XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design   
      
   In sci.physics Robert Clark  wrote:   
   > In sci.physics Robert Clark  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>> From the way I interpret what Ehteshami is saying, it mirrors something   
   >>> I've   
   >>> been thinking. You can imagine not just cars being fully 3D-printed, but   
   >>> entire airplanes, tractors, construction vehicles, refrigerators, air   
   >>> conditioners, and everything else called "durable goods". But this would   
   >>> mean nearly all manufacturing jobs would be replaced by 3D-printing   
   >>> machines. That is a major economic disruption.   
   >>   
   >>Puerile nonsense.   
   >>   
   >>3D printers make parts which need to be assembled into a finished item.   
   >>   
   >>The list of materials that can not and can never be printed is huge.   
   >>   
   >>How do you print a spring inside of something and under compression?   
   >>   
   >>> Not only that, but all these would become much cheaper. Would the   
   >>> companies   
   >>> that produce them even be billion dollar companies anymore?   
   >>   
   >>Someone is watch too much scifi.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > How do you interpret those two quotes of the head of GE's additive   
   > manufacturing division?   
      
   That for some very particular applications, i.e. complex jet engines and   
   rocket engines, parts count can be reduced because in some applications   
   multiple parts can be replaced with one printed part.   
      
   This is something most people have know for a very long time.   
      
   How do you print a spring inside of something and under compression which   
   you would need to do to be able to 3D print a vehicle?   
      
      
   --   
   Jim Pennino   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)