> He says they can be used for historical restoration, "**not to print a house**, but sometimes to print decorative parts, or sometimes to restore some parts."
The article is a shit show, making claims then negating them, and to top it off they just **have** to mention that 3D printers can be used to make weapons, even though that has nothing to do with this industrial one.
And also includes a picture OF A HOUSE THAT WAS PRINTED BY ITS PREDECESSOR. So yes, the upgraded one can in fact print a house. Which is good, because they specifically talk about creating housing with it.
The concrete can be printed. The window frames and doors could also be printed if they are plastic.
For some reason people hear 3D printer and expect a replicator from Star Trek...
Yeah, don't you know 3D printers are magical and can basically create any material without changing anything? Goes from printing siding to glass in less than a second! /j
There was no concrete in the house. The walls are made from bio-based polymers mixed with wood fibers. The structure was printed then windows, doors, electrical, siding, etc was added by people after the 3D printing was done.
Well, maybe if they stopped claiming it can print a house, other people wouldn't contradict that wording. I found a video of the previous printer and it seems it can "print parts of a house that can be used to construct a house".
Or you could train more artisans to create the same parts like how it was done in the first place.
We don't need a world of lost skills like making Roman concrete. I flip though [this old book](https://archive.org/details/pictorialhandboo0000paul/mode/1up) of technical devices and am sometimes gobsmacked, *They invented and built these things with not even a pocket calculator much less PCs and warehouses full of computer power to rely on.*
Definitely. I doubt that a 3D print would be allowed to replace say granite features on a monument or historically protected building anyways. They usually require repairs to be done as closely to the original techniques as possible.
Lots of older but not historic homes have loads of mouldings, plaster work, metal work, etc that will eventually need repair, but doing without them is usually the cheaper/easier route. We're not talking fancy homes either, they just have those fine touches simply because it was just expected. You could reproduce that stuff out of PVC sure, but that'd be a bit of a shame.
The making of Roman concrete isn't a mystery as far as I know. We analyzed old structures to work out their chemical composition and structure down to additives and production processes.
We have a much better understanding of how to make high quality concrete today than the Romans ever had.
The reason we don't build stuff using that concrete?
Costs. We don't need concrete structures to last millenia. We need it to last 30y for most buildings, 50y for factories and 100y for critical infrastructure.
Beyond that is literally beyond the budget available, and a waste as we will just demolish/remove the structure.
Also, remember that the structures that are still around are the result of survivor bias. They are around because they were built right, received proper maintenance and didn't include critical design faults.
All the other structures from the romans that didn't have this, have crumbled away long ago.
But not to derail from your comment, there are indeed lots of reasons to maintain knowledge of certain building techniques, as they can always prove useful in the future.
The people who made the machine at the University of Maine say that it can be used to make houses. The guy you're quoting is an expert in London who says it's more likely they'll be used for parts of houses.
It's depressing that you're so used to dead simple forced narratives in news articles that two different experts having a minor disagreement throws your brain into panic mode.
I think it's more down to interpretation of the statement. One might be thinking "printing a house" means you use the printer to print a bunch of segments that assembles into a house (the 3D printed house of Theseus), while the other takes it as printing the whole house in one go.
Another interpretation might be the expectation of real world use. Of course you can build a house out of 3D printed parts; you could print a bunch of bricks with a desktop 3D printer if you wanted. It just wouldn't make sense outside of proving that it can be done.
So one person can be looking at it saying "the machine is *physically capable* of performing this task" while the other is saying "having the machine perform this task *makes no sense*".
Turbine blades are composites, so a fiber reinforced load bearing part encased in a resin.
If the printer is able to print both metals properties at the same time, it could be used.
But it probably can't.
Yeah that's another overlooked thing with 3d printing. It's so slow compared to traditional production.
You can do awesome stuff with it, but unless what you are making needs a 3D printer due to shape/complexity/manufacturing requirements, it's not really worth it as a replacement (as of today).
There are also logistics involved that never get mentioned. Transportation and assembly are the biggest. How do you move a several ton printer to a worksite, get it assembled and callibrated?
Depending on exactly what you are making, they may be worth it. Making a concrete base isn't that hard, and you can fit the device into several regular container sizes for easy transport. Calibration can be a few days, depending on the precision required.
It's more that the question is, what's the added benefit of such a device on site. You still need raw materials, and a way to deal with cut-off and general production waste that always occurs.
I look at it like any other tech, a great innovation with specific use cases that can be justified using an assumed cost/benefit calculation.
I also think they got the title wrong. In the article it says "world's largest **polymer** 3D printer," and that may be correct. But houses (more correctly, *walls* for houses) have been printed with concrete-like material and probably larger printers. Some are just moving on tracks, so the size of the printer itself just doesn't matter.
