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 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 21:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <403rlcd98s08nkadc84h63a4h9slntmnll@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #638936 |
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>> >>> There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting. >>> >> >>Because it is fast and cheap. >> > >Good, fast, cheap - choose any two. It's obvious where the Chimp >lives... Are you saying that castings are not good?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 19:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <047rlc15miro6qnsivc4s206fti9cugbk1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639033 |
krw@notreal.com wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
><fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Because it is fast and cheap.
>>>
>>
>>Good, fast, cheap - choose any two. It's obvious where the Chimp
>>lives...
>>
>
>Are you saying that castings are not good?
>
I'm saying what I said.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 22:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ia7rlc5n008ucrmd2v71i74huclu5nkid6@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639046 |
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:12:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall >><fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>>In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting. >>>>> >>>> >>>>Because it is fast and cheap. >>>> >>> >>>Good, fast, cheap - choose any two. It's obvious where the Chimp >>>lives... >>> >> >>Are you saying that castings are not good? >> > >I'm saying what I said. I was trying to help you make some sense of your nonsense but I guess there wasn't any to make.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 23:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <n7mrlc1i1h6tjkhkr45vk4esigjf9di3f2@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639047 |
krw@notreal.com wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:12:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall
><fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>>><fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Because it is fast and cheap.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Good, fast, cheap - choose any two. It's obvious where the Chimp
>>>>lives...
>>>>
>>>
>>>Are you saying that castings are not good?
>>>
>>
>>I'm saying what I said.
>
>I was trying to help you make some sense of your nonsense but I guess
>there wasn't any to make.
>
I'm sorry you're stupid and have never designed anything in the real
world, but I can't fix you.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 09:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <prOdnR05yZjHa8DEnZ2dnUU78fWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #639078 |
Fred J. McCall wrote: > krw@notreal.com wrote: > >> On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:12:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall >> <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall >>>> <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Because it is fast and cheap. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Good, fast, cheap - choose any two. It's obvious where the Chimp >>>>> lives... >>>>> >>>> >>>> Are you saying that castings are not good? >>>> >>> >>> I'm saying what I said. >> >> I was trying to help you make some sense of your nonsense but I guess >> there wasn't any to make. >> > > I'm sorry you're stupid and have never designed anything in the real > world, but I can't fix you. You're a bit of a bellend aren't you. *PLONK*
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 10:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5brslcht9i82t4d4ft9o5tgc2l0v053jbt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639086 |
David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote:
>Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:12:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>>> <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> krw@notreal.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall
>>>>> <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Because it is fast and cheap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Good, fast, cheap - choose any two. It's obvious where the Chimp
>>>>>> lives...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Are you saying that castings are not good?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm saying what I said.
>>>
>>> I was trying to help you make some sense of your nonsense but I guess
>>> there wasn't any to make.
>>>
>>
>> I'm sorry you're stupid and have never designed anything in the real
>> world, but I can't fix you.
>
>You're a bit of a bellend aren't you.
>
You're more than a bit of a foreskin, aren't you?
>
>*PLONK*
>
Good idea. It'll save you the frustration of not being able to
explain to me what I mean by what I said.
