|
|
Post by wvengineer on Dec 9, 2013 23:46:56 GMT
The thread about nanite house construction got me thinking along a similar line, Could you build a house via 3D printer?
Instead of all the labor and wide variety of materials needed to build a house, why not just build a very large 3D printer and then create the house that way?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 10, 2013 1:26:07 GMT
The thread about nanite house construction got me thinking along a similar line, Could you build a house via 3D printer? Instead of all the labor and wide variety of materials needed to build a house, why not just build a very large 3D printer and then create the house that way? you either need a very large printer, or you need to have some way to make it operate more like a plotter than a printer. |
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Dec 10, 2013 3:55:36 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 10, 2013 5:28:54 GMT
sounds an awful lot like pie-in-the-sky vaporware to me. I can see the 3D printer making ductwork for electrical and plumbing, but to actually print the electrical system in place makes it non-serviceable - and electrical things go bad over time. |
|
|
|
Post by ponytail61 on Dec 10, 2013 6:49:07 GMT
"The Contour Crafting 3D printers could even do the electrical work, plumbing, tiling, finishing work and painting."
I missed that sentence all together in the article, but I think the key word there is "could". That would just add cost and time to the project that could be done with techniques now in use.
I would think you could lay out your conduit and plumbing pipes, then scan into a CAD program and print your walls/floors around them.
A problem I do see with their idea is that in many impoverished areas, where it sounds like this is being developed for, they don't have the fresh water resources this would require. Concrete requires quite a bit of fresh clean water.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 10, 2013 6:52:40 GMT
"The Contour Crafting 3D printers could even do the electrical work, plumbing, tiling, finishing work and painting." I missed that sentence all together in the article, but I think the key word there is "could". That would just add cost and time to the project that could be done with techniques now in use. I would think you could lay out your conduit and plumbing pipes, then scan into a CAD program and print your walls/floors around them. A problem I do see with their idea is that in many impoverished areas, where it sounds like this is being developed for, they don't have the fresh water resources this would require. Concrete requires quite a bit of fresh clean water. assuming the printer could print polymer and concrete, it could print the pipes and conduits inside the walls, and then wire could be pulled into the appropriate conduits, and fittings installed on the pipes. |
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Dec 10, 2013 20:17:31 GMT
The term "printer" is misleading in this construction idea. It isn't actually printing, so much as it is pouring hollow concrete tubes in a controlled fashion, in layers, rather than building a wall, brick by brick or block by block.
This could lead to wiring being injected along with the hollow poured section, perhaps even some plumbing piping injected that way as well. Inside the hollow part of the walls.
There is still going to have to be final fitting and finishing work done by actual electricians and plumbers.
I think the statement that the machines could do all that and the finish work is born out of a lack of actual knowledge of what really needs to take place with electrical wiring and plumbing.
Edit: I edited in the word LACK, which I realized I didn't typed in, now several hours later. That word makes a difference.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 10, 2013 22:47:52 GMT
If you think of it, being able to 'print' parts for a plastic building might be perfect for emergency housing in a disaster zone. It would allow you to build exactly the kinds of buildings needed - from large hospitals or storehouses to individual shelters. It could presumably also be used to create, say, emergency road surfaces or even runways as well as pipes to help restore water supplies if they were damaged. A large ship who's cargo space is taken up with the 'printer' and stores of plastic building materials should be able to churn out enough emergency housing in a day or so, and then move onto making larger or more complex structures as new building supplies are shipped in.
I could see this being tempting to the military, as such a facility could reduce the amount of large stores they'd need to ship to units. In fact if you used something like cellulose, or a similar organic material, you might even be able to 'print' usable fabrics for blankets and clothing or even boots.
Strangely enough this is the basic principle behind the fabrication systems used on Star Trek Enterprise, and certainly the ability to recycle organic waste in this way would be a godsend for space travel in the long term, and could save the military a fair amount of money in the short term if the working clothing used on (say) ships was being made on board and recycled rather than washed.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 11, 2013 2:10:19 GMT
certainly the later generations of matter replication are a good deal more sophisticated, being a matter/energy conversion - but yes, this is the building blocks of the concept.
being able to have a "printer" that could work with structural concrete, a structural polymer, and a foamed polymer would be a very versatile construction system. you could even design it to use its own cement, and add local aggregate to reduce the necessity of carrying that on board.
