Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

In sci.physics wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 05:06:13 -0000, wrote:

In sci.physics wrote:

snip

That the post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
everything at home including cars?

That wasn't my claim! I've been arguing on your side of that silly
proposition.

What wasn't your claim?

That the post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
everything at home including cars?

The above is just a statement of fact.

I don't see you saying anything about the post that started all this.

You're not looking.

But let me put it another way.... If 3D printers are the "next
thing", are you saying that there can't be any "next, next thing"? The
world ends after "next"?

3D printers are over 30 years old.

"The world ends" is babble.

Let me make this simple for the simple. If 3D printers are "the next
thing". Why is there not another "thing" beyond "the next thing"? End
of the world?

3D printers are an old thing.

Woooosssshhhh!

Are you saying we will have Star Trek replicators?

Do pay attention. Wow!

I never said 3D printers are "the next thing" nor do I believe that.

The last "thing" in the manufacturing world was the industrial revolution
which started in the late 18th century and became fully mature in the
early 20th century.

THAT changed the world.

FYI I concider 3D printing to be little more than a refinement of Damascus
steel, a process from the 3rd century.



--
Jim Pennino

In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper.

This is quite simply bull****. 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-adv...story-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 **** 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

In article ,
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/eustaci.../#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/n...ce/x/13319568/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote:
In article ,
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/eustaci.../#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

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:23:52 -0000, wrote:

In sci.physics wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 05:02:14 -0000, wrote:

snip


Ever heard of the PDP-8 or the HP CAD workstations that were common well
before the PC?

So no one really used Rubylith? IOW, nonsense.

Not what I said.

The point is that CAD on minicomputers was very minimal. It was the
domain of the mainframe. Rubylith was the tool of choice for the
electronics industry.

That was not my experience.

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.

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:53:48 -0000, wrote:

In sci.physics wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 05:06:13 -0000, wrote:

In sci.physics wrote:

snip

That the post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
everything at home including cars?

That wasn't my claim! I've been arguing on your side of that silly
proposition.

What wasn't your claim?

You really can't read? I thought better of you.

That the post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
everything at home including cars?

Which I *completely* disagree with but for some reason you insist on
arguing with someone who agrees with you.

The above is just a statement of fact.

I don't see you saying anything about the post that started all this.

You're not looking.

But let me put it another way.... If 3D printers are the "next
thing", are you saying that there can't be any "next, next thing"? The
world ends after "next"?

3D printers are over 30 years old.

"The world ends" is babble.

Let me make this simple for the simple. If 3D printers are "the next
thing". Why is there not another "thing" beyond "the next thing"? End
of the world?

3D printers are an old thing.

Woooosssshhhh!

Are you saying we will have Star Trek replicators?

Do pay attention. Wow!

I never said 3D printers are "the next thing" nor do I believe that.

Try reading for comprehension.

The last "thing" in the manufacturing world was the industrial revolution
which started in the late 18th century and became fully mature in the
early 20th century.

THAT changed the world.

FYI I concider 3D printing to be little more than a refinement of Damascus
steel, a process from the 3rd century.

Oh, good grief.

On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 16:11:20 -0400, "Robert Clark"
wrote:

In article ,
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/eustaci.../#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?

In sci.physics wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:23:52 -0000, wrote:

In sci.physics wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 05:02:14 -0000, wrote:

snip


Ever heard of the PDP-8 or the HP CAD workstations that were common well
before the PC?

So no one really used Rubylith? IOW, nonsense.

Not what I said.

The point is that CAD on minicomputers was very minimal. It was the
domain of the mainframe. Rubylith was the tool of choice for the
electronics industry.

That was not my experience.

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.


--
Jim Pennino

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.



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-Resp...dp/1484221834/

In sci.physics wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 17:53:48 -0000, wrote:

In sci.physics wrote:
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 05:06:13 -0000, wrote:

In sci.physics wrote:

snip

That the post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
everything at home including cars?

That wasn't my claim! I've been arguing on your side of that silly
proposition.

What wasn't your claim?

You really can't read? I thought better of you.

Well thanks but I'm having problems parsing extactly what it is you are
agreeing with an what you are disagreeing with.

That the post that started all this was claiming people would be printing
everything at home including cars?

Which I *completely* disagree with but for some reason you insist on
arguing with someone who agrees with you.

OK, fine, we both agree that the post that started all this was claiming
people would be printing everything at home including cars.

The above is just a statement of fact.

I don't see you saying anything about the post that started all this.

You're not looking.

But let me put it another way.... If 3D printers are the "next
thing", are you saying that there can't be any "next, next thing"? The
world ends after "next"?

3D printers are over 30 years old.

"The world ends" is babble.

Let me make this simple for the simple. If 3D printers are "the next
thing". Why is there not another "thing" beyond "the next thing"? End
of the world?

3D printers are an old thing.

Woooosssshhhh!

Are you saying we will have Star Trek replicators?

Do pay attention. Wow!

I never said 3D printers are "the next thing" nor do I believe that.

Try reading for comprehension.

OK, what part of I never said 3D printers are "the next thing" nor do I
believe that do you have an issue with?

The last "thing" in the manufacturing world was the industrial revolution
which started in the late 18th century and became fully mature in the
early 20th century.

THAT changed the world.

FYI I concider 3D printing to be little more than a refinement of Damascus
steel, a process from the 3rd century.

Oh, good grief.

So what is the essential diffence between Damascus steel and 3D printing?

Both take chunks of a base material and fuse the chunks into a bigger
object.

--
Jim Pennino