![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#261
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 7/16/2017 7:00 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:32:10 -0600, Greg Goss wrote: wrote: Nothing from a 1988 Ford F150 would even "plug into" a Ford F150 bought today. BTW, a current Ford F150 costs about the same (in adjusted dollars) as a 1988 Ford F150 and does not perform significantly differently. Lug nuts. Maybe whole wheels. Antifreeze. Gasoline (so long as we stay this side of 1972 or so.) Does Ford still use a different tranny fluid than everyone else like they did in the seventies? Are modern "power points" heat resistant enough to take an old cigarette lighter? Has the trailer ball hitch changed since WW2? I realize that "hidden hitch" sockets are a newer idea, but the old trailers can still be "plugged in". You might need an adapter for the lights on the trailer. The controls have stayed remarkably steady. You've got the PRNDL tranny setting, probably using a lever identical to the one thirty years ago. You've got the steering wheel and two pedals. Crankshaft, pistons, rings, spark plugs, poppet valves, gears. Hasn't changed much in over a century. Actually, other than cosmetics, the bulk of the change tends to be in engines. Look at performance now vs performance then. My 1985 Corvette with a big V-8 did 0-60 is 6-ish seconds, a 15 second quarter mile at 91 MPH, and had a top speed of 150 MPH. It was the fasted mass produced car of its day. My current car (BMW 435i with a small straight six) does 0-60 in 5.2 seconds or so, a 13.7 second quarter mile at 102 MPH, and a governed top speed of 155 MPH. The BMW handily beats the old 'Vette and it isn't even considered a performance car these days. Mustangs - V8 1993 240HP gas mileage 18 on highway (I put a supercharger on this one to get to 330HP, too scary for the wife, +others, a muscle car) Now 2015 Mustang V8 makes 427Hp and gets good gas milage 26 on highway, and it is a nice ride, a sports car. |
#263
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 7/16/2017 1:53 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
wrote: In sci.physics wrote: Yes, companies used Rubylith, but the tool of choice was CAD on minicomputers. The only mainframe application was Spice. Bull****! Tell that to Boeing. You're simply clueless. Bull****! Tell that to Hughes Aircraft Company. You're simply clueless. I never encountered CAD before the micros, so have nothing to add to the argument. But I'm enjoying the discussion. I remember Rubylith, and Spice but spice was a simulator, and rubylith a layout tool... (?) there is free spice on the internet for under 30 components. and free tools from some fab houses for small cheap proto boards now too, under $50, gets you a board back AND I remember laying out circuits for Motorola by hand using "dolls" 4:1 I think, ... anybody ? Hughes Aircraft Company is fantastic, they did SLQ-32 ! google that one... |
#264
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: wrote: In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: wrote: In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote: wrote in message ... In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote: In article , says... In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote: "David Mitchell" wrote in message o.uk... wrote: In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: wrote: OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home? Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets. Could you be any more vague? Yes. Yes I could. Things. People will make things. All of the things. I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only need a few major mainframes. Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of smart phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and facebook. The original point was that the original "personal computers" were hideously expensive, very hard to use, and didn't do a whole lot. There absolutely were a lot of people who said "I'll never need one of those" back in the early 1980s. Yet they can be found (in desktop or laptop form) in the vast majority of houses in the US because the price dropped, they became much easier to use, and they could do a lot more (i.e. high speed Internet versus acoustic modems and BBSes), Besides, smart phones prove the point AGAIN! When the original Apple iPhone came out, it didn't have it's "killer app" which was the App Store, so the orignal wasn't terribly functional. On top of that, cell data service at the time was slow, slow, slow, so even surfing the Internet was painful with these new "smart phones". But again, the majority of phones I see today are now "smart phones". They're cheaper, more functional (more apps), and the cell data networks are quite good these days. New technologies keep getting cheaper and more accessible for individuals to use all the time! It's a pretty safe bet that the very same thing will happen with 3D printing. New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper. So what? They don't need to be cheaper. People literally buy millions of items made out of aluminum and plastic every day and throw them out, the material is so cheap. So the raw material for 3D printing is more expensive than the raw material for legacy fabrication methods and my response was to the two sentences above mine. Try reading them before knee jerking. Printing speed is limited by basic physics. Such as? Seriously, you don't think new technologies and concepts are possible? Heck, if nothing else, you can design printers with multiple heads if you want to. Bam, you've nearly doubled printing speed for many items. As I have already said many times accuracy is directly related to layer thickness and layer application delay is directly related to layer "hardening" time. We're nowhere near those limits yet. The whooshing sound you hear is the point and all it's details going over you head. Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer without slopping it around. Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you can squeeze something out of a nozzle? First of all, there are other technologies, the second of the new printers I posted uses one of them. Second, even something as simple as adding more print heads would multiply the printing speed, as I've explained twice now. "The BAAM was used to manufacture the first (almost) fully 3D printed car, the Strati, for together with Local Motors. With a deposition rate of up to 38 lbs of material per hour, it is possibly the fastest machine currently on the market." The Strati is little more than a $30,000 golf cart and the finish is an abomination. Not the point, remember the whole "mature technology" thing? If we can do that *now*, imagine what we'll be able to do in 30 years time. Yes, it is the whole point. They get speed by using thick layers as there is no other way to do it. This results in a crap finish. Simply not true, see my points above. And this IS an industrial grade printer. So? The first ordinary printers were "industrial", and now we have better ones in homes. What's your point? The industry for both consumer and industrial 3D printers is tiny and few people do. Sales of 400,000 last year, projected sales of 1.2 million this one. Also appears to be non-linear. But that it's tiny now is irrelevant. How many people had early telephones? Or TV sets? Do you understand the difference between hobby and professional? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by ignoring those stats. Obviously. And yet here you are, not explaining it. Perhaps you don't have one. |
#265
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
wrote: In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: snip Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer without slopping it around. Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you can squeeze something out of a nozzle? First of all, there are other technologies, the second of the new printers I posted uses one of them. All the technologies squirt out something that has liquid properties and then is hardened somehow, all of them. There are no Star Trek replicators where a complete object forms out of thin air. Second, even something as simple as adding more print heads would multiply the printing speed, as I've explained twice now. What part of we are already at the limit of deposition rate is it you can not grasp? "The BAAM was used to manufacture the first (almost) fully 3D printed car, the Strati, for together with Local Motors. With a deposition rate of up to 38 lbs of material per hour, it is possibly the fastest machine currently on the market." The Strati is little more than a $30,000 golf cart and the finish is an abomination. Not the point, remember the whole "mature technology" thing? If we can do that *now*, imagine what we'll be able to do in 30 years time. Yes, it is the whole point. They get speed by using thick layers as there is no other way to do it. This results in a crap finish. Simply not true, see my points above. Yes, it is true. Look at the pictures of the thing and read the companies own press releases. -- Jim Pennino |
#266
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 09:06:37 -0500, Serg io
wrote: On 7/16/2017 7:00 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote: John Larkin wrote: On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 15:32:10 -0600, Greg Goss wrote: wrote: Nothing from a 1988 Ford F150 would even "plug into" a Ford F150 bought today. BTW, a current Ford F150 costs about the same (in adjusted dollars) as a 1988 Ford F150 and does not perform significantly differently. Lug nuts. Maybe whole wheels. Antifreeze. Gasoline (so long as we stay this side of 1972 or so.) Does Ford still use a different tranny fluid than everyone else like they did in the seventies? Are modern "power points" heat resistant enough to take an old cigarette lighter? Has the trailer ball hitch changed since WW2? I realize that "hidden hitch" sockets are a newer idea, but the old trailers can still be "plugged in". You might need an adapter for the lights on the trailer. The controls have stayed remarkably steady. You've got the PRNDL tranny setting, probably using a lever identical to the one thirty years ago. You've got the steering wheel and two pedals. Crankshaft, pistons, rings, spark plugs, poppet valves, gears. Hasn't changed much in over a century. Actually, other than cosmetics, the bulk of the change tends to be in engines. Look at performance now vs performance then. My 1985 Corvette with a big V-8 did 0-60 is 6-ish seconds, a 15 second quarter mile at 91 MPH, and had a top speed of 150 MPH. It was the fasted mass produced car of its day. My current car (BMW 435i with a small straight six) does 0-60 in 5.2 seconds or so, a 13.7 second quarter mile at 102 MPH, and a governed top speed of 155 MPH. The BMW handily beats the old 'Vette and it isn't even considered a performance car these days. Mustangs - V8 1993 240HP gas mileage 18 on highway (I put a supercharger on this one to get to 330HP, too scary for the wife, +others, a muscle car) My 65YO wife's 2014 6-cylinder 300HP Mustang isn't too much for her. ;-) Now 2015 Mustang V8 makes 427Hp and gets good gas milage 26 on highway, and it is a nice ride, a sports car. She likes driving hers with her top down (and often skirt up). I worry about her scaring little children. ;-) |