however emergency shelters might be better built using a prefabricated universal panel system. I don't know if you have much prefabricated panel construction where you are, it is a structural panel on each side of a polystyrene foam core. the builder uses inserts along the edges to assemble them like giant tongue and groove boards. they are a right pain in the neck for electricians and plumbers, but if you designed a universal shelter shell, you could bang them together very rapidly, and even design them such that only one panel had any electrical fittings, and have a composting toilet for sanitary needs.
addendum: I guess the trick for that would be to have everything except the "live" panel shipped with a collapsing web, and then fill them with a polymer foam on site if you did it right, you could snap them together, pump in the foam, and have it be the bonding agent for assembly; or you might prefer to do a loose fill and mechanically fasten the panels. that way everything could be recovered when the immediate crisis was over and it was time to make things nicer.
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Dec 11, 2013 5:33:16 GMT
I edited in the word LACK in my previous post, which got past my proofread and the missing word changed my intended conclusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Dec 11, 2013 5:41:41 GMT
Actually, washing IS the ultimate recycling. You are using the same garment over and over again until they are no longer serviceable.
For example, my dress uniforms were the same ones I was issued in boot camp in 1984 as when I left the Marines in 1990.
My camouflage utility uniforms, I still had 1 pair out of 4 sets issued* in boot camp, when I left the Corps in 1990. (Heavy weight/cool weather** garrison pair)
1 of the other sets from boot camp I replaced 1 time before 1990. (Lightweight/hot weather garrison pair)
1 of the sets I replaced twice before 1990. (Heavy weight/cool weather field pair***)
1 of the sets I replaced 3 times, but only because I traded a set to a Thai Marine for a set of Royal Thai Marine Corps cammies, otherwise it would have been twice. (Lightweight/hot weather field pair)
* Original 4 sets were all heavy weight and lasted a long time.
** the heavy weights were originally the only weight, then the lightweights came out and uniform requirements, required 2 sets of heavy weights, which became typically worn in cooler weather, but could be worn when hot and 2 pairs of lightweights which were typically worn when hot, but could be worn when cooler if desired. The mixing of warm and lightweights was not authorized, meaning you couldn't wear lightweight top and heavy weight bottoms or a lightweight cover (hat) with heavy weight uniform and vice versa.
***when getting new cammies! the older pairs became your field pairs and the new pairs became your garrison pairs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 11, 2013 10:01:22 GMT
My thinking about washing was that you need a cleaning solution, where as if you are taking an old (working) uniform and shredding it to make a new one you can remove the need to carry or supply such things. Ecologically this removes a waste product, logistically you have more space for other items - you'd still need some cleaning solutions since the best uniforms would certainly not be manufactured that way.
If you have a fabrication system that could use organic material to build things, then you could in theory reduce or remove the need to dump a lot of waste at sea. In fact such a system would do wonders for waste disposal on land too. Think about it, you could recycle a huge amount of household waste into materials you could use rather than burn or bury it.
We're not at that level yet, but the 3D printer technology is a start. All we need is a system that could turn 'waste' materials into something the printers can use.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 11, 2013 14:35:58 GMT
I edited in the word LACK in my previous post, which got past my proofread and the missing word changed my intended conclusion. ah. I understood what you meant, but didn't know how to get there from your original flawed phrasing. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 11, 2013 14:39:26 GMT
My thinking about washing was that you need a cleaning solution, where as if you are taking an old (working) uniform and shredding it to make a new one you can remove the need to carry or supply such things. Ecologically this removes a waste product, logistically you have more space for other items - you'd still need some cleaning solutions since the best uniforms would certainly not be manufactured that way. If you have a fabrication system that could use organic material to build things, then you could in theory reduce or remove the need to dump a lot of waste at sea. In fact such a system would do wonders for waste disposal on land too. Think about it, you could recycle a huge amount of household waste into materials you could use rather than burn or bury it. We're not at that level yet, but the 3D printer technology is a start. All we need is a system that could turn 'waste' materials into something the printers can use. so you are just going to blend in whatever soiling caused the need to launder the other uniform? I can see the benefit in having a system that effectively deconstructs damaged apparel, but it is a lot less energy intensive to launder soiled apparel. of course, the military is playing around with omniphobic materials to eliminate the question of laundering. that leaves only the question of whether an omniphobic garment will be less efficient in allowing sweat to effectively dissipate heat in hot climates. a shirt which absorbs sweat creates much more evaporative surface than one which does not. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 11, 2013 15:50:55 GMT
we now have a thread about aerogel, and in reading about it, I wonder if a 3D printer can effectively produce an aerogel like material for use as insulation.
