Jennifer--I certainly agree with you on this one. The $100.00 cost is low enough to give it a "shot". My first computer was a COMODORE Vic, 64K which sold for considerably more than $100.00. Even though it was "entry" level, I gained great experience just trying to overcome the various short-comings the hardware presented. (Does anyone remember tape drives?) At any rate, I'm in. The learning experience itself would be well worth the effort and cost. Excellent post Cabe.
The same could be said for 2D printing. Laser, inkjet, and dye printers all have different cost models, but they also have different capabilities. 3D printers have a wide range of material options: plastic filament, plastic resins, metals, foams, concrete, sugar, and biological materials, to name some of the more common. I have yet to see a company give away the delivery system to sell the consumables. The amazing thing about this invention is the combination of different devices to do something in a new way.
Elizabeth, Your concern for the quality of the print from a $100 dollar 3D printer is confounding. It looks like this person/group has made a fundamental leap in changing the data delivery and material control mechanisms. If they are a bit crude at this point in development that is to be expected. Look at the cost/quality progression of 2D printing. The range of cost and capability of 2D printers is $100K - $100. Yet all of them make a pretty good print. This will happen with 3D printing too, but it will take time.
I agree with you, Debera. I don't want to be seen as a complete naysayer about this. I think it sounds really promising and who knows, it could actually be just as high-quality as more expensive printers. I'm just sort of on the side of wait and see. But there is definitely value in this kind of experimentation, especially to leverage some of the more expensive parts of the printer in places in the computer where they already exist.
Thats really very great that inventors are focussing on the cost factor of these 3D printers so that they become affordable for daily household purposes. Elizebeth i totally agree with you that we cant be sure if they are providing us quality however this is infact a great step in terms of cost effectivness and if they dont provide us quality definitely some one else will work into it and make the idea effective . So its a good start for the future .
That's a good comparison about Steve Wozniak, BrainiacV. I am still skeptical but your points that the inventor leveraged existing equipment to develop a printer that could be less expensive are certainly valid. This is definitely a way to make technology with the same functionality as competitive products but a less costly price tag.
I can see a new meme developing playing your favorite song and documenting the 3D printed results online.
No, wait, what about using this as a new media for mp3 file storage? Simply play the mp3 file into a 3D solid object construct and play it back with the scanning function. This makes LP's look positively 2D. Welcome to the world of 3D sound!
Wait, even more fun, you actually need two 3D constructs, one for right channel and one for left channel. Then of course there is 7.2......
The key to all printers, 3D included is the cost of materials. Eventually they will "give away" the printers and make their money on the materials. In this particular case the cost and type of material is not mentioned in this article. Neither is the foot print and height of what you can create. The price tag is almost impossible to resist but, I'm resisting it for now.
Engineers at Fuel Cell Energy have found a way to take advantage of a side reaction, unique to their carbonate fuel cell that has nothing to do with energy production, as a potential, cost-effective solution to capturing carbon from fossil fuel power plants.
To get to a trillion sensors in the IoT that we all look forward to, there are many challenges to commercialization that still remain, including interoperability, the lack of standards, and the issue of security, to name a few.
This is part one of an article discussing the University of Washington’s nationally ranked FSAE electric car (eCar) and combustible car (cCar). Stay tuned for part two, tomorrow, which will discuss the four unique PCBs used in both the eCar and cCars.
Focus on Fundamentals consists of 45-minute on-line classes that cover a host of technologies. You learn without leaving the comfort of your desk. All classes are taught by subject-matter experts and all are archived. So if you can't attend live, attend at your convenience.