engine with 16 parts
instead of 900, with great potential impact on reducing the complexity
of supply chains.
AM’s impact on firearms involves two dimensions: new
manufacturing methods for established companies, and new possibilities
for the making of do-it-yourself firearms. In 2012, the US-based group
Defense Distributed disclosed plans to design a working plastic 3D
printed firearm “that could be downloaded and reproduced by anybody
with a 3D printer.” After Defense Distributed released their plans,
questions were raised regarding the effects that 3D printing and
widespread consumer-level CNC machining may have on gun control
effectiveness.
Surgical uses of 3D printing-centric therapies have a
history beginning in the mid-1990s with anatomical modeling for bony
reconstructive surgery planning. Patient-matched implants were a natural
extension of this work, leading to truly personalized implants that fit
one unique individual. Virtual planning of surgery and guidance using 3D
printed, personalized instruments have been applied to many areas of
surgery including total joint replacement and craniomaxillofacial
reconstruction with great success. One example of this is the
bioresorbable trachial splint to treat newborns with
tracheobronchomalacia developed at the University of Michigan. The use
of additive manufacturing for serialized production of orthopedic
implants (metals) is also increasing due to the ability to efficiently
create porous surface structures that facilitate osseointegration. The
hearing aid and dental industries are expected to be the biggest area of
future development using the custom 3D printing technology.
In March
2014, surgeons in Swansea used 3D printed parts to rebuild the face of a
motorcyclist who had been seriously injured in a road accident. In May
2018, 3D printing has been used for the kidney transplant to save a
three-year-old boy. As of 2012, 3D bio-printing technology has been
studied by biotechnology firms and academia for possible use in tissue
engineering applications in which organs and body parts are built using
inkjet printing techniques. In this process, layers of living cells are
deposited onto a gel medium or sugar matrix and slowly built up to form
three-dimensional structures including vascular systems. Recently, a
heart-on-chip has been created which matches properties of cells.
In
2018, 3D printing technology was used for the first time to create a
matrix for cell immobilization in fermentation. Propionic acid
production by Propionibacterium acidipropionici immobilized on
3D-printed nylon beads was chosen as a model study. It was shown that
those 3D-printed beads were capable to promote high density cell
attachment and propionic acid production, which could be adapted to
other fermentation bioprocesses.
In 2005, academic journals had begun to
report on the possible artistic applications of 3D printing technology.
As of 2017, domestic 3D printing was reaching a consumer audience beyond
hobbyists and enthusiasts. Off the shelf machines were increasingly
capable of producing practical household applications, for example,
ornamental objects. Some practical examples include a working clock and
gears printed for home woodworking machines among other purposes. Web
sites associated with home 3D printing tended to include backscratchers,
coat hooks, door knobs, etc.
3D printing, and open source 3D printers in
particular, are the latest technology making inroads into the classroom.
Some authors have claimed that 3D printers offer an unprecedented
“revolution” in STEM education. The evidence for such claims comes
from both the low cost ability for rapid prototyping in the classroom by
students, but also the fabrication of low-cost high-quality scientific
equipment from open hardware designs forming open-source labs. Future
applications for 3D printing might include creating open-source
scientific equipment.
In the last several years 3D printing has been
intensively used by in the cultural heritage field for preservation,
restoration and dissemination purposes. Many Europeans and North
American Museums have purchased 3D printers and actively recreate
missing pieces of their relics. The Metropolitan Museum of Art and the
British Museum have started using their 3D printers to create museum
souvenirs that are available in the museum shops. Other museums, like
the National Museum of Military History and Varna Historical Museum,
have gone further and sell through the online platform Threeding digital
models of their artifacts, created using Artec 3D scanners, in 3D
printing friendly file format, which everyone can 3D print at home.
3D
printed soft actuators is a growing application of 3D printing
technology which has found its place in the 3D printing applications.
