A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old July 8th 17, 01:01 AM posted to sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.electronics.design
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

"Robert Clark" wrote:

"Robert Clark" wrote:

...

Separate print heads assumes an inkjet model. These deposition methods
do not have print heads. they lay down a layer of powder and then melt it
where it needs to form the image.


The Desktop Metal system is more akin to inkjet printing and does not use
powders:

Desktop Metal Production System.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUOCiRktuCo


Uh, Bob? The video says it uses powders.


Bound into solid rods with a binder similar to the solid rods used for
plastic 3D-printing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fused_deposition_modeling


Bob, go watch your original video. Much about powder spreaders.
Nothing about solid rods.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #82  
Old July 8th 17, 01:18 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 04:56:28 -0000, wrote:

In sci.physics
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 16:34:29 -0000,
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.


Manufacturing cost and sales price are only loosely correlated.


For government projects mainly but not for consumer products.


Not true at all. You totally discount both marketing assume a perfect
market. People pay more (allowing a higher profit) on "name brands".

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.

Or you could stamp the whole thing out of metal for a fraction of the cost
of the honyecomb nonsense.

They form the only metric which makes sense when talking about fabricating objects.

The only metric which makes sense for fabricating objects is the loaded
manufacturing cost.


Yes but not because of sales price, rather profit.


profit = sales price - loaded manufacturing cost


TAUTOLOGIES-R-US?

So, by that metric, they're cheaper.

If an injection molded handle costs a fraction of a cent while the honeycomb
handle costs several cents, which is cheaper?


Not the one with the better ad agency. ;-)

  #83  
Old July 8th 17, 01:25 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 47
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 05:00:07 -0000, wrote:

In sci.physics
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 05:06:49 -0000,
wrote:

In sci.physics
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 01:22:40 -0000,
wrote:

In sci.physics
wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:12:47 -0000,
wrote:

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...
Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized
parts. These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone
from the design. They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due
to their complex shapes. I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts
from management types.

And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things
that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design
without the expense of 3D printing.

True, the big dumb cylindrical pressure vessel may not apply but, that's
not the entire aircraft.

If the "mass were already gone from the design" then GE would not be
pouring literally millions of dollars into developing a one meter cubed
3D printer presumably for printing aircraft engine parts.

Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another
area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up
a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would
be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing.

Again, you are talking about niche applications and landing gear are not
that big a part of an aircrafts weight.

Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft?

Yes, many times. I've got a b.s. in aerospace engineering, so I know
the basics. Many of our customers are aerospace, so I have to
understand the domain.

3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method.

Handy at times, but certainly not a world changer.

This is quite short sighted. I'm sure the same was said about
composites when they were in their infancy. Today it would be quite
hard (i.e. likely impossible) to point to something commercial that
flies and carries people commercially that has absolutely zero composite
content.

An irrelevant red herring to the subject of 3D printing. There are a HUGE
number of different composite materials out there and it has taken well
over half a century for most aircraft to have even a small fraction of
composite materials in their construction.

Note the word "most".

I can say that shape optimization coupled with 3D printing is one of the
"bleeding edge" topics in my industry. It's really no secret, you can
surely Google hundreds of articles on the topic. I really can't go into
further details, but my profession is in writing engineering software,
so I ought to know.

Whoopee. It is still niche.

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

Marketing types certainly do. Consumers have always bought toasters
based on their looks. After all, the thousands of different designs
all do the same thing.

And all look about the same.

Not so much:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437412182539227477/

For any given era they look pretty much the same to me.

https://www.google.com/search?q=toas...w=1327&bih=868


You'd argue that every color is the same?


No, but most are chrome.


Huh, I could have sworn I'd seen black, red, and white ones.

The fact is that marketing
differentiates their product from the competition by making stuff
*look* different. Similar, sure, but that's the way fashion goes. A
few years ago every car looked pretty much the same but that's not the
same "same" as it is now.


For toasters the differences are in the unnecessary bells and whistles.


OK, please tell me the technical reason that car grilles, these days,
look like ugly shark teeth and tail lights like silly raptor eyes.
  #84  
Old July 8th 17, 01:40 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

In sci.physics wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 05:00:07 -0000,
wrote:

In sci.physics
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 05:06:49 -0000,
wrote:

In sci.physics
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 01:22:40 -0000,
wrote:

In sci.physics
wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:12:47 -0000,
wrote:

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...
Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized
parts. These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone
from the design. They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due
to their complex shapes. I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts
from management types.

And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things
that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design
without the expense of 3D printing.

