Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #640134 > unrolled thread
| Started by | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-12 07:04 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-07-16 16:36 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 07:04 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:48 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 06:50 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-13 17:29 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 05:51 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:36 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-15 00:27 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:52 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 06:40 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-16 16:02 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 06:02 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-17 20:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 06:32 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-18 21:10 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 05:08 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-19 20:17 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 01:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 06:23 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 03:35 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 05:56 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-20 10:18 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-07-20 11:34 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 16:25 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 20:42 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 16:40 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 19:54 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-20 19:15 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 20:38 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-21 07:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 16:24 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:26 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 11:33 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:39 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:03 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:19 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:52 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 19:54 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 09:43 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-13 09:30 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-13 17:37 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:18 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 22:59 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 11:19 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-14 13:59 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:55 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 23:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 23:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 05:06 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 23:17 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:57 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:12 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 03:13 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-14 07:14 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 17:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-14 20:09 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 02:14 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-14 23:09 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 05:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 23:19 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:57 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 18:19 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 07:06 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 14:06 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 20:29 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-15 00:33 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-15 16:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 21:27 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:17 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-15 22:30 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-15 22:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 03:15 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 07:16 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 11:45 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 16:33 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:09 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 06:11 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 16:46 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 22:24 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 21:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 06:38 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 17:35 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 20:26 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 20:12 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 22:12 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-19 00:49 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 05:30 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-19 04:54 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 06:34 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-19 16:14 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 17:24 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-19 00:00 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-19 20:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-21 08:00 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-21 09:08 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 17:14 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 13:21 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-14 09:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 17:15 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:10 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-15 22:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 03:23 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 09:58 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 12:05 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:15 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-16 10:56 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:19 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 16:36 -0700
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 16:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9rtnmcdb8g2vci3eoc6oql0g3nvhpim89d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #640806 |
Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>On 7/16/2017 1:16 AM, David Mitchell wrote:
>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
>>> <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote:
>>>> wrote in message news:hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>> In article <nonk3e-pk9.ln1@mail.specsol.com>,
>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
>>>>>>> <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "David Mitchell" wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Could you be any more vague?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes. Yes I could.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Things. People will make things. All of the things.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal
>>>>>>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll
>>>>>>>> only
>>>>>>>> need
>>>>>>>> a few major mainframes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of
>>>>>>> smart
>>>>>>> phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and
>>>>>>> facebook.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The original point was that the original "personal computers" were
>>>>>> hideously expensive, very hard to use, and didn't do a whole lot.
>>>>>> There
>>>>>> absolutely were a lot of people who said "I'll never need one of
>>>>>> those"
>>>>>> back in the early 1980s. Yet they can be found (in desktop or laptop
>>>>>> form) in the vast majority of houses in the US because the price
>>>>>> dropped, they became much easier to use, and they could do a lot more
>>>>>> (i.e. high speed Internet versus acoustic modems and BBSes),
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Besides, smart phones prove the point AGAIN! When the original Apple
>>>>>> iPhone came out, it didn't have it's "killer app" which was the App
>>>>>> Store, so the orignal wasn't terribly functional. On top of that,
>>>>>> cell
>>>>>> data service at the time was slow, slow, slow, so even surfing the
>>>>>> Internet was painful with these new "smart phones". But again, the
>>>>>> majority of phones I see today are now "smart phones". They're
>>>>>> cheaper,
>>>>>> more functional (more apps), and the cell data networks are quite good
>>>>>> these days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> New technologies keep getting cheaper and more accessible for
>>>>>> individuals to use all the time! It's a pretty safe bet that the very
>>>>>> same thing will happen with 3D printing.
>>>>>
>>>>> New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper.
>>>>
>>>> So what? They don't need to be cheaper. People literally buy millions of
>>>> items made out of aluminum and plastic every day and throw them out, the
>>>> material is so cheap.
>>>
>>> So the raw material for 3D printing is more expensive than the raw
>>> material
>>> for legacy fabrication methods and my response was to the two sentences
>>> above mine. Try reading them before knee jerking.
>
>>>>> Printing speed is limited by basic physics.
>>>>
>>>> Such as? Seriously, you don't think new technologies and concepts are
>>>> possible? Heck, if nothing else, you can design printers with multiple
>>>> heads if you want to. Bam, you've nearly doubled printing speed for many
>>>> items.
>>>
>>> As I have already said many times accuracy is directly related to layer
>>> thickness and layer application delay is directly related to layer
>>> "hardening" time.
>>
>> We're nowhere near those limits yet.
>> "The BAAM was used to manufacture the first (almost) fully 3D printed
>> car, the Strati, for together with Local Motors. With a deposition rate
>> of up to 38 lbs of material per hour, it is possibly the fastest machine
>> currently on the market."
>>
>
>what is the material it is made from? Polyethylene?
>Milk Bottle Plastic ?
>crash safety ?
>leave it out in the hot sun in Aridzona in the summer ??
>
Again, SpaceX 3-D prints rocket engine combustion chambers and
turbopump parts. I think it will stand up to Arizona in the summer if
it will stand up to rocket exhaust.
--
