|
|
|||||||
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#221
July 16th 17, 03:11 AM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
wrote in message ...
In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote: wrote in message ... 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. This actually hurts your point. A dozen or more years ago, no one would have imagined using phones for what we use them for now. And really a smart phone is just a tiny computer that happens to make phone calls. Again, it's the same argument made decades ago but folks not needing computers in the home. Very few people want a computer in their home, most people want an entertainment device. Exactly. Because people who claimed that "no one needs a computer in their homes" was basing the usage model on a very limited viewpoint of how computers were being used. But those "entertainment devices" are at their heart computers. 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? I'd have to poll, but at least 2 I'm sure of, and I think the number is closer to 6. And if I include access to them at libraries, workerspaces, etc. then easily dozens. 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. Really? You need to get out more. I'd say the number of folks I know who own 3D printers is about the same as those who own the other items you mention. I will admit I know very few teenagers. Which has jacksquat to do with what I said? What do teenagers have to do with my reply? 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 is basically your claim. Yet another knee jerker that reads what they think was written and not what was actually written. You keep doing that. I suggest you stop. -- 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/ 
|
|
#222
July 16th 17, 03:30 AM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
|
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
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? 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/n...ce/x/13319568/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --
|
|
#223
July 16th 17, 04:15 AM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
|
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
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. 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
|
|
#224
July 16th 17, 04:23 AM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
|
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
wrote in message ... In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote: wrote in message ... 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. This actually hurts your point. A dozen or more years ago, no one would have imagined using phones for what we use them for now. And really a smart phone is just a tiny computer that happens to make phone calls. Again, it's the same argument made decades ago but folks not needing computers in the home. Very few people want a computer in their home, most people want an entertainment device. Exactly. Because people who claimed that "no one needs a computer in their homes" was basing the usage model on a very limited viewpoint of how computers were being used. But those "entertainment devices" are at their heart computers. Irrelevant to the point. 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? I'd have to poll, but at least 2 I'm sure of, and I think the number is closer to 6. And if I include access to them at libraries, workerspaces, etc. then easily dozens. 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. Really? You need to get out more. I'd say the number of folks I know who own 3D printers is about the same as those who own the other items you mention. I will admit I know very few teenagers. Which has jacksquat to do with what I said? What do teenagers have to do with my reply? It would be primarily teenagers that would be interested in making essentially useless gadgets and jewelry. Again, 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. All of these are middle aged or older adults. 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 is basically your claim. Yet another knee jerker that reads what they think was written and not what was actually written. You keep doing that. I suggest you stop. When you stop knee jerking and read what was actually written. -- Jim Pennino
|
|
#226
July 16th 17, 07:06 AM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
|
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
wrote:
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. 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-...d-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 **** 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.
|
|
#227
July 16th 17, 07:16 AM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
|
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
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 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?
|
|
#228
July 16th 17, 11:13 AM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
|
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
|
|
#229
July 16th 17, 02:51 PM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
|
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
|
|
#230
July 16th 17, 02:58 PM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
|
|||
|
|||
|
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
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 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 |
Linear Mode
