Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.space.policy > #60476 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-07-03 08:31 -0400 |
| Last post | 2017-11-25 20:25 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 313 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.space.policy
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-03 08:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. bitrex <bitrex@de.lete.earthlink.net> - 2017-07-03 09:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-03 17:04 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-03 14:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-03 18:28 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-03 16:14 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-03 20:57 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 16:14 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 00:45 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 20:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 04:55 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 02:29 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2017-11-23 16:14 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 06:49 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 18:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-04 22:59 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 04:51 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-04 21:33 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 07:16 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 16:47 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 11:08 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:02 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 19:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 22:16 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 23:30 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:35 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 10:05 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:20 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-07 08:03 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:19 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 23:05 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-04 20:08 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-04 09:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-04 11:47 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 18:19 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-04 23:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 04:56 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-04 23:16 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-04 18:12 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 07:20 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 16:54 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-05 18:42 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 23:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:30 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-06 06:35 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 16:34 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:25 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-07 04:56 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 02:09 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-07 20:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 06:19 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-07 17:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-08 06:49 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-08 17:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 07:12 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-09 17:44 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 12:48 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-09 23:27 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 07:11 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 16:30 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 06:49 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-11 17:47 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 13:15 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 16:27 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 14:46 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 18:36 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 18:20 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-11 21:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-11 22:12 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Spehro Pefhany <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> - 2017-07-11 19:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 02:24 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 22:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 10:24 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 20:57 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:17 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:42 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-11 18:21 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-12 07:28 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 05:10 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:45 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-12 18:39 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 21:29 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-13 20:27 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:22 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-14 11:55 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 22:56 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:03 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:50 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 23:49 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 23:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 05:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:51 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:23 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:08 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:02 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 12:53 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 13:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 09:51 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 11:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 17:55 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 16:15 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 20:26 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 15:32 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:08 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. John Larkin <jjlarkin@highlandtechnology.com> - 2017-07-16 15:21 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 17:00 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-17 09:06 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-17 20:23 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 15:27 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 17:39 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> - 2017-07-17 09:46 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 22:16 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 13:04 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-12 07:04 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:48 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 06:50 