Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #638597 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-03 08:31 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-07-10 12:39 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 151 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
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. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 06:31 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-03 08:37 -0500
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. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 08:00 -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. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 15:19 -0700
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. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 20:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 07:32 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-10 12:21 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 17:35 +0000
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. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 19:49 -0400
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. 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. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-04 22:59 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 04:51 +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. 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. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 10:52 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 18:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-05 14:21 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 19:34 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 15:32 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 23:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 10:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-06 13:15 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 06:20 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-07 09:39 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 08:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-07 14:13 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 20:04 +0000
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. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-04 11:47 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 18:19 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-04 23:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 04:56 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 23:16 -0700
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. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 07:20 +0100
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. 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. 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. 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. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-05 08:19 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-05 10:39 -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. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-03 22:55 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 20:16 -0700
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. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 05:43 -0700
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. "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. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-10 21:32 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 12:39 -0400
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 19:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <gc7rlchbfacijjk8k2np5fvdbcrf6ljmqc@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639037 |
krw@notreal.com wrote: >On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:11:31 -0700, Fred J. McCall ><fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > >>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>> In article <vd2t2e-erf.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>> says... >>>>> > 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. >>>> >>>> From Wikipedia (because I don't have time to look up a "better" source): >>>> >>>> The undercarriage is typically 4-5% of the takeoff mass and can >>>> even reach 7%. >>>> >>>> That's significant in aerospace. >>>> >>>>> >> 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". >>>> >>>> How is an example of the adoption of new materials/manufacturing >>>> processes not applicable to 3D printing which is another example of the >>>> same thing? Are you deliberately being intellectually dishonest? >>> >>>Well, if you want to compare composite materials and 3D printing, composite >>>materials have been around for over a half century and the usage is still >>>trivial compared to traditional materials in just about all products other >>>than camper shells and ski boats. >>> >> >>Jesus, get back to your trailer park until you gain some experience in >>the real world. > >Precisely what do you disagree with in the sentence? > > "composite materials have been around for over a half century and > the usage is still trivial compared to traditional materials" > I disagree that you have included his entire thought. Given his sphere of knowledge of the use of composites, which he calls out as "camper shells and ski boats", he's obviously trailer trash. Composites are widely used all over the place. Many of them the Chimp probably thinks of as 'traditional materials'. Both concrete and mortar are composite materials and we've been using that stuff since the Romans. Composites of various types are used all over the place, from piping to appliances to aircraft to construction materials. >>>So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years. >>> >> >>Well, YOU can no doubt expect that, but you're pretty well known for >>having your head up and locked. > >Seems like someone insulted your binkie. > Every time we see the Chimp around here he is arguing a stupid position adamantly. Perhaps you and he should get a room? -- You are What you do When it counts.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 21:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <0qotlc1740uuipr084v67qhs57j37cqbos@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639049 |
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:28:43 -0700, Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:11:31 -0700, Fred J. McCall >><fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>> In article <vd2t2e-erf.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>> says... >>>>>> > 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. >>>>> >>>>> From Wikipedia (because I don't have time to look up a "better" source): >>>>> >>>>> The undercarriage is typically 4-5% of the takeoff mass and can >>>>> even reach 7%. >>>>> >>>>> That's significant in aerospace. >>>>> >>>>>> >> 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". >>>>> >>>>> How is an example of the adoption of new materials/manufacturing >>>>> processes not applicable to 3D printing which is another example of the >>>>> same thing? Are you deliberately being intellectually dishonest? >>>> >>>>Well, if you want to compare composite materials and 3D printing, composite >>>>materials have been around for over a half century and the usage is still >>>>trivial compared to traditional materials in just about all products other >>>>than camper shells and ski boats. >>>> >>> >>>Jesus, get back to your trailer park until you gain some experience in >>>the real world. >> >>Precisely what do you disagree with in the sentence? >> >> "composite materials have been around for over a half century and >> the usage is still trivial compared to traditional materials" >> > >I disagree that you have included his entire thought. Given his >sphere of knowledge of the use of composites, which he calls out as >"camper shells and ski boats", he's obviously trailer trash. So, because camper shells and ski boats are made out of composites, he's trailer trash. Got it. > >Composites are widely used all over the place. Many of them the Chimp >probably thinks of as 'traditional materials'. Both concrete and >mortar are composite materials and we've been using that stuff since >the Romans. Composites of various types are used all over the place, >from piping to appliances to aircraft to construction materials. Oh, good grief. I suppose you're going to tell me that a concrete pump is a 3-D printer, too. >>>>So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years. >>>> >>> >>>Well, YOU can no doubt expect that, but you're pretty well known for >>>having your head up and locked. >> >>Seems like someone insulted your binkie. >> > >Every time we see the Chimp around here he is arguing a stupid >position adamantly. Perhaps you and he should get a room? You should look in a mirror, kid.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 19:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <jnstlc9gn7tsblea84t2njkg1vvcfumqp5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639236 |
krw@notreal.com wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:28:43 -0700, Fred J. McCall
><fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:11:31 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>>><fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <vd2t2e-erf.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>> > 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From Wikipedia (because I don't have time to look up a "better" source):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The undercarriage is typically 4-5% of the takeoff mass and can
>>>>>> even reach 7%.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's significant in aerospace.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> >> 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".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How is an example of the adoption of new materials/manufacturing
>>>>>> processes not applicable to 3D printing which is another example of the
>>>>>> same thing? Are you deliberately being intellectually dishonest?
