Manufacturing on Demand: The Future Is Now
"Rapid prototyping" will revolutionize design and fabrication just as Napster changed how we listen to music.
The ProMetal process Sheba uses is only one of several 3D printing technologies that use metals, plastics (video link), even waxes, and in almost all cases, right now, you get an expensive object in not very durable material. (Sheba’s sculptures are the example that tests that rule: they’re quite sturdy.) There are a few other areas where 3D printing and rapid prototyping is already useful, but they’re pretty limited.
This is hardly the only process available, however. This notion of quickly turning a digital description into a physical object is becoming known as “rapid prototyping,” with a range of possible technologies: numerically-controlled machining, various kinds of “3D printing” like Sheba uses, even numerically controlled woodworking. (You can find a nice summary of the different technologies at the University of Utah Rapid Prototyping Home Page, and this Rapid Prototyping tutorial page.)
We’re pretty much at the MITS 8800 stage of manufacturing on demand — there’s no guessing which technologies will come out to be the winners. But we can make some guesses what the eventual results will be, if we just think about what the computer revolution has already done.
In all forms of publishing — text, music, and video — what the Internet (and to a lesser extent print-on-demand) has done is changed the economics. The up-front, fixed costs are very much reduced. You don’t need to print a big press run to fill the bookstores; you don’t need to press thousands of platters to move a record. What’s more, the actual cost of producing the item is also reduced — pennies for a book on my Kindle or a song on iTunes, or a dollar or so for a music CD. So now a musician can sell an album, or a writer can publish a book, without needing to fight for limited resources.
“Manufacturing on demand” — or “fab,” or “rapid prototyping” — has the same potential. If you want a particular style of fork and can find it on the Internet, you can have it: send it to a fabrication company (or maybe even have your own at-home 3D printer — you can already make a do-it-yourself version, like the Fab@Home project ) and within hours or days you have your fork. If you have a design for a fork, you can sketch it with something like Sketch-Up, advertise it and sell it. No need to have a factory, no need to pitch it to a big company, no need to share the rights.
It isn’t limited to small objects, either. There are new technologies, like those of the Contour Crafting project at UC Irvine, that can build houses using a similar, computer controlled technology. (What will it mean to architecture when you can design a house and then build the basic structure in a few days, automatically? In Chilé. Or on the Moon.) The Fab Lab at MIT uses more conventional technology, but then can build larger, more conventional things too. (What will car hobbyists be able to do if they can design and build a new engine on their desktop?)
What will it mean when everyone can be a designer and a manufacturer, just as computer technology lets everyone be a publisher, or cut and sell a record?
Start thinking about it. The time is coming.
<- Prev Page 2 of 2
Charlie Martin is a Colorado computer scientist and nearly-successful screenwriter who contributes to the Flares Into Darkness political blog as ‘Seneca the Younger,’ and blogs under his own name at the aggressively non-political Explorations blog.
 |
 |
 |
Podcasts |  PJM Home |
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
27 Comments
1. Articles Archive | Think Forward:[...] B) Bush’s Term C) D) E) F) G) Gazprom H) I) Iran (Bolten) J) K) L) M) McCain Speech N) O) P) Prototype 3d printing Q) R) Russia-Georgia Invasion S) T) U) V) Vietnam Funding W) X) Y) Z) SHARETHIS.addEntry({ [...]
Sep 17, 2008 - 5:37 am 2. Toad:Let’s see lay down powedered steel and resin then hit it with laser as you go along. Just behind that a jet of cold nitrogent.
Sep 17, 2008 - 5:49 am 3. J.J. Sefton:What’s this we have? A pistol reciever?
I saw a documentary about the design and construction of the Boeing 777. I believe it was the first aircraft designed solely by virtual reality. Designers around the world were able to “walk through” the computer model and discuss remotely by teleconference. But the thing I saw that was amazing was that they were able to literally “fax” parts that were too difficult to visualize even in VR so designers could see and feel it up close and integrate it with what they were working on, perhaps thousands of miles away.
So, okay. Where can I get one already? Got lots of toys I want to make!!!!!