#267
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 06:02:37 +0100, David Mitchell
wrote: wrote: On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 06:40:16 +0100, David Mitchell wrote: wrote: On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:36:41 +0100, David Mitchell wrote: wrote: In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: wrote: In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: wrote: In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: wrote: In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: 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. Great, yet another techno nerd weenie who spends way too much time watching Star Trek reruns. Bless. It's almost as though you imagine anyone give even the tinest of ****s what you think. It's almost as though you imagine I think puerile techno nerds represent the average person. I think you need to find a better insult - "techno nerd" is a bit tautologous - and I've never made any particular claim to represent anyone. How about pie-in-the-sky dreamer? Like I've said before, most people can't be bothered to make things as trivial as bread and biscuits. Well, lots of people *do* make bread and biscuits; and a series about baking was one of the most popular UK programs for some time. Watching is not making. True; but search for "The Great British Off effect". "In the six years it has been on the air, “The Great British Bake Off” has fundamentally changed the way the British regard baking, dessert-eating and even their own culture of sweets. The “Bake Off Effect,” as it is known, has manifested in a resurgence in home baking, a noticeable increase in the quality of baked goods sold all over the country, and a growing number of people pursuing careers as professional pastry chefs." "The Mary Berry effect: How the Great British Bake Off revived the Women's Institute WI membership reached 211,000 last year, its highest level since the 1970s 22,600 new members joined last year and 144 institutes were created Organisation's chairman said Great British Bakeoff 'inspired' more women to take up home baking" "A recent survey from Waitrose revealed that baking is more popular than ever, with 19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and nearly half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago." Irrelevant. My wife watches a lot (way too much ;-) of cooking shows and also does a lot of baking but not once has she ever made anything that was on the TeeVee. She does make biscuits, on special occasions, but not bread. Ah yes, your one anecdote easily trumps my three data points. Seriously? That's your counter? One person? Wait! I know two people who bake! I win! No, stupid. The existence of cooking shows doesn't mean everyone is cooking. There are a couple of networks dedicated to buying homes but more people aren't buying houses every week. Bread machines were once popular but are a total bust, these days. As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials, and able to fabricate something at the push of a button more quickly than driving to buy it, and more cheaply. Not going to happen. It would be good if you could back that up, rather than simply asserting it. There is no need. There is no efficiency of scale. It's too much work to design things and get them ready (and then the retries). Few will put up with the bull****. No, I don't think people will download designs for plastic jewelry and make it. Well, maybe a few 6 year-olds. As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials. It really would be nice if you could read. Mature doesn't matted if there is no need. So, not just "plastic jewelry", as you must surely be able to appreciate. So you're going to sell personal gold printers? Nice! I wish you well in that endeavor. We've noted that nearly all technology improves with time, as fabrication technology has, and that prices always fall, and that as that of fabrication technology has; and sales are increasing non-linearly, up to 400000 last year, with projected sales of 1.2 million this year (search "3-D printer sales") - which provides motication for their continued improvement and revenue to support it. Irrelevant. Entirely relevant to the point that mature technology is on the way; which was the point you tried to refute. No, it's not. Most have cars, these days too. They're mature, sure, but there they also fulfill a need. |
#268
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
