Slashdot Mirror


How Open Source Hardware Is Driving the 3D-Printing Industry

TheNextCorner sends this quote from ReadWriteWeb: "Open source software has been a key player in all kinds of disruptive technologies — from the Web to big data. Now the nascent and growing open source hardware movement is helping to power its own disruptive revolution. ... As 3D printing, powered by Arduino and other open source technologies, becomes more prevalent, economies of scale become much less of a problem. A 3D printer can print a few devices — or thousands — without significant retooling, pushing upfront costs to near-zero. This is what The Economist calls the 'Third Industrial Revolution,' where devices and things can be made in smaller, cleaner factories with far less overhead and — significantly — less labor."

32 of 199 comments (clear)

  1. Material costs - material generally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Currently, the cost of materials for most 3D printers is quite high. That makes 3D printing uneconomical for most purposes.

    The other problem is that most useful things are made of more than one material. Consider even something as simple as a toaster. It requires a good conductor, a resisting conductor, an insulator and structural material. So, even something as low tech as a toaster is well beyond the ability of 3D printers to make at all and especially to do so economically.

    1. Re:Material costs - material generally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Imagine plastic recycling: plastic bags or wrappings shreded and then fed to 3d printers - that's what I am waiting for.

    2. Re:Material costs - material generally by Dynetrekk · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was wrong - they're up to 14 simultaneous materials, at least: http://www.objet.com/Objet%20Connex350/

    3. Re:Material costs - material generally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      However it is a hell of a lot cheaper to print a physical object on a 3d printer than it is to try and get one of something you can't buy, manufactured.

      3D printers are great for printing spares when the manufacturer doesn't supply them... and cheaper than buying the whole product again.

    4. Re:Material costs - material generally by LuxuryYacht · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The prices of Photopolymers used in SLA type 3D printers has dropped to below the cost of PLA and ABS used in FDM printers and continues to drop. Photopolymers are dropping to under $10/kg in high volumes, so the costs of the materials are becoming less of an issue.

      It's true that there are several open hardware printer projects for FDM type printers that focus mainly on printing with one material at a time such as
      RepRap or Open Source Photopolymer DLP 3D Printers such as LemonCurry

      3D printers are also printing with more than one material and are already printing multilayer printed circuit boards with only fluids. Much of the development work in 3D printers recently has been from open hardwave projects vs the industry since many of the old patents have now expired.

      --
      Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur
    5. Re:Material costs - material generally by RobinH · · Score: 3, Informative

      Then your wait is almost over, as it's been created, and they're ramping it up (and it's open source). Here's the kickstarter link.

      --
      "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    6. Re:Material costs - material generally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      So was a Cray Y-MP in the late 80s. Today my $80 Atom board gets similar numbers on supercomputer benchmarks.

  2. A post scarcity society by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The loss of jobs need not be a bad thing in what is quickly approaching a post scarcity society. Ultimately, perhaps even within the next few centuries, we're going to see a situation where the abundant resources in our solar system are harvested and processed by mostly automated engines, providing an excellent (upper middle class) quality of life for everyone on earth. There is no physical reason why this should not be the case.

    Pollution and environmental concerns would be very minimal with adequate management, energy is abundant, and if anything providing a good standard of living reverses population growth.

    The main difference between that and today, other than a general longer, healthier, better life, would be the types of toys you get to play with if you excel. Obviously not everyone can have their own private ocean liner, there's only so much ocean, so artificial scarcity will need to be introduced by either fiat or economic acrobatics. Overall though we are I believe on the cusp of a golden age.

    1. Re:A post scarcity society by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no physical reason why this should not be the case.

      Now if only it'd be that simple.

      At the moment, replacing dangerous and tedious jobs no one really wants by much more effective machines is everything the government and our whole economic system is trying to stop. How did this happen? How are we any better than those in the middle ages when we fight progress in the name of old beliefs of capitalism?

    2. Re:A post scarcity society by cyber-vandal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you could come up with a proposal for feeding and housing all those people who lose their income then you'd be on to a winner. Opposing progress is perfectly understandable when progress will make you jobless and therefore unable to feed, clothe and house yourself. And don't say 'retrain'. That costs money and time, and in the meantime the rent or mortgage isn't being paid.

    3. Re:A post scarcity society by Exrio · · Score: 2

      It'll be like living in a zoo, except now the zoo is huge, the animals include humans, and the zoo-keepers are human-invented machines. The question is not if, the question is when. The singularity will undoubtedly overwhelm any silly human politics or economics that try to restrain it.

    4. Re:A post scarcity society by Ogi_UnixNut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is always some scarcity, especially with regards to housing (hint: there is a finite amount of land available). Hence I don't think housing (for example) will ever be free.