>>>>>
>>>>>Well, if you want to compare composite materials and 3D printing, composite
>>>>>materials have been around for over a half century and the usage is still
>>>>>trivial compared to traditional materials in just about all products other
>>>>>than camper shells and ski boats.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Jesus, get back to your trailer park until you gain some experience in
>>>>the real world.
>>>
>>>Precisely what do you disagree with in the sentence?
>>>
>>> "composite materials have been around for over a half century and
>>> the usage is still trivial compared to traditional materials"
>>>
>>
>>I disagree that you have included his entire thought. Given his
>>sphere of knowledge of the use of composites, which he calls out as
>>"camper shells and ski boats", he's obviously trailer trash.
>
>So, because camper shells and ski boats are made out of composites,
>he's trailer trash. Got it.
>
Wow, you're just remarkably stupid. Because those are the only things
he can find that are made out of composites he's trailer trash.
>>
>>Composites are widely used all over the place. Many of them the Chimp
>>probably thinks of as 'traditional materials'. Both concrete and
>>mortar are composite materials and we've been using that stuff since
>>the Romans. Composites of various types are used all over the place,
>>from piping to appliances to aircraft to construction materials.
>
>Oh, good grief. I suppose you're going to tell me that a concrete
>pump is a 3-D printer, too.
>
So are you disagreeing that concrete is a composite? Why do you think
there is a connection between 'composite' and '3-D printer'? If you
don't, were you just compelled to say something stupid?
>>>>>So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Well, YOU can no doubt expect that, but you're pretty well known for
>>>>having your head up and locked.
>>>
>>>Seems like someone insulted your binkie.
>>>
>>
>>Every time we see the Chimp around here he is arguing a stupid
>>position adamantly. Perhaps you and he should get a room?
>
>You should look in a mirror, kid.
>
You should pull your head out of your ass, old and moldering one.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 21:55 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <esgc5iF2fvqU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #639236 |
krw@notreal.com wrote: >>Composites are widely used all over the place. Many of them the Chimp >>probably thinks of as 'traditional materials'. Both concrete and >>mortar are composite materials and we've been using that stuff since >>the Romans. Composites of various types are used all over the place, >>from piping to appliances to aircraft to construction materials. > >Oh, good grief. I suppose you're going to tell me that a concrete >pump is a 3-D printer, too. Hook it to the right controller and it is. I saw a youtube of someone printing a kid's playcastle using a concrete pump device of some kind. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ5Elbvvr1M -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 12:31 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <lpa7mchbd22d1iso3v1beo0j8ni36udcnl@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639690 |
On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:55:19 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: >krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>>Composites are widely used all over the place. Many of them the Chimp >>>probably thinks of as 'traditional materials'. Both concrete and >>>mortar are composite materials and we've been using that stuff since >>>the Romans. Composites of various types are used all over the place, >>>from piping to appliances to aircraft to construction materials. >> >>Oh, good grief. I suppose you're going to tell me that a concrete >>pump is a 3-D printer, too. > >Hook it to the right controller and it is. I saw a youtube of someone >printing a kid's playcastle using a concrete pump device of some kind. >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ5Elbvvr1M Don't be an idiot. The thread is clearly about modern marvels, like carbon fiber, not concrete. Geez, people turn intentionally stupid when they run out of ideas (like leftists).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 12:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ok0db7$1k8l$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #639746 |
On 7/10/2017 11:31 AM, krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:55:19 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: > >> krw@notreal.com wrote: >> >>>> Composites are widely used all over the place. Many of them the Chimp >>>> probably thinks of as 'traditional materials'. Both concrete and >>>> mortar are composite materials and we've been using that stuff since >>>> the Romans. Composites of various types are used all over the place, >>> >from piping to appliances to aircraft to construction materials. >>> >>> Oh, good grief. I suppose you're going to tell me that a concrete >>> pump is a 3-D printer, too. >> >> Hook it to the right controller and it is. I saw a youtube of someone >> printing a kid's playcastle using a concrete pump device of some kind. >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ5Elbvvr1M > > Don't be an idiot. The thread is clearly about modern marvels, like > carbon fiber, not concrete. Geez, people turn intentionally stupid > when they run out of ideas (like leftists). > whoa! "print" a garden using dirt ! "Print" a wood framed House ! "Print" sand castles at the beach !! "Print" new teeth in place, (dentists) "Print" new shoes onto your feet !!! (leftist will run with that, also CNN)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 13:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <PM0005540A749A1B4D@aca40c10.ipt.aol.com> |
