Slashdot Mirror


3-D Printer Creates Buildings From Dust and Glue

An anonymous reader writes "D-Shape, an innovative new 3-D printer, builds solid structures like sculptures, furniture, even buildings from the ground up. The device relies on sand and magnesium glue to actually build structures layer by layer from solid stone. The designer, Enrico Dini, is even talking with various organizations about making the printer compatible with moon dust, paving the way for an instant moonbase!"

139 comments

  1. First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And then 3 more before we print

    1. Re:First Post by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      I think with one of these and some glue, and I could build a skyscraper out of the dust in my apartment, I'm finding as I prepare to move out...

  2. Power consumption by andsens · · Score: 1

    I wonder what the power consumption of a monster like this is.

    1. Re:Power consumption by jcr · · Score: 1

      Well, you've presumably got motors to move the print head in three axes, a compressor to drive the sand and the glue through the print head... I'd guess that its power consumption would probably be less than that of a small excavator like a Bobcat operating for the same amount of time.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    2. Re:Power consumption by Herve5 · · Score: 1

      The energy cost here won't be in the device power requirement, it'll be in preparing the glue. Think about the energetic cost of cement for instance, now consider the "super-glue" used is an even more ambitious cement...

      --
      Herve S.
  3. first use by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I want a Fred Flintstone house.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    1. Re:first use by idji · · Score: 4, Funny

      what do you mean? a thousand yards long for those endless running scenes, Or where a wife can lock her husband out but a raptor or sabre-tooth tiger can come in through any window?

    2. Re:first use by Cyberia · · Score: 2, Funny

      Okay, how long before the High-Capacity Building Cartridges are available? And will they only come 1/10th full? Perhaps the InkJet Manufacturer's have a new customer base to fleece... One slightly filled cartridge per color = PROFIT!

    3. Re:first use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want a Fred Flintstone house.

      im pretty sure he rented.

    4. Re:first use by tecnico.hitos · · Score: 1

      what do you mean? a thousand yards long for those endless running scenes, Or where a wife can lock her husband out but a raptor or sabre-tooth tiger can come in through any window?

      It isn't actually long, it has torus-shaped corridors. That's why the background keeps repeating.

      --
      The good, the evil and the vacuum tubes.
    5. Re:first use by david_thornley · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's worse than that - in the closing credits, the saber-tooth locks Fred out.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. "Magnesium glue"? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  5. Moondust-From Wikipedia by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1, Insightful

    There are concerns that the dust found on the lunar surface could cause harmful effects on any manned outpost technology and crew members:
    Abrasive nature of the dust particles may rub and wear down surfaces through friction;
    Negative effect on coatings used on gaskets to seal equipment from space, optical lenses that include solar panels and windows as well as wiring;
    Possible damage to an astronaut's lungs, nervous, and cardiovascular systems.
    The principles of astronautical hygiene should be used to assess the risks of exposure to lunar dust during exploration on the Moon's surface and thereby determine the most appropriate measures to control exposure. These would include for example, removing the spacesuit in a three stage airlock, vacuuming the suit before removal, using local exhaust ventilation with a high efficiency particulate filter to remove any dust in the space craft's atmosphere etc (Ref: Dr J R Cain presentation "The application of astronautical hygiene to protect the health of astronauts", UK Space Biomedicine Association Conference 2009, Downing College, University of Cambridge).
    The harmful properties of the lunar dust are not well known. However, based on studies of dust found on Earth, it is expected that exposure to lunar dust will result in greater risks to health both from direct exposure (acute) and if exposure is over time (chronic). This is because lunar dust is more chemically reactive and has larger surface areas composed of sharper jagged edges than Earth dust (Ref: Dr John R Cain, "Moon dust - a danger to lunar explorers" , Spaceflight, Vol 52, February 2010, pp60 - 65).

    Can you say bad Idea?

    --
    music lover since 1969
    1. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Heaven forbid they put a sealant on the interior facing walls. That's just pure lunacy!

    2. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by girlintraining · · Score: 5, Informative

      Can you say bad Idea?

      Fiberglass particulate is just as nasty and it's in your home right now! *ominous look upwards* Oh, wait... it's sealed behind a wall. Nevermind. Same principle apples to "space dust". Build the structure, then coat the insides or attach walls to make it a happy fun place for all.

      --
      #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    3. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      The dust would be suspended in glue. And the astronauts don't nee to be directly exposed to it -- they can use the dust to build the structure and then coat the internal surfaces. I assume we have paints with non-toxic fumes?

    4. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by Jeng · · Score: 2, Informative

      I can say bad idea, but I do not think this is a bad idea.

      Concrete dust has many of the properties of lunar dust. We know we will have to find a way to build with it if we are going to make a moon-base.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    5. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by kungfugleek · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but lack of an atmosphere can be hard on the lungs. We should really stay here where it's safe and warm.

    6. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1, Informative

      A bit more about moon dust -

      It's called regolith and isn't smooth. If you look at 'grit', such as sand or dirt or dust etc on earth, you'll find that it's all rounded by erosion. There is no erosion on the moon, so the 'grit' up there is all sharp.

