What 3D printing does to copyright, patent law, and the open source movement will be very interesting. I think this area may represent one of the biggest seas of change in the legal arena of the next 100 years. I'm curious it anyone who is more knowledgeable than I, can speak to that.
I've been researching and trying to plan out how this will all happen for about 5 years now, and it's amazing how far away we still are in many senses. Ponoko is a huge step forward, but I would love to work on making the "Napster of Forks".
Yeah, we are a long ways away from these printers being cheap and robust enough to make their way into daily lives, but it does seem like the tech is there, it's more a matter of economies of scale, and incremental improvements that are needed for more mass adoption. I do think that the key will be more robust capabilities for purpose-built 'smart' devices. There's a limited amount of utility for the population at large for devices that can only spit out 'dumb' objects like rings and doorknobs.
I can really see the need for standardization of certain non-reproducible parts so that the end user can keep a few small parts on hand that can be used in a large number of possible smart devices.
The more I think about it, the more I feel like the strengths of 3D printing are such that it will bring about a revolution that doesn't intersect with traditional products (We won't be pirating iphones and printing them out). Instead I think 3D printing may supersede traditional devices in some cases. I might make my own utilitarian cell phone with few features to supplement my fancy expensive phone.
Actually most of what I've seen is from sketchup (free), OpenSCAD (Free), or Autodesk 123D (free). There's some solidworks stuff but I have no idea if it's pirated or not, nobody does from the perspective of the person getting the files to print.
If you're looking for non-diy you basically have www.makerbot.com and www.cubify.com that are making the most noise lately. They both have poor resolution in my opinion but it's moving in the right direction.
There are a couple of kickstarter projects that I can't name off the top of my head trying to do the same for under $1000.
You don't need to assemble all the parts, just the receiver since that is what is legally considered the firearm. Parts kits (minus receivers) are plentiful, cheap, and unregulated. Your local and state laws may vary, but it is generally legal to make your own receiver without any sort of license or taxation, provided it is for personal use. I would consider another make of firearm though; AR-15 type rifles have been successfully constructed with carbon fiber, polymer, and composite receivers. I've never heard of anyone doing that with AK series weapons, and considering the stress the AK receiver is under during recoil (find a slow motion video, it's jiggling everywhere!) I wouldn't really want to.
"Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs)." So you could manufacture an AK receiver but you would have to outfit with a Saiga parts set to avoid falling afoul of 922(r) restrictions on "assault weapons".
I was only speaking to the U.S. as that is the only system I begin to understand the legalities of (and that would remotely allow this). The reality of an insurgency using 3D-printing to manufacture whole firearms isn't possible yet due to the stresses involved. I've had multiple mechanical failures due to MIM parts (metal injection molding) shattering in handguns. I can't imagine the current or near future 3D printing materials being able to surpass MIM in strength.
It would be more likely to be used to make difficult to manufacture components for weapons, such as molds for shaped charges.
Interesting - as a private citizen, I was under the impression that I could not own a fully-auto assault rifle. I'd be interested in hearing sources that point to the contrary.
Great point about the democratization of force. I wonder if it's any easier than obtaining them on the black market in those countries.
I have a reprap huxley, bought from reprappro. You have to assemble it yourself, but the instructions are very detailed. It's really high quality and makes beautiful prints. I can only recommend it.
The downside is that it's located in Europe. You can buy them here:
http://reprappro.com/
They also sell a bigger model (the mendel) now.
If you'd rather buy an american one, I've made no first hand experience with them, but heard good things from several people about maxbots. They sell the mendelmax, which is bigger than both of reprappros models, and more sturdy because it uses an aluminium frame.
Again, for under 1500, you will have to assemble it yourself:
Disclaimer: I have not done any research on anything that isn't a reprap. I prefer RepRaps because they're open source and made from standard components, which means easy to fix yourself, and even if whoever sold you the machine goes out of business, you will still be able to replace/fix any part of it. Apparently makerbot support is good, but only if you have the latest model (or so I've read, but again, I have not done proper research, so take it with a grain of salt)
I am a bit skeptical of the supposed "3D printer revolution". Machines are complex and require assembling all sorts of different parts. You can't just get a drawing of an aircraft engine and have the 3D printer assemble it for you...and I just don't see how something like that could be likely in the near future.
