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 17 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 00:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p8m53e-k6h.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #467384 |
In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 05:00:07 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 05:06:49 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 01:22:40 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:12:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> In article <slnq2e-pn7.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>>>>> says... >>>>>>>>>> > Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized >>>>>>>>>> > parts. These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone >>>>>>>>>> > from the design. They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due >>>>>>>>>> > to their complex shapes. I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts >>>>>>>>>> > from management types. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things >>>>>>>>>> that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design >>>>>>>>>> without the expense of 3D printing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> True, the big dumb cylindrical pressure vessel may not apply but, that's >>>>>>>>> not the entire aircraft. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If the "mass were already gone from the design" then GE would not be >>>>>>>>> pouring literally millions of dollars into developing a one meter cubed >>>>>>>>> 3D printer presumably for printing aircraft engine parts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another >>>>>>>>> area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up >>>>>>>>> a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would >>>>>>>>> be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Again, you are talking about niche applications and landing gear are not >>>>>>>>that big a part of an aircrafts weight. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes, many times. I've got a b.s. in aerospace engineering, so I know >>>>>>>>> the basics. Many of our customers are aerospace, so I have to >>>>>>>>> understand the domain. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Handy at times, but certainly not a world changer. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This is quite short sighted. I'm sure the same was said about >>>>>>>>> composites when they were in their infancy. Today it would be quite >>>>>>>>> hard (i.e. likely impossible) to point to something commercial that >>>>>>>>> flies and carries people commercially that has absolutely zero composite >>>>>>>>> content. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>An irrelevant red herring to the subject of 3D printing. There are a HUGE >>>>>>>>number of different composite materials out there and it has taken well >>>>>>>>over half a century for most aircraft to have even a small fraction of >>>>>>>>composite materials in their construction. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Note the word "most". >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I can say that shape optimization coupled with 3D printing is one of the >>>>>>>>> "bleeding edge" topics in my industry. It's really no secret, you can >>>>>>>>> surely Google hundreds of articles on the topic. I really can't go into >>>>>>>>> further details, but my profession is in writing engineering software, >>>>>>>>> so I ought to know. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Whoopee. It is still niche. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marketing types certainly do. Consumers have always bought toasters >>>>>>> based on their looks. After all, the thousands of different designs >>>>>>> all do the same thing. >>>>>> >>>>>>And all look about the same. >>>>> >>>>> Not so much: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437412182539227477/ >>>> >>>>For any given era they look pretty much the same to me. >>>> >>>>https://www.google.com/search?q=toaster&num=100&client=ubuntu&hs=kEM&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4qO-G8fPUAhUCv5QKHQ2kCPIQ_AUICygC&biw=1327&bih=868 >>> >>> You'd argue that every color is the same? >> >>No, but most are chrome. > > Huh, I could have sworn I'd seen black, red, and white ones. most - adjective 1 greatest in quantity, extent, or degree 2 the majority of >>> The fact is that marketing >>> differentiates their product from the competition by making stuff >>> *look* different. Similar, sure, but that's the way fashion goes. A >>> few years ago every car looked pretty much the same but that's not the >>> same "same" as it is now. >> >>For toasters the differences are in the unnecessary bells and whistles. > > OK, please tell me the technical reason that car grilles, these days, > look like ugly shark teeth and tail lights like silly raptor eyes. The same technical reason that toasters have unnecessary bells and whistles. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 17:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <t1b0mcd5juhjh0hiei2qbt7fu6a312hj7l@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #467387 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 05:00:07 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 05:06:49 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 01:22:40 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:12:47 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In article <slnq2e-pn7.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>>>>>> says... >>>>>>>>>>> > Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized >>>>>>>>>>> > parts. These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone >>>>>>>>>>> > from the design. They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due >>>>>>>>>>> > to their complex shapes. I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts >>>>>>>>>>> > from management types. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things >>>>>>>>>>> that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design >>>>>>>>>>> without the expense of 3D printing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> True, the big dumb cylindrical pressure vessel may not apply but, that's >>>>>>>>>> not the entire aircraft. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If the "mass were already gone from the design" then GE would not be >>>>>>>>>> pouring literally millions of dollars into developing a one meter cubed >>>>>>>>>> 3D printer presumably for printing aircraft engine parts. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another >>>>>>>>>> area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up >>>>>>>>>> a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would >>>>>>>>>> be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Again, you are talking about niche applications and landing gear are not >>>>>>>>>that big a part of an aircrafts weight. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, many times. I've got a b.s. in aerospace engineering, so I know >>>>>>>>>> the basics. Many of our customers are aerospace, so I have to >>>>>>>>>> understand the domain. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Handy at times, but certainly not a world changer. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> This is quite short sighted. I'm sure the same was said about >>>>>>>>>> composites when they were in their infancy. Today it would be quite >>>>>>>>>> hard (i.e. likely impossible) to point to something commercial that >>>>>>>>>> flies and carries people commercially that has absolutely zero composite >>>>>>>>>> content. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>An irrelevant red herring to the subject of 3D printing. There are a HUGE >>>>>>>>>number of different composite materials out there and it has taken well >>>>>>>>>over half a century for most aircraft to have even a small fraction of >>>>>>>>>composite materials in their construction. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Note the word "most". >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I can say that shape optimization coupled with 3D printing is one of the >>>>>>>>>> "bleeding edge" topics in my industry. It's really no secret, you can >>>>>>>>>> surely Google hundreds of articles on the topic. I really can't go into >>>>>>>>>> further details, but my profession is in writing engineering software, >>>>>>>>>> so I ought to know. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Whoopee. It is still niche. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Marketing types certainly do. Consumers have always bought toasters >>>>>>>> based on their looks. After all, the thousands of different designs >>>>>>>> all do the same thing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And all look about the same. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not so much: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437412182539227477/ >>>>> >>>>>For any given era they look pretty much the same to me. >>>>> >>>>>https://www.google.com/search?q=toaster&num=100&client=ubuntu&hs=kEM&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4qO-G8fPUAhUCv5QKHQ2kCPIQ_AUICygC&biw=1327&bih=868 >>>> >>>> You'd argue that every color is the same? >>> >>>No, but most are chrome. >> >> Huh, I could have sworn I'd seen black, red, and white ones. > >most - adjective > >1 greatest in quantity, extent, or degree >2 the majority of > Post your data supporting this preposterous claim. If you'd said "most have some chrome on them" that might be supportable, but not what you said. > >>>> The fact is that marketing >>>> differentiates their product from the competition by making stuff >>>> *look* different. Similar, sure, but that's the way fashion goes. A >>>> few years ago every car looked pretty much the same but that's not the >>>> same "same" as it is now. >>> >>>For toasters the differences are in the unnecessary bells and whistles. >> >> OK, please tell me the technical reason that car grilles, these days, >> look like ugly shark teeth and tail lights like silly raptor eyes. > >The same technical reason that toasters have unnecessary bells and whistles. > The Chimp is now just slapping his chest and throwing dust.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 21:56 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <esgc8cF2fvqU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #467274 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> Marketing types certainly do. Consumers have always bought toasters >>>>>> based on their looks. After all, the thousands of different designs >>>>>> all do the same thing. >>>>> >>>>>And all look about the same. >>>> >>>> Not so much: >>>> >>>> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437412182539227477/ >>> >>>For any given era they look pretty much the same to me. >>> >>>https://www.google.com/search?q=toaster&num=100&client=ubuntu&hs=kEM&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4qO-G8fPUAhUCv5QKHQ2kCPIQ_AUICygC&biw=1327&bih=868 >> >> You'd argue that every color is the same? > >No, but most are chrome. I haven't bought a chrome one in a long time. These days they all have an outer plastic layer. The only chrome you see is less than an inch around the slots/ -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 05:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3oeb3e-3j7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #467701 |
In sci.physics Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > >>>>>>> Marketing types certainly do. Consumers have always bought toasters >>>>>>> based on their looks. After all, the thousands of different designs >>>>>>> all do the same thing. >>>>>> >>>>>>And all look about the same. >>>>> >>>>> Not so much: >>>>> >>>>> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437412182539227477/ >>>> >>>>For any given era they look pretty much the same to me. >>>> >>>>https://www.google.com/search?q=toaster&num=100&client=ubuntu&hs=kEM&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4qO-G8fPUAhUCv5QKHQ2kCPIQ_AUICygC&biw=1327&bih=868 >>> >>> You'd argue that every color is the same? >> >>No, but most are chrome. > > I haven't bought a chrome one in a long time. These days they all > have an outer plastic layer. The only chrome you see is less than an > inch around the slots/ In the link I gave above, most of the toasters shown are in fact chrome. most adjective 1 greatest in quantity, extent, or degree1 greatest in quantity, extent, or degree 2 the majority of -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 23:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4966mcpdg3rfvha3g7ja6iq7lgt4auoc0j@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #467711 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>>> Marketing types certainly do. Consumers have always bought toasters