| In reply to | #639766 |
Sегg io wrote: > On 7/10/2017 11:31 AM, krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:55:19 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: >> >>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> >>>>> Composites are widely used all over the place. Many of them the Chimp >>>>> probably thinks of as 'traditional materials'. Both concrete and >>>>> mortar are composite materials and we've been using that stuff since >>>>> the Romans. Composites of various types are used all over the place, >>>> >from piping to appliances to aircraft to construction materials. >>>> >>>> Oh, good grief. I suppose you're going to tell me that a concrete >>>> pump is a 3-D printer, too. >>> >>> Hook it to the right controller and it is. I saw a youtube of someone >>> printing a kid's playcastle using a concrete pump device of some kind. >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ5Elbvvr1M >> >> Don't be an idiot. The thread is clearly about modern marvels, like >> carbon fiber, not concrete. Geez, people turn intentionally stupid >> when they run out of ideas (like leftists). >> > > whoa! "print" a garden using dirt ! > > "Print" a wood framed House ! > > "Print" sand castles at the beach !! > > "Print" new teeth in place, (dentists) > > "Print" new shoes onto your feet !!! > > (leftist will run with that, also CNN) Today, I would like to print a copy of keys which cannot be made at the keymakers anymore. /BAH
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 12:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <m4m7mcd94l3ghtt1a2fbb4j9qlbb4q3k9o@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639746 |
krw@notreal.com wrote:
>On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:55:19 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
>
>>krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>
>>>>Composites are widely used all over the place. Many of them the Chimp
>>>>probably thinks of as 'traditional materials'. Both concrete and
>>>>mortar are composite materials and we've been using that stuff since
>>>>the Romans. Composites of various types are used all over the place,
>>>>from piping to appliances to aircraft to construction materials.
>>>
>>>Oh, good grief. I suppose you're going to tell me that a concrete
>>>pump is a 3-D printer, too.
>>
>>Hook it to the right controller and it is. I saw a youtube of someone
>>printing a kid's playcastle using a concrete pump device of some kind.
>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ5Elbvvr1M
>
>Don't be an idiot. The thread is clearly about modern marvels, like
>carbon fiber, not concrete. Geez, people turn intentionally stupid
>when they run out of ideas (like leftists).
>
The word being used is 'composites'. Unlike you, I don't try to read
peoples' minds to discover that they don't really mean 'composites' at
all. I take them at their word and assume that if they mean 'carbon
fiber' they will say that rather than 'composites'.
--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 18:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5ev7mcpa7cmcnitpt0ad397si165sf8ges@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639785 |
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 12:44:12 -0700, Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:55:19 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: >> >>>krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> >>>>>Composites are widely used all over the place. Many of them the Chimp >>>>>probably thinks of as 'traditional materials'. Both concrete and >>>>>mortar are composite materials and we've been using that stuff since >>>>>the Romans. Composites of various types are used all over the place, >>>>>from piping to appliances to aircraft to construction materials. >>>> >>>>Oh, good grief. I suppose you're going to tell me that a concrete >>>>pump is a 3-D printer, too. >>> >>>Hook it to the right controller and it is. I saw a youtube of someone >>>printing a kid's playcastle using a concrete pump device of some kind. >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ5Elbvvr1M >> >>Don't be an idiot. The thread is clearly about modern marvels, like >>carbon fiber, not concrete. Geez, people turn intentionally stupid >>when they run out of ideas (like leftists). >> > >The word being used is 'composites'. Unlike you, I don't try to read >peoples' minds to discover that they don't really mean 'composites' at >all. I take them at their word and assume that if they mean 'carbon >fiber' they will say that rather than 'composites'. Don't need to read anyone's mind but you do have to read the fucking thread! ...if you're able.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 16:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <v848mcleumssm42l5aq88bc2d1cp6dqvka@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639829 |
krw@notreal.com wrote:
>On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 12:44:12 -0700, Fred J. McCall
><fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:55:19 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>>krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>Composites are widely used all over the place. Many of them the Chimp
>>>>>>probably thinks of as 'traditional materials'. Both concrete and
>>>>>>mortar are composite materials and we've been using that stuff since
>>>>>>the Romans. Composites of various types are used all over the place,
>>>>>>from piping to appliances to aircraft to construction materials.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oh, good grief. I suppose you're going to tell me that a concrete
>>>>>pump is a 3-D printer, too.