"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 | 2017-07-16 18:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <gnms3e-me7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #640742 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: >>> wrote in message news:hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>> >>>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>> In article <nonk3e-pk9.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>> says... >>>>>> >>>>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> "David Mitchell" wrote in message >>>>>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Could you be any more vague? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. Yes I could. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Things. People will make things. All of the things. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal >>>>>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only >>>>>>> need >>>>>>> a few major mainframes. >>>>>> >>>>>> Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of >>>>>> smart >>>>>> phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and >>>>>> facebook. >>>>> >>>>> The original point was that the original "personal computers" were >>>>> hideously expensive, very hard to use, and didn't do a whole lot. There >>>>> absolutely were a lot of people who said "I'll never need one of those" >>>>> back in the early 1980s. Yet they can be found (in desktop or laptop >>>>> form) in the vast majority of houses in the US because the price >>>>> dropped, they became much easier to use, and they could do a lot more >>>>> (i.e. high speed Internet versus acoustic modems and BBSes), >>>>> >>>>> Besides, smart phones prove the point AGAIN! When the original Apple >>>>> iPhone came out, it didn't have it's "killer app" which was the App >>>>> Store, so the orignal wasn't terribly functional. On top of that, cell >>>>> data service at the time was slow, slow, slow, so even surfing the >>>>> Internet was painful with these new "smart phones". But again, the >>>>> majority of phones I see today are now "smart phones". They're cheaper, >>>>> more functional (more apps), and the cell data networks are quite good >>>>> these days. >>>>> >>>>> New technologies keep getting cheaper and more accessible for >>>>> individuals to use all the time! It's a pretty safe bet that the very >>>>> same thing will happen with 3D printing. >>>> >>>> New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. >>> >>> So what? They don't need to be cheaper. People literally buy millions of >>> items made out of aluminum and plastic every day and throw them out, the >>> material is so cheap. >> >> So the raw material for 3D printing is more expensive than the raw material >> for legacy fabrication methods and my response was to the two sentences >> above mine. Try reading them before knee jerking. >> >>>> Printing speed is limited by basic physics. >>> >>> Such as? Seriously, you don't think new technologies and concepts are >>> possible? Heck, if nothing else, you can design printers with multiple >>> heads if you want to. Bam, you've nearly doubled printing speed for many >>> items. >> >> As I have already said many times accuracy is directly related to layer >> thickness and layer application delay is directly related to layer >> "hardening" time. > > We're nowhere near those limits yet. The whooshing sound you hear is the point and all it's details going over you head. > "The BAAM was used to manufacture the first (almost) fully 3D printed car, the > Strati, for together with Local Motors. With a deposition rate of up to 38 lbs > of material per hour, it is possibly the fastest machine currently on the market." > The Strati is little more than a $30,000 golf cart and the finish is an abomination. >> The industry for both consumer and industrial 3D printers is tiny and >> few people do. > > Sales of 400,000 last year, projected sales of 1.2 million this one. Also > appears to be non-linear. > > But that it's tiny now is irrelevant. How many people had early telephones? Or > TV sets? Do you understand the difference between hobby and professional? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 06:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <l-ydnXmFxpSd2vHEnZ2dnUU78dvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #640821 |
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 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: >>>> wrote in message news:hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>> >>>>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>> In article <nonk3e-pk9.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>> says... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> "David Mitchell" wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Could you be any more vague? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Yes. Yes I could. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Things. People will make things. All of the things. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal >>>>>>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only >>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>> a few major mainframes. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of >>>>>>> smart >>>>>>> phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and >>>>>>> facebook. >>>>>> >>>>>> The original point was that the original "personal computers" were >>>>>> hideously expensive, very hard to use, and didn't do a whole lot. There >>>>>> absolutely were a lot of people who said "I'll never need one of those" >>>>>> back in the early 1980s. Yet they can be found (in desktop or laptop >>>>>> form) in the vast majority of houses in the US because the price >>>>>> dropped, they became much easier to use, and they could do a lot more >>>>>> (i.e. high speed Internet versus acoustic modems and BBSes), >>>>>> >>>>>> Besides, smart phones prove the point AGAIN! When the original Apple >>>>>> iPhone came out, it didn't have it's "killer app" which was the App >>>>>> Store, so the orignal wasn't terribly functional. On top of that, cell >>>>>> data service at the time was slow, slow, slow, so even surfing the >>>>>> Internet was painful with these new "smart phones". But again, the >>>>>> majority of phones I see today are now "smart phones". They're cheaper, >>>>>> more functional (more apps), and the cell data networks are quite good >>>>>> these days. >>>>>> >>>>>> New technologies keep getting cheaper and more accessible for >>>>>> individuals to use all the time! It's a pretty safe bet that the very >>>>>> same thing will happen with 3D printing. >>>>> >>>>> New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. >>>> >>>> So what? They don't need to be cheaper. People literally buy millions of >>>> items made out of aluminum and plastic every day and throw them out, the >>>> material is so cheap. >>> >>> So the raw material for 3D printing is more expensive than the raw material >>> for legacy fabrication methods and my response was to the two sentences >>> above mine. Try reading them before knee jerking. >>> >>>>> Printing speed is limited by basic physics. >>>> >>>> Such as? Seriously, you don't think new technologies and concepts are >>>> possible? Heck, if nothing else, you can design printers with multiple >>>> heads if you want to. Bam, you've nearly doubled printing speed for many >>>> items. >>> >>> As I have already said many times accuracy is directly related to layer >>> thickness and layer application delay is directly related to layer >>> "hardening" time. >> >> We're nowhere near those limits yet. > > The whooshing sound you hear is the point and all it's details going > over you head. Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. > >> "The BAAM was used to manufacture the first (almost) fully 3D printed car, the >> Strati, for together with Local Motors. With a deposition rate of up to 38 lbs >> of material per hour, it is possibly the fastest machine currently on the market." >> > > The Strati is little more than a $30,000 golf cart and the finish is an > abomination. Not the point, remember the whole "mature technology" thing? If we can do that *now*, imagine what we'll be able to do in 30 years time. > >>> The industry for both consumer and industrial 3D printers is tiny and >>> few people do. >> >> Sales of 400,000 last year, projected sales of 1.2 million this one. Also >> appears to be non-linear. >> >> But that it's tiny now is irrelevant. How many people had early telephones? Or >> TV sets? > > Do you understand the difference between hobby and professional? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by ignoring those stats.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 16:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <396v3e-s4g.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #640980 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: >>>>> wrote in message news:hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>> >>>>>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>> In article <nonk3e-pk9.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>>> says... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> "David Mitchell" wrote in message >>>>>>>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk... >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Could you be any more vague? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes. Yes I could. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Things. People will make things. All of the things. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal >>>>>>>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only >>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>> a few major mainframes. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of >>>>>>>> smart >>>>>>>> phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and >>>>>>>> facebook. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The original point was that the original "personal computers" were >>>>>>> hideously expensive, very hard to use, and didn't do a whole lot. There >>>>>>> absolutely were a lot of people who said "I'll never need one of those" >>>>>>> back in the early 1980s. Yet they can be found (in desktop or laptop >>>>>>> form) in the vast majority of houses in the US because the price >>>>>>> dropped, they became much easier to use, and they could do a lot more >>>>>>> (i.e. high speed Internet versus acoustic modems and BBSes), >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Besides, smart phones prove the point AGAIN! When the original Apple >>>>>>> iPhone came out, it didn't have it's "killer app" which was the App >>>>>>> Store, so the orignal wasn't terribly functional. On top of that, cell >>>>>>> data service at the time was slow, slow, slow, so even surfing the >>>>>>> Internet was painful with these new "smart phones". But again, the >>>>>>> majority of phones I see today are now "smart phones". They're cheaper, >>>>>>> more functional (more apps), and the cell data networks are quite good >>>>>>> these days. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> New technologies keep getting cheaper and more accessible for >>>>>>> individuals to use all the time! It's a pretty safe bet that the very >>>>>>> same thing will happen with 3D printing. >>>>>> >>>>>> New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. >>>>> >>>>> So what? They don't need to be cheaper. People literally buy millions of >>>>> items made out of aluminum and plastic every day and throw them out, the >>>>> material is so cheap. >>>> >>>> So the raw material for 3D printing is more expensive than the raw material >>>> for legacy fabrication methods and my response was to the two sentences >>>> above mine. Try reading them before knee jerking. >>>> >>>>>> Printing speed is limited by basic physics. >>>>> >>>>> Such as? Seriously, you don't think new technologies and concepts are >>>>> possible? Heck, if nothing else, you can design printers with multiple >>>>> heads if you want to. Bam, you've nearly doubled printing speed for many >>>>> items. >>>> >>>> As I have already said many times accuracy is directly related to layer >>>> thickness and layer application delay is directly related to layer >>>> "hardening" time. >>> >>> We're nowhere near those limits yet. >> >> The whooshing sound you hear is the point and all it's details going >> over you head. > > Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, > then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. > I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer without slopping it around. Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you can squeeze something out of a nozzle? >>> "The BAAM was used to manufacture the first (almost) fully 3D printed car, the >>> Strati, for together with Local Motors. With a deposition rate of up to 38 lbs >>> of material per hour, it is possibly the fastest machine currently on the market." >>> >> >> The Strati is little more than a $30,000 golf cart and the finish is an >> abomination. > > Not the point, remember the whole "mature technology" thing? > If we can do that *now*, imagine what we'll be able to do in 30 years time. Yes, it is the whole point. They get speed by using thick layers as there is no other way to do it. This results in a crap finish. And this IS an industrial grade printer. >>>> The industry for both consumer and industrial 3D printers is tiny and >>>> few people do. >>> >>> Sales of 400,000 last year, projected sales of 1.2 million this one. Also >>> appears to be non-linear. >>> >>> But that it's tiny now is irrelevant. How many people had early telephones? Or >>> TV sets? >> >> Do you understand the difference between hobby and professional? > > I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by ignoring those stats. Obviously. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 22:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <b5KdnZLnd7yPtvDEnZ2dnUU78VPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #641060 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> wrote: >>>>>> wrote in message news:hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> In article <nonk3e-pk9.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>>>>>> says... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "David Mitchell" wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Could you be any more vague? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Yes. Yes I could. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Things. People will make things. All of the things. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal >>>>>>>>>> computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only >>>>>>>>>> need >>>>>>>>>> a few major mainframes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of >>>>>>>>> smart >>>>>>>>> phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and >>>>>>>>> facebook. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The original point was that the original "personal computers" were >>>>>>>> hideously expensive, very hard to use, and didn't do a whole lot. There >>>>>>>> absolutely were a lot of people who said "I'll never need one of those" >>>>>>>> back in the early 1980s. Yet they can be found (in desktop or laptop >>>>>>>> form) in the vast majority of houses in the US because the price >>>>>>>> dropped, they became much easier to use, and they could do a lot more >>>>>>>> (i.e. high speed Internet versus acoustic modems and BBSes), >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Besides, smart phones prove the point AGAIN! When the original Apple >>>>>>>> iPhone came out, it didn't have it's "killer app" which was the App >>>>>>>> Store, so the orignal wasn't terribly functional. On top of that, cell >>>>>>>> data service at the time was slow, slow, slow, so even surfing the >>>>>>>> Internet was painful with these new "smart phones". But again, the >>>>>>>> majority of phones I see today are now "smart phones". They're cheaper, >>>>>>>> more functional (more apps), and the cell data networks are quite good >>>>>>>> these days. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> New technologies keep getting cheaper and more accessible for >>>>>>>> individuals to use all the time! It's a pretty safe bet that the very >>>>>>>> same thing will happen with 3D printing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. >>>>>> >>>>>> So what? They don't need to be cheaper. People literally buy millions of >>>>>> items made out of aluminum and plastic every day and throw them out, the >>>>>> material is so cheap. >>>>> >>>>> So the raw material for 3D printing is more expensive than the raw material >>>>> for legacy fabrication methods and my response was to the two sentences >>>>> above mine. Try reading them before knee jerking. >>>>> >>>>>>> Printing speed is limited by basic physics. >>>>>> >>>>>> Such as? Seriously, you don't think new technologies and concepts are >>>>>> possible? Heck, if nothing else, you can design printers with multiple >>>>>> heads if you want to. Bam, you've nearly doubled printing speed for many >>>>>> items. >>>>> >>>>> As I have already said many times accuracy is directly related to layer >>>>> thickness and layer application delay is directly related to layer >>>>> "hardening" time. >>>> >>>> We're nowhere near those limits yet. >>> >>> The whooshing sound you hear is the point and all it's details going >>> over you head. >> >> Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, >> then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. >> I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. > > But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer > without slopping it around. > > Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you > can squeeze something out of a nozzle? First of all, there are other technologies, the second of the new printers I posted uses one of them. Second, even something as simple as adding more print heads would multiply the printing speed, as I've explained twice now. > >>>> "The BAAM was used to manufacture the first (almost) fully 3D printed car, the >>>> Strati, for together with Local Motors. With a deposition rate of up to 38 lbs >>>> of material per hour, it is possibly the fastest machine currently on the market." >>>> >>> >>> The Strati is little more than a $30,000 golf cart and the finish is an >>> abomination. >> >> Not the point, remember the whole "mature technology" thing? >> If we can do that *now*, imagine what we'll be able to do in 30 years time. > > Yes, it is the whole point. > > They get speed by using thick layers as there is no other way to do it. This > results in a crap finish. Simply not true, see my points above. > > And this IS an industrial grade printer. So? The first ordinary printers were "industrial", and now we have better ones in homes. What's your point? > >>>>> The industry for both consumer and industrial 3D printers is tiny and >>>>> few people do. >>>> >>>> Sales of 400,000 last year, projected sales of 1.2 million this one. Also >>>> appears to be non-linear. >>>> >>>> But that it's tiny now is irrelevant. How many people had early telephones? Or >>>> TV sets? >>> >>> Do you understand the difference between hobby and professional? >> >> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by ignoring those stats. > > Obviously. And yet here you are, not explaining it. Perhaps you don't have one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-17 21:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <e7ov3e-52i.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #641105 |
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: <snip> >>> Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, >>> then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. >>> I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. >> >> But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer >> without slopping it around. >> >> Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you >> can squeeze something out of a nozzle? > > First of all, there are other technologies, the second of the new printers I > posted uses one of them. All the technologies squirt out something that has liquid properties and then is hardened somehow, all of them. There are no Star Trek replicators where a complete object forms out of thin air. > Second, even something as simple as adding more print heads would multiply the > printing speed, as I've explained twice now. What part of we are already at the limit of deposition rate is it you can not grasp? >>>>> "The BAAM was used to manufacture the first (almost) fully 3D printed car, the >>>>> Strati, for together with Local Motors. With a deposition rate of up to 38 lbs >>>>> of material per hour, it is possibly the fastest machine currently on the market." >>>>> >>>> >>>> The Strati is little more than a $30,000 golf cart and the finish is an >>>> abomination. >>> >>> Not the point, remember the whole "mature technology" thing? >>> If we can do that *now*, imagine what we'll be able to do in 30 years time. >> >> Yes, it is the whole point. >> >> They get speed by using thick layers as there is no other way to do it. This >> results in a crap finish. > > Simply not true, see my points above. Yes, it is true. Look at the pictures of the thing and read the companies own press releases. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 06:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <VJWdneMZq_p8A_DEnZ2dnUU78e3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #641113 |
