h a l f b a k e r yFutility is persistent.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
The challenge would be the mixing of materials. Most of it could be plastic, that's no problem, but you'd need conductive and motor elements and the hardest part of course, the heating elements.
Not saying I know how to do it, but that's why it could be an X Prize contest or something.
RepRap project
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RepRap
[bs0u0155, Apr 07 2025]
[link]
|
| |
Heating elements are a piece of cake.
For example, Fisher & Paykel have been "writing" their dishwasher heating elements with conductive ink for a long time.
Because some of it needs to be metal, probably easier to make it ALL out of metal (I can't think of any parts that NEED to be plastic). Getting different mechanical properties from a single metal supply would be the tricky bit, but there is a lot of research into nano-structured materials with weird capabilities). |
|
| |
Exactly, it's got possibilities and roadblocks but obviously the payoff isn't just making 3D printers, it's making everything. |
|
| |
The problem is fundamental. To melt a material, you need something hotter than that temperature. If it's made of that material, it will melt. |
|
| |
So what’s the solution? Remember, the idea here is for a contest. Are there ways to form the necessary heating parts besides heat? |
|
| |
You can use magnetic fields to melt metal, but I don't know what temp the coils themselves get up to.
I'm thinking "3D printing" on it's own won't be enough; a fully replicating unit will need at least a bit of machining & other manufacturing capabilities; & almost certainly some way to assemble sub-components. |
|
| |
Can the device include a black-box unit that has a midget Human hidden inside? |
|
| |
Hush; I don't want them to know I'm here! |
|
| |
Gonna change this to "contest" on the off chance that the boners are judging this as a actual proposed design. |
|
| |
My bone is because you've added nothing but the word "contest" to something that has been widely discussed for decades. |
|
| |
So if something's been discussed you can't have a contest to achieve it? Might wanna let the X Prize folks know that. |
|
| |
But thanks for manning up and explaining your bone at least. |
|
| |
The RepRap project <link> is clear precedent here. 3D Printing owes a lot to Adrian Bowyer. Opening up the tech has changed the world. |
|
| |
Nowadays, I can draw up my nephew's idea for a suspension component for his RC car, hit print and have the object in carbon fiber reinforced glory in an hour for single digit $ on a machine that's ~$1000. |
|
| |
Prusa is a major player and they 3D print many parts of their printers, but I think this highlights a fairly fundamental problem. A 3D printer will generate dimensional inaccuracies, making a printer with this will generate a machine with more, each generation gets worse. So the important parts are made with other techniques. Prusa is printing large amounts of printer parts because they can, not because they should. Injection molding would spit out parts in seconds not hours with far superior dimensional accuracy in better plastics. |
|
| |
My point is, do you want a self-printed printer given that you know it will be inferior? |
|
| |
You might argue that we have high precision machines now, yet we started with sticks and rocks. So it's clearly possible to make a more precise/accurate machine with a less precise/accurate machine. However, I think this might be fundamentally reliant on rotation. |
|
| |
Reading up on the invention/ development of the machine lathe is fascinating stuff |
|
| |
//My point is, do you want a self-printed printer given that you know it will be inferior?// |
|
| |
Well that's the interesting question isn't it? For the particular system, be it 3d printer or crop picking robots, at what point does the "Quantity has a quality all its own." axiom kick in? |
|
| |
So sticking with the farm analogy, if I've got robots that can make all the tools necessary to manage an agricultural venture and they just give me a menu: "Bring X amount of iron powder, X amount of plastic beads, X amount of lithium or whatever..." then after the growing season I sit back and watch the trucks arrive and get filled with my crops, am I particularly concerned that I'd sit there and watch a robot take 4 hours just to pick the dates off a particular date tree? |
|
| |
At what point is simply being autonomous good enough? |
|
| |
Dunno. That's why it's an interesting discussion. I think anyway. |
|
| |
//At what point is simply being autonomous good enough? // |
|
| |
Do you have a set of rules? I think I can demonstrate a self replicating, autonomous, 3D object that can run entirely on water and corn. It weighs less than 30g, and squeaks. The major problem seems to be that it is fixated with printing endless mice. |
|
| |
I'd say only that it can't be a mouse, either robotic or biologically produced. |
|
| |
Assuming it would be run with AI it might just say "Analyzing... answer, to get self replicating autonomous corn eating flying machines that will transform corn to fertilizer, simply throw corn onto your front lawn. Birds will eat the corn and reproduce." |
|
| |
"But I want robots to do it." |
|
| |
"Well... I dunno, because, they should be made of plastic and make beeping noises." |
|
| |
"Would you settle for having devices that attached to the various birds that made the desired beeping noise?" |
|
| |
//At what point is simply being autonomous good enough?// |
|
| |
Energy usage, [Doc]. Everything else derives from that. Its simple thermodynamics. Moss growing on a boulder, Human labour, robotics, huge industrial power plants, its all just capturing free energy from the environment and using it to develop and increase complex structures. |
|
| |
So an autonomous device that burned tons of fuel to accomplish the picking of one date is not going to compete with a trained monkey at the same task. |
|
| |