Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.electronics.design > #466689 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-03 08:31 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-07-13 02:57 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 379 — 33 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.electronics.design
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-03 08:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-07-03 09:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. leongdentalsf@gmail.com - 2017-07-03 06:23 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. leongdentalsf@gmail.com - 2017-07-03 06:20 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:26 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-03 11:09 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-03 09:54 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-03 18:02 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-03 16:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Joe Chisolm <jchisolm6@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-04 12:10 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-04 11:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-07-05 13:49 +1000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-04 21:31 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Clifford Heath <no.spam@please.net> - 2017-07-05 16:03 +1000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-03 17:04 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-03 14:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-03 18:28 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-03 16:14 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-03 20:57 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-03 14:57 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 16:14 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 00:45 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 20:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 04:55 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 02:29 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 06:49 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 18:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-04 21:33 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 07:16 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-05 08:52 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 16:47 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 11:08 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:02 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 19:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 22:16 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 23:30 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:35 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 10:05 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:20 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-07 08:03 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:19 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-06 13:09 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 23:05 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-04 20:08 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-04 09:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 18:12 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-04 20:08 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 07:20 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-05 08:54 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 16:54 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-05 18:42 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 23:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-05 17:27 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:30 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-06 06:35 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 16:34 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:25 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-07 04:56 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 02:09 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-07 20:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 06:19 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-07 17:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 11:43 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-07-07 15:22 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 15:29 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. pcdhobbs@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 16:20 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-07 18:18 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-07-08 08:46 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-07-08 08:53 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-08 08:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 06:49 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-08 17:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-08 11:13 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-08 18:50 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-08 16:33 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-08 19:47 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-08 18:17 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-08 21:27 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 07:12 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-09 17:44 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 12:48 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-09 23:27 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 07:11 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 16:30 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 06:49 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-11 17:47 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 13:15 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 16:27 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 14:46 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 18:36 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 18:20 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 21:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-11 22:12 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-07-11 19:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 02:24 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 22:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 10:24 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 20:57 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:17 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:42 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 18:21 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-12 07:28 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-07-12 12:43 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Sea Wasp (Ryk E. Spoor)" <seawasp@sgeinc.invalid.com> - 2017-07-12 07:46 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 20:59 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 20:36 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:47 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 15:32 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 19:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 16:21 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 05:10 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:45 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-12 18:39 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 21:29 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-13 20:27 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:22 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-14 11:55 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Martin Brown <'''newspam'''@nezumi.demon.co.uk> - 2017-07-13 08:01 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 22:56 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:03 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:50 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 23:49 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 23:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 05:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:51 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:23 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:08 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 12:53 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 13:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 09:51 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 11:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 17:55 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 16:15 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 20:26 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 15:32 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:08 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-16 15:21 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 17:00 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 09:06 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-17 20:23 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 15:27 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 