To me it seems like some of the claims of how much 3D printers will change the world are just wishful thinking from us computer people, although I do hope that the biggest claims from 3D printing supporters come to fruition. Could someone familiar with the industry point out how these machines cause a change in manufacturing that goes beyond and has deeper consequences what we have seen already? (Prototyping, medical implants, Warhammer miniatures, funny paper lanterns).
3D printing seems like just an incremental development from computer assisted milling machines. We already have cheap ways to create a lot of stuff. Rapid prototyping aside, what is it that makes this technology such a game-changer instead of just a way to do certain, specific things a bit cheaper?
I am inclined to agree with you for the most part, however I think eventually, it does have great potential to change the way we use smart devices and the 'internet of things'. With enough standardization of cheep, small electronic components, we'd have the ability to roll our own quasi-disposable devices using a combination of printed components and factory made items.
Here's a silly little scenario I am thinking of: it's Thursday, and I'm going camping on the weekend. At work I download a plan for a bare-bones cellphone. I pick the one I want from a publicly curated 'app store' for devices and push it to my printer at home which orders the standard parts it needs from Amazon. It knows I've got the battery I need already since it's still sitting in the RFID-equipped bin at home so that doesn't figure into the cost. When I get home, the case and simple keypad are printed out. I pop in the PCB substrate and my printer makes the circuit board the other components will sit on. On Friday I pop the e-ink screen and cellular chip and sim reader in the device when they arrive from Amazon and I am ready to go. On Saturday, when I drop my new phone in a puddle, I'm out about 35 dollars, but my iphone is still safe n sound on my dresser at home.
A field which 3D printing will really change is aircraft components. In conjunction with computer based topology optimisation (using simulations to find the absolute optimum 3D shape for a component), 3D printing will allow us to produce really, really light components. CNC mills are quite limited by tool paths, something which doesn't impact 3D printing at all.
There's also a huge amount of potential in advanced materials. Titanium is really, really hard to machine and also very expensive (lots of wastage = lots of cost). 3D printing titanium (with lasers for sintering) is much easier (although quite slow) and can lead to very low material wastage.
It probably isn't going to change an average persons living room in the next 20 years. It will change (in some cases significantly) the design of lightweight components on aircraft and other weight critical applications.
TL;DR: hardware becomes software, IP erosion and democratisation of manufacturing changes design, design process, distribution and business models.
3D printing involves the digitisation of (some/parts of) physical objects, which means that the manufacturing and design industry will face the same challenges and opportunities as the music/entertainment/publishing industries. As the article suggested, we'll see a leveler playing field and IP issues. Where it gets interesting is how these two things influence the life of a physical product.
Hardware will become more like software. This means open source hardware will become a viable alternative and threat to existing proprietary "hardware" companies in certain industries. I suspect that we will see history repeat with a concentrated market-don't-share of retail portals (iDesigns, Google Blueprint...) and design brands in the hands of a few and a long tail cottage industry will play out in the hardware industries that are suited to 3D printing.
Having said that, because the way physical products are consumed/used is more diverse than software and because of inherent differences to software, the future of hardware will play out in a more varied way to software.
For example, consider a high-tech Ikea, in which currently unprintable parts (electronics, batteries etc) are mailed out to you while you print and assemble the rest yourself, choosing from the 25 official designs or the 3286 unwarrantied designs. You won't stick out of the crowd, but a DUbuntu LTS design is a safe bet. The price reductions (massive) will justify the labour, even for non-hackers. Manufacturing (think much of Asia) will need to reinvent itself as a design studio. We leave industrialisation further behind as manufacturing capability becomes a given and design becomes the differentiator.
