Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #638597 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-03 08:31 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-07-10 12:39 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 151 — 19 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-03 08:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-07-03 09:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 06:31 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-03 08:37 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 15:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 13:14 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 08:00 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-07 15:34 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 14:03 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:22 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 15:19 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:01 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-09 12:49 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-09 23:26 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 20:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 07:32 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-10 12:21 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 17:35 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 16:10 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 17:40 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-10 17:22 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 19:49 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-03 17:04 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-03 14:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-03 18:28 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-03 16:14 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-03 20:57 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 16:14 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 00:45 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 20:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 04:55 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 02:29 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 06:49 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 18:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-04 22:59 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 04:51 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-04 21:33 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 07:16 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 16:47 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 11:08 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:02 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 19:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 22:16 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 23:30 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:35 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 10:05 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:20 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-07 08:03 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:19 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-06 13:09 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 23:05 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 10:52 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 18:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-05 14:21 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 19:34 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 15:32 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 23:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 10:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-06 13:15 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 06:20 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-07 09:39 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 08:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-07 14:13 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 20:04 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-04 20:08 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-04 09:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-04 11:47 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 18:19 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-04 23:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 04:56 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 23:16 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 18:12 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 07:20 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 16:54 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-05 18:42 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 23:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:30 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-06 06:35 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 16:34 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:25 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-07 04:56 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 02:09 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-07 20:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 06:19 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-07 17:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 06:49 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-08 17:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 07:12 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-09 17:44 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 12:48 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-09 23:27 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 07:11 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 16:30 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 06:49 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-11 17:47 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-05 08:19 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-05 10:39 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 16:59 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 11:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 19:28 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:32 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 19:38 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-09 21:55 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 12:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-10 12:25 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-07-11 13:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 12:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 18:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 16:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 19:52 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:33 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 03:29 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 01:22 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 22:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 05:06 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:36 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-07 05:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-07 20:25 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-08 00:40 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:53 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-09 21:56 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 05:08 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 23:06 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 12:38 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 17:31 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 12:47 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 18:22 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 22:35 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-07-07 13:41 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2017-07-05 17:47 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-03 22:55 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 20:16 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-04 20:04 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-05 08:20 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 05:43 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-04 20:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 06:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-07-03 18:35 -0800
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 05:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-06 13:38 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 05:10 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 17:16 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 05:13 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 08:35 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-07 10:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-09 22:15 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-07-10 10:43 +0300
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-10 21:32 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 12:39 -0400
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
| 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]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 08:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.33c6a35f792303bc989987@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #638785 |
In article <vd2t2e-erf.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another > > area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up > > a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would > > be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing. > > Again, you are talking about niche applications and landing gear are not > that big a part of an aircrafts weight. From Wikipedia (because I don't have time to look up a "better" source): The undercarriage is typically 4-5% of the takeoff mass and can even reach 7%. That's significant in aerospace. > >> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft? > > > > Yes, many times. I've got a b.s. in aerospace engineering, so I know > > the basics. Many of our customers are aerospace, so I have to > > understand the domain. > > > >> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method. > >> > >> Handy at times, but certainly not a world changer. > > > > This is quite short sighted. I'm sure the same was said about > > composites when they were in their infancy. Today it would be quite > > hard (i.e. likely impossible) to point to something commercial that > > flies and carries people commercially that has absolutely zero composite > > content. > > An irrelevant red herring to the subject of 3D printing. There are a HUGE > number of different composite materials out there and it has taken well > over half a century for most aircraft to have even a small fraction of > composite materials in their construction. > > Note the word "most". How is an example of the adoption of new materials/manufacturing processes not applicable to 3D printing which is another example of the same thing? Are you deliberately being intellectually dishonest? > > I can say that shape optimization coupled with 3D printing is one of the > > "bleeding edge" topics in my industry. It's really no secret, you can > > surely Google hundreds of articles on the topic. I really can't go into > > further details, but my profession is in writing engineering software, > > so I ought to know. > > Whoopee. It is still niche. You're posting to sci.space groups. It's quite significant to the aerospace industry. If you don't like it, find another group to pester. > Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? This isn't sci.toaster. 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 | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 10:39 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <595cfa20$0$31207$c3e8da3$a9097924@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #638891 |
On 2017-07-05 08:19, Jeff Findley wrote: > The undercarriage is typically 4-5% of the takeoff mass and can > even reach 7%. > > That's significant in aerospace. And it was a HUGE challenge to make the A380 a reality, one which delayed the project a number of years. To not punch holes onto runways, they had to spread the A380s' weight over more wheels, which means more landing gear assemblies. it has 5 instead of the usual 3. And that meant reducing the weight of each landing gear. Otherwise the plane wouldn't be commercially viable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 16:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8giv2e-m1p.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #638891 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <vd2t2e-erf.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... >> > Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another >> > area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up >> > a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would >> > be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing. >> >> Again, you are talking about niche applications and landing gear are not >> that big a part of an aircrafts weight. > > From Wikipedia (because I don't have time to look up a "better" source): > > The undercarriage is typically 4-5% of the takeoff mass and can > even reach 7%. > > That's significant in aerospace. > >> >> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft? >> > >> > Yes, many times. I've got a b.s. in aerospace engineering, so I know >> > the basics. Many of our customers are aerospace, so I have to >> > understand the domain. >> > >> >> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method. >> >> >> >> Handy at times, but certainly not a world changer. >> > >> > This is quite short sighted. I'm sure the same was said about >> > composites when they were in their infancy. Today it would be quite >> > hard (i.e. likely impossible) to point to something commercial that >> > flies and carries people commercially that has absolutely zero composite >> > content. >> >> An irrelevant red herring to the subject of 3D printing. There are a HUGE >> number of different composite materials out there and it has taken well >> over half a century for most aircraft to have even a small fraction of >> composite materials in their construction. >> >> Note the word "most". > > How is an example of the adoption of new materials/manufacturing > processes not applicable to 3D printing which is another example of the > same thing? Are you deliberately being intellectually dishonest? Well, if you want to compare composite materials and 3D printing, composite materials have been around for over a half century and the usage is still trivial compared to traditional materials in just about all products other than camper shells and ski boats. So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years. >> > I can say that shape optimization coupled with 3D printing is one of the >> > "bleeding edge" topics in my industry. It's really no secret, you can >> > surely Google hundreds of articles on the topic. I really can't go into >> > further details, but my profession is in writing engineering software, >> > so I ought to know. >> >> Whoopee. It is still niche. > > You're posting to sci.space groups. It's quite significant to the > aerospace industry. If you don't like it, find another group to pester. I didn't choose the groups and it is being posted to other groups as well. In the overall scheme of things, aerospace is a niche industry. >> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? > > This isn't sci.toaster. Nor is is sci.niche. > > Jeff -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 11:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <vpaqlc57jamgdas2f4809e2u0rdq68fn8o@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #638916 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>> In article <vd2t2e-erf.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>> says...
