This will freak out Schumer and Pelosi

[MtGun44]

Not that I am about to buy one, but 3D printing has made massive
strides in the last couple of years. We are closely looking at the
technology for stuff other than the mockups and prototype parts
we have been making for more than a decade.

This is pretty impressive, although I bet there was final finish
work and that it likely has no rifling. Still - amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7ZYKMBDm4M

Bill

[theperfessor]

Neat video. This area is going to advance very rapidly and in ways we can hardly imagine.

What should be equally heartening is the proliferation of low cost, industrial quality CNC equipment. Give me $80k worth of Haas equipment and a couple months to make the fixturing and write the code and I could have you producing mil-spec AR15/M16 receivers in a one-car garage.

[MtGun44]

That will REALLY freak out the hoplophobes. :bigsmyl2:

Cool that technology is bringing the cost of home manufacturing down, even for high
precision stuff like guns.

Bill

[JHeath]

That will REALLY freak out the hoplophobes. :bigsmyl2:

Cool that technology is bringing the cost of home manufacturing down, even for high
precision stuff like guns.

Bill

Bill, that is hooey! 3D printed guns will never compare in quality to my traditional MIM-and-polymer S&W Bodyguard, HA HA ha ha.

[W.R.Buchanan]

This is now one click away form the Replicators on Star Trek the Next Generation. Problem is that it will get controlled pretty quickly.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean they will just let you do it. This technology is something that the govt will want to control. Too many nefarious uses possible with something like this.

I am curious how they are "Printing Stainless Steel?"

This is effectively making metal removal machines obsolete, and the uses are endless, not to mention all of the current operations, that will no longer be needed, like deburring?

I saw one of the first versions of these machines at Westec in the early 90's and it was "printing" a monkey's skull in red plastic material. I was pretty impressed.

If they can do the same thing now with metal? Whoa! We'll all be out of a job soon!


Every machinist has known for years that "Engineers wanted to remove them from the loop so that they could just create," and not have to deal with the pukes that actually made the stuff from the F$%^&^ Up drawings they generated, and actually had to make it work in the real world.

Now the Engineers can do it all in their offices. No need for us greasy machinist types anymore ... Waaahh!

Randy

[kidmma]

That's OK, the Chicago gangs will still take the easy way out and just steal them.

Gets around everything. No paperwork...

[Lights]

I have seen printed metal parts and even printed mold cavities and cores for plastic injection tools. They still have a ways to go before us Toolmaker's and Machinist's go the way of the dinosaurs.

[tuckerdog]

if you have ever run a mig welder and built up something with it then you get the idea only with laser precision instead of a wire and high voltage. at least that is my take on the process

[leeggen]

Glad I am retired machinist/mechanic. Engineers have a way of causing us problems to straighten out,not my problem anymore. LOL
CD

[MtGun44]

The are apparently melting a metal powder with a laser in this particular one, but
there are MANY different competing technologies at this point.

And a good point about the "old tried and true, old fashioned MIMed guns" idea. :bigsmyl2:

Bill

[ElDorado]

I'm not hanging my apron up just yet. Sintered metal is still sintered (so is MIM), and it hasn't replaced hammer forging yet. I think this is more of a publicity stunt so they can get some free advertising on the evening news for their company. They put a few hundred rounds through their 1911, but I'd like to see how well it withstands 50 years in the army like all those 1911s made in WWII.

Someone will get there someday, but today isn't that day.

[bretNorCal]

I have seen printed metal parts and even printed mold cavities and cores for plastic injection tools. They still have a ways to go before us Toolmaker's and Machinist's go the way of the dinosaurs.

I would agree based on the stuff from a couple years ago however the finish on some of the new stuff is actually very good. In particular you do not have to do any finishing on most parts now, assuming you have a device made in the last year or so. There are also 2 types of DMLS, the older style that uses a bed of "sand" and the newer type that blows a find stream of sand into the weld puddle. The newer type provides a superior finish to the older type.

The biggest thing that is going to prevent wide deployment and the demise of machinists is cost. Most cant spend 6 figures. In fact because of the equipment cost they said if they sold that 1911 it would be in the 5 figure range. Who is going to spend $10k for a fairly run of the mill 1911 (or equivalent part)? Entry level DMLS systems often start about $100k. Production machines go up several times that quickly. You can get a M8 mill for less than you can get a DMLS printer of similar capability (speed, bed size, etc).

Some patents on DMLS expire in 2014 which may see many new things pop up especially lower cost units.

The M8 mill I spoke of

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXcizJ2mVgQ

[98Redline]

I agree that right now the DMLS technology is still very expensive, but so were the original stereo lithography machines when they first came out. Now for a couple of hundred dollars in parts you can build one of these 3D printers and download free software to run it. It still does not turn out parts as high quality as a commercial machine but they are making headway.

Give it a few years and they will figure out how to make DMLS a less expensive technology and more widely available to the masses.

[andreadavide]

The interesting fact in this process is that it will made weaker the already weak reasoning that all the illegal weapons starts their life as legal ones.

Let me add that a couple of Britons, a certain Sheperd and another one chap named Turpin designed a weapon made from commercially available pipes and that could be made in simple workshops with just a lathe and a welder... much far easily than a 3D printer...