I would like to print my own iPhone case instead of paying someone $50. The day I can go to reddit.com/r/3dmodels, download the CAD file for iPhone that someone created and shared with others, and print it at my home, will be the day 3D printing will have arrived. Until then it is still a niche market.
I'm just excited about some of the custom gift-giving opportunities that ubiquitous 3D printing is opening up. See markets like: http://www.shapeways.com/gallery/miniatures
Wow - reporting on 3D printing is soaring to ever more hyperbolic heights. Going off what Marvin asked below, I think that we're seeing the democratization of prototyping / dev tools: 3D printing is a part, but so is TechShop, Maker movement, etc. - however the next thing still to come is the democratization of production.
Solving manufacturing is a much larger problem than a one processes panacea. The real revolution should be framed as "digital manufacturing" - this is making the production process open and connected. 3D printing is sort of the gateway drug as I see it for the automation / accessibility of most every manufacturing process.
3D printing specifically, we're hitting some material science / engineering problems that are far harder than what's being done in making the RepRap clones. 3D printing has largely the same range of materials as it did 15 years ago - none of them are close to being as good as even low grade injection molded plastic. Instead, why not digitize / automate the rest of the 100's of processes (like milling, injection molding, etc.) - software will always be faster to develop than material science issues that we're hitting.
Disclosure: I was the founder of a 3D printing company, CloudFab, and I work with various advanced manufacturing tech.
29 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 78.5 ms ] threadI can really see the need for standardization of certain non-reproducible parts so that the end user can keep a few small parts on hand that can be used in a large number of possible smart devices.
The more I think about it, the more I feel like the strengths of 3D printing are such that it will bring about a revolution that doesn't intersect with traditional products (We won't be pirating iphones and printing them out). Instead I think 3D printing may supersede traditional devices in some cases. I might make my own utilitarian cell phone with few features to supplement my fancy expensive phone.
I think the worst cost issue is the money for the crappy plastic.
Also everyone is using pirated copies of 3d software instead of freecad
To the original question, MakerGear makes some high quality kits.
There are a couple of kickstarter projects that I can't name off the top of my head trying to do the same for under $1000.
http://www.quora.com/3D-Printing/How-much-does-it-cost-today...
Mandatory I Am Not A Lawyer Statement
I'm more interested in actual costs of the democratization of force for places that don't already have weapons (unlike the USA).
Stop assuming that this.country == "US" when you talk to people on the internet, please.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/firearms-technology.html#com...
"Individuals manufacturing sporting-type firearms for their own use need not hold Federal Firearms Licenses (FFLs)." So you could manufacture an AK receiver but you would have to outfit with a Saiga parts set to avoid falling afoul of 922(r) restrictions on "assault weapons".
I was only speaking to the U.S. as that is the only system I begin to understand the legalities of (and that would remotely allow this). The reality of an insurgency using 3D-printing to manufacture whole firearms isn't possible yet due to the stresses involved. I've had multiple mechanical failures due to MIM parts (metal injection molding) shattering in handguns. I can't imagine the current or near future 3D printing materials being able to surpass MIM in strength.
It would be more likely to be used to make difficult to manufacture components for weapons, such as molds for shaped charges.
Since Selective Laser Sintering (SLS) titanium has nearly the same properties of cast titanium, you could buy a printer in the sub 50k range.
Manufacturing a firearm with a 3D printer would be a federal crime in the USA. That's not why I asked.
I'm more interested in actual costs of the democratization of force for places that don't already have weapons (unlike the USA).
Great point about the democratization of force. I wonder if it's any easier than obtaining them on the black market in those countries.
PS: "fully-auto assault rifle" is redundant.
The downside is that it's located in Europe. You can buy them here: http://reprappro.com/
They also sell a bigger model (the mendel) now.
If you'd rather buy an american one, I've made no first hand experience with them, but heard good things from several people about maxbots. They sell the mendelmax, which is bigger than both of reprappros models, and more sturdy because it uses an aluminium frame.