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: > > <snip> > >>>> Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, >>>> then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. >>>> I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. >>> >>> But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer >>> without slopping it around. >>> >>> Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you >>> can squeeze something out of a nozzle? >> >> First of all, there are other technologies, the second of the new printers I >> posted uses one of them. > > All the technologies squirt out something that has liquid properties and > then is hardened somehow, all of them. Apart from those which don't, such as laser sinterers, or those, such as the one I linked to, which hardens a resin with a laser. > > There are no Star Trek replicators where a complete object forms out of > thin air. No-one has ever claimed there are. > >> Second, even something as simple as adding more print heads would multiply the >> printing speed, as I've explained twice now. > > What part of we are already at the limit of deposition rate is it you can not > grasp? The part where you saying it makes it true: it's not. Unless you can prove me wrong, it's your claim after all, so feel free to provide evidence. > >>>>>> "The BAAM was used to manufacture the first (almost) fully 3D printed car, the >>>>>> Strati, for together with Local Motors. With a deposition rate of up to 38 lbs >>>>>> of material per hour, it is possibly the fastest machine currently on the market." >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The Strati is little more than a $30,000 golf cart and the finish is an >>>>> abomination. >>>> >>>> Not the point, remember the whole "mature technology" thing? >>>> If we can do that *now*, imagine what we'll be able to do in 30 years time. >>> >>> Yes, it is the whole point. >>> >>> They get speed by using thick layers as there is no other way to do it. This >>> results in a crap finish. >> >> Simply not true, see my points above. > > Yes, it is true. Look at the pictures of the thing and read the companies > own press releases. There were two links posted - I notice you're completely ignoring the second. There are also other kinds of 3-D printer, and different types will be invented. Can you honestly not see that, or are you just ignoring it, because you know you've lost this particular argument?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 17:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <bgt14e-49p.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #641178 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>>> Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, >>>>> then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. >>>>> I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. >>>> >>>> But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer >>>> without slopping it around. >>>> >>>> Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you >>>> can squeeze something out of a nozzle? >>> >>> First of all, there are other technologies, the second of the new printers I >>> posted uses one of them. >> >> All the technologies squirt out something that has liquid properties and >> then is hardened somehow, all of them. > > Apart from those which don't, such as laser sinterers, or those, such as the one > I linked to, which hardens a resin with a laser. What part of "is hardened somehow" did you fail to understand? >> There are no Star Trek replicators where a complete object forms out of >> thin air. > > No-one has ever claimed there are. You were by claiming there are "other technologies". >>> Second, even something as simple as adding more print heads would multiply the >>> printing speed, as I've explained twice now. >> >> What part of we are already at the limit of deposition rate is it you can not >> grasp? > > The part where you saying it makes it true: it's not. > Unless you can prove me wrong, it's your claim after all, so feel free to > provide evidence. What do YOU think limits deposition rate, the speed of stepper motors? >>>>>>> "The BAAM was used to manufacture the first (almost) fully 3D printed car, the >>>>>>> Strati, for together with Local Motors. With a deposition rate of up to 38 lbs >>>>>>> of material per hour, it is possibly the fastest machine currently on the market." >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The Strati is little more than a $30,000 golf cart and the finish is an >>>>>> abomination. >>>>> >>>>> Not the point, remember the whole "mature technology" thing? >>>>> If we can do that *now*, imagine what we'll be able to do in 30 years time. >>>> >>>> Yes, it is the whole point. >>>> >>>> They get speed by using thick layers as there is no other way to do it. This >>>> results in a crap finish. >>> >>> Simply not true, see my points above. >> >> Yes, it is true. Look at the pictures of the thing and read the companies >> own press releases. > > There were two links posted - I notice you're completely ignoring the second. > There are also other kinds of 3-D printer, and different types will be invented. > Can you honestly not see that, or are you just ignoring it, because you know > you've lost this particular argument? I see you are ignoring the close up photo showing that what I said is true. And again, there is only one type of 3D printer; a machine that takes a material that has fluid properties and deposits it in thin layers which are then hardened. It makes no difference if the material is thermoplastic that has been heated and then allowed to cool or micronized metal particles which are then sintered together with a laser or electron beam machine. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 20:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <I_qdnQ1KrvNB_fPEnZ2dnUU78a3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #641233 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>>> Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, >>>>>> then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. >>>>>> I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. >>>>> >>>>> But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer >>>>> without slopping it around. >>>>> >>>>> Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you >>>>> can squeeze something out of a nozzle? >>>> >>>> First of all, there are other technologies, the second of the new printers I >>>> posted uses one of them. >>> >>> All the technologies squirt out something that has liquid properties and >>> then is hardened somehow, all of them. >> >> Apart from those which don't, such as laser sinterers, or those, such as the one >> I linked to, which hardens a resin with a laser. > > What part of "is hardened somehow" did you fail to understand? The bit where you can't imagine 16 laser heads working together? Or that the technology mentioned above pumps fluid in at a rate of knots? > >>> There are no Star Trek replicators where a complete object forms out of >>> thin air. >> >> No-one has ever claimed there are. > > You were by claiming there are "other technologies". Don't be silly. Neither traditional laser sintering, nor the other technology I cited "squirt out something that has liquid properties" unless by "squirt" you mean "pump" into a tank. They are very different to a movable head which deposits material in a 3-D pattern. > >>>> Second, even something as simple as adding more print heads would multiply the >>>> printing speed, as I've explained twice now. >>> >>> What part of we are already at the limit of deposition rate is it you can not >>> grasp? >> >> The part where you saying it makes it true: it's not. >> Unless you can prove me wrong, it's your claim after all, so feel free to >> provide evidence. > > What do YOU think limits deposition rate, the speed of stepper motors? Yes; and we're nowhere near the limits of those, the deposition rate FOR THAT KIND OF 3-D PRINTER, and multiple printer heads would solve that because, hardening time is not at its upper bound yet. >> There were two links posted - I notice you're completely ignoring the second. >> There are also other kinds of 3-D printer, and different types will be invented. >> Can you honestly not see that, or are you just ignoring it, because you know >> you've lost this particular argument? > > I see you are ignoring the close up photo showing that what I said is true. True for that kind of printer, at the moment, and you're still ignoring the other kinds of technology. It's getting embarrassing. > > And again, there is only one type of 3D printer; a machine that takes > a material that has fluid properties and deposits it in thin layers > which are then hardened. > > It makes no difference if the material is thermoplastic that has been > heated and then allowed to cool or micronized metal particles which are > then sintered together with a laser or electron beam machine. Just not true. FFS neither of the other two kinds of fabricator I mentioned work in that way. Read the article!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 20:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mm624e-c9q.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #641243 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>>> Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, >>>>>>> then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. >>>>>>> I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. >>>>>> >>>>>> But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer >>>>>> without slopping it around. >>>>>> >>>>>> Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you >>>>>> can squeeze something out of a nozzle? >>>>> >>>>> First of all, there are other technologies, the second of the new printers I >>>>> posted uses one of them. >>>> >>>> All the technologies squirt out something that has liquid properties and >>>> then is hardened somehow, all of them. >>> >>> Apart from those which don't, such as laser sinterers, or those, such as the one >>> I linked to, which hardens a resin with a laser. >> >> What part of "is hardened somehow" did you fail to understand? > > The bit where you can't imagine 16 laser heads working together? > Or that the technology mentioned above pumps fluid in at a rate of knots? > >> >>>> There are no Star Trek replicators where a complete object forms out of >>>> thin air. >>> >>> No-one has ever claimed there are. >> >> You were by claiming there are "other technologies". > > Don't be silly. > Neither traditional laser sintering, nor the other technology I cited "squirt > out something that has liquid properties" unless by "squirt" you mean "pump" > into a tank. > > They are very different to a movable head which deposits material in a 3-D pattern. > >> >>>>> Second, even something as simple as adding more print heads would multiply the >>>>> printing speed, as I've explained twice now. >>>> >>>> What part of we are already at the limit of deposition rate is it you can not >>>> grasp? >>> >>> The part where you saying it makes it true: it's not. >>> Unless you can prove me wrong, it's your claim after all, so feel free to >>> provide evidence. >> >> What do YOU think limits deposition rate, the speed of stepper motors? > > Yes; and we're nowhere near the limits of those, the deposition rate FOR THAT > KIND OF 3-D PRINTER, and multiple printer heads would solve that because, > hardening time is not at its upper bound yet. > >>> There were two links posted - I notice you're completely ignoring the second. >>> There are also other kinds of 3-D printer, and different types will be invented. >>> Can you honestly not see that, or are you just ignoring it, because you know >>> you've lost this particular argument? >> >> I see you are ignoring the close up photo showing that what I said is true. > > True for that kind of printer, at the moment, and you're still ignoring the > other kinds of technology. It's getting embarrassing. > >> >> And again, there is only one type of 3D printer; a machine that takes >> a material that has fluid properties and deposits it in thin layers >> which are then hardened. >> >> It makes no difference if the material is thermoplastic that has been >> heated and then allowed to cool or micronized metal particles which are >> then sintered together with a laser or electron beam machine. > > Just not true. FFS neither of the other two kinds of fabricator I mentioned > work in that way. Read the article! Since you are such a dense littlt twit, I will type slowly so that you may understand. A 3D printer consists of 3 primary system: 1: The postioning system. This is the part of the machine that moves the deposition system, what ever it may be, around. This system is decended from XY protters and NC machinery, technology that is over a half century old and fully matured shortly after the microprocessor became commercially available over 40 years ago. 2: The deposition system. This is the part of the machine that deposits the material being printed, whatever it may be. All deposition depend on the material having liquid properties, at least for some time. For thermoplastic printers the solid plastic is melted in the deposition system and applied through a nozzle. For metal printers, the solid metal is in a micronized form such that it can be forced through a nozzle of some sort. The metal powder may or may not have a carrier material added to make the process easier. There is no way to "print" a material other than to squirt it in very small quantities (assuming one desires some sort of accuracy) out of a small oriface of some sort. The accuracy of the final printed product is directly related to how small an amount of material can be deposited at one time. 3: The hardening system. This is the part of the machine that hardens the the printed material. For a thermoplastic machine this may consist of nothing more than allowing air flow around the printed such that a given print pass can cool before the next print pass is applied. For a metal machine, there are several hardening methods, such as laser and electron beam sintering. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-18 22:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <z62dnVjAMZRC5PPEnZ2dnUU78SXNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #641253 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, >>>>>>>> then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. >>>>>>>> I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer >>>>>>> without slopping it around. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you >>>>>>> can squeeze something out of a nozzle? >>>>>> >>>>>> First of all, there are other technologies, the second of the new printers I >>>>>> posted uses one of them. >>>>> >>>>> All the technologies squirt out something that has liquid properties and >>>>> then is hardened somehow, all of them. >>>> >>>> Apart from those which don't, such as laser sinterers, or those, such as the one >>>> I linked to, which hardens a resin with a laser. >>> >>> What part of "is hardened somehow" did you fail to understand? >> >> The bit where you can't imagine 16 laser heads working together? >> Or that the technology mentioned above pumps fluid in at a rate of knots? >> >>> >>>>> There are no Star Trek replicators where a complete object forms out of >>>>> thin air. >>>> >>>> No-one has ever claimed there are. >>> >>> You were by claiming there are "other technologies". >> >> Don't be silly. >> Neither traditional laser sintering, nor the other technology I cited "squirt >> out something that has liquid properties" unless by "squirt" you mean "pump" >> into a tank. >> >> They are very different to a movable head which deposits material in a 3-D pattern. >> >>> >>>>>> Second, even something as simple as adding more print heads would multiply the >>>>>> printing speed, as I've explained twice now. >>>>> >>>>> What part of we are already at the limit of deposition rate is it you can not >>>>> grasp? >>>> >>>> The part where you saying it makes it true: it's not. >>>> Unless you can prove me wrong, it's your claim after all, so feel free to >>>> provide evidence. >>> >>> What do YOU think limits deposition rate, the speed of stepper motors? >> >> Yes; and we're nowhere near the limits of those, the deposition rate FOR THAT >> KIND OF 3-D PRINTER, and multiple printer heads would solve that because, >> hardening time is not at its upper bound yet. >> >>>> There were two links posted - I notice you're completely ignoring the second. >>>> There are also other kinds of 3-D printer, and different types will be invented. >>>> Can you honestly not see that, or are you just ignoring it, because you know >>>> you've lost this particular argument? >>> >>> I see you are ignoring the close up photo showing that what I said is true. >> >> True for that kind of printer, at the moment, and you're still ignoring the >> other kinds of technology. It's getting embarrassing. >> >>> >>> And again, there is only one type of 3D printer; a machine that takes >>> a material that has fluid properties and deposits it in thin layers >>> which are then hardened. >>> >>> It makes no difference if the material is thermoplastic that has been >>> heated and then allowed to cool or micronized metal particles which are >>> then sintered together with a laser or electron beam machine. >> >> Just not true. FFS neither of the other two kinds of fabricator I mentioned >> work in that way. Read the article! > > Since you are such a dense littlt twit, I will type slowly so that you > may understand. Since you're still ignoring the system I cited, let me explain *it* to you: polymers are pumped into a tank, a laser scans it, hardening it in places. Note there's no moving "deposition system", just a moving "hardening system". Obviously, the speed of operation depends on the rate at which polymer is pumped in, and the rate at which the top layer is scanned and hardened. This depends on the intensity of the laser, and the number of lasers, in theory you could have dozens. This would, obviously, make it faster than a single head; which is already the fastest 3-D printer in the world. > > A 3D printer consists of 3 primary system: > > 1: The postioning system. > > This is the part of the machine that moves the deposition system, what ever > it may be, around. > > This system is decended from XY protters and NC machinery, technology > that is over a half century old and fully matured shortly after the > microprocessor became commercially available over 40 years ago. Not necessary in the above; but carry on. > > 2: The deposition system. > > This is the part of the machine that deposits the material being printed, > whatever it may be. > > All deposition depend on the material having liquid properties, at least > for some time. > > For thermoplastic printers the solid plastic is melted in the deposition > system and applied through a nozzle. > > For metal printers, the solid metal is in a micronized form such that > it can be forced through a nozzle of some sort. The metal powder may > or may not have a carrier material added to make the process easier. Note that this doesn't have to be particularly accurate if you are tracking the deposition system with a laser, which *is* precise, so you're not squirting a fine trickle, you're firehosing it out, at the highest speed it can be hardened; with multiple heads, if you want. > > There is no way to "print" a material other than to squirt it in very > small quantities (assuming one desires some sort of accuracy) out > of a small oriface of some sort. As you can see from the above, this just isn't true. > > The accuracy of the final printed product is directly related to how > small an amount of material can be deposited at one time. As you can see from the above, this just isn't true. > > 3: The hardening system. > > This is the part of the machine that hardens the the printed material. > > For a thermoplastic machine this may consist of nothing more than allowing > air flow around the printed such that a given print pass can cool before > the next print pass is applied. > > For a metal machine, there are several hardening methods, such as laser > and electron beam sintering.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 00:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <0tm24e-jpr.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #641259 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, >>>>>>>>> then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. >>>>>>>>> I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer >>>>>>>> without slopping it around. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you >>>>>>>> can squeeze something out of a nozzle? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> First of all, there are other technologies, the second of the new printers I >>>>>>> posted uses one of them. >>>>>> >>>>>> All the technologies squirt out something that has liquid properties and >>>>>> then is hardened somehow, all of them. >>>>> >>>>> Apart from those which don't, such as laser sinterers, or those, such as the one >>>>> I linked to, which hardens a resin with a laser. >>>> >>>> What part of "is hardened somehow" did you fail to understand? >>> >>> The bit where you can't imagine 16 laser heads working together? >>> Or that the technology mentioned above pumps fluid in at a rate of knots? >>> >>>> >>>>>> There are no Star Trek replicators where a complete object forms out of >>>>>> thin air. >>>>> >>>>> No-one has ever claimed there are. >>>> >>>> You were by claiming there are "other technologies". >>> >>> Don't be silly. >>> Neither traditional laser sintering, nor the other technology I cited "squirt >>> out something that has liquid properties" unless by "squirt" you mean "pump" >>> into a tank. >>> >>> They are very different to a movable head which deposits material in a 3-D pattern. >>> >>>> >>>>>>> Second, even something as simple as adding more print heads would multiply the >>>>>>> printing speed, as I've explained twice now. >>>>>> >>>>>> What part of we are already at the limit of deposition rate is it you can not >>>>>> grasp? >>>>> >>>>> The part where you saying it makes it true: it's not. >>>>> Unless you can prove me wrong, it's your claim after all, so feel free to >>>>> provide evidence. >>>> >>>> What do YOU think limits deposition rate, the speed of stepper motors? >>> >>> Yes; and we're nowhere near the limits of those, the deposition rate FOR THAT >>> KIND OF 3-D PRINTER, and multiple printer heads would solve that because, >>> hardening time is not at its upper bound yet. >>> >>>>> There were two links posted - I notice you're completely ignoring the second. >>>>> There are also other kinds of 3-D printer, and different types will be invented. >>>>> Can you honestly not see that, or are you just ignoring it, because you know >>>>> you've lost this particular argument? >>>> >>>> I see you are ignoring the close up photo showing that what I said is true. >>> >>> True for that kind of printer, at the moment, and you're still ignoring the >>> other kinds of technology. It's getting embarrassing. >>> >>>> >>>> And again, there is only one type of 3D printer; a machine that takes >>>> a material that has fluid properties and deposits it in thin layers >>>> which are then hardened. >>>> >>>> It makes no difference if the material is thermoplastic that has been >>>> heated and then allowed to cool or micronized metal particles which are >>>> then sintered together with a laser or electron beam machine. >>> >>> Just not true. FFS neither of the other two kinds of fabricator I mentioned >>> work in that way. Read the article! >> >> Since you are such a dense littlt twit, I will type slowly so that you >> may understand. > > Since you're still ignoring the system I cited, let me explain *it* to you: > polymers are pumped into a tank, a laser scans it, hardening it in places. > > Note there's no moving "deposition system", just a moving "hardening system". The the hardening system is moving and not the deposition system is a minor nit. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing_processes Nothing particularly new or Earth shaking and it also just prints plastic. >> A 3D printer consists of 3 primary system: >> >> 1: The postioning system. >> >> This is the part of the machine that moves the deposition system, what ever >> it may be, around. >> >> This system is decended from XY protters and NC machinery, technology >> that is over a half century old and fully matured shortly after the >> microprocessor became commercially available over 40 years ago. > > Not necessary in the above; but carry on. You certainly are a naive nob. What do you think positions the hardner? >> 2: The deposition system. >> >> This is the part of the machine that deposits the material being printed, >> whatever it may be. >> >> All deposition depend on the material having liquid properties, at least >> for some time. >> >> For thermoplastic printers the solid plastic is melted in the deposition >> system and applied through a nozzle. >> >> For metal printers, the solid metal is in a micronized form such that >> it can be forced through a nozzle of some sort. The metal powder may >> or may not have a carrier material added to make the process easier. > > Note that this doesn't have to be particularly accurate if you are tracking the > deposition system with a laser, which *is* precise, so you're not squirting a > fine trickle, you're firehosing it out, at the highest speed it can be hardened; > with multiple heads, if you want. Christ you are a naive nob. The level has to be controlled rather carefully. >> There is no way to "print" a material other than to squirt it in very >> small quantities (assuming one desires some sort of accuracy) out >> of a small oriface of some sort. > > As you can see from the above, this just isn't true. Yeah, I forgot about the print in a bucket techniques. >> The accuracy of the final printed product is directly related to how >> small an amount of material can be deposited at one time. > > As you can see from the above, this just isn't true. Change the above to "deposited or hardened" and the problem is fixed. >> 3: The hardening system. >> >> This is the part of the machine that hardens the the printed material. >> >> For a thermoplastic machine this may consist of nothing more than allowing >> air flow around the printed such that a given print pass can cool before >> the next print pass is applied. >> >> For a metal machine, there are several hardening methods, such as laser >> and electron beam sintering. > -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 05:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <YsWdnUzBasDyffPEnZ2dnUU78KPNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #641275 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, >>>>>>>>>> then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. >>>>>>>>>> I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer >>>>>>>>> without slopping it around. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you >>>>>>>>> can squeeze something out of a nozzle? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> First of all, there are other technologies, the second of the new printers I >>>>>>>> posted uses one of them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All the technologies squirt out something that has liquid properties and >>>>>>> then is hardened somehow, all of them. >>>>>> >>>>>> Apart from those which don't, such as laser sinterers, or those, such as the one >>>>>> I linked to, which hardens a resin with a laser. >>>>> >>>>> What part of "is hardened somehow" did you fail to understand? >>>> >>>> The bit where you can't imagine 16 laser heads working together? >>>> Or that the technology mentioned above pumps fluid in at a rate of knots? >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> There are no Star Trek replicators where a complete object forms out of >>>>>>> thin air. >>>>>> >>>>>> No-one has ever claimed there are. >>>>> >>>>> You were by claiming there are "other technologies". >>>> >>>> Don't be silly. >>>> Neither traditional laser sintering, nor the other technology I cited "squirt >>>> out something that has liquid properties" unless by "squirt" you mean "pump" >>>> into a tank. >>>> >>>> They are very different to a movable head which deposits material in a 3-D pattern. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> Second, even something as simple as adding more print heads would multiply the >>>>>>>> printing speed, as I've explained twice now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What part of we are already at the limit of deposition rate is it you can not >>>>>>> grasp? >>>>>> >>>>>> The part where you saying it makes it true: it's not. >>>>>> Unless you can prove me wrong, it's your claim after all, so feel free to >>>>>> provide evidence. >>>>> >>>>> What do YOU think limits deposition rate, the speed of stepper motors? >>>> >>>> Yes; and we're nowhere near the limits of those, the deposition rate FOR THAT >>>> KIND OF 3-D PRINTER, and multiple printer heads would solve that because, >>>> hardening time is not at its upper bound yet. >>>> >>>>>> There were two links posted - I notice you're completely ignoring the second. >>>>>> There are also other kinds of 3-D printer, and different types will be invented. >>>>>> Can you honestly not see that, or are you just ignoring it, because you know >>>>>> you've lost this particular argument? >>>>> >>>>> I see you are ignoring the close up photo showing that what I said is true. >>>> >>>> True for that kind of printer, at the moment, and you're still ignoring the >>>> other kinds of technology. It's getting embarrassing. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> And again, there is only one type of 3D printer; a machine that takes >>>>> a material that has fluid properties and deposits it in thin layers >>>>> which are then hardened. >>>>> >>>>> It makes no difference if the material is thermoplastic that has been >>>>> heated and then allowed to cool or micronized metal particles which are >>>>> then sintered together with a laser or electron beam machine. >>>> >>>> Just not true. FFS neither of the other two kinds of fabricator I mentioned >>>> work in that way. Read the article! >>> >>> Since you are such a dense littlt twit, I will type slowly so that you >>> may understand. >> >> Since you're still ignoring the system I cited, let me explain *it* to you: >> polymers are pumped into a tank, a laser scans it, hardening it in places. >> >> Note there's no moving "deposition system", just a moving "hardening system". > > The the hardening system is moving and not the deposition system is a minor > nit. Not at all, since it's your claim that "we are already at the limit of deposition rate" which you assert imposes limits on the process. > > See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing_processes > > Nothing particularly new or Earth shaking "10 to 100 times faster" and it also just prints plastic. "The entire polymer family". Plastics do have quite a lot of useful properties. Apparently they're the future. > >> >> Not necessary in the above; but carry on. > > You certainly are a naive nob. > > What do you think positions the hardner? Just watch the video: http://www.popsci.com/fastest-3-d-printer-ever The laser scans the surface of the material, from below. Four lasers would be four times as fast. >> Note that this doesn't have to be particularly accurate if you are tracking the >> deposition system with a laser, which *is* precise, so you're not squirting a >> fine trickle, you're firehosing it out, at the highest speed it can be hardened; >> with multiple heads, if you want. > > Christ you are a naive nob. > > The level has to be controlled rather carefully. I know you won't have heard of it; but there's this thing called adaptive control; and you can use it to raise and lower the plate below which the material comes so it's at precisely the right height above the surface you're building on. I know, right?! It's also very fast, obviously, even when I first started working in embedded systems 35 years ago, we could drive a hydraulic chisel over a surface at 5cm/second with sufficient accuracy using an 8-bit processor running at 16MHz. Things have rather improved since then. >>> The accuracy of the final printed product is directly related to how >>> small an amount of material can be deposited at one time. >> >> As you can see from the above, this just isn't true. > > Change the above to "deposited or hardened" and the problem is fixed. Nice to see you actually learn something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 04:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <49534e-g8t.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #641306 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, >>>>>>>>>>> then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. >>>>>>>>>>> I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer >>>>>>>>>> without slopping it around. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you >>>>>>>>>> can squeeze something out of a nozzle? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> First of all, there are other technologies, the second of the new printers I >>>>>>>>> posted uses one of them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> All the technologies squirt out something that has liquid properties and >>>>>>>> then is hardened somehow, all of them. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apart from those which don't, such as laser sinterers, or those, such as the one >>>>>>> I linked to, which hardens a resin with a laser. >>>>>> >>>>>> What part of "is hardened somehow" did you fail to understand? >>>>> >>>>> The bit where you can't imagine 16 laser heads working together? >>>>> Or that the technology mentioned above pumps fluid in at a rate of knots? >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> There are no Star Trek replicators where a complete object forms out of >>>>>>>> thin air. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No-one has ever claimed there are. >>>>>> >>>>>> You were by claiming there are "other technologies". >>>>> >>>>> Don't be silly. >>>>> Neither traditional laser sintering, nor the other technology I cited "squirt >>>>> out something that has liquid properties" unless by "squirt" you mean "pump" >>>>> into a tank. >>>>> >>>>> They are very different to a movable head which deposits material in a 3-D pattern. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Second, even something as simple as adding more print heads would multiply the >>>>>>>>> printing speed, as I've explained twice now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> What part of we are already at the limit of deposition rate is it you can not >>>>>>>> grasp? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The part where you saying it makes it true: it's not. >>>>>>> Unless you can prove me wrong, it's your claim after all, so feel free to >>>>>>> provide evidence. >>>>>> >>>>>> What do YOU think limits deposition rate, the speed of stepper motors? >>>>> >>>>> Yes; and we're nowhere near the limits of those, the deposition rate FOR THAT >>>>> KIND OF 3-D PRINTER, and multiple printer heads would solve that because, >>>>> hardening time is not at its upper bound yet. >>>>> >>>>>>> There were two links posted - I notice you're completely ignoring the second. >>>>>>> There are also other kinds of 3-D printer, and different types will be invented. >>>>>>> Can you honestly not see that, or are you just ignoring it, because you know >>>>>>> you've lost this particular argument? >>>>>> >>>>>> I see you are ignoring the close up photo showing that what I said is true. >>>>> >>>>> True for that kind of printer, at the moment, and you're still ignoring the >>>>> other kinds of technology. It's getting embarrassing. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And again, there is only one type of 3D printer; a machine that takes >>>>>> a material that has fluid properties and deposits it in thin layers >>>>>> which are then hardened. >>>>>> >>>>>> It makes no difference if the material is thermoplastic that has been >>>>>> heated and then allowed to cool or micronized metal particles which are >>>>>> then sintered together with a laser or electron beam machine. >>>>> >>>>> Just not true. FFS neither of the other two kinds of fabricator I mentioned >>>>> work in that way. Read the article! >>>> >>>> Since you are such a dense littlt twit, I will type slowly so that you >>>> may understand. >>> >>> Since you're still ignoring the system I cited, let me explain *it* to you: >>> polymers are pumped into a tank, a laser scans it, hardening it in places. >>> >>> Note there's no moving "deposition system", just a moving "hardening system". >> >> The the hardening system is moving and not the deposition system is a minor >> nit. > > Not at all, since it's your claim that "we are already at the limit of > deposition rate" which you assert imposes limits on the process. >> >> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing_processes >> >> Nothing particularly new or Earth shaking > > "10 to 100 times faster" > > and it also just prints plastic. > > "The entire polymer family". Plastics do have quite a lot of useful properties. > Apparently they're the future. Plastics were the future in 1940. >>> Not necessary in the above; but carry on. >> >> You certainly are a naive nob. >> >> What do you think positions the hardner? > > Just watch the video: http://www.popsci.com/fastest-3-d-printer-ever > The laser scans the surface of the material, from below. > Four lasers would be four times as fast. > >>> Note that this doesn't have to be particularly accurate if you are tracking the >>> deposition system with a laser, which *is* precise, so you're not squirting a >>> fine trickle, you're firehosing it out, at the highest speed it can be hardened; >>> with multiple heads, if you want. >> >> Christ you are a naive nob. >> >> The level has to be controlled rather carefully. > > I know you won't have heard of it; but there's this thing called adaptive > control; and you can use it to raise and lower the plate below which the > material comes so it's at precisely the right height above the surface you're > building on. I know, right?! Christ you are a naive nob. The level has to be controlled rather carefully. > It's also very fast, obviously, even when I first started working in embedded > systems 35 years ago, we could drive a hydraulic chisel over a surface at > 5cm/second with sufficient accuracy using an 8-bit processor running at 16MHz. > > Things have rather improved since then. So fucking what? >>>> The accuracy of the final printed product is directly related to how >>>> small an amount of material can be deposited at one time. >>> >>> As you can see from the above, this just isn't true. >> >> Change the above to "deposited or hardened" and the problem is fixed. > > Nice to see you actually learn something. BTW, just what the fuck does all this have to do with a totally 3D printed car or printing with anything other than plastic? -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 06:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <XIidnajr5trHcvPEnZ2dnUU78X3NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #641309 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, >>>>>>>>>>>> then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. >>>>>>>>>>>> I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer >>>>>>>>>>> without slopping it around. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you >>>>>>>>>>> can squeeze something out of a nozzle? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> First of all, there are other technologies, the second of the new printers I >>>>>>>>>> posted uses one of them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All the technologies squirt out something that has liquid properties and >>>>>>>>> then is hardened somehow, all of them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apart from those which don't, such as laser sinterers, or those, such as the one >>>>>>>> I linked to, which hardens a resin with a laser. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What part of "is hardened somehow" did you fail to understand? >>>>>> >>>>>> The bit where you can't imagine 16 laser heads working together? >>>>>> Or that the technology mentioned above pumps fluid in at a rate of knots? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are no Star Trek replicators where a complete object forms out of >>>>>>>>> thin air. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No-one has ever claimed there are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You were by claiming there are "other technologies". >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't be silly. >>>>>> Neither traditional laser sintering, nor the other technology I cited "squirt >>>>>> out something that has liquid properties" unless by "squirt" you mean "pump" >>>>>> into a tank. >>>>>> >>>>>> They are very different to a movable head which deposits material in a 3-D pattern. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Second, even something as simple as adding more print heads would multiply the >>>>>>>>>> printing speed, as I've explained twice now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What part of we are already at the limit of deposition rate is it you can not >>>>>>>>> grasp? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The part where you saying it makes it true: it's not. >>>>>>>> Unless you can prove me wrong, it's your claim after all, so feel free to >>>>>>>> provide evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do YOU think limits deposition rate, the speed of stepper motors? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes; and we're nowhere near the limits of those, the deposition rate FOR THAT >>>>>> KIND OF 3-D PRINTER, and multiple printer heads would solve that because, >>>>>> hardening time is not at its upper bound yet. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> There were two links posted - I notice you're completely ignoring the second. >>>>>>>> There are also other kinds of 3-D printer, and different types will be invented. >>>>>>>> Can you honestly not see that, or are you just ignoring it, because you know >>>>>>>> you've lost this particular argument? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see you are ignoring the close up photo showing that what I said is true. >>>>>> >>>>>> True for that kind of printer, at the moment, and you're still ignoring the >>>>>> other kinds of technology. It's getting embarrassing. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And again, there is only one type of 3D printer; a machine that takes >>>>>>> a material that has fluid properties and deposits it in thin layers >>>>>>> which are then hardened. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It makes no difference if the material is thermoplastic that has been >>>>>>> heated and then allowed to cool or micronized metal particles which are >>>>>>> then sintered together with a laser or electron beam machine. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just not true. FFS neither of the other two kinds of fabricator I mentioned >>>>>> work in that way. Read the article! >>>>> >>>>> Since you are such a dense littlt twit, I will type slowly so that you >>>>> may understand. >>>> >>>> Since you're still ignoring the system I cited, let me explain *it* to you: >>>> polymers are pumped into a tank, a laser scans it, hardening it in places. >>>> >>>> Note there's no moving "deposition system", just a moving "hardening system". >>> >>> The the hardening system is moving and not the deposition system is a minor >>> nit. >> >> Not at all, since it's your claim that "we are already at the limit of >> deposition rate" which you assert imposes limits on the process. >>> >>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing_processes >>> >>> Nothing particularly new or Earth shaking >> >> "10 to 100 times faster" >> >> and it also just prints plastic. >> >> "The entire polymer family". Plastics do have quite a lot of useful properties. >> Apparently they're the future. > > Plastics were the future in 1940. Yeah, that was an (obvious) joke. Plastics do have quite a lot of useful properties, however. >> I know you won't have heard of it; but there's this thing called adaptive >> control; and you can use it to raise and lower the plate below which the >> material comes so it's at precisely the right height above the surface you're >> building on. I know, right?! > > Christ you are a naive nob. > > The level has to be controlled rather carefully. Let's see, we can measure to within wavelengths of light, and move, using piezoelectric actuators, small multiples of nanometres, in microseconds. You were saying? > So fucking what? We can measure to within wavelengths of light, and move, using piezoelectric actuators, small multiples of nanometres, in microseconds. >>>>> The accuracy of the final printed product is directly related to how >>>>> small an amount of material can be deposited at one time. >>>> >>>> As you can see from the above, this just isn't true. >>> >>> Change the above to "deposited or hardened" and the problem is fixed. >> >> Nice to see you actually learn something. > > BTW, just what the fuck does all this have to do with a totally 3D printed > car or printing with anything other than plastic? You referenced the Wikipedia article. Did you not read it? You really should. We can 3-D print *right now*: Thermoplastics, eutectic metals, edible materials, Rubbers, Modeling clay, Plasticine, Metal clay (including Precious Metal Clay), Ceramic materials, Metal alloy, cermet, metal matrix composite, ceramic matrix composite Nylon or Nylon with short carbon fiber + reinforcement in the form Carbon, Kevlar, Glass and Glass for high temperature fiber Photopolymer,Photopolymer + thermally activated chemistry Almost any metal alloy including Titanium alloys There's duplication; because I can't be bothered to edit it, knowing you'll ignore it anyway. To be fair, most of these are industrial (not all though); but then, as you're aware, many things in the home started out industrially. So, no, it's not beyond the pale. SpaceX has already flight-qualified a rocket engine made using direct metal sintering, so an internal combustion engine is possible, although by the time one can, I suspect one wouldn't - preferring to use electric motors in wheels. Which, yes, could be made using fabricated components.