>>> > Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another
>>> > area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up
>>> > a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would
>>> > be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing.
>>>
>>> Again, you are talking about niche applications and landing gear are not
>>> that big a part of an aircrafts weight.
>>
>> From Wikipedia (because I don't have time to look up a "better" source):
>>
>> The undercarriage is typically 4-5% of the takeoff mass and can
>> even reach 7%.
>>
>> That's significant in aerospace.
>>
>>> >> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft?
>>> >
>>> > Yes, many times. I've got a b.s. in aerospace engineering, so I know
>>> > the basics. Many of our customers are aerospace, so I have to
>>> > understand the domain.
>>> >
>>> >> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method.
>>> >>
>>> >> Handy at times, but certainly not a world changer.
>>> >
>>> > This is quite short sighted. I'm sure the same was said about
>>> > composites when they were in their infancy. Today it would be quite
>>> > hard (i.e. likely impossible) to point to something commercial that
>>> > flies and carries people commercially that has absolutely zero composite
>>> > content.
>>>
>>> An irrelevant red herring to the subject of 3D printing. There are a HUGE
>>> number of different composite materials out there and it has taken well
>>> over half a century for most aircraft to have even a small fraction of
>>> composite materials in their construction.
>>>
>>> Note the word "most".
>>
>> How is an example of the adoption of new materials/manufacturing
>> processes not applicable to 3D printing which is another example of the
>> same thing? Are you deliberately being intellectually dishonest?
>
>Well, if you want to compare composite materials and 3D printing, composite
>materials have been around for over a half century and the usage is still
>trivial compared to traditional materials in just about all products other
>than camper shells and ski boats.
>
Jesus, get back to your trailer park until you gain some experience in
the real world.
>
>So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years.
>
Well, YOU can no doubt expect that, but you're pretty well known for
having your head up and locked.
>>> > I can say that shape optimization coupled with 3D printing is one of the
>>> > "bleeding edge" topics in my industry. It's really no secret, you can
>>> > surely Google hundreds of articles on the topic. I really can't go into
>>> > further details, but my profession is in writing engineering software,
>>> > so I ought to know.
>>>
>>> Whoopee. It is still niche.
>>
>> You're posting to sci.space groups. It's quite significant to the
>> aerospace industry. If you don't like it, find another group to pester.
>
>I didn't choose the groups and it is being posted to other groups as
>well.
>
You didn't? Do you not know how your newsreader works, or what?
--
"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]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 21:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <3c3rlc9a8s3caeugvlgboing0o6dt5sk36@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #638937 |
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:11:31 -0700, Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>> In article <vd2t2e-erf.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>> says... >>>> > Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another >>>> > area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up >>>> > a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would >>>> > be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing. >>>> >>>> Again, you are talking about niche applications and landing gear are not >>>> that big a part of an aircrafts weight. >>> >>> From Wikipedia (because I don't have time to look up a "better" source): >>> >>> The undercarriage is typically 4-5% of the takeoff mass and can >>> even reach 7%. >>> >>> That's significant in aerospace. >>> >>>> >> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft? >>>> > >>>> > Yes, many times. I've got a b.s. in aerospace engineering, so I know >>>> > the basics. Many of our customers are aerospace, so I have to >>>> > understand the domain. >>>> > >>>> >> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method. >>>> >> >>>> >> Handy at times, but certainly not a world changer. >>>> > >>>> > This is quite short sighted. I'm sure the same was said about >>>> > composites when they were in their infancy. Today it would be quite >>>> > hard (i.e. likely impossible) to point to something commercial that >>>> > flies and carries people commercially that has absolutely zero composite >>>> > content. >>>> >>>> An irrelevant red herring to the subject of 3D printing. There are a HUGE >>>> number of different composite materials out there and it has taken well >>>> over half a century for most aircraft to have even a small fraction of >>>> composite materials in their construction. >>>> >>>> Note the word "most". >>> >>> How is an example of the adoption of new materials/manufacturing >>> processes not applicable to 3D printing which is another example of the >>> same thing? Are you deliberately being intellectually dishonest? >> >>Well, if you want to compare composite materials and 3D printing, composite >>materials have been around for over a half century and the usage is still >>trivial compared to traditional materials in just about all products other >>than camper shells and ski boats. >> > >Jesus, get back to your trailer park until you gain some experience in >the real world. Precisely what do you disagree with in the sentence? "composite materials have been around for over a half century and the usage is still trivial compared to traditional materials" >>So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years. >> > >Well, YOU can no doubt expect that, but you're pretty well known for >having your head up and locked. Seems like someone insulted your binkie.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web