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-13 17:29 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 05:51 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:36 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-15 00:27 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:52 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 06:40 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-16 16:02 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 06:02 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-17 20:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 06:32 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-18 21:10 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 05:08 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-19 20:17 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 01:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 06:23 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 03:35 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 05:56 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-20 10:18 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Phil Hobbs <pcdhSpamMeSenseless@electrooptical.net> - 2017-07-20 11:34 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 16:25 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-20 20:42 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-20 16:40 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 19:54 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-20 19:15 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 20:38 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-21 07:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-20 16:24 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:26 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Lofty Goat <rlwatkins@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 11:33 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:39 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:03 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:19 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:52 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:12 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 19:54 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 09:43 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-13 09:30 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-13 17:37 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 21:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:18 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-13 22:59 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 05:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-07-14 13:59 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 17:55 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 23:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-14 23:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 05:06 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 23:17 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 08:57 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 17:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:12 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 02:07 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 03:13 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-14 07:14 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 17:11 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-14 20:09 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 02:14 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-14 23:09 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 05:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 23:19 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-15 06:57 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 18:19 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 07:06 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 14:06 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 20:29 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-15 00:33 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-15 16:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-15 21:27 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-15 18:17 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-15 22:30 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-15 22:07 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 03:15 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 07:16 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 11:45 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:13 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 16:33 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:09 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 06:11 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 16:46 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-17 22:24 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-17 21:53 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 06:38 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 17:35 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 20:26 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-18 20:12 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-18 22:12 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-19 00:49 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 05:30 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-19 04:54 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 06:34 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-19 16:14 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-19 17:24 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-19 00:00 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-19 20:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-21 08:00 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-21 09:08 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-21 17:14 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-16 13:21 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-14 09:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 17:15 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-14 16:10 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-15 22:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 03:23 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-16 09:58 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-16 12:05 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:15 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> - 2017-07-16 10:56 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-16 18:19 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-16 16:36 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-05 08:19 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-05 10:39 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-05 16:59 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 11:11 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:11 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-05 19:28 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:32 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 19:38 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-09 21:55 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 12:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-10 12:25 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jmfbahciv <See.above@aol.com> - 2017-07-11 13:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 12:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 18:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 16:44 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 19:52 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 09:33 +0100
