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 | 2017-07-26 14:08 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 337 — 28 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. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2017-07-13 20:17 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-13 21:42 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-13 20:53 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:05 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:25 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. 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. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 13:15 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 16:27 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 14:46 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 18:36 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 18:20 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 21:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-11 22:12 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-07-11 19:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 02:24 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 22:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 10:24 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 20:57 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:17 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:42 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 18:21 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-12 07:28 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 05:10 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:45 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-12 18:39 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 21:29 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-13 20:27 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:22 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-14 11:55 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 22:56 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:03 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:50 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 23:49 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 23:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 05:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:51 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:23 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:08 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 12:53 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 13:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 09:51 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 11:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 17:55 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 16:15 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 20:26 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 15:32 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:08 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-16 15:21 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 17:00 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 09:06 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-17 20:23 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 15:27 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 17:39 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-17 09:46 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:16 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 13:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. 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
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. Peter Stickney <p_stickney@verizon.net> - 2017-07-13 19:01 -0400
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
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 10:58 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:54 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 15:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 20:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 11:42 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-13 04:17 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 14:05 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-07-16 15:08 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-26 13:33 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-26 17:58 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-26 14:08 -0400
Page 5 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 17 Next page →
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 23:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <92803e-c9r.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #638986 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <u6iv2e-m1p.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... >> >> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >> it was produced. >> >> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >> add no functionality and just increase the price. > > Lightweight metal silverware is a bit of a niche area, but there is an > existing market. Titanium spork is a popular item for backpackers. > It's insane how light those things are. Backpackers will spend big > bucks to shave an ounce off of a piece of equipment. > > Jeff What do you think the market may be for 3D printed frizzens? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 09:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <prOdneM5yZijaMDEnZ2dnUU78fWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #638915 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >> >> Yes. I do. >> >> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >> projects. >> >> Ditto everything you make. > > Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly > it was produced. > > It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would > add no functionality and just increase the price. > > What price? It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the cost of slightly more complex software. They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects. So, by that metric, they're cheaper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 06:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.33c7dc5e7d254cc898998a@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #639084 |
In article <prOdneM5yZijaMDEnZ2dnUU78fWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com says... > > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> > >>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? > >> > >> Yes. I do. > >> > >> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense > >> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to > >> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, > >> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other > >> projects. > >> > >> Ditto everything you make. > > > > Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly > > it was produced. > > > > It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would > > add no functionality and just increase the price. > > > > > What price? > > It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the > cost of slightly more complex software. > > They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects. > > So, by that metric, they're cheaper. Some people do like to buy exotic things. Some people even buy expensive things thinking that if they cost more they *must* be better, right? Hell, I know a few "foodies" who would likely buy "lightweight" silverware just to have as a conversation piece at their next dinner party. My local Kroger carries a few knives with ceramic blades. One could ask why of that as well, but they're there on the shelf. Someone must be buying them since they've been around for several years. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 16:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ld523e-dr4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #639084 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>> >>> Yes. I do. >>> >>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>> projects. >>> >>> Ditto everything you make. >> >> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >> it was produced. >> >> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >> add no functionality and just increase the price. >> >> > What price? The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. > It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the > cost of slightly more complex software. Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost of the honyecomb nonsense. > They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects. The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded manufacturing cost. > So, by that metric, they're cheaper. If an injection molded handle costs a fraction of a cent while the honeycomb handle costs several cents, which is cheaper? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 21:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <djotlc12bpdopc3cuhatsv2fr92fgvcmac@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639118 |
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:34:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>> >>>> Yes. I do. >>>> >>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>> projects. >>>> >>>> Ditto everything you make. >>> >>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>> it was produced. >>> >>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>> >>> >> What price? > >The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. Manufacturing cost and sales price are only loosely correlated. >> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >> cost of slightly more complex software. > >Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. > >Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost >of the honyecomb nonsense. > >> They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects. > >The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded >manufacturing cost. Yes but not because of sales price, rather profit. >> So, by that metric, they're cheaper. > >If an injection molded handle costs a fraction of a cent while the honeycomb >handle costs several cents, which is cheaper? Not the one with the better ad agency. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 04:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ssg33e-3h9.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #639231 |
In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:34:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. I do. >>>>> >>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>>> projects. >>>>> >>>>> Ditto everything you make. >>>> >>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>>> it was produced. >>>> >>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>>> >>>> >>> What price? >> >>The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. > > Manufacturing cost and sales price are only loosely correlated. For government projects mainly but not for consumer products. >>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >>> cost of slightly more complex software. >> >>Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >>of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. >> >>Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost >>of the honyecomb nonsense. >> >>> They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects. >> >>The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded >>manufacturing cost. > > Yes but not because of sales price, rather profit. profit = sales price - loaded manufacturing cost >>> So, by that metric, they're cheaper. >> >>If an injection molded handle costs a fraction of a cent while the honeycomb >>handle costs several cents, which is cheaper? > > Not the one with the better ad agency. ;-) -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 02:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <qqjulc1ue4shoha8g4s8o9k4jq85esd866@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639259 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote:
>> On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:34:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. I do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense
>>>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to
>>>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough,
>>>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other
>>>>>> projects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ditto everything you make.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly
>>>>> it was produced.
