3d printing of functionally graded materials

>> cornell university to talk about the shapeof things to come. >> lipson: thank you. all right. so, pleasureto be here today and talk to you a little bit about directions that i think rapid manufacturingand added manufacturing is heading. we heard a lot about what is being done today all thesefantastic opportunities that are opening but often the questions that we tend to thinkabout is, how can we reproduce conventional

3d printing of functionally graded materials, manufacturing? how can we reproduce conventionalparts using this technology? what point does it break even with conventional manufacturingbut we [indistinct] us know the right frame of mind. the frame of mind that you shouldthink about is how come we do new things? what kind of new opportunities are openedby this technology? and this is really what

i'd like to talk about. today i will showyou a couple of examples of what i think our directions. so i'm at cornell university andwe work at what we call the creative machines lab. lab that makes--machines that createand machines that are creative and we'll talk a little bit about how that plays out. sohere are the conclusions just as--incase we don't get there in time. the key idea is thatwe are, we're beginning to go in a--in a really the beginning of a story. and what you'veseen i put here now is the first episode of what i think are three episodes. we had unprecedentedcontrol over the shape and form of objects right now. we--complexity is free you canmake complex shapes at a press of a button that changes engineering in a way that fewinventions ever have but that's only the first

episode. the second episode that you're beginningto see now is that we can combine materials in control of the internal compositions ofstructures in precedent ways. we can mix and match materials inside, and grade it in complexways not unlike biology. that has opened a new paradigm of engineering that we've just--we'rejust beginning to expose. instead of thinking about, how can you control the manufacturingprocess to make the material uniform? think about, how can you control the manufacturingprocess to take advantage of the control--of the precise control of the non-uniformityof every single location? so you can optimize materials in ways that you can do any--usingany manufacturing method. the final process, the final episode which will unfold in thefuture is going beyond just--just structures

and materials, and passive materials to actuallyworking with active material. being able to print electronic circuits, being able to printtransistors, conductive, semi-conductive materials, printing all these things combined to reallygo from passive parts to active integrated systems. so that you can eventually, literallydownload your ipod and have it working. all right. this is what were going and i wantyou--it happens to me all the time i'm thinking, where was i back in a where microsoft gotten employees, what was i doing, right? when google had ten employees what was i doing?when facebook had ten employees what was i doing? don't think aback 20 years from now,what were you doing when these technology took off? it's taking off now and it's goingto change every field, and all field its going

to be untouched. so think about how it canaffect your field. so with that in mind, i'll tell you a little bit about my own story.i got into this whole area from directions of robotics. we were working on evolutionaryrobotics, start to evolve robots, to breed robots using evolutionary techniques genericalgorithm and so forth. and we try to breed robots that can crawl across the table usingparts that combine--and we combine in random ways, you know, selected for their abilityto move. we did that in a gaming stimulator back in the late '90s. we had to write ourown gaming stimulator, we have to do auto-dynamics. i mean we got these interesting machines thatcame out of this process. but i had to--i think i was trying to get a faculty positionout of my phd and i was thinking what can

i do to give this an edge? go beyond justmaking this into virtual world into the physical world and that was when i was exposed to thisfantastic technology of 3d-printing. we took a 3d-printer back at the time in '99. we printedthose robots completely and have them crawling around the floor. so the printers allowedus to from the virtual world into the physical world and demonstrate how this--this--thisbasically--this process of automation can be used physically. that was enough to giveme a faculty position. and it appeared on the front page of new york times you can'tdo that anymore with robotics but at that time--back in 2000 that was below the fallthough didn't get quite to the top. but the question is, how can we take that step forward?so i was--i already beginning to--i realized

i'm not going to get [indistinct] by makingplastics robots. okay. i'm going to make something that's more serious so when you look at this--thisis a close up of one of the printed robot. everything about it is evolved and printedbut it's only the structure that's printed only the plastic part, only the white part.the wires, the batteries everything else we have to manually put in according to the evolvedblueprints. so a goal became, how can we make a new kind of printer that will allow--thatwill put the entire robot? we literally want the robot to walk out of the printer, batteriesincluded. all right. how can we do that? if we can do that we can really change engineeringand combine that with design automation and all bets are off. so this is really what wewant in the system. we've been doing a lot

of printing of robots. in fact i daresay thatthere's probably no robotics lab on the planet that doesn't use 3d-printers because there'sno better ways to make things--this is a recently a flapping hovering 3 gram of flapping ornicopter.it flaps its wings and hovers like a mosquito, its 80% printed we do that in the lab. there'sno way we can do this with any conventional manufacturing methods so it's really changeseverything. so what kind of technologies that we've seen, that we've heard quite of fewmore. what kind of technologies that will allow us to print combined integrated systems?it's definitely going to be the kind of technologies that bring the material deposited like a continuousstream or inkjet that allow us to work with multiple materials at the same time. and sowe set out to print--to make a printer that

could work with multiple materials, activematerials in order to make some of these things. and to cut the long story short, we've startedof by printing things--simple things like strain gages with the wiring embedded, printingbatteries these are the example of printed battery. the chemistry of the batteries iseasy to come across. what's difficult is to making--printing all the materials in a waythat allow them to be mutually compatible. so for example the battery has five materialseasy to print except one of them. one of the structures of the batteries is a separationlayer which is typically made out of paper. now, ironically we can print everything butwe can't print paper so we had to find a new way to print a separation layer without paper.so that was a challenged we found out and

we can print a battery to about 50% of thecapacity of the commercial battery. but it can be printed in any shape and that meansyou can do--engineer it differently you can have a embed batteries inside the structurein interesting ways. what about motors? we have to give up on this idea of electro magneticmotors and made me think about activation a different way. this is ectroactive polymermade of five layers, you print them you connect to voltage and it flexes so this changes howwe going to think about robotics and this is just an example of how this technologychanges things and we're still on our way to try to print a robot that will walk outof printer, the student that did this convinced me to let him try to make a robot that willswim out of the printer. which is a little

bit easier and we're still trying to do thatso whenever i talk about this people say, "okay. yes." they get exited in the beginningand then say, "okay. what's the--what's the killer app? what's the big thing is goingto change?" okay. you'll have all these small things so that's a really difficult questionto ask with such--with such of generic technology. is it printing parts that we've--like we'veseen a lot? maybe that's the killer app, maybe its printing toys. a lot of people are actuallyprinting these kind of figurines and pictures of their friends. somebody told me it's theeasiest way to make friends now, is this way. maybe it's going to be fashion, you'll beamazed to see how many people are doing fashion, people who don't care about manufacturing,engineering or anything but care about fashion

suddenly i was drawn into this, this a titanium,this is--of course no other way you can make something like this people design it makingand sell it. there's bikinis that are now print i didn't want to put the slides hereto show that but there are lots of them. they sell for $400 a piece, they are a bit to coursefor my taste but there are a lot of these options. printing cuneiforms we did that,we scanned cuneiforms, we print them, and they have the shape, the feel, the color,the weight, the texture of a real cuneiform. they're almost indistinguishable, fantasticfor historians for archeologist to look at these things, maybe that's the killer app,i don't think so. somebody talked about costume prosthesis, prosthetic devices differentlya big area we've talked a lot about--already

about medical devices and i took out a lotof slides because there was excellent presentation but definitely in this area training--if youwant to train surgeons on pathologies that you can't find the cadaver with the rightpathology you to train--your surgeons to train on models. hearing aids we've heard aboutthat, surgical planning we heard a lot about that. we almost do this routinely now at cornellwith the--with the meds school and specially we do this sometimes we print these modelsbefore they go into surgery and they train on these models before they actually do the--beforethey go into surgeries. specially in vets school we routinely get this emergency calls"dog has been run over." here's the file, we print it and they cut down the surgeryby half. i think the regulation of that school

