Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #640134 > unrolled thread

Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  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. 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. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-20 19:15 -0500
                                                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. 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. 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. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 11:19 -0700
                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. 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. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-14 20:09 -0400
              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. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-14 23:09 -0400
                  Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 05:13 +0000
                    Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 23:19 -0700
                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. 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. 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. 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. "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. 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. 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

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

#640304

"David Mitchell"  wrote in message 
news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>
>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?
>>>
>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
>>
>> Could you be any more vague?
>
>Yes.  Yes I could.
>
>Things.  People will make things.  All of the things.

I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal 
computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need 
a few major mainframes.
Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and printing 
parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of 
things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no 
one will effectively use a 3D printer at home.

Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no future to 
3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing at 
such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get faster, 
more capable, capable of using more materials, etc.


-- 
Greg D. Moore                   http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response - 
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/ 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640330

In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
> "David Mitchell"  wrote in message 
> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>
>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?
>>>>
>>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
>>>
>>> Could you be any more vague?
>>
>>Yes.  Yes I could.
>>
>>Things.  People will make things.  All of the things.
> 
> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal 
> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need 
> a few major mainframes.

Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart
phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook.

> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and printing 
> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of 
> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no 
> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home.

How many people do you know that own 3D printers?

I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling machines,
drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer.

> Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no future to 
> 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing at 
> such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get faster, 
> more capable, capable of using more materials, etc.

Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense.
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640401

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:37:59 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>> "David Mitchell"  wrote in message 
>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>
>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?
>>>>>
>>>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
>>>>
>>>> Could you be any more vague?
>>>
>>>Yes.  Yes I could.
>>>
>>>Things.  People will make things.  All of the things.
>> 
>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal 
>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need 
>> a few major mainframes.
>
>Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart
>phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook.

Banking and Amazon, too.  Though that isn't to say that there isn't
anything beyond the 3D printer.
>
>> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and printing 
>> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of 
>> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no 
>> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home.
>
>How many people do you know that own 3D printers?

I know of none but we have several at work.  One of my cow-orkers was
going to buy one and use it as a side business but he figured out that
it made no business sense.

>I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling machines,
>drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer.
>
>> Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no future to 
>> 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing at 
>> such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get faster, 
>> more capable, capable of using more materials, etc.
>
>Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense.

+1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640409

In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:37:59 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>>> "David Mitchell"  wrote in message 
>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you be any more vague?
>>>>
>>>>Yes.  Yes I could.
>>>>
>>>>Things.  People will make things.  All of the things.
>>> 
>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal 
>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need 
>>> a few major mainframes.
>>
>>Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart
>>phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook.
> 
> Banking and Amazon, too.  Though that isn't to say that there isn't
> anything beyond the 3D printer.

Like what, a 4D printer?

Of course the ultimate would be a genuine Star Trek replicator:

"Computer a 1968 Gibson Les Paul Custom and a cup of Earl Grey, hot."

>>> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and printing 
>>> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of 
>>> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no 
>>> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home.
>>
>>How many people do you know that own 3D printers?
> 
> I know of none but we have several at work.  One of my cow-orkers was
> going to buy one and use it as a side business but he figured out that
> it made no business sense.

Could that be because custom machine shops have real industrial grade
3D printers?

>>I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling machines,
>>drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer.
>>
>>> Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no future to 
>>> 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing at 
>>> such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get faster, 
>>> more capable, capable of using more materials, etc.
>>
>>Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense.
> 
> +1

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640411

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:18:43 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:37:59 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>>>> "David Mitchell"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>>
>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you be any more vague?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes.  Yes I could.
>>>>>
>>>>>Things.  People will make things.  All of the things.
>>>> 
>>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal 
>>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need 
>>>> a few major mainframes.
>>>
>>>Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart
>>>phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook.
>> 
>> Banking and Amazon, too.  Though that isn't to say that there isn't
>> anything beyond the 3D printer.
>
>Like what, a 4D printer?
>
>Of course the ultimate would be a genuine Star Trek replicator:
>
>"Computer a 1968 Gibson Les Paul Custom and a cup of Earl Grey, hot."
>
>>>> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and printing 
>>>> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of 
>>>> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no 
>>>> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home.
>>>
>>>How many people do you know that own 3D printers?
>> 
>> I know of none but we have several at work.  One of my cow-orkers was
>> going to buy one and use it as a side business but he figured out that
>> it made no business sense.
>
>Could that be because custom machine shops have real industrial grade
>3D printers?