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Dec 13, 2013 20:39:35 GMT
My thinking about washing was that you need a cleaning solution, where as if you are taking an old (working) uniform and shredding it to make a new one you can remove the need to carry or supply such things. Ecologically this removes a waste product, logistically you have more space for other items - you'd still need some cleaning solutions since the best uniforms would certainly not be manufactured that way. If you have a fabrication system that could use organic material to build things, then you could in theory reduce or remove the need to dump a lot of waste at sea. In fact such a system would do wonders for waste disposal on land too. Think about it, you could recycle a huge amount of household waste into materials you could use rather than burn or bury it. We're not at that level yet, but the 3D printer technology is a start. All we need is a system that could turn 'waste' materials into something the printers can use. It just doesn't make sense for easily re supplied surface ships. The laundry room on the LST I lived on for six months, which serviced the laundry needs for 200+ crew and up to 400 Marines, was only about 16 feet wide and 25 feet long. I don't think you'll get the needed recycling/reproducing equipment into a space that small. I agree that for very long space voyages, that type of tech would be highly useful, if not a requirement. It kind of depends on the type of travel developed and the size of ships capable of being built and the crew sizes. Example: if cryogenic sleep is perfected, recycling is not much of an issue for travel. Further, if you have a BSG type FTL drive capability, supplies could always be "jumped" out to you. If you are able to build huge ships, with minimal crews/troops/colonists, then massive quantities of supplies could go with you and even work to the advantages of say cryogenic sleep as well. Though of course, if you have a wide awake crew and large quantity of troops/colonists on a slow ship on a trip that is going to take generations, some sort of re ycling will have to be done. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 13, 2013 21:39:32 GMT
You forget that shipping supplies out costs time, money and resources beyond that of the items you are supplying*. So if you can reduce the amount of supplies you need to move to ships you save a lot of money, as well as allowing you to concentrate those resources of a more military bent - such as ammunition.
It would also help with emergency deployments. If your ship needed to be moved to a disaster area you can detail logistical elements towards transporting food and medical supplies while the ships can make shelters, clothing and blankets without having to worry about immediate resupply. Likewise if your ship needs to be sent to colder waters you no longer have to waste time and money shipping cold weather clothing to the ship as they can make their own.
I forget the exact figures, but a huge proportion of any military force is tied up not in the combat units, but in those units and personal that supply them. Anything you can do to reduce this would allow you to have a smaller, cheaper military force who's front line strength is untouched.
(*In the case of the navy you end up having to build ships who'd only function is to move supplies to other ships. If you remove or lower the amount of supplies you need to provide, then you don't need as many support ships - which would save you a fortune and allow you to spend that money on other things.)
|
|
|
|
Post by User Unavailable on Dec 13, 2013 21:59:13 GMT
You forget that shipping supplies out costs time, money and resources beyond that of the items you are supplying*. So if you can reduce the amount of supplies you need to move to ships you save a lot of money, as well as allowing you to concentrate those resources of a more military bent - such as ammunition. It would also help with emergency deployments. If your ship needed to be moved to a disaster area you can detail logistical elements towards transporting food and medical supplies while the ships can make shelters, clothing and blankets without having to worry about immediate resupply. Likewise if your ship needs to be sent to colder waters you no longer have to waste time and money shipping cold weather clothing to the ship as they can make their own. I forget the exact figures, but a huge proportion of any military force is tied up not in the combat units, but in those units and personal that supply them. Anything you can do to reduce this would allow you to have a smaller, cheaper military force who's front line strength is untouched. (*In the case of the navy you end up having to build ships who'd only function is to move supplies to other ships. If you remove or lower the amount of supplies you need to provide, then you don't need as many support ships - which would save you a fortune and allow you to spend that money on other things.) Yeah, but you're not really resupplying washing soap and uniforms that often. Like I said, the uniforms being washed is the ultimate in recycling. The energy savings alone has to offset the resupply costs. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Dec 18, 2013 21:30:44 GMT
The energy used for washing wouldn't just include using the machines, but also in filtering/treating the water* to get rid of the salt and heating it. You might also end up expending more energy further treating the soiled water - unless you just dump it, which could have environmental problems (something the US Navy is interested in, if only for PR reasons**). Plus you probably end up having to use even more energy drying clothing - you can't exactly hang it out to dry in a force 10 gale.