17:39 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-17 09:46 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:16 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 13:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-12 04:33 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 07:04 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:48 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 06:50 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-13 17:29 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 05:51 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 02:55 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:51 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 15:34 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 19:09 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 16:24 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:36 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-15 00:27 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:52 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 06:40 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-16 16:02 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 06:02 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-17 20:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 06:32 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-18 21:10 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 05:08 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-19 20:17 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 01:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 06:23 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 03:35 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 05:56 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-20 10:18 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-07-20 11:34 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 16:25 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 20:42 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 16:40 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 19:54 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-07-20 17:04 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-07-21 12:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-20 19:15 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> - 2017-07-20 17:25 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-20 17:41 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 20:43 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 20:38 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-21 07:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 16:24 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:26 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 11:33 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:39 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 13:02 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:03 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:19 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:52 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 19:54 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 09:43 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-13 09:30 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-13 17:37 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 10:58 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:18 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 22:59 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-14 13:59 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:55 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 23:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 23:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 05:06 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 23:17 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:57 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 13:04 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:12 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 03:13 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-14 07:14 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 17:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 12:03 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-14 20:09 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. edward.ming.lee@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 19:08 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 04:00 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:58 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 12:59 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:13 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 01:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-19 20:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-20 03:15 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. edward.ming.lee@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 13:52 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 01:41 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 02:14 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:57 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 18:19 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 13:14 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 07:06 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 14:06 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 20:29 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-15 04:05 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-15 00:33 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-15 16:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 21:27 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:17 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-15 22:30 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-15 22:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 03:15 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 07:16 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 11:45 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. edward.ming.lee@gmail.com - 2017-07-16 10:35 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 16:33 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:09 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 06:11 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 16:46 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 22:24 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 21:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 06:38 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 17:35 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 20:26 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 20:12 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 22:12 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-19 00:49 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 05:30 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-19 04:54 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 06:34 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-19 16:14 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 17:24 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-19 00:00 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-19 20:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 02:42 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 02:36 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-21 08:00 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-21 09:08 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 17:14 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 02:24 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 02:30 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 13:21 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-14 09:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 17:15 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-14 12:04 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:10 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-15 22:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 03:23 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 09:58 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 12:05 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:15 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-16 10:56 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:19 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 16:36 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-19 02:15 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 10:46 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-10 06:48 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-05 08:19 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 16:59 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 11:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 19:28 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:32 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 19:38 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-09 21:55 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 12:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-10 12:25 