| I should note, I have seen that site before. Looking at your comparison pictures, I have a couple of thoughts: 1) I am very aware that machining and casting makes higher quality parts. My point is that for all mechanisms there comes a point where the quality is "good enough". 2) The printed gears you linked to have abysmal quality. My 3 year old printer has made vastly superior parts. See this thingiverse part, with many high quality print examples from home printers:
http://www.thingiverse.com/make:17409 I also used to be of the opinion that CNC machining was so superior as to render 3D printing useless. I looked at those stringy prints and said it would never be useful. But then, I slogged for years making CNC machined parts (see some examples of my parts here: http://www.tlalexander.com/files/portfolio.pdf ) and eventually decided to buy a 3D printer. I make more stuff now than I ever did when I had daily access to a CNC. But as far as quality - notice how that stringy gearbox you linked to still seems to work? Sure, one is more photogenic, but the goal of a gearbox is to transmit power not win a beauty contents. Meanwhile I have been using a printed gear on my 3D printer's extrusion system for over 2 years with no sign of failure. The application is low speed but medium torque, and I see no wear or signs of weakening. The printed gear satisfied the requirements of the mechanism. When I think of 3D printing, it reminds me of manufacturing in the 1940's. Parts were clunkier then, like the seat hinge on an old Volkswagen Beetle. But clunky works - often better. Newer techniques might make smaller hinges, but the one from the old beetle still works well. Sometimes higher quality isn't necessary to make something. A designer may choose to make something clunkier so that it can be made at home on a basic printer. Another example- I use this coat rack and lamp mount every day:
http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:16485 |