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
  #231  
Old July 16th 17, 03:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default 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:
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.


No, that's exactly the point and you keep missing it.


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.


As I've said, your experience is not mine.

All of these are middle aged or older adults.


And same with all the folks I know that own 3D printers.


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.


I'm not the one knee-jerking or making unsubstantiated claims (such as only
teenagers buying 3D printers).


--
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/

  #232  
Old July 16th 17, 05:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.electronics.design
Serg io[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

On 7/16/2017 8:51 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
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.


I've worked on CAE software that's tightly integrated with CAD my entire
professional life. Back in about 1988 our CAD/CAE software still ran on
mainframes (IBM, DEC, and etc.) but the transition to Unix workstations
was in its infancy. Back then, PCs were "toys" that quite simply
couldn't handle professional level CAD/CAE software.

In the early 1990s Unix Workstations dominated for running CAD/CAE
software. A good SGI "box" would run you about $20k in early 1990s
dollars (about $33k today).

Today, you can comfortably run CAD/CAE software (at least the CAE
pre/post) on a sub $2k PC running Windows OS. But many customers will
go quite a bit over $2k with things like solid state drives and 64 GB or
more of RAM coupled with the best professional graphics card money can
buy (no, they're not quite the same as consumer/gaming cards). Still,
the most "decked out" PC workstation today will still cost a fraction of
what a Unix workstation used to cost in the early 1990s.

So again, we see yet another example of improving technologies driving
down costs in a market.

Jeff


key to that is the higher level of integration on the PC Chips, more
functions were pulled into fewer pieces of silicon.
and the maturing of PC software, it was quite unstable, Win 3.1 ? etc...
Win XP had good stability, not as good as Unix.

the Telcos ran Unix for decades, very reliable and hated PCs (unreliable)

Unix sort of split into Linux (low cost) and HP UNIX (high end, high
cost on high cost hardware) Which slowly ran HP into the ground.

I was offered a mainframe computer with 8 remote stations, (1990's) but
I had to haul it from a second story down, and in evaluating it, it had
less power than a PC (AT) at the time, and custom software, custom
software apps... I turned it down. Big Boat Anchor.
  #233  
Old July 16th 17, 05:45 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.electronics.design
Serg io[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

On 7/16/2017 1:16 AM, David Mitchell wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
wrote in message ...

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...

In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"

wrote:
"David Mitchell" wrote in message
o.uk...

wrote:
In sci.physics David Mitchell
wrote:
wrote:

OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?

Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.

Could you be any more vague?

Yes. Yes I could.

Things. People will make things. All of the things.

I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal
computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll
only
need
a few major mainframes.

Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of
smart
phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and
facebook.

The original point was that the original "personal computers" were
hideously expensive, very hard to use, and didn't do a whole lot.
There
absolutely were a lot of people who said "I'll never need one of
those"
back in the early 1980s. Yet they can be found (in desktop or laptop
form) in the vast majority of houses in the US because the price
dropped, they became much easier to use, and they could do a lot more
(i.e. high speed Internet versus acoustic modems and BBSes),

Besides, smart phones prove the point AGAIN! When the original Apple
iPhone came out, it didn't have it's "killer app" which was the App
Store, so the orignal wasn't terribly functional. On top of that,
cell
data service at the time was slow, slow, slow, so even surfing the
Internet was painful with these new "smart phones". But again, the
majority of phones I see today are now "smart phones". They're
cheaper,
more functional (more apps), and the cell data networks are quite good
these days.

New technologies keep getting cheaper and more accessible for
individuals to use all the time! It's a pretty safe bet that the very
same thing will happen with 3D printing.

New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper.

So what? They don't need to be cheaper. People literally buy millions of
items made out of aluminum and plastic every day and throw them out, the
material is so cheap.


So the raw material for 3D printing is more expensive than the raw
material
for legacy fabrication methods and my response was to the two sentences
above mine. Try reading them before knee jerking.


Printing speed is limited by basic physics.

Such as? Seriously, you don't think new technologies and concepts are
possible? Heck, if nothing else, you can design printers with multiple
heads if you want to. Bam, you've nearly doubled printing speed for many
items.


As I have already said many times accuracy is directly related to layer
thickness and layer application delay is directly related to layer
"hardening" time.


We're nowhere near those limits yet.
"The 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."


what is the material it is made from? Polyethylene?
Milk Bottle Plastic ?
crash safety ?
leave it out in the hot sun in Aridzona in the summer ??
  #234  
Old July 16th 17, 06:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.electronics.design
Serg io[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

On 7/16/2017 8:58 AM, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...