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 16:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <p4d44e-ua4.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #641312 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: <snip> > possible, although by the time one can, I suspect one wouldn't - preferring to > use electric motors in wheels. > > Which, yes, could be made using fabricated components. Puerile idiot. *plonk* -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 17:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <rfadnfEwNPVVGvLEnZ2dnUU78NmdnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #641357 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip> > >> possible, although by the time one can, I suspect one wouldn't - preferring to >> use electric motors in wheels. >> >> Which, yes, could be made using fabricated components. > > Puerile idiot. > > *plonk* > > Always gracious in defeat, is Jim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 00:00 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <et8artFhg1eU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #641309 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> "The entire polymer family". Plastics do have quite a lot of useful properties. >> Apparently they're the future. > >Plastics were the future in 1940. And again a quarter century later. I'm assuming that he was semi-quoting a 1967 movie. -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-19 20:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <kotvmc1546p2hacr2hcdmgpmgfqu7p4rm3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #641309 |
On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 04:54:28 -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: >>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, >>>>>>>>>>>> then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. >>>>>>>>>>>> I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer >>>>>>>>>>> without slopping it around. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you >>>>>>>>>>> can squeeze something out of a nozzle? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> First of all, there are other technologies, the second of the new printers I >>>>>>>>>> posted uses one of them. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All the technologies squirt out something that has liquid properties and >>>>>>>>> then is hardened somehow, all of them. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Apart from those which don't, such as laser sinterers, or those, such as the one >>>>>>>> I linked to, which hardens a resin with a laser. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What part of "is hardened somehow" did you fail to understand? >>>>>> >>>>>> The bit where you can't imagine 16 laser heads working together? >>>>>> Or that the technology mentioned above pumps fluid in at a rate of knots? >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> There are no Star Trek replicators where a complete object forms out of >>>>>>>>> thin air. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No-one has ever claimed there are. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You were by claiming there are "other technologies". >>>>>> >>>>>> Don't be silly. >>>>>> Neither traditional laser sintering, nor the other technology I cited "squirt >>>>>> out something that has liquid properties" unless by "squirt" you mean "pump" >>>>>> into a tank. >>>>>> >>>>>> They are very different to a movable head which deposits material in a 3-D pattern. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Second, even something as simple as adding more print heads would multiply the >>>>>>>>>> printing speed, as I've explained twice now. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What part of we are already at the limit of deposition rate is it you can not >>>>>>>>> grasp? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The part where you saying it makes it true: it's not. >>>>>>>> Unless you can prove me wrong, it's your claim after all, so feel free to >>>>>>>> provide evidence. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What do YOU think limits deposition rate, the speed of stepper motors? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes; and we're nowhere near the limits of those, the deposition rate FOR THAT >>>>>> KIND OF 3-D PRINTER, and multiple printer heads would solve that because, >>>>>> hardening time is not at its upper bound yet. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> There were two links posted - I notice you're completely ignoring the second. >>>>>>>> There are also other kinds of 3-D printer, and different types will be invented. >>>>>>>> Can you honestly not see that, or are you just ignoring it, because you know >>>>>>>> you've lost this particular argument? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I see you are ignoring the close up photo showing that what I said is true. >>>>>> >>>>>> True for that kind of printer, at the moment, and you're still ignoring the >>>>>> other kinds of technology. It's getting embarrassing. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And again, there is only one type of 3D printer; a machine that takes >>>>>>> a material that has fluid properties and deposits it in thin layers >>>>>>> which are then hardened. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It makes no difference if the material is thermoplastic that has been >>>>>>> heated and then allowed to cool or micronized metal particles which are >>>>>>> then sintered together with a laser or electron beam machine. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just not true. FFS neither of the other two kinds of fabricator I mentioned >>>>>> work in that way. Read the article! >>>>> >>>>> Since you are such a dense littlt twit, I will type slowly so that you >>>>> may understand. >>>> >>>> Since you're still ignoring the system I cited, let me explain *it* to you: >>>> polymers are pumped into a tank, a laser scans it, hardening it in places. >>>> >>>> Note there's no moving "deposition system", just a moving "hardening system". >>> >>> The the hardening system is moving and not the deposition system is a minor >>> nit. >> >> Not at all, since it's your claim that "we are already at the limit of >> deposition rate" which you assert imposes limits on the process. >>> >>> See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing_processes >>> >>> Nothing particularly new or Earth shaking >> >> "10 to 100 times faster" >> >> and it also just prints plastic. >> >> "The entire polymer family". Plastics do have quite a lot of useful properties. >> Apparently they're the future. > >Plastics were the future in 1940. Apparently they were in 1967, too. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Graduate >>>> Not necessary in the above; but carry on. >>> >>> You certainly are a naive nob. >>> >>> What do you think positions the hardner? >> >> Just watch the video: http://www.popsci.com/fastest-3-d-printer-ever >> The laser scans the surface of the material, from below. >> Four lasers would be four times as fast. >> >>>> Note that this doesn't have to be particularly accurate if you are tracking the >>>> deposition system with a laser, which *is* precise, so you're not squirting a >>>> fine trickle, you're firehosing it out, at the highest speed it can be hardened; >>>> with multiple heads, if you want. >>> >>> Christ you are a naive nob. >>> >>> The level has to be controlled rather carefully. >> >> I know you won't have heard of it; but there's this thing called adaptive >> control; and you can use it to raise and lower the plate below which the >> material comes so it's at precisely the right height above the surface you're >> building on. I know, right?! > >Christ you are a naive nob. > >The level has to be controlled rather carefully. > >> It's also very fast, obviously, even when I first started working in embedded >> systems 35 years ago, we could drive a hydraulic chisel over a surface at >> 5cm/second with sufficient accuracy using an 8-bit processor running at 16MHz. >> >> Things have rather improved since then. > >So fucking what? > >>>>> The accuracy of the final printed product is directly related to how >>>>> small an amount of material can be deposited at one time. >>>> >>>> As you can see from the above, this just isn't true. >>> >>> Change the above to "deposited or hardened" and the problem is fixed. >> >> Nice to see you actually learn something. > >BTW, just what the fuck does all this have to do with a totally 3D printed >car or printing with anything other than plastic? > Nothing, other than some hallucinations about the perfect future (where flying cars fold up into brief cases).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-21 08:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <oksq62$8ih$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #641060 |
wrote in message news:396v3e-s4g.ln1@mail.specsol.com... In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: >> ... >>> Strati is little more than a $30,000 golf cart and the finish is an >>> abomination. >> >> Not the point, remember the whole "mature technology" thing? >> If we can do that *now*, imagine what we'll be able to do in 30 years >> time. > >Yes, it is the whole point. > >They get speed by using thick layers as there is no other way to do it. >This >results in a crap finish. > >And this IS an industrial grade printer. > > A National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) noted this is a problem with 3D-printing, that there is wide variation in results and quality even in 3D-prints of objects by the same process: NIST ADDRESSES METAL 3D PRINTER CHALLENGES WITH DIGITAL THREAD STRATEGY. BEAU JACKSON 2017-07-17 8:17 PM [quote] In collaboration with Duck Bong Kim at Tennessee Technological University (TTU), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has published a study addressing three of the challenges to production-ready metal 3D printing. The proposed model could eventually form a standard for 3D printed metal parts and aid additive manufacturing through the certification process – often seen as a primary barrier to progress.[/quote] https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/nist-addresses-metal-3d-printer-challenges-digital-thread-strategy-118409/ They propose solutions based on a uniformity of the digital information provided both before and after processing. Bob Clark ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, nanotechnology can now fulfill its potential to revolutionize 21st-century technology, from the space elevator, to private, orbital launchers, to 'flying cars'. This crowdfunding campaign is to prove it: Nanotech: from air to space. https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/nanotech-from-air-to-space/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web