      I think that humans won't have too much trouble with it as far as inhaling goes - it'll get trapped in mucus as well as all the other dust we inhale.

      Basically, it's different enough from Earth sand and dust to be interesting, but Earth grit is still abrasive. You probably wouldn't have any more trouble with your lenses than you would on Earth.

      Wait... haven't we already sent people to the moon? If it was going to wreck our solar panels, lenses, or people, wouldn't we have already found that out?

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    7. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by IndigoDarkwolf · · Score: 1

      So it's a bad idea for them to chip away at the walls of their moon base, once the moon base is glued together. But doesn't it follow that, no matter what material they use, they won't exactly want to be putting new holes into their space house?

    8. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      But how else will the astronauts get a nice cross breeze going? I've seen all those designs and they always seem to forget to put in windows that open. It would get so stuffy in there.

    9. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by hoggoth · · Score: 1

      > Moondust
      > pure lunacy!

      I see what you did there.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    10. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      I’m sorry?? That stuff is illegal since at least a decade now, isn’t it?
      It’s well-known that that ”sealing” never is really complete, and in practice of construction, there will always be some holes in it. I know because I know of families who nearly died from that. (In their cases it was really shoddy construction. But better construction still never makes the problem completely go away.)

      And something being bad is not a valid argument about how bad something else is.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    11. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I believe you're thinking of Asbestos insulation, not fiberglass sheets. Fiberglass is very common.

    12. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by iroll · · Score: 1

      And something being bad is not a valid argument about how bad something else is.

      No, but assessing comparable risks to put the "badness" in perspective is valid for argument.

      --
      Repetition does not transform a lie into the truth. - FDR
    13. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by Foogle · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of asbestos, maybe...

    14. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      The issue in part is the fact that it isn't clear that you can perfectly decontaminate material being passed through airlocks. So in fact sealing reduces the problem considerably but does not eliminate it by itself.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    15. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by tophermeyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I get your point that insulation in home construction is very different from construction with moon dust, however I do feel like I should make this one point:

      in practice of construction, there will always be some holes in it.

      If there is one group of people that ought to be very talented at building things that don't have holes, its astronauts.

    16. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Concrete dust has many of the properties of lunar dust.

      Well, except for the whole razor-sharp-jaggies-that-never-get-worn-down-by-weather property. And the, the-whole-moon-is-covered-with-that-crap property. But yeah, other than that, it's exactly the same. oO

    17. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think that humans won't have too much trouble with it as far as inhaling goes - it'll get trapped in mucus as well as all the other dust we inhale.

      Funny, you'd think the same thing about airborne silicon, and yet you'd be wrong:

      When small silica dust particles are inhaled, they can embed themselves deeply into the tiny alveolar sacs and ducts in the lungs, where oxygen and carbon dioxide gases are exchanged. There, the lungs cannot clear out the dust by mucous or coughing.

    18. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fiberglass insulation isn't exactly the healthiest thing on earth to breath either man.

    19. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by uncqual · · Score: 2, Funny

      Probably a bad ideas to drill holes in the walls -- but at least if they do, the dust from drilling will go outside rather than come inside (well, at least for a while, and by the time that's no longer true, no one inside will really care much anymore).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    20. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's called regolith and isn't smooth.

      Regolith is the geological name for for dust covered Lunar surface. Dust is the name for the dust. (Kinda like a beach is made up of sand.)
       

      Basically, it's different enough from Earth sand and dust to be interesting, but Earth grit is still abrasive. You probably wouldn't have any more trouble with your lenses than you would on Earth.

      Earth grit, which isn't exactly common outside of sandy or windblown areas, is abrasive. Earth dust, which like Lunar dust is ubiquitous, isn't. So to some extent you're comparing apples (ubiquitous non abrasive Earth dust) to oranges (ubiquitous abrasive Lunar dust.)
       

      Wait... haven't we already sent people to the moon? If it was going to wreck our solar panels, lenses, or people, wouldn't we have already found that out?

      We have already found out that in the very short term (think hours) Lunar dust is highly damaging to moving parts. much more so than terrestrial dust. (It even damages things that you wouldn't normally think of as a moving part - like folds in clothing, or between the fingers of gloves.) We don't really have enough experience with long terms operations in Lunar dust, especially in and around operations that will disturb the dust.
       
      But it's pretty clear that the dust is going to be a major problem for equipment like the machine described in TFA, as well as for mining machines associated with recovering lunar water.
       

      I think that humans won't have too much trouble with it as far as inhaling goes - it'll get trapped in mucus as well as all the other dust we inhale.

      Yeah, that's why we make people like miners, metal workers, woodworkers, and others who work around artificially produced (and thus still sharp) dust wear personal protective equipment.

    21. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by idontgno · · Score: 1

      And the, the-whole-moon-is-covered-with-that-crap property.