These soft actuators are being developed to deal with soft structures
and organs especially in biomedical sectors and where the interaction
between human and robot is inevitable. The majority of the existing soft
actuators are fabricated by conventional methods that require manual
fabrication of devices, post processing/assembly, and lengthy iterations
until maturity in the fabrication is achieved. To avoid the tedious and
time-consuming aspects of the current fabrication processes, researchers
are exploring an appropriate manufacturing approach for effective
fabrication of soft actuators. Thus, 3D printed soft actuators are
introduced to revolutionize the design and fabrication of soft actuators
with custom geometrical, functional, and control properties in a faster
and inexpensive approach. They also enable incorporation of all actuator
components into a single structure eliminating the need to use external
joints, adhesives, and fasteners.
Legal aspects
Intellectual property
3D
printing has existed for decades within certain manufacturing industries
where many legal regimes, including patents, industrial design rights,
copyright, and trademark may apply. However, there is not much
jurisprudence to say how these laws will apply if 3D printers become
mainstream and individuals or hobbyist communities begin manufacturing
items for personal use, for non-profit distribution, or for sale.
Any of
the mentioned legal regimes may prohibit the distribution of the designs
used in 3D printing, or the distribution or sale of the printed item. To
be allowed to do these things, where an active intellectual property was
involved, a person would have to contact the owner and ask for a
license, which may come with conditions and a price. However, many
patent, design and copyright laws contain a standard limitation or
exception for ‘private’, ‘non-commercial’ use of inventions, designs or
works of art protected under intellectual property (IP). That standard
limitation or exception may leave such private, non-commercial uses
outside the scope of IP rights.
Patents cover inventions including
processes, machines, manufactures, and compositions of matter and have a
finite duration which varies between countries, but generally 20 years
from the date of application. Therefore, if a type of wheel is patented,
printing, using, or selling such a wheel could be an infringement of the
patent.
Copyright covers an expression in a tangible, fixed medium and
often lasts for the life of the author plus 70 years thereafter. If
someone makes a statue, they may have copyright on the look of that
statue, so if someone sees that statue, they cannot then distribute
designs to print an identical or similar statue.
When a feature has both
artistic (copyrightable) and functional (patentable) merits, when the
question has appeared in US court, the courts have often held the
feature is not copyrightable unless it can be separated from the
functional aspects of the item. In other countries the law and the
courts may apply a different approach allowing, for example, the design
of a useful device to be registered (as a whole) as an industrial design
on the understanding that, in case of unauthorized copying, only the
non-functional features may be claimed under design law whereas any
technical features could only be claimed if covered by a valid patent.
Gun legislation and administration
The US Department of Homeland
Security and the Joint Regional Intelligence Center released a memo
stating that “significant advances in three-dimensional (3D) printing
capabilities, availability of free digital 3D printable files for
firearms components, and difficulty regulating file sharing may present
public safety risks from unqualified gun seekers who obtain or
manufacture 3D printed guns” and that “proposed legislation to ban 3D
printing of weapons may deter, but cannot completely prevent, their
production. Even if the practice is prohibited by new legislation,
online distribution of these 3D printable files will be as difficult to
control as any other illegally traded music, movie or software files.”
Attempting to restrict the distribution of gun plans via the Internet
has been likened to the futility of preventing the widespread
distribution of DeCSS, which enabled DVD ripping. After the US
government had Defense Distributed take down the plans, they were still
widely available via the Pirate Bay and other file sharing sites.
Downloads of the plans from the UK, Germany, Spain, and Brazil were
heavy. Some US legislators have proposed regulations on 3D printers to
prevent them from being used for printing guns. 3D printing advocates
have suggested that such regulations would be futile, could cripple the
3D printing industry, and could infringe on free speech rights, with
early pioneer of 3D printing Professor Hod Lipson suggesting that
gunpowder could be controlled instead.
Internationally, where gun
controls are generally stricter than in the United States, some
commentators have said the impact may be more strongly felt since
alternative firearms are not as easily obtainable. Officials in the
United Kingdom have noted that producing a 3D printed gun would be
illegal under their gun control laws. Europol stated that criminals have
access to other sources of weapons but noted that as technology
improves, the risks of an effect would increase.