>>>>>>>> based on their looks. After all, the thousands of different designs
>>>>>>>> all do the same thing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>And all look about the same.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not so much:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437412182539227477/
>>>>>
>>>>>For any given era they look pretty much the same to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.google.com/search?q=toaster&num=100&client=ubuntu&hs=kEM&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4qO-G8fPUAhUCv5QKHQ2kCPIQ_AUICygC&biw=1327&bih=868
>>>>
>>>> You'd argue that every color is the same?
>>>
>>>No, but most are chrome.
>>
>> I haven't bought a chrome one in a long time. These days they all
>> have an outer plastic layer. The only chrome you see is less than an
>> inch around the slots/
>
>In the link I gave above, most of the toasters shown are in fact chrome.
>
Anecdote is not the singular of data. Looking at sites that actually
sell toasters, most of them appear to be black with chrome trim.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 12:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j8b7mct74nus3r0v3e99cct79p120ups8a@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #467711 |
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 05:08:51 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >> >>>>>>>> Marketing types certainly do. Consumers have always bought toasters >>>>>>>> based on their looks. After all, the thousands of different designs >>>>>>>> all do the same thing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>And all look about the same. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not so much: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437412182539227477/ >>>>> >>>>>For any given era they look pretty much the same to me. >>>>> >>>>>https://www.google.com/search?q=toaster&num=100&client=ubuntu&hs=kEM&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4qO-G8fPUAhUCv5QKHQ2kCPIQ_AUICygC&biw=1327&bih=868 >>>> >>>> You'd argue that every color is the same? >>> >>>No, but most are chrome. >> >> I haven't bought a chrome one in a long time. These days they all >> have an outer plastic layer. The only chrome you see is less than an >> inch around the slots/ > >In the link I gave above, most of the toasters shown are in fact chrome. From 3/4 of a century ago, sure. Styles change and that's exactly the point. The statement being refuted is that all toasters "look pretty much the same", which is simply BS. > >most adjective > >1 greatest in quantity, extent, or degree1 greatest in quantity, extent, or degree > >2 the majority of
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 17:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d9qc3e-q7c.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #467780 |
In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 05:08:51 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>>>>>> Marketing types certainly do. Consumers have always bought toasters >>>>>>>>> based on their looks. After all, the thousands of different designs >>>>>>>>> all do the same thing. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>And all look about the same. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not so much: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437412182539227477/ >>>>>> >>>>>>For any given era they look pretty much the same to me. >>>>>> >>>>>>https://www.google.com/search?q=toaster&num=100&client=ubuntu&hs=kEM&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4qO-G8fPUAhUCv5QKHQ2kCPIQ_AUICygC&biw=1327&bih=868 >>>>> >>>>> You'd argue that every color is the same? >>>> >>>>No, but most are chrome. >>> >>> I haven't bought a chrome one in a long time. These days they all >>> have an outer plastic layer. The only chrome you see is less than an >>> inch around the slots/ >> >>In the link I gave above, most of the toasters shown are in fact chrome. > > From 3/4 of a century ago, sure. Styles change and that's exactly the > point. The statement being refuted is that all toasters "look pretty > much the same", which is simply BS. https://www.walmart.com/search/?query=toaster&typeahead=toa What is currently on sale at Walmart, the majority of which are chrome or stainless steel and are roughly a cubical box with 2 or 4 slots in the top. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 12:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pdm7mcta92shc2p5d5ndil53d449j2c0aq@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #467801 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 05:08:51 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Marketing types certainly do. Consumers have always bought toasters
>>>>>>>>>> based on their looks. After all, the thousands of different designs
>>>>>>>>>> all do the same thing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>And all look about the same.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not so much:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437412182539227477/
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>For any given era they look pretty much the same to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://www.google.com/search?q=toaster&num=100&client=ubuntu&hs=kEM&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4qO-G8fPUAhUCv5QKHQ2kCPIQ_AUICygC&biw=1327&bih=868
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'd argue that every color is the same?