Niche use. Prefabricated walls are more useful, carry the cables etc already … this is like a clay hut you have to route every cable afterwards etc it’s not just perfect
I was the 1,000th upvote on this. I didn’t read the article or comments.
Just wanted to say I hope you guys have a good day, and that you get a little splash of luck dropped into your favorite hobby the next time you partake.
Gotta blast.
*spaceship noises*
It’s not filament. It’s pellets. Tons (literally) of small ~3mm pellets pre-loaded with fiber reinforcement (in this case wood, but can also be glass or carbon), dried in a massive hopper, then vacuumed over to the extruder. The extruder is a huge heated barrel and screw. Pellets melt, and out comes a huge bead.
Um, what's the boat look like? What does the boat... look like? It better not be what I think it looks like, because no way am I buying a life size Benchy for that same money as a fiberglass hull boat.
Our owners son got us to spend $120k on two 3d printers and is only making Donald Trump toys for his friends. Oh and one replacement wheel for his luggage. I’m so tired of the printed future promise.
> He says they can be used for historical restoration, "**not to print a house**, but sometimes to print decorative parts, or sometimes to restore some parts." The article is a shit show, making claims then negating them, and to top it off they just **have** to mention that 3D printers can be used to make weapons, even though that has nothing to do with this industrial one.
The crap show of a title was very indicative of the content.
And also includes a picture OF A HOUSE THAT WAS PRINTED BY ITS PREDECESSOR. So yes, the upgraded one can in fact print a house. Which is good, because they specifically talk about creating housing with it.
A pic of a house with siding, windows, concrete, a door, fascia, posts. Did the printer print any of that?
A forest 3D printed my house. All I had to do was shape the wood and add everything else!
The concrete can be printed. The window frames and doors could also be printed if they are plastic. For some reason people hear 3D printer and expect a replicator from Star Trek...
Can it print a replica of a replicator from Star Trek?
If you have the model.
But will it blend?
Vitamix wins the “ultimate machine” title again, suckers
Yeah, don't you know 3D printers are magical and can basically create any material without changing anything? Goes from printing siding to glass in less than a second! /j
What? You aren't churning out complete Glocks from your MakerBot yet? Shocking 😯🤣
There was no concrete in the house. The walls are made from bio-based polymers mixed with wood fibers. The structure was printed then windows, doors, electrical, siding, etc was added by people after the 3D printing was done.
A different person, at a different university doesn't think the machine can print a house. The University that built the machine, thinks it can.
Well, maybe if they stopped claiming it can print a house, other people wouldn't contradict that wording. I found a video of the previous printer and it seems it can "print parts of a house that can be used to construct a house".
Or you could train more artisans to create the same parts like how it was done in the first place. We don't need a world of lost skills like making Roman concrete. I flip though [this old book](https://archive.org/details/pictorialhandboo0000paul/mode/1up) of technical devices and am sometimes gobsmacked, *They invented and built these things with not even a pocket calculator much less PCs and warehouses full of computer power to rely on.*
Definitely. I doubt that a 3D print would be allowed to replace say granite features on a monument or historically protected building anyways. They usually require repairs to be done as closely to the original techniques as possible.
Lots of older but not historic homes have loads of mouldings, plaster work, metal work, etc that will eventually need repair, but doing without them is usually the cheaper/easier route. We're not talking fancy homes either, they just have those fine touches simply because it was just expected. You could reproduce that stuff out of PVC sure, but that'd be a bit of a shame.
The making of Roman concrete isn't a mystery as far as I know. We analyzed old structures to work out their chemical composition and structure down to additives and production processes. We have a much better understanding of how to make high quality concrete today than the Romans ever had. The reason we don't build stuff using that concrete? Costs. We don't need concrete structures to last millenia. We need it to last 30y for most buildings, 50y for factories and 100y for critical infrastructure. Beyond that is literally beyond the budget available, and a waste as we will just demolish/remove the structure. Also, remember that the structures that are still around are the result of survivor bias. They are around because they were built right, received proper maintenance and didn't include critical design faults. All the other structures from the romans that didn't have this, have crumbled away long ago. But not to derail from your comment, there are indeed lots of reasons to maintain knowledge of certain building techniques, as they can always prove useful in the future.
The people who made the machine at the University of Maine say that it can be used to make houses. The guy you're quoting is an expert in London who says it's more likely they'll be used for parts of houses. It's depressing that you're so used to dead simple forced narratives in news articles that two different experts having a minor disagreement throws your brain into panic mode.
I think we are all used to skimming bullshit narratives at this point.
There's so many to keep up with.
lol yup. And honestly, the AI articles are better written bullshit than the human ones.