So you think that after everyone has a 3D printer, the world will end?
Are you some sort of 3D Rastafarian, or something?

>>>I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling machines,
>>>drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer.
>>>
>>>> Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no future to 
>>>> 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing at 
>>>> such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get faster, 
>>>> more capable, capable of using more materials, etc.
>>>
>>>Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense.
>> 
>> +1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640417

In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:18:43 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:37:59 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>>>>> "David Mitchell"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could you be any more vague?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Yes.  Yes I could.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Things.  People will make things.  All of the things.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal 
>>>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need 
>>>>> a few major mainframes.
>>>>
>>>>Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart
>>>>phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook.
>>> 
>>> Banking and Amazon, too.  Though that isn't to say that there isn't
>>> anything beyond the 3D printer.
>>
>>Like what, a 4D printer?
>>
>>Of course the ultimate would be a genuine Star Trek replicator:
>>
>>"Computer a 1968 Gibson Les Paul Custom and a cup of Earl Grey, hot."
>>
>>>>> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and printing 
>>>>> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of 
>>>>> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no 
>>>>> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home.
>>>>
>>>>How many people do you know that own 3D printers?
>>> 
>>> I know of none but we have several at work.  One of my cow-orkers was
>>> going to buy one and use it as a side business but he figured out that
>>> it made no business sense.
>>
>>Could that be because custom machine shops have real industrial grade
>>3D printers?
> 
> So you think that after everyone has a 3D printer, the world will end?
> Are you some sort of 3D Rastafarian, or something?

I think the likelyhood of everyone having a 3D printer is quite remote.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640481

On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 1:31:10 AM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
][
> 
> I think the likelyhood of everyone having a 3D printer is quite remote.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Jim Pennino

Especially with the current technology, it is only useful
for prototypes or toys.

ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640517

can you make a 3d printout with paper? so the surface contains rasied
texture..

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640526

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 05:07:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:18:43 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:37:59 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "David Mitchell"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Could you be any more vague?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Yes.  Yes I could.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Things.  People will make things.  All of the things.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal 
>>>>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need 
>>>>>> a few major mainframes.
>>>>>
>>>>>Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart
>>>>>phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook.
>>>> 
>>>> Banking and Amazon, too.  Though that isn't to say that there isn't
>>>> anything beyond the 3D printer.
>>>
>>>Like what, a 4D printer?
>>>
>>>Of course the ultimate would be a genuine Star Trek replicator:
>>>
>>>"Computer a 1968 Gibson Les Paul Custom and a cup of Earl Grey, hot."
>>>
>>>>>> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and printing 
>>>>>> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of 
>>>>>> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no 
>>>>>> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home.
>>>>>
>>>>>How many people do you know that own 3D printers?
>>>> 
>>>> I know of none but we have several at work.  One of my cow-orkers was
>>>> going to buy one and use it as a side business but he figured out that
>>>> it made no business sense.
>>>
>>>Could that be because custom machine shops have real industrial grade
>>>3D printers?
>> 
>> So you think that after everyone has a 3D printer, the world will end?
>> Are you some sort of 3D Rastafarian, or something?
>
>I think the likelyhood of everyone having a 3D printer is quite remote.

But that's the point of this thread.

But let me put it another way....  If 3D printers are the "next
thing", are you saying that there can't be any "next, next thing"? The
world ends after "next"?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640551

In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 05:07:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:18:43 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:37:59 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> "David Mitchell"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could you be any more vague?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Yes.  Yes I could.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Things.  People will make things.  All of the things.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal 
>>>>>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need 
>>>>>>> a few major mainframes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart
>>>>>>phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Banking and Amazon, too.  Though that isn't to say that there isn't
>>>>> anything beyond the 3D printer.
>>>>
>>>>Like what, a 4D printer?
>>>>
>>>>Of course the ultimate would be a genuine Star Trek replicator:
>>>>
>>>>"Computer a 1968 Gibson Les Paul Custom and a cup of Earl Grey, hot."
>>>>
>>>>>>> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and printing 
>>>>>>> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of 
>>>>>>> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no 
>>>>>>> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>How many people do you know that own 3D printers?
>>>>> 
>>>>> I know of none but we have several at work.  One of my cow-orkers was
>>>>> going to buy one and use it as a side business but he figured out that
>>>>> it made no business sense.
>>>>
>>>>Could that be because custom machine shops have real industrial grade
>>>>3D printers?
>>> 
>>> So you think that after everyone has a 3D printer, the world will end?
>>> Are you some sort of 3D Rastafarian, or something?
>>
>>I think the likelyhood of everyone having a 3D printer is quite remote.
> 
> But that's the point of this thread.