>>>>>
>>>>>No, but most are chrome.
>>>>
>>>> I haven't bought a chrome one in a long time. These days they all
>>>> have an outer plastic layer. The only chrome you see is less than an
>>>> inch around the slots/
>>>
>>>In the link I gave above, most of the toasters shown are in fact chrome.
>>
>> From 3/4 of a century ago, sure. Styles change and that's exactly the
>> point. The statement being refuted is that all toasters "look pretty
>> much the same", which is simply BS.
>
>https://www.walmart.com/search/?query=toaster&typeahead=toa
>
>What is currently on sale at Walmart, the majority of which are chrome or
>stainless steel and are roughly a cubical box with 2 or 4 slots in the top.
>
You might want to redo your count. I see a lot more black than chrome
(and don't confuse stainless steel with chrome, either).
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 18:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <9gv7mch0or9p8blgs2o06it7nqi5bqjpie@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #467801 |
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:31:57 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 05:08:51 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>>>>>> Marketing types certainly do. Consumers have always bought toasters >>>>>>>>>> based on their looks. After all, the thousands of different designs >>>>>>>>>> all do the same thing. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>And all look about the same. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not so much: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437412182539227477/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>>For any given era they look pretty much the same to me. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>https://www.google.com/search?q=toaster&num=100&client=ubuntu&hs=kEM&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4qO-G8fPUAhUCv5QKHQ2kCPIQ_AUICygC&biw=1327&bih=868 >>>>>> >>>>>> You'd argue that every color is the same? >>>>> >>>>>No, but most are chrome. >>>> >>>> I haven't bought a chrome one in a long time. These days they all >>>> have an outer plastic layer. The only chrome you see is less than an >>>> inch around the slots/ >>> >>>In the link I gave above, most of the toasters shown are in fact chrome. >> >> From 3/4 of a century ago, sure. Styles change and that's exactly the >> point. The statement being refuted is that all toasters "look pretty >> much the same", which is simply BS. > >https://www.walmart.com/search/?query=toaster&typeahead=toa > >What is currently on sale at Walmart, the majority of which are chrome or >stainless steel and are roughly a cubical box with 2 or 4 slots in the top. More BS in an attempt to hide the smell from previous BS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 22:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <c3cd3e-r0e.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #467849 |
In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 17:31:57 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 05:08:51 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Marketing types certainly do. Consumers have always bought toasters >>>>>>>>>>> based on their looks. After all, the thousands of different designs >>>>>>>>>>> all do the same thing. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>And all look about the same. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not so much: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437412182539227477/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>For any given era they look pretty much the same to me. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>https://www.google.com/search?q=toaster&num=100&client=ubuntu&hs=kEM&channel=fs&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi4qO-G8fPUAhUCv5QKHQ2kCPIQ_AUICygC&biw=1327&bih=868 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You'd argue that every color is the same? >>>>>> >>>>>>No, but most are chrome. >>>>> >>>>> I haven't bought a chrome one in a long time. These days they all >>>>> have an outer plastic layer. The only chrome you see is less than an >>>>> inch around the slots/ >>>> >>>>In the link I gave above, most of the toasters shown are in fact chrome. >>> >>> From 3/4 of a century ago, sure. Styles change and that's exactly the >>> point. The statement being refuted is that all toasters "look pretty >>> much the same", which is simply BS. >> >>https://www.walmart.com/search/?query=toaster&typeahead=toa >> >>What is currently on sale at Walmart, the majority of which are chrome or >>stainless steel and are roughly a cubical box with 2 or 4 slots in the top. > > More BS in an attempt to hide the smell from previous BS. Blazingly obvious to the most casual observer than has viewed the URL's, of which there now has been two. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 13:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8npvlchpb73d3uoje62bps20vjhvncjr5q@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #467127 |
