[ExI] 3d printers for sale
Adrian Tymes
atymes at gmail.com
Mon Aug 27 00:40:28 UTC 2012
On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 2:56 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
> On 26/08/2012 18:03, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 26, 2012 at 6:25 AM, Charlie Stross
>> <charlie.stross at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> There's more than one way to build a 3D printer, and I suspect our first
>>> fully self-reproducing ones will actually consist of a whole bunch of
>>> specialised printing tools that each have different tasks.
>>
>> Agreed. Rather than a single omnitool (which most 3D printers
>> seem to be modeled on), a more viable approach might better
>> resemble a miniature automated machine shop, similar to the
>> approach used to make a CNC lathe.
>
> I wonder about the pricetag. The nice thing about current 3D manufacturing
> devices is that they can do a lot of things with no need to add multiple
> heads, which keeps complexity down a lot. Adding multiple tooltips sounds
> like it would not just baloon the complexity of control, but also require a
> lot of tool-tool interaction. Laser cutters do not play well with heated
> foundations for squirting plastics.
Oh, aye, this would not be the cheapest of approaches - which is
why it is not often pursued.
What I am wondering is, might it be necessary anyway? There's
been a lot of work into one-head approaches and we still don't
have something that can 100% reproduce itself. "More expensive"
does not mean "impossible", but "not possible with this tool set"
does mean "impossible with this tool set".
>> Alternately, accept oversized components in the 3D printer so
>> that the 3D printer can print them. If the central processor is
>> a conductive-ink-on-paper thing half a meter on a side, rather
>> than a thumbnail-sized silicon-and-wires chip - can it still
>> handle the computational load at reasonable speeds? If so,
>> then fine, the 3D printer itself is less portable, but mobility is
>> not its primary function. Those and the motors seem to be the
>> elements that 3D printers have the most trouble printing.
>
> There are economies of scale that I suspect will beat 3D printers on a lot
> of domains. They are good for unique goods or ones where manufacturing time
> is of little issue: they rely on cheap high-precision stepping motors that
> are likely best made in large batches by a specialised factory. Or maybe a
> device that can be 3D printed to make them? Full closure doesn't need to
> imply that the replicator does everything within itself, it might make
> symbiotic machines that make special parts for it. A bit like an insect
> queen (general assembler) and the different castes (specialized in providing
> particular parts).
But then those symbiotic machines, while they are working, are part
of the replicator insofar as they are helping to create the final product.
And, of course, if those symbiotic machines make sense, they might
make even better sense as permanent parts of the replicator - say, as
different heads.
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list