|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#272
|
|||
|
|||
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: 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? The bit where you can't imagine 16 laser heads working together? Or that the technology mentioned above pumps fluid in at a rate of knots? 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". Don't be silly. Neither traditional laser sintering, nor the other technology I cited "squirt out something that has liquid properties" unless by "squirt" you mean "pump" into a tank. They are very different to a movable head which deposits material in a 3-D pattern. 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? Yes; and we're nowhere near the limits of those, the deposition rate FOR THAT KIND OF 3-D PRINTER, and multiple printer heads would solve that because, hardening time is not at its upper bound yet. 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. True for that kind of printer, at the moment, and you're still ignoring the other kinds of technology. It's getting embarrassing. 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. Just not true. FFS neither of the other two kinds of fabricator I mentioned work in that way. Read the article! Since you are such a dense littlt twit, I will type slowly so that you may understand. A 3D printer consists of 3 primary system: 1: The postioning system. This is the part of the machine that moves the deposition system, what ever it may be, around. This system is decended from XY protters and NC machinery, technology that is over a half century old and fully matured shortly after the microprocessor became commercially available over 40 years ago. 2: The deposition system. This is the part of the machine that deposits the material being printed, whatever it may be. All deposition depend on the material having liquid properties, at least for some time. For thermoplastic printers the solid plastic is melted in the deposition system and applied through a nozzle. For metal printers, the solid metal is in a micronized form such that it can be forced through a nozzle of some sort. The metal powder may or may not have a carrier material added to make the process easier. There is no way to "print" a material other than to squirt it in very small quantities (assuming one desires some sort of accuracy) out of a small oriface of some sort. The accuracy of the final printed product is directly related to how small an amount of material can be deposited at one time. 3: The hardening system. This is the part of the machine that hardens the the printed material. For a thermoplastic machine this may consist of nothing more than allowing air flow around the printed such that a given print pass can cool before the next print pass is applied. For a metal machine, there are several hardening methods, such as laser and electron beam sintering. -- Jim Pennino |
#273
|
|||
|
|||
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: 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? The bit where you can't imagine 16 laser heads working together? Or that the technology mentioned above pumps fluid in at a rate of knots? 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". Don't be silly. Neither traditional laser sintering, nor the other technology I cited "squirt out something that has liquid properties" unless by "squirt" you mean "pump" into a tank. They are very different to a movable head which deposits material in a 3-D pattern. 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? Yes; and we're nowhere near the limits of those, the deposition rate FOR THAT KIND OF 3-D PRINTER, and multiple printer heads would solve that because, hardening time is not at its upper bound yet. 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. True for that kind of printer, at the moment, and you're still ignoring the other kinds of technology. It's getting embarrassing. 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. Just not true. FFS neither of the other two kinds of fabricator I mentioned work in that way. Read the article! Since you are such a dense littlt twit, I will type slowly so that you may understand. Since you're still ignoring the system I cited, let me explain *it* to you: polymers are pumped into a tank, a laser scans it, hardening it in places. Note there's no moving "deposition system", just a moving "hardening system". Obviously, the speed of operation depends on the rate at which polymer is pumped in, and the rate at which the top layer is scanned and hardened. This depends on the intensity of the laser, and the number of lasers, in theory you could have dozens. This would, obviously, make it faster than a single head; which is already the fastest 3-D printer in the world. A 3D printer consists of 3 primary system: 1: The postioning system. This is the part of the machine that moves the deposition system, what ever it may be, around. This system is decended from XY protters and NC machinery, technology that is over a half century old and fully matured shortly after the microprocessor became commercially available over 40 years ago. Not necessary in the above; but carry on. 2: The deposition system. This is the part of the machine that deposits the material being printed, whatever it may be. All deposition depend on the material having liquid properties, at least for some time. For thermoplastic printers the solid plastic is melted in the deposition system and applied through a nozzle. For metal printers, the solid metal is in a micronized form such that it can be forced through a nozzle of some sort. The metal powder may or may not have