"...it is possible to use 3D scanners to reverse-engineer items and then print them out. This could open up a can of worms in patent and design infringements, and it remains to be seen how UPS will deal with such copying."
Same concerns can be said about Kinko's. This is another new generational problem that's probably not addressed in courts. Maybe a fair-use clause like at libraries and universities would be an interesting spin.
Is it just me or would the material strength of 3D printed items have to become exponentially better for them to become a success for any kind of serious use?
I mean they mention car parts in the article - that would require more than an evolution in part endurance, it would have to be a revolutionary increase?
I guess you can use them to make molds for stronger parts but you cannot make the strong part itself.
Would you trust a 3D printed bolt or fastener in this current generation of material?
Maybe one day there will be a material you "bake" afterwards to make the atoms bond at a molecular level and make it as strong as if it was cut from a solid block of metal.
>"Is it just me or would the material strength of 3D printed items have to become exponentially better for them to become a success for any kind of serious use?"
Today I used a polymer extrusion printer to create a prototype in the lab. I used PLA, one of the two most common polymers for this type of 3d printing, and it is a very strong model. It's as strong as any injection molded instance of the same object would be.
>"I mean they mention car parts in the article - that would require more than an evolution in part endurance, it would have to be a revolutionary increase?"
It won't take a revolution in part endurance, in many instances the endurance is already there. People often conflate the 3d printers they see available to the consumer now with the absolute limit case of the technology.
This is an instance of an author describing the larval stages of a new phenomenon. The author describes something specific and currently possible: "...designers, entrepreneurs, start-ups and architects seeking models..." And then goes on to explain to a general audience the zeitgeist of this technology: On demand additive manufacturing.
A lot of the confusion associated with "3d printing can't do that" is that of the 3 main types of 3d printing, only one has seen somewhat widespread consumer adoption (so far): polymer extrusion printing. That's essentially most of what you see as commercially available today.
There are two other types: stereolithographic printing and laser sintering printing. Stereo will bring us higher resolution polymer based prints. Such as extremely intricate plastic tools capable of advanced capillary action for a laboratory. I recommend checking out Formlabs.
Laser sintering uses powdered bases to create metal and ceramic parts. Objects made this way can absolutely be very strong. This may bring the car parts to a repair shop near you.
Five to seven years ago, the state of polymer extrusion printing today would have been unthinkable. I'd put my money on laser sintering and stereolithography to follow a similar trend.
>"I guess you can use them to make molds for stronger parts but you cannot make the strong part itself."
Aerospace industry has been using Laser Sintering for lots of their parts replacements in the last 3-5 years. I can totally see shops setup with the higher end machines ($1-2M each) that do multi-material laser sintering and complex models being setup near airports to build on demand replacement parts.
> Is it just me or would the material strength of 3D printed items have to become exponentially better for them to become a success for any kind of serious use?
Well, right now with today's technology you can 3D print multishot guns and rifles.
These uprint se machines from stratasys run about $20k a piece. I bet this experiment costs ups less than $2m to do. From building out workflow to software to manage to training employees. For ups it's a drop in bucket.
I would guess an extremely low percentage. What was the last item you bought that was essentially nothing more than a single piece of some kind of plastic?
3D printing has an arguable use-case (IMO) for 1-off plastic-y parts, but it's far from making anything overly complex or durable. When you think about any object that might have a market need for 1000 or more of the same thing (not a very large number) injection molding turns out better parts at an arguably lower price.
I like the idea of 3D printers, and I've played around in the past with vinyl plotters I've modified to cut wood veneers, and small CNC machines and the like, but I just can't figure out how to justify a current 3D printer beyond a novelty aspect.
Except that anything large enough or detailed enough to be worth printing takes many hours to run. Not a great "stop by and get something printed" use case. I think the best type of business here is a "upload your file and receive the part in the mail in 2 days".
Right, but it doesn't make sense for it to be on a retail floor then. All the machines should be in a big Amazon style warehouse to share supplies, service support, programmers, etc...
Generally speaking, 3d printing doesn't smell that bad. In a well ventilated area many people can't even pick up on the smell at all.
It's certainly no worse than the an unfamiliar smell you may encounter in an automotive garage. To say it's awful is a tad much.
If you are talking about the most common types of 3d printers on the market today, polymer extrusion printers, the smell is entirely dependent on the polymer you are using. The two most commonly used are ABS and PLA.
ABS has a more potent and unpleasant odor, but it's really not that bad. PLA, derived from sugars, ranges from almost no smell to a neutral "cooking oil" smell.
I haven't had the pleasure of working with stereolithography or laser sintering printers (yet). But I'm willing to bet that stereolithography printers have no odor or at least less odor than polymer extrusion printers (they use UV light to heat up a resin, somewhat similar base material as extrusion printers but probably produces less of the "hot polymer smell").
On the other hand, I'd also be willing to bet that laser sintering printers produce a great deal of odor sometimes, as they heat up powdered base materials to produce metal and ceramic parts.
Of the three main types of 3d printing: polymer extrusion (aka full deposition), stereolithography, and laser sintering; only polymer extrusion has somewhat widespread consumer adoption (as of today), and it just doesn't smell that much.
current technology is slow. but think about picking it up the next day? the machines could print out stuff over night. in a day you could print a handful of 7x7x7 sized objects for pickup the following day.
Interesting they are placing these at UPS stores, which would be close to the consumer.
I would expect that if it gets big enough, UPS would set up a central location, say at their HQ airport in Louisville and do much of their printing, next day, or same day, from there.
I can imagine doing my first prints until I get it right at a local store, and then future prints and/or drop shipments from the regional/national UPS 3D print shop.
In that particular Stephenson's universe post offices were places with large direct-manufacturing chambers which produced items from provided blueprints. The book wasn't otherwise that good - however, the idea of not receiving physical items but their manufacturing descriptions certainly left an impression.
besides the "can of worms" mentioned by using scanners to replicate items, how is UPS going to avoid the issue of people have design files that infringe on someones IP?
Same concerns can be said about Kinko's. This is another new generational problem that's probably not addressed in courts. Maybe a fair-use clause like at libraries and universities would be an interesting spin.