Again, for under 1500, you will have to assemble it yourself:
http://store.mendelmax.com/
Disclaimer: I have not done any research on anything that isn't a reprap. I prefer RepRaps because they're open source and made from standard components, which means easy to fix yourself, and even if whoever sold you the machine goes out of business, you will still be able to replace/fix any part of it. Apparently makerbot support is good, but only if you have the latest model (or so I've read, but again, I have not done proper research, so take it with a grain of salt)
To me it seems like some of the claims of how much 3D printers will change the world are just wishful thinking from us computer people, although I do hope that the biggest claims from 3D printing supporters come to fruition. Could someone familiar with the industry point out how these machines cause a change in manufacturing that goes beyond and has deeper consequences what we have seen already? (Prototyping, medical implants, Warhammer miniatures, funny paper lanterns).
3D printing seems like just an incremental development from computer assisted milling machines. We already have cheap ways to create a lot of stuff. Rapid prototyping aside, what is it that makes this technology such a game-changer instead of just a way to do certain, specific things a bit cheaper?
Here's a silly little scenario I am thinking of: it's Thursday, and I'm going camping on the weekend. At work I download a plan for a bare-bones cellphone. I pick the one I want from a publicly curated 'app store' for devices and push it to my printer at home which orders the standard parts it needs from Amazon. It knows I've got the battery I need already since it's still sitting in the RFID-equipped bin at home so that doesn't figure into the cost. When I get home, the case and simple keypad are printed out. I pop in the PCB substrate and my printer makes the circuit board the other components will sit on. On Friday I pop the e-ink screen and cellular chip and sim reader in the device when they arrive from Amazon and I am ready to go. On Saturday, when I drop my new phone in a puddle, I'm out about 35 dollars, but my iphone is still safe n sound on my dresser at home.
There's also a huge amount of potential in advanced materials. Titanium is really, really hard to machine and also very expensive (lots of wastage = lots of cost). 3D printing titanium (with lasers for sintering) is much easier (although quite slow) and can lead to very low material wastage.
It probably isn't going to change an average persons living room in the next 20 years. It will change (in some cases significantly) the design of lightweight components on aircraft and other weight critical applications.
3D printing involves the digitisation of (some/parts of) physical objects, which means that the manufacturing and design industry will face the same challenges and opportunities as the music/entertainment/publishing industries. As the article suggested, we'll see a leveler playing field and IP issues. Where it gets interesting is how these two things influence the life of a physical product.
Hardware will become more like software. This means open source hardware will become a viable alternative and threat to existing proprietary "hardware" companies in certain industries. I suspect that we will see history repeat with a concentrated market-don't-share of retail portals (iDesigns, Google Blueprint...) and design brands in the hands of a few and a long tail cottage industry will play out in the hardware industries that are suited to 3D printing.
Having said that, because the way physical products are consumed/used is more diverse than software and because of inherent differences to software, the future of hardware will play out in a more varied way to software.
For example, consider a high-tech Ikea, in which currently unprintable parts (electronics, batteries etc) are mailed out to you while you print and assemble the rest yourself, choosing from the 25 official designs or the 3286 unwarrantied designs. You won't stick out of the crowd, but a DUbuntu LTS design is a safe bet. The price reductions (massive) will justify the labour, even for non-hackers. Manufacturing (think much of Asia) will need to reinvent itself as a design studio. We leave industrialisation further behind as manufacturing capability becomes a given and design becomes the differentiator.
Solving manufacturing is a much larger problem than a one processes panacea. The real revolution should be framed as "digital manufacturing" - this is making the production process open and connected. 3D printing is sort of the gateway drug as I see it for the automation / accessibility of most every manufacturing process.
3D printing specifically, we're hitting some material science / engineering problems that are far harder than what's being done in making the RepRap clones. 3D printing has largely the same range of materials as it did 15 years ago - none of them are close to being as good as even low grade injection molded plastic. Instead, why not digitize / automate the rest of the 100's of processes (like milling, injection molding, etc.) - software will always be faster to develop than material science issues that we're hitting.
Disclosure: I was the founder of a 3D printing company, CloudFab, and I work with various advanced manufacturing tech.