>>>>>
>>>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would
>>>>> add no functionality and just increase the price.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> What price?
>>>
>>>The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store.
>>
>> Manufacturing cost and sales price are only loosely correlated.
>
>For government projects mainly but not for consumer products.
>
No, for everything, actually.
>>>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the
>>>> cost of slightly more complex software.
>>>
>>>Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction
>>>of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense.
>>>
>>>Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost
>>>of the honyecomb nonsense.
>>>
>>>> They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects.
>>>
>>>The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded
>>>manufacturing cost.
>>
>> Yes but not because of sales price, rather profit.
>
>profit = sales price - loaded manufacturing cost
>
True but irrelevant, since 'sales price' can be anything the
manufacturer cares to charge.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 20:18 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <fr80mchrqqpeo3nhm9eq7ehhukaldu6lnf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639259 |
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 04:56:28 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics krw@notreal.com wrote: >> On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:34:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> >>>In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. I do. >>>>>> >>>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>>>> projects. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ditto everything you make. >>>>> >>>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>>>> it was produced. >>>>> >>>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>>>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> What price? >>> >>>The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. >> >> Manufacturing cost and sales price are only loosely correlated. > >For government projects mainly but not for consumer products. Not true at all. You totally discount both marketing assume a perfect market. People pay more (allowing a higher profit) on "name brands". > >>>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >>>> cost of slightly more complex software. >>> >>>Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >>>of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. >>> >>>Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost >>>of the honyecomb nonsense. >>> >>>> They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects. >>> >>>The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded >>>manufacturing cost. >> >> Yes but not because of sales price, rather profit. > >profit = sales price - loaded manufacturing cost TAUTOLOGIES-R-US? >>>> So, by that metric, they're cheaper. >>> >>>If an injection molded handle costs a fraction of a cent while the honeycomb >>>handle costs several cents, which is cheaper? >> >> Not the one with the better ad agency. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 06:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <w_mdnYxEKddmhMLEnZ2dnUU78RHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #639118 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>> >>>> Yes. I do. >>>> >>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>> projects. >>>> >>>> Ditto everything you make. >>> >>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>> it was produced. >>> >>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>> >>> >> What price? > > The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. > >> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >> cost of slightly more complex software. > > Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction > of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is? - Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled, - Power, minimal, - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print? These are all very small. > > Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost > of the honyecomb nonsense. > >> They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects. > > The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded > manufacturing cost. > >> So, by that metric, they're cheaper. > > If an injection molded handle costs a fraction of a cent while the honeycomb > handle costs several cents, which is cheaper? > > You've added a whole retail phase; which isn't really the point of 3-D printing. I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things you fabricate them. In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they have a larger fabricator than you).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 17:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <93s43e-7fe.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #639261 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. I do. >>>>> >>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>>> projects. >>>>> >>>>> Ditto everything you make. >>>> >>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>>> it was produced. >>>> >>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>>> >>>> >>> What price? >> >> The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. >> >>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >>> cost of slightly more complex software. >> >> Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >> of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. > > What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is? > - Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled, Cost recovery for most materials is trivial. > - Power, minimal, For 3D metal printing, lots of power. > - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print? Babble. > > These are all very small. For techniques such as molding, yes. >> Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost >> of the honyecomb nonsense. >> >>> They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects. >> >> The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded >> manufacturing cost. >> >>> So, by that metric, they're cheaper. >> >> If an injection molded handle costs a fraction of a cent while the honeycomb >> handle costs several cents, which is cheaper? >> >> > You've added a whole retail phase; which isn't really the point of 3-D printing. > I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things > you fabricate them. Pure fantasy. > In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, > because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does > (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they > have a larger fabricator than you). Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 06:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1JadnUrnX__s7_3EnZ2dnUU78K3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #639313 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. I do. >>>>>> >>>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>>>> projects. