Posted on 02/10/2014 8:30:27 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Nanoparticle inks can turn your existing 2D printer into a circuit board production line – and the possibilities for 3D printers are mind-boggling.
Printing foldable mobile phones on a sheet of paper from a normal 2D printer is just a decade away, according to Jürgen Steimle, head of the Embodied Interaction Group at the Max Planck Institute for Informatics in Saarbrücken, Germany. Steimle and his colleagues took a step towards this in 2013, when they used a standard printer loaded with nanoparticle ink to print a paper circuit that works even after the sheet is torn.
In the past couple of years, similar applications have popped up in laboratories around the world. "People are starting to realise the power of printing," says Vincent Rotello, a chemist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst, who is working on a printable test strip for pathogenic bacteria in water.
The convergence of nano and printing is partially due to the success of one eye-grabbing device, the 3D printer, which produces objects to a three-dimensional template by extruding soft plastic noodles that rapidly consolidate into the shape of the desired object. Scientists are now adding nanoparticles to the plastic, thereby giving these products "smart" properties, but the humble 2D printer, which is far more commonplace, is being revitalised by nanoparticle ink....
(Excerpt) Read more at theguardian.com ...
With so many older men left out of the workforce, maybe they could have home businesses using 3d printing, that will make them some money and be satisfying and challenging. Like the old days when men like Paul Revere made useful things in their workshop, downstairs from their living quarters.
With the global economy collapsing, the next wave of affordable housing may be the corrugated cardboard box manufactured by Georgia-Pacific. The luxury home could be the ones made out of that corrugated plastic stuff.
In the eternal see-saw of power between central authority and the power of the individual, many technologies decisively favor one side or the other. Nano-anything is a big thumb on the scale in favor of the individual.
I like the idea of a home business, but there’s a couple of ‘gotchas’, perhaps:
1. Length of time to print a model... particularly if it’s something big.
2. Cost of extrusion plastics (looks to be $35-$60 per kilogram).
To generate some volume of product, you’ve got to be able to produce something pretty quickly and sell it competitively priced. Each of those parameters may be tricky to overcome.
Not when less than half the “adults” in this country know enough to be able to change the oil in their tires, or fix a flat in the air filter every six months... 8<)
In the land of the Blind, the One-Eyed Man is King. . .
(evil grin)
Welcome, fellow wizards to the new aristocracy. . .
Who is going to produce the "nano-ink"? And the print heads to handle "nano" volumes are HUGELY high-tech. That thumb ain't where you think it is.
Loved your observations/comments; but...
The massive change caused by home based manufacture, particularly at the nanoteck level, is NOT in the actual production of any item. It is the development and proofing of the software required. That is the true impact of the PC-based digital revolution.
In the 1970’s one of fastest growing businesses was the video rental shops, most were mom and pop operations. These grew into big chains. But how many video rental stores to you still see today? Why get into your car and go through the hassle of renting a video when you can go on line and rent the same video at a cheaper price?
PC/Web-based Netflixs might be the operational for future manufacturing. Even the article leading this thread implied that the sensors were not manufactured and then sent around the world, just the programs were.
I have to stop now and go order a program off the web to recover some photos “lost” on a CD. And yes, that closing was selected as a second example of what I see as the future for small scale (by both size and numbers) manufacturing.
Aww, your just funnin’
It’s every three months isn’t it?
JB
I think it’s clear that 3D printing, as a business, cannot concentrate on building 10,000 of the same widget. The basic idea seems to be in building one custom item for another company that wants to try something out... or maybe replace a part quickly in a pinch. But even so, I can’t see that the needed responsiveness can be present - never mind the volume or price points.
The one exception I can think of right now would be for out-of-stock/no-longer-available parts replication.
If I read you right, I think I’m seeing a suggestion that next support software is needed for these new machines. However, I expect that within a few months, CorelDraw 3D (or something like that from an already-established player) will fill that need (looks like they are already close - no shock). In any case, yes: there’s an immediate need to figure how to roll your own 3D images so that any idea can be implemented fairly quickly.
Either way, I think that could leave out the kitchen table manufacturers, which is unfortunate, for I’d be all over that idea.
Where is the material that 3D printers build things with manufactured, in USA or overseas? If in USA things made by such printers can truly brag “MADE IN USA.”
On the other hand, if 3D material is manufactured in China, for example, then is there a concern about toxic ingredients in the material as with child’s toys?
Looks like there are some US manufacturers of the filaments... and some from China, of course.
They're invented by individuals. The technology to produce such miniaturized components is itself being miniaturized, which is a trend that favors an individual doing it for himself. Like Michael Dell building entire computers out of mail-order parts and selling them to compete with IBM.
Another way to look at it is the crew-served weapon contrasted with the IED. They both cause tremendous damage. The IED is (quite a bit) cheaper, and influences events because so many individuals can spread them around. Notice that neither central authority nor individual power is a good in itself.
Not these days. Or at least for probably 95% (or more) of commercial tech. No individual has sufficient knowledge of all the different fields of expertise necessary.
"The technology to produce such miniaturized components is itself being miniaturized, which is a trend that favors an individual doing it for himself.
Nope. 'Fraid not. If anything it accelerates, accentuates, and deepens the requirement for multifunctional teams.
"Like Michael Dell building entire computers out of mail-order parts and selling them to compete with IBM.
Which is fine if production volumes are low enough. But I can bet you that Dell doesn't do it that way these days.
"Another way to look at it is the crew-served weapon contrasted with the IED. They both cause tremendous damage.
And differ hugely in precision of "placement" of damage, both direct and collateral.
"The IED is (quite a bit) cheaper, and influences events because so many individuals can spread them around."
IED's are used because that is all that the insurgents have.
"Notice that neither central authority nor individual power is a good in itself."
Nobody ever said they were. But you are WILDLY naive and overly optimistic about the state of today's tech and the ability of most individuals to "get it".
I've worked both as a high-level scientist in one of the US's largest chemical companies, and now am part owner of a quite small high-tech (but every specialized) instrument design firm. I've been a successful inventor in both situations, and thus have "seen both sides of the hill". In both situations, the probability of a "lone wolf" inventor/technologist succeeding is virtually nil.
The reality is teams. Sometimes all the individuals on a team work for the same company.....other times they belong to different firms....but "teams" are the bottom line mostly everywhere.
To a man with a hammer . . .
I applaud your small-scale, high-leverage work in technology. Check out Rees-Mogg and Davidson's The Great Reckoning, pp. 51 ff., for a discussion of the miniaturization of lethal technology and its influence on forms of government—one key expression is "the democratization of force."
Thanks Robert A. Cook, PE.
Not at all....simply reality. All "Open Source" is is a way of forming geographically and temporally scattered teams.
It is sometimes the case that an individual can "birth" a new idea and manage to demonstrate it, but to go from there to a marketable product simply takes more and deeper knowledge of more fields of technology than a single inventor can manage.
New Process Recycles Milk Jugs Into 3D Printer Filament (10 cents per KG, vs. $50 now)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3130558/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.