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-07-11 13:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 12:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 18:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 16:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 19:52 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:33 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 03:29 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 01:22 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 22:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 05:06 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:36 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-07 05:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-07 20:25 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-08 00:40 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:53 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-09 21:56 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 05:08 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 23:06 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 12:38 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 17:31 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 12:47 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 18:22 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 22:35 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-07-07 13:41 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2017-07-05 17:47 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-04 20:04 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-05 08:20 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-04 20:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-04 20:14 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:15 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 06:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-07-03 18:35 -0800
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 05:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-06 13:38 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 05:10 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 17:16 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 05:13 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 08:35 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-07 10:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-09 22:15 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-07-10 10:43 +0300
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-10 06:55 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-10 21:32 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-07-10 21:03 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 12:39 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 15:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 13:14 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-07 15:34 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 14:03 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:22 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:01 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-09 12:49 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-09 23:26 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 16:10 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 17:40 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-10 17:22 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-10 16:36 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 19:49 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2017-07-13 20:17 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-13 21:42 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-13 15:47 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-13 20:53 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:05 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:25 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 10:58 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:54 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 15:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 20:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. tabbypurr@gmail.com - 2017-07-12 17:53 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 11:42 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-13 04:17 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. kevin93 <kevin@whitedigs.com> - 2017-07-13 02:57 -0700
Page 4 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 19 Next page →
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 06:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <w_mdnYxEKddmhMLEnZ2dnUU78RHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #467197 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>> >>>> Yes. I do. >>>> >>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>> projects. >>>> >>>> Ditto everything you make. >>> >>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>> it was produced. >>> >>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>> >>> >> What price? > > The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. > >> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >> cost of slightly more complex software. > > Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction > of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is? - Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled, - Power, minimal, - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print? These are all very small. > > Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost > of the honyecomb nonsense. > >> They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects. > > The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded > manufacturing cost. > >> So, by that metric, they're cheaper. > > If an injection molded handle costs a fraction of a cent while the honeycomb > handle costs several cents, which is cheaper? > > You've added a whole retail phase; which isn't really the point of 3-D printing. I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things you fabricate them. In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they have a larger fabricator than you).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 17:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <93s43e-7fe.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #467275 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. I do. >>>>> >>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>>> projects. >>>>> >>>>> Ditto everything you make. >>>> >>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>>> it was produced. >>>> >>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>>> >>>> >>> What price? >> >> The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. >> >>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >>> cost of slightly more complex software. >> >> Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >> of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. > > What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is? > - Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled, Cost recovery for most materials is trivial. > - Power, minimal, For 3D metal printing, lots of power. > - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print? Babble. > > These are all very small. For techniques such as molding, yes. >> Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost >> of the honyecomb nonsense. >> >>> They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects. >> >> The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded >> manufacturing cost. >> >>> So, by that metric, they're cheaper. >> >> If an injection molded handle costs a fraction of a cent while the honeycomb >> handle costs several cents, which is cheaper? >> >> > You've added a whole retail phase; which isn't really the point of 3-D printing. > I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things > you fabricate them. Pure fantasy. > In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, > because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does > (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they > have a larger fabricator than you). Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 11:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27da001a-2523-4173-aa7c-6c2d9767a4cb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467339 |
On Friday, 7 July 2017 18:16:11 UTC+1, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > > You've added a whole retail phase; which isn't really the point of 3-D printing. > > I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things > > you fabricate them. > > Pure fantasy. > > > In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, > > because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does > > (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they > > have a larger fabricator than you). > > Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense. why?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 15:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3tednZR4V-GFfcLEnZ2dnUU7-RHNnZ2d@supernews.com> |
| In reply to | #467348 |