      Sure. And for all the parts of the Moon that pose an exposure risk to the moondust-o-death, if you're standing there unprotected from this evil powder, you have a far more immediate health risk to deal with.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    22. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      I'm sure sealing the walls will keep all the moondust tracked in by the kids, and their pets, out of the building.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    23. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy send more clones!

    24. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      Sure. And for all the parts of the Moon that pose an exposure risk to the moondust-o-death, if you're standing there unprotected from this evil powder, you have a far more immediate health risk to deal with.

      Exactly! It's kinda like how, if I had a vacuum sealed house, I'd never ever get dust inside! Right?

    25. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      From your link, silicosis occurs due to particles less than 10 micrometers wide. Regolith is typically more than 30 micrometers wide.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    26. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's why we make people like miners, metal workers, woodworkers, and others who work around artificially produced (and thus still sharp) dust wear personal protective equipment.

      Yes, but they're directly breathing it in. One would think that not many people will be inhaling dust directly from the lunar surface, since there's no air to breathe. It'd only be there by deposition on clothing, such as mentioned in the article. And I wouldn't wear a respirator in the mine's break room, or upstairs of my wood shop.

      I didn't know about the whole glove-damaging aspect. That's really interesting.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    27. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      From your link, silicosis occurs due to particles less than 10 micrometers wide. Regolith is typically more than 30 micrometers wide.

      And yet:

      While lunar dust is not the same type of crystalline silica known to cause such disease, about 20 percent of the lunar regolith by weight is smaller than 20m- much of which is respirable. In addition, lunar dust has a very high surface to volume ratio and contains fully reduced (metallic) iron, present as nanometer-sized deposits within the lunar dust agglutinates, a form of iron not found in terrestrial soils.

      Furthermore:

      Preliminary results suggest that lunar dust simulants do, in fact, generate reactive oxygen species and so could trigger pulmonary inflammation comparable to that of SiO2.

      Citation.

    28. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Well, except for the whole razor-sharp-jaggies-that-never-get-worn-down-by-weather property

      Its not all that different than many materials man has used over the centuries to create concrete with.

      Here's one example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pozzolana

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    29. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by weirdo557 · · Score: 1, Funny

      he's trying asbestos he can

    30. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by Antidamage · · Score: 1

      You must be fucking terrified of interior concrete walls then.

    31. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Wait... haven't we already sent people to the moon?
      Yeah and each person spent about a day on the moon followed by a few days travelling back to earth in a spaceship that was undoubtedly somewhat contaminated with moondust.

      Oh and there were less than 20 of them in total by my count.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    32. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by Uzik2 · · Score: 1

      Gypsum: The stuff in all the drywall in your house.

      From the MSDS:
      "Chronic exposures may result in lung disease (silicosis and/or lung cancer)"

      etc. I don't think this is a very well thought out argument.

      --
      -- Programming with boost is like building a house with lego. It's a cool but I wouldn't want to live in it
    33. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's why we make people like miners, metal workers, woodworkers, and others who work around artificially produced (and thus still sharp) dust wear personal protective equipment.

      Yes, but they're directly breathing it in. One would think that not many people will be inhaling dust directly from the lunar surface, since there's no air to breathe.

      You're the one who brought up breathing it.
       

      It'd only be there by deposition on clothing, such as mentioned in the article. And I wouldn't wear a respirator in the mine's break room, or upstairs of my wood shop.

      A mine's break room has filtered ventilation. If your woodshop is like mine (I.E. primarily a power tool user), you have a dust collector or a shop vac hooked up the machinery's dust ports, and possibly an air cleaner of some kind. Professional shops certainly have dust collectors and air cleaners.
       
      And that's the thing - in the space suit changing and maintenance areas and in the maintenance bays for equipment brought in from outside, there's going to be a lot of surface dust. Which means there will be personal protective equipment and air cleaners in use, just like in dusty industrial environments here on earth. Lunar bases have much more in common with a mine or professional industrial woodshop than a hobbyist shop.
       
      While I can't imagine there will be extreme isolation measures taken, there will definitely be some measures (like air showers or cleanside/dirtyside changing rooms) taken to keep dust out of the living areas. The long term hazards of breathing the dust, and to machinery are just too great.

    34. Re:Moondust-From Wikipedia by djdavetrouble · · Score: 1

      You must be fucking terrified of interior concrete walls then.

      Yes, because that would probably mean I was in prison or some other godawful unpleasant place.
      I have never met a concrete wall that I like. It just struck me that this is sort of like Thomas
      Edison's worst invention ever, the poured concrete house.

      --
      music lover since 1969
  6. I, for one... by ChinggisK · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, say "neato!".

    1. Re:I, for one... by Tetsujin · · Score: 2, Funny

      I, for one, say "neato!".

      Do you, really? I remain unconvinced. For all I know you could be one of those people who just says that they say "neato!"

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  7. Beyond 2000 comes to life by furby076 · · Score: 1

    I remember the tv show, beyond 2000, back in the early 90s. One of the items they talked about was being able to fax someone objects. So you would scan it, and it would send (over the phone lines) a fax to someone who had a similar machine and the machine would create the object.

    Is this step 1 to that?