[cwheel]

As another retired machinist I can see the training and experience required to produce this stuff coming down to a person with limited training using AutoCAD. I was making my own 1911 and AR15 frames using manual machines 20 years ago. Doing so required a certain level of training and equipment. Thinking we are on the edge of all of that changing. Sure, us guys in our garages will still be doing this, but to be completive in manufacturing things are going to change soon and in a big way. This quantum leap will be in the nature of going from manual machines to CNC. Bold new world, think the government will have a hard time trying to control this process. Only thing keeping this stuff out of garages will be cost, and that alone. When the costs come down to affordable, stand by.
Chris

[paul h]

Just as CNC hasn't put machinists or toolmakers out of work, I doubt 3d printers will either. A skilled machinist or toolmaker will still be needed to make parts. CNC is great for production, but there has also been alot of very consistantly machined scrap parts that have come off of CNC machines.

To my way of thinking the big benefit of 3d printers is for rapid prototyping, and creating complex molds and other tooling for proeduction work. If you can "print" a part that would take days of building fictures and machining, then it would definately pay for itself. I doubt it will be cost effective anytime soon for production, but the technology is amazing and will make it possible to make one off parts that would be impossible or impractical with existing techniques.

[Lights]

Your right on the money with your assessment of the 3D printers Paul.

[bretNorCal]

This quantum leap will be in the nature of going from manual machines to CNC. Bold new world, think the government will have a hard time trying to control this process. Only thing keeping this stuff out of garages will be cost, and that alone. When the costs come down to affordable, stand by.
Chris

I dunno. I have a cnc mill and a 3d printer (FDM) in my garage. With a 3d printer you do not have to generate tool paths, a slicer program does that, basically it just looks at layers in the Z axis and automatically creates everything. A straight comparison of a mill vs 3d printer using a slicer CAM tool the printer is far easier to use. Feeds and speeds, tool changes, work mounting/fixtures, toolpaths, etc are all removed. You dont even have to know CAD (for either) since you can download a large quantity of models.

Assuming there is still an economy in 2014 critical patents on DMLS expire and I would expect that to open up competition and innovation. In fact a smarter company wanting to be able to jump right then might be already developing now.
A savvy consumer would know that when a bunch of new models flood the market there will always be a company or two that goes out of business or companies with older existing gear may upgrade leaving used gear on the market for sale. However you are still going to be looking at probably $30-50k for a used DMLS printer until the new cheaper ones come into play.

A big DMLS problem for home use is the 500-6000 watt laser. These are the biggest part of the current draw and some people, especially in apartments, just wont have the ability to provide enough power. This also sets a low end price because the laser modules alone are about $850-5000 and it is highly unlikely that price will go down anytime soon. The lasers are a consumable and based on temperature and operating voltage their life gets shorter. Its a fairly intensive mathematical regression to look at voltage and temperature over time to see when you need to replace, but every now and again you will have to replace it. Home users do not care as much about scheduling maintenance to limit down time but they might care about inferior parts not being properly bonded together because their laser module needs to be replaced. They will never be as cheap as a FDM printer because of the laser cost, however they can do things that FDM cant.

The newer DMLS that use a stream of the powder instead of a sandbox to build the part require more CAM work and generally are 5 axis so they can point the lasers and fire the stream of material into the weld puddle no matter where it is. These give the best quality finishes however they will always be more expensive than the sandbox systems because there are more moving parts and all that.

EDIT: I will get a DMLS as soon as I can reasonably afford one without sacrificing everything else I want in the process. I also like the idea of being able to print brass casings in custom configurations. That could lead to some pretty interesting wildcatting.

[Lights]

That all sounds good for small parts Brent. But tell me how the cost effect will be on printed large parts vs Machining them. I'm talking large mold bases and such.

[opos]

I come from a time and a place of zip guns...crude, basic, almost free, easily hidden, effective at close ranges...maybe these will be the new "zip guns"...

[JHeath]

. This quantum leap will be in the nature of going from manual machines to CNC. Bold new world, think the government will have a hard time trying to control this process. Only thing keeping this stuff out of garages will be cost, and that alone. When the costs come down to affordable, stand by.
Chris

Interesting comment. I am not tech-savvy but since 3D technology runs on software, if it is like CAD the software providers probably require periodic updates or licenses, some kind of data link. That might be an opportunity for NSA or whoever to peek into what the end-users have been manufacturing.

This could be an interesting 4th Amendment case. Your CNC machine is stand-alone, the gov't would have to physically break into your shop to search it. But your 3D printer might be accessible via data transmission. No?

Can the gov't require a back-door key to the software? And can they criminalize possession of software that does not include a back-door key? I am not up-to-date on the legal issues.

But it sounds a lot like the classic "Commerce Clause" case Wickard v. Filburn. A farmer grew grain on his back 40 and fed it to his own livestock. But his grain-growing ran afoul of some crop-limiting federal regulation. The regulation was supposed to cover "interstate commerce" but the courts decided that because the farmer was not buying grain on the market, he was affecting interstate commerce. So growing grain on your back 40 and feeding it to your livestock could be regulated as "interstate commerce."