That was one of my points.

The post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
everything at home including cars; utter nonsense.

> But let me put it another way....  If 3D printers are the "next
> thing", are you saying that there can't be any "next, next thing"? The
> world ends after "next"?

3D printers are over 30 years old.

"The world ends" is babble.


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640574

On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 23:53:00 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 05:07:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:18:43 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:37:59 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "David Mitchell"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Could you be any more vague?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Yes.  Yes I could.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Things.  People will make things.  All of the things.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal 
>>>>>>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need 
>>>>>>>> a few major mainframes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart
>>>>>>>phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Banking and Amazon, too.  Though that isn't to say that there isn't
>>>>>> anything beyond the 3D printer.
>>>>>
>>>>>Like what, a 4D printer?
>>>>>
>>>>>Of course the ultimate would be a genuine Star Trek replicator:
>>>>>
>>>>>"Computer a 1968 Gibson Les Paul Custom and a cup of Earl Grey, hot."
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and printing 
>>>>>>>> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of 
>>>>>>>> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no 
>>>>>>>> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>How many people do you know that own 3D printers?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I know of none but we have several at work.  One of my cow-orkers was
>>>>>> going to buy one and use it as a side business but he figured out that
>>>>>> it made no business sense.
>>>>>
>>>>>Could that be because custom machine shops have real industrial grade
>>>>>3D printers?
>>>> 
>>>> So you think that after everyone has a 3D printer, the world will end?
>>>> Are you some sort of 3D Rastafarian, or something?
>>>
>>>I think the likelyhood of everyone having a 3D printer is quite remote.
>> 
>> But that's the point of this thread.
>
>That was one of my points.
>
>The post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
>everything at home including cars; utter nonsense.

You seem to think I'm disagreeing with you.
>
>> But let me put it another way....  If 3D printers are the "next
>> thing", are you saying that there can't be any "next, next thing"? The
>> world ends after "next"?
>
>3D printers are over 30 years old.
>
>"The world ends" is babble.

Let me make this simple for the simple.  If 3D printers are "the next
thing".  Why is there not another "thing" beyond "the next thing"? End
of the world?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640583

In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 23:53:00 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 05:07:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:18:43 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:37:59 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "David Mitchell"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Could you be any more vague?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Yes.  Yes I could.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Things.  People will make things.  All of the things.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal 
>>>>>>>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need 
>>>>>>>>> a few major mainframes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart
>>>>>>>>phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Banking and Amazon, too.  Though that isn't to say that there isn't
>>>>>>> anything beyond the 3D printer.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Like what, a 4D printer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Of course the ultimate would be a genuine Star Trek replicator:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"Computer a 1968 Gibson Les Paul Custom and a cup of Earl Grey, hot."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and printing 
>>>>>>>>> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of 
>>>>>>>>> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no 
>>>>>>>>> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>How many people do you know that own 3D printers?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I know of none but we have several at work.  One of my cow-orkers was
>>>>>>> going to buy one and use it as a side business but he figured out that
>>>>>>> it made no business sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Could that be because custom machine shops have real industrial grade
>>>>>>3D printers?
>>>>> 
>>>>> So you think that after everyone has a 3D printer, the world will end?
>>>>> Are you some sort of 3D Rastafarian, or something?
>>>>
>>>>I think the likelyhood of everyone having a 3D printer is quite remote.
>>> 
>>> But that's the point of this thread.
>>
>>That was one of my points.
>>
>>The post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
>>everything at home including cars; utter nonsense.
> 
> You seem to think I'm disagreeing with you.

That the post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
everything at home including cars?

I don't see you saying anything about the post that started all this.