is a lot less thankfully. then it is in withhumans and so they can experiment like this a lot. we heard a lot about implants but onething i wanted to add is printing with directly with live cells. this is bio printing, thisis kind of growing era, this is some of things we recently done printing with cells directlywith--in this case either cells which we harvest from the meniscus of a knee, cartilage inthe knee. we take those cells, we culture them, we put them in a hydrogel and we extrudethem in a shape from a cat scan and this thing you incubate that. it's a meniscus ready tobe implanted and it's basically an original part. it's not a part from plastic that'sgoing to wear out or from titanium, it's an original part, your own selves and it's readyto be implanted. this is the easiest meniscus

cartilages the amorphous tissues so it's challenging,more challenging to do that with bone but bone is next, liver and so fort. so this isprinting with soft tissue and there's really no reason to print this outside and implantit. one of the interesting things that we've done a little bit with this is to print itinside in situ so not printing outside, we're printing in inside. so these are examplesof ways that you can really take this technology and change the way things are done. it's notabout replicating the way traditional implants are made but better but actually creatingnew procedures. maybe the killer app is going to be models, making teaching models and sofort. we have a lot these teaching models from 1880 at cornell, we have them all alignedbut unlike any other museum you don't just

look at of these models you can also downloadand make yourself a copy of these mechanical instruments. and people are downloading themto teach mechanical engineering in other places so that's a new kind of museum that you canwork with. but still it doesn't sound like the killer app and so it turns out that inthe computer industry back in the 70's, the big companies ibm and honeywell were alsostruggling with the question, "what is the killer app of computing?" and there are lotsof similarities that people noticed between 3d printing and computers like they're expensive,slow and big back in the 70's and today they're all small, fast and cheap. so what the--whathas changed we're following the same trends and, you know, we think about what the--we'retrying to think about happened back in the

mid 70's that the whole thing took off. andso what's the killer app? the honeywell and ibm tried to figure out what's the killerapp of computing and they came out with this machine makes you cringe when you see whatthey wrote there. they thought it's going to be the computer, it's going to--if thecomputer is going to be in the--of the kitchen but that's what's going to be so this wasa big flap. but it turned out the actual killer app came from the market itself from when--whathappened when the--when prices went down, when the first computer kits came out peoplestarted building their own computer kits of the altair 8800 came out in '75 and peoplestarted making lots of them, there were lots of them out. so, people came up with theirnew ideas, new--[indistinct] software, there's

reason to write software because there werecomputers--there were reasons to make computers because they were software. the whole thingtook off and the killer app was gaming. gaming was the killer app, all the hackers builtthat up and ibm and honeywell could not anticipate that that's the thing. so what's the gamingapp going to be for 3d printers? this is of the altair 8800 cost about $400 then about$2000 today so we don't know what it is but we know one thing for sure, we got to makethese printers cheap and hackable and let them use it and seen what people do with them.so we made the fab@home, this is fab@home model 1 we--since then this is the model 2,this is the model 3. it's completely open source hardware and software, people buildthis all over the world and the others that

came along in different varieties, you hearabout in the news. now all the time our branches said there's more of these being built andsold than all of the other commercial ones they come as kits, you assemble them likehere you put any materials you want in them from cheese to silicon and print and peopleare making all kinds of things with these printers all over the world and doing allkinds of experiment. if you want to try this technology with your own materials, with yourown ideas, you don't have to settle for the commercial expensive machines where you'llvoid the warranty if you make any change. >> you can go with these hackable systemsand do whatever you want. here's the wripwrap which spun off makerbot [indistinct] you mighthave put it off, if you haven't you're going

to hear about it, just acquired for ten milliondollars. these things are going wild. i just came back from maker faire this weekend innew york city. these things were littering the sidewalks. okay? these replicators. sowe can print from anything, from cheese to titanium. all right. so there's no materialyou cannot print with, you can print in combinations of materials and really the sky is the limitfor materials, ceramics and so forth and people are making everything from lego to ipad covers,to robots, to bicycle gears and anything you want. so what's the killer app? so we letthis thing loose and a couple of interesting things happened. now, it's all over the place,i just want to say, two examples of things that i at least did not anticipate the peoplewill do with these things. the first one is

cooking. okay. people like printing with chocolate,peanut frosting, cake and the cake pan [indistinct] and pastel, you name it. so putting all thesematerials and this is opening up to be this new era called digital cooking. where youhave this cad software you say what you want, how your cookie the graded crispiness of itand all of that and you hit the print button and it makes it for you put, people are makingall kinds of things. this is the french culinary school printing scallops and celery and fryingthem with one of my students and this is fried dough printing this in crazy shape and justa month ago, cab driver stopped me in new york city, he asked me "are you the guy that'sprinting fried dough?" and, you know, i hate that to be my legacy but if that's--if that'swhat it takes to bring people to manufacturing,

we'll do that. so we harness america's lovefor fried dough to bring them into engineering. i think that's going to be the key. all right.here's the cookie, looks like a regular cookie, you cut it in two there's text inside. okay.a new way the same passwords. there's lots of different ways, lots of new applicationsand i think it's interesting the second connected area, which we haven't mentioned is education.so it turns out, that kids who couldn't care less about science technology engineering,when you talk about printing cookies they're suddenly interested, when you talk about printingplay-doh they're interested and we have this fabe at school project which print--put theseprinters in elementary schools and we're looking at how to change curriculum to allow kidsto engage in manufacturing on the spot. i

showed this printer to my son second year--secondgrade and kids were suddenly--they printed shuttles out of play-doh and suddenly theywere calculating--one kid was calculating how many shuttles he can print with one blockof play-doh, another one was calculating how much profit he can make. it doesn't matterwhat the inclination is, it all comes to play. we did a summer camp last summer. i wasn't--ididn't wanted to do summer camp i was rope into it, i said "okay, i'm going to do thisthing, what can i do that's easy?" and we had 40 kids and i said "okay. we're goingto teach them 3d printing." and then we showed them in one week, these are all reluctantkids, who were sent by there parents and they don't really want to spend a week in cornwellin the middle of summer but they were there,

so we said "okay. dream up your crazy projectthen we're going to show you how to make it in print it on the spot and sell it online."all right. and they lit up and we had kids suddenly making an ipad holder for a bicycleand selling it online in one week. suddenly kids were asking questions like, "what ifsomebody steals my design, and prints the copy?" and i've never heard a teenager askip questions from that direction, right? so suddenly--suddenly the--you got them engagedin these things. this is a pencil holder, quite interesting pencil holder that one ofthese kids designed and made and he's selling online in bronze and there's lots of these.if you look at shapeways which is mentioned, there are 150 thousand different objects peopleare selling online from $2 to hundreds made

out of all kinds of materials. it's a newkind--it's an industrial evolution of the scale that you haven't--can't even imagine.so how do we design for these things? so this is--everything we showed you here is aboutmanufacturing but how would we actually design things and i like brent's calling it factory2.0, i love that name. and i stole it--we're going talking about cad 2.0. we need a newkind of computer aided design that allow people to design things. so it reminds me of teaearl gray hot conundrum and not in a way that you might expect. so star trek has the replicatorthat can make anything right? and what do they usually make with it? tea right? so youhave this machine that can make anything and all you make with it is tea and actually,sometimes they make a cheese cake but it's