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 03:29 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 21:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 01:22 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-05 22:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-06 05:06 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-06 21:36 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-07 05:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-07 20:25 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-08 00:40 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:53 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-09 21:56 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 05:08 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-09 23:06 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 12:38 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 17:31 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-10 12:47 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 18:22 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-10 22:35 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> - 2017-07-07 13:41 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2017-07-05 17:47 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2017-07-03 22:55 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-03 20:16 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Peter Stickney <p_stickney@verizon.net> - 2017-07-13 19:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-04 20:04 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> - 2017-07-05 08:20 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-04 20:04 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 06:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Robert Baer <robertbaer@localnet.com> - 2017-07-03 18:35 -0800
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 05:01 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-06 13:38 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 05:10 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 17:16 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 05:13 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 08:35 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-07 10:31 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-09 22:15 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2017-07-10 10:43 +0300
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> - 2017-07-10 21:32 -0600
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. krw@notreal.com - 2017-07-10 12:39 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-06 15:21 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-06 13:14 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-07 15:34 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 14:03 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:22 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-07 17:01 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-09 12:49 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-09 23:26 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 16:10 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 17:40 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Sегg io <innvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-07-10 17:22 -0500
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-10 19:49 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Thomas Koenig <tkoenig@netcologne.de> - 2017-07-13 20:17 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-13 21:42 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-13 20:53 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-14 02:05 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> - 2017-07-13 23:25 -0700
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 10:58 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 17:54 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 15:18 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-12 20:00 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-12 11:42 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-13 04:17 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-26 13:33 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-07-26 17:58 +0000
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> - 2017-07-26 14:08 -0400
Re: Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars. William Mook <mokmedical@gmail.com> - 2017-11-25 20:25 -0800
Page 10 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 16 Next page →
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-14 23:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2vcjmc1nsed5nua6ri9o5ha32udfdnrv82@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #60699 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>In sci.physics JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 2017-07-14 22:14, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>
>>>> http://www.aluminum.org/aluminum-advantage/history-aluminum
>>>
>>> Yes, it changed about a hundred years ago and has not change significantly
>>> since then.
>>
>> Actually, it has changed quite a bit. Different alloys, and something
>> called Glare which sandwiched aluminium/composites which yields
>> competitive weight/strength ratio to pure composites.
>>
>> Glare is one of the things that made the Airbus A380 possible for instance.
>
>Glare is 30 years old and has nothing to do with the production of aluminum
>metal or 3D printing.
>
>Aluminum alloys were first standardised in the 1930's and haven't changed much
>since the 1950's
>
That's why there are all those aluminum alloy patents in the
1980s-1990s?
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 06:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <MpCdnTFBENsoM_TEnZ2dnUU78KHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #60692 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >> In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >> says... >>> New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. >> >> This is quite simply bullshit. Aluminum used to be so damn expensive >> that the tip of the Washington Monument is made of the stuff. Now it's >> do damn cheap that beer cans and soda cans are made of it. Why? >> Because the technology used to make it literally changed. But don't >> take my word for it: >> >> http://www.aluminum.org/aluminum-advantage/history-aluminum > > Yes, it changed about a hundred years ago and has not change significantly > since then. > > The name for this phenomena is "mature technology". > >> I'm not an expert on plastic prices, but it sure seems like kids these >> days have a lot more, and bigger, damn cheap plastic toys than when I >> grew up. Hell, even some storage sheds are made of the stuff today. I >> sure don't remember any plastic storage sheds when I was a kid. > > Again, mature technology. > >>> Printing speed is limited by basic physics. >> >> The speed of any casting, injection, machining, and etc. method is too >> so I don't see your point. Besides, these things are computer >> controlled, so you can start printing and come back when the thing