Aerospace regulation
In
the United States, the FAA has anticipated a desire to use additive
manufacturing techniques and has been considering how best to regulate
this process. The FAA has jurisdiction over such fabrication because all
aircraft parts must be made under FAA production approval or under other
FAA regulatory categories. In December 2016, the FAA approved the
production of a 3D printed fuel nozzle for the GE LEAP engine. Aviation
attorney Jason Dickstein has suggested that additive manufacturing is
merely a production method, and should be regulated like any other
production method. He has suggested that the FAA’s focus should be on
guidance to explain compliance, rather than on changing the existing
rules, and that existing regulations and guidance permit a company “to
develop a robust quality system that adequately reflects regulatory
needs for quality assurance.”
Health and safety
Research on the health
and safety concerns of 3D printing is new and in development due to the
recent proliferation of 3D printing devices. In 2017 the European Agency
for Safety and Health at Work has published a discussion paper on the
processes and materials involved in 3D printing, potential implications
of this technology for occupational safety and health and avenues for
controlling potential hazards. Most
concerns involve gas and material
exposures, in particular nanomaterials, material handling, static
electricity, moving parts and pressures.
A National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) study noted particle emissions
from a fused filament peaked a few minutes after printing started and
returned to baseline levels 100 minutes after printing ended. Emissions
from fused filament printers can include a large number of ultrafine
particles and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
The toxicity from
emissions varies by source material due to differences in size, chemical
properties, and quantity of emitted particles. Excessive exposure to
VOCs can lead to irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat, headache,
loss of coordination, and nausea and some of the chemical emissions of
fused filament printers have also been linked to asthma. Based on animal
studies, carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibers sometimes used in fused
filament printing can cause pulmonary effects including inflammation,
granulomas, and pulmonary fibrosis when at the nanoparticle size.
As of
March 2018, the US Government has set 3D printer emission standards for
only a limited number of compounds. Furthermore, the few established
standards address factory conditions, not home or other environments in
which the printers are likely to be used.
Carbon nanoparticle emissions
and processes using powder metals are highly combustible and raise the
risk of dust explosions. At least one case of severe injury was noted
from an explosion involved in metal powders used for fused filament
printing. Other general health and safety concerns include the hot
surface of UV lamps and print head blocks, high voltage, ultraviolet
radiation from UV lamps, and potential for mechanical injury from moving
parts.
The problems noted in the NIOSH report were reduced by using
manufacturer-supplied covers and full enclosures, using proper
ventilation, keeping workers away from the printer, using respirators,
turning off the printer if it jammed, and using lower emission printers
and filaments. At least one case of severe injury was noted from an
explosion involved in metal powders used for fused filament. Personal
protective equipment has been found to be the least desirable control
method with a recommendation that it only be used to add further
protection in combination with approved emissions protection.
Hazards to
health and safety also exist from post-processing activities done to
finish parts after they have been printed. These post-processing
activities can include chemical baths, sanding, polishing, or vapor
exposure to refine surface finish, as well as general subtractive
manufacturing techniques such as drilling, milling, or turning to modify
the printed geometry. Any technique that removes material from the
printed part has the potential to generate particles that can be inhaled
or cause eye injury if proper personal protective equipment is not used,
such as respirators or safety glasses. Caustic baths are often used to
dissolve support material used by some 3D printers that allows them to
print more complex shapes. These baths require personal protective
equipment to prevent injury to exposed skin.
Although no occupational
exposure limits specific to 3D printer emissions exist, certain source
materials used in 3D printing, such as carbon nanofiber and carbon
nanotubes, have established occupational exposure limits at the
nanoparticle size.
Since 3-D imaging creates items by fusing materials
together, there runs the risk of layer separation in some devices made
using 3-D Imaging. For example, in January 2013, the US medical device
company, DePuy, recalled their knee and hip replacement systems. The
devices were made from layers of metal, and shavings had come loose –
potentially harming the patient.