On 07/07/2017 02:43 PM, tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, 7 July 2017 18:16:11 UTC+1, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> You've added a whole retail phase; which isn't really the point of 3-D printing. >>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things >>> you fabricate them. >> >> Pure fantasy. >> >>> In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, >>> because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does >>> (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they >>> have a larger fabricator than you). >> >> Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense. > > why? > For a start, division of labour makes things much more productive. Second, choice of materials and fabrication technique are highly non-obvious to non-gearheads. There are big differences between cast, forged, extruded, and HIPped metal parts even with the same composition. Third, only a small minority of materials are suitable for 3D printing. Doesn't work with leather, wood, or fibreglass, for instance. Fourth, the range of appearance and surface texture possible with 3-D printing is small. Try making a soda pop bottle that way, or fuzzy bedroom slippers. Fifth, getting any reasonably smooth surface is either very very slow or requires finishing (sanding or paint or polishing), either of which makes the whole exercise pointless for the end-user. Not to mention heat treatment, annealing, and so on. Sixth, I get free two-day delivery of anything I want that Amazon sells. For anything much larger than that bedroom slipper, the machine will still be chugging along when the UPS guy arrives. Cheers Phil Hobbs -- Dr Philip C D Hobbs Principal Consultant ElectroOptical Innovations LLC Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics 160 North State Road #203 Briarcliff Manor NY 10510 hobbs at electrooptical dot net http://electrooptical.net
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 15:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <58104a11-98ac-425b-85bf-d04893f89104@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467353 |
On Friday, 7 July 2017 20:25:22 UTC+1, Phil Hobbs wrote: > On 07/07/2017 02:43 PM, tabbypurr wrote: > > On Friday, 7 July 2017 18:16:11 UTC+1, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> You've added a whole retail phase; which isn't really the point of 3-D printing. > >>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things > >>> you fabricate them. > >> > >> Pure fantasy. > >> > >>> In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, > >>> because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does > >>> (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they > >>> have a larger fabricator than you). > >> > >> Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense. > > > > why? > > > > For a start, division of labour makes things much more productive. Whereas home 3d printing will wipe out the labour entirely. Select your product the same way you use Amazon now, and it makes it with no further human input. > Second, choice of materials and fabrication technique are highly > non-obvious to non-gearheads. There are big differences between cast, > forged, extruded, and HIPped metal parts even with the same composition. Yes, OTOH 3d printing has some structural design advantages. I don't see that preventing its widespread use. > Third, only a small minority of materials are suitable for 3D printing. > Doesn't work with leather, wood, or fibreglass, for instance. Of course. Lots of current household goods are plastic only, those could become 3d printed. Concrete is already 3d printed, and now metal albeit with considerable issues. Hopefully the ongoing development of thermoplastics will enable more goods to be made from them in future than today. > Fourth, the range of appearance and surface texture possible with 3-D > printing is small. Try making a soda pop bottle that way, or fuzzy > bedroom slippers. > Fifth, getting any reasonably smooth surface is either very very slow or > requires finishing (sanding or paint or polishing), either of which > makes the whole exercise pointless for the end-user. Not to mention > heat treatment, annealing, and so on. Even today some 3d printers are heated. It's not too hard for the printer itself to do the vapour phase polishing & annealing. > Sixth, I get free two-day delivery of anything I want that Amazon sells. > For anything much larger than that bedroom slipper, the machine will > still be chugging along when the UPS guy arrives. I'm sure future printers will have many nozzles, not one. I also expect them to have some other tricks to speed up production. Even a right-now Mad Max courier on speed dial isn't going to get your Amazon goods to you in 20 minutes. NT > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | pcdhobbs@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 16:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb391150-b4b8-442d-a650-756d6868597e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467369 |
>Even today some 3d printers are heated. It's not too hard >for the printer itself to do the vapour phase polishing & annealing. Yadda yadda. "It's digital, it's shiny, it'll change everything!" Fanboi alert. You clearly have no idea of the sheer amount of knowledge embodied in modern mechanical and materials engineering, nor of the infrastructure required. Cheers Phil Hobbs (who comes from a long line of steel men)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 18:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0a134e19-82a4-4709-b277-0e3ed45a60e6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467374 |
On Saturday, 8 July 2017 00:20:22 UTC+1, pcdh...@gmail.com wrote: > >Even today some 3d printers are heated. It's not too hard > >for the printer itself to do the vapour phase polishing & annealing. > > Yadda yadda. "It's digital, it's shiny, it'll change everything!" Now you're being silly. > Fanboi alert. > > You clearly have no idea of the sheer amount of knowledge embodied in modern mechanical and materials engineering, nor of the infrastructure required. > > Cheers > > Phil Hobbs > (who comes from a long line of steel men)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 08:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <Ru48B.105745$c46.51600@fx03.iad> |
| In reply to | #467353 |
On 07/07/2017 03:22 PM, Phil Hobbs wrote: > For a start, division of labour makes things much more productive. > > Second, choice of materials and fabrication technique are highly > non-obvious to non-gearheads. There are big differences between cast, > forged, extruded, and HIPped metal parts even with the same composition. > > Third, only a small minority of materials are suitable for 3D printing. > Doesn't work with leather, wood, or fibreglass, for instance. I don't think home 3D printing will ever make up a significant portion of manufacturing in part for the reasons you mention, and partly psychology. As you mention there are a lot of things it can't do and materials it can't work with, for the foreseeable future it will only be good for printing random knick-knacks. And psychologically speaking as a 30-something who knows lots of 20 somethings - the younger crowd doesn't really _want_ random knick-knacks. We don't have room for them, for one thing. We don't live in 4 bedroom homes on 2 acres of land and probably never will. If we're going to spend money we really prefer to spend it on high-quality "botique" stuff that we might have a chance of fitting in the spare 4 square feet we have in our living-cube. Nobody wants "unlimited plastic honeycomb knives" on demand. Nobody wants to fill their kitchen with 57 3D printed pink plastic sporks. Nobody wants it!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 08:53 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <NA48B.73519$bO5.9666@fx16.iad> |
| In reply to | #467425 |
On 07/08/2017 08:46 AM, bitrex wrote: > I don't think home 3D printing will ever make up a significant portion > of manufacturing in part for the reasons you mention, and partly > psychology. As you mention there are a lot of things it can't do and > materials it can't work with, for the foreseeable future it will only be > good for printing random knick-knacks. > > And psychologically speaking as a 30-something who knows lots of 20 > somethings - the younger crowd doesn't really _want_ random > knick-knacks. We don't have room for them, for one thing. We don't live > in 4 bedroom homes on 2 acres of land and probably never will. If we're > going to spend money we really prefer to spend it on high-quality > "botique" stuff that we might have a chance of fitting in the spare 4 > square feet we have in our living-cube. > > Nobody wants "unlimited plastic honeycomb knives" on demand. Nobody > wants to fill their kitchen with 57 3D printed pink plastic sporks. > Nobody wants it! > Millennials are frankly fascinated with antiques, stoneware plates, sentimental silverwear their grandmother left to them, durable products, "retro" electronics, and thrift-store clothes. Trying to fit 3D-printing which seems to clam to be the apotheosis of "disposable culture" onto them I think is really going to be trying to force a square peg into a round hole.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 08:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c6423d04-f31b-4ec9-b0cc-cba728f5e2c9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467426 |
