[Luis Dias]

its not that open source hardware looks to give away free gadgets to everyone.

Combine open source hardware with a (very) good 3d printer though and you can do anything on your own.

Want a graphics card? Print it and install it. Done. And so on.

[The E]

I think it will take some time before 3D printers can actually print stuff as complex as a graphics card. Circuit boards, sure, no problem, but actual chips?

[Luis Dias]

I was not speaking tomorrow. More like 30 years or 40 years from now, since the conversation was getting pretty much abstract.

Of course, in 40 years time, "graphics card" will be such an outdated concept. However, I believe it could be possible that in 2050 people just print their own computers if they need one, despite the fact that they may not be as fast or powerful as the latest nvidia chips they'll have that day, running in half-an-atom sized transistors. Or smth.

[z64555]

despite the fact that they may not be as fast or powerful as the latest nvidia chips they'll have that day, running in half-an-atom sized transistors. Or smth.

Yeah... no. I think it'll be a bit longer than "30 or 40 years" before we start manipulating subatomic particles like we do electricity.

[Phantom Hoover]

As someone pointed out on the previous page, anything that the consumer can manufacture can be manufactured more cheaply in bulk; whilst blatant profiteering would become a lot less effective (you can't easily overprice something when people can print it themselves for less money) it would not mean the end of industrial manufacturing.

[Nuke]

they have already been some open source graphics cards, from the specs they suck though. mostly built around low end fpgas.

you still need a multibillion dollar fab to produce chips that can compete on the semiconductor market. open source hardware is still pretty much confined to using off the shelf chips, most of which are not open source, though many have open specs, and open source drivers and the like, but they are not exactly going to share the details of their manufacturing process with you, though some people have cracked transistor fabrication which is a good start.

fpgas are the promising tech right now. intel is supposedly turning out fpgas for several companies with a 22nm process. fpgas are nice because you can configure it as whatever kind of processor you can think of. some can even be configured as high performance chips like gpus. the open source hardware community is quite fond of them, as it can turn anyone with a vhdl manual into a chip architecture designer, without the trouble of needing a fab to realize your designs. ive been wanting a dev board for some time now, but they are a tad pricy.

[MP-Ryan]

Some of you are talking like we're going to be able to "print" just about any physical object at home.  There are still the matters of capital cost for equipment (since these printers will be similar to very complicated CNC machines, especially if they're multipurpose) and ongoing costs of materials.  Refined elemental ores and minerals aren't cheap, and are yet very necessary for a number of consumer electronics, to name just one thing.  Even specialty plastics and other synthetic materials can be relatively expensive if you're not manufacturing or ordering them in large bulk quantities.

I can see 3D printers in niche applications, but it's going to be pretty damn difficult for home setups to replicate the cost efficiency of what can be done on an industrial scale.

[z64555]

I'm going to just go ahead and spit this out here.

3D Printers are NOT a substitute for traditional machining processes.

That's right, even though 3D printers are pretty cool in the fact that you can construct almost anything by using an additive process, it has the following limitations:

1. It's slow. If your opting to make a mass number (hundreds/thousands/etc) of these per week, a 3D printer is not going to cut it.

2. It's imprecise. This is potentially fixable by improving the quality of the positioning servos and giving the printer head a nozzle that could adjust its diameter on the fly. But, keep in mind that the more precise the nozzle is the slower it will go. A CNC machine could zip and cut a piece in perhaps half the time of a printer and still have high precision.

3D printers should be geared more towards the prototyping phase of manufacturing and not replace the manufacturing process for most parts.

Now, concerning open hardware and resale, I do not see 3D printers as a major threat to patent holders if the commercial market is not being a derphard and actually has reasonable prices. The only real thing patents do now-days is prevent the mass-production and sale of your intellectual property.