    5. Re:A post scarcity society by khakipuce · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suppose this is what one would expect from anyone with "open source space travel" in their sig. We are nowhere near approaching a "post scarcity society", go to Africa or India and tell the significant proportion of the earth's populaton that live in poverty that we are approaching a "post scarcity society"!

      On the 3D printing front, gimme one that prints steel, aluminium alloys, etc. with the structural integrity of their conventially produced equivalents (i.e. not sintered) and I'll start to take this discussion seriously.

      --
      Art is the mathematics of emotion
    6. Re:A post scarcity society by BlackPignouf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "Post-scarcity society" ???
      What a load of bullshit.
      Have you ever heard of peak-oil? Do you realise 80% of our energy demand is covered by fossil fuels? Have you heard of global warming?

      Do yourself a favor, and go read this :
      http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

    7. Re:A post scarcity society by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      If you could come up with a proposal for feeding and housing all those people who lose their income then you'd be on to a winner.

      - winner of what? What do you get for feeding and housing people who don't do anything productive?

      How about this: they start doing something other than what they were doing before they got laid off because their particular labour could be done more efficiently without them?

      I don't see what we gain as a society at all by creating incentives for people to live lives without doing anything. What's the purpose, to have them fill all of the available space, so that eventually there is again a problem of 'haves and have nots' in perpetuity?

      People shouldn't be on charity for the entire lives, do you think it is even good psychologically to have a society of people who do nothing, that are clothed, well fed, cared for and they do nothing.

      What is the difference between them and a bacteria colony exactly and why should anybody who produces something care for a bacteria colony?

    8. Re:A post scarcity society by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Only if the revolution goes well. It could go very badly, depending how the social-economic-political situation works out. Transitioning to a post-scarcity economy would not be easy - it doesn't matter if you can make food, housing and luxury goods for a few cents if almost all the population is unemployed and thus unable to afford even that, and those who do control the production equipment have no incentive to just give away their products for free.

    9. Re:A post scarcity society by slashping · · Score: 2

      Agreed, the premise of the post scarcity society is false.

    10. Re:A post scarcity society by slashping · · Score: 2

      How about this: they start doing something other than what they were doing before they got laid off because their particular labour could be done more efficiently without them?

      There's a limit to what people can learn to do.

    11. Re:A post scarcity society by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
      Printing with moderate resolution would be a significant advance, and most current machines need a huge amount of labour to operate.

      As someone has already said "they are the solution to making one-offs of an original concept", They do not come within a million miles of mass production for stuff where the requirement is for many.

      Test 1) try to make any part longer than an inch with an accuracy of 1/1000 inch (minimum accuracy required for most production engineering).

      Test 2) Try to make a 3D printed "Mars Bar", with your labour costed at minimum wage - then compare it to the price in the local shop.

      If you pass both tests, apply for a job - you are clearly unemployed but employable.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    12. Re:A post scarcity society by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      Violent revolution is a very real possibility. On the other hand, it'd basically be a class warfare thing - the capitalists vs the now-unemployed. We've seen that happen a few times in quite recent history, with mixed results, and just because material needs are now easier to meet isn't going to solve so well the severe political oppression that always seems to follow. Even in post-scarcity, someone has to administer the resources - and without some very strict accountability, that much power in so few hands is just inviting corruption.

    13. Re:A post scarcity society by cyber-vandal · · Score: 2

      That is not what I said but then you have to take any argument that doesn't support devil take the hindmost free market dogma and twist it. I said it's understandable that people who are disadvantaged by technological changes would oppose it. Anyone not lacking in empathy like you are knows this.

      That doesn't mean I think we should hold back technology, nor does it mean I'm happy for people to be on welfare their entire lives. Your solution appears to be to let people disadvantaged by technological changes starve on the streets or commit crimes just to eat, my solution would be offer people a bursary to retrain in skills the market does need.

      There's always a shortage of tradesmen in this country but for some reason my government would much rather pay the unemployed a fortune to sit at home than the 5000GBP to train them to do something useful.

      You know what makes me laugh about you libertarians. You are the most selfish bastards I've ever come across, but you have this belief that charity, i.e. generosity, something you can't understand, will replace government social programmes

    14. Re:A post scarcity society by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      Its already free in many places. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing All post scarcity means is the quality of the free stuff gets a lot better. It doesn't mean everyone gets to live on a thousand acre wooded ranch.