a carrier material added to make the process easier. Note that this doesn't have to be particularly accurate if you are tracking the deposition system with a laser, which *is* precise, so you're not squirting a fine trickle, you're firehosing it out, at the highest speed it can be hardened; with multiple heads, if you want. There is no way to "print" a material other than to squirt it in very small quantities (assuming one desires some sort of accuracy) out of a small oriface of some sort. As you can see from the above, this just isn't true. The accuracy of the final printed product is directly related to how small an amount of material can be deposited at one time. As you can see from the above, this just isn't true. 3: The hardening system. This is the part of the machine that hardens the the printed material. For a thermoplastic machine this may consist of nothing more than allowing air flow around the printed such that a given print pass can cool before the next print pass is applied. For a metal machine, there are several hardening methods, such as laser and electron beam sintering. |
#274
|
|||
|
|||
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: 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? The bit where you can't imagine 16 laser heads working together? Or that the technology mentioned above pumps fluid in at a rate of knots? 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". Don't be silly. Neither traditional laser sintering, nor the other technology I cited "squirt out something that has liquid properties" unless by "squirt" you mean "pump" into a tank. They are very different to a movable head which deposits material in a 3-D pattern. 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? Yes; and we're nowhere near the limits of those, the deposition rate FOR THAT KIND OF 3-D PRINTER, and multiple printer heads would solve that because, hardening time is not at its upper bound yet. 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. True for that kind of printer, at the moment, and you're still ignoring the other kinds of technology. It's getting embarrassing. 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. Just not true. FFS neither of the other two kinds of fabricator I mentioned work in that way. Read the article! Since you are such a dense littlt twit, I will type slowly so that you may understand. Since you're still ignoring the system I cited, let me explain *it* to you: polymers are pumped into a tank, a laser scans it, hardening it in places. Note there's no moving "deposition system", just a moving "hardening system". The the hardening system is moving and not the deposition system is a minor nit. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing_processes Nothing particularly new or Earth shaking and it also just prints plastic. A 3D printer consists of 3 primary system: 1: The postioning system. This is the part of the machine that moves the deposition system, what ever it may be, around. This system is decended from XY protters and NC machinery, technology that is over a half century old and fully matured shortly after the microprocessor became commercially available over 40 years ago. Not necessary in the above; but carry on. You certainly are a naive nob. What do you think positions the hardner? 2: The deposition system. This is the part of the machine that deposits the material being printed, whatever it may be. All deposition depend on the material having liquid properties, at least for some time. For thermoplastic printers the solid plastic is melted in the deposition system and applied through a nozzle. For metal printers, the solid metal is in a micronized form such that it can be forced through a nozzle of some sort. The metal powder may or may not have a carrier material added to make the process easier. Note that this doesn't have to be particularly accurate if you are tracking the deposition system with a laser, which *is* precise, so you're not squirting a fine trickle, you're firehosing it out, at the highest speed it can be hardened; with multiple heads, if you want. Christ you are a naive nob. The level has to be controlled rather carefully. There is no way to "print" a material other than to squirt it in very small quantities (assuming one desires some sort of accuracy) out of a small oriface of some sort. As you can see from the above, this just isn't true. Yeah, I forgot about the print in a bucket techniques. The accuracy of the final printed product is directly related to how small an amount of material can be deposited at one time. As you can see from the above, this just isn't true. Change the above to "deposited or hardened" and the problem is fixed. 3: The hardening system. This is the part of the machine that hardens the the printed material. For a thermoplastic machine this may consist of nothing more than allowing air flow around the printed such that a given print pass can cool before the next print pass is applied. For a metal machine, there are several hardening methods, such as laser and electron beam sintering. -- Jim Pennino |
#275
|
|||
|
|||