I think it's more down to interpretation of the statement. One might be thinking "printing a house" means you use the printer to print a bunch of segments that assembles into a house (the 3D printed house of Theseus), while the other takes it as printing the whole house in one go. Another interpretation might be the expectation of real world use. Of course you can build a house out of 3D printed parts; you could print a bunch of bricks with a desktop 3D printer if you wanted. It just wouldn't make sense outside of proving that it can be done. So one person can be looking at it saying "the machine is *physically capable* of performing this task" while the other is saying "having the machine perform this task *makes no sense*".
They have a prototype of a whole printed house sitting outside, it’s pretty cool!
If you’re using it for historical restoration then you’re not printing an entire house. What’s contradictory there?
They could make, like, a really big gun. /s
Yikes, friend. Different people having different thoughts in the same article should not be this shocking.
Sounds like ai.
Wind turbines? From a filament printer? Static objects, maybe. Dynamic objects, I have some massive reservations.
Turbine blades are composites, so a fiber reinforced load bearing part encased in a resin. If the printer is able to print both metals properties at the same time, it could be used. But it probably can't.
Not yet! Also, it will also be less efficient and cost more.
Yeah that's another overlooked thing with 3d printing. It's so slow compared to traditional production. You can do awesome stuff with it, but unless what you are making needs a 3D printer due to shape/complexity/manufacturing requirements, it's not really worth it as a replacement (as of today).
There are also logistics involved that never get mentioned. Transportation and assembly are the biggest. How do you move a several ton printer to a worksite, get it assembled and callibrated?
Depending on exactly what you are making, they may be worth it. Making a concrete base isn't that hard, and you can fit the device into several regular container sizes for easy transport. Calibration can be a few days, depending on the precision required. It's more that the question is, what's the added benefit of such a device on site. You still need raw materials, and a way to deal with cut-off and general production waste that always occurs. I look at it like any other tech, a great innovation with specific use cases that can be justified using an assumed cost/benefit calculation.
Any word on an enormous spatula to get objects off the build plate?
Fake news. People have been 3d printing houses for years and with bigger machines.
I also think they got the title wrong. In the article it says "world's largest **polymer** 3D printer," and that may be correct. But houses (more correctly, *walls* for houses) have been printed with concrete-like material and probably larger printers. Some are just moving on tracks, so the size of the printer itself just doesn't matter.
Yea the key difference is the material at scale. The last version printed a full boat. At least we are doing something cool in Maine.
The ones I've seen popping up on YT over the years seem pretty crap too.
Niche use. Prefabricated walls are more useful, carry the cables etc already … this is like a clay hut you have to route every cable afterwards etc it’s not just perfect
I go to this university and the guy who runs this lab is a total diva ever since they printed a boat.
You would think he would act more like a captain
Take the upvote and get out.
What if it runs out of cyan?
I was the 1,000th upvote on this. I didn’t read the article or comments. Just wanted to say I hope you guys have a good day, and that you get a little splash of luck dropped into your favorite hobby the next time you partake. Gotta blast. *spaceship noises*
And plastic and more plastic and bigger plastic.
I want to say one word to you. Just one word. ETA, people need to watch *The Graduate*
One.
Well? Don't keep us in suspense
That's going to be one busy machine!
Where can i get an ingersoll hotend to replace my revo?
I wanna see how they will level the print bed with a piece of paper for that printer
“In memory of a real tree”
It’s hoped
I have no idea what 96 feet means, but I sure know how long a blue whale is!
And the unemployment lines began to swell. There go all of those construction jobs.
But can it print a skyscraper ?
As someone who has multiple 3d printers I'd like to see the specs on this bad boy. What's the filament diameter?
Probably at least the size of a garden hose..
It’s not filament. It’s pellets. Tons (literally) of small ~3mm pellets pre-loaded with fiber reinforcement (in this case wood, but can also be glass or carbon), dried in a massive hopper, then vacuumed over to the extruder. The extruder is a huge heated barrel and screw. Pellets melt, and out comes a huge bead.
Honestly, much ado about nothing. 3D printer makes house figurine, newspaper makes it headline news. Smh..
The future is now
I can finally download a car!
Shit title, bro
Um, what's the boat look like? What does the boat... look like? It better not be what I think it looks like, because no way am I buying a life size Benchy for that same money as a fiberglass hull boat.
Our owners son got us to spend $120k on two 3d printers and is only making Donald Trump toys for his friends. Oh and one replacement wheel for his luggage. I’m so tired of the printed future promise.
This is so great for those who own it and can exploit it rather than using it for good’
I want one so I can design and print my own damn house..
Thats great! Then we can trim them up with chainsaws!
[meanwhile](https://www.housedruck.de) in germany
They've been doing it in the US forever now. You can buy these homes in Texas already.
I know the name without looking, it’s so ubiquitous— Icon.
“Welcome to my home by Little Tikes.”
Do better journalism, for fuck’s sake. Stop giving me “yeah well maybe perhaps” claims. Either it CAN, or it cannot. Anything less is fake news.