On Saturday, 8 July 2017 13:53:07 UTC+1, bitrex wrote: > On 07/08/2017 08:46 AM, bitrex wrote: > > > I don't think home 3D printing will ever make up a significant portion > > of manufacturing in part for the reasons you mention, and partly > > psychology. As you mention there are a lot of things it can't do and > > materials it can't work with, for the foreseeable future it will only be > > good for printing random knick-knacks. > > > > And psychologically speaking as a 30-something who knows lots of 20 > > somethings - the younger crowd doesn't really _want_ random > > knick-knacks. We don't have room for them, for one thing. We don't live > > in 4 bedroom homes on 2 acres of land and probably never will. If we're > > going to spend money we really prefer to spend it on high-quality > > "botique" stuff that we might have a chance of fitting in the spare 4 > > square feet we have in our living-cube. > > > > Nobody wants "unlimited plastic honeycomb knives" on demand. Nobody > > wants to fill their kitchen with 57 3D printed pink plastic sporks. > > Nobody wants it! > > > > Millennials are frankly fascinated with antiques, stoneware plates, > sentimental silverwear their grandmother left to them, durable products, > "retro" electronics, and thrift-store clothes. Trying to fit 3D-printing > which seems to clam to be the apotheosis of "disposable culture" onto > them I think is really going to be trying to force a square peg into a > round hole. What goods do people typically use at home that are made of plastics: storage containers, shelving, dustpan & brush, cookery tools, cutlery tray, bins, plumbing, a limited subset of tools eg spirit levels, clothing, pillows, mop & bucket, and a fairly wide assortment of practical/decorative items. Even lighting fittings now are often metal plated plastic. A lot, clearly not all, of the above could be 3d printed. A lot more goods that aren't plastic could be and likely would be if they became much cheaper than the alternatives. A future printer (decades ahead) could scan discarded plastics for resin ID codes & foreign matter, chop it up into tiny pieces and either use the powder/chips or extrude it into filament. It could print, vapour polish & anneal goods when desired. Maybe it could also metal plate them. Designs could be selected from websites much like shopping at Amazon, except you don't pay. This approach might also go a step further. Instead of buying a dishwasher I might buy a dishwasher kit containing the unprintable parts, ie motors, control board, switches, sensors & mains lead, and the rest get printed from household waste. So the dishwasher might cost me £80 instead of £280 plus some assembly time. A lot of the future is unknown, but it's fair to expect 3d printing to become a lot more capable and a lot cheaper over the years. That opens up new options. As for retro goods, there are nowhere near enough of them to make much of a dent in the market for all types of new goods. It's more likely that some 3d printing would be used to imitate historic designs. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 06:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1JadnUrnX__s7_3EnZ2dnUU78K3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #467339 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. I do. >>>>>> >>>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>>>> projects. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ditto everything you make. >>>>> >>>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>>>> it was produced. >>>>> >>>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>>>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> What price? >>> >>> The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. >>> >>>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >>>> cost of slightly more complex software. >>> >>> Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >>> of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. >> >> What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is? >> - Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled, > > Cost recovery for most materials is trivial. > >> - Power, minimal, > > For 3D metal printing, lots of power. > >> - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print? > > Babble. Not really, it's called amortisation, in this case of the cost of the fabricator. "The process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount over a period according to a plan." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization > >> >> These are all very small. > > For techniques such as molding, yes. And for mature fabrication technology. >> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things >> you fabricate them. > > Pure fantasy. Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. Your turn. > >> In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, >> because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does >> (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they >> have a larger fabricator than you). > > Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense. Again, please justify that comment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 17:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6fg73e-dln.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #467408 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. I do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>>>>> projects. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ditto everything you make. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>>>>> it was produced. >>>>>> >>>>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>>>>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> What price? >>>> >>>> The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. >>>> >>>>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >>>>> cost of slightly more complex software. >>>> >>>> Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >>>> of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. >>> >>> What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is? >>> - Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled, >> >> Cost recovery for most materials is trivial. >> >>> - Power, minimal, >> >> For 3D metal printing, lots of power. >> >>> - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print? >> >> Babble. > > Not really, it's called amortisation, in this case of the cost of the fabricator. > "The process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount over a period according > to a plan." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization > >> >>> >>> These are all very small. >> >> For techniques such as molding, yes. > > And for mature fabrication technology. > >>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things >>> you fabricate them. >> >> Pure fantasy. > > Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating their own things. > I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by > noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes > ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight store. How many people do you know that own any of the above? > Your turn. > >> >>> In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, >>> because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does >>> (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they >>> have a larger fabricator than you). >> >> Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense. > > Again, please justify that comment. The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years ago. Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things as trivial as bread. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 11:13 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b3247124-8239-4656-b225-c90f6415577c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467452 |
On Saturday, 8 July 2017 18:16:10 UTC+1, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things > >>> you fabricate them. > >> > >> Pure fantasy. > > > > Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. > > It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating > their own things. > > > I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by > > noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes > > ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. > > Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when > compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight > store. > > How many people do you know that own any of the above? Those aren't automated, they all require user skill & time. So not a useful comparison. > >>> In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, > >>> because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does > >>> (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they > >>> have a larger fabricator than you). > >> > >> Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense. > > > > Again, please justify that comment. > > The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years > ago. > > Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things > as trivial as bread. That's a very weak argument. Future 3d printing has fundamental large differences to home manufacture of previous centuries. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 18:50 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7ao2mchfinugg5lr3v1ebed77t6cuiff4m@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #467457 |