usually pre-limited in what they do. so wehave this problem which you call in the lab, the tea earl gray hot problem, and you bringa student to this machine that can make anything and you tell them to design it and they usuallywill design a block with a couple of holes in it. it's difficult for people to take advantageof this huge, huge open design space. it's like a blank page. so we need computers tohelp us design and explore new things so traditional cad, doesn't cut it, it's too conservativein what it allows you to do. so where can we go from here? so i want to show you quickcouple of examples. one, so if you want to design a complicated shape like this, it willtake you forever to describe it in cad, forever to even think about it, you have to be a superduper expert if you make something like in

cad. so how do you do it? so there's a coupleof new directions in cad, some of them are, it's a reincarnation of all things. one isprogramming, so doing design by programming not by working with geometry so you can designsomething like this using a procedure language a lot easier than you can do by pointing andclicking. so there's a lot of work in that. in fact, the new file format that allows youto print things replacing stl, is a kind of programming language. so it allows you toput in formulas that allow you to make complicated things like that very concisely using yourprogram. you can describe a new material that is a kind of micro structure and then usethat material to fill in things and so forth. so, maybe it's going to be sketching. so fora while we worked on this software that will

take a sketch interpret it as a 3d objectand print it. it turns out that fewer people know how to sketch and to use cads so that'snot going to go anywhere so abandon that. maybe, we can do functional designs, so i--well,maybe i want to be able to say, i have three bars connect them in some--make a bracketthat connects them in the optimal way and it has to carry this load and don't botherme with anymore questions. just call me when it's done right. so this is how i work withmy students, i want the software to work the same way. so, maybe we can do that, so i'dlike to start with some constraints and have it evolve but generate design for me. so thissome example, this is running a real time of this kind of design optimization, wereyou say i'm--this is--i'm harnessing structure,

it's connected here, it's hanging off hereand give me the optimal shape and here its optimizing and it's giving me a pretty gooddesign. here's--now, i can say, okay. actually i want bar passing through this center, giveme the design that leaves the space empty and it's giving me a design. so these arenew kind of algorithm this is in 3d, this is not in three--in the real time.>> but you can have these kinds of functional design tools that find solutions for you basedon high level description, we call them [indistinct] compilers, right? so it's a little bit likecompilers, you say what you want, you hit enter and it generates a design for you. anotherthing has to do with materials. so, we talk a lot about materials how can we predict thematerial properties and we talked--we said

earlier that we can mix and much materials,we can have two materials 50/50 % turns out that how you--what's the [indistinct] patternof these two materials affects performance. if you have too much goes hard and soft youmake them 50 % in a random pattern or in the checkerboard part you get very different results.there's almost no theory to predict that. material scientists are struggling with predictingproperties of laminated composite materials let alone checkerboard 3d random stuff. so,we don't know how to do that and probably the way to do that is going to be through[indistinct] this is an example of completely bizarre material. you can print materialsthat are exotic for example you pull on them longitudinally and they expand laterally.a very bizarre material doesn't exist in nature,

you can make it still to 50/50 % so the patternmatters and we have no clue how to predict these things and a new theory is needed. sowe're working on a more data driven, you make lots of these different things, you pulledthem and you model them and this is actually a product of a [indistinct] national academyproject that was funded just a couple of years ago to make this project where you automaticallygenerate models from data and you can download eureqa with a q pasting your data, hit enterand you get these interesting analytical models from it automatically. another thing thata couple of my students are thinking of and you see this more and more are fabapps theseare applications that embody a lot of information about a design of a particular thing and yetgive you some freedom. so, let's say you want

to download and print a new toothbrush youwant to make your own toothbrush. the app--this is an app that would be dedicated to makingtoothbrushes it has all the "know-how" about toothbrushes. it asks you a lot of questions,scan your mouth, scan your hand, whatever it needs to do and it generates the perfecttoothbrush for you and it cost you 99 cents to download and you print one toothbrush.all right. so this is a kind of new business model that has to do with cad it's dedicatedfor narrow markets for another--one thing only does--one thing very, very well and it'sa way for manufactures to get into the business. last thing i want to show you the in the cadis this sit back and relax kind of cad [indistinct] this is a website that we've just createdcalled endlessforms.com. and what it does

there, you want to design something, let'ssay you want to design a--i know a lamp. okay. but you don't know any cad you don't knowhow to do that. it shows you random things and you say, "i like this and i like this,i don't like that and i don't like that." based on your input it creates a new set ofobjects and so forth and just by saying what you like and you don't like it, you createlots of things in about one month we've had almost things million things generated here.there's a 3d print button and you can print and people would [indistinct] this faces andspines and mushrooms and explanation marks, i don't what--all kinds of things on the flywith no--with zero cad training. all right. and with just by this interaction, workingin group and so forth so i think they are

really fascinating ways to do that and wewant to integrate this with eye scanning now, so you can literally sit back and relax justlook and based on where you're looking the machine can design a new thing. so we wantto take all these different modalities of cad that go way beyond the traditional pointand click drag kind of cad. and put them into system where you can say what you want, givesome specs and it will design both the shape and the internal structure and all of themultiple materials on the same time to give your desires. there's no way you can explorethat manually. all right. last thing i want to say is that we are also in the verge oftransitioning from analog to digital. in manufacturing, they did hear--and you've seen a lot of technologymove from analog to digital from continuous

to discreet. we're doing the same thing herewe're beginning to move from thinking of materials as continuous materials, materials that aremade of lots and lots of small pixels that are either there or not. so you can imaginethe position process that puts material, you know, instead of a continuous process in adiscreet process and, you know, we see right now. this is a continuous circle but it'sreally made of lots of pixels. so let's start thinking about objects as made of pixels in3d and depending on what kind of pixels you have, you'd be able to make lots of interestingthings and that will allow us to go from just printing with raw materials to printing withcapacitors and transistors and printing with cpus and printing with fpgas and centers andactuators. so the idea is to make a printer

that basically rapidly assembles gazillionsand grain size components into 3d together with all these raw material. and we've beenworking on different ways to do that to pick up of lots of things using adhesion in thiscase we have a printed, we wet some of it, and dry some with light and then it selectivelypicks up objects and we could use it to make three dimensional objects of various shapesand sizes out of raw components. and here's an example of a rook that's made out of a10, 000 components. when you see this and you told your grandchildren that you rememberseeing that first object that was made out of 10,000 pixels. whereas in the future everythingwould be made out of gigavoxels this is what it looks like so you can--nobody will believeyou that it was that low resolution at some

part. but eventually, we want to take thesemicro-components as a powder and assemble them into these [indistinct] structures thatare composed of lots and lots of micro component. somebody asked about micro components theseare--these are 500 microns on the side and they assemble into a 3d structure. so thenext big phase i think of this thing that's coming after this revolution is moving fromanalog to digital, we saw its interpretation, we saw the communication and now it's happeningin manufacturing and that's the next big thing so you've seen the slide already? but we'vetalked about these three episodes, we've talked about complexity is free, any shape goes.we're beginning to explore compositions of material it's very, very difficult, to anticipatewhat's that's going to do and now we're going

to integrate functional behavior electronicsphotonics, all these different energy, all these different things, what is it--what isit going to do. it's a new design [indistinct] any kind of materials if there's one thingi want you to go home with is to think about how is it going to affect your field? okay.and you have experts here who can give you all the input but there is no field that isnot going to effect. so don't go home and thinking, "oh, this is cool but i'm goingto do my own thing." no, you're going to have to think, how is going to affect your fieldbecause it is. and the question is "are you going to be there or not? and i think thatyou know human evolution has distinguished itself with the design with new tools andi think that this is the ultimate tool and

it's going to changed everything forever.thank you. >> [indistinct] good job. okay. we have timefor few questions probably about three. and so any questions?>> [indistinct] research. i'm particularly interested in the simplicity of input thatyou could achieve in [indistinct] machines, you [indistinct] when you talked about kidsand then you talked about languages which i'm afraid not everybody might be willingto learn and then you talked about choosing out of multiple random designs. i think ifthis technology is to be adopted it has to be super simple for everyone at home. so whatdo you envision to be the simplicity of input here, how do you allow everybody at home whateverhis specialty, expertise or profession be