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 05:06:49 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? Yes, especially if the shape is optimized for a particular class of customer. For example, women prefer rounded corners while men prefer angular corners. A red toaster would not sell in the US because it implies that the toast will be incinerated. In China, red means good luck. In the west, making the slots wide enough to handle a bagel is required. In other parts of the world, few have ever seen a bagel. To a home user, a gaudy decorated toaster might be acceptable. To a restaurant, it's difficult to keep clean. In short, there's no optimum shape for a toaster. >>>> Marketing types certainly do. Consumers have always bought toasters >>>> based on their looks. After all, the thousands of different designs >>>> all do the same thing. >>>And all look about the same. >> Not so much: >> https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437412182539227477/ >For any given era they look pretty much the same to me. >https://www.google.com/search?q=toaster&tbm=isch (tracking stuff deleted JL) New designs are constantly appearing: <https://www.google.com/search?q=toaster+concept+designs&tbm=isch> This one looks promising: <https://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2012/01/zaffrantoaster1.jpeg.650x0_q70_crop-smart.jpg> The problem is that US consumers are easily bored and confused by popular designs, especially if they are all at the same price level. They find it difficult to differentiate the various offerings. One might expect people to buy on the basis of specs, reviews, and endorsements. Nope. They pick up the toasters and compare the relative weights. When in doubt, anything that weighs the most must be the better value or at least the most long lasting. Second best is the buyers response to various subliminal messages imbedded in the product, packaging, and advertising. One of the major benefits of 3D printing is rapid prototyping. If rev 1.0 doesn't work quite right, rev 2.0 can quickly follow. That's great if you don't know what you want or are into design by trial and error. If you're trying to assemble something complicated, and are not sure that everything will fit and work together, there's nothing better than 3D printing. However, for manufacture, you probably want many copies of the same item, all identical. The ability of the 3D machinery to quickly customize or change the design is wasted on mindless replication. Best to use the existing manufacturing techniques, which are cheaper and faster. Incidentally, I know four owners of various 3D printing machines. Two are college students and two are hobbyists. Most of the time, the machines are idle. The common comment is that the machine was not what they had expected after reading all the hype. All of them have 2D XY plotters/cutters that are far more useful for making useful things. -- Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 17:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ojj8o0$qiq$2@newsreader4.netcologne.de> |
| In reply to | #466849 |
Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> schrieb: > If the "mass were already gone from the design" then GE would not be > pouring literally millions of dollars into developing a one meter cubed > 3D printer presumably for printing aircraft engine parts. One nice thing about 3D printing is that you can create voids in places you cannot with conventional technologies. This can help a _lot_ when putting in cooling channels (wildly important for turbine manufacturers who always fight for that extra 10 K of maximum temperature to get that extra bit of efficiency), or when you can put in a void where you don't actually need material, and all it would do would be to add mass and/or create thermal stress on heating up or cooling down.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 20:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <es2vp4Fn3nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #466753 |
Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized >parts. These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone >from the design. They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due >to their complex shapes. I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts >from management types. Sometimes you light-weight a part too far. Back in 1985, my mechanic called me in to look at a repair. The new brake disk was much heavier and much less "organic". But the original one warped because it didn't have enough mass to absorb the heat till it could be radiated away, and the manufacturer provided a much simpler but heavier replacement part. The new part was so much different looking than the original one that he wanted my permission to proceed. (As a 400 pound guy who likes to drive econobox microcars, I always seem to have alignment and brake problems only on the front left. Hmmm?) -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 08:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.33c6a3b134d8b232989988@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #466946 |