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.


Do they have turntables and tube amps becuase of the "warm sound"
because CDs are "harsh"? VHS tapes for movies? No? Then do they also
have huge collections of CDs and DVDs? HD audio discs and BluRay discs?

These days, I keep most of my media on a 2TB server, and that is
considered antiquated by people younger than me who simply use their
phones coupled with streaming services to listen to music and watch
movies and TV shows. The idea of "owning" music and movies is outdated
to quite a few younger people. Why would anyone clutter their house
with that crap when the Internet can provide anything you want, anywhere
you want, anytime you want.

Technologies improve, costs go down, times change.

Jeff


heads up,

digital storage has *major long term storage problems*,
HDs last 5 to 7 years at best, they have many failure modes.

the technology improved, but the reliability went down.

Too easy to lose files now, or erase them.

silicon storage is not mature enough yet, it could last a long time, but
many thumb drives get blown out as power comes on or goes off.

CDs are Al foil on plastic, and a drop of ketchup will eat a hole in the
AL layer, making the disk usless. (my kid this this)
Also, heat, age, UV will all seperate the AL from the plastic,
destroying data. Very poor long term stuff, the AL layer also will
oxidize on you.

(archival CDs disks have protective layer of plastic on it.)

storing it in the cloud is another problem, read the T+C's they are not
responcable for your data, the company can go out of business, no data,
or get sold and teh new company sells your files, as you gave them to
them, so they own it, you gave that right up, like those photos you
uploaded to Facebook, are not yours anymore.




  #235  
Old July 16th 17, 06:55 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 Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,
says...
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.


I've worked on CAE software that's tightly integrated with CAD my entire
professional life. Back in about 1988 our CAD/CAE software still ran on
mainframes (IBM, DEC, and etc.) but the transition to Unix workstations
was in its infancy. Back then, PCs were "toys" that quite simply
couldn't handle professional level CAD/CAE software.

In the early 1990s Unix Workstations dominated for running CAD/CAE
software. A good SGI "box" would run you about $20k in early 1990s
dollars (about $33k today).

Today, you can comfortably run CAD/CAE software (at least the CAE
pre/post) on a sub $2k PC running Windows OS. But many customers will
go quite a bit over $2k with things like solid state drives and 64 GB or
more of RAM coupled with the best professional graphics card money can
buy (no, they're not quite the same as consumer/gaming cards). Still,
the most "decked out" PC workstation today will still cost a fraction of
what a Unix workstation used to cost in the early 1990s.

So again, we see yet another example of improving technologies driving
down costs in a market.


Nope, what we see is yet another example of consumer demand driving down
manufacturing costs by encouraging high volume, automated, manufacturing.

--
Jim Pennino
  #236  
Old July 16th 17, 07:04 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,rec.arts.sf.science,sci.electronics.design
Lofty Goat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 63
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

On Sun, 16 Jul 2017 09:51:19 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

... Today, you can comfortably run CAD/CAE software (at least the
CAE pre/post) on a sub $2k PC running Windows OS.


Confirmed. I've sat and watched my brother transform a mass of
equations first into logic circuitry, then into a program for a PAL, on
Mom's desktop computer. Granted she had a pretty good computer, but
this was twelve or fourteen years ago.

--
Goat

  #237  
Old July 16th 17, 07:09 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 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
wrote in message ...

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...

In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
"David Mitchell" wrote in message
o.uk...

wrote:
In sci.physics David Mitchell
wrote:
wrote:

OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?

Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.

Could you be any more vague?

Yes. Yes I could.

Things. People will make things. All of the things.

I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal
computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll only
need
a few major mainframes.

Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of
smart
phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and
facebook.

The original point was that the original "personal computers" were
hideously expensive, very hard to use, and didn't do a whole lot. There
absolutely were a lot of people who said "I'll never need one of those"
back in the early 1980s. Yet they can be found (in desktop or laptop
form) in the vast majority of houses in the US because the price
dropped, they became much easier to use, and they could do a lot more
(i.e. high speed Internet versus acoustic modems and BBSes),

Besides, smart phones prove the point AGAIN! When the original Apple
iPhone came out, it didn't have it's "killer app" which was the App
Store, so the orignal wasn't terribly functional. On top of that, cell
data service at the time was slow, slow, slow, so even surfing the
Internet was painful with these new "smart phones". But again, the
majority of phones I see today are now "smart phones". They're cheaper,
more functional (more apps), and the cell data networks are quite good
these days.

New technologies keep getting cheaper and more accessible for
individuals to use all the time! It's a pretty safe bet that the very
same thing will happen with 3D printing.