>>>>
>>>>Hook it to the right controller and it is. I saw a youtube of someone
>>>>printing a kid's playcastle using a concrete pump device of some kind.
>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ5Elbvvr1M
>>>
>>>Don't be an idiot. The thread is clearly about modern marvels, like
>>>carbon fiber, not concrete. Geez, people turn intentionally stupid
>>>when they run out of ideas (like leftists).
>>>
>>
>>The word being used is 'composites'. Unlike you, I don't try to read
>>peoples' minds to discover that they don't really mean 'composites' at
>>all. I take them at their word and assume that if they mean 'carbon
>>fiber' they will say that rather than 'composites'.
>>
>
>Don't need to read anyone's mind but you do have to read the fucking
>thread! ...if you're able.
>
And when you do you will find they use the word 'composites' and not
'carbon fiber'.
--
"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 19:52 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ko48mc17q8jb1hn2too8mpmr3bv9l2abhp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639860 |
On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 16:44:09 -0700, Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>On Mon, 10 Jul 2017 12:44:12 -0700, Fred J. McCall >><fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> >>>>On Sun, 09 Jul 2017 21:55:19 -0600, Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: >>>> >>>>>krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>Composites are widely used all over the place. Many of them the Chimp >>>>>>>probably thinks of as 'traditional materials'. Both concrete and >>>>>>>mortar are composite materials and we've been using that stuff since >>>>>>>the Romans. Composites of various types are used all over the place, >>>>>>>from piping to appliances to aircraft to construction materials. >>>>>> >>>>>>Oh, good grief. I suppose you're going to tell me that a concrete >>>>>>pump is a 3-D printer, too. >>>>> >>>>>Hook it to the right controller and it is. I saw a youtube of someone >>>>>printing a kid's playcastle using a concrete pump device of some kind. >>>>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ5Elbvvr1M >>>> >>>>Don't be an idiot. The thread is clearly about modern marvels, like >>>>carbon fiber, not concrete. Geez, people turn intentionally stupid >>>>when they run out of ideas (like leftists). >>>> >>> >>>The word being used is 'composites'. Unlike you, I don't try to read >>>peoples' minds to discover that they don't really mean 'composites' at >>>all. I take them at their word and assume that if they mean 'carbon >>>fiber' they will say that rather than 'composites'. >>> >> >>Don't need to read anyone's mind but you do have to read the fucking >>thread! ...if you're able. >> > >And when you do you will find they use the word 'composites' and not >'carbon fiber'. Obviously you aren't able.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 09:33 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <prOdneI5yZhDaMDEnZ2dnUU78fWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #638916 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >> In article <vd2t2e-erf.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >> says... >>>> 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. >> >> From Wikipedia (because I don't have time to look up a "better" source): >> >> The undercarriage is typically 4-5% of the takeoff mass and can >> even reach 7%. >> >> That's significant in aerospace. >> >>>>> 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". >> >> How is an example of the adoption of new materials/manufacturing >> processes not applicable to 3D printing which is another example of the >> same thing? Are you deliberately being intellectually dishonest? > > Well, if you want to compare composite materials and 3D printing, composite > materials have been around for over a half century and the usage is still > trivial compared to traditional materials in just about all products other > than camper shells and ski boats. > > So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years. Not really, 3D printing is capable of exponential growth once it reaches a certain capability, composites aren't, and the parts we won't be fabricating for a while, processors and storage, are subject to Moore's law.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 03:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ojkomg$h57$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #638891 |
In article <vd2t2e-erf.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >says... >> > 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. > >From Wikipedia (because I don't have time to look up a "better" source): > > The undercarriage is typically 4-5% of the takeoff mass and can > even reach 7%. > >That's significant in aerospace. > > >Jeff -- Thanks for that info. I didn't realize it was that high. Since the gross fueled mass of a jet is about twice the empty mass, this means the landing gear weight can be up to 14% of the structural weight of a plane. Bob Clark ------------------------------------------------------------------ Single-stage-to-orbit was already shown possible 50 years ago with the Titan II first stage. In fact, contrary to popular belief SSTO's are actually easy. Just use the most efficient engines and stages at the same time, and the result will automatically be SSTO. Blog: Http://Exoscientist.blogspot.com ------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 21:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <v23rlc5no8vd32mp1lu4ici9lotap6calp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #638785 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 01:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <00g03e-97s.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #639036 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 22:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <le7rlcp0u8qf1ngt2tie2ggltr4t6tp9n6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639040 |
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/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 05:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <94t03e-ja.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #639048 |
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 -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 21:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <u7ptlchscavbg369daftfe8947amssjfrp@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639073 |
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? 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 05:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <n3h33e-3h9.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #639240 |
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. > 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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 20:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5e90mc1ukmsek443l8e8g7f64295tbon0e@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639260 |
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. > >> 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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web