is >> done. It's not like you have to babysit the thing 24/7. > > The point is 3D printing is slow and basic physics says there is not > much that can be done to speed it up significantly. That's not true. Some printing methods are already significantly faster than others. It's possible to scale up 3D printing merely by running multiple print heads in parallel. No one does this yet, AFAIK, because it's expensive; but the whole poin t of technology is that it gets better, faster, and cheaper with time. If you're still going to claim that "basic physics" will never allow a reasonable speed, you're going to have to be a lot more specific, if you want to remain credible. > Yep, if it is a hobby, it doesn't really matter if the whole print job > turns to shit in the middle of the process. Which will happen less and less. You can also compare it to current home printing technology - yes, paper jams and other problems do occur; but that doesn't stop millions of people having printers. > >>> Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on >>> equipment they already own. >> >> Baking bread or making biscuits from scratch is a time consuming, labor >> intensive, p.i.t.a. I don't think downloading a file from the Internet >> and hitting "print" on the 3D printer is as difficult, but I guess >> that's my opinion. > > Yep, hobby printing some plastic trinket is about the same level of > difficulty and it is obvious you have never done any baking. I have, and it's a lot more than pressing a button, unless you use a breadmaker; which I do, kind of proving my point. >>> 3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do >>> you know that have one? >> >> As with product you can buy, the $200 models aren't that great. But the >> technology is improving every year so that better machines are becoming >> more affordable. That's the trend. Just like every other technology >> which goes from its infancy to maturity. Looking at the trends in the >> industry (e.g. aerospace, which is what I follow) 3D printing still has >> not reached its full potential, IMHO. > > 3D printing is over 30 years old and getting close to being a mature > technology for anything that would ever be used at home. Aren't you agreeing with us now? 3D-printing is, IMO, about where ordinary printing was a couple of decades ago, black-and-white, expensive, not that fast. Compare it to printing now, full-colour, a lot faster and cheaper.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 18:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tt2q3e-vor.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #60701 |
In sci.physics David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>> In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>> says... >>>> New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. >>> >>> This is quite simply bullshit. Aluminum used to be so damn expensive >>> that the tip of the Washington Monument is made of the stuff. Now it's >>> do damn cheap that beer cans and soda cans are made of it. Why? >>> Because the technology used to make it literally changed. But don't >>> take my word for it: >>> >>> http://www.aluminum.org/aluminum-advantage/history-aluminum >> >> Yes, it changed about a hundred years ago and has not change significantly >> since then. >> >> The name for this phenomena is "mature technology". >> >>> I'm not an expert on plastic prices, but it sure seems like kids these >>> days have a lot more, and bigger, damn cheap plastic toys than when I >>> grew up. Hell, even some storage sheds are made of the stuff today. I >>> sure don't remember any plastic storage sheds when I was a kid. >> >> Again, mature technology. >> >>>> Printing speed is limited by basic physics. >>> >>> The speed of any casting, injection, machining, and etc. method is too >>> so I don't see your point. Besides, these things are computer >>> controlled, so you can start printing and come back when the thing is >>> done. It's not like you have to babysit the thing 24/7. >> >> The point is 3D printing is slow and basic physics says there is not >> much that can be done to speed it up significantly. > > That's not true. Some printing methods are already significantly faster than > others. It's possible to scale up 3D printing merely by running multiple print > heads in parallel. And still be nowhere as fast as casting, molding, or stamping by orders of magnitude. > No one does this yet, AFAIK, because it's expensive; but the whole poin t of > technology is that it gets better, faster, and cheaper with time. Nonsense. How much better, faster, and cheaper has the pencil become since it's invention in the 16th century? Some technology gets better, faster, and cheaper with time and some is pretty near mature shortly after it's invention. > If you're still going to claim that "basic physics" will never allow a > reasonable speed, you're going to have to be a lot more specific, if you want to > remain credible. Accuracy depends on deposition size. Depositon size determines total depostition time. Wait time between layers is limited by the hardening time of the last layer. >> Yep, if it is a hobby, it doesn't really matter if the whole print job >> turns to shit in the middle of the process. > > Which will happen less and less. You can also compare it to current home > printing technology - yes, paper jams and other problems do occur; but that > doesn't stop millions of people having printers. Apples and oranges and irrelevant. If it is a hobby, it doesn't really matter what happens, how long it takes, what it costs, or if it is worth anything to anybody. >>>> Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on >>>> equipment they already own. >>> >>> Baking bread or making biscuits from scratch is a time consuming, labor >>> intensive, p.i.t.a. I don't think downloading a file from the Internet >>> and hitting "print" on the 3D printer is as difficult, but I guess >>> that's my opinion. >> >> Yep, hobby printing some plastic trinket is about the same level of >> difficulty and it is obvious you have never done any baking. > > I have, and it's a lot more than pressing a button, unless you use a breadmaker; > which I do, kind of proving my point. And yet few people these days have breadmakers since the fad is over. >>>> 3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do >>>> you know that have one? >>> >>> As with product you can buy, the $200 models aren't that great. But the >>> technology is improving every year so that better machines are becoming >>> more affordable. That's the trend. Just like every other technology >>> which goes from its infancy to maturity. Looking at the trends in the >>> industry (e.g. aerospace, which is what I follow) 3D printing still has >>> not reached its full potential, IMHO. >> >> 3D printing is over 30 years old and getting close to being a mature >> technology for anything that would ever be used at home. > > Aren't you agreeing with us now? > > 3D-printing is, IMO, about where ordinary printing was a couple of decades ago, > black-and-white, expensive, not that fast. > > Compare it to printing now, full-colour, a lot faster and cheaper. Color printing goes back a lot farther than that and is still not very fast for consumer grade printers. A couple of decades ago there were color printers whose feed was a truck with a roll of paper backed up to the printer and that printed so fast that the paper needed cooling to prevent it from bursting into flames. Consumer printers got cheap because they have limited capabilities and can be mass produced by methods like injection molding and stamping of component parts. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 07:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <UdqdnedlPdvqn_bEnZ2dnUU78aHNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #60721 |