So if I buy the software and make parts in my garage that never leave my property, this affects interstate commerce, and the feds can regulate it. Does this allow them to criminalize possession of software with no back-door key? Or is that a 4th Am violation?

[bretNorCal]

Interesting comment. I am not tech-savvy but since 3D technology runs on software, if it is like CAD the software providers probably require periodic updates or licenses, some kind of data link.

No. The CAD software can be anything, you dont even have to use any if you get the model in, usually, STL form. A slicer program does the CAM work, and there are open source ones which most of the FDM home 3D printers use which creates g-code. The home printers and many of the commercial (all?) run off g-code. All the slicer program does is take layers of the model and for each layer work out a toolpath, where it has to deposit material to make the part.



This could be an interesting 4th Amendment case. Your CNC machine is stand-alone, the gov't would have to physically break into your shop to search it. But your 3D printer might be accessible via data transmission. No?

Most are standalone or usb connected. Some of the higher end ones may be networked but it would just be to transmit the file to them. They would not require a routable IP for any of these tasks so they could sit on a home or corporate network without any access to the internet.



Can the gov't require a back-door key to the software? And can they criminalize possession of software that does not include a back-door key? I am not up-to-date on the legal issues.

Not in the US, nor most of the parts of the world that would have such machines. Further for anything based on teh reprap (which means almost all or all of the home FDM ones - the ones that squirt melted plastic like a hot glue gun) would generally be compatible with the open source software and as such the source code is available, it would be mirrored in places that do not require any backdoors, etc. State senator Yee (almost all anti-gun bills in california have his name on em) wanted to mandate background checks for printer purchases, and serialize every printer. Possession of an unlicensed printer would be a felony. That failed horribly. Further anything that is already out there has no record of it existing so it would be problematic to implement such a law.

Further Haynes v US (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States) held that felons cannot be compelled to register NFA items since their possession of them is illegal. The 5th amendment protects against compelled self incrimination. That same logic could be applied to any felon in possession of a 3d printer. The state would be unable to cause any ineligible person to register them which would defeat the stated purpose of the bill.

If they decide in the future to somehow backdoor or microstamp items made with 3d printers anything that exists today would not have that. New stuff would to comply but it would have to be done in such a way that the open source software could not replace the now closed source micrstamping software. This would be problematic at best for the home units but could be done for the industrial units which are what do the better quality products. There are massive technological problems with causing this to happen. The resolution of DMLS printers is 0.0005" and up, the resolution of FDM printers is even worse. Microstamping would have to be like it is in your printer, color copier (https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-display-tracking-dots), etc (which is mandated by law since 1994) where you cant tell its there without serious magnification, it is in multiple locations to prevent cutting it off, and it is not placed in any way controlled by the machine operator.

It would be easier to tag the powders or plastics but that causes problems. FDM you could probably get away with it, this would be similar to the tagging of core explosive components that they have been trying to do for 20 or so years. Small particles that have a unique signature are embedded into the material which can be detected and read with microscopes and such to identify where they came from and try to track down the buyer. DMLS uses 500-6000 watt lasers (20w will cut steel, slowly) and a powder. It melts the powdered metal where the beam shines which is what creates the solid object. Whatever they add has to not affect the strength of the product made, it has to survive that process, and it has to exist in enough density it doesnt take 3 years to locate the tag to identify it.

It is more likely they would do what is done for scanner and printer software, which exists both in user applications like Adobe Photoshop as well as in the printers/scanners firmware. http://rulesforuse.org has a "blackbox" software kit that is included in products you probably already have which limits the scanning or printing of undesired items. Currency being the chief thing but government securities and some other stuff are in there too. The software will identify key features that indicates you are trying to do one of the forbidden items and if so it will limit what you can do with that.




So if I buy the software and make parts in my garage that never leave my property, this affects interstate commerce, and the feds can regulate it. Does this allow them to criminalize possession of software with no back-door key? Or is that a 4th Am violation?

Back in the 1990s there was the clipper cryptography thing where all phones that had crypto would have the state mandated crypto with the keys stored in state vaults. The keys would be split so that no single entity could listen on its own and it would take 2 agencies to pair their share of the key to decrypt (for technical reasons it would be likely they could but lets ignore that for a minute). The idea was that there would be no 4th amendment violation because they would only use this backdoor if and when they had a warrant and since it was never implemented no one can claim they abused this. If there was a backdoor mandated into your smartphone, computers, or 3d printers it would not by itself violate the 4th unless nad until they did not have a warrant issued upon probable cause as required by the 4th. The 4th covers searches (looking in/at things) and seizures (taking control or custody of something). It does not cover making it possible for them to search at a later date which is what a backdoor would do.

Clipper fell apart when Matt Blaze investigated the skipjack algorithm that it used and found that with its implementation you could change the keys to ones they dont know, you could crack the keys without knowing it and a whole slew of other problems.

[JHeath]

No. The CAD software can be anything, you dont even have to use any if you get the model in, usually, STL form. . . . .

Thanks. Your answers are direct, on-point, detailed. You provide high-quality information, Bret.

JNH