>>> But let me put it another way....  If 3D printers are the "next
>>> thing", are you saying that there can't be any "next, next thing"? The
>>> world ends after "next"?
>>
>>3D printers are over 30 years old.
>>
>>"The world ends" is babble.
> 
> Let me make this simple for the simple.  If 3D printers are "the next
> thing".  Why is there not another "thing" beyond "the next thing"? End
> of the world?

3D printers are an old thing.

Are you saying we will have Star Trek replicators?


-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640590

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>
>3D printers are an old thing.
>

Lots of things are around for a long time before they take hold and
mature.

>
>Are you saying we will have Star Trek replicators?
>

Were you frightened by tribbles when you were very young?


-- 
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
 truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
                               -- Thomas Jefferson

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640617

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 05:06:13 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 23:53:00 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 05:07:44 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 02:18:43 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:37:59 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "David Mitchell"  wrote in message 
>>>>>>>>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you be any more vague?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Yes.  Yes I could.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Things.  People will make things.  All of the things.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal 
>>>>>>>>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need 
>>>>>>>>>> a few major mainframes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart
>>>>>>>>>phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Banking and Amazon, too.  Though that isn't to say that there isn't
>>>>>>>> anything beyond the 3D printer.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Like what, a 4D printer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Of course the ultimate would be a genuine Star Trek replicator:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"Computer a 1968 Gibson Les Paul Custom and a cup of Earl Grey, hot."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and printing 
>>>>>>>>>> parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of 
>>>>>>>>>> things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no 
>>>>>>>>>> one will effectively use a 3D printer at home.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>How many people do you know that own 3D printers?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I know of none but we have several at work.  One of my cow-orkers was
>>>>>>>> going to buy one and use it as a side business but he figured out that
>>>>>>>> it made no business sense.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Could that be because custom machine shops have real industrial grade
>>>>>>>3D printers?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> So you think that after everyone has a 3D printer, the world will end?
>>>>>> Are you some sort of 3D Rastafarian, or something?
>>>>>
>>>>>I think the likelyhood of everyone having a 3D printer is quite remote.
>>>> 
>>>> But that's the point of this thread.
>>>
>>>That was one of my points.
>>>
>>>The post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
>>>everything at home including cars; utter nonsense.
>> 
>> You seem to think I'm disagreeing with you.
>
>That the post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
>everything at home including cars?

That wasn't my claim!  I've been arguing on your side of that silly
proposition.
>
>I don't see you saying anything about the post that started all this.

You're not looking.

>>>> But let me put it another way....  If 3D printers are the "next
>>>> thing", are you saying that there can't be any "next, next thing"? The
>>>> world ends after "next"?
>>>
>>>3D printers are over 30 years old.
>>>
>>>"The world ends" is babble.
>> 
>> Let me make this simple for the simple.  If 3D printers are "the next
>> thing".  Why is there not another "thing" beyond "the next thing"? End
>> of the world?
>
>3D printers are an old thing.

Woooosssshhhh!

>Are you saying we will have Star Trek replicators?

Do pay attention.  <Wow!>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640640

In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 05:06:13 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:

<snip>

>>That the post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
>>everything at home including cars?
> 
> That wasn't my claim!  I've been arguing on your side of that silly
> proposition.

What wasn't your claim?

That the post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
everything at home including cars?

The above is just a statement of fact.

>>I don't see you saying anything about the post that started all this.
> 
> You're not looking.
> 
>>>>> But let me put it another way....  If 3D printers are the "next
>>>>> thing", are you saying that there can't be any "next, next thing"? The
>>>>> world ends after "next"?
>>>>
>>>>3D printers are over 30 years old.
>>>>
>>>>"The world ends" is babble.
>>> 
>>> Let me make this simple for the simple.  If 3D printers are "the next
>>> thing".  Why is there not another "thing" beyond "the next thing"? End
>>> of the world?
>>
>>3D printers are an old thing.
> 
> Woooosssshhhh!
> 
>>Are you saying we will have Star Trek replicators?
> 
> Do pay attention.  <Wow!>

I never said 3D printers are "the next thing" nor do I believe that.

The last "thing" in the manufacturing world was the industrial revolution
which started in the late 18th century and became fully mature in the
early 20th century.

THAT changed the world. 

FYI I concider 3D printing to be little more than a refinement of Damascus
steel, a process from the 3rd century.



