In the 3D printing world, we are in a period of thinking only good things about this technology. However, for many engineers, the idea of “democratizing” the design and manufacture of parts brings up nightmare scenarios.
For example, let’s say an average person wants to print a replacement part for their car (this is a critical part to the operation of the car) to fix it because the CAD drawing of a similar part is available on the Internet. This part also has a large number of “likes” associated with it, so they assume everything will work out just fine. So they print the part out using a plastic material, make the repairs, and proceed to drive. Do you think they considered that their 3D printed part has an MTBF of less than 1/10th of what it should be? Do you think they have analyzed what high temperatures will do to that part? Would you willingly be a passenger in that car?
Another example. What about the guy who thinks he’s a mechanic, has some knowledge of how things go together, but is not the most ethical person—he just wants to cut costs and make money? He prints parts from CAD drawings obtained on the Internet and uses them on his customers. How do we trace that? How do we handle negligence and ill-intent when everyone, anyone, could be a parts manufacturer?
Will the democratization of manufacturing take us back to a “wild, wild West” scenario where anything goes?
Or is this merely alarmist thinking? You might think so, but engineers are trained to think of what could go wrong and design so that such nightmare scenarios cannot happen. Engineers admit that even with their training and experience, it takes many hours of tweaking a design before it will work properly under the conditions needed. Designing is not simple, despite some of the blogs and marketing conversation going on throughout the Internet.
Now, if someone wants to use 3D printing for artwork, great. Jewelry? Excellent. Dinnerware, doorknobs, glasses frames, chess pieces, and so on; wonderful. For anything that is whole and complete in itself—that is not part of system—then 3D printers can be a wonderful tool. Gears and sprockets—depends on the application and the material used. Chains—depends on the application and material used. Pumps (and so on), those components depend on the application and material used. Anything that may be crucial to the operation of something else may require some restrictions.
While it’s great to bring the ability to create more things into the hands of those who did not have a simple or affordable way to create, should we put limits on who can print certain designs? Society will have to answer the question that democratization has raised: Do we let anyone print anything? Or do we wait for Darwin’s law to tell us what to limit?
Leslie Langnau
llangnau@wtwhmedia.com
I wouldn’t call that alarmist; I’d call that realistic, and a bit more understandable to today’s maker culture than
http://futurismic.com/2009/02/18/caveat-emptor-news-reports-from-the-age-of-direct-digital-manufacturing/ .
Thanks for raising the issue that there are risks from rampant 3D-printing. I just can’t help feeling this particular issue is minor in the scheme of things. I suggest widespread printing capability isn’t going to lead to rampant failure from counterfeits. The market will weed out the counterfeits that create problems and reward those that do the job better/cheaper. A pity for current forms of IP holders, and yes people will get hurt, but not the end of the world. The advantage of course is that IP will become far more open-source, and hence, good designs will be improved through the commons testing ground. So, we wont need to wait for any ‘law’ to tell us what to limit…in that sense. But perhaps in another? Could a bigger problem come from the widespread dispersal of manufacturing processes generating ‘non-point source’ pollution that cannot be regulated? for this problem there is no easy way to identify cause and effect unless pollutants can be identified at source and mechanisms exist to prevent it – as yet, we can’t even do this with many point sources. As an aside, this isn’t a problem engineers have been trained to identify anyway – yes, they can test the durability of a mechanism or component but they rarely see issues arising from a system of production itself.
The ideal model for democratized printing would be “the manufacturer on the corner model”, i.e. small mom and pops shops that would be like your local Speed Printing or Kinkos.
A lot of people agree with you and have suggested such a model. Maybe it will happen.
That would be a good first step. Not sure if we need more, but if the dream of everyone printing their own stuff every arrives, we will see then. Thanks for the feedback.
Thanks for the feedback!
Inevitably, any transformative technology will create many concerns, both reasonable and hyper-reactive ones. 3D printing appears to be a transformative technology in its infancy with the potential to be as impactive as the micro-chip, steam engine or maybe even fire(?).
I may be naive to the semantics of “democratizing” in the context of this article, but it seems that an infinitely greater potential Nightmare will be the Politicizing of the technology.
Should we let anyone print anything? Probably so. To try and regulate who can print what would certainly be a nightmare, which I’m realizing may be your point; but I believe strongly that the focus must be on what is ultimately done with printed parts, rather than attempting to inhibit their existence. Where safety is concerned, certified parts are sure to supersede an ignorant or unethical mini-manufacturer’s inferior and unsafe products.
The inevitable casualties inflicted by unscrupulous or negligent offenders mustn’t be repudiated. The size of their impact is likely to be kept in check by awareness more effectively than any futile attempt to regulate who can print what.