Percetakan belum mengalami kemajuan yang signifikan 3D, sejauh ini. Beberapa tahun yang lalu, layar sentuh yang ditambahkan ke printer dan mesin fotokopi. Berikutnya, konektivitas WiFi, yang memungkinkan pencetakan dari mana saja dengan sinyal internet, menjadi tambahan terbaru. Langkah besar berikutnya untuk mesin fotokopi warna teknologi 3D. Membandingkan dunia baru ini untuk beberapa pilihan yang lebih tua dan tradisional kami memberikan kita dengan beberapa pertimbangan yang sangat menarik.
Harga
Harga mesin fotokopi rata tergantung pada aplikasi dan fungsi. Printer saat ini biasanya harga berdasarkan kapasitas produksi, kemampuan WiFi, kapasitas baki, pilihan layar sentuh, dan fitur lainnya. Ini semua adalah penambahan dan perangkat tambahan ke mesin dasar yang sama yang menghasilkan produk yang sama, kertas dicetak. Meskipun semua kemajuan ini besar dan mereka pasti mempengaruhi harga mesin, yang berkisar dari sekitar $ 40 sampai lebih dari $ 1.000, mesin fotokopi 3D adalah mesin yang sama sekali berbeda dengan fungsi high-end yang baik melebihi sistem tradisional. Karena pengenalan baru-baru ini ke pasar konsumen, produk ini masih dianggap mahal dan out-of-meraih konsumen rata-rata. Mereka dapat ditemukan di beberapa toko teknologi, online, dan bahkan beberapa barang rumah toko, tapi biasanya biaya lebih dari $ 1.000. Harga adalah refleksi dari kemampuan mesin untuk memproduksi tidak kertas, tetapi produk plastik. AndroidNews.pw
Pasar dan Permintaan Percetakan 3D
Pasokan dan permintaan akan mengendalikan pembangunan masa depan semua inovasi teknologi, termasuk pencetakan. Dengan setiap produk baru yang diperkenalkan ke pasar, dari televisi dan radio untuk mesin fotokopi warna 3D, ada keseimbangan antara pasokan dan permintaan. Ketika komputer pertama kali diproduksi, itu dimaksudkan untuk pemerintah dan lembaga-lembaga besar lainnya atau pabrik. Sekitar 50 tahun telah berlalu dan permintaan telah memicu pengembangan ke titik yang hampir setiap rumah tangga memiliki komputer pribadi. Sebagai pasokan tumbuh, produk yang diproduksi massal, harga turun, dan produk menjadi luas terjangkau dan populer, sehingga lebih mudah diakses rumah tangga. 3D sekarang meningkat. Seperti disebutkan sebelumnya, mesin ini masih dianggap terlalu mahal untuk konsumen rata-rata, namun, kecenderungan ini menunjukkan bahwa harga akan menjadi semakin terjangkau sementara teknologi menjadi lebih user-friendly.
Masa Depan Percetakan 3D
Teknologi telah berkembang dengan pesat. Pengenalan mesin mampu menghasilkan produk 3D telah menjadi game changer di bidang manufaktur. Permintaan pasar akan menentukan pertumbuhan pencetakan 3D, namun, masih tetap menjadi tonggak penting dalam evolusi mesin fotokopi. DEAD TRIGGER Mod APK
Ketika melihat, pastikan untuk tahu persis apa yang Anda cari. Kemudian, menetapkan kisaran harga dimaksudkan Anda dan menjelajahi pasar yang luas pilihan yang akan memberikan Anda dengan pembelian yang optimal.
Wednesday, January 20, 2016
Critical Reflection
(apologies, this is poorly organized)
With David heading out to a farm in Missouri, and Austin's farm having collapsed financially, I believe the time has come for more critical reflection on community and open-source farming initiatives. Recently I had an enlightening discussion with James Rutter of Providence's AS220 Labs hackerspace. What struck me in particular is that AS220 Labs was unable to adhere to the fab-lab charter, because it is financially unsustainable. This in an instance of a more general problem : projects that aim to develop sustainable technologies and practices are unable to bootstrap themselves, and require significant donations of money, resources, and time.
In their infancy, open-source projects are hard to distinguish from hobbies for wealthy, well educated individuals. Linux was once considered a toy operating system, a geeky hobby for computer programmers. Today, Linux powers the servers of web giants such as Google, and can replace costly proprietary operating systems on consumer machines. We hope that other open source initiatives follow this trend, including open source hardware, and, god willing, farming.
If an open-source project tackles a real need, and the body of community-owned knowledge increases, then we can expect the project to be beneficial. Open source initiatives direct surplus time and wealth from, say, [[insert your favorite expensive and socially useless upper middle class past-time here]], into projects that are equally enjoyable but have real benefits. Think of these project like donating to charity, but time and expertise can be much more valuable than money. The power of open-source is that it brings private technologies under community ownership, freeing them from the backwards incentives of competition, and creating a more efficient solution.
But, open-source is not the same thing as sustainable. Open-source projects can be environmentally unsustainable, and I can have private businesses that are nevertheless sustainable. If I understand correctly, MakerFarm would be more of the former, and entail some sort of community space for open-source research into sustainability. The title MakerFarm is meant to invoke the 'Maker' movement, MakerFaire, MakerBot, MakeZine, etc. This movement is, as far as I can tell, comprised of people who have day jobs, lots of education, and surplus time and money. Very few people are getting their paychecks from the MakerMovement, and most are participating in it as a form of entertainment. In light of this, I imagine that a MakerFarm would be a hackerspace. It would not be net sustainable, and its principle benefit would be providing community, education, and project space at a reduced cost.