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640680

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:53:48 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 05:06:13 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> 
>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>>That the post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
>>>everything at home including cars?
>> 
>> That wasn't my claim!  I've been arguing on your side of that silly
>> proposition.
>
>What wasn't your claim?

You really can't read?  I thought better of you.  
>
>That the post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
>everything at home including cars?

Which I *completely* disagree with but for some reason you insist on
arguing with someone who agrees with you.
>
>The above is just a statement of fact.
>
>>>I don't see you saying anything about the post that started all this.
>> 
>> You're not looking.
>> 
>>>>>> But let me put it another way....  If 3D printers are the "next
>>>>>> thing", are you saying that there can't be any "next, next thing"? The
>>>>>> world ends after "next"?
>>>>>
>>>>>3D printers are over 30 years old.
>>>>>
>>>>>"The world ends" is babble.
>>>> 
>>>> Let me make this simple for the simple.  If 3D printers are "the next
>>>> thing".  Why is there not another "thing" beyond "the next thing"? End
>>>> of the world?
>>>
>>>3D printers are an old thing.
>> 
>> Woooosssshhhh!
>> 
>>>Are you saying we will have Star Trek replicators?
>> 
>> Do pay attention.  <Wow!>
>
>I never said 3D printers are "the next thing" nor do I believe that.

Try reading for comprehension.
>
>The last "thing" in the manufacturing world was the industrial revolution
>which started in the late 18th century and became fully mature in the
>early 20th century.
>
>THAT changed the world. 
>
>FYI I concider 3D printing to be little more than a refinement of Damascus
>steel, a process from the 3rd century.

Oh, good grief.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640726

In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:53:48 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> 
>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 05:06:13 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> 
>>>>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>>>That the post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
>>>>everything at home including cars?
>>> 
>>> That wasn't my claim!  I've been arguing on your side of that silly
>>> proposition.
>>
>>What wasn't your claim?
> 
> You really can't read?  I thought better of you.  

Well thanks but I'm having problems parsing extactly what it is you are
agreeing with an what you are disagreeing with.

>>That the post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
>>everything at home including cars?
> 
> Which I *completely* disagree with but for some reason you insist on
> arguing with someone who agrees with you.

OK, fine, we both agree that the post that started all this was claiming
people would be printing everything at home including cars.

>>The above is just a statement of fact.
>>
>>>>I don't see you saying anything about the post that started all this.
>>> 
>>> You're not looking.
>>> 
>>>>>>> But let me put it another way....  If 3D printers are the "next
>>>>>>> thing", are you saying that there can't be any "next, next thing"? The
>>>>>>> world ends after "next"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>3D printers are over 30 years old.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"The world ends" is babble.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let me make this simple for the simple.  If 3D printers are "the next
>>>>> thing".  Why is there not another "thing" beyond "the next thing"? End
>>>>> of the world?
>>>>
>>>>3D printers are an old thing.
>>> 
>>> Woooosssshhhh!
>>> 
>>>>Are you saying we will have Star Trek replicators?
>>> 
>>> Do pay attention.  <Wow!>
>>
>>I never said 3D printers are "the next thing" nor do I believe that.
> 
> Try reading for comprehension.

OK, what part of I never said 3D printers are "the next thing" nor do I
believe that do you have an issue with?

>>The last "thing" in the manufacturing world was the industrial revolution
>>which started in the late 18th century and became fully mature in the
>>early 20th century.
>>
>>THAT changed the world. 
>>
>>FYI I concider 3D printing to be little more than a refinement of Damascus
>>steel, a process from the 3rd century.
> 
> Oh, good grief.

So what is the essential diffence between Damascus steel and 3D printing?

Both take chunks of a base material and fuse the chunks into a bigger
object.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640767

jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

>
>So what is the essential diffence between Damascus steel and 3D printing?
>
>Both take chunks of a base material and fuse the chunks into a bigger
>object.
>

Actually, no, they don't.  What you are describing are later attempts
to replicate Damascus steel by pattern welding that did not produce
the same stuff at all.  No one knows how to make the original Damascus
steel.

As far as that goes, that's not what 3D-printing does, either, except
at the very extreme that says everything is made that way.