True, the big dumb cylindrical pressure vessel may not apply but, that's
not the entire aircraft.

If the "mass were already gone from the design" then GE would not be
pouring literally millions of dollars into developing a one meter cubed
3D printer presumably for printing aircraft engine parts.

Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another
area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up
a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would
be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing.

Again, you are talking about niche applications and landing gear are not
that big a part of an aircrafts weight.

Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft?

Yes, many times. I've got a b.s. in aerospace engineering, so I know
the basics. Many of our customers are aerospace, so I have to
understand the domain.

3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method.

Handy at times, but certainly not a world changer.

This is quite short sighted. I'm sure the same was said about
composites when they were in their infancy. Today it would be quite
hard (i.e. likely impossible) to point to something commercial that
flies and carries people commercially that has absolutely zero composite
content.

An irrelevant red herring to the subject of 3D printing. There are a HUGE
number of different composite materials out there and it has taken well
over half a century for most aircraft to have even a small fraction of
composite materials in their construction.

Note the word "most".

I can say that shape optimization coupled with 3D printing is one of the
"bleeding edge" topics in my industry. It's really no secret, you can
surely Google hundreds of articles on the topic. I really can't go into
further details, but my profession is in writing engineering software,
so I ought to know.

Whoopee. It is still niche.

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

Marketing types certainly do. Consumers have always bought toasters
based on their looks. After all, the thousands of different designs
all do the same thing.

And all look about the same.

Not so much:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437412182539227477/

For any given era they look pretty much the same to me.

https://www.google.com/search?q=toas...w=1327&bih=868

You'd argue that every color is the same?


No, but most are chrome.


Huh, I could have sworn I'd seen black, red, and white ones.


most - adjective

1 greatest in quantity, extent, or degree
2 the majority of


The fact is that marketing
differentiates their product from the competition by making stuff
*look* different. Similar, sure, but that's the way fashion goes. A
few years ago every car looked pretty much the same but that's not the
same "same" as it is now.


For toasters the differences are in the unnecessary bells and whistles.


OK, please tell me the technical reason that car grilles, these days,
look like ugly shark teeth and tail lights like silly raptor eyes.


The same technical reason that toasters have unnecessary bells and whistles.


--
Jim Pennino
  #85  
Old July 8th 17, 01:53 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

wrote:

In sci.physics
wrote:
On Fri, 7 Jul 2017 05:00:07 -0000,
wrote:

In sci.physics
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 05:06:49 -0000,
wrote:

In sci.physics
wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 01:22:40 -0000,
wrote:

In sci.physics
wrote:
On Tue, 4 Jul 2017 18:12:47 -0000,
wrote:

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...
Also, the other option that 3D printing opens up is more shape optimized
parts. These things are optimized so that "useless" mass is simply gone
from the design. They tend to look "organic" rather than "machined" due
to their complex shapes. I've heard this called "light-weighting" parts
from management types.

And about the only place where weight matters that much is in things
that fly and in that case useless mass is already gone from the design
without the expense of 3D printing.

True, the big dumb cylindrical pressure vessel may not apply but, that's
not the entire aircraft.

If the "mass were already gone from the design" then GE would not be
pouring literally millions of dollars into developing a one meter cubed
3D printer presumably for printing aircraft engine parts.

Landing gear, and all other structural moving parts, is surely another
area on aircraft which could use this technology. Landing gear make up
a significant percentage of an aircraft's total dry mass, so this would
be a likely candidate for shape optimization and 3D printing.

Again, you are talking about niche applications and landing gear are not
that big a part of an aircrafts weight.

Have you ever looked at the interior structures of an aircraft?

Yes, many times. I've got a b.s. in aerospace engineering, so I know
the basics. Many of our customers are aerospace, so I have to
understand the domain.

3D printing is, and always will be, a niche manufacturing method.

Handy at times, but certainly not a world changer.

This is quite short sighted. I'm sure the same was said about
composites when they were in their infancy. Today it would be quite
hard (i.e. likely impossible) to point to something commercial that
flies and carries people commercially that has absolutely zero composite
content.

An irrelevant red herring to the subject of 3D printing. There are a HUGE
number of different composite materials out there and it has taken well
over half a century for most aircraft to have even a small fraction of
composite materials in their construction.

Note the word "most".

I can say that shape optimization coupled with 3D printing is one of the
"bleeding edge" topics in my industry. It's really no secret, you can
surely Google hundreds of articles on the topic. I really can't go into
further details, but my profession is in writing engineering software,
so I ought to know.