In article <es2vp4Fn3nU1@mid.individual.net>, gossg@gossg.org says... > > Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > > >Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized > >parts. These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone > >from the design. They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due > >to their complex shapes. I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts > >from management types. > > Sometimes you light-weight a part too far. Back in 1985, my mechanic > called me in to look at a repair. The new brake disk was much heavier > and much less "organic". But the original one warped because it > didn't have enough mass to absorb the heat till it could be radiated > away, and the manufacturer provided a much simpler but heavier > replacement part. > > The new part was so much different looking than the original one that > he wanted my permission to proceed. > > (As a 400 pound guy who likes to drive econobox microcars, I always > seem to have alignment and brake problems only on the front left. > Hmmm?) Yes, engineers and "bean counters" sometimes cut too far. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 20:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ojha6k$iqh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #466730 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> An article from 2015: >> >> 3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY >> 4:48 >> p.m. EST November 12, 2015 >> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/ >> >> Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars, >> but >> none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine. >> >> This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with >> its >> high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances. >> >> But it shouldn't be too difficult with an electric engine. In fact >> considering there are now miniature 3D-printers on the market for the >> home, >> an amateur could be the first to produce an entire, scale-size, >> 3D-printed >> car. >> And then it could be scaled up to produce a full-size, working, fully >> 3D-printed automobile. >> >> This would revolutionize the industry, obviously. >> >> The two most difficult parts would be the engine and the transmission. >> >> This video shows how you can make your own simple electric motor: >> >> How to Make an Electric Motor at Home - YouTube. >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p2QTE26VOA >> >> Looking at the steps in the video, it appears they could all be >> accomplished >> by 3D-printing. >> >> >> Bob Clark >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize >> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital >> launchers, to 'flying cars'. >> This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: >> >> Nanotech: from air to space. >> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Arm waving nonsense. > >You need multiple 3D printers if you need to print with multiple materials. > >Consumer 3D printers print small parts from cheap plastic and cost hundreds >of dollars. > >Industrial 3D printers that print large parts with metals cost hundreds of >thousands of dollars and the printing material costs more than raw metal >stock. > >3D printing is advantageous for parts with complex shapes that are >difficult >or impossible to make with other techniques but is disadvantageous for >most parts that ARE manufacturable with conventional techniques as they >can be made faster and cheaper. > >3D printing makes PARTS that still need to be assembled. > >3D printing an electric motor is just silly. > > -- In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: >> An article from 2015: >> >> 3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY >> 4:48 >> p.m. EST November 12, 2015 >> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/ >> >> Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars, >> but >> none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine. >> >> This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with >> its >> high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances. >> >> But it shouldn't be too difficult with an electric engine. In fact >> considering there are now miniature 3D-printers on the market for the >> home, >> an amateur could be the first to produce an entire, scale-size, >> 3D-printed >> car. >> And then it could be scaled up to produce a full-size, working, fully >> 3D-printed automobile. >> >> This would revolutionize the industry, obviously. >> >> The two most difficult parts would be the engine and the transmission. >> >> This video shows how you can make your own simple electric motor: >> >> How to Make an Electric Motor at Home - YouTube. >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p2QTE26VOA >> >> Looking at the steps in the video, it appears they could all be >> accomplished >> by 3D-printing. >> >> >> Bob Clark >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize >> 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital >> launchers, to 'flying cars'. >> This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: >> >> Nanotech: from air to space. >> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Arm waving nonsense. > >You need multiple 3D printers if you need to print with multiple materials. > >Consumer 3D printers print small parts from cheap plastic and cost hundreds >of dollars. > >Industrial 3D printers that print large parts with metals cost hundreds of >thousands of dollars and the printing material costs more than raw metal >stock. > >3D printing is advantageous for parts with complex shapes that are >difficult >or impossible to make with other techniques but is