to make use of those machines?>> speaker. oh, so, it's an excellent question. its--that's the million dollar question. okay.how do we get, uh, people to use it? uh, by its happening people are using it. it's acombination of having this machines accessible, uh, and its, uh, there's--if there's materialsinputs and things like that but in terms of, uh, design. i think its going to be a mixtureof things. some people, uh, will need a dedicated software for the particular thing. the peoplewho make food and print cookies have asked me multiple times, is there a food cad? okay.for making cookies? and it's not something that going to work with [indistinct] and holes.it's going to work with fillings and coding and things like that. so, i think regardingto see a proliferation of this design tools

for different areas this is not going a oneanswer for everything and how we do that is going to--is the next big question.>> yeah. >> so, [indistinct] ryan from colorado stateuniversity. first of, thank you for a very interesting presentation. as you start tosimplify this cad 2 or factory 2, my concern is about quality control because this is amanufacturing. so, can you say something about it?>> yeah. well, there's a--there's a huge societal implication and that--the question about thequality control is very important one. there's not just that, there's intellectual propertywhich is mentioned. there's quality assurance, there's liability, if you design a steeringwheel somebody puts it on, its breaks who's

liable, uh, there's, uh, how do you make sureeverything, uh, is the same? this are all, uh, issues that would that, uh, nobody hasthe answer to. and i think there's a lot opportunity to, uh, to test that. i think the importanceof, uh, automated engineering tools that can verify this things in advance. that can predictproperties, can--can have feedback while printing to ensure that the things being printed matchthe design. all of these things that are going to be paramount so, uh, so, i think theseare big open questions in a way, uh, i think we have a better handle on the technologies,technological issues that we have on the societal issues and for better and for worse. it happenswith the democratization of everything you lose control and usually it's for the better.>> yeah. my name is sahaya wong. i'm from

texas a&m university. it's a very interestingtalk. so, the first of question is, um, you revealed a very interesting roadmap for youram process. so, what's the time line you were thinking about the episode 2 and the episode3 to happen? like the composite material and the future functionality and then the secondquestion is as a material scientist, as a material engineer i want to see what's theresearch need so you will proceed for your, you know, am process?>> yeah. >> so, what are the needs like on ceramic[indistinct] and maybe [indistinct] coverage's over here? what's the need to research areayou [indistinct] >> yeah. all right. so, time line and thenext the research in general. so, time line,

i think--i think it's--it was alarming fromthe computer industry. and i think it's a similar, uh, but it's just going to be a bitfaster. so, i would say, uh, in--lets say in 10 years everybody will know what 3d printingis [indistinct] and i'd say you literary will have a hard a time explaining to your grandchildrenhow you live without a printer in your house. i literally saw--so, i'd say 40 years everybodywill have these things in their home. and so, that's --that's your time line. so, interms of the kind of material science challenges, i think they are all over and there's, youknow, you just speak whatever, whatever you like and you can go from kind of very specificquestions like, how do you make titanium? you know, crystals grow better and so forthto questions that are more about all automation.

these are things that i like about--forgetabout modeling or improving any particular process. how can i automatically make a systemthat can watch what's going on and automatically improve it because all of--because there areso many materials and so many combinations that it is hopeless in my mind to try to modeland on to stand any specific material because they are just so many--there's explosion ofcomplexity. and the only way around it is to have data driven processes that actuallylearn from what is planted and create models of the matter. that's the part we're pursuingbut i think material science will need to go in that direction. that--of machine runningin [indistinct] to battle this complexity. >> okay. thank you.>> all right. thank you.

>. thank you very much. i'd like to ask thespeakers to come up we're going to go on and start the panel.>> first of all thank you very much to the speakers. they're outstanding, pretty goodstuff. so, with that can just start out with--i'd be pretty much have a good background on allof the speakers. you could see the diverse area such as aero space to medical to thefuture, outstanding talks. but we want to kind of go to in to maybe some of the issueswe touched on a little bit of them. kind of like society issues, intellectual propertybut i want to open up the floor with you to continue on [indistinct] questions you didn'tget a chance to ask and open up that dialogue so.>> okay. again, great talk guys. i have a

question for each of you and in one line,if you make whereas what is the great engineering challenge and 3d printing going forward forsomebody to start a career for like my kids or anybody? could each of you take a minuteto say, what do you think is the great engineering challenge and the next level for 3d printing?thank you. >> speaker. so, i've got the, probably themost short term answer of out of this group, uh, here for that and i really--again there'sa question about material science. we have--what were seeing with the [indistinct] input greatanswer have in this additive processes are really not the same types of energy inputswere use to in traditional manufacturing that we--that has guided the chemist and what notto formulate polymers in particular or even

metal alloys and what not. so, i think there's'a quite a bit or just, you know, it needs work that certainly you could fill a wholecarrier to really tailor materials towards additive manufacturing. the big polymer companies,you know, atlantic and [indistinct] and [indistinct] are starting to look at that. but that's again--that'sprobably the most short term--short term response you get from this group but there is a lotof work to be done there. >> i saw--you just heard--we talked aboutthis but i think depends if you are in academe or in the industry in the--if you can affordto do long term i think the, the one of things that are most missing right now are designtools. we have fantastic--we have ipods with no music, okay. we have machines that canplay and make things but we have nothing--we're

still thinking about it the old way. so weneed new design tools that can allow us to explore this vast new possibility. it's abit longer term but i think that's where the most impact could be had.>> i would second that in medicine. i think one of the biggest--one of the biggest challengesis figuring out how to use these technologies to do things that are not only kind of duplicatesof, you know--so we say another way of making a metal implant instead of casting a machinejust by additively creating it. maybe you can make some interesting structures but howto design that to fit a unique individual with their unique--their unique functionalneeds. and i think that's really where--you know, you start getting really complex reallyfast. and i think that's where a lot of the

systems today just fall apart, you know. soi think there's a big need there to take advantage of the additive technologies and what theycan bring because today we're doing a lot of things that you could do and some thingsyou couldn't, but a lot of things you could do some other way and it just have to be betterwith additive. but i think in the future, there will be many, many more things thatyou can do with additive that you cannot do any other way. and those things really relateto very complex shapes and different types of core structures and interactions with differentmaterials within one part developed for one person.>> i think the beauty of these technologies at some level is just about anything you'reinterested in at the intersection of digital

to physical realization. there's open questionsout there and so if it's design, if it's computation, if it's materials, there's still so much leftto explore. and i think even on the business side, there's massive entrepreneurship ofopportunities all over the place. and one of the things ip's been mentioned a bunchalmost all of the initial patents for almost everyone of the types of machines that existare either just expired or are expiring in the next couple of years, and so there's hugeopportunities for companies who could not play in the past because of as brent was talkingabout, people having legal battles, those are going to go away at least to a large degreeand already have started. that's how this whole huge explosion of these little extrusionmachines [indistinct] and others have taken

off in the last couple of years because theoriginal patents for these extrusion based machines are gone and so now it opens up themarket place that nobody's worrying about getting sued on it.>> oh, they didn't care about the patents anyway. so, and the hackers didn't care anywayexactly. >> ochsendorf: hi. john ochsendorf from mit.since my children are going to bring this into our home very soon, i'd like to ask abouttoxicity in terms of powder and fumes and perhaps most importantly, cheez whiz.>> yeah. so this whole--like i said, all of these impacts, the safety and liability areopen questions, nobody knows. and you know, you would hope that cheez whiz is alreadysafe to some extent. but there's--i don't