I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the above vision for a MakerFarm is unsatisfying for some of our members. Some people don't want a project, they want a lifestyle. I believe they want a farm that makes enough profit to pay taxes and keep itself running, that uses sustainable practices, and requires as little as possible external resources. This is not sustainability, it is low-impact survival. It is low-impact in the sense that it does no harm to the environment, but it is also low-impact in that it effects very little social change and does not naturally expand to replace less sustainable practices. The real contribution is finding solutions that are equally efficient as industrial scale farming, but more sustainable. The measure of contribution, then, is not in the farming itself, but in the knowledge created and disseminated. We may find that current sustainable farming practices leave no time for optimization or outreach. Because of this, I believe that the actual, practical advances in sustainable farming will come from professional research institutions. MakerFarm as a hackerspace could the provide the natural "citizen-science" and outreach counterpart to these research endeavors.
I'm not sure how accurate this speculation is. I'd like to see a few words from Austin about why the last farm he worked on failed and whether or not this failure changes the goals for MakerFarm.
With David heading out to a farm in Missouri, and Austin's farm having collapsed financially, I believe the time has come for more critical reflection on community and open-source farming initiatives. Recently I had an enlightening discussion with James Rutter of Providence's AS220 Labs hackerspace. What struck me in particular is that AS220 Labs was unable to adhere to the fab-lab charter, because it is financially unsustainable. This in an instance of a more general problem : projects that aim to develop sustainable technologies and practices are unable to bootstrap themselves, and require significant donations of money, resources, and time.
In their infancy, open-source projects are hard to distinguish from hobbies for wealthy, well educated individuals. Linux was once considered a toy operating system, a geeky hobby for computer programmers. Today, Linux powers the servers of web giants such as Google, and can replace costly proprietary operating systems on consumer machines. We hope that other open source initiatives follow this trend, including open source hardware, and, god willing, farming.
If an open-source project tackles a real need, and the body of community-owned knowledge increases, then we can expect the project to be beneficial. Open source initiatives direct surplus time and wealth from, say, [[insert your favorite expensive and socially useless upper middle class past-time here]], into projects that are equally enjoyable but have real benefits. Think of these project like donating to charity, but time and expertise can be much more valuable than money. The power of open-source is that it brings private technologies under community ownership, freeing them from the backwards incentives of competition, and creating a more efficient solution.
But, open-source is not the same thing as sustainable. Open-source projects can be environmentally unsustainable, and I can have private businesses that are nevertheless sustainable. If I understand correctly, MakerFarm would be more of the former, and entail some sort of community space for open-source research into sustainability. The title MakerFarm is meant to invoke the 'Maker' movement, MakerFaire, MakerBot, MakeZine, etc. This movement is, as far as I can tell, comprised of people who have day jobs, lots of education, and surplus time and money. Very few people are getting their paychecks from the MakerMovement, and most are participating in it as a form of entertainment. In light of this, I imagine that a MakerFarm would be a hackerspace. It would not be net sustainable, and its principle benefit would be providing community, education, and project space at a reduced cost.
I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, that the above vision for a MakerFarm is unsatisfying for some of our members. Some people don't want a project, they want a lifestyle. I believe they want a farm that makes enough profit to pay taxes and keep itself running, that uses sustainable practices, and requires as little as possible external resources. This is not sustainability, it is low-impact survival. It is low-impact in the sense that it does no harm to the environment, but it is also low-impact in that it effects very little social change and does not naturally expand to replace less sustainable practices. The real contribution is finding solutions that are equally efficient as industrial scale farming, but more sustainable. The measure of contribution, then, is not in the farming itself, but in the knowledge created and disseminated. We may find that current sustainable farming practices leave no time for optimization or outreach. Because of this, I believe that the actual, practical advances in sustainable farming will come from professional research institutions. MakerFarm as a hackerspace could the provide the natural "citizen-science" and outreach counterpart to these research endeavors.
I'm not sure how accurate this speculation is. I'd like to see a few words from Austin about why the last farm he worked on failed and whether or not this failure changes the goals for MakerFarm.
GardenBot!
Creator Andrew Frueh writes:
GardenBot is an open source garden monitoring system … The ultimate goal of the GardenBot project is to be a complete garden monitoring and automation system. A key design consideration is to keep everything as easy as possible -- especially for users new to Arduino and DIY electronics projects.Hacking together electronics is one of my favorite pastimes -- there is always something new to learn. In mixing small scale farming and electronics, I've struggled to find a project that gives back more than it takes from the environment. If I make an automatic watering timer, does this save more than it costs? Will it pay back the environmental damage associated with extracting the raw materials to build it? Will it fix as much carbon as was released to generate the electricity to manufacture the device? I am ignorant of the environmental trade-offs of small scale urban and suburban farming, and know even less about the trade-offs for building electronics to automate them. I am, however, convinced of one thing: making farming appeal to hackers and geeks will create a community of innovators and hobbyists. This community will drive open source product development, and provide a testing ground for new products to help make personal and small scale farming less intensive in terms of time, money, and resources, and perhaps even entertaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)