1. Your idea is probably not identical. You execution almost certainly won't be.
2. There is usually room to compete.
3. Innovations often take root slowly and need a network of collaborators and competitors to nurture them.
Continuous Liquid Interface Production (CLIP) also uses photopolymerization, but pulls the object from a liquid bath and uses a buffer zone. Still horizontal slices. The upshot is it's much faster. (Carbon 3D is the company behind this.)
The method in the article uses photopolymerization to solidify the object as a set of slices, but the slices are not horizontal.
The big drawback to photopolymerization is it only works on certain resins which can often have undesirable mechanical properties (high elasticity or brittlness, for e.g.) Potentially this method could be a way forward in that respect, because you might be able to put structural materials in the resin solution and end up with a composite. It seems easier to do this way than with CLIP or SLA/DLP, but I'm purely speculating.
- Fused deposition modeling (FDM): the typical plastic filament-extruding hobbyist printer. Low resolution, but fast and creates very strong parts in one of wide varieties of well-known engineering materials. Tricks (e.g., two extruders) can give limited multiple colors or materials.
- Selective laser sintering (SLS): a laser melts a pattern into one layer of powder at a time. Can make even stronger parts than FDM by using nylon, titanium, etc. Very common in industry, but usually too expensive for hobbyists. These are the printers used to make rocket engines.
- Stereolithography (SLA) as explained above works like SLS but cures liquid resin with light instead of melting powder. Has many subvarieties. Advantage is scary high resolution (certain engineering choices give 160 nm (!) feature size [1]), but at the cost of relatively limited material choices because materials need to be liquid UV curable (though Form 2 has a good library now [2]) and definitely no multi-material or color parts. I'd consider this new 3D rotation printer a variety of SLA. [Edit: for clarity, I lumped CLIP and DLP here with SLA]
- Inkjet-based printers: these are the _really_ cool ones. Objet makes a printer [3][4] that uses inkjet heads to deposit multiple colors and materials in the same part layer-by-layer (kind of combining FDM and SLA). Upside is multiple colors and materials and resolution (e.g., Lego uses these for prototyping), downside is ridiculous price and low speed. Other printers like HP's and Z Corp's combine inkjet heads with SLS powder instead.
There are also a few weirder ones, e.g., paper layering, but I don't think they're widely used.
Another con to resin based approaches that's not always obvious is that some of these resins are pretty nasty and dangerous to touch when wet or pour down the drain. That makes the cleanup process a pain, at least in the context of at-home or small-scale printing. Powders are aslo a big pain but they're too expensive anyway.
The big problem with stereolithography resins is that they tend to degrade with time, especially if left in the sun. Photocuring is carried out by creating free radicals to induce polymerization. Well it turns out that these same free radical producing chemicals stick around even after the curings done and can make more free radicals if left in light. These free radicals can cause some pretty nasty damage to polymer chains. The chemistry is improving though, at the very least to allow more interesting materials like silicones.
One can mix in composites to stereolithography resins, but in general this isn't done. The problem is that whatever you mix in scatters light, so light doesn't penetrate as deep, so curing takes longer. Unless the composite used is transparent and has the same index of refraction as the resin, it would not be possible to use this tomographic approach to make parts.
There is one application of composites that's extremely disruptive though: producing ceramic parts. It has been found that you can mix in ceramic powder with the resin fire it in an oven to make very detailed ceramic parts[0]. Structural properties aren't necessarily that good, but that's ok because it's good enough to make very complex and detailed investment casting molds[1]. Investment casting molds for making single crystalline jet turbine blades are very complex and require a very complicated process to produce, with this process they can be made in one step. That's a huge disruption right there and investment casting is a pretty general process. The detail produced by this process is so high that the the triangulation of STL became a problem and a special file format developed for fax machines had to be used to represent all the slices.
Note that many people still use HMC without a closed form for the gradient, via approximation. In fact, Stan (http://mc-stan.org/) automatically approximates the gradient by default if none is given.
Specifically this is about what business customers of AI startups report about the impacts of AI adoption. Main result is for professional positions it creates more than it destroys, reverse for manual labor and clerical
>Auto executives say they need to avoid a nightmare tech scenario that’s become a common refrain at industry gatherings. They don’t want to become the next “handset makers”—commodity suppliers of hardware, helplessly watching all the profits flow to software makers like Apple
Weird comparison since Apple has always made the lion’s share of profits from hardware. Also interesting contrast between big automakers and Tesla. I see Tesla as being in the hardware biz primarily
> Weird comparison since Apple has always made the lion’s share of profits from hardware. Also interesting contrast between big automakers and Tesla. I see Tesla as being in the hardware biz primarily
I disagree. Tesla is hardware + software just like Apple. And software (e.g. autopilot, self driving) is a significant part of Tesla's strategy, just like it is with Apple (e.g. iOS)