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: 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? The bit where you can't imagine 16 laser heads working together? Or that the technology mentioned above pumps fluid in at a rate of knots? 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". Don't be silly. Neither traditional laser sintering, nor the other technology I cited "squirt out something that has liquid properties" unless by "squirt" you mean "pump" into a tank. They are very different to a movable head which deposits material in a 3-D pattern. 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? Yes; and we're nowhere near the limits of those, the deposition rate FOR THAT KIND OF 3-D PRINTER, and multiple printer heads would solve that because, hardening time is not at its upper bound yet. 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. True for that kind of printer, at the moment, and you're still ignoring the other kinds of technology. It's getting embarrassing. 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. Just not true. FFS neither of the other two kinds of fabricator I mentioned work in that way. Read the article! Since you are such a dense littlt twit, I will type slowly so that you may understand. Since you're still ignoring the system I cited, let me explain *it* to you: polymers are pumped into a tank, a laser scans it, hardening it in places. Note there's no moving "deposition system", just a moving "hardening system". The the hardening system is moving and not the deposition system is a minor nit. Not at all, since it's your claim that "we are already at the limit of deposition rate" which you assert imposes limits on the process. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing_processes Nothing particularly new or Earth shaking "10 to 100 times faster" and it also just prints plastic. "The entire polymer family". Plastics do have quite a lot of useful properties. Apparently they're the future. Not necessary in the above; but carry on. You certainly are a naive nob. What do you think positions the hardner? Just watch the video: http://www.popsci.com/fastest-3-d-printer-ever The laser scans the surface of the material, from below. Four lasers would be four times as fast. Note that this doesn't have to be particularly accurate if you are tracking the deposition system with a laser, which *is* precise, so you're not squirting a fine trickle, you're firehosing it out, at the highest speed it can be hardened; with multiple heads, if you want. Christ you are a naive nob. The level has to be controlled rather carefully. I know you won't have heard of it; but there's this thing called adaptive control; and you can use it to raise and lower the plate below which the material comes so it's at precisely the right height above the surface you're building on. I know, right?! It's also very fast, obviously, even when I first started working in embedded systems 35 years ago, we could drive a hydraulic chisel over a surface at 5cm/second with sufficient accuracy using an 8-bit processor running at 16MHz. Things have rather improved since then. The accuracy of the final printed product is directly related to how small an amount of material can be deposited at one time. As you can see from the above, this just isn't true. Change the above to "deposited or hardened" and the problem is fixed. Nice to see you actually learn something. |
#276
|
|||
|
|||
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: 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? The bit where you can't imagine 16 laser heads working together? Or that the technology mentioned above pumps fluid in at a rate of knots? 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". Don't be silly. Neither traditional laser sintering, nor the other technology I cited "squirt out something that has liquid properties" unless by "squirt" you mean "pump" into a tank. They are very different to a movable head which deposits material in a 3-D pattern. 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? Yes; and we're nowhere near the limits of those, the deposition rate FOR THAT KIND OF 3-D PRINTER, and multiple printer heads would solve that because, hardening time is not at its upper bound yet. 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. True for that kind of printer, at the moment, and you're still ignoring the other kinds of technology. It's getting embarrassing. 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. Just not true. FFS neither of the other two kinds of fabricator I mentioned work in that way. Read the article! Since you are such a dense littlt twit, I will type slowly so that you may understand. Since you're still ignoring the system I cited, let me explain *it* to you: polymers are pumped into a tank, a laser scans it, hardening it in places. Note there's no moving "deposition system", just a moving "hardening system". The the hardening system is moving and not the deposition system is a minor nit. Not at all, since it's your claim that "we are already at the limit of deposition rate" which you assert imposes limits on the process. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing_processes Nothing particularly new or Earth shaking "10 to 100 times faster" and it also just prints plastic. "The entire polymer family". Plastics do have quite a lot of useful properties. Apparently they're the future. Plastics were the future in 1940. Not necessary in the above; but carry on. You certainly are a naive nob. What do you think positions the hardner? Just watch the video: http://www.popsci.com/fastest-3-d-printer-ever The laser scans the surface of the material, from below. Four lasers would be four times as fast. Note that this doesn't have to be particularly accurate if you are tracking the deposition system with a laser, which *is* precise, so you're not squirting a fine trickle, you're firehosing it out, at the highest speed it can be hardened; with multiple heads, if you want. Christ you are a naive nob. The level has to be controlled rather carefully. I know you won't have heard of it; but there's this thing called adaptive control; and you can use it