Do we even need to buy printers anymore? Is 3D Hubs the future of mass printing?

lol - nothing negative or insulting.
I just disagree with your opinion.

And if you use a 3d printer properly, the parts can be stronger and lighter than injection moulded parts.
No it's not plug and play and as with most things the 'idiot' settings won't give you the best results.
So yeah you do have to learn how to use 3d printers properly to get the best out of them.
A lot of people just won't bother learning how to use it properly and will blame their machines for poor parts.
That's just the way of the world.
I'm not saying you're one of these - just that it's how things have always been.

Quote:

---

And I doubt 3D technology will ever advance to the Same Durability level.

---

Well given that the automotive & aerospace industries are now making final use parts with 3d printers - you're out of date on that as well.
Plastic as well as metal parts.

And the quality gap between industrial plastic printers and 'home use' desktop printers is being narrowed all the time.

Disagreeing with someone is not a insult. Arguing with someone you think is wrong - is not being negative. If you think I'm wrong - back your opinions up with a good argument and if it's convincing I'll change my opinion - that's how argument works :-)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curious aardvark

And if you use a 3d printer properly, the parts can be stronger and lighter than injection moulded parts.

---

You said this in another thread but its not true. Now we're getting into molecule directionality territory and this is where injection moulded parts kill. No 3D printing process can produce parts that have the structural integrity of injection moulded parts due the laminae (layer) process that 3D printers use.

As far as the aerospace usage goes, its only R&D at the moment. The company I work for is a two-tier supplier to Airbus, Boeing and others. 3D printing is used in product development only. Not only for reasons of strength but also due to FST (fire smoke toxicity) regulations.

I suppose what some consider insulting remarks, others do not.
There are many culture standards in the world, which is a real Shame. :)

I think we were talking about 'Home use', inexpensive printers,
Not High-dollars industrial grade systems.
There is a Big difference in the two.

And I still say that home-use printers have got a Long way to Go,
before printed parts are as strong and durable as molded parts.
And since Molded part quality will probably continue to Improve,
Printed part quality will Never catch-up.

Note: I think this thread was started by someone trying to advertise their dang Hub service, anyway ! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastian Finke

. Not only for reasons of strength but also due to FST (fire smoke toxicity) regulations.

---

That's Interesting ! I did not think about the FST difference.

well you can argue it out with brian - he keeps posting stories about end use 3d printed parts. Many in the aerospace industry.
Also formula 1 use printed parts.
basically they are used for low volume, high custimisation parts

I don't buy the molecular directional thing. Plastics are injected more or less randomly as far as molecular alignment goes.
Likewise most moulded metals.
Yeah there are some processes that do work on specific alignments - high end knives for one. But most mass produced metal objects aren't made that precisely.

What can make a difference in your home 3d printer is how cold the previous layer is and how hot the next layer is. If the next layer melts and mingles fully with the layer below - then the molecular bond is pretty much identical to injection moulding. If you run your printer with the plastic as cold as you can get it and still print - then yes, you will most likely get lamination issues. As the layers won't melt and bond correctly.

And there will always be certain objects or shapes that a cheap 3d printer just can't easily replicate.
But as far as lamination and molecular bonding goes - nah.
And again what I'm saying is that the 3d printing processes - if used correctly - can easily make better and stronger objects that injection moulding, precisely because they aren't solid.