    15. Re:A post scarcity society by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      generosity, something you can't understand, will replace government social programmes

      - well actually I am against charity on principle, but unfortunately people have this desire to be charitable, thus creating a situation where gov't says that charity will be enforced by threat of violence via taxes, thus turning something that is a private situation (somebody getting charity from a specific person or a group) to a situation where people who in fact are living on charity (welfare, SS, etc.), and it become entrenched so that the people on charity start believing that they are ENTITLED to it, so the gov't must steal from some with threat of violence, and give it to individuals who think they are entitled to it.

      Why are they entitled to it? Why is anybody made to feel that they are entitled to the society to enforce stealing from the productive members and giving to the unproductive, (which is what I am talking about - the Petri dish of human bacteria).

      There's always a shortage of tradesmen in this country but for some reason my government would much rather pay the unemployed a fortune to sit at home than the 5000GBP to train them to do something useful.

      - you are right, those people shouldn't be paid for sitting at home, specifically they are paid with tax payer (or borrowed or printed) money and then they buy the wealth produced by those some people that paid the taxes, so it's double thievery.

      But your question is strange, do you honestly not understand why government does what it does? Gov't is a system of power, with politicians fighting for this power for personal benefit.

      The best way to become powerful in government is to have the most support by the mob, and giving free things to the mob is the best way to get popular support. It's the worst thing for the economy and for the country, but it's the best thing for the politicians.

      You said this in another comment:

      You really hate people don't you.

      . People. As in a collective of two legged, two handed animals that want to do nothing and steal whatever they can?

      I like INDIVIDUALS that do something useful, something that I can trade for with them.

      People, as a collection of thieves and lazy bums? I don't feel anything more towards them than I feel towards a Petri dish filled with bacteria.

    16. Re:A post scarcity society by skids · · Score: 2

      People. As in a collective of two legged, two handed animals that want to do nothing and steal whatever they can?

      Here's the crux of the problem with the "invisible hand of the free market" -- it's as deep in your pocket as the government. This magic savior force looked upon by the more philosophical of the selfish class actually is composed in great part by con-artists, frauds, sociopaths, psychopaths, and other such ilk that use deceit, manipulation, power and opression just as much if not more than any system of government. And yet somehow they never get meeted out by those free market mechanisms that are supposed to do so. Many manage to create a market "need" out of whole cloth, merely by manipulating the weaker minded.

      So here's a hint for you: whether they call themselves a government, or a chamber of commerce, or a corporation, there will always be alliances of people who seek to take more than their fair share, and as a result, there will always be alliances seeking to claw back what what stolen from them. Mostly because people don't like to face up to the hard truth that their "talent" is only a very small part in the chain of components needed to produce whatever they hang their sense of self-worth on, and if they actually shared the credit for their "achievments" fully, they would be significantly less well off than they currently are.

      Governments, chambers of commerce, and corporations can all exist in both positive and negative capacities. Casting any of them into a purely negative light is like saying the world would be better without covalent molecular bonds, because that's what was holding together the skateboard you just tripped on.

    17. Re:A post scarcity society by dcollins117 · · Score: 2

      don't see what we gain as a society at all by creating incentives for people to live lives without doing anything. What's the purpose, to have them fill all of the available space, so that eventually there is again a problem of 'haves and have nots' in perpetuity?

      Yes, let's just euthanize the do-nothing elderly, disabled, and parasitic welfare recipients. They're no more useful than bacteria. That will free up lots of resources that could be better spent on you.

  3. Re:Is there an open source hardware specification. by phme · · Score: 3, Informative

    Check out RepRap and MakerBot

  4. Re:Free Complexity at the cost of speed by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It's still not mass producing - it's custom desktop fabrication. It's like laser printing in the 80s... very slow but nice quality. So in the near future it's still mostly for prototyping or small scale runs.

    Good point. If and when enough people have access to these printers, and if they are sufficiently standardized, you will not need mass production anymore. Or rather, the product is still produced in mass, but in many small fabs or even on the desktop, as opposed to requiring a single massive factory in China. It's distributed production. The point is that it's not necessary for these printers to become so fast that they can produce thousands of products per hour. If you're printing at home, you will probably print only a few items every day at most, and you'll be able to afford wait times of an hour or so.

    --
    If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  5. Good for trinkets... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...but that's about it in my experience. We had some disappointing results with 3D-printed components at work: they had poor mechanical properties and were permeable to water. We now use a rapid CNC-ing firm (http://www.firstcut.com/) that can produce one-off components cheaply and get them to us inside 3 days; plus they have a fantastic range of proper materials (ABS, nylon, aluminium, etc.). For the time being, we're staying put with CNC.