disadvantageous for >most parts that ARE manufacturable with conventional techniques as they >can be made faster and cheaper. > >3D printing makes PARTS that still need to be assembled. > >3D printing an electric motor is just silly. > > > -- You are correct that metal 3D-printed parts by amateurs were only designed by them, but had to be actually printed by one of the large 3D-printing companies. Still, that leaves open the possibility that a scale-model car could be designed by amateurs to be fully 3D-printed by one of the large companies. The largest of the professional, metal 3D-printers common now can 3D-print parts about a foot across and cost about $250,000. So you can imagine a 3D-printer that can 3D-print parts, say, 10 feet across, would be 10^3 = 1,000 times larger in volume and mass, and perhaps a thousand times more expensive, to $250 million. An expensive proposition. But if it can be shown a scale-model car can be fully 3D-printed then it might be worthwhile for a large industrial company to invest in this when it would mean any car of any model could be 3D-printed on demand. Bob Clark
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | tabbypurr@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 20:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d70b78c4-a796-410c-bdb7-36d5fadabc57@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #466919 |
On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 01:04:14 UTC+1, Robert Clark wrote: > The largest of the professional, metal 3D-printers common now can 3D-print > parts about a foot across and cost about $250,000. So you can imagine a > 3D-printer that can 3D-print parts, say, 10 feet across, would be 10^3 = > 1,000 times larger in volume and mass, and perhaps a thousand times more > expensive, to $250 million. Goods don't usually go up in price proportionally to volume. And like anything in its infancy 3D printers are coming down in price rapidly. > An expensive proposition. But if it can be shown a scale-model car can be > fully 3D-printed then it might be worthwhile for a large industrial company > to invest in this when it would mean any car of any model could be > 3D-printed on demand. > > Bob Clark Jay Leno already gets 3d printed car parts made for old machines with zero spares availability. Custom cars might become a lot more popular in future, who knows - if so 3d can do that. Whether it will ever compete with stamped metal I've very little idea. We hear emotive arguments but nothing very solid. At best we can say 3d printing is slow, whereas stamping & casting are heavy, wasteful, shape restricted and require way more assembly time. NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 21:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3l3rlc5520s62bkr2h69rle58ca2nutd1d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #466955 |
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 20:14:09 -0700 (PDT), tabbypurr@gmail.com wrote: >On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 01:04:14 UTC+1, Robert Clark wrote: > >> The largest of the professional, metal 3D-printers common now can 3D-print >> parts about a foot across and cost about $250,000. So you can imagine a >> 3D-printer that can 3D-print parts, say, 10 feet across, would be 10^3 = >> 1,000 times larger in volume and mass, and perhaps a thousand times more >> expensive, to $250 million. > >Goods don't usually go up in price proportionally to volume. There is no reason to expect it would, particularly since the device would be mostly air. Higher speed would cost more but to just produce larger widgets wouldn't scale linearly. >And like anything in its infancy 3D printers are coming down in price rapidly. Everything electronic, anyway. >> An expensive proposition. But if it can be shown a scale-model car can be >> fully 3D-printed then it might be worthwhile for a large industrial company >> to invest in this when it would mean any car of any model could be >> 3D-printed on demand. >> >> Bob Clark > >Jay Leno already gets 3d printed car parts made for old machines with zero spares availability. Custom cars might become a lot more popular in future, who knows - if so 3d can do that. Whether it will ever compete with stamped metal I've very little idea. We hear emotive arguments but nothing very solid. At best we can say 3d printing is slow, whereas stamping & casting are heavy, wasteful, shape restricted and require way more assembly time. > > >NT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 06:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ojl2oc$hb6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #466955 |