-- 
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
 territory."
                                      --G. Behn

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#640439

In article <nonk3e-pk9.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 
says...
> 
> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
> > "David Mitchell"  wrote in message 
> > news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
> >>
> >>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?
> >>>>
> >>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
> >>>
> >>> Could you be any more vague?
> >>
> >>Yes.  Yes I could.
> >>
> >>Things.  People will make things.  All of the things.
> > 
> > I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal 
> > computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need 
> > a few major mainframes.
> 
> Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart
> phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook.

The original point was that the original "personal computers" were 
hideously expensive, very hard to use, and didn't do a whole lot.  There 
absolutely were a lot of people who said "I'll never need one of those" 
back in the early 1980s.  Yet they can be found (in desktop or laptop 
form) in the vast majority of houses in the US because the price 
dropped, they became much easier to use, and they could do a lot more 
(i.e. high speed Internet versus acoustic modems and BBSes),

Besides, smart phones prove the point AGAIN!  When the original Apple 
iPhone came out, it didn't have it's "killer app" which was the App 
Store, so the orignal wasn't terribly functional.  On top of that, cell 
data service at the time was slow, slow, slow, so even surfing the 
Internet was painful with these new "smart phones".  But again, the 
majority of phones I see today are now "smart phones".  They're cheaper, 
more functional (more apps), and the cell data networks are quite good 
these days.

New technologies keep getting cheaper and more accessible for 
individuals to use all the time!  It's a pretty safe bet that the very 
same thing will happen with 3D printing.  

> > Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and 
printing 
> > parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of 
> > things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no 
> > one will effectively use a 3D printer at home.
> 
> How many people do you know that own 3D printers?

That's today.  We're talking about the trending of the technology.

> I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling machines,
> drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer.
> 
> > Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no future to 
> > 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing at 
> > such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get faster, 
> > more capable, capable of using more materials, etc.
> 
> Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense.

That sure as hell seems to be what you're arguing. 

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]

#640466

In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
> In article <nonk3e-pk9.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 
> says...
>> 
>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>> > "David Mitchell"  wrote in message 
>> > news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>> >>
>> >>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
>> >>>
>> >>> Could you be any more vague?
>> >>
>> >>Yes.  Yes I could.
>> >>
>> >>Things.  People will make things.  All of the things.
>> > 
>> > I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal 
>> > computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need 
>> > a few major mainframes.
>> 
>> Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart
>> phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook.
> 
> The original point was that the original "personal computers" were 
> hideously expensive, very hard to use, and didn't do a whole lot.  There 
> absolutely were a lot of people who said "I'll never need one of those" 
> back in the early 1980s.  Yet they can be found (in desktop or laptop 
> form) in the vast majority of houses in the US because the price 
> dropped, they became much easier to use, and they could do a lot more 
> (i.e. high speed Internet versus acoustic modems and BBSes),
> 
> Besides, smart phones prove the point AGAIN!  When the original Apple 
> iPhone came out, it didn't have it's "killer app" which was the App 
> Store, so the orignal wasn't terribly functional.  On top of that, cell 
> data service at the time was slow, slow, slow, so even surfing the 
> Internet was painful with these new "smart phones".  But again, the 
> majority of phones I see today are now "smart phones".  They're cheaper, 
> more functional (more apps), and the cell data networks are quite good 
> these days.
> 
> New technologies keep getting cheaper and more accessible for 
> individuals to use all the time!  It's a pretty safe bet that the very 
> same thing will happen with 3D printing.  

New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper.

Printing speed is limited by basic physics.

Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on
equipment they already own.

3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do
you know that have one?

>> > Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and 
> printing 
>> > parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner of 
>> > things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong and no 
>> > one will effectively use a 3D printer at home.
>> 
>> How many people do you know that own 3D printers?
> 
> That's today.  We're talking about the trending of the technology.

The trending of the technology for home use is anybodies guess; my guess
is that it will be trivial and hobbiests just like the people that own
machinery like drill presses and milling machines.

>> I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling machines,
>> drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer.
>> 
>> > Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no future to 
>> > 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing at 
>> > such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get faster, 
>> > more capable, capable of using more materials, etc.
>> 
>> Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense.
> 
> That sure as hell seems to be what you're arguing. 

Maybe to the typical internet generation knee jerker that immediately
responds with anger and bile to what he THINKS was said as opposed to
what was actually said.



-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web