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 "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.
>>>
>>> We're nowhere near those limits yet.
>>
>> The whooshing sound you hear is the point and all it's details going
>> over you head.
>
> Not really - for example, if we're not at the limits of layer hardening time,
> then we can use multiple print heads, multiplying the print rate.
> I thought that was apparent, apparently I needed to explain it.
But we are at those limits as well as how fast we can lay down a layer
without slopping it around.
Did you think the issue is how fast a stepper motor goes or how fast you
can squeeze something out of a nozzle?
>>> "The BAAM was used to manufacture the first (almost) fully 3D printed car,
the
>>> Strati, for together with Local Motors. With a deposition rate of up to 38
lbs
>>> of material per hour, it is possibly the fastest machine currently on the
market."
>>>
>>
>> The Strati is little more than a $30,000 golf cart and the finish is an
>> abomination.
>
> Not the point, remember the whole "mature technology" thing?
> If we can do that *now*, imagine what we'll be able to do in 30 years time.
Yes, it is the whole point.
They get speed by using thick layers as there is no other way to do it. This
results in a crap finish.
And this IS an industrial grade printer.
>>>> The industry for both consumer and industrial 3D printers is tiny and
>>>> few people do.
>>>
>>> Sales of 400,000 last year, projected sales of 1.2 million this one. Also
>>> appears to be non-linear.
>>>
>>> But that it's tiny now is irrelevant. How many people had early
telephones? Or
>>> TV sets?
>>
>> Do you understand the difference between hobby and professional?
>
> I'm not sure what point you're trying to make by ignoring those stats.
Obviously.
--
Jim Pennino
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