On Wednesday, 5 July 2017 01:04:14 UTC+1, Robert Clark wrote: > >> The largest of the professional, metal 3D-printers common now can >> 3D-print >> parts about a foot across and cost about $250,000. So you can imagine a >> 3D-printer that can 3D-print parts, say, 10 feet across, would be 10^3 = >> 1,000 times larger in volume and mass, and perhaps a thousand times more >> expensive, to $250 million. > >Goods don't usually go up in price proportionally to volume. >And like anything in its infancy 3D printers are coming down in price >rapidly. > >> An expensive proposition. But if it can be shown a scale-model car can be >> fully 3D-printed then it might be worthwhile for a large industrial >> company >> to invest in this when it would mean any car of any model could be >> 3D-printed on demand. >> >> Bob Clark > >Jay Leno already gets 3d printed car parts made for old machines with zero >spares availability. Custom cars might become a lot more popular in future, >who knows - if so 3d can do that. Whether it will ever compete with stamped >metal I've very little idea. We hear emotive arguments but nothing very >solid. At best we can say 3d printing is slow, whereas stamping & casting >are heavy, wasteful, shape restricted and require way more assembly time. > > >NT > >--- With those price numbers I was referring to the price of the machine itself. Likely, you could also accomplish the same thing by combining several of the machines to 3D-print objects of a larger size, in which case the price of the machines would be linear. At least one other company is using this technique for doing 3D metal printing: Solid Metal 3D Printing Under $100k - Markforged Metal X | CES 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeZkOuQUeaQ So this "binder jetting" method for metal 3D-printing probably is not patented, though each company may patent their own individual design. With applications of the process increasing, more companies will come into the field, increasing the production of the machines and reducing the price. Also, since this is a process that can be copied by amateurs more creativity will come into the field possibly resulting in further reductions in cost of the machines. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-03 18:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <YhC6B.103861$ks6.75193@fx25.iad> |
| In reply to | #466689 |
Robert Clark wrote: > An article from 2015: > > 3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY > 4:48 p.m. EST November 12, 2015 > http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/ > > > Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars, > but none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine. > > This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with > its high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances. > > But it shouldn't be too difficult with an electric engine. In fact > considering there are now miniature 3D-printers on the market for the > home, an amateur could be the first to produce an entire, scale-size, > 3D-printed car. > And then it could be scaled up to produce a full-size, working, fully > 3D-printed automobile. > > This would revolutionize the industry, obviously. > > The two most difficult parts would be the engine and the transmission. * Transmission not needed; look at the Tesla. > > This video shows how you can make your own simple electric motor: > > How to Make an Electric Motor at Home - YouTube. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p2QTE26VOA > > Looking at the steps in the video, it appears they could all be > accomplished by 3D-printing. * GACK! A DC motor with commutator! How gross. The working part of the engine should be exactly like the armature in the Tesla car: design is same as armature in an AC shaded pole fan motor. That design would not be too difficult for a 3Dprinter. > > > Bob Clark >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 05:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ojku1b$1o7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #466800 |
Robert Clark wrote: >> An article from 2015: >> >> 3-D-printed car could hit streets next year. Chris Woodyard, USA TODAY >> 4:48 p.m. EST November 12, 2015 >> http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/11/10/3d-printed-car-local-motors-swim/75530830/ >> >> >> Several companies have come out with what they call "3D-printed" cars, >> but none have 3D-printed the most important part, the engine. >> >> This would be difficult to do with an internal combustion engine, with >> its high temperatures, multiple moving parts, and high tolerances. >> >> But it shouldn't be too difficult with an electric engine. In fact >> considering there are now miniature 3D-printers on the market for the >> home, an amateur could be the first to produce an entire, scale-size, >> 3D-printed car. >> And then it could be scaled up to produce a full-size, working, fully >> 3D-printed automobile. >> >> This would revolutionize the industry, obviously. >> >> The two most difficult parts would be the engine and the transmission. >* Transmission not needed; look at the Tesla. > >> >> This video shows how you can make your own simple electric motor: >> >> How to Make an Electric Motor at Home - YouTube. >> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0p2QTE26VOA >> >> Looking at the steps in the video, it appears they could all be >> accomplished by 3D-printing. > >* GACK! A DC motor with commutator! How gross. > The working part of the engine should be exactly like the armature >in the Tesla car: design is same as armature in an AC shaded pole fan >motor. > That design would not be too difficult for a 3Dprinter. > >--- Do you have any references for how the Tesla car electric motor looks/works? Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 17 of 19 — ← Prev page 1 … 15 16 [17] 18 19 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.electronics.design
csiph-web