside of them, and no seams on the outside!

  • Humor and sanity . . . (Score:5)

    by Badgerman ( 19207 ) on Thursday September 28, 2000 @08:24AM (#747105)
    After I read this, my first thought was "this is going to take photocopying your backside as a joke to a whole new level."

    However, in all seriousness, even with some of the jokes her about 3D porn, there are going to be uses for this technology that we'll have to strain to imagine, and implications we're not forseeing. A few thoughts:

    1) I use Bryce and Poser for 3D images, mainly for fun. I could now make dioramas, and it's not incocievable I could eventually make home made action figures and other elements as gifts.
    2) What will this do to intellectual property and other property concepts? Couldn't I just scan in some copyrighted mechanical widget and then people could print it out? How many industries will be impacted by the ability to print out material at home?
    3) We're making technology that produces technology. Could we create systems where you can actually "print" a new peripheral for your system and then install it? Ala the Infinite Improbability Drive, will I some day print out a new 3D Printer??

    We used the 3D world to make computing, and now computing is making objects. The results will be interesting to watch.
  • I write software for these systems - (former employee, now consultant). It was fun to run a test overnight, come to work in the morning and have 14 little resin models of the starship enterprise waiting for you. The algorithms are fun - similar requirements to computer graphics, but interestingly different (I got about 5 patents for 3DSystems, back when I was young and naive and didn't understand that software patents are evil...). Good times, nice high end SGI boxes to play with (my Linux box has only just caught up with the system I was using 7 years ago - coppermine,GeForce, SuSE 7.0, and open source OpenInventor feels very similar to R10,000 with high-impact graphics card, but that was $50,000 worth not $2000) - fun job, but California is too damn sunny for my tastes, and Dilbert was too accurate to be funny back then.

    You could use it for everything from building someone's skull from an MRI scan - so the brain surgeon would know whay to do, to building models of the internals of Cruise missile warheads (single material, no moving parts though - a bit like the T1000 (terminator 2) but much slower), to Hawaii Barbie...

    There are several types of machine, accuracy tends to be about 5/1000 of an inch (injket based models do about 300dpi, but downfacing surfaces are shitty) takes about 10 hours for average part.
    It would be cool to use similar process on a larger scale for building office blocks.

    It was fun to find VRML models on the net, run a little conversion program and print them out. Another neat trick is to get yourself scanned and make a personal voodoo doll, but the software to fix the model is kinda tricky.
  • These aren't 3d printers. Try making a frying pan! "Oops, it fucking melted!!"

    These [216.33.187.174] are real 3D printers. Milling machines! They cut/scan Glass, metal, wood, clay etc.

  • Could a 3D printer print out a 3D printer?
  • The polymer goop stuff is available; the article talks about systems where multiple types of goops and mixes and stuff is put together. This is news, because there isn't anything that does this right now.

    It's the difference between... a black and white inkjet, and a 4 color inkjet. While technically the same process, a new procedure and setup is needed to deal with the additional colors and overhead.

    In this case, instead of colors, you get metals, cermaics, different types of plastics, and colors

    The nick is a joke! Really!

  • Re:3D Printers (Score:3)

    by SecretAsianMan ( 45389 ) on Friday September 29, 2000 @04:24AM (#747129) Homepage
    Lets keep in mind that these machines will build literally anything you can imagine and yes you can build moving parts, complex shapes that can not be made using any other method. We have even take CT and MRI data and converted it a solid model that can be made on these machines. There are no limitations!

    Really? So if I had the right data, I could manufacture a LCD screen, spaceship parts made of diamond, a pound cake, or even a living miniature replication of <supermodel>? Sorry, mister with the pointed hair, but I don't think we're there yet.

  • You aren't disagreeing with me, right? You do say

    "the people who were paying $2k five years ago are now spending $3k now - on computers + good stuff."

    So that means there is still a market for people who would buy a 'cheap' rapid prototyper, wide format printers, digicams, camcorders, etc.

    That's all I ever said, I think.

    The nick is a joke! Really!

Slashdot Top Deals

"In my opinion, Richard Stallman wouldn't recognise terrorism if it came up and bit him on his Internet." -- Ross M. Greenberg

Close