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 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 09:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojo6f7$iis$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #639288 |
On 7/7/2017 8:20 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > 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 > well, the 3-D printing technology is fully understood, just a 3 axis positioner with material feed. only the feed rates, heating rates, cooling rates are empirically determined but it is one at a time production, not good for mass production. And it is no good for most applications, too slow, poor quality, weak material, requires too much energy compaired to other technologies. Printing, one has to Melt all of the material, deposit it, cool it. With stamping, no need for any of that. and strength, hardening is poor, lots of voids, same as welding, Printing is already in use in key nitch applications or for prototypes, but will not be used in most. think so? then who you going to call when you have a problem or need to re-program it ? (...crickets...) Microsoft ? Wall Street Buzz is high on it, but they are selling the sizzle.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 08:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <10b8bf06-7db4-40a7-86c4-631f884fc874@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #639296 |
On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 10:39:41 AM UTC-4, Sегg io wrote: > On 7/7/2017 8:20 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > > 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 > > > > well, the 3-D printing technology is fully understood, just a 3 axis > positioner with material feed. only the feed rates, heating rates, > cooling rates are empirically determined Yes for plastics and such. The 3-d tech for metals is still, I contend, in its infancy. > > but it is one at a time production, not good for mass production. > > And it is no good for most applications, too slow, poor quality, weak > material, requires too much energy compaired to other technologies. Yes, in the current stage of development of 3-d printing tech I totally agree. > > Printing, one has to Melt all of the material, deposit it, cool it. > With stamping, no need for any of that. > > and strength, hardening is poor, lots of voids, same as welding, > > Printing is already in use in key nitch applications or for prototypes, > but will not be used in most. Agree, for now. > > think so? then who you going to call when you have a problem or need to > re-program it ? (...crickets...) Microsoft ? Not sure what this comment referred to. > > Wall Street Buzz is high on it, but they are selling the sizzle. Yep. ed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-07 14:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ojomi3$1d0v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #639299 |
On 7/7/2017 10:11 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: > On Friday, July 7, 2017 at 10:39:41 AM UTC-4, Sегg io wrote: >> On 7/7/2017 8:20 AM, Edward Prochak wrote: >>> 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: > Agree, for now. > >> >> think so? then who you going to call when you have a problem or need to >> re-program it ? (...crickets...) Microsoft ? > > Not sure what this comment referred to. it is the maintenance stage of a product, how much maintenance will it require, and who does it. how complex it is, I think right now it is tied to the MFGR.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 20:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <umh23e-p56.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #639124 |
Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> 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. >> >> >> > >> > 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. Yes and yes. > 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. It is called a transporter and doesn't really exist. > 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. Computers of the 40's were up against current technology. 3D printing is mostly up against basic physics and geometry. >> > 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. Yep, the word "niche" meaning low volume production. 3D printing will never be used to produce 2 liter soda bottles or anything else that can be produced cheaper with traditional methods. > But if you want to stick to "never", then I can't help you. > > ed -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 20:08 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <es301qFn3nU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #638731 |
David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things >> that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design >> without the expense of 3D printing. >> >> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft? >> >> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method. > >"Nobody needs more than 640K" > >I don't really think it's sensible to say "never" wrt technology - you're >judging a very immature technology The Altair was obsolete in two years. The Apple ][ was obsolete in five, though genius level reworkings kept it going for what, 12? The context for that quote was the decision to build a computer with ten times the memory capacity of the normal business computer out there at the time, with the expectation that they would totally revamp the design in a few years. Remember that was the time when Microsoft bet big on Unix as the next big thing. Nobody expected to be finding ISA compatible computers running a compatible OS 35 years later. > >The biggest problem wrt printing vehicles will, I suspect, be the legislation >governing safety. -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 09:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.33c55e1529abc4af989985@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #638675 |