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 Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >>>> In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>>> says... >>>>> New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. >>>> >>>> This is quite simply bullshit. Aluminum used to be so damn expensive >>>> that the tip of the Washington Monument is made of the stuff. Now it's >>>> do damn cheap that beer cans and soda cans are made of it. Why? >>>> Because the technology used to make it literally changed. But don't >>>> take my word for it: >>>> >>>> http://www.aluminum.org/aluminum-advantage/history-aluminum >>> >>> Yes, it changed about a hundred years ago and has not change significantly >>> since then. >>> >>> The name for this phenomena is "mature technology". >>> >>>> I'm not an expert on plastic prices, but it sure seems like kids these >>>> days have a lot more, and bigger, damn cheap plastic toys than when I >>>> grew up. Hell, even some storage sheds are made of the stuff today. I >>>> sure don't remember any plastic storage sheds when I was a kid. >>> >>> Again, mature technology. >>> >>>>> Printing speed is limited by basic physics. >>>> >>>> The speed of any casting, injection, machining, and etc. method is too >>>> so I don't see your point. Besides, these things are computer >>>> controlled, so you can start printing and come back when the thing is >>>> done. It's not like you have to babysit the thing 24/7. >>> >>> The point is 3D printing is slow and basic physics says there is not >>> much that can be done to speed it up significantly. >> >> That's not true. Some printing methods are already significantly faster than >> others. It's possible to scale up 3D printing merely by running multiple print >> heads in parallel. > > And still be nowhere as fast as casting, molding, or stamping by orders > of magnitude. They can reasonably be expected to become as fast as they need to be for home use. I don't need a replacement knife in 1/10 second; if could have one in five minutes, that'd be fast enough. > >> No one does this yet, AFAIK, because it's expensive; but the whole poin t of >> technology is that it gets better, faster, and cheaper with time. > > Nonsense. > > How much better, faster, and cheaper has the pencil become since it's > invention in the 16th century? > > Some technology gets better, faster, and cheaper with time and some is > pretty near mature shortly after it's invention. I think "the pencil" is pretty much a straw man here. Fabrication technology has already shown it's in the "continually improving" category. > >> If you're still going to claim that "basic physics" will never allow a >> reasonable speed, you're going to have to be a lot more specific, if you want to >> remain credible. > > Accuracy depends on deposition size. Depositon size determines total > depostition time. Wait time between layers is limited by the hardening > time of the last layer. Some technologies are better than others, and not all technologies are realistically constrained by those factors you describe. http://www.popsci.com/fastest-3-d-printer-ever "The result is 25 to 100 times faster than conventional printing. It also works with more materials, including the entire polymer family, and at a higher resolution than competitors, which build objects in layers—making CLIP ideal for custom commercial manufacturing. Now Carbon, the company DeSimone co-founded with chemist Ed Samulski, is partnering with BMW, Johnson & Johnson, and others to do just that." https://all3dp.com/1/worlds-fastest-3d-printer-speed-3d-printing/ "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." > >>> Yep, if it is a hobby, it doesn't really matter if the whole print job >>> turns to shit in the middle of the process. >> >> Which will happen less and less. You can also compare it to current home >> printing technology - yes, paper jams and other problems do occur; but that >> doesn't stop millions of people having printers. > > Apples and oranges and irrelevant. Not really, it's an operation which people initiate with a few simple actions, but which might take significant time, which most people then leave to complete. Occasional snafus occur; which appears to be something you think is relevant; but people still use printers despite this. I think the relevance is pretty clear. > And yet few people these days have breadmakers since the fad is over. Indeed, possibly because they're single use machines, and not very good. >> 3D-printing is, IMO, about where ordinary printing was a couple of decades ago, >> black-and-white, expensive, not that fast. >> >> Compare it to printing now, full-colour, a lot faster and cheaper. > > Color printing goes back a lot farther than that and is still not very > fast for consumer grade printers. It's fast enough. Nine pages/minute. > > A couple of decades ago there were color printers whose feed was a truck > with a roll of paper backed up to the printer and that printed so fast > that the paper needed cooling to prevent it from bursting into flames. So the technology is getting better? Who would have thought. > > Consumer printers got cheap because they have limited capabilities and > can be mass produced by methods like injection molding and stamping of > component parts. Their capabilities include quickly and accurately placing varying materials on a 2-D surface which is how some kinds of fabricators work, and they've improved from "feedstock might catch fire" to cheap, fast and reliable. I think you're making my point.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 14:06 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <et1vavF44iuU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #60721 |
jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >How much better, faster, and cheaper has the pencil become since it's >invention in the 16th century? Pencils that don't need to be sharpened are only about a century old. (Electronics company Sharp started that way.) When I was a kid, my mother had one that cost $18 and took a minute or so to withdraw a new lead into its body. Other than lacking the magnet (hers could be stuck onto stuff for convenient access), better pencils are now about the price of six wooden pencils. I haven't sharpened a pencil other than on an "emergency" basis for 45 years. Pencils were a nickel when I was a kid and a dime now. Since I was a kid, the value of that dime has decreased tenfold. So pencils are now five times cheaper than in the sixties. I assume technology did it. (Perhaps containerized TRANSPORT technology to bring us the product of chinese semi-slaves.) -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 20:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1vus3e-3g8.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #60762 |