    --

    I do not support "The Man". I also do not support your irrational stupidity
    1. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, but is it a solution to the problem of people replying to junk posts to get higher page placement? Putting things in context is a highly efficient organizational skill.

    2. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Beyond 2000? How about a Star Trek replicator?

      Has anyone thought about the social implications? A Star Trek replicator would make real, concrete objects as easy to duplicate as intellectual property is now. We'll be in for a fantastic social upheaval.

    3. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by VanGarrett · · Score: 1

      Replicator technology would have a massive impact on the economy. The price of goods would decline dramatically, making services the only remaining source of strong income. Copyright law will become yet more complicated. In the end, it'd seriously be a different world.

    4. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by Alphathon · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much how they're able to explain the "utopia" that is the federation - there is no (monetary) value to property, so essentially it's similar to socialism or comunism, but it works as greed cannot have any effect.

    5. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's only true for a replicator that is unlimited. If the replicator had imperfections, what you say is nonsense.

      Maybe cost of energy would be the defining criterium for the cost of goods (that would be about the same situation as today, energy input is the most highly correlated property to the price of a good).

      If it was only able to re-arrange atoms you would still need mines to get to the necessary minerals, and many things would remain rare (e.g. you wouldn't be able to make gold jewels any cheaper).

      If it required at least the same mass as input to create an object, that too would create scarcity, requiring again an economy (though probably different than today's)

      The world would hardly be different, and we'd still need the economy to supply us.

    6. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Strange how half their stories revolve around greed anyway. Lots of stuff is rare and valuable in the "utopia", including ironically, slave labor.

      But also other things : latium, land on earth, military ranks, political positions, collectibles, ...

      And there's the never ending stream of people that seem to want to leave the federation.

    7. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      That's pretty much how they're able to explain the "utopia" that is the federation - there is no (monetary) value to property, so essentially it's similar to socialism or comunism, but it works as greed cannot have any effect.

      The idea of an economy without the cost of goods figured in to it (and many services, too) has a long following in science fiction. I remember George O. Smith's "Venus Equilateral" series for the replicator impact, Asimov's robots series for the services impact, and of course Philip K. Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" (Bladerunner) for the social impact.

      Anything that lasts that long in SF has some possibility of eventuating in reality, I reckon. SF has long been the only outlet for ideas for some very, very clever people.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    8. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      The scene: your 3-D fax machine mysteriously starts churning out an object late at night.

      *bzzt* *bzzt* *bzzt*

      *beep*

      "buy discount \/1@Gr/-\ and your love member will be THIS BIG!"

    9. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Neal Stephenson's Diamond Age discusses this to some extent

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    10. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      Ian M. Banks' "Culture" series explores a "post-scarcity" society quite extensively. I strongly recommend it to anyone interested in such things.

      --
      Not a sentence!
    11. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by jesset77 · · Score: 1

      Yes, but is it a solution to the problem of people replying to junk posts to get higher page placement? Putting things in context is a highly efficient organizational skill.

      No, a solution to that problem would be allowing readers to collapse threads that wend outside the topic they want to read — squelching uncalled for political or religious flamewars so that you can get back to the subject that interests you which would otherwise be several miles down the page.

      That, or sorting the replies to any article or post based on score (and aggregate score of sub-replies) so that replying to the article is not doomed to be buried under the replies to chronologically-advantaged frosty piss.

      --
      People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
    12. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by jesset77 · · Score: 1

      energy input is the most highly correlated property to the price of a good

      I assume you mean wholesale price. I would love someone to do the footwork to correlate the price of a CD to the energy input to producing it, for example. :P

      --
      People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
    13. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by kmoser · · Score: 1

      I already have a Star Trek replicator: it's called a DVD burner. I use it to replicate all my Star Trek movies. In any case, Star Trek doesn't have a cultural monopoly on the idea of a replicator, or a transporter for that matter. Stop calling it a "Star Trek replicator" when it's really just a "replicator."

    14. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by drkim · · Score: 1

      ...but the worst is when you get e-mailed a 5 story office building that prints all night - and then in the morning you get a DMCA building-take-down notice.

    15. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seconding this, I've only been able to get my hands on a few of them but they've all been very interesting and entertaining.

    16. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I call it a "Star Trek replicator" because the first time I saw one was on Star Trek, in 1966. I was always an avid science fiction reader (my favorites were Asimov and Heinlein), and hadn't run across that idea before, although I'm sure there was someone's story I hadn't read that had it.

      No cultural monopoly, it's just that that's where I first saw one.

    17. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      I assume you mean wholesale price.

      No I do not. I don't know if cd's (and/or dvd's) are or are not the exception to the rule.

      But as special effects, quantity and quality of team members and price of the brand name (e.g. harry potter) are both the main determinants of sales success and determinants of price (yes, most dvds start at the same price, but that doesn't last even a single month for "bad" (ie. cheap) titles, while it lasts years for "good" titles (harry potter 2 is still not marked down here)).

      Energy input determines, much more than creativity or anything else, the price of a work. And yes there are the lucky exceptions, the "blair with project" alikes. But not many.