On Mon, 17 Jul 2017 06:02:37 +0100, David Mitchell wrote: wrote: On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 06:40:16 +0100, David Mitchell wrote: wrote: On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 06:36:41 +0100, David Mitchell wrote: wrote: In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: wrote: In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: wrote: In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: wrote: In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: 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. Great, yet another techno nerd weenie who spends way too much time watching Star Trek reruns. Bless. It's almost as though you imagine anyone give even the tinest of ****s what you think. It's almost as though you imagine I think puerile techno nerds represent the average person. I think you need to find a better insult - "techno nerd" is a bit tautologous - and I've never made any particular claim to represent anyone. How about pie-in-the-sky dreamer? Like I've said before, most people can't be bothered to make things as trivial as bread and biscuits. Well, lots of people *do* make bread and biscuits; and a series about baking was one of the most popular UK programs for some time. Watching is not making. True; but search for "The Great British Off effect". "In the six years it has been on the air, “The Great British Bake Off” has fundamentally changed the way the British regard baking, dessert-eating and even their own culture of sweets. The “Bake Off Effect,” as it is known, has manifested in a resurgence in home baking, a noticeable increase in the quality of baked goods sold all over the country, and a growing number of people pursuing careers as professional pastry chefs." "The Mary Berry effect: How the Great British Bake Off revived the Women's Institute WI membership reached 211,000 last year, its highest level since the 1970s 22,600 new members joined last year and 144 institutes were created Organisation's chairman said Great British Bakeoff 'inspired' more women to take up home baking" "A recent survey from Waitrose revealed that baking is more popular than ever, with 19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and nearly half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago." Irrelevant. My wife watches a lot (way too much ;-) of cooking shows and also does a lot of baking but not once has she ever made anything that was on the TeeVee. She does make biscuits, on special occasions, but not bread. Ah yes, your one anecdote easily trumps my three data points. Seriously? That's your counter? One person? Wait! I know two people who bake! I win! No, stupid. The existence of cooking shows doesn't mean everyone is cooking. There are a couple of networks dedicated to buying homes but more people aren't buying houses every week. Bread machines were once popular but are a total bust, these days. I didn't say "everyone was baking". I said "19 per cent of people saying they now bake at least once a week and nearly half admitted to baking more than they did five years ago." As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials, and able to fabricate something at the push of a button more quickly than driving to buy it, and more cheaply. Not going to happen. It would be good if you could back that up, rather than simply asserting it. There is no need. There is no efficiency of scale. It's too much work to design things and get them ready (and then the retries). Few will put up with the bull****. No, I don't think people will download designs for plastic jewelry and make it. Well, maybe a few 6 year-olds. As I keep, apparently, having to explain - I am talking about *mature* fabrication technology - something capable of working with multiple materials. It really would be nice if you could read. Mature doesn't matted if there is no need. Let me try to put in easier terms for you: when nearly any form of technology first appears it is often expensive and limited, so only the "early adopters" pick it up. That market is sometimes enough to drive the development of better, cheaper devices; and as a consequence, more people buy them. This cycle continues. You know this to be true, right? So the only question is whether fabricators are in this class of technology. I would submit that since they've already shown vast improvment in their capabilities, a reduction in price and non-linear take-up, that they clearly are. So, not just "plastic jewelry", as you must surely be able to appreciate. So you're going to sell personal gold printers? Nice! I wish you well in that endeavor. A fabricator capable of printing most kinds of metal isn't beyond the pale. No, it's not. Most have cars, these days too. They're mature, sure, but there they also fulfill a need. As the non-linear growth shows, there appears to be a need for even these relatively crude devices. |
#269
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote:
