|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
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, - Power, minimal, - Cost of the unit, divided by its expected lifetime, multiplied by time to print? These are all very small. 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. 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? You've added a whole retail phase; which isn't really the point of 3-D printing. I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things you fabricate them. 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). |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
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. No, for everything, actually. 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 True but irrelevant, since 'sales price' can be anything the manufacturer cares to charge. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
On 7/6/2017 8:20 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 06 Jul 2017 10:05:58 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: David Mitchell wrote: Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 19:12:48 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: On Wed, 05 Jul 2017 11:08:21 -0700, Fred J. McCall wrote: wrote: In sci.physics John Larkin wrote: Are you saying that castings are not good? I'm saying what I said. I was trying to help you make some sense of your nonsense but I guess there wasn't any to make. I'm sorry you're stupid and have never designed anything in the real world, but I can't fix you. You're a bit of a bellend aren't you. You're more than a bit of a foreskin, aren't you? *PLONK* Good idea. It'll save you the frustration of not being able to explain to me what I mean by what I said. It's good that you show everyone what you're really worth. He has already shown he does not have any. |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
... Say, you wanted to make a steel engine within a machine operating volume 3 feet wide on a side. This would require 3^3 = 27 of the current machines (or a single one scaled up this size.) Say, the engine weighed 270 kilos, that's 270,000 grams. Say the weight is equally distributed among the 27 machines, so 270,000/27 = 10,000 grams for each machine. The density of steel is about 8 gms/cm3. So that's 10,000/8 = 1,250 cm3. This would then take 1,250/8,200 =.15 hours, or 9 minutes to make the complete engine. It's notable in this video the company's chief engineer says their system could be scaled up to make an automobile chassis: VIDEO: How Additive Manufacturing Can Produce Metal Parts en Masse. James Anderton posted on June 06, 2017 | http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedM...-en-Masse.aspx One imagines also, it could be scaled up to make the complete automobile. I was estimating that size of the engine based on cited high horsepower for the Tesla cars. But I was surprised the mass and volume required for the Tesla electric motor is much smaller than a comparable gasoline engine. This video makes a comparison of a Tesla electric motor to a typical gas engine. The power to weight ratio is 10 times better for the Tesla electric motor(!) How does an Electric Car work ? | Tesla Model S. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SAxXUIre28&t=220s The video gives the weight of the Tesla motor as 31.8 kg for 270 kW of power. The size of the motor visually looks like it just might fit within the 14"x14"x14" manufacturing box of the DeskTop Metal's Production machine, though the rotor's central driveshaft might have to be produced at an angle to make use of the full diagonal length of sqrt(3)*14" = 24" inside the box. So instead of needing 27 of the machines I estimated before, we might be able to make it with just a single one: For a 32 kg = 32,000 gm engine say of steel with a density of 8 gm/cm^3, this is 32,000/8 = 4,000 cm^3. At a production rate of about 8,000 cm^3 per hour, the Tesla engine could be produced in about a half-hour by this single machine. 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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
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: 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. These are all very small. For techniques such as molding, yes. 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. 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? You've added a whole retail phase; which isn't really the point of 3-D printing. I'm looking at a mature fabrication economy - when you don't buy most things you fabricate them. Pure fantasy. 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. -- Jim Pennino |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
....
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 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/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 05:06:49 -0000, wrote:
Does anyone care about a shape optimized 4 slice toaster or filing cabinet? Yes, especially if the shape is optimized for a particular class of customer. For example, women prefer rounded corners while men prefer angular corners. A red toaster would not sell in the US because it implies that the toast will be incinerated. In China, red means good luck. In the west, making the slots wide enough to handle a bagel is required. In other parts of the world, few have ever seen a bagel. To a home user, a gaudy decorated toaster might be acceptable. To a restaurant, it's difficult to keep clean. In short, there's no optimum shape for a toaster. 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=toaster&tbm=isch (tracking stuff deleted JL) New designs are constantly appearing: https://www.google.com/search?q=toaster+concept+designs&tbm=isch This one looks promising: https://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2012/01/zaffrantoaster1.jpeg.650x0_q70_crop-smart.jpg The problem is that US consumers are easily bored and confused by popular designs, especially if they are all at the same price level. They find it difficult to differentiate the various offerings. One might expect people to buy on the basis of specs, reviews, and endorsements. Nope. They pick up the toasters and compare the relative weights. When in doubt, anything that weighs the most must be the better value or at least the most long lasting. Second best is the buyers response to various subliminal messages imbedded in the product, packaging, and advertising. One of the major benefits of 3D printing is rapid prototyping. If rev 1.0 doesn't work quite right, rev 2.0 can quickly follow. That's great if you don't know what you want or are into design by trial and error. If you're trying to assemble something complicated, and are not sure that everything will fit and work together, there's nothing better than 3D printing. However, for manufacture, you probably want many copies of the same item, all identical. The ability of the 3D machinery to quickly customize or change the design is wasted on mindless replication. Best to use the existing manufacturing techniques, which are cheaper and faster. Incidentally, I know four owners of various 3D printing machines. Two are college students and two are hobbyists. Most of the time, the machines are idle. The common comment is that the machine was not what they had expected after reading all the hype. All of them have 2D XY plotters/cutters that are far more useful for making useful things. -- Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558 |
#79
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
"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. -- "Well, I met a girl in West Hollywood. I ain't naming names. She really worked me over good. She was just like Jesse James. She really worked me over good. She was a credit to her gender. She put me through some changes, Lord. Sort of like a Waring blender." -- Warren Zevon, "Poor, Poor, Pitiful Me" |
#80
|
|||
|
|||
Towards the *fully* 3D-printed electric cars.
"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 Clark -- |
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 |