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

wrote:

On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:50:39 +0100, David Mitchell
wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
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.

Great, yet another techno nerd weenie who spends way too much time watching
Star Trek reruns.

Bless. It's almost as though you imagine anyone give even the tinest of ****s
what you think.

You're reading his posts and answering. Apparently _you_ give at
least the tiniest **** what he thinks.


One needn't give a **** what someone thinks in order to recognize
their outbursts as worthy of derision.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Serg io wrote:

On 7/12/2017 11:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Serg io wrote:


major limitation is, one cannot "print" higher melting temp material on
lower melting point material.


And just what does that really limit?


obviously, printing objects composed of mixed materials.


Again, just what does that really limit, if we accept it as a limit
(and it is a much more specific limit than that).


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

wrote:

In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote:


Could lay down the metal, then help it cool by blowing cold gas over it,
then lay down the insulation, etc. Some types of insulation such as
silicone
rubber have a melting point of 300 C.

Nope, silicone rubber once cured has no melting point. 300 C is the maximum
temperature it can withstand before permanetly degrading. Silicone rubbers
in general have poor resistance to steam, super heated water, oils, fuels
and solvents.

Silicone rubbers would be impractical to 3D print due the the chemistry.



In any case there are ceramic-based insulators that can withstand in the
range of 500C

http://www.ceramawire.com/technical-information.shtml


And are just as impractical to 3D print.


Well, except that there are outfits that are 3-D printing ceramics
NOW, so perhaps not so impractical after all.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

wrote:
On Thu, 13 Jul 2017 06:50:39 +0100, David Mitchell
wrote:

wrote:
In sci.physics David Mitchell wrote:
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.

Great, yet another techno nerd weenie who spends way too much time watching
Star Trek reruns.

Bless. It's almost as though you imagine anyone give even the tinest of ****s
what you think.

You're reading his posts and answering. Apparently _you_ give at
least the tiniest **** what he thinks.

Good point, but since I think he's wrong about everything, it's not really about
him, more about the wider points being made.

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.

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.

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.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.

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.

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.


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.

--
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/

On 7/14/2017 1:22 AM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Serg io wrote:

On 7/12/2017 11:29 PM, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Serg io wrote:


major limitation is, one cannot "print" higher melting temp material on
lower melting point material.


And just what does that really limit?


obviously, printing objects composed of mixed materials.


Again, just what does that really limit, if we accept it as a limit
(and it is a much more specific limit than that).



(mixed materials = several different types of materials)

can you "print" copper onto steel ?
would that work ?
what type of gas would you use to exclude H2, N2 and O2 ?
why would you do such ?

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.

Printing speed is limited by basic physics.

Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on
equipment they already own.

3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do
you know that have one?

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.



--
Jim Pennino

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.

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.

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.


--
Jim Pennino

can you make a 3d printout with paper? so the surface contains rasied
texture..