XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design   
      
   In sci.physics David Mitchell  wrote:   
   > jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
   >> In sci.physics David Mitchell  wrote:   
   >>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:   
   >>>> In sci.physics David Mitchell  wrote:   
   >>>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 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   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)