Impact
Additive manufacturing, starting
with today’s infancy period, requires manufacturing firms to be
flexible, ever-improving users of all available technologies to remain
competitive. Advocates of additive manufacturing also predict that this
arc of technological development will counter globalization, as end
users will do much
of their own manufacturing rather than engage in
trade to buy products from other people and corporations. The real
integration of the newer additive technologies into commercial
production, however, is more a matter of complementing traditional
subtractive methods rather than displacing them entirely.
The
futurologist Jeremy Rifkin claimed that 3D printing signals the
beginning of a third industrial revolution, succeeding the production
line assembly that dominated manufacturing starting in the late 19th
century.
Since the 1950s, a number of writers and social commentators
have speculated in some depth about the social and cultural changes that
might result from the advent of commercially affordable additive
manufacturing technology. Amongst the more notable ideas to have emerged
from these inquiries has been the suggestion that, as more and more 3D
printers start to enter people’s homes, the conventional relationship
between the home and the workplace might get further eroded. Likewise,
it has also been suggested that, as it becomes easier for businesses to
transmit designs for new objects around the globe, so the need for
high-speed freight services might also become less. Finally, given the
ease with which certain objects can now be replicated, it remains to be
seen whether changes will be made to current copyright legislation so as
to protect intellectual property rights with the new technology widely
available.
As 3D printers became more accessible to consumers, online
social platforms have developed to support the community. This includes
websites that allow users to access information such as how to build a
3D printer, as well as social forums that discuss how to improve 3D
print quality and discuss 3D printing news, as well as social media
websites that are dedicated to share 3D models. RepRap is a wiki based
website that was created to hold all information on 3d printing, and has
developed into a community that aims to bring 3D printing to everyone.
Furthermore, there are other sites such as Pinshape, Thingiverse and
MyMiniFactory, which were created initially to allow users to post 3D
files for anyone to print, allowing for decreased transaction cost of
sharing 3D files. These websites have allowed greater social interaction
between users, creating communities dedicated to 3D printing.
Some call
attention to the conjunction of Commons-based peer production with 3D
printing and other low-cost manufacturing techniques. The
self-reinforced fantasy of a system of eternal growth can be overcome
with the development of economies of scope, and here, society can play
an important role contributing to the raising of the whole productive
structure to a higher plateau of more sustainable and customized
productivity. Further, it is true that many issues, problems, and
threats arise due to the democratization of the means of production, and
especially regarding the physical ones. For instance, the recyclability
of advanced nanomaterials is still questioned; weapons manufacturing
could become easier; not to mention the implications for counterfeiting
and on IP. It might be maintained that in contrast to the industrial
paradigm whose competitive dynamics were about economies of scale,
Commons-based peer production 3D printing could develop economies of
scope. While the advantages of scale rest on cheap global
transportation, the economies of scope share infrastructure costs
(intangible and tangible productive resources), taking advantage of the
capabilities of the fabrication tools. And following Neil Gershenfeld in
that “some of the least developed parts of the world need some of the
most advanced technologies,” Commons-based peer production and 3D
printing may offer the necessary tools for thinking globally but acting
locally in response to certain needs.
Larry Summers wrote about the
“devastating consequences” of 3D printing and other technologies
(robots, artificial intelligence, etc.) for those who perform routine
tasks. In his view, “already there are more American men on disability
insurance than doing production work in manufacturing. And the trends
are all in the wrong direction, particularly for the less skilled, as
the capacity of capital embodying artificial intelligence to replace
white-collar as well as blue-collar work will increase rapidly in the
years ahead.” Summers recommends more vigorous cooperative efforts to
address the “myriad devices” (e.g., tax havens, bank secrecy, money
laundering, and regulatory arbitrage) enabling the holders of great
wealth to “avoid paying” income and estate taxes, and to make it more
difficult to accumulate great fortunes without requiring “great social
contributions” in return, including: more vigorous enforcement of
anti-monopoly laws, reductions in “excessive” protection for
intellectual property, greater encouragement of profit-sharing schemes
that may benefit workers and give them a stake in wealth accumulation,
strengthening of collective bargaining
arrangements, improvements in
corporate governance, strengthening of financial regulation to eliminate
subsidies to financial activity, easing of land-use restrictions that
may cause the real estate of the rich to keep rising in value, better
training for young people and retraining for displaced workers, and
increased public and private investment in infrastructure
development—e.g., in energy production and transportation.