know if you're talking specifically aboutfood printing but that's definitely something that needs to be looked at, let's put it thatway. but when things are open source--and what we're beginning to see here is movementtowards open source hardware which is--that you download and make stuff. and just likethere's you know, security issues with open source software that people were worried about,well, turns out that security and open source software is as good as close software. somy gut feeling is that open source hardware--if to draw the analogy, is going to be as safefor the same reason. if anything just because lots of people do it and debug it a lot fasterso--but you know, who knows? >> feamster: nick feamster from georgia tech.i just have a question for the panel about

reusability. so i could think of printingcertain things or certain objects that i'd only want for a short period of time. forexample, like i go to a trip and i forgot something and then i want to--instead of throwingit away, maybe i want to make something new, you know, the next time. are people lookinginto sort of reusability of the raw materials, and ensure ways to make that easier, and what'sgoing on with that? >> so you have the thermal processing of materialsare a lot easier to handle that with the nylons, thermoplastics, things like that [indistinct]so there's kind of a clear platform with that. obviously, the processing temperature's getto be kind of tricky especially with the [indistinct] you don't want that in your oven at home.but--so the--you know, [indistinct] some things

like that you can--you know what i mean, heatingand cooling and reuse those materials well, that's kind of a big push within bolus tomove away from the thermostat composites. it [indistinct] this in the additive manufacturingand move into the thermal plastic composites because again, that recyclability [indistinct]on of the cheez whiz, [indistinct] >> [indistinct] not sure if you want to [indistinct]>> that probably [indistinct] but i think the reusability is actually a major issueparticularly in europe that drives a lot of the research that are being done in theseareas. and so, the metals are easily recyclable. the polymers, yeah, we got changes in molecularweight and other things that occur through multiple cycling and you have a hard timewith most of the currently available polymers

getting them to be reusable at anywhere nearthe original properties. but it's--the nice thing is that, with these technologies asyou're generating with most of them very little ways. you're only putting material where youwant it so in the first place, you're using less and all the remaining material can bejust dumped back in and reused again and again and again at you know, with certain exceptions,but yeah. >> there's the other side of it though whichi want to mention, everybody has a printer like that in their office immediately seesa lot of ways being generated. >> yup.>> as i've seen that in my life, people you know, we used to have this thing in engineering,think twice, cut once. with a printer, you

print many times then you start thinking.so this is exactly what's happening, people... >> yeah.>> ...you make the hole of kind of the right size, you print it--if it doesn't work, youmake the hole a bit bigger, you print it again, it's still too small and so forth insteadof measuring. so i think, like printers, like [indistinct] printers, in the short term,it creates more garbage. at some point, people start thinking about recycling and it's alla bit of like economics. companies now want you to recycle, it's the usual kind of thing.but in the long term it's possible. with the digital manufacturing, we actually make thingsout of component. it's fully recyclable. so the idea there that you will really printthese things out of the grains of, you know,

microprocessors and sensors active as youcan think. there's a path like lego and we cause to do it into something else. so youcan take your fax machine apart and build it as a printer and it's possible. and that's--ithink the ultimate form of recycling but that's 50 years down the road.>> williams: hi. i'm--sorry, a bit loud. orly williams, [indistinct] of research. so youmade the analogy earlier about with source security and open source software and whichis obviously an actual one and the idea is that if i had done with these pieces of softwareon my computer, if that was a great piece of software, a very well-designed and engineered,with sort of overlying the fact that my cpu is going to be executed exactly like any othercpu would execute and doing exactly the same

thing. so in the world where we all have ourown 3d printer in our desk and i download a brilliant design of an amazing thing, butmy printer doesn't execute that manufacture perfectly, is there any work on, you know,sort of decentralizing things like testing and ensuring that you know, especially ifi've made a part from my car or something, that it's actually going to be good?>> so we had a one example, we partner with a [indistinct] renowned gp so renowned formula1.they've been a long standing research partner at manufacturing and one of the products aboutfive years ago or so was to take one file, window file, send it to their machine, sendit to our machine, build it and pull all the mechanical coupons that have them all comeout within a margin of error and that took

four months to get right. these are the morecomplicated process is laser shooting one that your laser has to be really tuned andthings like that but the process in general, a lot more complicated and it takes a lotmore attention than what we're used to but it's certainly viable we have, you know, it'swe have a whole [indistinct] set up on that [indistinct] fact but it's taking a lot ofensuring from the, you know, [indistinct] let's do it now type of perspective.>> and it took a long while for computers to get to the point where close execute thisexactly the same way. it didn't happen over night, there's a lot of error, correctiongoing on behind the scenes to make that happen and the same thing will need to happen with3d printer.

>> i think an interesting thing about additivemanufacturing from a quality standpoint is the ability to--in most these process useto look at each layers is being created, you know, so if you think of a part is traditionallycast or machine from a block that was created, you know, in some other way, you now havethe ability to look inside of it where here you actually seeing it being created so ifyou have a good way to quality control each layer and you have, you know--you know theprocess parameters that go in to the interlayer, you know, variables. and they really can createmore even maybe more of an understanding of the quality that part from the inside outthen you can with traditional techniques which i don't think is been fully exploited butthere's a lot of work. i know on looking at

layers and looking at--especially for metals,you know, trying to make sure that you got zero defects i think aerospace pushing atmost but medical interested there, you know, as well.>> yes, so, this is [indistinct] from harvard university. so the printing has been usedbefore to create today's integrated circuits so, is like [indistinct] transistors, thereare lot then the, talking about this, is really printing--how do you [indistinct] make a comparisonthen say the printing has been found having disadvantages. there are number of issueswere said, so how do you see the road map so the--why you make a correlation with howprinting is useful in creating today's integrated circuits so, have you thought about that?[indistinct] to the future so what's going

to, yeah, the road map--how far this technologycan go? >> you know, it's difficult to say, i thinkeverybody is looking at me, i don't know [indistinct]. it's--i think it has to do with unleashingthis complexity so, what happened with still ethnographic methods in micro fabricationis that the kind--the complexity--cost of complexity came down. so you can make billionsof transistors fairly easily and then allow you to make much more complex things at thesame cost. this is what's happening now so in the beginning, it's just about making conventionalthings more cheaply differently with what is beginning happen, this will--this is theroad map you'll be able to make things, that are a lot more complex than we can anticipateright now. and what will those things be,

you know, all bets are off but that's whereit's going. >> but i think what you find in--if you lookat the--you know, the integrated circuits community or if you look at the two dimensionalprinting name, even ink jet printing [indistinct] to that, that we're talking not just millionsor tens or hundreds of millions but billions of dollars of r & d put into the developmentof those technologies and right now, the entire market place for additive there's only a billiondollars. we haven't put billions into to r & d but i was at a conference this summerwhere a lot of the major printing device companies are basically saying we see this as the nextwave--you know, we've developed all these infrastructure and technology of making dropletsto put--to put them down now let's start stacking

those droplets and they were demonstratedin videos that won't give us [indistinct] details. we showed droplet printing of copperso they've got--they've got working devices now that can print metal at melting temperatureof copper. and once you--and there's other people working on how to re-print high viscositymaterials, palmer melts and things like that. so what i think you're going to find is asthis grows for the first time you're now going to conferences and you're--and not only youare bumping knobbles with engineers, but there's investment bankers there asking you questionsand there's other people and that's now we're at the cost of once a lot of money get toput into it on things can explode quickly because people see where the bottlenecks areand none of them are technologically impossible,

they're possibly difficult but they're notimpossible. >> robert: so if i--oh, robert [indistinct]mit. so like, put energy, time and the amount of raw material like take to make somethingon my left hand and whatever it is i'm making on my right hand and i say i do it by additivemanufacturing versus subtractive manufacturing. it's clear from everything we've heard, thatfor a highly customizable, flexible park or a low park count thing added to manufacturingis going to win. what is not clear to me is that in many things that have high levelsof symmetry, it's actually easier to make very simple mold or something that makes thathigh symmetry park and then chop it away to make something customizable on top of that.>> okay.

