"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
I'm wondering if they are simply the latest fad. Which may eventually
replace making things in a traditional way - but is still a long way from
doing so, and may never. A bit like battery technology. Constantly being
improved, but still a long way off from storing energy in the same way as
a tank of petrol etc can. But is always just round the corner.

The main issue with additive 3D printing is how long it takes. Because of
the need to scan a 3D space, it takes roughly the cube of the resolution.
Until this can be done in parallel, it's going to be limited by how fast the
head can move which is governed by momentum and not something that can be
massively improved.

Or LEDs. I still can't buy a plug in LED bulb to truly replace a 150w
tungsten.

That's not far off.

The one experience I've had of 3d printers is some clips made for the
parcel shelf on the old Rover. The originals are plastic and break after a
few years. The 3D replacements after a few weeks. I eventually made new
ones from ally plate. Which are far stronger.

That suggests a poor choice of material. Like any kind of construction, you
have to understand the materials you use - 3d printing might be unfamiliar
but it is no different. You can 3d print in stainless steel, for instance,
which I suspect would be far stronger. At a cost, of course.

Theo