Okay, so they make the printers cheap and saturate the market. Then everything is made locally with the printers they just made. It still obviates the need to have everything made by slave labor in China and then shipped here. Let them make all the printers. That's fine.
Okay, so they make the printers cheap and saturate the market. Then everything is made locally with the printers they just made. It still obviates the need to have everything made by slave labor in China and then shipped here. Let them make all the printers. That's fine.
Then we can print out our own parts to make our own printers and China labor, once again, becomes obsolete.
I'm sure you said this in jest, but it will actually be reality.
I'm sitting here looking at the first one in the state of Oklahoma. The real hi-tech part of them is the software that drives them. The process itself is quite simple. In a nutshell it's the exact opposite of CNC. With CNC you start with a hunk of material and remove material until you end up with a finished product. A rapid prototyper (3D Printer) starts with nothing and material until you have your finished product. All revolves around a designer with a solid modeling program, I've used SDRC, Pro E, Soldiworks, & Inventor programs to gnerate the STL files to use. Yes we have made gun parts on it but never a complete gun, but they are really only good for form, fit, & function testing. Some of the newer ones are using better/newer material to create parts. Currently generating air rifle parts for a machine shop project where they will be used to make forms for casting.
One of my students showed me a website that shows you how to make your own hairylegged homeowner machine. So it's already being done.
Stereolithography has been around since the early 1980's. Those that claim 'traditional' manufacturing will soon be obsolete because of it are like those that are holding out that Alchemy turns their stash of wheel weights into ingots.
Materials have a long, long way to go before a production analog is found in 3D printing.
Materials have a long, long way to go before a production analog is found in 3D printing.
I hate to be argumentative, but you're simply wrong in this case. The last few years has seen an explosion in what is possible with 3d printing. Sure, you could do stereolithography and make whimpy little plastic models since the '80's, but how long has printing circuit boards been possible? Or functioning rocket parts? Or titanium body parts? Or airline parts? Some of which are so intircate that it wouldn't even be possible to make these parts AT ALL by traditional manufacturing. All of this is not only possible, it is being done on a daily basis and it may even be things you've come in contact with.
http://gizmodo.com/5841449/why-yes-maam-this-airbus-a380-was-printed-on-demand-by-a-computer
I will argue with anyone that using traditional manufacturing methods with commonly available raw materials is FAR, FAR less expensive and more efficient than the use of exotic sintered materials and 3D printers unable to achieve repeatable tolerances.
Materials have a long, long way to go before a production analog is found in 3D printing.
Consider for a minute Smith & Wesson's selective use of 'metal injection molding (MIM)' to produce components of the hammer/trigger lock mechanisms. See: http://smith-wessonforum.com/s-w-revolvers-1980-present/219641-use-mim-parts-s-ws-explanation.html
As a process, MIM has been around much longer than 3D printing (WWIIera Kraut R&D), and uses a slurry of resin and metallic powders (eg: no exotic base metallurgies) and the end result: this forum is filled with 'anti-lock enthusiasts' and stories of those MIM revolver parts failing at just the wrong time.
3D printing is even further down the path of fringe production. It's a neat idea, but don't get too wound up about it yet. Lots of development and research on the materials end of things before it is a viable option for 'cottage production' models.
As a process, MIM has been around much longer than 3D printing (WWIIera Kraut R&D), and uses a slurry of resin and metallic powders (eg: no exotic base metallurgies) and the end result: this forum is filled with 'anti-lock enthusiasts' and stories of those MIM revolver parts failing at just the wrong time.
3D printing is even further down the path of fringe production. It's a neat idea, but don't get too wound up about it yet. Lots of development and research on the materials end of things before it is a viable option for 'cottage production' models.
I agree with you on the material science part, but I feel like most of the MIM/lock hate stems from the fact that gun owners are frightened of change.
That, and those changes were introduced at a time when S&W's QC was absolute **** in general.
