wrote:
In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
wrote:

Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet?

Yes. I do.

If any significant number of items in your house are fabricated, it makes sense
to use as few raw materials as possible, so, for example, it would make sense to
honeycomb the inside of a knife handle, since it would still be strong enough,
and would allow you to keep a gram or two of material "in the pot" for other
projects.

Ditto everything you make.

Nonsense; the items in one's house are based on price not how elegantly
it was produced.

It makes no sense to honeycomb the inside of a knife handle as it would
add no functionality and just increase the price.


What price?

The manufacturing cost which increases the retail sales price at the store.

It would reduce both the time to fabricate and feedstock used, albeit at the
cost of slightly more complex software.

Or you could injection mold it, as most knife handles are, for a fraction
of the manufacturing cost of the honyecomb nonsense.

What do you think the manufacturing cost of fabrication is?
- Feedstock, most of which is, and can be, recycled,

Cost recovery for most materials is trivial.

- Power, minimal,

For 3D metal printing, lots of power.

- Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print?

Babble.

Not really, it's called amortisation, in this case of the cost of the fabricator.
"The process of reducing, or accounting for, an amount over a period according
to a plan."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amortization



These are all very small.

For techniques such as molding, yes.

And for mature fabrication technology.

I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things
you fabricate them.

Pure fantasy.

Name-calling isn't particularly useful in a discussion.
I'd justify my claim (that most people will be fabricating most things) by
noting that when almost any technology becomes cheap enough, it becomes
ubiquitous, and I'd cite computers, automobiles and printers as examples.

Your turn.


In that scenario, the economic case for large scale mass-production disappears,
because everyone fabricates what they want, or buys it from someone who does
(which would obviously be more expensive; but worth it, for example, if they
have a larger fabricator than you).

Pure fantasy and both economic and practical nonsense.

Again, please justify that comment.