      So in short, it seems to me that energy input = price is as true for "intellectual property" as it is for physical objects.

    18. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by jesset77 · · Score: 1

      Why are you changing gears to DVD's though and talking about special effects and huge teams of people?

      I do not believe you can say very much empirical energy is spent on a "brand" however, without falling down the slippery slope of baking an apple pie for Carl Sagan.

      The item I was citing is a CD. So forget all of your visuals for a moment, all of your digitally rendered special effects, pyrotechnics, and location shoots, and focus on a band, no more than a handful of sound technicians and computers, and the same instruments and recording studio that are used to make dozens of other CD's before and after this one.

      So why does the CD ($12-15) cost damn near as much as a new release DVD of Waterworld? ($17-19)

      I'll tell you how I'm willing to accept your theory: I think your proposal makes a ton more sense when the market is not distorted by monopolistic forces, when perfect competition is allowed to commoditize the product. We could call this the "fair" price. I do concur that energy utilization is a great index for that sticker price. That retail price is also forced to remain proportionate to the wholesale price.

      Remember when Ma Bell rented out Western Electric telephones for something like $2/mo, and it was illegal to connect any other product to the POTS network? Or to this day, when POTS providers charge $30/mo for a local loop of landline, with no long distance capability whatsoever, and another $7/mo for voicemail service? Look up Asterisk and then tell me how the provision of voicemail requires $7 of energy per month per capita.

      Final example, someone kidnaps a relative of yours. Let's use your formula to derive the optimal price they'll ask, or you'll pay (supply demand curve intersection) for them to provide the service of returning your loved one.

      Once you've derived that ransom amount, and lets say it's high enough to satisfy the kidnapper's sense of entitlement to a reward, then the kidnappers reveal they have kidnapped another person. The same age as your loved one, with the same social standing, and essentially identical in every important energy-impacting way to your loved one, but that this person is a stranger to you.

      Per your formula, you'll shell out the same exorbitant sum to release the stranger, yes?

      Monopolies, hostage situations and copyrighted material all distort the market in precisely the same way. They render any concept of effort providing a good or service moot, since the good cannot be had through any other avenue and the consumer is "over a barrel" so to speak.

      --
      People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
    19. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 1

      Of course you're right. The only reason cost tends toward energy cost of the creation of an object is that the profit tends towards zero in a perfect market-based system, and that can of course be distorted in a myriad of ways.

      What I think does deserve mention in your post is that all the examples you gave, of course, were only possible due to government interference, due to the use of tax money or law (ie. violence) to force specific outcomes, even if they had good intentions (e.g. the telephone example was done so people in less affluent cities would have telephone service even if it's not cost-effective to provide it).

    20. Re:Beyond 2000 comes to life by jesset77 · · Score: 1

      Of course you're right. The only reason cost tends toward energy cost of the creation of an object is that the profit tends towards zero in a perfect market-based system, and that can of course be distorted in a myriad of ways.

      Right on, I'm glad we're on the same page then. :)

      TBH, in order to either index the wholesale price or to index a well-market-regulated retail price, I am now very fond of your energy utilization idea. It's very reminiscent of the work of Nikolai Kardashev, who saw the index of energy utilization as powerful enough to extrapolate and infer the capacities of hypothetical intergalactic civilizations.

      Another useful application of such a measuring tool, per our discussion, might be that if energy utilization is a good index to prices in a well regulated market, then the failure of that index to describe market prices might be a good indicator of a distorted market; where such an allegation might be hotly contested.

      For example, if you want a smoking gun to demonstrate to a government (or a people) that a particular industry is failing to deliver goods and services efficiently to consumers, and that some ginger regulatory action may be required (or perhaps lifted, if such action caused the imbalance to begin with) to correct the problem, an approach like this might be very generic and all-purpose: safe from any skewed industry insider perspective or consumer stockholm syndrome.

      --
      People willing to trade their freedom of expression for temporary entertainment deserve neither and will lose both.
  8. Nothing to say... by conureman · · Score: 1

    A friend of mine worked at a place that had a machine that did this with a laser and plastic powder, and he had some amazing little prototype bits; Very art-like.
    [CITATION NEEDED]

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    1. Re:Nothing to say... by conureman · · Score: 1
      --
      The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
    2. Re:Nothing to say... by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      Citation here

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    3. Re:Nothing to say... by Yetihehe · · Score: 1

      Maybe not in plastic, but some good 3d printed sculptures and math models

      --
      Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
  9. Sand and Magnesium as resources... by Dilligent · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...sounds like a great choice as resources to use. As Sand is basically silicon and readily available, magnesium is also the 7th most abundant in th earths crust. It seems like this thing could go a long way towards very cheap mass production of all sorts of solid things very cheaply. There is also the RepRap project but they use plastics which I'm afraid are quite expensive as resource, although they kind of target a different area. I'm excited by this, I've been following these ideas for a while and it seems to be going somewhere, I guess we're getting closer to general purpose building machines.

