Talk:3D printing

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Sandy Hook[edit]

I don't think that this framing is accurate:

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings, gun nuts riled up tons of false-fire hatred of anything that sounded like gun control, and one result was a bunch of amateurs with 3D printers began making actual firearms.<ref>[1] Oh isn't that precious?</ref>

As far as I know, people have started speculating about and working on 3D-printed firearms as soon as 3D printing became popular.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to revise, but the real media attention (and even the appearance of the topic on the 'to-do' list) was pretty much about the time rednecks were showing up on the national news in the States firing these things off, the way the media has played this thing up really hard since the gun debate fired up again after Sandy Hook. Sure, the technology itself predates that whole mess, but the specific invocation of the idea of 3-D printed guns to subvert gun control is a pretty recent phenom, and it's worthwhile more to just get some real academic insight into the issue of what sort of physics are involved between a bullet firing off in a Nerf gun barrel. Would that perhaps melt and/or weaken the structural capacity of the weapon because it is plastic? Are these polymers meant for this stuff? Frankly, the TED talk is about tooth brushes, I don't like a metal tooth brush but I also think a plastic Colt 45 is a child's play thing, not real steel. Isn't there a Popular Mechanics person in this Wiki-verse?Andrewstewart1 (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

*groan* The big deal is about "printing" a (lower) receiver - the part of the (hand)gun that is legally controlled and tracked in the US and where the gun's serial number is stamped. In some rifles, it's also what makes the difference between a semi-automatic and a select fire/full auto rifle.
I suggest doing more research before you write an article the next time. Just because something is on the To Do list, it doesn't mean that everyone can or should write an article.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Why the Gun control redirect?[edit]

Isn't this subject full of other woo, or is there been a sucessful 3-D printed kidney transplant that I haven't heard about?Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 16:47, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

At the moment, its very much tied into gun control. --Mikal | lakiM 17:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
So we're going to let the hype-types BS about organ printing in TED, while Steve Jobs dies because they haven't printed a pancreas, and not explore it?Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 17:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Are enough people honestly interested in that bullshit, because right now 3d Printing, for our purposes, is gun control --Mikal | lakiM 17:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
No it isn't. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 17:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I doubt that "exploring" it would be within RW's purpose (a.k.a. "the mission"). Technologies are often surrounded by a cloud of hype, I don't see the point in tracking down every part of it.
I also doubt that we have any users qualified enough to write something sensible on the topic, given the previous attempt. :)--ZooGuard (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

stuff I intended to say before I realized the article was just restored, but I thought I'd say it anyway. Bless the RW'ians here and may they tolerate this post with ease.[edit]

True, I've heard more of the OMG!!THEY CAN NOW PRINT GUNS WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO!! hype, but my first exposure by the media was CBC's SPARK on printed food, and later in the Toronto Star some futurist type was referring to it in a manner as if was just around the corner—they now printed a kidney, what's next, stuff—and at my age, what pisses me off is this medicine-of-the-future bullshit. The war on cancer was supposedly declared 40 years ago, and we all know people who are still dying of it, among other infirmities. We can readily identify the other snake-oil sales types. I just figuring we should put these claims of 3D printing in the crosshairs. Just yesterday, on the music station I occasionally listen to, the DJ was yammering about (if I heard correctly) how some Russian billionaire was going to fund personality uploading on a computer. Bullshit!! It's all Bullshit!! (Sorry guys, I should go listen to some videos).Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 17:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

