XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics, sci.electronics.design
In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote:
> wrote in message news:hjan3e-dhi.ln1@mail.specsol.com...
>>
>>In sci.physics Jeff Findley wrote:
>>> In article , jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> In sci.physics "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
>>>> wrote:
>>>> > "David Mitchell" wrote in message
>>>> > news:r5mdnSw3tNBsJvjEnZ2dnUU78S_NnZ2d@brightview.co.uk...
>>>> >>
>>>> >>jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> >>> In sci.physics David Mitchell
>>>> >>> wrote:
>>>> >>>> jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com 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.
> And as others in this thread have pointed out, "so what". Load up your
> materials, load the file, hit print and go to bed.
As I have already said many times such is irrelevant for hobby applications.
>>Most people can not be bothered to make their own bread or biscuits on
>>equipment they already own.
>
> And yet, the industry is thriving and many people do.
The industry for both consumer and industrial 3D printers is tiny and
few people do.
>>3D printers for home use are already less than $200; how many people do
>>you know that have one?
>
> Under $200, I don't think any of my friends are that cheap. The ones I know
> have opted for more expensive, more capable printers.
The fact that someone you know paid more than $200 for a 3D printer is
irrelvant to the fact that such can be had for under $200.
>>>> > 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.
>>
>
> So, stop being a kneejerker.
I'm not the one with panties in a wad because 3D printers are not being
properly worshipped.
--
Jim Pennino
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