    1. Re:Sand and Magnesium as resources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shouldn't RepRap work with that plastic alternative from (current) trees?
      First thing i could find related
      Plastic alternative from trees

      If it could, cheap (ish) 3D printing could be a couple decades away.

    2. Re:Sand and Magnesium as resources... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Shrug, this isn't new.

      The Alterans (Ancients, the gate builders) left god knows how many stone structures around the universe and thousands in our galaxy alone that have survived 10 million years since they left.

      It makes sense that they would do something like this rather than lay massive stone blocks to build those buildings.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Sand and Magnesium as resources... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let's first try it in a desert, a sandy desert of course

  10. If they can connect it to my office photocopier... by boundary · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...I'll finally be able to get that 10 foot statue of my butt that I've always wanted.

  11. Structural integrity? by rainmayun · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know zilch about materials science, but I have to wonder how these structures would hold up as they get large. Will they be like concrete, or like sandstone? or like particle board...

    1. Re:Structural integrity? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Interestingly, they don't talk about that much. If you're going to build a building out of this stuff and make comparisons to Portland cement, I, for one, would like to see at least a cursory talk on strength.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Structural integrity? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Maybe like a hornets’ nest.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    3. Re:Structural integrity? by G00F · · Score: 1

      Yea, it would have been great to have list some of it's properties, hardness, strength, weight, and actual time.

      I don't know what the compression and tension strength is to their stone, but I wouldn't want to live in one that wasn't reinforced. Reinforced concrete is whats used for building. Reinforced with steel or iron. Concrete is week with tension, thus you want materials strong in tension, and is thermal compatible. You wont see structures built with out it for a reason. Watch the next time they build a concrete bridge, heck even most driveways have rebar in it.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    4. Re:Structural integrity? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Yea, it would have been great to have list some of it's properties, hardness, strength, weight, and actual time.

      I don't know what the compression and tension strength is to their stone, but I wouldn't want to live in one that wasn't reinforced. Reinforced concrete is whats used for building. Reinforced with steel or iron. Concrete is week with tension, thus you want materials strong in tension, and is thermal compatible. You wont see structures built with out it for a reason. Watch the next time they build a concrete bridge, heck even most driveways have rebar in it.

      Keep in mind that you'd be building on the moon, where the gravitational pull is 1/6 that of earth. That will relax the structural-strength thresholds considerably. However, moonquakes might still be an issue.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    5. Re:Structural integrity? by eth1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can't see how this would be useful to build buildings with. How is this an advantage over bolting together a few sections of tubular forms for the columns and tossing in some rebar and concrete? Also, you'd still have to build support for the floors just like you would with traditional concrete. Not to mention having to haul and assemble a building-sized printer at the construction site.

      Seems like it would be more useful for smaller, more complex items, rather than general construction.

    6. Re:Structural integrity? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Whoops, sorry ... I just noticed that this thread was not talking specifically about the moondust option. Please don't mod me off-topic...

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    7. Re:Structural integrity? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Or even something like building structures on the moon out of moon dust, where traditional construction techniques would not work. Where would I have ever gotten such a crazy idea from?

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    8. Re:Structural integrity? by reverseengineer · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are several different formulations of magnesium-based cements, so it's hard to say what the properties of this material would be- and concrete is a complex material where small tweaks in composition can make for big alterations in attributes. I found this brochure from D_Shape (PDF) that underneath the dramatic vision-pitching gets at more of the specifics. From the description of the material, "The stone is very similar to marble," and the description of what comes out of the nozzles as "a bicomponent liquid/solid inorganic binder," it sounds like a form of magnesium oxychloride, aka Sorel cement. Sorel cement is prepared by mixing solid magnesia (MgO) with magnesium chloride brine. It goes on to mention the possibility of adding "reinforcing fibres selected from the group comprised of glass fibres, carbon fibres, nylon fibres."

      Magnesium-based cements can be superior to their calcium silicate (Portland cement-like) counterparts in terms of strength, and they set very quickly, but the traditional issue they have had is that they are more susceptible to water erosion (the cured cement is more water soluble than Portland cement), and so they've been more popular for quick-patch type work rather than large-scale construction. Modern advances in its composition are improving its water resistance, however, and notably, water erosion would not be much of a problem on the moon.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    9. Re:Structural integrity? by zizzo · · Score: 1

      Architecture is, thankfully, not all about efficiency. Being able to design buildings with the unprecedented structural freedom that 3D printing enables is actually quite exciting. I doubt they'll make full buildings out of it but I can see individual rooms or features constructed this way.

    10. Re:Structural integrity? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      I can't see how this would be useful to build buildings with. How is this an advantage over bolting together a few sections of tubular forms for the columns and tossing in some rebar and concrete? Also, you'd still have to build support for the floors just like you would with traditional concrete. Not to mention having to haul and assemble a building-sized printer at the construction site.

      One of the articles mentions that the guy actually plans to print his pavilion in parts and take the parts on-site to assemble. The article says it is still cheaper and faster to do it that way than it is to do it in the traditional way. I'm not sure why that is; I can't think flowing concrete forms could be that expensive. Maybe it is because the materials, sand and epoxy, are so much cheaper than concrete?