Whoopee. It is still niche.

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

Marketing types certainly do. Consumers have always bought toasters
based on their looks. After all, the thousands of different designs
all do the same thing.

And all look about the same.

Not so much:

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/437412182539227477/

For any given era they look pretty much the same to me.

https://www.google.com/search?q=toas...w=1327&bih=868

You'd argue that every color is the same?

No, but most are chrome.


Huh, I could have sworn I'd seen black, red, and white ones.


most - adjective

1 greatest in quantity, extent, or degree
2 the majority of


Post your data supporting this preposterous claim. If you'd said
"most have some chrome on them" that might be supportable, but not
what you said.


The fact is that marketing
differentiates their product from the competition by making stuff
*look* different. Similar, sure, but that's the way fashion goes. A
few years ago every car looked pretty much the same but that's not the
same "same" as it is now.

For toasters the differences are in the unnecessary bells and whistles.


OK, please tell me the technical reason that car grilles, these days,
look like ugly shark teeth and tail lights like silly raptor eyes.


The same technical reason that toasters have unnecessary bells and whistles.


The Chimp is now just slapping his chest and throwing dust.

  #86  
Old July 8th 17, 06:49 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
David Mitchell[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

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.

  #87  
Old July 8th 17, 06:13 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

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:

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.


It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating
their own things.

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.


Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when
compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight
store.

How many people do you know that own any of the above?


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.


The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years
ago.

Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things
as trivial as bread.


--
Jim Pennino
  #88  
Old July 9th 17, 07:12 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
David Mitchell[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 32
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

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:

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.


It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating
their own things.

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.


Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when
compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight
store.

How many people do you know that own any of the above?


Apples and oranges, they are nowhere as flexible as mature fabricator technology
would be, nor as easy to use.

Again, please justify that comment.


The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years
ago.

Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things
as trivial as bread.


Even making bread is more difficult than simply selecting a file, loading
feedstock and pressing a button.

Besides, millions of people "make their own stuff" every day, although it's
primarly digital content these days.



  #89  
Old July 9th 17, 05:49 PM posted to sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.space.policy,sci.electronics.design
Robert Clark[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 245
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

"Robert Clark" wrote:

"Robert Clark" wrote:

...

Separate print heads assumes an inkjet model. These deposition methods
do not have print heads. they lay down a layer of powder and then melt
it
where it needs to form the image.


The Desktop Metal system is more akin to inkjet printing and does not
use
powders:

Desktop Metal Production System.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUOCiRktuCo


Uh, Bob? The video says it uses powders.


Bound into solid rods with a binder similar to the solid rods used for
plastic 3D-printing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fused_deposition_modeling


Bob, go watch your original video. Much about powder spreaders.
Nothing about solid rods.



Ok, sorry. There is a difference between the Desktop Metal Studio system and
the Desktop Metal Production system. Their studio system is meant to be used
in an office setting and both the metal powder and the binder are combined
together into solid rods. DM's chief technology officer makes the point this
was done for safety reasons to be used for prototyping in an office setting:

Metal additive manufacturing--using a desktop 3D printer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZehOWpZPITk

DM's production system however is for rapid, volume production and is meant
for an industrial, factory setting and the binder and the metal powder are
laid down separately.

Bob Clark


--

  #90  
Old July 9th 17, 06:44 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

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:
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.


It is not name calling, it is my opinion of the concept of people fabricating
their own things.

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.


Milling machines, drill presses and lathes are quite cheap, especially when
compared to metal 3D printers, and are available at your local Harbor Freight
store.

How many people do you know that own any of the above?


Apples and oranges, they are nowhere as flexible as mature fabricator technology
would be, nor as easy to use.


Obviously you have never seen a N/C milling machine in action nor payed
for raw stock.

Again, please justify that comment.


The concept of everyone making their own stuff went away hundreds of years
ago.

Today people making their own stuff is a hobby activity, even for things
as trivial as bread.


Even making bread is more difficult than simply selecting a file, loading
feedstock and pressing a button.


Obviously you have never seen a real 3D printer in action nor have you
ever made bread.

Besides, millions of people "make their own stuff" every day, although it's
primarly digital content these days.


Otherwise know as trash, SPAM, and utter nonsense.

--
Jim Pennino
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
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 01:08 AM
3D Printed Rocket William Mook[_2_] Policy 8 January 17th 14 12:24 PM
better way of seeing noise before image is printed? Jason Albertson Amateur Astronomy 24 March 7th 07 06:46 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.