3D printing is like text processing/layouting.
It's in it's infancy, about the time Pagemaker and the Laserprinter were introduced.
Typesetters arguing, "you will never get the quality typesetting offers", early adopters arguing, "but see I can create documents with all the same features your typesetting offers". In the end Textprocessing/layout replaced typesetting.
3D printing will eventuelly reach the level of maturity home-dtp/printing has achieved.
Still not everybody does do t/l at home, because it is easier to buy a newspaper than to gather news, layout and print them. It's more convenient to buy a book than to write one. And not all have the creativity and/or knowledge to make use of the t/l software.
Templates are a try to overcome this.
If you are one of those creating, you have the choice to type, layout and publish yourself or to outsource all or parts of it.
3D printing is in it's infancy. Even if the durability of 3d printed objects will not surpass that of the best other processes it will be good enough for use. Not every printed object has to survive a hit by a piano dropping from 5th floor.
Most people will not have a use for a 3d printer. They have a use for the objects. They will be happy to buy their part wherever they get it, whether you call that a 3D hub or a service center is of no consequence.
For them having a 3D printer at home makes only sense if it is simple, reliable and if they can Get a model of the object they want.
The two main groups who might really want to have a 3D printer are people interested in the printing and the ones interested in creating whatever they create.
The first group, doesn't need a hub - the printer is the focus, using a hub would not satisfy the interest.
The creators will come in all colors some will only use one or the other, some will use both.
I have a printer, because it gives me the illusion of control over the process and control of the time. I can influence quality, material and color directly, have "immediate" feedback and can print overnight and can abort the print when realizing I missed something. Turnaround time is shorter.
Other people prefer the "hassle free" approach of a hub (which might be hassle free or not) and use the delay induced by shipment and production queue to work on the next project. Others do the prototypes at home/workshop and have the final design/master printed on a high quality machine. Your mileage may vary.

Both have their uses.
In the short term, I expect the home printers to be stronger..
In medium terms I expect a shift to the hub, as soon as large librarys of useful models are available (i.e. Spare parts for household appliances and so on). Those may be camouflaged as stores - i.e. General electric spare parts mail order, which will virtually be a 3D hub with limitted product range.
Turning into online warehouses much like amazon, with the difference that they print parts instead of having huge inventories.
in the long term the printer will move from those warehouses to the home! Cutting out the transport, but that might be 100 years off.

For businesses I expect the decision to be the same as for any other investment where you have to decide between inhouse and outsourceing.
Make them an offer they can't resist (which might ruin you :). )and they will use your hub.

that all makes sense.

But you're way way off with the timescale.

Quote:

---

in the long term the printer will move from those warehouses to the home! Cutting out the transport, but that might be 100 years off.

---

5 years - 10 at the absolute most.

At least one shopping channel in the uk has recently held an hour long 'show' for the cel robox printer - which is damn close to being plug'n'play. And they sold out - at £899 price. Not cheap for a machine with only a 10cm build height.
I suspect many of the buyers were impulse buyers - proper anoracks would have bought something cheaper from ebay or amazon.
Over the next few years more and more idiot proof printers will be released and the prices will drop.

And you're right, once the big corporations realise that they don't need to keep many of their parts in stock and can just sell the file to an end user to make themselves - things will really accelerate.

in a 100 years - hell there are no limits. As someone mentioned in a different thread, 3d printing won't be called 3d printing - it'll just be one way things are made. As will pure materialisation and - who knows.
Go back 30 years and tell people about social media and smart phones and nobody would have believed you.

The thing about 3d printing is that it accelerates the advance of all other technologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastian Finke

As far as the aerospace usage goes, its only R&D at the moment. The company I work for is a two-tier supplier to Airbus, Boeing and others. 3D printing is used in product development only. Not only for reasons of strength but also due to FST (fire smoke toxicity) regulations.

---

Hi, since I work in the aeronautics industry I can tell you that many parts are made by 3D printing today. They are not however the ones you may think of the most.

I work for a helo manufacturer and we DO NOT use them for parts that see any kind of significant mechanical stress (as of today). We do however use the technology to manufacture parts that would otherwise be to complex / expensive by any other means. The specificity of helo manufacture is that due to the small series, investing in injection tools is frequently not a good bet. And, in the first years of a product we may have to change the definition every year or so, so big investments don't make sense. So what do we use it for ? I have seen a lot of cabin aircon air ducts made out of this. Or complex covers/furnishings for small quantity optionals. The aircon ducts used to be made out of several components that then needed to be assembled, which was susceptible to leak. Now the part count has drastically decreased as well as the overall weight and the system efficiency due to less leak loss.