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 11:13:15 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >On Saturday, 8 July 2017 18:16:10 UTC+1, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things >> >>> you fabricate them. >> >> >> >> Pure fantasy. >> > >> > Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. >> >> It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating >> their own things. >> >> > I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by >> > noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes >> > ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. >> >> Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when >> compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight >> store. >> >> How many people do you know that own any of the above? > >Those aren't automated, they all require user skill & time. So not a useful comparison. It takes skill and time to learn how to do mechanical design and even to run a CNC machine. Not to mention the investment - time valued money. >> >>> In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, >> >>> because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does >> >>> (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they >> >>> have a larger fabricator than you). >> >> >> >> Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense. >> > >> > Again, please justify that comment. >> >> The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years >> ago. >> >> Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things >> as trivial as bread. > >That's a very weak argument. Future 3d printing has fundamental large differences to home manufacture of previous centuries. The economy of scale isn't there. That's the whole driver behind the industrial revolution. 3D printing isn't going to turn that clock back.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 16:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f6c29467-b9d7-4d0c-be10-c03f08eae183@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467481 |
On Saturday, 8 July 2017 23:51:03 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 11:13:15 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >On Saturday, 8 July 2017 18:16:10 UTC+1, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > > >> >>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things > >> >>> you fabricate them. > >> >> > >> >> Pure fantasy. > >> > > >> > Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. > >> > >> It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating > >> their own things. > >> > >> > I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by > >> > noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes > >> > ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. > >> > >> Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when > >> compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight > >> store. > >> > >> How many people do you know that own any of the above? > > > >Those aren't automated, they all require user skill & time. So not a useful comparison. > > It takes skill and time to learn how to do mechanical design and even > to run a CNC machine. Not to mention the investment - time valued > money. > > >> >>> In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, > >> >>> because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does > >> >>> (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they > >> >>> have a larger fabricator than you). > >> >> > >> >> Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense. > >> > > >> > Again, please justify that comment. > >> > >> The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years > >> ago. > >> > >> Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things > >> as trivial as bread. > > > >That's a very weak argument. Future 3d printing has fundamental large differences to home manufacture of previous centuries. > > The economy of scale isn't there. That's the whole driver behind the > industrial revolution. 3D printing isn't going to turn that clock > back. The movement from cottage to factory, ie the industrial revolution, allowed the skills of the few to be imparted to goods for the many. So it solved the variable skill problem, mostly. It also made production cheaper via expensive high output machinery and people trained to do just one task. Now fast forward to 3d printing. The skill set is in the files, when you click on a product you can see its appearance and see user comments - is it durable, does it work well, could it be improved etc. So the skill issue is solved, just in a different way. You can choose well designed competent products. Regarding labour, its cost is removed entirely. When you click the desired product, the machine does the rest. Of course that's not how it is today, but there's every reason to believe in perhaps 30 years time 3d printing will be that easy. All the choices are in the files, you need do nothing more than dump your household rubbish in the hopper and click on the product that it shows you have the necessary materials and printer abilities for. Thus it will be one more step forward in economic efficiency. And let's face it, for all the babble about quality it's price that rules for a high percentage of consumer purchases. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 19:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <7fr2mc9dr0lu2f788eq1s6ioo51i37a2c3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #467488 |
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:33:02 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >On Saturday, 8 July 2017 23:51:03 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 11:13:15 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >On Saturday, 8 July 2017 18:16:10 UTC+1, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> > >> >> >>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things >> >> >>> you fabricate them. >> >> >> >> >> >> Pure fantasy. >> >> > >> >> > Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. >> >> >> >> It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating >> >> their own things. >> >> >> >> > I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by >> >> > noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes >> >> > ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. >> >> >> >> Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when >> >> compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight >> >> store. >> >> >> >> How many people do you know that own any of the above? >> > >> >Those aren't automated, they all require user skill & time. So not a useful comparison. >> >> It takes skill and time to learn how to do mechanical design and even >> to run a CNC machine. Not to mention the investment - time valued >> money. >> >> >> >>> In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, >> >> >>> because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does >> >> >>> (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they >> >> >>> have a larger fabricator than you). >> >> >> >> >> >> Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense. >> >> > >> >> > Again, please justify that comment. >> >> >> >> The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years >> >> ago. >> >> >> >> Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things >> >> as trivial as bread. >> > >> >That's a very weak argument. Future 3d printing has fundamental large differences to home manufacture of previous centuries. >> >> The economy of scale isn't there. That's the whole driver behind the >> industrial revolution. 3D printing isn't going to turn that clock >> back. > >The movement from cottage to factory, ie the industrial revolution, allowed the skills of the few to be imparted to goods for the many. So it solved the variable skill problem, mostly. It also made production cheaper via expensive high output machinery and people trained to do just one task. It also centralized the investment in tooling. Something that your 3D printing dream would have to turn around. >Now fast forward to 3d printing. The skill set is in the files, when you click on a product you can see its appearance and see user comments - is it durable, does it work well, could it be improved etc. So the skill issue is solved, just in a different way. You can choose well designed competent products. But there is no economy of scale in this dream. If each person is going to modify the widget to suit his needs, he will also have to be a mechanical engineer to make those changes. That's not the way the world works. >Regarding labour, its cost is removed entirely. When you click the desired product, the machine does the rest. Of course that's not how it is today, but there's every reason to believe in perhaps 30 years time 3d printing will be that easy. All the choices are in the files, you need do nothing more than dump your household rubbish in the hopper and click on the product that it shows you have the necessary materials and printer abilities for. The machine is free? The consumables are free? The education is free? >Thus it will be one more step forward in economic efficiency. And let's face it, for all the babble about quality it's price that rules for a high percentage of consumer purchases. You've shown no evidence that there is any reduction in cost. In fact, you're adding to it by distributing the cost of manufacturing. > >NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 18:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6791c554-37ca-4873-a1fe-b3d5713c57a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #467490 |