Sep 17, 2008 - 5:52 am 4. ken magalnik:Perhaps the time is coming but it isn’t here yet. Rapid prototyping does a good job of making concepts that one can hold in their hand to have a better understanding of an idea. In comparison to clay sculptures, they are pretty cheap. What rapid prototyping cannot do, is make functional, mechanical parts. The “printed” parts are much weaker than cast, machined, or molded ones. The printer resolution provides a poor surface finish, and cannot handle fine details, such as threads. In addition, there is no way to make parts of different hardness, which is a requirement if you want two parts to slide against each other for long.
Sep 17, 2008 - 8:29 am 5. Toad:So toads pistol receiver might fire a few shots before cracking. It would have to be very loose to accommodate for the loose tolerances, and will likely jam after every shot.
The engine the author is talking about will fair even worse. The pistons will leak horribly, the connecting rods will bend, the bearings on the cam and crank shafts will weld. I’ll be very surprised if that engine ran at all, and there is no way than it will run for more than 10 minutes.
It’s a cool technology, but it is not manufacturing.
I agree that as it is now, all you can do are models. However in the future if you can lay down layers of steel, puddle/weld it and heat treat it in one pass, you could get a Damascus effect. Consider also glass filled nylon and other reinforced polymers without the use of injection molds. If anything can be manufactured it will be manufactured. The ability of governments to restrict “dangerous” technologys will become very difficult.
Sep 17, 2008 - 8:56 am 6. Toad:The question was to specualte on what may be comming in the future.
What I see is that this is going to have almost as much effect as the printing press and the Internet. If it becomes possible to make a layered Damascus steel in one pass, or a glass filled polymer object with out an injection mold or even an anode to make rifling then Governments are going to have a heck of a time controlling the spread of what they consider “dangerous” objects.
Imagine the future so you can prepare for it.
Sep 17, 2008 - 9:02 am 7. BackwardsBoy:Can I make my own flying car now?
Sep 17, 2008 - 9:06 am 8. Robert:Too bad for the Brady Bunch, their gun control ideology will be obsolete if it isn’t already.
Sep 17, 2008 - 10:56 am 9. Tood:I envision a near future where people invent their own designs and post them on facebook, with friends trading designs with each other and ‘printing’ them.
Sep 17, 2008 - 11:05 am 10. "gunner":interesting, but this presupposes an understanding of the technology of the widget you’re trying to replicate, as ken points out. even a relatively “simple” machine, like a semi automatic pistol, requires understanding the forces acting in and on the mechanism in its operation. heat, pressure, mechanical friction, cyclic timing, mechanical linkages, etc. then you get into the wonderful world of writing a programme the computer can run to acually build your widget. not unsolvable problems but still many process steps between idea and product. thinking will still be required before pushing the magic button.
Sep 17, 2008 - 11:09 am 11. Happycrow:“gunner”
I’m in education: just getting replicas of historical items so that they can be used for teaching would be a slam dunk as far as I’m concerned. It may not be ready for prime-time… but it sure as hell is exciting for us in the niches.
Sep 17, 2008 - 11:30 am 12. Wacky Hermit:This still doesn’t answer the question: WHERE’S MY @#$% JETPACK???????
Sep 17, 2008 - 11:31 am 13. Self-hating boomer:I’m with Ken. This was never intended for production, even onsies and twosies. It makes the equivelent of a part that someone in the past whittled out of a bar of soap. It’s a 3d visualization tool. There may be very limited possibilities for limited production parts in the future, but if you’re thinking Star Trek transporter type devices, ain’t gonna happen.
Sep 17, 2008 - 11:32 am 14. gmsc:“‘Rapid prototyping’ will revolutionize design and fabrication just as Napster changed how we listen to music.”
That may be true, but I think rapid prototyping will have legitimate uses, as well.
Sep 17, 2008 - 11:36 am 15. Tood:It is exciting to think about how much this will supercharge economic growth, particularly in developing regions.
Furthermore, it appears that a material than can be easily melted and recycled will be used. Old, discarded objects could simply be melted and used to make the next object(s).
Sep 17, 2008 - 11:44 am 16. Bob Miller:There’s a lot going on in the military and elsewhere with another rapid prototyping process called LENS, which originated with work at Sandia National Labs. This uses a laser device and metal powder to create free-standing shapes.
See http://www.sfinorman.com/files/CREAM/01042008_Seminar_AMT/martin_hedges__lens_technology.pdf
Sep 17, 2008 - 12:33 pm 17. john b:Interesting and exciting view into the near future.
