Slashdot Mirror
First Factory Use Of 'Replicator' For Spare Parts
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."
Does anyone know what the minimum scale that this gizmo can produce is? They've got some pictures of a fully-functional wrench (WOW!) on the Stratasys web site, which would imply that there's some fairly fine control (for the spinny groove things). I just ask since one of the coolest things I can imaging is a box like this spitting out a fully-functional (mechanical) watch. And of course, taking that to the most ridiculous extreme, having a box that could spit out a computer - in the form of Babbage's Difference Engine. ;-)
AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
- Reakk, Sluggy Freelance
"Although we have many sanders throughout the shop, most of them are continuously used. I didn't have to make the decision to pull a sander away from a less-critical production line. I was able to keep right on going. If we would have had to wait for a new part, that production line would have been down for a few days. It's been a month now, and the belt sander is still going strong.
"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.
Goat sex free since 2001
one of those machines could cut down on the amount of "extra" items that need to be shipped to the ISS
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...
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
This would be great for mankind, as the cost of production would be driven down dramatically, and you could literally have whatever you wanted for the cost of the raw materials to build it.
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
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.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?