In sci.physics Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> wrote: > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >>How much better, faster, and cheaper has the pencil become since it's >>invention in the 16th century? > > Pencils that don't need to be sharpened are only about a century old. > (Electronics company Sharp started that way.) They are a different thing but they haven't changed much since invention either. > When I was a kid, my mother had one that cost $18 and took a minute or > so to withdraw a new lead into its body. Other than lacking the > magnet (hers could be stuck onto stuff for convenient access), better > pencils are now about the price of six wooden pencils. I haven't > sharpened a pencil other than on an "emergency" basis for 45 years. > > Pencils were a nickel when I was a kid and a dime now. Since I was a > kid, the value of that dime has decreased tenfold. So pencils are now > five times cheaper than in the sixties. I assume technology did it. > (Perhaps containerized TRANSPORT technology to bring us the product of > chinese semi-slaves.) Mass production in huge quantities by automated traditional manufacturing techniques and cheap shipping from China. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Greg Goss <gossg@gossg.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 00:33 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <estrakF5i88U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #60691 |
Jeff Findley <jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com> wrote: >Baking bread or making biscuits from scratch is a time consuming, labor >intensive, p.i.t.a. I don't think downloading a file from the Internet >and hitting "print" on the 3D printer is as difficult, but I guess >that's my opinion. http://tinyurl.com/y8stp6jc http://www.robinhood.ca/Recipes/Bread-Machine -- We are geeks. Resistance is voltage over current.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 16:11 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okdsln$vkm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60691 |
In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >says... > >> Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on >> equipment they already own. > >Baking bread or making biscuits from scratch is a time consuming, labor >intensive, p.i.t.a. I don't think downloading a file from the Internet >and hitting "print" on the 3D printer is as difficult, but I guess >that's my opinion. > >> 3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do >> you know that have one? > >As with product you can buy, the $200 models aren't that great. But the >technology is improving every year so that better machines are becoming >more affordable. That's the trend. Just like every other technology >which goes from its infancy to maturity. Looking at the trends in the >industry (e.g. aerospace, which is what I follow) 3D printing still has >not reached its full potential, IMHO. > >Jeff BTW, there is this new innovation: The World's First Home Robotic Chef Can Cook Over 100 Meals. Eustacia Huen , CONTRIBUTOR. OCT 31, 2016 @ 11:17 PM https://www.forbes.com/sites/eustaciahuen/2016/10/31/the-worlds-first-home-robotic-chef-can-cook-over-100-meals/#575543397228 These robotic arms put a five-star chef in your kitchen - YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKCVol2iWcc I'm sure quite a few people would push the button for fresh baked bread. 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]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 21:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8vdq3e-9ts.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #60722 |
In sci.physics Robert Clark <rgregoryclark@gmspambloackail.com> wrote: > In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>says... >> >>> Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on >>> equipment they already own. >> >>Baking bread or making biscuits from scratch is a time consuming, labor >>intensive, p.i.t.a. I don't think downloading a file from the Internet >>and hitting "print" on the 3D printer is as difficult, but I guess >>that's my opinion. >> >>> 3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do >>> you know that have one? >> >>As with product you can buy, the $200 models aren't that great. But the >>technology is improving every year so that better machines are becoming >>more affordable. That's the trend. Just like every other technology >>which goes from its infancy to maturity. Looking at the trends in the >>industry (e.g. aerospace, which is what I follow) 3D printing still has >>not reached its full potential, IMHO. >> >>Jeff > > BTW, there is this new innovation: > > The World's First Home Robotic Chef Can Cook Over 100 Meals. > Eustacia Huen , CONTRIBUTOR. > OCT 31, 2016 @ 11:17 PM > https://www.forbes.com/sites/eustaciahuen/2016/10/31/the-worlds-first-home-robotic-chef-can-cook-over-100-meals/#575543397228 > > These robotic arms put a five-star chef in your kitchen - YouTube. > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKCVol2iWcc > > I'm sure quite a few people would push the button for fresh baked bread. I'm sure that at a price of $92,000 very few people will have the slightest interest in it. People that have the money to blow on such gadgets are more likely to hire help. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krw@notreal.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 18:17 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <525lmchqeje41ncf0h5ajtigqn1c1b5lda@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #60722 |
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 16:11:20 -0400, "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> wrote: >In article <hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com>, jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com >>says... >> >>> Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on >>> equipment they already own. >> >>Baking bread or making biscuits from scratch is a time consuming, labor >>intensive, p.i.t.a. I don't think downloading a file from the Internet >>and hitting "print" on the 3D printer is as difficult, but I guess >>that's my opinion. >> >>> 3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do >>> you know that have one? >> >>As with product you can buy, the $200 models aren't that great. But the >>technology is improving every year so that better machines are becoming >>more affordable. That's the trend. Just like every other technology >>which goes from its infancy to maturity. Looking at the trends in the >>industry (e.g. aerospace, which is what I follow) 3D printing still has >>not reached its full potential, IMHO. >> >>Jeff > >BTW, there is this new innovation: > >The World's First Home Robotic Chef Can Cook Over 100 Meals. >Eustacia Huen , CONTRIBUTOR. >OCT 31, 2016 @ 11:17 PM >https://www.forbes.com/sites/eustaciahuen/2016/10/31/the-worlds-first-home-robotic-chef-can-cook-over-100-meals/#575543397228 > >These robotic arms put a five-star chef in your kitchen - YouTube. >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKCVol2iWcc > >I'm sure quite a few people would push the button for fresh baked bread. How long does it take to clean after it cooks your evening meal?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Robert Clark" <rgregoryclark@gmSPAMBLOACKail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 22:30 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <okeisl$p8f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #60728 |