In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: wrote: In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: snip Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer without slopping it around. Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you can squeeze something out of a nozzle? First of all, there are other technologies, the second of the new printers I posted uses one of them. All the technologies squirt out something that has liquid properties and then is hardened somehow, all of them. Apart from those which don't, such as laser sinterers, or those, such as the one I linked to, which hardens a resin with a laser. There are no Star Trek replicators where a complete object forms out of thin air. No-one has ever claimed there are. Second, even something as simple as adding more print heads would multiply the printing speed, as I've explained twice now. What part of we are already at the limit of deposition rate is it you can not grasp? The part where you saying it makes it true: it's not. Unless you can prove me wrong, it's your claim after all, so feel free to provide evidence. "The BAAM was used to manufacture the first (almost) fully 3D printed car, the Strati, for together with Local Motors. With a deposition rate of up to 38 lbs of material per hour, it is possibly the fastest machine currently on the market." The Strati is little more than a $30,000 golf cart and the finish is an abomination. Not the point, remember the whole "mature technology" thing? If we can do that *now*, imagine what we'll be able to do in 30 years time. Yes, it is the whole point. They get speed by using thick layers as there is no other way to do it. This results in a crap finish. Simply not true, see my points above. Yes, it is true. Look at the pictures of the thing and read the companies own press releases. There were two links posted - I notice you're completely ignoring the second. There are also other kinds of 3-D printer, and different types will be invented. Can you honestly not see that, or are you just ignoring it, because you know you've lost this particular argument? |
#270
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
wrote: In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: wrote: In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote: snip Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time, then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate. I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it. But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer without slopping it around. Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you can squeeze something out of a nozzle? First of all, there are other technologies, the second of the new printers I posted uses one of them. All the technologies squirt out something that has liquid properties and then is hardened somehow, all of them. Apart from those which don't, such as laser sinterers, or those, such as the one I linked to, which hardens a resin with a laser. What part of "is hardened somehow" did you fail to understand? There are no Star Trek replicators where a complete object forms out of thin air. No-one has ever claimed there are. You were by claiming there are "other technologies". Second, even something as simple as adding more print heads would multiply the printing speed, as I've explained twice now. What part of we are already at the limit of deposition rate is it you can not grasp? The part where you saying it makes it true: it's not. Unless you can prove me wrong, it's your claim after all, so feel free to provide evidence. What do YOU think limits deposition rate, the speed of stepper motors? "The BAAM was used to manufacture the first (almost) fully 3D printed car, the Strati, for together with Local Motors. With a deposition rate of up to 38 lbs of material per hour, it is possibly the fastest machine currently on the market." The Strati is little more than a $30,000 golf cart and the finish is an abomination. Not the point, remember the whole "mature technology" thing? If we can do that *now*, imagine what we'll be able to do in 30 years time. Yes, it is the whole point. They get speed by using thick layers as there is no other way to do it. This results in a crap finish. Simply not true, see my points above. Yes, it is true. Look at the pictures of the thing and read the companies own press releases. There were two links posted - I notice you're completely ignoring the second. There are also other kinds of 3-D printer, and different types will be invented. Can you honestly not see that, or are you just ignoring it, because you know you've lost this particular argument? I see you are ignoring the close up photo showing that what I said is true. And again, there is only one type of 3D printer; a machine that takes a material that has fluid properties and deposits it in thin layers which are then hardened. It makes no difference if the material is thermoplastic that has been heated and then allowed to cool or micronized metal particles which are then sintered together with a laser or electron beam machine. -- Jim Pennino |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The future of electric cars | FredKartoffel | Amateur Astronomy | 103 | June 21st 16 04:48 PM |
Cars Only Need a 20 HP motor(electric) | G=EMC^2TreBert | Misc | 3 | March 6th 15 12:08 AM |
3D Printed Rocket | William Mook[_2_] | Policy | 8 | January 17th 14 11:24 AM |
better way of seeing noise before image is printed? | Jason Albertson | Amateur Astronomy | 24 | March 7th 07 05:46 AM |
other planets that have lightning bolts-- do they have plate tectonics ?? do the experiment with electric motor and also Faradays first electric motor is this the Oersted experiment writ large on the size of continental plates | a_plutonium | Astronomy Misc | 4 | September 16th 06 01:13 PM |