And what exactly is your age? Because you sound like a pissed-off teenager, with the reasoning ability to match the age.
As for "We can readily identify the other snake-oil sales types", you are missing the point that we can do that because they make specific claims that can be tested, have been tested, and have failed the tests. Additive manufacturing for medical purposes is still a developing field that may or may not pay off. Whining about "snake-oil sales types" doesn't make much sense until someone actually tries to sell something.
There is something of an analogous situation with stem-cell research - there is a lot of hype and a few quacks have exploited it to promote fraudulent "stem-cell therapies". But this doesn't mean that medical stem-cell research should be written off as quackery. Ditto for quantum physics and quantum woo.--ZooGuard (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't think anyone here would argue that we should write of stem cells or the medical uses of 3d-printing. But the advent of new technology is often accompanied by a great hue and cry that THIS is the thing that will save us from (insert bad thing here). I wrote my MA thesis on food security in the Horn of Africa; 40 years ago, development experts working there were convinced that the "Green Revolution" would end hunger. While it has raised crop yields, there are still lots of Starvin Marvins in that part of the world, and elsewhere. I think it would be worthwhile for us to keep on top of the claims/promises made about something like 3D-P as it develops and compare those claims/promises with the actually existing science that comes down the chute. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 19:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
To:ZooGaurd. I admit, I might at times rant like a teen and maybe display the IQ of one—though we should, of course be careful, as many teens are actually quite intelligent and mature—but let's just say it's been a while since I became of legal age. Your next point is a good one. However, I think that a bit of an opportunity to head off the possible, I'll even say probable, on-coming woo to the extent of making the redirect back into an article is warranted—and this is a talk page. Btw, here's one of the videos Anthony Atala: Printing a human kidney (17:25). One day I'll view it in its entirety. There is a disclaimer 11:33 into the video. I haven't written off stem-cell therapy—I haven't really delved into it, but I heard that there was positive results. Yes, ditto for quantum physics.
PSL also makes good points, and I heard a few months ago someone on the radio say that malnourishment is even worse in South Asia—where at least I read years ago was were it was really happening—as it is in Africa.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 19:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I believe part of the issue is a conflation between scientific optimism and realism within the popular media. My supervisor, for example (a very well-respected tenured professor in the field of quantum devices and quantum information) strongly believes that one day, quantum mechanical properties might be used to build sensors that can detect trace amounts of virtually any element. Of course, this could have far-reaching applications in terms of mine detection (consider that currently, mine detection relies largely on metal detection, which is a bit problematic when one considers explosives that don't contain metals). However, this technology, if it is even possible, is years away, and that is a well-understood fact in the scientific community. The media, on the other hand, seem to like to hype these sorts of things up.
A better example is quantum computing. We don't have any evidence that it is even possible to build a quantum computer, and even the most optimistic scientific opinions tend to put the technology at least a couple decades away. That said, if you were to believe the general media, we should be seeing quantum computers any day now...
As it relates to 3D printing, my point is similar. If there's woo related to this topic, then fine. If all there is to talk about is over-optimistic (and over-enthusiastic) research goals, then I don't know if that's worth talking about. - GrantC (talk) 20:08, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Good post. Some dude on an Ideas show I heard was going on about Q-bytes and stuff, and how by 2030, computers will pass the Turling test [misspelling?]. A few years ago, there was talk about using bees to find landmines (Here's a hastily found link on my part.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 00:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
"If all there is to talk about is over-optimistic (and over-enthusiastic) research goals, then I don't know if that's worth talking about" SEE" Point #4 in our mission: "Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media." If all that my mom is going to know about 3DP is from the occasional news story promising her something that won't actually be a thing for another 20 years, or 50 years, we should be writing about that. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 00:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Right, and I'm not disagreeing with you. Earlier in my post, I differentiated between over-optimistic scientific outlook and incorrect media reporting. If there exist credible (and supported) scientists who think that 3D printing could be viable for X or Y at some point, and the media accurately reports on that opinion, what does it matter if it appears over-optimistic? On the other hand, if the media reports are not true to what the scientists are saying, then we have an issue. As an example, media outlets claiming that D-Wave has a working quantum computer is bullshit (there is no hard evidence that D-Wave's "quantum computer" is actually a quantum computer), whereas media outlets reporting a quantum computer being built by 2030 is certainly not. - GrantC (talk) 05:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Small, unrelated point directed at Civic Cat: Just for your own reference, they are "qubits" and the "Turing test", respectively. - GrantC (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

"spastic hysteria"[edit]

When restoring articles, it's a good idea to look at the text you are actually restoring, as well as the article history. And pausing to think why the article was redirected in the first place and why the text from that section was not incorporated into Gun control verbatim.--ZooGuard (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right, my bad. I still think the article was worth restoring. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.Moderator 19:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I replaced the paragraph in question with the version from Gun control.--ZooGuard (talk) 20:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh my children...[edit]

Not sure what the real point of this article was (making guns out of plastic that melts on first use?), but, but, but, what do you know about this technology?

"manufacture large quantities of goods less expensively" is absolutely false, 3D printing costs more than, say, injection molding, BUT allows for low cost prototyping and rapid changes in the prototype stage.

No one at this stage is going to use 3D printing to make large quantities of goods.

I suspect the article should be deleted and redirected, since it is uninformed and off-mission.

If you want to know more about 3D printing feel free to message my talk page. Check in with the pros once in a while.

PS, you can get an 8" x 8" x 8" 3D printer optimized for ABS plastic for $400 these days. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

A friend of mine is a member at a local hackerspace, and they have a few 3D printers (one of which they built themselves). It's pretty neat stuff, but you're right on the ball regarding misconceptions about printing cost. - GrantC (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Spark 139 - February 27 & March 2, 2011. Imagine you can print food like the Star Trek replicators and print houses even.Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 21:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


jaws and kidneys[edit]

How's the 83 year-old woman, now, I presume, 85 years old, doing with her 3D printed jaw? Is she still alive? Is it still functioning? How are 3D printed kidneys doing? Will we soon no longer have to sign our organ donation cards? Huh?Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 19:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

more stuff, May 2014[edit]

  • According to wp:Don Tapscott we'll be 3D printing houses in 2 years.
    About 7:40 into 23:59 of what was radio broadcasted here
  • Could any decent artist do in 5 hours what this 3D printed did? Fox News.

Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 20:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

more stuff, October 2014[edit]

stuff I just posted in the WP talk page article[edit]

wp:Talk:3D printing#3-D printed cars and houses: but are they?
Civic CatTalk to Civic Cat 19:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

4D printing[edit]

This section needs further development - see the equivalent page at the other place. Anna Livia (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)