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  12. He's paying for it? by Mark4ST · · Score: 1

    The designer, Enrico Dini, is even talking with various organizations about making the printer compatible with moon dust, paying the way for an instant moonbase!"

    He's paying for it? Is Mr. Dini some sort of James Bond villain? (I think it could of meant paving the way.)

    1. Re:He's paying for it? by beakerMeep · · Score: 3, Funny

      Maybe it prints money too?

      --
      meep
    2. Re:He's paying for it? by kamakazi · · Score: 1

      (I think it could of meant paving the way.)????

      (I think it could have meant "could have meant")

      For Pete's sake, if you are going to criticize accidental errors at least try to avoid stupid ones.

      --
      "Proximity to wonder has blunted our perception and appreciation of it" --Tim Hartnell in 'Exploring ARTIFICIAL INTELLI
    3. Re:He's paying for it? by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me what they are saying is that he is talking to different organizations that may help pay the way for his invention to make a moon-base.

      It was worded oddly.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    4. Re:He's paying for it? by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

      You have 3 extra question marks. :)

      --
      meep
    5. Re:He's paying for it? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      From a recent advertisement: The government can't print gold.

    6. Re:He's paying for it? by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      I don't think the money in my wallet has sand or magnesium glue as part of its makeup. I suspect it would break into itty bitty bits if it was in my wallet and made that way.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    7. Re:He's paying for it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a mismatched parenthesis. [:][)]

    8. Re:He's paying for it? by yo303 · · Score: 1

      You have an extra colon and a misplaced closing parenthesis.

  13. Are plans available? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

    Otherwise the reprap is already better.

    1. Re:Are plans available? by spun · · Score: 1

      The reprap is better at printing small items in expensive plastic. The D-Shape is better at printing large items in cheap stone.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Are plans available? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The reprap you can actually have, this is another thing you can't have. No matter how nice, if you can't get one it is useless.

    3. Re:Are plans available? by spun · · Score: 1

      Why can't you have this? It's real. It exists. If I had enough money, I could buy a reprap. If I had enough money, I could also buy the D-Shape.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    4. Re:Are plans available? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      You can make a reprap yourself. This product not ever going to be cheap enough for you or me. Might as well get excited about GM buying new transfer presses.

    5. Re:Are plans available? by spun · · Score: 1

      I might buy a house built with this thing, though. That would be pretty cool. I know the reprap is 'better' in that it is a home hobbyist device, and I could build it. But the D-Shape is better in that it can print a frigen' house! I'm sorry, but that is pretty awesome.

      I'm never going to be able to afford my own LHC, either, but I still like to read about it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    6. Re:Are plans available? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      Ok true, I just love the idea of being able to print usable things. Then everyone really could own the means of production, like we already do when it comes to software.

    7. Re:Are plans available? by spun · · Score: 1

      Except for the fact that both these systems can only print solid, unjointed, non-flexible objects with a uniform consistency. And the reprap can only make items out of a completely uneconomical material, very, very slowly.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    8. Re:Are plans available? by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      I am sure this machine is also no speed demon.

    9. Re:Are plans available? by spun · · Score: 1

      Did you look at it? It's HUGE. Like, orders of magnitude larger than a reprap. Bigger print heads mean faster printing.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  14. Subject is for subjects, comment is for comments. by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 0

    n/t.

    --
    "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  15. Old technology by WarlockSquire · · Score: 2, Informative

    while this is certainly super-sized, this technology has been around for over a decade.
    z-corp comes to mind (www.zcorp.com)

    I saw them print out a rubber ball from elastic particles and flexible glue that actually bounced.
    They kept the cost down early by using HP Deskjet hardware for the printing (just glue instead of ink).

    cool stuff, but not new.

  16. what can you do without scaffolding? by thethirdwheel · · Score: 1

    I'm curious as to what sort of limitations the building mechanism puts on the structures. There wouldn't be any supporting superstructure holding everything in place until the building is structurally sound. Every stage would have to be able to stand up on its own power. I wonder what the impact would be on design? Would buildings that are stable at every stage of their construction be more stable upon completion? Regardless, this seems pretty damn cool.

    1. Re:what can you do without scaffolding? by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The "scaffolding" is sand that hasn't been sprayed with glue. Imagine making a simple dome. You lay down a layer of sand. You glue the perimeter. The center stays unglued. Let the glue set, lay down another layer of sand, glue the perimeter. Repeat, making the perimeter smaller each time. The walls are supported by the unglued sand in the middle. When you close the top, you open the side, remove the unglued sand, and you have a dome.

      This is how most of the stereolitho machines work now, save they use a support material that can be removed with a solvent that doesn't dissolve the plastic used for the parts you want to keep.

    2. Re:what can you do without scaffolding? by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Informative

      Slashdot needs a rule preventing the posting of stories about stories.

      Or at the very least, fucking preventing blogs about blogs about some story.

      When did slashdot become a random blog aggregator instead of news for nerds?