Sep 17, 2008 - 2:22 pm 18. Allston:With the exception of “no need to share the rights”. It should read ‘no way to retain the rights’. Anyone with a digital camera could reproduce your work exactly if I understand this correctly. Much like the fork that you “found”.
It’s great to see inventions predicted by the Science Fiction greats, such as Clarke or Heinlein, becoming a reality.
It’s a *good* time to be alive…
Sep 17, 2008 - 2:47 pm 19. Manufacturing on Demand: the Future is Now | Explorations:[...] new article on Pajamas [...]
Sep 17, 2008 - 3:55 pm 20. Charlie (Colorado):SHB, it’s worth remembering that there are a lot of things that you only buy one at a time. This has the promise of being rather like the change in the record business: big sellers will make big money, but small specialized designers will be able to get into the market easily.
Allston, the mention of Heinlein is absolutely right: remember his Universal Pantograph?
Sep 17, 2008 - 8:05 pm 21. Ellen:A word on another cost reduced w/print on demand (not the focus of the article, but it’s my field) – insurance costs. Not having to insure a warehouse full of books reduces costs mightily for a publisher.
Sep 17, 2008 - 8:23 pm 22. Jack:That’s okay, ’cause Toad only needs one round.
Sep 17, 2008 - 9:44 pm 23. Charlie (Colorado):Good point, Ellen. Isn’t there a tax advantage too?
Sep 18, 2008 - 7:19 am 24. Tightwad Technica » Where Image Meets Physicality:[...] Linky. [...]
Sep 18, 2008 - 8:58 am 25. Warrl:Analog Science Fiction has in their November issue a science-fact article, “The 3D Train Wreck” (might eventually be available online at http://www.analogsf.com/ but right now you gotta go get the atoms to read it) about this very subject.
You can download the plans and parts list for a 3D printer from reprap.org and the parts should cost less than $1000. I’m afraid it looks rather tinker-toy-ish.
You can download the plans (including software) for a better one – which can handle multiple materials – at fabathome.org ; in this case the parts for the basic version will cost about $2400 or you can buy the basic version, assembled and ready to go, for about $4000. This is not a commercial-grade device by any means, but one adventurous owner has set up his printer to deal with multiple materials simultaneously – and printed a working electric battery. Also, while 3D printing is strictly additive, some of the people involved in this this project are imagining subtractive approaches such as using a Dremel roto-tool as a “print”head. That could open up some serious improvements in surface quality.
There’a also a guy at USC working on printing buildings. NASA’s looking at one of his prototypes and imagining printing buildings on the moon.
Sep 20, 2008 - 12:25 am 26. Robert:interesting, but this presupposes an understanding of the technology of the widget you’re trying to replicate, as ken points out. even a relatively “simple” machine, like a semi automatic pistol, requires understanding the forces acting in and on the mechanism in its operation. heat, pressure, mechanical friction, cyclic timing, mechanical linkages, etc. then you get into the wonderful world of writing a programme the computer can run to acually build your widget. not unsolvable problems but still many process steps between idea and product. thinking will still be required before pushing the magic button.
“gunner”
If you’re designing a new pistol design to print out of your fablab then your statement would be relevant. If you’re printing out a well tested pistol design that has existed for decades then your statement would be irrelevant. The mechanical stresses would have been already accounted for.
Sep 21, 2008 - 8:56 pm 27. Robert:Gunner said:
interesting, but this presupposes an understanding of the technology of the widget you’re trying to replicate, as ken points out. even a relatively “simple” machine, like a semi automatic pistol, requires understanding the forces acting in and on the mechanism in its operation. heat, pressure, mechanical friction, cyclic timing, mechanical linkages, etc. then you get into the wonderful world of writing a programme the computer can run to acually build your widget. not unsolvable problems but still many process steps between idea and product. thinking will still be required before pushing the magic button.
“gunner”
My Reply:
Sep 21, 2008 - 9:02 pmUnfortunately, the strange multi-click system on PJM erased my original reply.
I will reply again.
Your concerns are only relevant if you’re designing a brand new pistol design from scratch, then printing it out of the fablab. They are not relevant to pistol designs that have existed for decades since those concerns have already been addressed.