>> >>BTW, there is this new innovation: >> >>The World's First Home Robotic Chef Can Cook Over 100 Meals. >>Eustacia Huen , CONTRIBUTOR. >>OCT 31, 2016 @ 11:17 PM >>https://www.forbes.com/sites/eustaciahuen/2016/10/31/the-worlds-first-home-robotic-chef-can-cook-over-100-meals/#575543397228 >> >>These robotic arms put a five-star chef in your kitchen - YouTube. >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKCVol2iWcc >> >>I'm sure quite a few people would push the button for fresh baked bread. > >How long does it take to clean after it cooks your evening meal? > I seem to recall the promotional videos said it does it's own cleaning. Here's the company web page: http://www.moley.com/ 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]
| From | "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" <mooregr@deletethisgreenms.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-15 22:07 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mZ-dnYq5FtbAV_fEnZ2dnUU7-d_NnZ2d@earthlink.com> |
| In reply to | #60677 |
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. > >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. And as others in this thread have pointed out, "so what". Load up your materials, load the file, hit print and go to bed. > >Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on >equipment they already own. And yet, the industry is thriving and many people do. > >3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do >you know that have one? Under $200, I don't think any of my friends are that cheap. The ones I know have opted for more expensive, more capable printers. > >>> > Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and >> printing >>> > parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner >>> > of >>> > things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong >>> > and no >>> > one will effectively use a 3D printer at home. >>> >>> How many people do you know that own 3D printers? >> >> That's today. We're talking about the trending of the technology. > >The trending of the technology for home use is anybodies guess; my guess >is that it will be trivial and hobbiests just like the people that own >machinery like drill presses and milling machines. > >>> I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling >>> machines, >>> drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer. >>> >>> > Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no >>> > future to >>> > 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing >>> > at >>> > such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get >>> > faster, >>> > more capable, capable of using more materials, etc. >>> >>> Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense. >> >> That sure as hell seems to be what you're arguing. > >Maybe to the typical internet generation knee jerker that immediately >responds with anger and bile to what he THINKS was said as opposed to >what was actually said. > So, stop being a kneejerker. > > -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net IT Disaster Response - https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Response-Lessons-Learned-Field/dp/1484221834/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 03:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <2c2r3e-gp1.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #60730 |
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. > And as others in this thread have pointed out, "so what". Load up your > materials, load the file, hit print and go to bed. As I have already said many times such is irrelevant for hobby applications. >>Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on >>equipment they already own. > > And yet, the industry is thriving and many people do. The industry for both consumer and industrial 3D printers is tiny and few people do. >>3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do >>you know that have one? > > Under $200, I don't think any of my friends are that cheap. The ones I know > have opted for more expensive, more capable printers. The fact that someone you know paid more than $200 for a 3D printer is irrelvant to the fact that such can be had for under $200. >>>> > Which reminds me, I need to tell my friends who own 3D printers and >>> printing >>>> > parts to fix things at homes, tools, and tool holders and all manner >>>> > of >>>> > things that I never would have thought of myself that they're wrong >>>> > and no >>>> > one will effectively use a 3D printer at home. >>>> >>>> How many people do you know that own 3D printers? >>> >>> That's today. We're talking about the trending of the technology. >> >>The trending of the technology for home use is anybodies guess; my guess >>is that it will be trivial and hobbiests just like the people that own >>machinery like drill presses and milling machines. >> >>>> I know about a dozen people that own things like welders, milling >>>> machines, >>>> drill presses, and lathes but no one that owns a 3D printer. >>>> >>>> > Honestly, it's pretty damn presumptuous to claim that there's no >>>> > future to >>>> > 3D printing at home. I suspect 10-20 years from now we'll be laughing >>>> > at >>>> > such claims. Like computers, it will continue to improve. It'll get >>>> > faster, >>>> > more capable, capable of using more materials, etc. >>>> >>>> Since no one in this thread has made that claim, your post is nonsense. >>> >>> That sure as hell seems to be what you're arguing. >> >>Maybe to the typical internet generation knee jerker that immediately >>responds with anger and bile to what he THINKS was said as opposed to >>what was actually said. >> > > So, stop being a kneejerker. I'm not the one with panties in a wad because 3D printers are not being properly worshipped. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Mitchell <david.robot.mitchell@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 07:16 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <9pidnZsjhflImfbEnZ2dnUU78cnNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #60735 |
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." > 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?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invaalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 11:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <okg57c$1b9j$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #60739 |
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 ??
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 18:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <tums3e-me7.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #60749 |
In sci.physics 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 ?? Fully recyclable thermoplastic so you can grind up your $30,000 golf cart when you are done playing with it. The printing speed is achieved by using thick layers which makes the finish horrible. Check out the finish in the photo near the end. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strati_(automobile) -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Fred J. McCall <fjmccall@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-07-16 16:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9rtnmcdb8g2vci3eoc6oql0g3nvhpim89d@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #60749 |
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 | #60739 |
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 | #60753 |
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 | #60780 |
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]
Page 10 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.space.policy
csiph-web