4 ms·

Sure but they did by the 80s and 90s. I had a cad/cam class in the 90s and the pen plotter we used, not sure which model but HP 7090 from the 80s is similar, ha

Sure but they did by the 80s and 90s. I had a cad/cam class in the 90s and the pen plotter we used, not sure which model but HP 7090 from the 80s is similar, had all the technology necessary to build a 3d printer. Hell you could build a 3d printer from essentially first principles using old broken tech and stuff from a hardware store. The first time I saw a 3d printer years ago, my first thoughts was why it took so long for them to happen because the technology was really basic.

kragen 2y ago
You will probably be interested in reading my summary in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42080682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42080682 of the things the RepRap project struggled with in the first years of the project; it explains why it took so long.
- Suppafly 2y ago
  >They wasted a lot of time trying to make it work without even a heated bed, to keep costs down. I'm not trying to downplay the reprap team and their work did lead to some of the innovations in home 3d printing, but I suspect a lot of the project is like this, losing time by ignoring things that already existed and trying to reinvent things using cheap household items by going down unnecessary rabbit holes. Thank god that people serious about actually making a shippable product actually got involved at some point or it'd all still be theoretical.
  - kragen 2y ago
    That's easy to say with the benefit of hindsight! But before going down the rabbit holes, we didn't know which ones were unnecessary. If you didn't go down any of the rabbit holes, you'd end up with a US$60k machine built around US$5k ballscrews and ABS and whatnot. The point at which people serious about making a shippable product got involved was already after it was no longer theoretical.
    - Suppafly 2y ago
      >If you didn't go down any of the rabbit holes, you'd end up with a US$60k machine built around US$5k ballscrews and ABS and whatnot. Honestly that's the normal way to do product design, start with the expensive version that works and then slowly redevelop it to use cheaper parts, or make big enough purchases that the cost of the parts naturally comes down. I get that you were involved in the project, and won't hear of any criticism, but people serious about shipping instead of tinkerers would have done things differently, and there is no reason to deny or get upset about that.
      - kragen 2y ago
        I wasn't; by "we" I meant "humanity". Evidently the normal way to do product design failed at producing consumer 3-D printers, as it invariably fails at big innovations, so in those cases people have to be tinkerers to be serious about shipping. Clayton Christensen has a book about this you might be interested in reading.
        simne 2y ago
        > by "we" I meant "humanity". Humanity is not one subject. It is multitude of objects and subjects. The best analogy is loose coupled network (each active node have ~10..100 connections, and billions passive objects with 1..3 connections). Because of this, we could talk only about some subjects, who directly interested in use opportunities and have all need for this activity. Even if use relatively conservative approach and consider only formally declared countries as subjects, we will have about 200 subjects (plus some active and successful humans - for example, in business usually considered 80% value of company is good CEO). If we look slightly deeper, we will see some trans-national subjects, like G7, G20, ITU, and many regional subjects. And you should understand me right, before We (I and You) create some at least voice agreement, we cannot consider any subject "we". Yes, exists "invisible power of market", and some other similar things, like libido, but they all are unconscious powers, and you cannot expect for them to do conscious decisions and conscious things.
        2y ago

kragen 2y ago

You will probably be interested in reading my summary in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42080682 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42080682 of the things the RepRap project struggled with in the first years of the project; it explains why it took so long.

Suppafly 2y ago
>They wasted a lot of time trying to make it work without even a heated bed, to keep costs down. I'm not trying to downplay the reprap team and their work did lead to some of the innovations in home 3d printing, but I suspect a lot of the project is like this, losing time by ignoring things that already existed and trying to reinvent things using cheap household items by going down unnecessary rabbit holes. Thank god that people serious about actually making a shippable product actually got involved at some point or it'd all still be theoretical.
- kragen 2y ago
  That's easy to say with the benefit of hindsight! But before going down the rabbit holes, we didn't know which ones were unnecessary. If you didn't go down any of the rabbit holes, you'd end up with a US$60k machine built around US$5k ballscrews and ABS and whatnot. The point at which people serious about making a shippable product got involved was already after it was no longer theoretical.
  - Suppafly 2y ago
    >If you didn't go down any of the rabbit holes, you'd end up with a US$60k machine built around US$5k ballscrews and ABS and whatnot. Honestly that's the normal way to do product design, start with the expensive version that works and then slowly redevelop it to use cheaper parts, or make big enough purchases that the cost of the parts naturally comes down. I get that you were involved in the project, and won't hear of any criticism, but people serious about shipping instead of tinkerers would have done things differently, and there is no reason to deny or get upset about that.
    - kragen 2y ago
      I wasn't; by "we" I meant "humanity". Evidently the normal way to do product design failed at producing consumer 3-D printers, as it invariably fails at big innovations, so in those cases people have to be tinkerers to be serious about shipping. Clayton Christensen has a book about this you might be interested in reading.
      - simne 2y ago
        > by "we" I meant "humanity". Humanity is not one subject. It is multitude of objects and subjects. The best analogy is loose coupled network (each active node have ~10..100 connections, and billions passive objects with 1..3 connections). Because of this, we could talk only about some subjects, who directly interested in use opportunities and have all need for this activity. Even if use relatively conservative approach and consider only formally declared countries as subjects, we will have about 200 subjects (plus some active and successful humans - for example, in business usually considered 80% value of company is good CEO). If we look slightly deeper, we will see some trans-national subjects, like G7, G20, ITU, and many regional subjects. And you should understand me right, before We (I and You) create some at least voice agreement, we cannot consider any subject "we". Yes, exists "invisible power of market", and some other similar things, like libido, but they all are unconscious powers, and you cannot expect for them to do conscious decisions and conscious things.
        2y ago