I'm hugely interested in self replicating machinery, metalworking, and other forms of constructing items (I launched SmartFlix based on these interests).
...and I've done a fair bit of reading on RepRap (I was considering building one a year or so back).
I am dramatically underwhelmed.
The construction is shoddy, the technique (basically hot-glue extrusion of thermoplastics) is hackish and has poor tolerances, the concept of "self replication" is grossly dumbed down (a very very large number of parts are not constructed, even from high quality inputs, but just store bought), etc., etc.
In short, I was fairly embarrassed for the RepRap folks.
Their toy is somewhat cool (although nowhere near as cool as, say, the Gingery lathe that is cast from aluminum melted in a cast iron cookpot, and machines itself as construction progresses), but to claim that it represents any important step forward in self replication ...
Let's not be too depressed :-)
RepRap's main claim to fame is that it is cheap to build. I listened to a podcast (with Gavin Bowman? is that his name) and that's exactly what he said. My employer has a Stratasys rapid prototyping machine that cost about $50,000. You can build a reprap for about $150.
It's a step forward. Like someone said, we're at the Altair stage here, not the Apple IIe.
So does this mean that the concept of a patent fails completely? You are allowed to make use of any patented technology for personal, non-commercial purposes. This machine, once fully mature, can conceivably make nearly anything. Will there be a napster for car parts?
Trivial example: let's say someone wanted a copy of Microsoft word. They could buy it for $300 (or whatever), or build it in a "workshop" along with 500 developers for $50M (or whatever it costs MS to build it)
Rapid prototyping is nice, but today's rapid prototyping machines can't make "almost anything", not by a long shot. They can make a lot of pretty neat things, but not very much valuable. I have seen cup holders, iPod accessories, shot glasses and various kinds of support material. All in plastic, of course - these parts will not stand up to any significant forces. You can't make a combustion engine out of them, or anything requiring significant rigidity. (Want a skateboard? Keep dreaming).
I'm very excited about the future of rapid prototyping, but the headline is very misleading.
Other manufacturing machines also look promising (computer-controlled laser mills, CNC mills, etc), but I'm pretty skeptical that they will be available at reaasonable prices in the near future. I hope you'll prove me wrong, though.
Universal machines / replicators are cool.
Early prototypes of things that will be better in a few generations are cool.
However, Fab@Home and RepRap are sad, and make my embarassed for them.
I posted a longer rant to BoingBoing a while back:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/04/reprap-universal-con.ht...
I'm hugely interested in self replicating machinery, metalworking, and other forms of constructing items (I launched SmartFlix based on these interests).
...and I've done a fair bit of reading on RepRap (I was considering building one a year or so back).
I am dramatically underwhelmed.
The construction is shoddy, the technique (basically hot-glue extrusion of thermoplastics) is hackish and has poor tolerances, the concept of "self replication" is grossly dumbed down (a very very large number of parts are not constructed, even from high quality inputs, but just store bought), etc., etc.
In short, I was fairly embarrassed for the RepRap folks.
Their toy is somewhat cool (although nowhere near as cool as, say, the Gingery lathe that is cast from aluminum melted in a cast iron cookpot, and machines itself as construction progresses), but to claim that it represents any important step forward in self replication ...