I wasn't implying that normal washing would not be needed. I somehow doubt that personal would like the idea of their dress uniforms being shredded - and I'd suspect that ship-manufactured cloth would be of fairly low quality anyway. Or at least not suitable for the best uniforms. Rather that it might allow for jumpsuits and work clothing to be made on board as needed, this might save space and also reduce the amount of cleaning solutions needed. It would also be idea for situations where you are suddenly trying to support a larger than normal number of people at short notice. If nothing else it would remove the number of supplies you have to carry on the off chance you might suddenly be asked to transport an army or special forces unit in addition to the normal crew complement. It also, as I noted, would allow a ship to provide clothing, blankets, some types of medical supplies and shelter to disaster areas as soon as it can get into range and without having to worry about resupplying first.
Thinking logically here, but if a ship has machinery capable of creating prefabricated structures then, as long as that equipment is working, it should be capable of making items that can be used to repair the ship well enough to get it back to port under its own power. Consider that if you can make a wall, you could use the same equipment to make a panel to cover a hole in the hull. Heck, you could probably create an emergency rudder and maybe even a propeller if you had to. This wouldn't fully repair a ship, but could well allow it to get back to a repair facility without having to dispatch additional units to help out. Or buy enough time for better solutions and repairs to be made. If nothing else it gives the crew more options as to how to deal with a lot of problems, and probably save a lot of money overall.
(*Thinking on this. If the equipment is capable of using organic matter for its construction materials then it is possible that a ship at sea might be able to filter and use algae and plankton to replenish its supplies to some degree.)
(**Not that I'm implying that is the only reason the Navy is interested in environmental issues - in many cases, such as dumping fuel from carrier aircraft as they come into land, it also makes economical sense.)
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Dec 19, 2013 2:34:26 GMT
The energy used for washing wouldn't just include using the machines, but also in filtering/treating the water* to get rid of the salt and heating it. You might also end up expending more energy further treating the soiled water - unless you just dump it, which could have environmental problems (something the US Navy is interested in, if only for PR reasons**). Plus you probably end up having to use even more energy drying clothing - you can't exactly hang it out to dry in a force 10 gale. I wasn't implying that normal washing would not be needed. I somehow doubt that personal would like the idea of their dress uniforms being shredded - and I'd suspect that ship-manufactured cloth would be of fairly low quality anyway. Or at least not suitable for the best uniforms. Rather that it might allow for jumpsuits and work clothing to be made on board as needed, this might save space and also reduce the amount of cleaning solutions needed. It would also be idea for situations where you are suddenly trying to support a larger than normal number of people at short notice. If nothing else it would remove the number of supplies you have to carry on the off chance you might suddenly be asked to transport an army or special forces unit in addition to the normal crew complement. It also, as I noted, would allow a ship to provide clothing, blankets, some types of medical supplies and shelter to disaster areas as soon as it can get into range and without having to worry about resupplying first. Thinking logically here, but if a ship has machinery capable of creating prefabricated structures then, as long as that equipment is working, it should be capable of making items that can be used to repair the ship well enough to get it back to port under its own power. Consider that if you can make a wall, you could use the same equipment to make a panel to cover a hole in the hull. Heck, you could probably create an emergency rudder and maybe even a propeller if you had to. This wouldn't fully repair a ship, but could well allow it to get back to a repair facility without having to dispatch additional units to help out. Or buy enough time for better solutions and repairs to be made. If nothing else it gives the crew more options as to how to deal with a lot of problems, and probably save a lot of money overall. (*Thinking on this. If the equipment is capable of using organic matter for its construction materials then it is possible that a ship at sea might be able to filter and use algae and plankton to replenish its supplies to some degree.) (**Not that I'm implying that is the only reason the Navy is interested in environmental issues - in many cases, such as dumping fuel from carrier aircraft as they come into land, it also makes economical sense.) that kind of technology would definitely be good for emergency supply considerations. I just wouldn't expect it to replace routing laundering. (since you would have to clean your fibers whether you reconstructed the garment or not) on the other side of the "3D printing" question - I saw a show that was recorded on the DVR that said the 3D printed house guy is also suggesting it for structures on mars - and theorizing he could use a heating process on the martian soil to essentially heat fuse the structures. didn't say where he was getting the power to run the machine, though. |
|
