The main problem I have with articles like this, is that I see all major turning events are only shown to be significant in their historical context after the fact. You need the 20/20 vision of hindsight to see what impact any particular development. World War 1 wasn't named until long after the event. This is not to say that people didn't know they were at war, or in a Depression. Only that the scope and impact of the event can only be known after it has finished.
While every development or change results in a set of writers and thinkers keen to coin the phrase that defines it (hello 'web 2.0'), in reality you only get to write the story long after the event has happened.
Personally I do see 3d printing having a large impact if they become as widespread as the laser printer became.
It also makes me wonder if a home foundry kit will become a popular item. Combines on-the-spot recycling with creation from 3d printers (making the moulds). The applications are enormous. But we won't know what the breakthrough is until hindsight can put it into context for us.
So yes, interesting article. Industrial Revolution 3? We'll see.
I was talking more about using a 3d printer to make a mold, then melting down metals to create your own castings. A small foundry kit where the printer makes the mould, you pack the sand, then you melt down alumnium cans or scrap steel, pour and get yourself a metal object.
It’s completely reasonable to say that we only know the upshot of events after we see them. Many things are not understood at the time.
But many contemporary understandings are basically correct.
If you do a Google Books search for the phrase “first world war” in the range 1914–1935[0], you’ll find that many people were using it basically as we do. They grasped that Versailles set up another war, and that globalization meant it too would involve all of Europe (i.e., “the world”). We see more now, but they had the basics. We could have that good an understanding of manufacturing.
I’m not trying to refute your point, only to temper it.
Interesting. You get about 7,830 results for First World War there.
Some of these may be spurious - "Psychology of the Great War: The First World War and Its Origins" (new material this edition (C) 1999" - is that the original title?
By contrast, you get About 532,000 result for "great war" which is what I thought it was referred to before there was a need to number the great wars.
Comments
The main problem I have with articles like this, is that I see all major turning events are only shown to be significant in their historical context after the fact. You need the 20/20 vision of hindsight to see what impact any particular development. World War 1 wasn't named until long after the event. This is not to say that people didn't know they were at war, or in a Depression. Only that the scope and impact of the event can only be known after it has finished.
While every development or change results in a set of writers and thinkers keen to coin the phrase that defines it (hello 'web 2.0'), in reality you only get to write the story long after the event has happened.
Personally I do see 3d printing having a large impact if they become as widespread as the laser printer became.
It also makes me wonder if a home foundry kit will become a popular item. Combines on-the-spot recycling with creation from 3d printers (making the moulds). The applications are enormous. But we won't know what the breakthrough is until hindsight can put it into context for us.
So yes, interesting article. Industrial Revolution 3? We'll see.
On-the-spot recycling for your 3D printer is here: http://filabot.com/reclaimer.php
Now if we can get low-cost printers for metal and electronics, and on-the-spot recycling for at least the metals, we'd be there.
Interesting link, thanks.
I was talking more about using a 3d printer to make a mold, then melting down metals to create your own castings. A small foundry kit where the printer makes the mould, you pack the sand, then you melt down alumnium cans or scrap steel, pour and get yourself a metal object.
I recently saw a segment on the show 'manlab' where they cast their own lemon squeezer - vid is poor quality but here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtFkn4gRt-M
It’s completely reasonable to say that we only know the upshot of events after we see them. Many things are not understood at the time.
But many contemporary understandings are basically correct.
If you do a Google Books search for the phrase “first world war” in the range 1914–1935[0], you’ll find that many people were using it basically as we do. They grasped that Versailles set up another war, and that globalization meant it too would involve all of Europe (i.e., “the world”). We see more now, but they had the basics. We could have that good an understanding of manufacturing.
I’m not trying to refute your point, only to temper it.
0. http://www.google.com/search?q=%22first+world+war%22&btn...
Interesting. You get about 7,830 results for First World War there.
Some of these may be spurious - "Psychology of the Great War: The First World War and Its Origins" (new material this edition (C) 1999" - is that the original title?
By contrast, you get About 532,000 result for "great war" which is what I thought it was referred to before there was a need to number the great wars.