On Sunday, 9 July 2017 00:47:09 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: > On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:33:02 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >On Saturday, 8 July 2017 23:51:03 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: > >> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 11:13:15 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: > >> >On Saturday, 8 July 2017 18:16:10 UTC+1, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> >> >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> > > >> >> >>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things > >> >> >>> you fabricate them. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Pure fantasy. > >> >> > > >> >> > Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. > >> >> > >> >> It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating > >> >> their own things. > >> >> > >> >> > I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by > >> >> > noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes > >> >> > ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. > >> >> > >> >> Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when > >> >> compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight > >> >> store. > >> >> > >> >> How many people do you know that own any of the above? > >> > > >> >Those aren't automated, they all require user skill & time. So not a useful comparison. > >> > >> It takes skill and time to learn how to do mechanical design and even > >> to run a CNC machine. Not to mention the investment - time valued > >> money. > >> > >> >> >>> In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, > >> >> >>> because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does > >> >> >>> (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they > >> >> >>> have a larger fabricator than you). > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense. > >> >> > > >> >> > Again, please justify that comment. > >> >> > >> >> The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years > >> >> ago. > >> >> > >> >> Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things > >> >> as trivial as bread. > >> > > >> >That's a very weak argument. Future 3d printing has fundamental large differences to home manufacture of previous centuries. > >> > >> The economy of scale isn't there. That's the whole driver behind the > >> industrial revolution. 3D printing isn't going to turn that clock > >> back. > > > >The movement from cottage to factory, ie the industrial revolution, allowed the skills of the few to be imparted to goods for the many. So it solved the variable skill problem, mostly. It also made production cheaper via expensive high output machinery and people trained to do just one task. > > It also centralized the investment in tooling. Something that your 3D > printing dream would have to turn around. It centralised investment in the entire manufacturing process: tooling, factory, staff, transport, the lot. 3d printing could wipe out the factory, paid staff, transport & profit for those running the factory. That's most of the costs gone. > >Now fast forward to 3d printing. The skill set is in the files, when you click on a product you can see its appearance and see user comments - is it durable, does it work well, could it be improved etc. So the skill issue is solved, just in a different way. You can choose well designed competent products. > > But there is no economy of scale in this dream. See above reply. > If each person is > going to modify the widget to suit his needs, he will also have to be > a mechanical engineer to make those changes. That's not the way the > world works. And it never will. In today's 3d printing only the minority alter designs, mostly products made are copies of existing designs. Roll that out to the mass market and that pattern continues, with a heavier emphasis on consumerism than design. People already design & let others use their designs for free. Sites hosting such profit on the sidelines from advertising etc. > >Regarding labour, its cost is removed entirely. When you click the desired product, the machine does the rest. Of course that's not how it is today, but there's every reason to believe in perhaps 30 years time 3d printing will be that easy. All the choices are in the files, you need do nothing more than dump your household rubbish in the hopper and click on the product that it shows you have the necessary materials and printer abilities for. > > The machine is free? The consumables are free? The education is > free? Machines in 30 years will be cheaper & much more capable. If say a machine cost 200GBP (250USD) and could make all your household plastic goods including shelves, coffee tables, chairs, bathroom floor tiles & much more, it wouldn't make financial sense to not buy one. Same as today a car costs more than a horsecart, but no-one would choose a cart over a car, it doesn't make economic or practical sense today. Consumables are mostly household rubbish, so often free. No education is involved, as I've explained repeatedly. > >Thus it will be one more step forward in economic efficiency. And let's face it, for all the babble about quality it's price that rules for a high percentage of consumer purchases. > > You've shown no evidence that there is any reduction in cost. In > fact, you're adding to it by distributing the cost of manufacturing. No factories, no staff, no profit, no advertising, no delivery... whatever more do you want? NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 21:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lb13mctftqvtot66cvk8qr0poa2q0scq39@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #467496 |
On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 18:17:30 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >On Sunday, 9 July 2017 00:47:09 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 16:33:02 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >On Saturday, 8 July 2017 23:51:03 UTC+1, k...@notreal.com wrote: >> >> On Sat, 8 Jul 2017 11:13:15 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr wrote: >> >> >On Saturday, 8 July 2017 18:16:10 UTC+1, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> >> >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> >>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things >> >> >> >>> you fabricate them. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Pure fantasy. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. >> >> >> >> >> >> It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating >> >> >> their own things. >> >> >> >> >> >> > I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by >> >> >> > noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes >> >> >> > ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. >> >> >> >> >> >> Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when >> >> >> compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight >> >> >> store. >> >> >> >> >> >> How many people do you know that own any of the above? >> >> > >> >> >Those aren't automated, they all require user skill & time. So not a useful comparison. >> >> >> >> It takes skill and time to learn how to do mechanical design and even >> >> to run a CNC machine. Not to mention the investment - time valued >> >> money. >> >> >> >> >> >>> In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, >> >> >> >>> because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does >> >> >> >>> (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they >> >> >> >>> have a larger fabricator than you). >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Again, please justify that comment. >> >> >> >> >> >> The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years >> >> >> ago. >> >> >> >> >> >> Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things >> >> >> as trivial as bread. >> >> > >> >> >That's a very weak argument. Future 3d printing has fundamental large differences to home manufacture of previous centuries. >> >> >> >> The economy of scale isn't there. That's the whole driver behind the >> >> industrial revolution. 