>> robert: so, i think from everything i'veheard that it should be a balance between additive and subtractive manufacturing. whereyou're actually using the best of both worlds in the same way like nature makes our ownhands and then uses [indistinct] to cut it away to make our fingers. so that the easycases can be done that have high levels of symmetry cheaply with energy, time and fewamounts of raw materials and then this is used to customize around that or do more complexthings that can't be done in that very simple way. would you like to comment on that?>> absolutely. i'd say you're correct. because the high bred--the high bred additive plussubtractive is without a doubt or even just traditional subtractive is going to maintaina major part of the market place, there's

no--there's no question about it. but to--imean, to get back to that, i think the question--i think you asked about volume back when brentwas speaking. today if you take small--some small complex says small interconnects orsomething like that. using existing technology--existing machines, depending on the size and--but youcan make--in some cases, 120,000 to 200,000 little plastic widgets using additive or economicallythan injection molding and so we're already seen with pretty much just prototyping machines,they're not optimized at all for production and they're not--and again almost everythingwe talked about were using--were transforming energy at a point and moving that point discretelyaround. there are tremendous amount of innovations that i've looked at using lines of energyor transformation or transforming the entire

area at a time and then there's concepts orhow do we transform material no matter where in a three dimensional space. when we movebeyond one point of transformation at a time, now it's going to become even--it's goingto push that number higher and higher even for simple objects in some cases. so--butyet, the--for now, without a doubt, simple parts, a high breed approach or even justa simple subtractive approach is going to win out in most--in most cases.>> i would like to argue--to argue with you about this. i think that to take the otherpoint of view that the thing you're not factoring in is that having a hybrid process is moreexpensive because you have to maintain two processes at the same time and there's a costto that. so it's a little bit like, saying,

you know, you can make an analog that's goodfor playing music and you can have a computer that's good for calculation and you want tohave both but in the end of the day, we use computers to do all these things because it'sjust easier to have one kind of approach to do everything and there's a cost benefit thatfactors in with this--with the versatility. >> yeah. within boeing, i mean each one ofthe parts that we put on aircraft gets traded against conventionally molded parts that haveto--that have to--machine. i think the best example though, maybe what you're talkingabout that i know of that actually you can find it [indistinct] already is in the areaof tooling so tooling shops they're--the tools are final product. that's what they're sellingand whatnot and there's a large number of

companies that are doing a very good job ofdoing like a, you know, they'll net shape casting on machine that often and they'llput that into an additive manufacturing machine and then put the really, really fine details.i'm not building up 50 pounds of, you know--you know, steel and whatnot but they will hybridizethat to an extent. but it is true though, you have to have--the other thing you haveto keep in mind with the other process is all the long trim costs. i wish i had pictureof it right now. we have a warehouse in--i think it's in utah, that is literally fiveor six football acres in area--i'm sorry, football fields--it's sort acres in there--andit's all tool storage. so that's--you may have to--from an industrial perspective especiallyever since we have to think about the real

long term implications of those trades earlyon. and a lot of designer engineers who get caught, realize like, "oh, yes. it's onlyfour bucks to injection-mould, that's great." they're not the ones that have to, you know,keep those tools maintained for 50 and plus years of their life--that's very complicatedsituation but there is some hybridizing. all right.>> arci: this is arci from eastman chemical company. i have a couple of questions. thefirst one is, what is the landscape of additive manufacturing and how are the developing countriespicking on that. and next is, one of the killer apps could be in hobbies or in pleasure activities.in that case like how the photography is--is there a--how can we follow the developmentin this area? is there anything like a magazine

or blogs where we could, you know, read forthe, you know, i'm not sure for 3d printer something like that.>> thanks. well, there's is a huge industry around, there's maker magazine and there'sa lot of--it's a huge industry around this hobby 3d printing. but i'm not sure if there'sa magazine yet. but you have a great idea there. so go for it [indistinct]>> maker, i think it's one. thanks for it. >> for 3d printing?>> for that spectrum, beyond 3d printing, so.>> now, i think--i've thought it quite a bit about the developing world and how this impactsthem and i think there's--there are very clear and compelling ways that this is--this removessome of that angst between over sending all

of our labor and our manufacturing to thedeveloping world because this allows a lot of that to come back from the developing world.but at the same time without taking anything from them because they can also use that thereas well. and i think it's a great equalizer at some level because the infrastructure neededto do additive manufacturing is quite small. it's sort of like, the developing world isnot putting in landline telephones to--now, get up to--it's all wireless, right becausethe new technology cell phones is far better, you know, for a developing world infrastructure.i think in the same way, we're not going to see the developing world going in and puttingin massive at least in up in coming developing places. not putting in massive facilitiesand foundries and [indistinct] facilities

they're going to say, "you know, that's toomuch infrastructure. we're going to jump straight to things we can use, the natural resourceshere and print them out and organize them." so i think it's a major issue.>> yeah. you could--you could see the same thing already happening with fab lab. so it'sa good example which is kind of a--fab lab from coming out of the mit and universal [indistinct]these, you know, hacker spaces where people make and build things. and when these areput in rural areas, let's say, in africa, what happens is that people make things theyneed. they have ideas, they know how to make it, they make it. they don't have to relyon some big us companies to think that there's a market. they just go and make what theyneed. so this huge--one had they ability to

make things and close the loophole up closer.but the bigger impact, i think, there is a--there is huge empowerment that follows from that.so we put a open source, 3d printers in south africa and kids suddenly want to--they makethings and then they come and say, "okay. why do i study about this?" suddenly, there'sa need. you can make something and then follows the thirst gor education and for innovationand entrepreneurship. so i think it's a big equalizer like you say.>> uh-hmm. >> and it's going to have huge impacts.>> hi scott shawl, uc santa barbara. so i'm wondering if there are particular challengesassociated with using these techniques to generate materials with not only precise structuralmechanical functionality but with chemical

functionality in particular i'm thinking ofapplications in biology and medicine where you may want to generate materials that haveparticular recognition factors, growth factors or enzymes which are very sensitive moleculesin terms of things subjected to sheer and temperature. and so i'm wondering what kindsof constraints does that generate on this--development of these processes and--are there effortsto try and improve them. >> i have two examples of that, and i don'twant to--one is people are using printing in--custom medication, ideas that you printa pill and it has different ingredients at the right spatial configurations so they dissolvedat the right time and the right combination. that's example where the shape doesn't matterbut it's the chemical composition that actually

matters and it's tailored so it's personalizedmedication if you like and so that's one example where you--where you're controlling this kindof thing. and a--then there are the processes have to do with color and in a--in anotherexample bioprinting, people with put different cell types in different locations in orderto create models of a three dimensional cell culture so going from a 2d petri dish--the3d cell heterogeneous tissue, cell culture for modeling the behavior of--so you can dotests in the kind of 3d petri dish. so that's an example again where you want to controlthe chemical gradients in very precise ways to emulate--to emulate in vitro biology. sothat's--these are two examples so i'm glad you brought that up. it's a--it's a greatexample how you take this capability and move

away from geometry and think about other kindsof things you can print and use that. >> [indistinct]>> it's a big area. i mean--i'll be in portugal at a conference week and there--a lot of thestuff there is on medical things where people look at--printing different kinds of tissue,different multiple material, you know, the scaffolding and then in some cases like you'resaying, putting certain shear and strain histories into them as they're building them to--becauseyou're going to get a different response from living tissue under those scenarios and chemicalgradients as well as the thermal and stress strain gradients and what is this doing isit making people work in the area of sort of synthetic biology and other things. youget 3-dimensional responses that are very

deferent than petri dish responses and peopleare saying hey, we've come so far with petri dish type things but, you know, to go to thenext level we've got to mimic the full three dimensional stress strain chemistry and athere are a lot people are looking at it. its--we got a lot of in it and its funny rightin different aspects of what going on. >> it's historically those two things arein separate--the form has been separate from the biology piece of it. you make the formand then you'll see it with biology because of the, you know, the factors of things needingheat or pressure or whatever, they actually get excreted. so i think more and more, you'vegot to see those come together and that has to be a key part of being able to build somethinglike and organ, you know, that can function

out of the--[indistinct] being able to doit real time. you know, in a layer that's sealed off from other layers do things thatyou can't necessary get in and seed layers. so i think it's a key--it's a key area.>> hi, michelle [indistinct] from university of southern california. hi, do you talk aboutthe maker movement and i think the maker movement is a very optimistic movement and then it'strying to give people tools to make things. but, realistically there are a lot peoplewho don't want to make stuff at all. and i think the best example of this is cooking,probably even a lot of us here don't want to make food, which is why we have traderjoe's and food courts at malls. so i wonder if psychologically speaking, apart from thehobbyist, if the biggest application of these

technologies would be something like a foodcourt, where there will always be a people who do a small scale manufacturing of customproducts and you might go to mall and have a bunch of people making a bunch custom thingsusing this sort of techniques but then who cater to people want to buy thing which unfortunatelyis all of us. >> that's very much a possibility. we've hada numerous discussions of this type in the lab. what kind--how this technology will playout and--and then we don't know. this probably going to be all the way from a printer athome to king coves, you know, you buy books on amazon that are reprinted, you go to kingcoves to print a thousand, you print it at home something if you want a--you want a fewcopies. there the whole varieties, probably

going to be all of these. definitely therepeople who would like to be able to download recipes and print them and it is more dramaticthan making it yourself, actually. if it's--so it is convenient and that kind of my perspectiveas well, but if you're into making, you know, sophisticated pastries but you don't havea steady hand, you can--that's the way to do that and maybe people who can't do it rightnow, would interested if they only have those tools. so i think there a--there's--it's justa huge space and we'll see how it plays out. >> chris [indistinct] carnegie mellon. so,i want to talk about the legal implications about failure of these devices, right? so,for--let's say i'd want--i'm interested in bicycle pedals and i buy one from shimanoand i'm riding my bicycle and this pedal fails

for some critical defects and i could say,okay, shimano sold me this so they kind of go back and this kind of centralized kindof responsibility, right? but now we have a case, where they am, where you have, youknow, user convolved with the material, convolved the bake maker bot for example, right. so,we have all these multiple parties all linked up, right? so, let say that same example happensto my bicycle pedal fails and my son crashes into a car, something terrible like that.is that--how do you--how do you parse out who's responsible for this, right? is it--maybeit's just a good design that i download, design is perfect but then the three printers justslightly flawed and then... >> yes.>> ...that leads a problem or [indistinct]

the raw materials are or at [indistinct] right?so, how is that going to play out? >> i think nobody knows. it's actually playingout, it going to--it's a big problem and nobody knows what to do with this. i know if there'sanybody here in illegal profession but that's definitely something to--you can make a careerout of--thinking about this. >> i got a question.>> go ahead first. >> i was going to say for the medical industry,i think that question will keep things centralized, you know. it's one of the--one of the bigkeys is that, you know, nobody wants to take that risk, i mean, take that risk for certainthings. but for things that are really critical you don't want to take that risk, you know,that's the reason why these companies put,

you know, millions and billions of dollarsinto research and testing all that to make sure that product is safe at home even ifthe design was right, there are so many, i mean, and if everybody had 10% percent ofthe liability there are, no--everybody is going to, you know, disclaim everybody else,so nobody is going to have any liability, you know and i think that may work for someindustry but in the medical industry that's a tough one.>> and so what happens today if you download software and that software causes a problem?>> i think it not alive what is happening. so you download--it's running on your computerand--so there's a mixed a liability there. >> yes.>> so, although it sound very complicated,

i think we are--it's not totally foreign,these things that are happening with the internet all the time and somehow it works out. andi think, you know, from production at boing, nge, and medical, like you said centralizedrepeat-- you have to have traceability back to the beginning. and so those are--thoseare issues that are relatively straight forward. i think your question is like what happensif [indistinct] somebody designs a bicycle pedal and they advertise it on [indistinct]and then what going to happen to [indistinct] is they're going to say, these thing are fitfor any use, they're just for, you know, for looking at, and trying to get a hand off there.after the liability, if the designer represents, otherwise, were not representing, if that'sthe case. that's going to cause a big trouble

[indistinct] materializing other.>> yes. >> but i think that some level they will endup, you know, passing off some of that or they're sued and go under and somebody elsewould come up for the way they actually pass it off. but, you know, google has to handlewith that sort of stuff all time, right, you know, fourth amendment stuff is all over theplace and so. >> [indistinct] products that--products havingphysical [indistinct] software or something, you know, little--i think [indistinct]>> well, [indistinct] software with, you know, banking, there's a plenty of damage that softwarecan do to you. yes, it's--this thing--a lot of a things have already been addressed.>> and for anyone who thinks that the [indistinct]

control is a straight for [indistinct] i'dlove to invite you to a--to a [indistinct] manufacturing companies. thanks a lot forthe investment thought. [indistinct] >> one of the key points that question has,has you given to distribute manufacturing, getting to distribute with lawsuits and that's,you know, that's going to be business in the future for some lawyers but, you know, youtypically don't do lawsuits unless you think you can want something out it. and so, ifyou're, you know, suing a 12 year old [indistinct] someone got hurt from it, you know, can youget money out of that? it's a big question. >> doesn't seem very [indistinct] recordingindustry, so. >> that's true.>> i think it only now becoming an issue too.

as you looked at shape ways or i'm materializing,look at, you know, shape ways and you lived the most of it. you get a lot of jewelry anda lot of thing that aren't functionally, you know, well, it interest--where they're goingnow is people are getting more easy tools to design something if it--their particularbike or their particular stroller or whatever it is, you'll find--you're going to find moreof these stuff. so i don't know that we've seen--actually much of it.>> there are--there is legislation on safe haven for aggregators that we rarely communicatedesigns but they are responsible for them so i think it's going to evolve.>> but there are people already who are designing, you know, replacement parts for blenders intheir kitchen that they're breaking on shapeways

and things like that. now you've got issuesof flying parts, you've got issues of contaminating fluid and there's no warnings on anything,when you go to buy that, so it's a major issue and i think you're going to see a lot of lawsuitssending presidents and companies, it's going to be really fluids for the next ten yearswould be my guess. >> there's also a copyright issue to it, right?if you take a mickey mouse and cut his head off and put your face on it, is that--is that,you know, intellectual property or you, you know, infringement up on that and so [indistinct]>> [indistinct] from oak ridge national lab, last year i had a similar experience, my wife[indistinct] me into helping a first robotics, it's a nightmare but i--the school did nothave a shop but they had 3d printer. and the

