- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:13 pm to LSURussian
quote:
To me the difference between those innovations and 3D printing is that as soon as those new products became known I could immediately see how I would benefit from owning them.
For me 3D printing doesn't hold out the same level of benefits for me personally. Would I print out plastic forks and spoons? Or make plastic furniture? I don't think so.
I agree with you and C that 3D printing isn't really ready for mainstream consumer use. As C mentioned the complexity of translating something from the computer to the 3D world and the fact that very few things are created using only a single material are the biggest hindrances.
I think in terms of in-home use we are still at best 10 years from regular consumers actually wanting a 3D printer, and perhaps more like 20 years.
Now, I do think manufacturers may start seeing huge benefits from 3D printing as soon as 5 years from now. Even with single material printing, the 3D printer could be utilized to produce single parts.
Ultimately, though, I do see the benefit of 3D printing for me as a consumer some day. Some day I truly think I'll be able to produce broken parts for electronics, furniture, instruments etc. from the comfort of my couch. It probably won't ever be as easy as it is depicted in The Jetsons (
), but I think basic parts and materials will be something most consumers will utilize it for.Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:14 pm to C
quote:
Right. There have been 1 or 2 of these already, correct?
Well, there are hundreds, probably thousands of alt-coins out there, most heavily based on bitcoin. But I wouldn't call them a hard fork, per se.
A hard fork would be if, for instance, I tried to change the total amount of bitcoin from 21,000,000 to 42,000,000. I could download the bitcoin source code right now, and make a few changes and publish it and try to get people to run it. I may succeed in getting a few people to run my code, but the overwhelming majority of them would just ignore it. So what would happen is that my new network would contain all of the past bitcoin history but would be processing totally different new transactions from here on out from the original network. So we would exist in parallel.
However, if no one assigned any value to the coins on my new network then they would be worthless.
That might be clear as mud. Sorry.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:17 pm to MStant1
quote:
Similar to how e-books and digital music are really no cheaper than their physical counterparts
I just want to say that this is the result of copyright laws and business models that are resistant to change.
The technology is certainly sufficient to make those markets more efficient, and in fact it's quite evident in the independent marketplaces (i.e. self-published books and music)
This post was edited on 2/5/14 at 2:18 pm
Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:18 pm to MStant1
quote:
3D printer could be utilized to produce single parts.
Mass produce? Cheaper than other manufacturing methods like extrusion? I don't think so. You're switching a simple process into a more complex process.
quote:
20 years.
I think we'll be very close to nanobots by then. And bitcoins and 3D printing will have little use.
This post was edited on 2/5/14 at 2:18 pm
Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:19 pm to LSURussian
quote:
For me 3D printing doesn't hold out the same level of benefits for me personally. Would I print out plastic forks and spoons? Or make plastic furniture? I don't think so.
Well, of course, the early adopters are getting a feel for this stuff now. The next big wave will be the casual tinkerers (like me). I would likely print things like custom wall plates for electronics sockets, custom rubbery corner bumpers for some of my furniture (for kid-proofing), cabinet and drawer organization items, and various odd parts for repairing things (maybe a special bracket or something), or just little things I think of that might be handy.
The wave after that will be the general consumer version of 3D printers, which will be appliance-like. By this point it may be possible to print fabric-like materials, with different colors and patterns. The development of 3D scanning tech will likely progress alongside 3D printing, so that you could do things like scan your foot and then print out a custom shoe composed of various rubber and fabric like materials.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:20 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
That might be clear as mud. Sorry.
It is. I thought bitcoin itself has had a few system updates that I equated to hard forks. Maybe I'm wrong but hasn't their been some kind of update about a year ago?
Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:22 pm to C
quote:
I thought bitcoin itself has had a few system updates that I equated to hard forks. Maybe I'm wrong but hasn't their been some kind of update about a year ago?
oh yeah, there have been at least 2 I think. One of them was last march. It was actually an unintentional hard fork due to an update in the software client. The consensus reached basically discarded the new fork and returned to the original blockchain.
I think there was one way back in the early days but I don't know much about it.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:39 pm to C
quote:
Mass produce? Cheaper than other manufacturing methods like extrusion? I don't think so. You're switching a simple process into a more complex process.
To be fair I'm probably not explaining myself that well.
quote:
I think we'll be very close to nanobots by then. And bitcoins and 3D printing will have little use.
I'm not sure I know what you mean here.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:41 pm to WikiTiger
quote:
I just want to say that this is the result of copyright laws and business models that are resistant to change.
The technology is certainly sufficient to make those markets more efficient, and in fact it's quite evident in the independent marketplaces (i.e. self-published books and music)
I don't disagree, but that kinda proves my point that convenience has been an overriding factor. In fact I would say most people now would even be willing to pay a small premium for the convenience benefits. Currently price has not been a determining factor in deciding whether to go completely digital for music or books.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 2:53 pm to MStant1
quote:
To be fair I'm probably not explaining myself that well.
Most large companies that manufactur or design have 3d printers today. Seeing them in action and seeing other manufacturing methods, I don't see how it becomes a viable mass producer of goods.
Nanobots are tiny theoritical robots that can change the atomic structure of atoms. So creating diamonds from wood and back again. 20 years is probably too soon but I'm thinking it's here in my lifetime. I'm in my early 30s fwiw.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 3:17 pm to LSURussian
quote:
For me 3D printing doesn't hold out the same level of benefits for me personally. Would I print out plastic forks and spoons? Or make plastic furniture? I don't think so.
It won't just be plastic materials forever.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 3:23 pm to C
quote:
Most large companies that manufactur or design have 3d printers today. Seeing them in action and seeing other manufacturing methods, I don't see how it becomes a viable mass producer of goods.
I'm not sure anyone thinks 3d printing will ever be viable for mass production. The goal is more for rapid prototyping and iteration before mass production via other methods, or for custom, on-demand parts and products.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 4:04 pm to lynxcat
I believe they are working on printing graphene which will absolutely revolutionize the world.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News