Michael
Spence wrote that “Now comes a … powerful, wave of digital
technology that is replacing labor in increasingly complex tasks. This
process of labor substitution and disintermediation has been underway
for some time in service sectors—think of ATMs, online banking,
enterprise resource planning, customer relationship management, mobile
payment systems, and much more. This revolution is spreading to the
production of goods, where robots and 3D printing are displacing
labor.” In his view, the vast majority of the cost of digital
technologies comes at the start, in the design of hardware (e.g. 3D
printers) and, more important, in creating the software that enables
machines to carry out various tasks. “Once this is achieved, the
marginal cost of the hardware is relatively low (and declines as scale
rises), and the marginal cost of replicating the software is essentially
zero. With a huge potential global market to amortize the upfront fixed
costs of design and testing, the incentives to invest [in digital
technologies] are compelling.”
Spence believes that, unlike prior
digital technologies, which drove firms to deploy underutilized pools of
valuable labor around the world, the motivating force in the current
wave of digital technologies “is cost reduction via the replacement of
labor.” For example, as the cost of 3D printing technology declines, it
is “easy to imagine” that production may become “extremely” local
and customized. Moreover, production may occur in response to actual
demand, not anticipated or forecast demand. Spence believes that labor,
no matter how inexpensive, will become a less important asset for growth
and employment expansion, with labor-intensive, process-oriented
manufacturing becoming less effective, and that re-localization will
appear in both developed and developing countries. In his view,
production will not disappear, but it will be less labor-intensive, and
all countries will eventually need to rebuild their growth models around
digital technologies and the human capital supporting their deployment
and expansion. Spence writes that “the world we are entering is one in
which the most powerful global flows will be ideas and digital capital,
not goods, services, and traditional capital. Adapting to this will
require shifts in mindsets, policies, investments (especially in human
capital), and quite possibly models of employment and distribution.”
Naomi Wu regards the usage of 3D printing in the Chinese classroom
(where rote memorization is standard) to teach design principles and
creativity as the most exciting recent development of the technology,
and more generally regards 3D printing as being the next desktop
publishing revolution.
Self-driving car
Outline
A self-driving car (also known as an autonomous
car or a driverless car) is a vehicle that is capable of sensing its
environment and moving with little or no human input.
Autonomous cars
combine a variety of sensors to perceive their surroundings, such as
radar, computer vision, Lidar, sonar, GPS, odometry and inertial
measurement units. Advanced control systems interpret sensory
information to identify appropriate navigation paths, as well as
obstacles and relevant signage.
Potential benefits include reduced
costs, increased safety, increased mobility, increased customer
satisfaction and reduced crime. Safety benefits include a reduction in
traffic collisions, resulting injuries and related costs, including for
insurance. Automated cars are predicted to increase traffic flow;
provide enhanced mobility for children, the elderly, disabled, and the
poor; relieve travelers from driving and navigation chores; lower fuel
consumption; significantly reduce needs for parking space; reduce crime;
and facilitate business models for transportation as a service,
especially via the sharing economy.
Problems include safety, technology,
liability, desire by individuals to control their cars, legal framework
and government regulations; risk of loss of privacy and security
concerns, such as hackers or terrorism; concern about the resulting loss
of driving-related jobs in the road transport industry; and risk of
increased suburbanization as travel becomes more convenient.
History
General Motors’ Firebird II of the 1950s was described as having an
“electronic brain” that allowed it to move into a lane with a metal
conductor and follow it along.