New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper.

So what? They don't need to be cheaper. People literally buy millions of
items made out of aluminum and plastic every day and throw them out, the
material is so cheap.


So the raw material for 3D printing is more expensive than the raw material
for legacy fabrication methods and my response was to the two sentences
above mine. Try reading them before knee jerking.

Printing speed is limited by basic physics.

Such as? Seriously, you don't think new technologies and concepts are
possible? Heck, if nothing else, you can design printers with multiple
heads if you want to. Bam, you've nearly doubled printing speed for many
items.


As I have already said many times accuracy is directly related to layer
thickness and layer application delay is directly related to layer
"hardening" time.


We're nowhere near those limits yet.


The whooshing sound you hear is the point and all it's details going
over you head.

"The BAAM was used to manufacture the first (almost) fully 3D printed car, the
Strati, for together with Local Motors. With a deposition rate of up to 38 lbs
of material per hour, it is possibly the fastest machine currently on the market."


The Strati is little more than a $30,000 golf cart and the finish is an
abomination.

The industry for both consumer and industrial 3D printers is tiny and
few people do.


Sales of 400,000 last year, projected sales of 1.2 million this one. Also
appears to be non-linear.

But that it's tiny now is irrelevant. How many people had early telephones? Or
TV sets?


Do you understand the difference between hobby and professional?


--
Jim Pennino
  #238  
Old July 16th 17, 07:13 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.physics,sci.electronics.design
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,346
Default Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.

In sci.physics Serg io wrote:
On 7/16/2017 1:16 AM, David Mitchell wrote:
wrote:
In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote:
wrote in message ...

In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ,

says...

In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"

wrote:
"David Mitchell" wrote in message
o.uk...

wrote:
In sci.physics David Mitchell
wrote:
wrote:

OK, what "stuff" would people be making at home?

Jewellry, utilities, tools, gadgets.

Could you be any more vague?

Yes. Yes I could.

Things. People will make things. All of the things.

I suspect 3D printing at home will be as successful as the personal
computer. I mean everyone knows they're useless at home and we'll
only
need
a few major mainframes.

Personal computer use in the home is dropping with increased use of
smart
phones for those important tasks such as posting on twitter and
facebook.

The original point was that the original "personal computers" were
hideously expensive, very hard to use, and didn't do a whole lot.
There
absolutely were a lot of people who said "I'll never need one of
those"
back in the early 1980s. Yet they can be found (in desktop or laptop
form) in the vast majority of houses in the US because the price
dropped, they became much easier to use, and they could do a lot more
(i.e. high speed Internet versus acoustic modems and BBSes),

Besides, smart phones prove the point AGAIN! When the original Apple
iPhone came out, it didn't have it's "killer app" which was the App
Store, so the orignal wasn't terribly functional. On top of that,
cell
data service at the time was slow, slow, slow, so even surfing the
Internet was painful with these new "smart phones". But again, the
majority of phones I see today are now "smart phones". They're
cheaper,
more functional (more apps), and the cell data networks are quite good
these days.

New technologies keep getting cheaper and more accessible for
individuals to use all the time! It's a pretty safe bet that the very
same thing will happen with 3D printing.

New technologies will not make aluminum or plastic cheaper.

So what? They don't need to be cheaper. People literally buy millions of
items made out of aluminum and plastic every day and throw them out, the
material is so cheap.

So the raw material for 3D printing is more expensive than the raw
material
for legacy fabrication methods and my response was to the two sentences
above mine. Try reading them before knee jerking.


Printing speed is limited by basic physics.

Such as? Seriously, you don't think new technologies and concepts are
possible? Heck, if nothing else, you can design printers with multiple
heads if you want to. Bam, you've nearly doubled printing speed for many
items.

As I have already said many times accuracy is directly related to layer
thickness and layer application delay is directly related to layer
"hardening" time.


We're nowhere near those limits yet.
"The 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."


what is the material it is made from? Polyethylene?
Milk Bottle Plastic ?
crash safety ?
leave it out in the hot sun in Aridzona in the summer ??


Fully recyclable thermoplastic so you can grind up your $30,000 golf
cart when you are done playing with it.

The printing speed is achieved by using thick layers which makes the finish
horrible. Check out the finish in the photo near the end.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strati_(automobile)


--
Jim Pennino
  #240  
Old July 16th 17, 07:19 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 "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
wrote in message ...


snip

I'm not the one knee-jerking or making unsubstantiated claims (such as only
teenagers buying 3D printers).


All hail and glory to the 3D printer, savior of humanity.

Happy?


--
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 01:04 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.