  6. yes, but the knobs on that toaster... by decora · · Score: 2

    can now be printed by anyone, anywhere, with a gadget that sits on their desk.

    instead of having to trash the toaster and buy a new one, or find a used one on ebay, or go order one for $20 + shipping + processing from some faceless megacorporation that probably doesn't even realize it makes toasters.

  7. Not just 3D-printing by Yvan256 · · Score: 2

    There's a lot of other machines out there. On the CNC side there's the Mantis, a small desktop-sized milling machine for making circuit boards but it can also cut foam, wax, chocolate, etc. Most people seem to drive their Mantis with motors and electronics made for RepRap printers.

    There's even a milling machine made out of standard LEGO parts (aside from the milling bit). It can mill 3D shapes into floral foam.

    Need a stronger, faster mill? Build Your Own CNC Router has a lot of information, so does CNCzone.com.

  8. Low-end 3D printing sucks by Animats · · Score: 2

    The RepRap and other low-end 3D printers are toys. I see those things at TechShop all the time, but they're rarely used. All they can do is produce plastic trinkets.

    Around $50K, the machines start to get good. Shapeways makes usable plastic parts. What the industry needs is a $2000 machine that really works. There's slow progress in the industry; 30 years ago the high-end machines were as crappy as the RepRap.

    All these processes are incredibly slow. As in hours for one small part. It's inherent in laying down a 3D part in thin layers that it will take time. That's why Shapeways charges about $50 for a 1 ounce part. Injection molding is orders of magnitude cheaper and faster. This technology is not going to replace mass production.

  9. People seem to miss the point... by pjr.cc · · Score: 2

    The point of 3d printers... make no mistake, within the next 10 years 3d printers will bring about the downfall of some very heavy industries.

    Yes, right now they're limited, most people who would build such a thing (and i am one) are going to print things in (not that cheap) plastic but we already have printers capable of printing many different types of materials (including conductive) and in 5 years, those reprap's will be something there will be very big lawsuits over. Much like the digital media industry, the industry will have to cope with the change, they might win a few lawsuits, but they'll ultimately have to adapt. Consider what a 3d printer will give you in a couple of years:

    - glasses (possibly even the lenses for them)
    - fixtures (lights, power points, cases, things that other things hang on - this list is endless)
    - crockery (plates, etc - theres no reason you could extrude a clay or clay substitute thats safe to eat off/drink from)
    - Phone cases
    - its hard to actually come up with a decent list thats compelling cause its just so wide ranging

    With a minor amount of electronics, you can add to this:
    - phone docks, keyboards, stands of so many different varieties, control devices....

    Who'll benefit form this? The people who get on board... the guys who go "hmm, im just gunna make a iphone dock interface you can print an object around rather then making an entire iphone dock" - thats the industry of the future boys - selling electronics that you put inside objects people can 3d print... there isnt one yet, but mark my works, and heed this well as a prediction - in 10 years, this will be a major (or at least up-and-coming) industry. We'll even see a regulation and dmca like laws come into effect.

    But look around you and take a SERIOUS look at the things around you and think, how many of these items could be printed? you'll be blown away by the things you could easily replace with something you can print yourself. The sad fact is people dont really notice until you have one, then you look around and see a whole bunch of industries destined for the scrap heap as people start printing their own items rather then running down the shops to pick one up.

    sitting in front of me, i look and i think "my mouse, my keyboard, my glasses, my 3 hard drive cases, my phone stands, my mouse pad, my cup and the spoon thats in it. all my pens (sans ink)... i could go on".

    The point is, the point people miss, isnt that 3d printing an object is in any way, shape or form more economical then buying the mass-produced equivalent. The point is that i can "have it now" (and have it my way)... much of what we do now and what the internet provided (and what content producers have fought hard to stop) is the "have it now" philosophy. Thanks to scale, prices of printing an object will go down, very far down. PLA and ABS (the main things people tend to use with the repraps) arent cheap, but that'll change. 3d printing isnt about "hey, new mass manufacturing process" cause its just not economical at that and never will be, its about not needing one in the first place, if everyone has a 3d printer (or access to one), whos going to make phone cases when people can just print their own?. The secondary point is you can build things you just cant buy or easily make or you can take a phone case and customise it. I dont know how many times i've wanted a lather or a router or whatever and even then thought "i probably wont be able to make it anyway"... well now i can and easily.

    So right now you can do one of two things, look at 3d printing and see its potential or go "meh" and you'll miss out (even if missing out is simply the opportunity of being involved), but i believe that 3d printing will be one of the biggest and most disruptive techs to hit the world and when it does hit with full force it'll be one of the most important things we'll see - possibly even more important then computing. My point is make no mistake, what 3d printing can and will do will change life as we know it in