Hi, I'm trying to find out how many person-years have been invested in the development of the Makerbot machines. This wouldn't be all the individual instances or any peripheral projects, just the development time for the core team developing the actual Makerbots. Can anyone point me to a good estimate, or does anyone have any idea how to come up with one? Thanks a bunch!
I don't know how long or how many people it takes or took to develop the machines. I have heard of similar machines being used a few years ago, if you have ever listened to Coast To Coast radio featuring George Noory he had a guest on a few years back and the guest said that there was currently a machine being used that could reproduce human organs similar to how Makerbot is described. I believe he mentioned Stanford University but that's all I can remember right now, I'll see if I can find out any more, pretty amazing stuff going on these days.
Actually, you are approaching the subject wrong. The Hardware is nothing without the Software. The iterative designs of the hardware were more about feature (printing size was the biggest one) and improvements in the extruder. A lot of that was still comunity driven and also, the Makerbot was derived from the Reprap project. http://reprap.org/wiki/Main_Page
What matters is the number of man hours to produce the open source replicator-g software and the real meat of it is the sub application Skeinforge which actually creates the gcode to run the machine. Without the ability to create the gcode from an open source application, there would not even be printers because the closed source commercial applications are cost prohibitive. Rep-G is the lifeblood of the entire project. http://replicat.org/start
Before somebody says, what about EMC and Mach3, they are more for milling and cutting but not anywhere near what is needed to print. For those that use those as machine control, they still often use Skeinforge in some way to create the required gcode. There are also now alternate printer and carving (gcode creation) applications but they use the foundation of gcode creation and some code from the Skeinforge project. http://replicat.org/generators
That is a really difficult question to answer. It's not just the machine itself, but all the technology behind it that's made Makerbot possible, and the 100s of machines that have gone before it that evolved into a modern Makerbot.
For example the Arduino that drives the whole thing is a masterpiece of modern semiconductor technology. Quite possibly thousands of man-years have gone into developing that board alone, and that's on top of the millions of man-years required to build the semi-conductor industry.
And in terms of software, the g-code language must be at least 4 decades old by now. It started with subtractive processes (e.g. milling) but additive processes like Makerbot uses aren't all that new. They've been doing it with powders since the 70s. There have maybe been 1000s of people involved over multiple decades to create those processes. Skeinforge is a miracle in itself.
Think of the Makerbot as representing the peak of modern technology. All of the industries such as semi-conductors, micro-computing, software, mechanics, electronics, materials… all focussed into a single product that is so cheap and effective that you can build one at home.
My best guess? 10s of millions of man-years are required to get today's 3D printers, if you had to start from nothing. Makerbot has stood on the shoulders of giants, as do we all.
But if you mean just the Makerbot itself, ignoring all the off-the-shelf products they leveraged off to "jump-start" their development? Probably two guys for 12 months :-D
This study aimed to assess the effects of interventions calculated to promote patient centred care, recognising that problems may arise as a result of health care providers focusing on diseases and their management rather than people, their lives and their health problems; and furthermore recognising that patient centred approaches are increasingly advocated by both consumers and clinicians. A variety of sources were searched for trials suitable for inclusion, and 17 met the criteria.
Patient centred care was defined as a philosophy of care that encourages: (a) shared control of the consultation, decisions about interventions or management of the health problems with the patient, and/or (b) a focus in the consultation on the patient as a whole person who has individual preferences situated within social contexts (in contrast to a focus in the consultation on a body part or disease)