--
"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 | 2017-07-06 21:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pdotlc5uf55agbps8fd6k7ihmhmro1d2ai@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639123 |
On Thu, 06 Jul 2017 10:05:58 -0700, Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > >>Fred J. McCall wrote: >>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> >>>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:12:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall >>>> <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall >>>>>> <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Because it is fast and cheap. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Good, fast, cheap - choose any two. It's obvious where the Chimp >>>>>>> lives... >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Are you saying that castings are not good? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm saying what I said. >>>> >>>> I was trying to help you make some sense of your nonsense but I guess >>>> there wasn't any to make. >>>> >>> >>> I'm sorry you're stupid and have never designed anything in the real >>> world, but I can't fix you. >> >>You're a bit of a bellend aren't you. >> > >You're more than a bit of a foreskin, aren't you? > >> >>*PLONK* >> > >Good idea. It'll save you the frustration of not being able to >explain to me what I mean by what I said. It's good that you show everyone what you're really worth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 08:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojo0s4$79f$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #639230 |
On 7/6/2017 8:20 PM, krw@notreal.com wrote: > On Thu, 06 Jul 2017 10:05:58 -0700, Fred J. McCall > <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: > >> David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Fred J. McCall wrote: >>>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:12:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall >>>>> <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> krw@notreal.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall >>>>>>> <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Are you saying that castings are not good? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm saying what I said. >>>>> >>>>> I was trying to help you make some sense of your nonsense but I guess >>>>> there wasn't any to make. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm sorry you're stupid and have never designed anything in the real >>>> world, but I can't fix you. >>> >>> You're a bit of a bellend aren't you. >> >> You're more than a bit of a foreskin, aren't you? >> >>> >>> *PLONK* >>> >> >> Good idea. It'll save you the frustration of not being able to >> explain to me what I mean by what I said. > > It's good that you show everyone what you're really worth. > He has already shown he does not have any.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 21:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <sbotlcttmkbe2g8teui7pj2luou1jn2rvi@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639078 |
On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 23:30:45 -0700, Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >krw@notreal.com wrote: > >>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:12:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall >><fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>>krw@notreal.com wrote: >>> >>>>On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall >>>><fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Because it is fast and cheap. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Good, fast, cheap - choose any two. It's obvious where the Chimp >>>>>lives... >>>>> >>>> >>>>Are you saying that castings are not good? >>>> >>> >>>I'm saying what I said. >> >>I was trying to help you make some sense of your nonsense but I guess >>there wasn't any to make. >> > >I'm sorry you're stupid and have never designed anything in the real >world, but I can't fix you. So's your old man. (what a loser!)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 13:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojlud1$thn$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #639046 |
On 7/5/2017 9:12 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: > krw@notreal.com wrote: > >> On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall >> <fjmccall@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>>> In sci.physics John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> There is one very successful additive manufacturing process: casting. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Because it is fast and cheap. >>>> >>> >>> Good, fast, cheap - choose any two. It's obvious where the Chimp >>> lives... >>> >> >> Are you saying that castings are not good? >> > > I'm saying what I said. > > you already said that. twice now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 23:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cb0plctdvi5etq0l8lqc4pdk00cfn926ji@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #638784 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>I fail to understand why geeks think 3D printing is the ultimate answer
>to manufacturing when it is in fact slow and expensive.
>
You fail to understand so much, this is just one tiny thing among
many.
--
"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 | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 10:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f5c27456-ca4e-413d-a992-ca2a09426c7f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #638784 |
On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 2:16:08 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: [] > > Nope, economics. > > It takes a fraction of a second to stamp out a sheet metal automobile body > part out of standard sheet metal stock. > > I fail to understand why geeks think 3D printing is the ultimate answer > to manufacturing when it is in fact slow and expensive. > > > -- > Jim Pennino Jim, You are repeating the classic Bill Gates 640K mistake and the three computers in the world market comment. New technology is slow. Consider early computers with clock speeds under 1 megahertz. Big, bulky, expensive to buy and maintain. Niche market, until the technology evolved. Now you might say: not going to happen in the next N decades. But the "never" is surely wrong (unless you mean, not before we bomb ourselves out of this world). ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 18:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ofmv2e-nhp.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #638934 |
Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 2:16:08 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > [] >> >> Nope, economics. >> >> It takes a fraction of a second to stamp out a sheet metal automobile body >> part out of standard sheet metal stock. >> >> I fail to understand why geeks think 3D printing is the ultimate answer >> to manufacturing when it is in fact slow and expensive. >> >> >> -- >> Jim Pennino > > Jim, > You are repeating the classic Bill Gates 640K mistake and the three computers in the world market comment. > > New technology is slow. Consider early computers with > clock speeds under 1 megahertz. Big, bulky, expensive > to buy and maintain. Niche market, until the technology > evolved. > > Now you might say: not going to happen in the next N decades. > But the "never" is surely wrong (unless you mean, not before > we bomb ourselves out of this world). The phyics of laying down material a fraction of a millimeter at a time and then cooling it or sintering it and cooling it says 3D printing will ALLWAYS be slow and the fact that the printing material has to be specially prepared to be printed says the raw material will ALLWAYS be more expensive. > > ed -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 14:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojje8r$1bg2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #638940 |
On 7/5/2017 1:07 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 2:16:08 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> [] >>> >>> Nope, economics. >> >> Now you might say: not going to happen in the next N decades. >> But the "never" is surely wrong (unless you mean, not before >> we bomb ourselves out of this world). > > The phyics of laying down material a fraction of a millimeter at a time > and then cooling it or sintering it and cooling it says 3D printing will > ALLWAYS be slow and the fact that the printing material has to be specially > prepared to be printed says the raw material will ALLWAYS be more expensive. > + the "printed" metal is full of heat stress and voids, and gas contamnation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 19:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ejrv2e-h3q.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #638953 |
Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> wrote: > On 7/5/2017 1:07 PM, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 at 2:16:08 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> [] >>>> >>>> Nope, economics. > >>> >>> Now you might say: not going to happen in the next N decades. >>> But the "never" is surely wrong (unless you mean, not before >>> we bomb ourselves out of this world). >> >> The phyics of laying down material a fraction of a millimeter at a time >> and then cooling it or sintering it and cooling it says 3D printing will >> ALLWAYS be slow and the fact that the printing material has to be specially >> prepared to be printed says the raw material will ALLWAYS be more expensive. >> > + the "printed" metal is full of heat stress and voids, and gas > contamnation. Nope, but the things that keep that from happening are also part of the reason why such is slow and expensive and will always be so. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 15:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3dd0774b-0e05-4c7e-9518-9122395fe22b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #638940 |
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 2:16:05 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: [] > > > > New technology is slow. Consider early computers with > > clock speeds under 1 megahertz. Big, bulky, expensive > > to buy and maintain. Niche market, until the technology > > evolved. > > > > Now you might say: not going to happen in the next N decades. > > But the "never" is surely wrong (unless you mean, not before > > we bomb ourselves out of this world). > > The phyics of laying down material a fraction of a millimeter at a time > and then cooling it or sintering it and cooling it says 3D printing will > ALLWAYS be slow and the fact that the printing material has to be specially > prepared to be printed says the raw material will ALLWAYS be more expensive. > Same argument could have been made with early computers. For first generation: Because relays are mechanical computers will always be slow and unreliable. For second generation: Because vacuum tubes need a hot filament to operate, computers will always be hot and unreliable. Don't count out the possibility for new materials or methods to change the game dramatically. Now I did notice, Jim, you changed from Never to 50 years. You might be right on that time frame. IOW, I agree that some of these predictions are very optimistic. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 23:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <9l703e-c9r.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #638984 |
Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 2:16:05 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: > [] >> > >> > New technology is slow. Consider early computers with >> > clock speeds under 1 megahertz. Big, bulky, expensive >> > to buy and maintain. Niche market, until the technology >> > evolved. >> > >> > Now you might say: not going to happen in the next N decades. >> > But the "never" is surely wrong (unless you mean, not before >> > we bomb ourselves out of this world). >> >> The phyics of laying down material a fraction of a millimeter at a time >> and then cooling it or sintering it and cooling it says 3D printing will >> ALLWAYS be slow and the fact that the printing material has to be specially >> prepared to be printed says the raw material will ALLWAYS be more expensive. >> > > Same argument could have been made with early computers. > For first generation: > Because relays are mechanical computers will always be slow > and unreliable. > > For second generation: > Because vacuum tubes need a hot filament to operate, > computers will always be hot and unreliable. > > Don't count out the possibility for new materials or > methods to change the game dramatically. Bloviating nonsense. The accuracy of the printed object depends on the thickness of the applied layer which means if you want a fraction of a millimeter accuracy in your part, you need fraction of a millimeter layers. Do you think a new form of aluminum or titanium will be invented? > Now I did notice, Jim, you changed from Never to 50 years. > You might be right on that time frame. IOW, I agree that > some of these predictions are very optimistic. What the hell are you talking about? > ed -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 10:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f1399e1-695e-4a77-9387-3f80bdbe77d2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #638993 |
