In the long run, every industry is going to be "napstered." We’re going to have to rethink our economic structure to find incentives that work.
If you think the RIAA an MPAA were a problem, wait until it’s Walmart and Costco.
On the other hand, I don’t think that tyranny (prosecute everyone) or anarchy (copy anything for free, designers get $0 for their effort) is going to be the optimal solution.
Once we achieve workable computer vision, automation is going to rapidly replace all non-creative human labor. And that's a lot closer than the technology required to make even an at-home lab* capable of turning out a copy of, say, an mp3 player. (* Allowing for separate machines that print circuits, build cases, etc)
Less complex/capable 'replicators' that turn out spare parts won't be that disruptive. The first world doesn't fix modern goods much as-is. When we do, we're tend to pay disproportionately more for the knowledge than the parts.
Walmart and Costco are equivalent of Blockbuster and Coconuts Music. I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of Walmart was one of the first places to have replicator technology, it would reduce their distribution costs to nothing. It'll be the creators who'll attempt to use some weird conglomeration of copyright and patents to keep people from napstering their creations.
I wonder if in the long run it would be more robust to print the mold, and cast the metal material in it. Molds generally created out of some sort of clay/sand with an activated resin bonding the material. It seems as if that would be easier build using a 3d printer than building the metal part directly.
I met Mr Bulatov at the Maker Faire (why do you Americans think it's cute to employ faux-medieval spellings?). His pieces are even more impressive in reality.
The press release isn't even right, powdered metal rapid prototyping has been around for a while. This specific method or material may be new but it certainly isn't the first non-polymer 3D printer.
Anyone who thinks car parts will be made this doesn't understand the process. Thinking of it as a computer, rapid prototyping have a cost that is basically O(n). Molding/stamping have a cost that is O(1) + O(n), where the O(1) cost is HUGE and the O(n) part is tiny. At some point the mold/stamp makes a lot more sense. Cars are one application where this will NEVER EVER make sense - except for non functional prototypes.
Or single-run custom parts. Great if you need something that is no longer being made or isn't readily available. Just as you say, there are advantages of molding/stamping, but it all depends on the situation.
Thats true, but think of the typical situation where you need a custom part - to replace a broken one. I have a car from 1961 and one of the pieces I've had trouble replacing is the king pin (i.e. the pin that the front tires rotate around on a rear wheel drive car). It wasn't designed strong enough so it breaks commonly. They are not made anymore and it is difficult to replace. This technique wouldn't help me one bit because if cast steel didn't do it, then powdered steel sure isn't.
On the other hand the jewelery idea is probably a good one, strength properties don't matter too much.
You are right that it is all about the situation, but I see too many people that think 3D printing is somehow going to revolutionize the manufacture of physical things, its not. It may work in really specific instances, but thats about it, and if I had to buy 1 manufacturing machine for my home/business it would be a CNC controlled mill not a 3D printer.
For those of you who have never built a process plant or oil refinery, the piping in the plant is almost always fabricated off-site by specialist piping fabricators, who assemble "spools" from individual piping components like flanges, pipe and elbows. The size of these spools are usually limited by the transport envelope - i.e. how big a spool can be transported (say in a 40ft container).
Every spool is different, so it is quite labor-intensive to prepare the individual components, weld them together, check all the welds (via x-ray, or ultrasonic testing), and them ship the spool to site. Being able to "print" a spool from a big bath of steel powder could potentially reduce costs significantly.
(Consider also, the benefits of being able to use custom-made parts in the piping spools: while a pipe carrying water might only require a standard thickness of elbow, a pipe carrying an erosive slurry would require a much thicker section of metal on the outside of the bends, where the slurry tends to wear away the pipe. The way this is currently dealt with is by making the _entire_ pipeline (not just the elbow) out of thicker materials).
This will be a long-time coming, as the current standards for process plant pipe (based on piping made of sections and fittings welded together) are extremely well proven, and exceptionally safe. But in 20 or 30 years......
that's what I thought too, in a another thread on HN I was corrected though, here is an interesting link regarding the material properties of layered steel from a 3D printer:
That depends entirely on how they do it. If they're careless and let it oxidize it'll be "layered rust". If they do it properly you basically weld the powder into the shape you want, and you can start with most any kind of steel you want. http://www.metalpowderproducts.com/index.asp?action=material... discusses some of the stuff they do, which includes everything from pure iron to 400 series stainless to tool steels. You probably can't reproduce wrought iron with it easily (true wrought iron has veins of slag in the mix giving it a grain almost like wood has) but the commercial applications of wrought iron is almost insignificant.
You still have to heat treat it, and conventional powder metallurgy uses basically dies, but it's a lot more flexible than you give it credit for. Now, whether these guys are capable of the full monty here, as it were, is unknown. They may have been using stainless because their oxidization control is poor and so they need the corrosion resistance. Or maybe they're doing it because it's convenient; hard to say.
True, but if you're using it to show off your prototype or for making artistic objets, the extra heft and perceived durability will likely be well worth it.
http://craphound.com/?p=573