      If you get a submission from a user thats a link to a story about some other story, don't fucking post it. Make your own damn submission with the final site in it and stop giving out all the slashvertising and wasting our time.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:what can you do without scaffolding? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      slashdot is like an omelet. Or perhaps a better analogy is a gang bang at the geek compound. There's cock sucking and ass fucking. Over in the other room, there's rimjobbing and scat play. For some reason, there's even an old guy standing around jacking off.

      Point is, the editors are too busy sodomizing each other to edit the submissions.

    4. Re:what can you do without scaffolding? by adolf · · Score: 1

      When did slashdot become a random blog aggregator instead of news for nerds?

      Roughly at the same time as the word "blog" became common.

      FYI, HTH, and so on, and so forth, et cetera, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

  17. Re:If they can connect it to my office photocopier by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dust is cheap, why scale down?

  18. Alright, build it already! by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I always thought that we need robots to build a moonbase before we bother sending people up there again. Here's one robot that might help get the job done. Then again, it seems like a major piece of hardware that will be difficult to transport. But the idea of making stone from dust is a good one. Maybe we should half-inflate a giant balloon so its top is dome-shaped, cover it with layers of moon dirt which would be hardened with this magnesium fixative. Once the stone is thick enough, the dome will be self-supporting and a good radiation shield. The whole process might be done by a single remote-controlled backhoe with a spray-nozzle. This is the kind of cool shit that NASA should be doing.

    1. Re:Alright, build it already! by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

      But, why does the robot look like Arnold Schwarzenegger?

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  19. this is great news - a year ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh and I for one welcome our cancer causing moon dust overlords.

  20. Mmmmh... non-durable glue! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Wanna bet that those building will start to fall apart just when you realize you got a deadly disease from sniffing glue and breathing dust all the time? ;)

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  21. The summary links to a blog quoting a blog ... by IMustBeNewHere · · Score: 5, Informative

    The original story is longer, with more pictures...

    1. Re:The summary links to a blog quoting a blog ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      And appears to contain links to malware, thank you very much....

    2. Re:The summary links to a blog quoting a blog ... by IMustBeNewHere · · Score: 1

      Um, it is the website for a architecture publication, found by following the links in the aforementioned blogs. So, care to be more specific?

  22. Paving the way ... by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Insightful

    making the printer compatible with moon dust, paying the way for an instant moonbase!

    Not paying, PAVING.

    God do you people even think about what you're typing or saying when you use phrases like this? Did it ever once occur to you to think about what you're saying and how much sense it makes?

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  23. It's The End Of The World As We Know It by BigBlueOx · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Hey. Has anyone noticed that building there before?

    Get to the choppah! Naow!!

  24. I created buildings from dust and glue by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    Of course, I was six at the time, and the buildings were only suitable for ants, grasshoppers and spider and snails. Admittedly I also had significant compatibility and upgrade problems which were quickly fixed with a "light spanking" patch.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  25. Something similar has been done already by cartman · · Score: 1
  26. Reminds me of... by jcr · · Score: 1

    "Contour Crafting", which is being developed by a Dr. Koshnevis at USC. His approach is to have a robot lay a line of concrete and trowel it smooth as it's placed. I guess you could say that TFA describes a raster-type 3D printer, where Koshnevis has a vector-type 3D plotter.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  27. cory and the printers by didimitrie · · Score: 1

    this is fucking awesome. imagine now cory doctrow writing a book about printing cities. that's kinda cool, not? supply the masses with suburbia at will.

  28. The original you linked to contains a trojan by electrongunner · · Score: 2, Informative

    The page you linked to contains the Trojan:JS/Gamburl.E. MSFT Security Essentials just flagged it and removed it from my browser cache.

  29. Ok, how's the strength? by jcr · · Score: 1

    Cool tech, but before I'd live in a printed building, I'd want to know how its strength compares to reinforced concrete, particularly when subjected to a seismic event.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:Ok, how's the strength? by argent · · Score: 1

      Yah, "1/3 the price of Portland Cement"... if there was a substance that was cheaper than concrete and nearly as strong it would already be in wide use in construction.

    2. Re:Ok, how's the strength? by kiick · · Score: 1

      No it wouldn't.

      Building codes.

      And construction companies HATE to change materials.
       

    3. Re:Ok, how's the strength? by argent · · Score: 1

      OK, smart-aleck, it would be widely involved in court cases to allow it to be used in construction.

      Building companies LOVE to save money.

  30. Not about the money by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

    It's not really about the money right now, it's about finding something that works. Reprap and similar projects are mostly just trying to find materials that can be put down at high res, and will hold form even when "painting" curves etc. that have little support underneath. This would let people essentially build any object they can model in a 3d program. Otherwise, you're limited to fairly basic solid blocks and things you print, but then cut or work into smaller shapes.

  31. I completely agree by geegel · · Score: 1

    n/t

    --
    right...
  32. Moon landing hoax by Compaqt · · Score: 1

    If damage can occur in just a matter of hours, does this mean that the moon landing hoax theories were actually true?

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog