Originally Posted by John Eppstein
And you qualifications in materials science and/or fabrication are?
Do you believe that advances in biotech and nanotechnology will give winged pigs the ability to fly to the moon?
I'd advise that you read my previous post carefully. Then read it again. Repeat until it sinks in.
The crux of the matter is that just because something is possible in theory or even in a lab proof of concept does not mean that it's a practical or economically viable approach to a given end.
There are some things that 3D printing will be practical for. But it's not a panacea. There are far more things that it is NOT practical for. And many things to which the process is totally unsuited.
Oh, and there's a HUGE difference between a computer lab and a physical science l,ab.
100% documented historical fact and facts from articles and whitepapers I've read on Kurzweil's site, nanotechnology now, Stanford, MIT, etc is all I said or commented about. Why would it be ANY different this time? The only point of R&D labs is to research, that research ends up somewhere in products on the free market and if profitable to any extent more research happens 100% of the time.
Either of us could be right, the truth is nobody really knows. So to your comment about "winged pigs" I can safely say I don't know, because it is not here and nobody has done it yet. All I can say is that it's scientifically possible. As something as crazy as this though, I can safely bet that it will be accepted en masse, and more developments will take place because of the economic savings for startups, DIY hobbyists, and other organizations who are using the existing technology *today* to fab things like cases. For example, like in the x0xb0x project which even got the creator on the front cover of the latest WIRED. That fact alone makes the probability ratio fairly high. I can safely bet that the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on the technology will be used for something
though what, I can't say. Much of the same thing has happened with digital recording and the liberation of the audio/music industry which partly was theorized in the late 19th century, possible in the 40s but not practical until 40 years later. Speaking my opinion from a purely unbiased perspective of course. That's all.
You're right that they're *not* able to do any of this stuff, because they are not practical RIGHT NOW. Who's to say they won't be tomorrow? They're spending money on it, it's in the published budgets. The technology we have RIGHT NOW in this specific area is crude
and everyone knows it. Ten years ago, people such as yourself would've laughed about what is currently on the market if someone would've put forth the idea as inconceivable. It's nothing new, it's happened over and over again yet someone with some brains and the audacity to try thinks they can do it and often succeeds. Until they hit a brick wall which is currently far from the case, I'll stay an optimist. That's all I'm saying.
100% in house manufacturing for a business makes it economically viable from the beginning no matter how you look at it, which provides the push to make it practical for other uses as the technology gets cheaper, improves, and easier to produce. Creating "winged pigs" isn't. The casing industry is huge, because up until very recently it was limited to huge manufacturing plants. Now it is not, so we can expect that industry to change.
I believe tech/nanotech will progress, and then explode into other areas of science, because it's done a very good job of doing so already. The reason we are able to do nanotech today to ANY degree, even 3-d printers, is because of the 30 years of microchips decreasing in size and getting more powerful, either directly or indirectly. That's all Kurzweil ever said either, I don't understand how people get these funny ideas about anything else like "solving all of the world's problems" because there's nothing concrete to back it up. (last time I checked the world was still full of insolvable problems, tornadoes being one of those problems
However, the chance that we'll have full molecular manufacturing over the next 100 years is with current data near fact, and even 50 years it is still high. The current line of 3-d printers are really just the breakthrough
, that is all and a very important one. The actual technology doesn't even have to be a 3-d printer as they are today. (though, there's not much else of a better term to describe something that prints a three dimensional object) Kurzweil's *books* are *fiction*. A utopia.
His lectures are not, obviously nanotechnology isn't, and any opinion he ever has given he's stated it was an opinion.