In article <slnq2e-pn7.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized > > parts. These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone > > from the design. They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due > > to their complex shapes. I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts > > from management types. > > And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things > that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design > without the expense of 3D printing. True, the big dumb cylindrical pressure vessel may not apply but, that's not the entire aircraft. If the "mass were already gone from the design" then GE would not be pouring literally millions of dollars into developing a one meter cubed 3D printer presumably for printing aircraft engine parts. Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing. > 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. 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. 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 | 2017-07-04 11:47 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <595bb89f$0$59594$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #638745 |
On 2017-07-04 09:11, Jeff Findley wrote: > 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. Wouldn't the DC9s/MD80s still in use in the USA be devoid of composites? And out of curiosity, since new 737s have maintained the "type rating" of the 1960s 737s, how much of the plane can they convert to composites? (there are issues with lightning protection for instance which require different treatment, so not sure if that fits inside the same type rating). And if they are using 3D printing to create metal parts, how does that work exactly? Some pen pours molten titanium/whatever to create each layer? Or is it more laser based to cut a solid block into the perfect shape?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <er2t2e-erf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #638752 |
In sci.physics JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2017-07-04 09:11, Jeff Findley wrote: > >> 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. > > Wouldn't the DC9s/MD80s still in use in the USA be devoid of composites? > > And out of curiosity, since new 737s have maintained the "type rating" > of the 1960s 737s, how much of the plane can they convert to composites? > > (there are issues with lightning protection for instance which require > different treatment, so not sure if that fits inside the same type rating). > > And if they are using 3D printing to create metal parts, how does that > work exactly? Some pen pours molten titanium/whatever to create each > layer? Or is it more laser based to cut a solid block into the perfect > shape? Metal powder deposition and laser or electron beam sintering. BTW, metal powders tend to be explosive. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 23:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <595c573c$0$53108$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #638788 |
On 2017-07-04 14:19, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > Metal powder deposition and laser or electron beam sintering. > > BTW, metal powders tend to be explosive. Thanks. Does this really produce parts that are on par with those produced with conventional means when it comes to force/strength/endurance (especially when it comes to re-usable engines) ? It appears so as SpaceX uses it, but just wondering if the physics of melting layers of powder yields the same strength a a solid block that is machine tooled. Also, if it is powder, how do they make a "roof" over empty spaces (such a the top of a horizontal cylendrical pipe inside the unit).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 04:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <g58u2e-k0k.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #638864 |
In sci.physics JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote: > On 2017-07-04 14:19, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> Metal powder deposition and laser or electron beam sintering. >> >> BTW, metal powders tend to be explosive. > > Thanks. Does this really produce parts that are on par with those > produced with conventional means when it comes to > force/strength/endurance (especially when it comes to re-usable engines) ? It depends on what you mean by "on par". > It appears so as SpaceX uses it, but just wondering if the physics of > melting layers of powder yields the same strength a a solid block that > is machine tooled. It doesn't matter if it is the same strength as long as it is strong enough for the purpose. > Also, if it is powder, how do they make a "roof" over empty spaces (such > a the top of a horizontal cylendrical pipe inside the unit). Make the part upside down so the "roof" is a "floor" during printing. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 23:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eq0plclsrjl42jjvfge1fgat8cutf28uc7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #638864 |
JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>On 2017-07-04 14:19, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> Metal powder deposition and laser or electron beam sintering.
>>
>> BTW, metal powders tend to be explosive.
>>
>
>Thanks. Does this really produce parts that are on par with those
>produced with conventional means when it comes to
>force/strength/endurance (especially when it comes to re-usable engines) ?
>
>It appears so as SpaceX uses it, but just wondering if the physics of
>melting layers of powder yields the same strength a a solid block that
>is machine tooled.
>
"Compared with a traditionally cast part, a printed valve body has
superior strength, ductility, and fracture resistance, with a lower
variability in materials properties. The MOV body was printed in less
than two days, compared with a typical castings cycle measured in
months."
http://www.spacex.com/news/2014/07/31/spacex-launches-3d-printed-part-space-creates-printed-engine-chamber-crewed
So with regard to Chimp's claim of 'slower' and your concern about
'weaker', SpaceX says bullshit.
>
>Also, if it is powder, how do they make a "roof" over empty spaces (such
>a the top of a horizontal cylendrical pipe inside the unit).