[Luis Dias]

Some of you are talking like we're going to be able to "print" just about any physical object at home.  There are still the matters of capital cost for equipment (since these printers will be similar to very complicated CNC machines, especially if they're multipurpose) and ongoing costs of materials.  Refined elemental ores and minerals aren't cheap, and are yet very necessary for a number of consumer electronics, to name just one thing.  Even specialty plastics and other synthetic materials can be relatively expensive if you're not manufacturing or ordering them in large bulk quantities.

I can see 3D printers in niche applications, but it's going to be pretty damn difficult for home setups to replicate the cost efficiency of what can be done on an industrial scale.

Freedom rings! Freedom rings!

Look, home printers allow you to print what goddamn thing you want to. Yeah, centralized "printers" are more efficient than home printers, but I don't see people printing their letters and so on in a local factory. Also, what you say is entirely true in medium-term future. And I'd say, utterly untrue in long-term future (30 years +).

[Phantom Hoover]

But the thing is that people write their own letters. They do not design their own CPUs or toasters. Whilst personalised manufacturing would certainly be very useful, it's still going to be less efficient than centralised, specialised manufacturing for the foreseeable future. It's also not really comparable to the current state of digital distribution so I'm not sure why the discussion really turned this way?

[Luis Dias]

But the thing is that people write their own letters. They do not design their own CPUs or toasters. Whilst personalised manufacturing would certainly be very useful, it's still going to be less efficient than centralised, specialised manufacturing for the foreseeable future. It's also not really comparable to the current state of digital distribution so I'm not sure why the discussion really turned this way?

Why can't people design their toasters? And if by "less efficient" you mean the difference between it costing 10 bucks and 15 bucks, people might just choose their own personalized version. Idk too, I'm brainstorming as well. Considering everything that has been said, I also think that printing CPUs might be one of the last things people will do with their 3d printers in the future.

[Phantom Hoover]

Dunno about you but I'm perfectly happy to delegate the design of my toaster and CPU to someone who has years of theoretical and practical expertise rather than wasting time and resources on doing it myself and making something that will set fire to my toast or my computer. Also I think you're understating the margin between a bespoke and mass-produced thing; economy of scale is a pretty basic property.

[Herra Tohtori]

So, how is the actual lawsuit going? You know, the one this discussion is about.

[Phantom Hoover]

Cursory attempts to find recent news don't reveal anything.

[Luis Dias]

Dunno about you but I'm perfectly happy to delegate the design of my toaster and CPU to someone who has years of theoretical and practical expertise rather than wasting time and resources on doing it myself and making something that will set fire to my toast or my computer. Also I think you're understating the margin between a bespoke and mass-produced thing; economy of scale is a pretty basic property.

Think FOSS. Think Modding communitites. Think basic modelling software aided by AIs.

Or, in a reversed perspective, think how a 1950s person would say about printing home letters by yourself "what, ou'd have your own printer? And you'd write your own letter in digital form? Ah! The skill you must have as a programmer just isn't worth the effort!"

[Phantom Hoover]

Considering they already had typewriters in the 50s I'm guessing the idea of a printer would go down pretty easily with them. And even in open-source and modding communities the people designing the 'product' are only a small fraction of the ones using it; very few people would actually want a custom design of toaster, and using your own CPU architecture is actually clinically recognised as extreme masochism.

[Luis Dias]

Yeah, substitute it for something a kid is now able to do with computers that would sound magical for people in the fifties.

[Phantom Hoover]

I'm not saying it wouldn't be used by hobbyists or others, or that there's no unforeseen but incredibly useful application as happened with computers. But as far as supplanting mass production of everyday objects? I think that's as silly as those who saw robots being used for domestic chores.

[Luis Dias]

Fair enough.

[FlamingCobra]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57547748-1/nasa-3d-printing-parts-for-its-next-rocket-headed-for-mars/?part=rss&subj=cnet&tag=title&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+cnet%2FNnTv+%28CNET+River+RSS%29

Related to the current topic of 3D printing.