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ditto everything you make. >>>>> >>>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>>>> it was produced. >>>>> >>>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>>>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> What price? >>> >>> The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. >>> >>>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >>>> cost of slightly more complex software. >>> >>> Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >>> of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. >> >> What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is? >> - Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled, > > Cost recovery for most materials is trivial. > >> - Power, minimal, > > For 3D metal printing, lots of power. > >> - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print? > > Babble. Not really, it's called amortisation, in this case of the cost of the fabricator. "The process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount over a period according to a plan." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization > >> >> These are all very small. > > For techniques such as molding, yes. And for mature fabrication technology. >> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things >> you fabricate them. > > Pure fantasy. Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. Your turn. > >> In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, >> because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does >> (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they >> have a larger fabricator than you). > > Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense. Again, please justify that comment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-08 17:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <6fg73e-dln.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #639401 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. I do. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>>>>> projects. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ditto everything you make. >>>>>> >>>>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>>>>> it was produced. >>>>>> >>>>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>>>>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> What price? >>>> >>>> The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. >>>> >>>>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >>>>> cost of slightly more complex software. >>>> >>>> Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >>>> of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. >>> >>> What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is? >>> - Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled, >> >> Cost recovery for most materials is trivial. >> >>> - Power, minimal, >> >> For 3D metal printing, lots of power. >> >>> - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print? >> >> Babble. > > Not really, it's called amortisation, in this case of the cost of the fabricator. > "The process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount over a period according > to a plan." > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization > >> >>> >>> These are all very small. >> >> For techniques such as molding, yes. > > And for mature fabrication technology. > >>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things >>> you fabricate them. >> >> Pure fantasy. > > Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating their own things. > I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by > noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes > ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight store. How many people do you know that own any of the above? > Your turn. > >> >>> In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears, >>> because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does >>> (which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they >>> have a larger fabricator than you). >> >> Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense. > > Again, please justify that comment. The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years ago. Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things as trivial as bread. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 07:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l7-dnbJ_YKbGVPzEnZ2dnUU78UfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #639439 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. I do. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>>>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>>>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>>>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>>>>>> projects. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ditto everything you make. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>>>>>> it was produced. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>>>>>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> What price? >>>>> >>>>> The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. >>>>> >>>>>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >>>>>> cost of slightly more complex software. >>>>> >>>>> Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >>>>> of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. >>>> >>>> What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is? >>>> - Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled, >>> >>> Cost recovery for most materials is trivial. >>> >>>> - Power, minimal, >>> >>> For 3D metal printing, lots of power. >>> >>>> - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print? >>> >>> Babble. >> >> Not really, it's called amortisation, in this case of the cost of the fabricator. >> "The process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount over a period according >> to a plan." >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization >> >>> >>>> >>>> These are all very small. >>> >>> For techniques such as molding, yes. >> >> And for mature fabrication technology. >> >>>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things >>>> you fabricate them. >>> >>> Pure fantasy. >> >> Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. > > It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating > their own things. > >> I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by >> noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes >> ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. > > Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when > compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight > store. > > How many people do you know that own any of the above? Apples and oranges, they are nowhere as flexible as mature fabricator technology would be, nor as easy to use. >> Again, please justify that comment. > > The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years > ago. > > Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things > as trivial as bread. Even making bread is more difficult than simply selecting a file, loading feedstock and pressing a button. Besides, millions of people "make their own stuff" every day, although it's primarly digital content these days.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 17:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7l6a3e-ik3.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #639556 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes. I do. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>>>>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>>>>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>>>>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>>>>>>> projects. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ditto everything you make. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>>>>>>> it was produced. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>>>>>>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> What price? >>>>>> >>>>>> The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. >>>>>> >>>>>>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >>>>>>> cost of slightly more complex software. >>>>>> >>>>>> Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >>>>>> of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is? >>>>> - Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled, >>>> >>>> Cost recovery for most materials is trivial. >>>> >>>>> - Power, minimal, >>>> >>>> For 3D metal printing, lots of power. >>>> >>>>> - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print? >>>> >>>> Babble. >>> >>> Not really, it's called amortisation, in this case of the cost of the fabricator. >>> "The process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount over a period according >>> to a plan." >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> These are all very small. >>>> >>>> For techniques such as molding, yes. >>> >>> And for mature fabrication technology. >>> >>>>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things >>>>> you fabricate them. >>>> >>>> Pure fantasy. >>> >>> Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. >> >> It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating >> their own things. >> >>> I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by >>> noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes >>> ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. >> >> Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when >> compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight >> store. >> >> How many people do you know that own any of the above? > > Apples and oranges, they are nowhere as flexible as mature fabricator technology > would be, nor as easy to use. Obviously you have never seen a N/C milling machine in action nor payed for raw stock. >>> Again, please justify that comment. >> >> The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years >> ago. >> >> Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things >> as trivial as bread. > > Even making bread is more difficult than simply selecting a file, loading > feedstock and pressing a button. Obviously you have never seen a real 3D printer in action nor have you ever made bread. > Besides, millions of people "make their own stuff" every day, although it's > primarly digital content these days. Otherwise know as trash, SPAM, and utter nonsense. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 12:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <u225mch6uffq569tmfvbjs6ps51k2oshi6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639604 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Besides, millions of people "make their own stuff" every day, although it's
>> primarly digital content these days.
>>
>
>Otherwise know as trash, SPAM, and utter nonsense.
>
Well, that's certainly true in your case.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-09 23:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojuvnl$19i4$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #639626 |
On 7/9/2017 2:48 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Besides, millions of people "make their own stuff" every day, although it's >>> primarly digital content these days. >>> >> >> Otherwise know as trash, SPAM, and utter nonsense. >> > > Well, that's certainly true in your case. > > his case has not gone to trial yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 07:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <I5adnaoNYLMyh_7EnZ2dnUU78SfNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #639604 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes. I do. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>>>>>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>>>>>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>>>>>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>>>>>>>> projects. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ditto everything you make. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>>>>>>>> it was produced. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>>>>>>>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What price? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >>>>>>>> cost of slightly more complex software. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >>>>>>> of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is? >>>>>> - Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled, >>>>> >>>>> Cost recovery for most materials is trivial. >>>>> >>>>>> - Power, minimal, >>>>> >>>>> For 3D metal printing, lots of power. >>>>> >>>>>> - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print? >>>>> >>>>> Babble. >>>> >>>> Not really, it's called amortisation, in this case of the cost of the fabricator. >>>> "The process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount over a period according >>>> to a plan." >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> These are all very small. >>>>> >>>>> For techniques such as molding, yes. >>>> >>>> And for mature fabrication technology. >>>> >>>>>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things >>>>>> you fabricate them. >>>>> >>>>> Pure fantasy. >>>> >>>> Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. >>> >>> It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating >>> their own things. >>> >>>> I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by >>>> noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes >>>> ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. >>> >>> Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when >>> compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight >>> store. >>> >>> How many people do you know that own any of the above? >> >> Apples and oranges, they are nowhere as flexible as mature fabricator technology >> would be, nor as easy to use. > > Obviously you have never seen a N/C milling machine in action nor payed > for raw stock. *paid I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. >> Even making bread is more difficult than simply selecting a file, loading >> feedstock and pressing a button. > > Obviously you have never seen a real 3D printer in action nor have you > ever made bread. Done both; what's your point? As I keep having to explain, I'm talking about *mature* fabrication technology. > >> Besides, millions of people "make their own stuff" every day, although it's >> primarly digital content these days. > > Otherwise know as trash, SPAM, and utter nonsense. Irrelevant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-10 16:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <7mmc3e-fsb.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #639710 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. I do. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>>>>>>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>>>>>>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>>>>>>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>>>>>>>>> projects. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ditto everything you make. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>>>>>>>>> it was produced. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>>>>>>>>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What price? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >>>>>>>>> cost of slightly more complex software. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >>>>>>>> of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is? >>>>>>> - Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled, >>>>>> >>>>>> Cost recovery for most materials is trivial. >>>>>> >>>>>>> - Power, minimal, >>>>>> >>>>>> For 3D metal printing, lots of power. >>>>>> >>>>>>> - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print? >>>>>> >>>>>> Babble. >>>>> >>>>> Not really, it's called amortisation, in this case of the cost of the fabricator. >>>>> "The process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount over a period according >>>>> to a plan." >>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> These are all very small. >>>>>> >>>>>> For techniques such as molding, yes. >>>>> >>>>> And for mature fabrication technology. >>>>> >>>>>>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things >>>>>>> you fabricate them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Pure fantasy. >>>>> >>>>> Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. >>>> >>>> It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating >>>> their own things. >>>> >>>>> I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by >>>>> noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes >>>>> ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. >>>> >>>> Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when >>>> compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight >>>> store. >>>> >>>> How many people do you know that own any of the above? >>> >>> Apples and oranges, they are nowhere as flexible as mature fabricator technology >>> would be, nor as easy to use. >> >> Obviously you have never seen a N/C milling machine in action nor payed >> for raw stock. > > *paid > > I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. That you have no idea how things are made in the real world. >>> Even making bread is more difficult than simply selecting a file, loading >>> feedstock and pressing a button. >> >> Obviously you have never seen a real 3D printer in action nor have you >> ever made bread. > > Done both; what's your point? > As I keep having to explain, I'm talking about *mature* fabrication technology. What do you concider "mature fabrication technology"? The way you are talking I would think that would be a Star Trek replicator. >>> Besides, millions of people "make their own stuff" every day, although it's >>> primarly digital content these days. >> >> Otherwise know as trash, SPAM, and utter nonsense. > > Irrelevant. OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 06:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <n7KdnVR2VP5s-_nEnZ2dnUU78UvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #639745 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Yes. I do. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>>>>>>>>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>>>>>>>>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>>>>>>>>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>>>>>>>>>> projects. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Ditto everything you make. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>>>>>>>>>> it was produced. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>>>>>>>>>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> What price? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >>>>>>>>>> cost of slightly more complex software. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >>>>>>>>> of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is? >>>>>>>> - Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cost recovery for most materials is trivial. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Power, minimal, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For 3D metal printing, lots of power. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Babble. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not really, it's called amortisation, in this case of the cost of the fabricator. >>>>>> "The process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount over a period according >>>>>> to a plan." >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> These are all very small. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For techniques such as molding, yes. >>>>>> >>>>>> And for mature fabrication technology. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things >>>>>>>> you fabricate them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Pure fantasy. >>>>>> >>>>>> Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion. >>>>> >>>>> It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating >>>>> their own things. >>>>> >>>>>> I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by >>>>>> noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes >>>>>> ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples. >>>>> >>>>> Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when >>>>> compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight >>>>> store. >>>>> >>>>> How many people do you know that own any of the above? >>>> >>>> Apples and oranges, they are nowhere as flexible as mature fabricator technology >>>> would be, nor as easy to use. >>> >>> Obviously you have never seen a N/C milling machine in action nor payed >>> for raw stock. >> >> *paid >> >> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. > > That you have no idea how things are made in the real world. Not so much a point, as a meta-point. If you have something to say, say it. With numbers, if you can. >; >>>> Even making bread is more difficult than simply selecting a file, loading >>>> feedstock and pressing a button. >>> >>> Obviously you have never seen a real 3D printer in action nor have you >>> ever made bread. >> >> Done both; what's your point? >> As I keep having to explain, I'm talking about *mature* fabrication technology. > > What do you concider "mature fabrication technology"? > > The way you are talking I would think that would be a Star Trek replicator. Nope. Nothing I've described is beyond the pale. My starting point is 1 gram per second of a single material. It's a fairly low bar but it allows one to think about the societal and economic ramifications in a fairly plausible way. > >>>> Besides, millions of people "make their own stuff" every day, although it's >>>> primarly digital content these days. >>> >>> Otherwise know as trash, SPAM, and utter nonsense. >> >> Irrelevant. > > OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home? Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-11 17:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <viff3e-m9l.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #639900 |
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? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 17 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 17 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web