first night, we sat down and taught the kidscad and it really unleashed their creativity. now, how can we get this technology in everyschool because it really--kids need to be building things but--and it really is an interestingopportunity. >> right. i can't be more enthusiastic aboutwhat this is going to do to education in unleashing creativity and empowering kids, to realizethey can design things. that's not about making teaching models. it's about letting the kidsmake things. and i wrote a [indistinct] report about what the government needs to do with[indistinct] i couldn't actually--i want the government to stay out of it but i can't actuallysay that, couldn't say that. so the only thing i could really say is put a 3d printer inevery classroom. this is what we really need

most adults let alone kids have not seen anythingbeing made in their own eyes. and i think that's [indistinct] empowerment and in engineeringand seeing that happen, i'm all for it. >> you could really [indistinct] kids [indistinct]engineers they just sit there and watch... >> exactly.>> [indistinct] >> they would even move their head as itsprinting. >> there's already i think close to 10,000in educational environments right now so, it's exploded in the last few years. i thinkthat's my recollection, the number i heard this summer was 10,000 additive manufacturing.>> just like there's a computer in every classroom there has to be...>> there will be, its propagating much more

quicker than computers did in the classroomswithout a doubt. i've bet we're way ahead of the curve of propagating into education.it doesn't mean we should set on our laurels and think it's going to be complete, it stillneeds some work but... >> there are programs like that, aside ofmanufacturing and use bright minds that really speak to i think the passion of everyone that'sinvolved in this industry and there are some regular efforts...>> well the challenge has been so we've done quite a bit work in education is not--theexcitement is there, the challenges to get into the standard curriculum. okay. becauseits pact, so the question is how can we teach [indistinct] with a 3d printer better thanwithout it and that's--right now, that's [indistinct]

need of control, experiments data to showingthat having this in the classroom, accelerates learning and that's hard data to get but that'san extent, the enthusiasm is there, that's not a problem.>> [indistinct] >> the lowest costs about a thousand dollars.>> [indistinct] columbia university. okay. so, for all of you maybe for more cad oneimage that keeps coming out is the idea of somebody printing something in his own homeand his own garage. and so i can see that aspect and maybe the need for tools to helppeople print what they want. but in terms of more like collaborative engineering orcollaborative geographic distribute engineering and potential for, if you well regeneratethe enthusiasm for engineering with like--for

instance also with respect to computer engineeringbut not just that. so can you comment on that and what additive manufacturing can bring?what are the challenges to it? >> yeah, it's the--that's a very calm andgreat point, you know, i've see--i see all these hackers faces happening in the makermovement and what people told me is that it's not the tools that bring the people, it'sthe other people that bring people into this places. it's a place for quote and quote nerdsto hang out with like people and they build things and it's really the social elementof making--that really makes that take off. so i think you're absolutely right there'sthe collaborative element that is also part of this bigger picture of what these manufacturingtools and what manufacturing at home makes--means

and what manufacturing in this collaborativespaces means and it's empowering in that way as well as people to share ideas a lot moreeasily, you can shift ideas, you can work on a physical thing, a different size of theplanet at the same time, so it's a--gives a new meaning to collaboration and it alsoallows people to work together in a same spot in much more, you know, a connected way thanthe otherwise. so these are--that's a great point.>> in its happening in a lot of multinational companies where they will actually do physicalproduction, a prototype in all the various facilities and collaborate that way. a lotof people in this industry talk about like if pictures worth a thousand words and howmuch is a part of as words, you know, but

it throws up their own number but it's theidea, yeah. >> brilliant words.>> brilliant words. >> hello, bob by [indistinct] a question aboutwhat the resolution like state of the art resolution for different materials are interms of pixel size and how that will become more important as people try to put functionalityat exactly the right spot of device or have a gradient for medical application, thingslike that. are people trying to push that lower and lower, you know, to get more specificityand precession. >> okay. i spent quite a bit of time workingon minimum resolution, [indistinct] size resolution in laser centering and there technical detailswith each process that are different and what

not but in general, the first layer, you know,the first thing you look at is your layer thickness, this is the first thing and thenafter that, you can get into energy input, minimum dimension so you're typically in orderof, you know, a hundred micron, 80 microns, 50 microns, or what not it depends on theprocess and the ,materials and then the spots sizes were also very challenging as well.so, see two lasers are going to have 500 micron spots with a great [indistinct] or what not.that gives you the order of magnitude about right now, typically, you can build wallsand down to--if you're really, really careful recorders in millimeter, half millimeter functioningin robust material. you can make really fine things that are, you know, that are--thatare just--just as good. it might as well not

be there basically but that's functional wherewere at in terms of industry right now. >> well, a lot of it is driven by needs soi often, you know, i ask companies, you know, "can you make it higher resolution?" and theysay, "yes but why? what's the killer app that needs higher resolution?" so i think it'spossible to bring it lower but the questions is what, why and is that the best place interms of opportunity. >> and like you said i think most--like manufacturingproduction ready type machines are in the 100 microns to 200, 300 microns for some ofthe [indistinct] but you got jewelry prototyping wax production machines that are around 10micron or below resolution. so, it really--all of these can be--has a changeable resolution,the tighter the resolution, the slower the

process is going to go so it's really tradeoff in most cases. >> you said you were from arkema [indistinct]right? yeah, so to--well, first question is [indistinct]>> [indistinct] >> from--well, different--one of the thingsyou can do also is you can have--in the center of the structure you can have very coarseresolution and all you knew the edge you need a higher resolution. so, as--you can be alot smarter--right now we have newly formed resolutions which is not kind of necessarilyoptimal. >> well, let me make one exception to thatwhich is the electron beam process by arkema now, when they're doing a fill, they're usingthe higher power--low resolution but when

they're doing the outside contours, they splitinto 50 melt pools that are running simultaneously by moving an electron beam around so quickly,that we have 50 small melt pools during the contouring. and so that's an example of--well,electron beam is much more dynamic of an energy source than a laser because you don't havemirrors to move. so you move it so quickly that you can--it acts as if you have [indistinct]but that--so there--it's coming but i think we need to--it looks like...>> you do see people judging, you know, taking and trying to decide whether you should golower, you know, layer thicknesses or higher laser--i mean there's some of the processactually moving up, you know, in trying to get move up because they find more value frombeing faster than they do from getting more

resolution. and then you're finding, you know,variable layer thicknesses is well as variable spot sizes, you know, within a layer. so ithink there's a lot of that kind of going on at once but it isn't all moving--it isn'tall moving down, you know, some of them are definitely started really low and had greatresolution but feel like they'd rather have speed versus resolution and give up some ofthat move faster. >> okay. i think it's going to have to--haveto do with this... >> one more question. we got one more.>> my name is whitney cala. i'm from pacific west national labs. thank you for some excellenttalks. i really appreciate the quality of your talks. i just had a curiosity question,i was just trying to understand where the

technology is in terms of cartilage replacement.it looked like you gave an example of replicating a person's cartilage and then injecting itin place. it seemed like that could be a potential growth market.>> that's--there's a whole area of--there's a whole field of a--emerging called bioprintingwhich has to do with that--with printing live tissue. and i'd say it's within reach butthere's a lot of animal testing and that needs to be done to actually demonstrate that so,it's in the lab, it's been done but it's not yet proven.>> i would say, even some of the simplest structures like bone, you could think of abeing fairly simple in places that don't need load, you know, so think of replacing a partof the skull or some area that's exerting

a lot of force, it's still not there, youdon't see commercial applications in those things yet and cartilage is though, you know,because one it's immediately under load and

function. i mean it's got to be--it needsto be exactly as it should be or it's going to get torn up, you know, chewed up reallyquickly so, i think those things are still some ways off.>> okay. well, thank you very much for your--i really appreciate it.>> thank you.

3d printing of functionally graded materials 2017-06-16T07:18:00-07:00 Rating: 4.5 Diposkan Oleh: PaduWaras