3D printing isn't going to turn that clock >> >> back. >> > >> >The movement from cottage to factory, ie the industrial revolution, allowed the skills of the few to be imparted to goods for the many. So it solved the variable skill problem, mostly. It also made production cheaper via expensive high output machinery and people trained to do just one task. >> >> It also centralized the investment in tooling. Something that your 3D >> printing dream would have to turn around. > >It centralised investment in the entire manufacturing process: tooling, factory, staff, transport, the lot. 3d printing could wipe out the factory, paid staff, transport & profit for those running the factory. That's most of the costs gone. Yet you discount the investment/0pportunity cost and craning that _everyone_ would have to make/absorb. > >> >Now fast forward to 3d printing. The skill set is in the files, when you click on a product you can see its appearance and see user comments - is it durable, does it work well, could it be improved etc. So the skill issue is solved, just in a different way. You can choose well designed competent products. >> >> But there is no economy of scale in this dream. > >See above reply. Ditto. > >> If each person is >> going to modify the widget to suit his needs, he will also have to be >> a mechanical engineer to make those changes. That's not the way the >> world works. > >And it never will. In today's 3d printing only the minority alter designs, mostly products made are copies of existing designs. Roll that out to the mass market and that pattern continues, with a heavier emphasis on consumerism than design. So your comment about improving designs is moot. >People already design & let others use their designs for free. Sites hosting such profit on the sidelines from advertising etc. That's a great business model. >> >Regarding labour, its cost is removed entirely. When you click the desired product, the machine does the rest. Of course that's not how it is today, but there's every reason to believe in perhaps 30 years time 3d printing will be that easy. All the choices are in the files, you need do nothing more than dump your household rubbish in the hopper and click on the product that it shows you have the necessary materials and printer abilities for. >> >> The machine is free? The consumables are free? The education is >> free? > >Machines in 30 years will be cheaper & much more capable. If say a machine cost 200GBP (250USD) and could make all your household plastic goods including shelves, coffee tables, chairs, bathroom floor tiles & much more, it wouldn't make financial sense to not buy one. Same as today a car costs more than a horsecart, but no-one would choose a cart over a car, it doesn't make economic or practical sense today. Dream on. >Consumables are mostly household rubbish, so often free. No education is involved, as I've explained repeatedly. So you're going to refine household waste to recover the consumables. Why don't you just jump the Star Trek replicator. > >> >Thus it will be one more step forward in economic efficiency. And let's face it, for all the babble about quality it's price that rules for a high percentage of consumer purchases. >> >> You've shown no evidence that there is any reduction in cost. In >> fact, you're adding to it by distributing the cost of manufacturing. > >No factories, no staff, no profit, no advertising, no delivery... whatever more do you want? Wrong. The "factories" are duplicated, 100 million times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 07:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l7-dnbJ_YKbGVPzEnZ2dnUU78UfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #467452 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. I do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>>>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>>>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>>>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>>>>>> projects. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ditto everything you make. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>>>>>> it was produced. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>>>>>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> What price? >>>>> >>>>> The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. >>>>> >>>>>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >>>>>> cost of slightly more complex software. >>>>> >>>>> Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >>>>> of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. >>>> >>>> What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is? >>>> - Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled, >>> >>> Cost recovery for most materials is trivial. >>> >>>> - Power, minimal, >>> >>> For 3D metal printing, lots of power. >>> >>>> - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print? >>> >>> Babble. >> >> Not really, it's called amortisation, in this case of the cost of the fabricator. >> "The process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount over a period according >> to a plan." >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization >> >>> >>>> >>>> These are all very small. >>> >>> For techniques such as molding, yes. >> >> And for mature fabrication technology. >> >>>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things >>>> you fabricate them. >>> >>> Pure fantasy. >> >> Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. > > It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating > their own things. > >> I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by >> noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes >> ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. > > Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when > compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight > store. > > How many people do you know that own any of the above? Apples and oranges, they are nowhere as flexible as mature fabricator technology would be, nor as easy to use. >> Again, please justify that comment. > > The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years > ago. > > Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things > as trivial as bread. Even making bread is more difficult than simply selecting a file, loading feedstock and pressing a button. Besides, millions of people "make their own stuff" every day, although it's primarly digital content these days.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 17:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7l6a3e-ik3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #467505 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes. I do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>>>>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>>>>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>>>>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>>>>>>> projects. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ditto everything you make. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>>>>>>> it was produced. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>>>>>>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> What price? >>>>>> >>>>>> The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. >>>>>> >>>>>>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >>>>>>> cost of slightly more complex software. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >>>>>> of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is? >>>>> - Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled, >>>> >>>> Cost recovery for most materials is trivial. >>>> >>>>> - Power, minimal, >>>> >>>> For 3D metal printing, lots of power. >>>> >>>>> - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print? >>>> >>>> Babble. >>> >>> Not really, it's called amortisation, in this case of the cost of the fabricator. >>> "The process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount over a period according >>> to a plan." >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> These are all very small. >>>> >>>> For techniques such as molding, yes. >>> >>> And for mature fabrication technology. >>> >>>>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things >>>>> you fabricate them. >>>> >>>> Pure fantasy. >>> >>> Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. >> >> It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating >> their own things. >> >>> I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by >>> noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes >>> ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. >> >> Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when >> compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight >> store. >> >> How many people do you know that own any of the above? > > Apples and oranges, they are nowhere as flexible as mature fabricator technology > would be, nor as easy to use. Obviously you have never seen a N/C milling machine in action nor payed for raw stock. >>> Again, please justify that comment. >> >> The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years >> ago. >> >> Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things >> as trivial as bread. > > Even making bread is more difficult than simply selecting a file, loading > feedstock and pressing a button. Obviously you have never seen a real 3D printer in action nor have you ever made bread. > Besides, millions of people "make their own stuff" every day, although it's > primarly digital content these days. Otherwise know as trash, SPAM, and utter nonsense. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web