On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 7:01:08 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 2:16:05 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: > > [] > >> > > >> > New technology is slow. Consider early computers with > >> > clock speeds under 1 megahertz. Big, bulky, expensive > >> > to buy and maintain. Niche market, until the technology > >> > evolved. > >> > > >> > Now you might say: not going to happen in the next N decades. > >> > But the "never" is surely wrong (unless you mean, not before > >> > we bomb ourselves out of this world). > >> > >> The phyics of laying down material a fraction of a millimeter at a time > >> and then cooling it or sintering it and cooling it says 3D printing will > >> ALLWAYS be slow and the fact that the printing material has to be specially > >> prepared to be printed says the raw material will ALLWAYS be more expensive. > >> > > > > Same argument could have been made with early computers. > > For first generation: > > Because relays are mechanical computers will always be slow > > and unreliable. > > > > For second generation: > > Because vacuum tubes need a hot filament to operate, > > computers will always be hot and unreliable. > > > > Don't count out the possibility for new materials or > > methods to change the game dramatically. > > Bloviating nonsense. > > The accuracy of the printed object depends on the thickness of the applied > layer which means if you want a fraction of a millimeter accuracy in your > part, you need fraction of a millimeter layers. > > Do you think a new form of aluminum or titanium will be invented? Do you think the only way to get higher resolution is the current planar method? Scintering metal powder IS SLOW. I am allowing for the idea that some other method may be invented that perhaps images the item in multiple dimensions at once. Don't ask me how it works because no one invented it yet. If you had asked computer experts in the 1940's how to build a computer that was desktop sized, they would not have a clue and would likely say "Impossible!" OR that current technology of vacuum tubes would not be the solution and new materials and designs would be needed. > > > Now I did notice, Jim, you changed from Never to 50 years. > > You might be right on that time frame. IOW, I agree that > > some of these predictions are very optimistic. > > What the hell are you talking about? I was being generous from your comment in another post: > So we can expect 3D printers to still be niche in 50 years. But if you want to stick to "never", then I can't help you. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 13:15 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojluoe$12n3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #639124 |
On 7/6/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 7:01:08 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 2:16:05 PM UTC-4, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> wrote: >>> [] >>>>> >>>>> New technology is slow. Consider early computers with >>>>> clock speeds under 1 megahertz. Big, bulky, expensive >>>>> to buy and maintain. Niche market, until the technology >>>>> evolved. >>>>> >>>>> Now you might say: not going to happen in the next N decades. >>>>> But the "never" is surely wrong (unless you mean, not before >>>>> we bomb ourselves out of this world). >>>> >>>> The phyics of laying down material a fraction of a millimeter at a time >>>> and then cooling it or sintering it and cooling it says 3D printing will >>>> ALLWAYS be slow and the fact that the printing material has to be specially >>>> prepared to be printed says the raw material will ALLWAYS be more expensive. >>>> >> >> The accuracy of the printed object depends on the thickness of the applied >> layer which means if you want a fraction of a millimeter accuracy in your >> part, you need fraction of a millimeter layers. >> >> Do you think a new form of aluminum or titanium will be invented? > > Do you think the only way to get higher resolution is the > current planar method? Scintering metal powder IS SLOW. Scintering creates voids, gas inclusions, etc. > > I am allowing for the idea that some other method may > be invented that perhaps images the item in multiple > dimensions at once. Don't ask me how it works because > no one invented it yet. > > If you had asked computer experts in the 1940's how to build > a computer that was desktop sized, they would not have a clue > and would likely say "Impossible!" OR that current technology > of vacuum tubes would not be the solution and new materials > and designs would be needed. comparison to computers is invalid. we already have many ways to form products, like castings, and many other ways to form metals, Key issues are Quality, Cost, and Time. and we dont know the whole story yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 06:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2e047cb8-bd6f-4bd7-8012-30f55a915092@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639128 |
On Thursday, July 6, 2017 at 2:15:49 PM UTC-4, Sегg io wrote: > On 7/6/2017 12:12 PM, Edward Prochak wrote: > > > > I am allowing for the idea that some other method may > > be invented that perhaps images the item in multiple > > dimensions at once. Don't ask me how it works because > > no one invented it yet. > > > > If you had asked computer experts in the 1940's how to build > > a computer that was desktop sized, they would not have a clue > > and would likely say "Impossible!" OR that current technology > > of vacuum tubes would not be the solution and new materials > > and designs would be needed. > > comparison to computers is invalid. > > we already have many ways to form products, like castings, and many > other ways to form metals, The analogous argument with computers would have been: we already have many ways to compute like people (the original "computers") relay machines, and vacuum tube machines > > Key issues are Quality, Cost, and Time. > and we dont know the whole story yet. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THAT'S MY WHOLE POINT! So you may have disagreed with the comparison to the development of computer technology, but it looks like you agree with the conclusion. 3-D printing technology is in the beginning stages of its development. What the ultimate method that is used is unknown to us here and now. Have a good day. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web