to raise and lower the plate below which the material comes so it's at precisely the right height above the surface you're building on. I know, right?! Christ you are a naive nob. The level has to be controlled rather carefully. It's also very fast, obviously, even when I first started working in embedded systems 35 years ago, we could drive a hydraulic chisel over a surface at 5cm/second with sufficient accuracy using an 8-bit processor running at 16MHz. Things have rather improved since then. So ****ing what? The accuracy of the final printed product is directly related to how small an amount of material can be deposited at one time. As you can see from the above, this just isn't true. Change the above to "deposited or hardened" and the problem is fixed. Nice to see you actually learn something. BTW, just what the **** does all this have to do with a totally 3D printed car or printing with anything other than plastic? -- Jim Pennino |
#277
|
|||
|
|||
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: 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? The bit where you can't imagine 16 laser heads working together? Or that the technology mentioned above pumps fluid in at a rate of knots? 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". Don't be silly. Neither traditional laser sintering, nor the other technology I cited "squirt out something that has liquid properties" unless by "squirt" you mean "pump" into a tank. They are very different to a movable head which deposits material in a 3-D pattern. 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? Yes; and we're nowhere near the limits of those, the deposition rate FOR THAT KIND OF 3-D PRINTER, and multiple printer heads would solve that because, hardening time is not at its upper bound yet. 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. True for that kind of printer, at the moment, and you're still ignoring the other kinds of technology. It's getting embarrassing. 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. Just not true. FFS neither of the other two kinds of fabricator I mentioned work in that way. Read the article! Since you are such a dense littlt twit, I will type slowly so that you may understand. Since you're still ignoring the system I cited, let me explain *it* to you: polymers are pumped into a tank, a laser scans it, hardening it in places. Note there's no moving "deposition system", just a moving "hardening system". The the hardening system is moving and not the deposition system is a minor nit. Not at all, since it's your claim that "we are already at the limit of deposition rate" which you assert imposes limits on the process. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3D_printing_processes Nothing particularly new or Earth shaking "10 to 100 times faster" and it also just prints plastic. "The entire polymer family". Plastics do have quite a lot of useful properties. Apparently they're the future. Plastics were the future in 1940. Yeah, that was an (obvious) joke. Plastics do have quite a lot of useful properties, however. I know you won't have heard of it; but there's this thing called adaptive control; and you can use it to raise and lower the plate below which the material comes so it's at precisely the right height above the surface you're building on. I know, right?! Christ you are a naive nob. The level has to be controlled rather carefully. Let's see, we can measure to within wavelengths of light, and move, using piezoelectric actuators, small multiples of nanometres, in microseconds. You were saying? So ****ing what? We can measure to within wavelengths of light, and move, using piezoelectric actuators, small multiples of nanometres, in microseconds. The accuracy of the final printed product is directly related to how small an amount of material can be deposited at one time. As you can see from the above, this just isn't true. Change the above to "deposited or hardened" and the problem is fixed. Nice to see you actually learn something. BTW, just what the **** does all this have to do with a totally 3D printed car or printing with anything other than plastic? You referenced the Wikipedia article. Did you not read it? You really should. We can 3-D print *right now*: Thermoplastics, eutectic metals, edible materials, Rubbers, Modeling clay, Plasticine, Metal clay (including Precious Metal Clay), Ceramic materials, Metal alloy, cermet, metal matrix composite, ceramic matrix composite Nylon or Nylon with short carbon fiber + reinforcement in the form Carbon, Kevlar, Glass and Glass for high temperature fiber Photopolymer,Photopolymer + thermally activated chemistry Almost any metal alloy including Titanium alloys There's duplication; because I can't be bothered to edit it, knowing you'll ignore it anyway. To be fair, most of these are industrial (not all though); but then, as you're aware, many things in the home started out industrially. So, no, it's not beyond the pale. SpaceX has already flight-qualified a rocket engine made using direct metal sintering, so an internal combustion engine is possible, although by the time one can, I suspect one wouldn't - preferring to use electric motors in wheels. Which, yes, could be made using fabricated components. |
#278
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
|
#279
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
snip possible, although by the time one can, I suspect one wouldn't - preferring to use electric motors in wheels. Which, yes, could be made using fabricated components. Puerile idiot. *plonk* -- Jim Pennino |
#280
|
|||
|
|||
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 |