>
Silly question. How do you make an igloo? Same thing but with much
tinier blocks.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-04 18:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <vd2t2e-erf.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #638745 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <slnq2e-pn7.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... >> > Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized >> > parts. These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone >> > from the design. They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due >> > to their complex shapes. I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts >> > from management types. >> >> And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things >> that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design >> without the expense of 3D printing. > > True, the big dumb cylindrical pressure vessel may not apply but, that's > not the entire aircraft. > > If the "mass were already gone from the design" then GE would not be > pouring literally millions of dollars into developing a one meter cubed > 3D printer presumably for printing aircraft engine parts. > > Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another > area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up > a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would > be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing. Again, you are talking about niche applications and landing gear are not that big a part of an aircrafts weight. >> Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft? > > Yes, many times. I've got a b.s. in aerospace engineering, so I know > the basics. Many of our customers are aerospace, so I have to > understand the domain. > >> 3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method. >> >> Handy at times, but certainly not a world changer. > > This is quite short sighted. I'm sure the same was said about > composites when they were in their infancy. Today it would be quite > hard (i.e. likely impossible) to point to something commercial that > flies and carries people commercially that has absolutely zero composite > content. An irrelevant red herring to the subject of 3D printing. There are a HUGE number of different composite materials out there and it has taken well over half a century for most aircraft to have even a small fraction of composite materials in their construction. Note the word "most". > I can say that shape optimization coupled with 3D printing is one of the > "bleeding edge" topics in my industry. It's really no secret, you can > surely Google hundreds of articles on the topic. I really can't go into > further details, but my profession is in writing engineering software, > so I ought to know. Whoopee. It is still niche. Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? > Jeff -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 07:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <fNudnQrUgJzQGMHEnZ2dnUU78V_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #638785 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 16:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <u6iv2e-m1p.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #638882 |
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. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 18:42 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.33c7355db2b6fc6f989989@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #638915 |
In article <u6iv2e-m1p.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com says... > > Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly > it was produced. > > It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would > add no functionality and just increase the price. Lightweight metal silverware is a bit of a niche area, but there is an existing market. Titanium spork is a popular item for backpackers. It's insane how light those things are. Backpackers will spend big bucks to shave an ounce off of a piece of equipment. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-05 23:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <92803e-c9r.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #638986 |
In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: > In article <u6iv2e-m1p.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com > says... >> >> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >> it was produced. >> >> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >> add no functionality and just increase the price. > > Lightweight metal silverware is a bit of a niche area, but there is an > existing market. Titanium spork is a popular item for backpackers. > It's insane how light those things are. Backpackers will spend big > bucks to shave an ounce off of a piece of equipment. > > Jeff What do you think the market may be for 3D printed frizzens? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 09:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <prOdneM5yZijaMDEnZ2dnUU78fWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #638915 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> >>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >> >> Yes. I do. >> >> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >> projects. >> >> Ditto everything you make. > > Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly > it was produced. > > It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would > add no functionality and just increase the price. > > What price? It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the cost of slightly more complex software. They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects. So, by that metric, they're cheaper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 06:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <MPG.33c7dc5e7d254cc898998a@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #639084 |
In article <prOdneM5yZijaMDEnZ2dnUU78fWdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com says... > > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>> > >>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? > >> > >> Yes. I do. > >> > >> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense > >> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to > >> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, > >> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other > >> projects. > >> > >> Ditto everything you make. > > > > Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly > > it was produced. > > > > It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would > > add no functionality and just increase the price. > > > > > What price? > > It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the > cost of slightly more complex software. > > They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects. > > So, by that metric, they're cheaper. Some people do like to buy exotic things. Some people even buy expensive things thinking that if they cost more they *must* be better, right? Hell, I know a few "foodies" who would likely buy "lightweight" silverware just to have as a conversation piece at their next dinner party. My local Kroger carries a few knives with ceramic blades. One could ask why of that as well, but they're there on the shelf. Someone must be buying them since they've been around for several years. Jeff -- All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone. These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends, employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 16:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ld523e-dr4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #639084 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> >>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>> >>> Yes. I do. >>> >>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>> projects. >>> >>> Ditto everything you make. >> >> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >> it was produced. >> >> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >> add no functionality and just increase the price. >> >> > What price? The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. > It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the > cost of slightly more complex software. Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost of the honyecomb nonsense. > They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects. The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded manufacturing cost. > So, by that metric, they're cheaper. If an injection molded handle costs a fraction of a cent while the honeycomb handle costs several cents, which is cheaper? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-06 21:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <djotlc12bpdopc3cuhatsv2fr92fgvcmac@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #639118 |
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:34:29 -0000, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? >>>> >>>> Yes. I do. >>>> >>>> If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense >>>> to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to >>>> honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough, >>>> and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other >>>> projects. >>>> >>>> Ditto everything you make. >>> >>> Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly >>> it was produced. >>> >>> It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would >>> add no functionality and just increase the price. >>> >>> >> What price? > >The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store. Manufacturing cost and sales price are only loosely correlated. >> It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the >> cost of slightly more complex software. > >Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction >of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense. > >Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost >of the honyecomb nonsense. > >> They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects. > >The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded >manufacturing cost. Yes but not because of sales price, rather profit. >> So, by that metric, they're cheaper. > >If an injection molded handle costs a fraction of a cent while the honeycomb >handle costs several cents, which is cheaper? Not the one with the better ad agency. ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web